Speaker:   I will now call this House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Speaker:   We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) in June 2002 the former Liberal government received a report from the Child Welfare League of Canada containing 15 recommendations regarding services for children in care of the Yukon government; and

(2) a number of these recommendations relate to the policies of the Government of Yukon and the relationships with staff and care providers;

THAT it is the opinion of this House that people, whether they be professional staff, children in care, or families in crisis, should be an immediate priority of the Yukon Party government; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to act immediately to provide the policy changes and resources necessary to ensure

(1) regular case file reviews are conducted;

(2) reviews of complaints and critical incidents are conducted on a regular basis;

(3) foster family satisfaction levels are monitored and regular interviews conducted; and

(4) exit interviews with staff and foster parents are considered standard practice.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any ministerial statements?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. McRobb:   Many Yukoners are feeling the pinch at this time of the year and the situation has been worsened by skyrocketing fuel prices, job layoffs and, for seniors in particular, this government’s refusal to increase the pioneer utility grant retroactive to last fall.

The Yukon Party government promised to bring back its previous rate relief program but has done nothing about it. If it had lived up to its promises, Yukoners’ power bills would be eased up to $40 per month right now.

Can the minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation tell us why he hasn’t done something to help Yukoners now?

Hon. Mr. Lang:  We’re working on this, and we are concerned on this side of the House as much as they are on that side.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the government isn’t working hard enough or we’d have results by now.

Many people were expecting a reduction in their electricity bill because the Yukon Party promised to implement a year-round rate relief program. Unless this is another broken promise, the minister will have to act very quickly. This program ends at the end of this month until next October. Will he assure us that the rate relief program will be continued year-round as promised?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re definitely looking at our options on this, and we will be addressing it in the near future.

Mr. McRobb:  There seems to be a problem of getting answers in this House, but that is nothing unusual.

The other aspect to this is that voters expected the Yukon Party to have acted on this program by now in that the clawback feature of the program would be eliminated. That would have put money in the pockets of Yukoners who are forced to live with electric heat or those who have large families. Had the minister acted sooner, those Yukoners would now be getting a break of some $40 per month on their electric bill. There is no justification for this delay, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister commit to ending this clawback today?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   This was a policy put together by an NDP government, followed through by a Liberal government. We are looking at our options here. We want to put something together that will work, and so we are looking at it and will address it in the near future.

Mr. McRobb:   I would like to follow up on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because the minister obviously is unable to tell this House of anything substantial done to date by the Yukon Party government.

This government cries poor and blames cutbacks on that terrible trajectory, yet in cases where it’s proven there’s no shortage of money, the government still does nothing to help Yukoners. The only trajectory here, Mr. Speaker, is this government’s increasing reluctance to help people in need.

Now, the Yukon Development Corporation’s audited financial statements for the year-end 2001 indicates that it’s swimming in cash. That’s the funding source for this program.

I can assure the minister that expanding rate relief won’t compete with the government’s agenda of building seniors facilities in Dawson and Watson Lake, or a bridge in Dawson, or a road to resources in southeast Yukon.

Will the minister commit to bringing in the full program right away so Yukoners will get a break, starting on next month’s power bill?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We on this side of the House are committed to making the right decision. That’s where we’re committed. We’re not committed to being pressured into any kind of thing that isn’t the right decision. I’m telling the people across the way there that we are going to come up, we’re going to work on this, we’re concerned about it, and we’re going to come out with a policy that works.

Mr. McRobb:   I submit that that’s ridiculous and that’s an excuse for work that could have been done by now. The government campaigned on restoring the previous rate relief program. What decision needs to be made? Either it’s a go or it isn’t. They don’t have to go back to the drawing board. They’ve already committed to bringing back this program.

What’s this talk about a policy? There is no need for a policy here. What’s needed is for this Cabinet or this government to make a decision to extend this program and end the clawback. I would like to ask the minister then: what are his timelines for doing those things?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, we, in our campaign, promised certain things. We are going to follow through with our campaign promises, so we are going to work on this issue. I’m not going to put a timeline on it. I’m saying it’s going to be sooner than later.

Mr. McRobb:   What was not good enough for the Yukon Party in opposition is all of a sudden fine for them now that they are in government. We hear no commitment, no timelines. We hear no action so the people of this territory who are having a tough time paying their bills can get a break right away. This government simply is not doing its work. The money is in the bank. The Yukon Development Corporation is swimming in cash. With a stroke of the pen, this government can help those Yukoners. We are talking residential, business and municipalities. Can the minister tell us, will this rate relief program, when it comes in, include the elimination of the clawback and the summer aspect of the program? Again, when will it be implemented?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I can tell the member opposite that the NDP had a thing in place, followed by the Liberals. We don’t think that’s good enough for Yukoners. We’re looking at a new policy, and we will announce it as soon as we can.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the minister responsible for the Department of Tourism and Culture.

Since the Yukon Party tabled their budget on March 6, Yukoners have learned about the many cuts that have been made to social programs. What is now coming to light, Mr. Speaker, are the cuts to economic programs that create jobs in the private sector. Yesterday we talked about a $10-million cut in highway construction — over 100 private sector jobs. Today let’s talk about tourism.

Tourism is a key industry in this territory. It employs hundreds and hundreds of Yukoners. The Yukon Liberal government recognized the importance of tourism and increased the marketing budget each year until it reached $7.1 million in our last budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party promised in its election platform that a Yukon Party government would work with the tourism industry to enhance marketing. That means more money, Mr. Speaker. In this new budget, in fact, the Yukon Party has cut tourism marketing by eight percent. Will the Minister of Tourism explain that cut?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I absolutely concur with the member opposite that tourism is a very key industry. It is a major generator; it is the largest private sector employer in this territory. We value its importance and are working very closely with the industry, with all the partners, in particular with the Tourism Industry Association Yukon.

As you are aware, we had to make some difficult decisions. What we have chosen to do is to reallocate funds to other programs within the marketing budget. The Welcome Alaska program, which I believe the member opposite is probably referring to, was not working and not effective, so we feel that we could use worthwhile money elsewhere.

With respect to gateway cities, we’re continuing with that initiative to work with the gateway cities of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. We’re continuing the stay-another-day initiative. As well, we are working with industry. We’re going to be hiring a full-time product development person. We have also instructed the department to explore initiatives such as —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member conclude her answer, please.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   I thank the member opposite for agreeing that tourism is important. We agree on the point that the tourism industry employs hundreds upon hundreds of Yukoners — private sector jobs.

The fact is that the tourism marketing budget has been cut by eight percent, and with all due respect to the minister, she didn’t answer the question, Mr. Speaker. Why cut marketing when it is proven that marketing works? We have seen the results of marketing. We saw increases in the marketing budget up to $7.1 million from the last Liberal government, yet it is down and cut by eight percent. So of all the cuts and choices that the member opposite had to make, why cut marketing when it is proven to work?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I just want to refer to a news release that was issued by the Tourism Industry Association earlier this year. From the president, it says that this is a tremendous success for TIA Yukon in our advocacy efforts. She was referring to a number of initiatives that we have agreed to embark on. She also said that they need to send sincere thanks and accolades to the minister and her government in taking the leadership and having the vision to work in partnership and collaboration with industry.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Speaker, I concur with the member opposite that marketing is very integral, but it is more important to use the dollars in a worthwhile way — where you are going to get the best bang for your buck — and I believe we are doing that.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, let’s talk about one of the programs that the member opposite mentioned — the gateway cities marketing program. That program alone brought $1.3 million of new money into this territory and hundreds of visitors, and yet the minister has cut that particular program and its funding by 60 percent, and the marketing budget has been cut overall by eight percent. The Welcome Alaska program that the member mentioned earlier as not working was a partnership with the private sector, and we could see that in fact it was working because of the increases in retail sales that occurred for months until the Yukon Party took office.

The minister has still failed to explain why she has cut the marketing budget by eight percent. Why cut the successful program, the gateway cities program, by 60 percent? It is proven to work, so why cut it?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I will continue to reiterate, as the member opposite just doesn’t seem to get it. We certainly value the very importance of marketing and the very importance of this industry in the territory right now. We’re working very diligently and closely with industry, as she well knows.

With respect to gateway cities, we are indeed continuing with that program. I happen to concur that it is a good program. It involves partners such as Air North, Yukon First Nations and many investors. We are very sincere in our commitment to continue that very program.

With respect to the level of commitment, I might remind the member opposite that, when this program was first embarked upon, much of it had to do with inaugural events — kicking off the new airline. Of course, people are very well aware of the airline and of what we have to offer here, so we are continuing those efforts.

Mr. Fairclough:   Before I address my question to the Minister of Education, I would like to table a letter the minister referred to yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

The minister’s answers yesterday were less than satisfactory. The minister said that the citizens of Carmacks asked the government not to build on to the existing school. What he failed to say was that the community was asking for a new school. It’s right there in the letter, Mr. Speaker.

The community also wants to be part of every stage of the planning. The letter is dated January 10 — plenty of time for this government to have included planning money in their budget. Why is there no planning money for a new Carmacks school reflected in the present budget?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for that question. Again, I will confirm that we did get a letter from the people in Carmacks, and we’re honouring their request.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, they have a strange way of honouring their request, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister said the request was not to build on to the school, but in fact it is to build a new school. If they’re honouring their request, why isn’t it reflected in the budget? The minister failed to answer the question again.

There is a priority list for capital projects that the Yukon Party could have followed, yet they have chosen to ignore it, and they went ahead and did their own thing. After the school in Pelly Crossing, Carmacks school was next on the list. Then it was F.H. Collins. It is important for communities to have some certainty about when their outdated schools will be replaced or renovated. Will the minister take the Premier and sit him down with the Village of Carmacks, the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation and have serious government-to-government discussions to get planning monies for a new Carmacks school into a fall supplementary? Would the minister at least do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I beg to differ with the member opposite on what he is presenting as his position in this House. I would like to confirm again that we intend to honour the requests from the people of Carmacks and, to the best of my knowledge, that request was to have further discussions with the Village of Carmacks.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, the minister again didn’t answer the question, so here’s a third question — three questions the minister has to answer this time.

The minister doesn’t seem to be following any plan at all, so we’d like to help him out. This morning, we heard one of the minister’s officials suggest that the holdup on F.H. Collins was something to do with the Canada Winter Games. Apparently, the minister thinks it’s appropriate to leave his officials hanging out to dry, because he won’t give interviews on what is clearly a political matter.

If the minister can’t or won’t make decisions, will he at least summon the school council chairs and ask them to come up with a five-year capital plan for school replacement, completions and renovations? Will he at least do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will say to the member opposite that we, as a government, will hold to the commitments we made to the people in the Carmacks riding. We intend to have these discussions with the people in Carmacks. Some of the requests that were made by the people in the Carmacks community are somewhat out of the ordinary and are going to need a little investigating. It’s not going to be a decision that could be made in a matter of two minutes. According to the requests, quite possibly there are going to be some lengthy discussions on what we’re going to do with this project. The project is still under consideration.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, and it’s a very simple and straightforward question: does the minister recognize the important role that music and arts play in the lives of students, or does he consider them a frill?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for the question, and the government does support arts education in our schools, and we do take it as a serious thing.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, once again, what this government does contradicts what it says. The minister admits that music and the arts are important, yet he cuts back the funding in the area without any consultation with the people affected. On page 7-20 of the budget, there’s a 39-percent reduction to the arts contribution. Why did the minister choose to deprive the Yukon schoolchildren of the valuable experience of hearing first-rate classical musicians in their school for the sake of saving $12,000?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I feel the answer to that question is fairly simple. This government is going to focus its spending on core curriculum.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, what the minister says is he has a plan, and that’s why we’re seeing reductions in the Department of Education. We’d like the minister to table those plans. The minister must know that students who are involved in music and arts tend to do better in school than other students. This is a very short-sighted decision, and it was made without the courtesy of informing the people at Whitehorse Concerts who have been providing these performers. This could affect their ability to bring musicians to the Yukon, but they had to learn about this cut on the radio. Will the minister now reverse his short-sighted decision and restore the arts contribution to its original amount so that Yukon students can continue getting this enriching cultural experience? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I think the answer to this question is fairly simple. The answer is no, we will not reverse the decision. As arts are an important part of our school system, I have directed the department to address arts education in the department’s education strategy. There is only so much money in the budget, and I want to ensure it is being spent in the best way to have quality education.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like to roll back the clock and give the Minister of Health and Social Services another chance to do the right thing on some outstanding social issues. Yesterday I asked about the pending closure of the new Salvation Army shelter. The minister laid the blame on the federal government and said his department is doing its bit.

I have some difficulty with the minister just washing his hands of a very real social problem. The economy is a mess; more and more people are losing their jobs; and this government is stuck playing the blame game.

Will the minister now reconsider his answers from yesterday and provide a guarantee that homeless Yukoners won’t be met with a locked door when they turn to the Salvation Army for shelter after next month?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, our government has the utmost respect for the shelter being operated by the Salvation Army. To that end, we are contributing $40,000 this year to its operation. We have committed to the Salvation Army to provide that funding up front, at the beginning of the fiscal period, and we’ve committed to the Salvation Army to join with them to lobby the federal Liberals, who are responsible for the reduction in funding to this organization.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re all familiar with the problem of Ottawa starting things and then bailing out of the programs they start. That’s a very common practice in the Yukon. It has been going on for years.

The real question is: what is this minister going to do to address a growing problem on his own doorstep?

This shelter has been operating almost at capacity ever since it opened. We understand eight to 10 beds have been filled almost every night. It also provides a welcome space for people with serious emotional or mental problems. There’s a huge need, so let me put my question another way.

If the minister believes there is a need for a homeless shelter in Whitehorse, as he said, what steps has he taken to get ongoing support for the Salvation Army shelter from his government’s federal counterpart?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I thank the member opposite for the question. It is indeed a very good question.

Let me share with the members opposite what our government is doing. We are joining with the Salvation Army. We’ve recently met with their head of operations here in the Yukon. We’re going to be going in lockstep to the federal government, and I encourage the opposition and the member of the third party to join with us and lobby the federal government for additional funding for the Salvation Army in the Yukon. In addition to that, there is a coupon initiative that our government is paying for the printing of, which will allow people to make a contribution to the Salvation Army every time they purchase food. These are just some of the initiatives that are underway.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, Mr. Speaker, guess what? We are joining with the Yukon Party government because we are asking them to do something. We are asking them to do something beyond the $40,000.

The minister talks about the $40,000 that his department is putting into this project. It makes me wonder why he would even bother doing that if the project won’t be continuing, as we heard today on the radio from the administrator of the Salvation Army.

So either the minister believes the federal government will come through or else we’re looking at another YTG commitment that could be on the chopping block.

Now, in a week or so, the Yukon is in line for an infusion of health care dollars that could be in the neighbourhood of $12 million this year. This would take some pressure off the minister’s budget; we recognize that. We also understand that Ottawa is planning a new homelessness initiative for the fall. We’ve heard that from the Salvation Army itself.

Will the minister at least agree to provide bridge funding to keep the shelter open until ongoing federal support for this program can be negotiated above and beyond the $40,000?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That is exactly what our government is doing. That $40,000 that is provided to the Salvation Army is going to be front loaded, not like the previous governments have done, spacing it out over a period of time or based on usage of the facility. We’re going to provide that total amount of money up front. Then we are going to join with the Salvation Army — and I accept the offer from the official opposition to join with us in lockstep and go to the federal Liberal government and lobby them to restore the funding that they’ve indicated might be on the way.

The member opposite might just recall the time he spent on the radio earlier today — and the Salvation Army — where it was clearly indicated by the Salvation Army that the funding cuts were federal, not by our government. We are going to do our level best to ensure the continuation of this much-needed facility operated by the Salvation Army.

Mr. Hardy:   Unfortunately, I can’t bootleg onto this to respond to what he just said, otherwise we’d have a great dialogue on this subject.

But I do have a follow-up question for the same minister. It is kind of tied together. I’m reluctant to give the minister an opportunity to go back to his well-worn spin about how none of the cuts that are going on are his fault.

Yesterday, the minister also blamed Ottawa for the fact that the youth Outreach van may be out of business soon. Again, a program that is meeting a real need in Whitehorse could soon be lost. The minister’s blame game won’t save this program. Action on his part will.

Will the minister agree to provide bridge funding for the Outreach van until new ongoing federal support for this program can be negotiated?

Speaker:   Before the minister answers, I’d ask the leader of the official opposition to refer to the minister as "the minister", not as "him" or "his". Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, once again what we have here is that the Yukon Family Services is an extremely beneficial organization. They have some very extensive programs. They are completely within their range and scope of undertakings to lobby other agencies and governments for funding. They have done so effectively with the core funding provided by the Yukon government. They have obtained federal funding and have expanded the programs, and these federal boutique programs have come to an end.

Once again, our government is being asked to pick up the slack. We only have so much in our budget window. We have done our best. We have fully funded the Yukon Family Services to the same extent as they were funded last year.

Mr. Hardy:   The minister is just throwing up his hat and saying there’s nothing he can do about it; it’s all up to Ottawa. Well, apparently it depends on where you live. In the Premier’s home town of Watson Lake, federal funding for a youth intervention counsellor apparently runs out in May; but in this case, the Yukon Party government has acted by putting up enough to keep the program going for almost a year. Same situation. Now, that’s a good thing. We applaud the minister for that, but why the double standard? Will the minister now reconsider and provide the necessary support for both the Outreach van and the Salvation Army shelter to keep those programs alive until new multi-party funding agreements have been negotiated?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is an initiative that was funded in large part by the federal government. The federal government has backed out. The Yukon Party commitment is to the same level as per previous, and I encourage the members opposite to join with us. Let’s go after the federal Liberals to put in place a whole program that will address these needs, because the feds have a wonderful way of flying into the Yukon, announcing a program, the funding is for a very short period of time, and after they bail out of that, the Yukon government is left holding the bag and being requested for funding. That’s not fair; that’s not reasonable. We’ll do our level best to restore the funding and to lobby the federal government to restore this funding.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, the Premier often talks about this as being the third largest budget in Yukon history, so obviously there’s money to be spent. It’s just a matter of choices and priorities, and we always see where the priorities are going. It’s hard to get a handle on this minister’s attitude toward non-government organizations. Last December 17, he was telling CBC radio what a great job they were doing, how cost effective they were and so on, but in the same interview, he was musing about silos of administration and the need to coordinate efforts and find cost savings. We saw his approach to cost savings at the Dawson City women’s shelter, Mr. Speaker. He broke a written contribution agreement and cut $50,000 from the shelter’s budget — the government’s contract registry, the 11 service agreements between his department and non-government organizations that each have another year to run. What other NGOs with multi-year service agreements already in place can expect to have their funding reduced by this minister?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There must be a void of questions on the official opposition’s side given that, once again, we have the same question. With respect to the Dawson women’s shelter, the $50,000 was for double staffing. There is not a need for double staffing. The need was at Kaushee’s Place and $50,000 has been added to the budget at Kaushee’s Place. That is the reality of the situation. Our government is committed to addressing the needs where the needs exist. Where we have previously had funding and if there is an initiative that the feds have bailed out of, we will do our level best to find an opportunity to go after the Liberal government to restore the funding to these initiatives and these undertakings in the Yukon.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Mr. McRobb:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the official opposition to be called on Wednesday, March 26, 2003: Motion No. 67, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Ms. Duncan:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3) I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the third party to be called on Wednesday, March 26, 2003. They are Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 8.

Speaker:   We will now proceed with Orders of the Day

Clerk:   Motion No. 19, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the government House leader,

THAT the hon. members Dean Hassard, hon. Peter Jenkins, Brad Cathers, Haakon Arntzen, Todd Hardy, Gary McRobb and Pat Duncan be appointed to the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges;

THAT the said committee have the power to call for persons, papers and records and to sit during intersessional periods;

THAT the said committee review, as necessary, such Standing Orders as it may decide upon;

THAT the said committee, following the conduct of any such review, report any recommendations for amendment to the Assembly; and

THAT the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly be responsible for providing the necessary support services to the Committee.

Clerk:   Motion No. 20, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the government House leader

THAT the hon. members Brad Cathers, hon. Peter Jenkins, Lorraine Peter and Pat Duncan be appointed to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments;

THAT the said committee have the power to call for persons, papers and records and to sit during intersessional periods;

THAT the said committee review such new regulations as it may decide upon;

THAT the said committee review such other existing or proposed regulations as are referred to it by the Assembly; and

THAT the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly be responsible for providing the necessary support services to the Committee.

Mr. McRobb:   I have one question on this motion. Can the minister responsible advise the House when the last meeting of this committee was?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’ll get back to member opposite with a response.

Clerk:   Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the government House leader

THAT the hon. members Todd Hardy, hon. Dennis Fentie, hon. Peter Jenkins, Patrick Rouble, Eric Fairclough and Pat Duncan be appointed to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts established pursuant to Standing Order 45(3);

THAT the said committee have the power to call for persons, papers and records and to sit during intersessional periods; and

THAT the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly be responsible for providing the necessary support services to the committee.

Clerk:   Motion No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the government House leader

THAT the hon. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 45(2), be appointed Chair of the Members’ Services Board;

THAT hon. Dennis Fentie, Todd Hardy, Pat Duncan and hon. Peter Jenkins be appointed to the Members’ Services Board;

THAT the board consider:

(1) budget submissions for the following votes: (a) Legislative Assembly, (b) Ombudsman (including Information and Privacy Commissioner), (c) Conflicts Commission, and (d) Elections Office; and

(2) policy questions concerning matters such as: (a) space allocation, (b) staffing, (c) caucus funding, (d) media gallery House rules, and (e) Hansard; and

THAT the board fulfill its statutory responsibilities, including those in the Ombudsman Act, the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act and the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Do members wish a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will now stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Chair:   We will continue on with the Third Appropriation Act, 2002-03, with Vote 15, Health and Social Services.

Chair:   We’ll begin with general debate.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, this request is for funding costs that have been incurred across the department for various initiatives.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, I have a few questions in regard to this department, Health and Social Services. We have a very large increase in the dollar amount in the supplementary budget. We on this side of the House would like to know when some of these increases in dollars for different line items were requested. Was it when the Liberals were still in government, through special warrants? We would like to know how much of a difference there is between that time and the special warrants that came in through the Yukon Party government — if we can ask the minister to provide that information.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This vote request is across the entire fiscal period. We don’t have a breakdown as to what costs were incurred pre-Yukon Party government coming into power and being sworn in on December 4, but we will provide the member opposite with that information.

Mr. Fairclough:   I appreciate that information coming forward. If the minister doesn’t have any of the numbers before the Yukon Party was in, can he give us a breakdown of what the Yukon Party introduced through their special warrants?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What the department was doing, Mr. Chair, was projecting to year-end and to the actual breakdown of what was incurred pre-Yukon Party government and after Yukon Party government. That information we will have to provide. We can indicate that some of this was contained in the subsequent warrants that were sought to allow for spending authority, but a lot of it was incurred prior to the Yukon Party coming into power.

Mr. Fairclough:   What I want to get from the member opposite is — I know the Yukon Party said they were not in favour of special warrants. They basically spoke out against it when the Liberals brought it forward. Now they bring one forward and this is what we are dealing with. It was money that was not debated and spent by the departments. The Yukon Party made all kinds of promises to the general public. I would like to know which of those promises have been committed to in these special warrants in the Department of Health?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   It must be pointed out for the member opposite that, whether it is a supplementary or a special warrant, neither of these are debated before the expenses are incurred. The authority and the debate on the supplementary are after the expenses have been incurred. The same holds true for a special warrant. But with respect to what was covered under the special warrant, we have agreed to provide the member opposite with that information and we will do so.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would have expected the Health minister to be a bit more prepared in this department to show figures that he felt so important to put in his special warrant — that is, monies that are not debated on the floor and spent by the department.

I would like to ask the minister this: how soon are we able to get those numbers and that breakdown?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, we have before the House the entire supplementary for the department, and I am prepared to debate any aspect of this supplementary that the member wishes and will do so.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I can see that the minister opposite won’t be making much progress on some of these line items. He didn’t answer my question about when we would be able to have a breakdown. We on this side of the House would like to know. I’m sure the minister would like to know what the real numbers are.

I would like to ask a couple other questions if the minister is not prepared to go into any detail in regard to the special warrants that they brought forward and we’re dealing with here today.

In regard to alcohol and drug services, the minister opposite promised that this is a top priority of the Yukon Party government. We have seen some immediate action by the minister in firing the chair of the alcohol and drug services secretariat and the dismantling of the secretariat. Now it has moved into alcohol and drug services. I would like to ask the minister what the new structure is and what new plans the minister has in place.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What we currently have in place for the alcohol and drug services is a manager of that section, and that manager reports to the director of social services.

Now, there have been a number of areas where we’ve streamlined the administration, and we have a community liaison position rather than three individuals tasked with that responsibility. We have one, and that individual, of course, reports to the manager.

Now, the programs that were previously delivered in that wing of the department continue to be provided, and they are now part of the alcohol and drug services, as they were before. What we have not created, as we indicated earlier, is another stovepipe of administration and another position at approximately the same level as a deputy minister.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’d like to ask the minister if he can give us more detail on what he sees as streamlining services — basically outline one. Can the minister give us more detail on all the services that have been streamlined in this department?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Under the Yukon Party government’s budget that is tabled and that we’ll be debating soon, a complete outline of the programs as envisioned by our government is clearly laid out under the O&M in the main estimates. If the member opposite wishes to debate those at this juncture, we can provide him with the information and deal with it later on in debate, Mr. Chair.

But the programs that were up and running have been enhanced, have been developed, and are operating. There are some we will be expanding upon, and we will continue with the broad range.

We’re going to concentrate on program delivery, Mr. Chair. We’re not going to be concentrating on setting up another administration. The exercise is to serve the needs of those afflicted with difficulties with drugs and alcohol.

Mr. Fairclough:   Can the minister please tell me what services will be streamlined? I’m asking the question because this is a budget brought forward by the Yukon Party and there were promises in the campaign, and there’s a huge increase in the Department of Health and Social Services.

I’d like to ask the minister if he can provide that to us on the floor of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, it would appear that the member opposite is somewhat confused. What will be streamlined is the administration of these programs. The programs themselves will continue to deliver the services that are needed and required. That’s where we’re going to concentrate our efforts, and the streamlining is on the administration side. I hope that addresses the confusion the member opposite has on this issue.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I’m not confused about this. I’m asking follow-up questions on the answers that the minister has provided on the floor. The minister did say that they were streamlining two services, so I asked the question. If we’re changing now to say that the savings are going to be in administration, then maybe the minister could lay out just how that is going to take place.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, two of the examples of changes in the administration that will have a profound effect on the cost of operating the drug and alcohol services are the elimination of the executive director’s position at a deputy minister level of remuneration. In addition, there is the communication policy office that is right under the executive director, and that has been revamped and streamlined so that the responsibilities for that area are being addressed elsewhere in the department, and the position has been revamped into another initiative.

Mr. Fairclough:   We’ve got some answers out of the minister. The Premier, in his response several times in this House along with the Minister of Health, said that the alcohol and drug secretariat was a waste of money, and we’ve seen some changes, a firing of one person and it’s now under the alcohol and drug services. Can the minister tell this House how much money went into forming the alcohol and drug secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That occurred under a previous watch. I’ll ask the department to assemble that information for the member opposite. That was dealt with by the previous Liberal government and not under our watch, but we will get that information for the member opposite and provide it in due course.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would like to see the accurate number to that. I would like to ask the minister if he can give me a ballpark figure of how much money we are really looking at.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, under the Liberal watch there were quite a number of studies undertaken. There was the recruitment of the executive director, the relocation, the salary costs, the office costs and the reconfiguration of a number of offices for that position. We will get the total cost for the member opposite. I am aware of a Management Board submission of some $700,000 for this initiative. Just how much was lapsed, I can’t recall.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would appreciate that information coming forward to this side of the House. Can the minister tell us why he felt that the secretariat did not work? It was in the beginning stages and just formed, and communities were dealing with the secretariat. Can the minister tell us how and why he felt the secretariat did not work, or would not work or could not work?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, nothing could be further from reality. We never said that the alcohol and drug secretariat would not work and could not work. What we said was that the cost of this direction was exorbitant. There are better ways of addressing the needs than this stovepipe of administration. That’s the issue.

But in all likelihood, the alcohol and drug secretariat had the potential to work, but the question that the member should be asking is: how much would it cost to get it to work under that scenario, vis-à-vis under the current scenario?

I believe that down the road, once the member opposite sees the cost comparison as to what it could have been and what it was going to be, and what it will be down the road, and looks at our government’s initiatives to concentrate on program delivery, he will be well satisfied with the services that alcohol and drug services in our government is providing.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister probably would not have made that statement without knowing what the cost of operating the secretariat would be. So I would like to ask the minister: how much would it have cost the government to run the secretariat? Rather than sending us details right here, maybe the minister can elaborate a bit and show us some numbers, and we can make up our minds for ourselves.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, under the Liberal watch, the initial amount that went forward for Management Board’s consideration was $700,000. There was a further $1.3 million requested to complete the alcohol and drug secretariat and its establishment.

Mr. Fairclough:   I thank the minister for that answer, Mr. Chair. This is to get the secretariat up and going, but the minister said that if we saw the cost of running the secretariat, we would be amazed at the increased cost versus what we have right now and that we would come up with the same conclusions. Can the minister give us a ballpark figure of what the cost would be to run this secretariat?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I can’t give the member opposite a ballpark figure of what it was going to cost to run the secretariat. I know what the Liberal government had requested by way of Management Board submissions and what the Liberal government had budgeted for through the secretariat to come forward at a later date. It was $700,000 and then a further $1.3 million for this initiative. But at the end of the day, the position that our current government takes is before the Legislature in the main estimates for the O&M and capital for the department. What it’s going to cost to run the alcohol and drug services under our watch is clearly defined.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, if it were clear, Mr. Chair, we would have some clear answers. I’m sure the minister would not have made that statement if he didn’t have the numbers in front of him.

I won’t go on about the alcohol and drug secretariat at this point.

I’d like to ask a couple of other questions. In regard to addiction workers in the communities of Watson Lake, Dawson City and Haines Junction, these positions were advertised and later taken down. What happened to these positions, and where are they going?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, they were three positions that, yes, were advertised. They were cancelled. There was a serious concern and reservations about overlap with existing programs and a duplication of services.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would like to know how these positions came about. I know the reasoning for the minister’s cancellation of these positions was that it would add confusion to the communities.

Did the minister not think these positions would be an asset and would help communities in their efforts?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, it was all an issue of how these three individuals would plug into existing programs primarily offered and funded by the federal government through the First Nations. There are NNADAP and the wellness workers.

But all of this is quite hypothetical, Mr. Chair, as to whether they would have worked or not worked, because that’s under the previous Liberal watch. The previous Liberal watch obviously believed that it was going to work and they were prepared to spend upwards of $4 million on this initiative in subsequent years.

That said, I believe, when the member opposite looks at our budget for this next period of time, it will be clearly spelled out how our government is going to provide alcohol and drug services through an existing envelope. We’re going to do it with less administration and less overhead costs and we’re going to concentrate on programs and program deliveries.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, in getting back to the alcohol and drug services, I was wondering if the minister could table whatever structural change that his party is bringing forward in this section in the department? I know he may not have it in front of him, but can he table the structural change and what he sees as the cost-savings or additional costs to this government?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I’ve already agreed to provide the new structure, and the new costing of the new structure is contained in the mains, which we’ll be debating in due course before this House.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I’m asking for the structure. I’m asking for information so that we can speed up the debate when we come to the main budget that’s before the House today. I’m asking for additional information from the minister, and if he wants to wait, well, we’ll go through this whole thing again. We’ll be asking for the information, and the minister says, "Well, we’ll table it, but we won’t get the information until after the department gets debated." So we’re asking for the information now. The only right thing for the minister to do is to ask his officials to put the information together and bring it forward to us here in the opposition, to both parties, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask the minister this: during the campaign they committed to increasing social assistance rates, so why was this not included in this supplementary budget?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, it’s an area that our government will be looking at and exploring, but we are committed to addressing the needs in a number of areas. We can’t do it all in a supplementary, nor will we. Our mains next year are set, and during the course of next year, we will be examining the rates, which haven’t been changed under the previous Liberal watch, the previous NDP watch. We go back to the early 1990s before these rates were last increased for SA. There was a small increase under the Liberals but, by and large, there have been no major increases, and this area hasn’t been addressed.

Mr. Fairclough:   That wasn’t the question I asked. I asked why the minister didn’t act like he said he would in the campaign. He had an opportunity to bring forward a supplementary budget, and here it is through special warrants. This could have been addressed, the same as with the pioneer utility grant. They failed to do the increase and now the winter has gone by and people will not be seeing the increase in SA rates. The minister said that this has to be looked into. Increases to rates is a very simple matter to me and the general public, so how much time is needed before we can see an increase in the SA rates?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What we are debating here is a supplementary budget. This is money that has been spent. Why we are debating something like an increase in SA rates at this time, I do not know, but wouldn’t that debate be left for the mains and policy review at that time when we get into the main budget and the main estimates of this forthcoming fiscal period?

Mr. Fairclough:   There is no reason for the minister to avoid this question. We are in general debate on this department. We can ask questions about the spending of this Yukon Party government, what their action plans are in the supplementary budget, why it wasn’t reflected in the supplementary budget, what isn’t in it and what is in it. We feel that it is perfectly in order to explore different areas in the Department of Health in general debate. Can the minister answer that question about SA rates?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite mentioned that we have failed on our promise for the pioneer utility grant, that we have not done what we said we were going to do. That’s incorrect. We have addressed the pioneer utility grant. Because of certain areas of the pioneer utility grant that required legislative change, it has been brought before the Legislature, and it will be debated in due course. It will firmly demonstrate our government’s commitment to the pioneer utility grant, honouring another Yukon Party pledge.

With respect to the SA rates, the SA rates are changed by regulation. This is on the agenda for our party, our caucus, to look at and to examine. We will be doing so in due course.

As I said earlier, there hasn’t been a major increase or fine tuning of SA rates since, I believe, 1991 — I could stand corrected. So we go over a number of different watches and it begs the question, if there was an initiative there, why didn’t the Liberals change it? Why didn’t the NDP government change it? Now that there is a Yukon Party government in power, everything has to be done instantaneously in the first several months of our watch. We are making best efforts to examine those areas that must be examined immediately, and we are in full knowledge of those areas we have committed to, and we will be following through on all of our campaign commitments, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Chair, the minister said they would be following through. He committed to the general public to do this immediately, and this could have happened through the special warrants. We know the pioneer utility grant is going to be increased. We see the paperwork. We know what questions to ask.

The fact of the matter is that this minister has failed to do it at the earliest possible opportunity. I would like to ask the minister this: in regard to nurses and doctors, and recruitment and retention, again this minister thought this was a very important matter, a top priority that this Yukon Party wanted to deal with, and it’s obviously an issue Yukon will be facing for awhile yet. We’re in a very competitive market, and others are attracting nurses and doctors, and bringing incentives forward to bring them to their provinces, and we are competing with the rest of the provinces, the territories and the United States. Many Canadian nurses and doctors are heading south.

This problem we have will only get worse. I would like to ask the minister what immediate plans he has to address this situation.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’ll share with the member opposite what we’re going to be doing in that area, but let me just back up a little bit to the member opposite’s previous statement and set the record straight with respect to the pioneer utility grant.

There was no commitment by our government to implement these changes immediately. We moved at the earliest opportunity to amend the legislation for the one change that was required. We have subsequently amended the regulations and, for this forthcoming heating bill, for this winter to come, our seniors will be eligible for an increase of $150 and, in subsequent years, it will be indexed for inflation.

That is honouring a commitment. It is honouring a commitment and a pledge that we made as a party, and the member opposite’s spin on this that we could have done this immediately, Mr. Chair, is incorrect. We could have done regulations but we couldn’t have done the legislation. I guess the member could say we could have had a special sitting of the House to amend the legislation but, at the end of the day, our commitment is firmly on the record and has been honoured and respected.

I submit that our government has the utmost respect for seniors, and we will continue to do whatever it takes to keep seniors in their homes for as long as we possibly can with various types of assistance and programming.

And that’s self-evident, Mr. Chair. We will address that need. We have addressed that need. We will continue to address that need. That, I trust, sets the record straight.

This was an issue that was raised by the official opposition and the third party in the papers late last year, to no avail, because the record firmly indicated what our commitment was, and we are honouring and respecting and fulfilling our commitment.

It must be pointed out, Mr. Chair, that the NDP didn’t look at the PUG. The Liberals put a one-time $100 increase on it but then bailed out of the initiative. Our government has fulfilled its commitment, its election platform, and increased the pioneer utility grant and indexed it for inflation and also lowered the age of eligibility for a surviving spouse to 55 years of age. That said, we’re also working on initiatives for the attraction, recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses to this area.

One of the best ways we can attract RNs and nurse practitioners and doctors is with a work environment that retains them, and we’re concentrating on that area initially, and we are looking at various other ways we can fulfill this requirement to recruit and retain health care professionals. It’s not just nurses and doctors; it’s a full gamut of health care professionals. It’s a number of others coming from other areas.

If you want to look at some of the programs we have underway, we have the Yukon Advisory Council on Nursing; we’re following up on their recommendations. We’ve provided funds to the Yukon Medical Association for recruitment and retention. Mr. Chair, this is in this supplementary. We’re working with the Yukon Hospital Corporation on joint recruitment. It makes no sense for two or three different arms of government to go out and recruit similar types of health care providers.

So we’re working on a collaborative effort and initiative in this regard. We’re attempting to be more flexible in the recruiting. We’re looking at permanent, seasonal; we’re looking at job-sharing. We’re looking at a whole series of areas that will attract these individuals whom we so desperately need. And the member opposite is absolutely correct. We’re in an international market for these health care providers. What we have to offer is a job environment that is going to attract them and a salary and benefit package that is commensurate with industry standards.

If you want to have a look in the newspapers, there is a revised advertising package. It is more in step with what we are attempting to do. We are advertising in more sites, so we have gone the extra yard and we will continue to do so, because we know how valuable these health care professionals are and we know what it takes to recruit them and we will be doing so.

Mr. Fairclough:   That minister sure took a long time to answer that question. He gave us a song and dance. He reminds me of Caillou, a little whining included.

Chair:   The characterization is unparliamentary. Caillou?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Does the member wish to debate with the Chair?

Mr. Fairclough:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. The minister said that he is working on making improvements in the work environment. The minister said there are items and action plans identified in this supplementary. Can the minister break that done for us to see where these improvements to attract nurses and doctors are in the supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There are some of them in health services, Mr. Chair. There is $180,000 for the Yukon Medical Association to provide additional recruitment and retention initiatives. Those are just a couple right off the top of my head.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’d like to ask — the minister appears to be caught in the difficult position of bringing forward a previous government’s budget of special warrants and his own — whose initiatives are these? Were these the Yukon Party’s or the Liberals’ initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The last agreement between the YMA was an agreement between the Government of Yukon and the YMA.

Mr. Fairclough:   Okay, Mr. Chair, who was in government at the time?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I will have to determine that for the member opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:   Does the minister not know what initiatives he is bringing forward in this supplementary budget? I find it shocking that the minister couldn’t answer that question. Maybe the minister can debate with his officials — who are beside him — and come up with a little clearer answer of exactly what the Yukon Party initiative is for the recruitment of nurses and doctors in this supplementary budget.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I have already outlined for the member opposite the initiatives that are covered off in this supplementary for the recruitment and retention of health care professionals.

Let me share with the members opposite another initiative that our government has embarked upon. Nurse practitioners — we have one in the Member for Kluane’s riding, who only wanted to work seasonally. The position was built around that individual’s request to only work seasonally.

We’re trying our level best to recruit health care providers to some of the smaller centres. It’s no deep, dark secret that we’re having serious difficulties in doing so, so we’re having to explore all different avenues in order to attract these health care professionals to some of the smaller communities.

Mr. Chair, we’re having to become very flexible in this regard, always being cognizant of the collective bargaining agreement, always being cognizant of the fact that our government must continue to provide these services. In order to do so, we’re having to examine all different ways of delivering the services, like having seasonal, like rotating individuals, and we’re going to be successful at the end of the day. It’s not going to be without difficulties or without problems.

Many of these initiatives are for recruitment and retention, Mr. Chair, and they’re going to be part of the upcoming collective bargaining agreement, so I’m loathe to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement on the floor of this House. I can’t go there; I can’t do that. But I can share with the members opposite that we are making best efforts to enhance these positions and to be as flexible as we can and to provide a very comfortable work environment in these rural settings where we’re having difficulty recruiting and retaining health care professionals.

It’s not just in the rural settings; it’s right here in our capital city. We’re making best efforts here also, Mr. Chair, as exampled and witnessed by the funding to the Yukon Medical Association for the recruitment and retention of health care professionals there.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, through all of that, Mr. Chair, the minister didn’t answer my question. I asked the minister a very simple question. The Yukon Party has initiatives to recruit doctors and nurses and so did the Liberal Party. They’re both reflected — or we’re told anyway — in this supplementary budget. Which ones of the dollar amounts in here are for the Yukon Party’s initiative to attract nurses and doctors to the territory?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, Mr. Chair, I’ve agreed to provide a breakdown of this supplementary as to what components of it are from before our government and which took place after our government. There are a lot of expenditures that were realized and booked and approved by Management Board by the previous administration and carried over to our watch.

So, in some cases, it’s pretty hard to slice the hair right down the middle, but we’ll make best efforts to clearly identify what took place under the Yukon Party watch and what took place under the previous Liberal Party watch, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister talked about splitting hairs. I would think the minister would know what his own party’s initiatives are and what they brought forward in this supplementary budget. That should be a given. The Yukon Party should know what their initiatives are and what they’re bringing forward and what they’re telling the general public. I’m very surprised that the minister does not know that — very surprised. He lists off a couple of initiatives — one in health services, which was $180,000 — yet this minister doesn’t know whether they’re the Liberals’ or the Yukon Party’s initiatives.

I guess in time we’ll have to sort that out, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to ask the minister this and move on, not continue on this because we’re not getting anywhere. The minister has offered to provide information so we’ll wait for that information.

I would like to ask the minister this: those patients who are sent outside the Yukon receive $30 a day for expenses on the fourth day that they’re there.

I would like to know how the Yukon Party is going to improve this.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, the initiatives that our government is undertaking here in the capital city are to provide as many services as we can locally and more services locally. We’re looking at an internist in Whitehorse; we’re looking at a second gynecologist; we’re looking at other initiatives and equipment so that fewer people have to travel. I guess the exercise is to reduce the amount of travel, which has a high cost associated with it, and which also places an undue burden on individuals who travelled under the previous administrations. The $30 a day didn’t kick in until after they were absent for three days. It kicked in on the fourth day, save and except First Nations, who are covered by the uninsured health benefit plan, and most of these — if not all these costs — are recovered through an agreement that the First Nations have with Canada.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, I realize where the government is going in trying to keep our patients here in the territory. That has been the initiative of the Liberal government and the previous Yukon NDP government at the time. We have a very good facility here. We’ve got improvements to our equipment, like the CT scan, for example. These will keep people in the Yukon Territory, but I’m talking about what the Yukon Party intends to do to improve things for some of the patients who are and have to go out of the Yukon for medical treatment, whether or not there are going to be improvements in that $30 a day — which is not much — that’s offered to them on the fourth day that they’re gone. Is the Yukon Party doing anything to make improvements in that section?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The improvement that we will be making in due course is not so much for individuals who are required to leave the Yukon for medical attention but with respect to expectant mothers required to come to Whitehorse and to live here in Whitehorse for up to two weeks or more preceding the birth of an offspring. There is undue hardship being placed in that category. It is our government’s intention to address this and have something in place for the next budget cycle.

Mr. Fairclough:  The minister basically said that the Yukon Party is not doing anything for the patients who are going outside of the territory to make improvements to the $30 per day on the fourth day. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We are not at the point where we are examining that area. We will be doing so under the primary health care review, but it is not an area that has been picked up by our government as a high-cost driver. We recognize there is a need for those being sent to Whitehorse to await the arrival of a newborn, but with respect to those being sent out for medical attention, we are looking at providing as many services as we possibly can at the Whitehorse Hospital. With respect to the additional equipment, kudos have to go to the previous NDP administration that was instrumental in starting on the CT scan. Unfortunately they left office and the next government waffled on that position and basically changed gears before the initiative was brought to fruition, but the CT scan is in place. It is functioning to save moving individuals to other centres for CT scans, and it is saving the resulting costs and the turnaround time is much quicker. It is a piece of diagnostic equipment that is very much benefiting those in need here in Yukon. So that said, Mr. Chair, we are looking at enhancing and the Hospital Corporation is exploring other areas for other pieces of equipment, diagnostic equipment, that may be purchased and put in place to reduce the amount of travel out of Yukon for medical purposes.

It’s a very, very high cost to the government to move someone to another centre for medical attention. The bed costs and the physician costs are very, very high and they are constantly increasing, let alone the difficulty in finding a bed in some of these major centres for the required services that are needed. To get a bed in some of the major centres, in Vancouver, Calgary or Edmonton, is sometimes extremely difficult for us. The more we can undertake here in Whitehorse, the better off we are and the less need to move patients to these other centres.

So we are addressing this area from a number of angles, and at the end of the day we hope to provide more services here in Whitehorse and not have the need to move patients to other centres for medical attention to the same extent as we have done in the past.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister said that this will be reviewed — that the $30 a day on the fourth day that patients are travelling outside the Yukon will be reviewed or be included in the primary health care review. So I will leave it at that and ask questions at the appropriate time under that section.

Here is an easy one for the member opposite because this is an initiative by the Yukon Party on the FASD action plan. I would like to ask, first of all, how much money is in this supplementary budget that is going toward initial plans for this five-step plan?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There wasn’t any. We used existing staff; we identified the primary health care transfer fund as where this funding would come from in the future; and this is where we are going to draw down the funds for this area in the next fiscal budget. That is contained in the mains that are before this House, which we will be debating in due course, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:   Is it a separate initiative, an action plan, or will it fall under the alcohol and drug secretariat — the FASD?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There is no alcohol and drug secretariat.

Mr. Fairclough:   Sorry, Mr. Chair — alcohol and drug services.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our action plan is under the primary health care transition fund, and there’ll be contribution agreements with the Child Development Centre and FASSY for this initiative.

Mr. Fairclough:   I was not clear on the fund this minister just said in the House. Could he repeat that, please?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   It’s the primary health care transition fund.

Mr. Fairclough:   We have seen some additional dollars in the supplementary budget that are going toward the alcohol and drug secretariat brought forward by the Yukon Party. Can we expect to see a savings now that the secretariat is dismantled? Since the last budget, there is $155,000 of new money directed at the alcohol and drug secretariat. What’s happening with this money? Is it spent now? Upon taking office, the minister dismantled the secretariat but we see it reflected in a supplementary brought forward by him.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The sum of $700,000 was approved in the supplementary — a previous Management Board submission under the Liberals, Mr. Chair — and a small amount of that will lapse because of recruitments that we did not proceed with as a government. In addition to that, the savings will come in that there will be no more funding going to the previous alcohol and drug secretariat. The $1.3 million that was requested won’t be spent, so there will be no further request. That’s where the savings will come in. We won’t be going where the previous government was headed. We’ll be delivering programs. We won’t be setting up another stovepipe of administration.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Chair, the minister is asking the members of this House to approve an additional $155,000 in this supplementary for the secretariat. Is this money spent, or is this going to be lapsed money? I’m talking about in capital.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, this was in capital. This was creating the office space and other initiatives for the drug and alcohol secretariat, and it has been spent. There may be a small amount that will lapse.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would like more details on this capital, whether all of this is spent or whether there are some savings that are going to result from the alcohol and drug secretariat. It wasn’t long after taking office that the secretariat was dismantled, so I don’t believe that all of the monies that have been requested here in this budget will be spent. So if the minister can give us that information, I would appreciate it.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, Mr. Chair, the spending was being incurred over the course of the summer for the capital undertakings, and it was basically to revamp office space and design it to create a boardroom, things of that nature — signage, stationery, things of a capital undertaking associated with creating a new Liberal stovepipe of administration. But at the end of the day, that has been stopped. We now have gone back and reverted to a drug and alcohol service reporting to a director.

Now, at the end of the year, there may be a small amount of funds in the capital side that lapse. I haven’t got the full details there, but I will provide the member opposite with those details as to what will lapse in this area.

Mr. Fairclough:   I appreciate that, because there was $50,000 voted for in the budget. Then this supplementary is asking for another $105,000. Upon taking office, I would think that there would be considerable savings there.

I want to go back to the FASD action plan that the minister is bringing forward. I know that the minister is going to be working with different groups across the territory. I would like to know approximately when the minister will have this plan in place.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our target is to have the contribution agreements with the Yukon Medical Association, with FASSY and with the Child Development Centre out sometime in April. When they do come out, we will provide copies to the members opposite.

Mr. Fairclough:   The contributions would be in place by April. Is the minister giving a deadline of when he would like to see this action plan put together so the public can see it?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am sorry, it’s very difficult to get tied to a specific date for this initiative. We are making progress. We are making best effort. The funding is contained in the next fiscal year’s budget envelope, and we are moving forward as we move into the next fiscal period, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister said that it’s a pretty high priority to focus government’s attention on this action plan and that there will be financial contribution agreements in place by April. We know this is in the next fiscal year, so are we expecting a plan would be in place at the end of the year? At the end of the summer? I am just wondering — there is a dollar amount to it and obviously there will be some direction that comes out of this action plan that the minister can move on. I am just wondering — obviously the Yukon Party has talked about this for a long time, so I would expect that an action plan would come fairly quickly. By fairly quickly, I mean by the end of the summer. I know that there is a lot of work to do and that we have some of this action plan kick-starting throughout the fall and winter months.

I am just wondering if we can get a little more accurate answer from the member.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government’s focus is on programs and program delivery. What the member opposite is asking me to concentrate on is the whole structure and, I guess, the administration side of the equation. We’re more focused on putting together the professionals who will be addressing the need — the Child Development Centre’s board, FASSY’s board and the YMA, which are into the program for testing newborns for FASD. This is our concentrated initiative and this is where we’re headed.

Now, to come up with an action plan, the action plan is stated in the Yukon Party platform and is being implemented. I’ll provide the member opposite with a copy of the Yukon Party platform with respect to the action plan. It’s spelled out there, and what we’re concentrating on now is implementing that plan. We’re hoping to have results and deliver the services that any government should be mandated to deliver. Concentration is on the programs, not setting up more administration.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, it’ll be interesting to see how this minister does that, Mr. Chair. I’m looking at the action plan. I have it right here in front of me — the five-step action plan. My questions are directly related to that.

There are five steps pointed out, but the Yukon Party can’t tell us, on this side of the House, that that is their action plan. It’s stated right in there that they will be working with stakeholders to come up with an action plan, I suppose, on these five points, and that’s what I’m concentrating on.

The Yukon public would like to know how it’s going to start, who is involved, and who is on the team. I know the member opposite named a few people who will be working — he didn’t say on the team, but I would expect that it is a team he’s bringing forward and that this is the action plan.

I know that there’s going to be a lot more work that has to be done. The member opposite talks about a wide range of services involved in this action plan, and it doesn’t go without putting together steps that this party has to take over the next year or so.

So that’s what I’m asking for — some dates and some structure — if the member could focus on that too.

I’ll talk about administration and costs a bit later.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, the member opposite kind of has the cart before the horse. In our next fiscal cycle, commencing April 1 of this next year, we will have an advisory committee in place. It’s being set up now and it consists of the Child Development Centre, which does the assessment and diagnostic services, to a degree — it’s a team, it’s a coordinator — we have FASSY, which is on the prevention side of the equation, and we have the Yukon Medical Association, which will be providing the meconium testing for newborns. So, this is the initial stage. It’s being set up in the next budget cycle. Very little of it is reflected in this supplementary, if any. Any work that has been done has been done within the existing budget envelope. A lot of consultation has taken place, and I have personally met with all the groups involved.

We’re moving forward on this initiative. It’s not a big, deep, dark secret, and we’re making best efforts to show some progress. But the funding for these initiatives is in the primary health care transfer funds, and it’s in the next fiscal year’s budget, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fairclough:   I am looking at where this Yukon Party is going with their five-step plan to address the FASD in the territory. I was surprised that the minister didn’t say that any of the communities were involved, that any First Nations were involved in this advisory committee. The very people who are affected the most are not even being talked to at this point, so I am wondering where this whole thing is going to go. The minister said there was a lot of consultation that took place already. Maybe he can table some of the meetings he has had with the communities.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As the member well knows, I haven’t had meetings with the communities on this initiative.

Mr. Fairclough:   Then I guess it is easy enough to say that there hasn’t been very much — if any — consultation that took place with communities. I am quite surprised this is where we are at this juncture. I would like to ask the minister this: the minister said there was an action plan already put together, a five-step plan. I don’t know if there will be any more details coming out of this, but I certainly hope so. Does the minister have an idea of what it would cost annually to implement this plan?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, Mr. Chair, FASSY has a First Nation component in it and they have done quite extensive consultation with First Nations on the issue of FASD, and their board makeup is very broad. I am not going to pre-empt any of the NGOs that are providing valuable services to the government and have broad representation from Yukon. With respect to the five-step plan and what it is going to be costing, at this juncture we know what costs we are going to be incurring, and they are reflected to the best of our understanding in the budget that will be debated in due course. We are into the mains of the O&M of next year.

But I’m sure there may be additional costs that will probably have to be addressed by our government.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’m sure the Yukon Party has a bit more detail on what it would cost this government to implement the five-step action plan. The minister said that he will not duplicate services. He’s looking at streamlining administration. I’m very interested to know what the cost would be.

The minister must know what the start-up cost would be for implementing this action plan. I know it’s not reflected in this supplementary budget, and I don’t know if all of it is reflected in the next budget that we’re going to be dealing with in a matter of days. We’ll be asking those questions, of course, but I would like to know in a bit more detail what we’re looking at for a dollar amount to implement the five-step plan.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, Mr. Chair, for the record, the five-step action plan of those parts that were developed is not contained in this supplementary. They were done within the existing budget envelope of the department.

What the member opposite is wanting to debate at this juncture is the mains for next year, and I’d encourage him to have a look at the mains, and when we get into the Department of Health and Social Services for the forthcoming fiscal year, we can debate that area thoroughly. But at this juncture, this supplementary does not cover any of the costs that we have incurred by setting up what we have set up to date for the five-step action plan to address FASD. So the questions are rather moot.

We’re in general debate, and I understand the questions can be broad-ranging; but that said, Mr. Chair, this is the initiative for the next fiscal period, not for the supplementary that we have before us.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’ll just leave that alone. Obviously the minister doesn’t have an answer, and I’ll just turn it over to the leader of the Liberal Party.

Ms. Duncan:   I would like to ask the Health minister to put on the record how much of the financial supplementary that is before us was approved when the Member for Watson Lake was the Chair of Management Board. The member has indicated that, of course, a special warrant has to come before the House and both special warrants are contained in the Department of Health and Social Services, as are the Management Board variance reports that are submitted by departments and approved. The Financial Administration Act dictates that special warrants have to come before the House at the first available opportunity, so that’s what has happened — the supplementary has been tabled.

But it also includes monies that are approved in the variance reports. I would like a breakdown from the minister as to what was approved in which variance board reports.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We’re tilling the same ground that was explored by the member of the official opposition in previous questions. I would encourage the leader of the third party to stay tuned to the debate, because this was the same question that was asked by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun previously, and I committed to providing that information to that member, as well as to the third party.

Ms. Duncan:   I have the question on the record, which is what I set out to do and which is the role of the third party. I have the ability to ask questions, and I intend to do that.

The additional $5,963,000 in operation and maintenance funding that was contained in the special warrant passed by the Yukon Party government on December 23 — is that the period 5 variance or would it be up to 6? The Finance minister has indicated that the supplementary includes up to period 8. I am wondering if the special warrant on December 23 is period 3, 5, or which one it is.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   You know, that question is not a question for a Health and Social Services minister. I’m in no position to respond to that. That question should be directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chair. That’s where the debate on this area should be. As to what fiscal period this pertains to, I am here to explain the supplementary budget that is before the House and not how it correlates into the Department of Finance. If the member opposite could save her questions for the Minister of Finance, it would probably be a better use of the Legislature’s time.

Ms. Duncan:   For the member opposite’s information, variance board reports are signed off by the minister responsible for them, and the member also sits on Management Board, according to the order-in-council, so it was a perfectly appropriate question as to which variance board report was signed by the minister and contained in the special warrant.

Of the $5,963,000 in operation and maintenance spending, some of it would have been legislated — as is required — because part of it is medical travel, and some of it would have been discretionary spending — the government made a decision to increase funding or not. Does the minister have any idea what would be legislated expenditures and what might have been discretionary?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Drug programs would be one example in my portfolio, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   I understand which programs are legislated and which ones are not. What I’m asking is how much of the almost $6 million would have been legislated. The government has virtually no choice in paying that. Some of it is discretionary. Does the minister have any idea — ballpark; I’m not asking to the precise nickel — how much of it is legislated and how much of it is discretionary — in the additional money approved?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am advised that it is approximately 60 percent but, again, it is a ballpark figure and I don’t want to be held to it. The member opposite asked for a ballpark figure and that is the best I can do.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate that. Of the $6 million, about how much would the government have no choice on? About 60 percent? Fair enough.

The other question I would like to ask is around this legislated and discretionary funding. Additional funding such as $50,000 to Kaushee’s would have been discretionary. The government made a choice about that. When was it approved?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The exact date for the approval — I will get back to the member opposite with that date.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you. I would just request that that date come by legislative return and, if possible, could the minister have that before the end of session or prior to getting into mains? I would appreciate it. Thank you.

In the supplementary that is before us, there are a number of increases. There are also a number of decreases and one of the decreases is in the uptake on social services. So in the operation and maintenance expenditures, there is $397,000 less in social services. I am anticipating that that is a decrease in the number of people and cases seeking social assistance. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member is absolutely correct.

Ms. Duncan:   Could the minister advise how many of these SA clients left the territory or how many have subsequently been employed and are no longer on SA, or is it that their option for collecting SA was time limited and they were simply no longer eligible for those benefits? Why the decrease? Did they leave? Did their benefits run out? Was there an issue? What happened?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, the exact reason for them not continuing or whatever happened — we’d have to conduct an analysis of the SA clients and provide that information to the member opposite. It would probably take us quite some time to detail that information. I’m curious as to the relevancy.

The member opposite, under her watch, was responsible for the downturn of the economy here. The tremendous exodus of Yukoners, for one reason or another, has decreased the demands on the social assistance programs. They have decreased. There are 4,000 to 5,000 fewer Yukoners across the board and jobs are scarce and hard to come by. If you want to look at the government that was responsible for maintaining and continuing with the downward trend here in the Yukon, the member opposite only has to look into the mirror to see the individual responsible.

That said, I’m curious as to the relevancy of this detail as to why people are off SA. We all know that there have been fewer demands on the SA system over the years across the Yukon, and we also know that the population is heading to an all-time low. There is a continued exodus, and it’s our government’s position that we’re going to do our level best to restore investor confidence that was destroyed by the previous two governments and create an economy here again and, at the same time, maintain all the social nets that exist without any layoffs to government positions or staffing.

We know that that’s our task and it’s going to be a difficult task. I believe our government is equal to that task, and we will probably prevail. We’re going to give it our best efforts, Mr. Chair, and I’m confident that we will prevail and that the Yukon will be once again restored to its robust, vibrant self.

As to the relevancy of the details as to why these people have gone off SA and where they have gone to, I was hoping the member opposite could share her reason for requesting that detail because it does place a considerable burden on the department to assemble that type of detail.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I did not ask the department to assemble the detail, nor will I ask the department. I’m not expecting that level of detail from the department; I’m not expecting a legislative return on that. My point in asking the question was a sense from the minister, but apparently this minister finds it particularly appropriate to deliver lectures to the members on this side of the House similar to the ones he delivered when he was over here himself. His disdain for his colleagues in this Legislature knows no bounds.

Chair:   The phrase "his disdain for his colleagues" is quite unparliamentary.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I will gladly withdraw that.

Chair:   Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   Consider it withdrawn from the record.

Perhaps the member opposite will, in his future answers, give credit where credit is due in recognition of good work and good initiatives that have been undertaken, and also cease to assign the blame as he did in his answer. I’m asking that we stick to the discussion of social services, which is what we were on, as opposed to the lecture I received from the member opposite about the previous government. My purpose in asking the question with respect to SA clients is that there’s a noticeable decrease — almost $40,000 — in the health care budget. That’s a noticeable decrease, and perhaps the minister had some information, perhaps he’d spoken to some front-line workers, perhaps he had listened to and asked the question himself. That was the purpose of my question. As we are elected to do, and as we do on this side of the House, we ask the questions, as it is our right to do. The purpose of those questions is up to us.

As I said, perhaps, if the minister had chosen to ask and had — I’m sure those Social Services workers have a gut instinct. People have left. It’s a $400,000 difference in the expenditures of this territory. The minister did say on his feet that the Yukon Party intends to maintain the social safety net. Well, that’s a very good question because the Yukon Party has quite a tradition with respect to that social safety net, and not a tradition that those who are in the unfortunate position of collecting SA would look forward to a return of.

The social assistance clients that I met with in my former capacity have repeatedly said that the problems are not the rates; they are the rules and the way SA is administered. Situations like when a single mother is required to return to work, for example — our government dealt with the rules on that particular issue. Our government dealt with a number of different changes to the rules, as was requested by the community.

The minister has said that they intend to, as a party, maintain the social safety net. As the record clearly indicates, the Yukon Party has a tradition of changing the rules.

We have seen a substantial decrease in this supplementary. Is the minister also anticipating a change in the regulations surrounding the collection of SA?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Under the previous administration, an amount for social services was budgeted. It would appear that their estimates were high, because what we’re seeing and what the trend is today is that the expenditures for SA are basically the same this fiscal period, in total, as compared to the last fiscal period, in total.

So, under the previous minister’s watch, there was an overestimation of what they were going to be spending in SA — a simple explanation to that: $7.6 million was expended in the last fiscal period. That appears to be what will be spent in this fiscal period, and there will be a decrease from the budgeted estimate in the mains that were approved last year.

What the mains were last year was more or less a look backward rather than a look forward, and I guess, at the end of the day, we have to recognize what has transpired and, yes, there is going to be a lapse. With respect to the rules, it hasn’t been brought to my attention that there are extreme difficulties with the rules. In fact, there were a number of changes made under the previous administration and, by and large, there is quite an extensive amount of interpretation.

If there were changes that were necessary — you know, it fails me as to why our government, having just taken power, has to make all these changes immediately, as the leader of the third party and the official opposition are requesting. A number of these initiatives are underway or being looked at and examined, and we are making best efforts to address the needs. But our government position is firm: we will maintain the safety net that exists here in Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I didn’t ask the minister to change the rules immediately. I asked if there was an intention to change the rules. I would appreciate an answer to that direct question. As I said, it’s our role to ask the questions, and it’s the minister’s role to answer the questions.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There has been some policy work done on potential changes, but they’re still in the system and they haven’t gotten up to my level, as yet. I’m sure they will but, at the present time, there haven’t been any changes. There may be down the road.

Ms. Duncan:   What the minister is saying — down the road there may be changes — is cause for concern. I will investigate the government’s intention in the mains in general debate.

I’d like to deal with the issue — prior to getting further into recoveries — of alcohol and drug services. The Health minister indicated that the primary health care transition fund was going to be paying for the infamous five-point plan. Would the Health minister outline how much the primary health care transition fund is? The figures are not necessarily in the supplementary; however, the Health minister has made reference to the fund before, so I would just like to follow up with him on how much it is, who applied for the money — it would have been applied for, previously — how much it is; if it is permanent money we can look at and discuss in the mains; if it is more of this boutique programming the member referred to. How much is it, when is it, and where is it?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, it’s not in this supplementary; it’s in the mains for next year. We should be debating this area in next year’s mains.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, it’s interesting how the member’s perspective and view has changed as to what’s eligible for debate.

The alcohol and drug secretariat has an additional $630,000 voted into it. For the record, the alcohol and drug secretariat was established following an extensive review and with support from members in the House. That extensive review into the addictions faced by Yukoners and the counselling and programming that they were able to receive recommended the establishment of the alcohol and drug secretariat. There is additional funding put into it here.

However, one of his first actions upon taking office was for the Health minister to fire the ADS director, although she is recognized as the best in her field in western Canada. I’m not asking the personnel question of how much this cost, but I’d like to know if this dispute has been resolved.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, Mr. Chair, this extensive review that was carried out by the previous Liberal government cost $30,000, and it was undertaken by the individual who was subsequently hired by the previous administration to oversee the alcohol and drug secretariat. The extensive review also contained the job description as an addendum for this position. So what we had was the previous administration conducting an extensive review utilizing an individual who basically wrote her own job description, and at the end of the day, there is no dispute, because as the member opposite knows full well, this individual was hired at a deputy level, as conforms to section (m) with respect to deputy minister and serves at the pleasure. There isn’t a dispute, Mr. Chair.

DMs, the member opposite knows full well — she probably terminated more DMs under her watch than any government previous. But that said, our government recognized that we were creating another administration stovepipe that was going to cost a further $1.3 million on top of the $700,000 that the previous Liberal administration had already approved at Management Board, and the effort should be concentrating on program deliveries and services, not setting up more administration, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I thank the member opposite for his lecture to me as to how the alcohol and drug addiction research report and review was carried out. In actual fact, there were two individuals involved, not one. There was a public review, a Public Service Commission panel for the hiring, and this competition was open. I thank the member opposite for recognizing that the individuals involved in the review — in what is the Yukon’s number one problem, aside from the economy, which has gone steadily downhill under their watch.

I’m glad the member finds that humorous. I’m glad the member finds that humorous. The 100 jobs cut in the private sector under the Department of Highways, the hundreds under Tourism, the steady three-month decline in retail sales, are not because of the previous government. They are absolutely not.

But we’re dealing right now, Mr. Chair, with the issue of alcohol and drug addictions in this territory. It’s a major, major issue. It is raised at every level of government — First Nation governments, municipal governments, hamlets, the territorial government, the federal government.

We all recognize that this is a major issue and there are costs associated with it.

The previous government hired among the best in western Canada, if not the best in the field. I asked the Health minister, given that he chose to fire the individual, if the issue had been concluded. The minister has indicated yes, it has. I’m not convinced he knows that answer. It’s not unheard of, even if an individual is at a deputy minister level, for there to be subsequent court issues. I want to be clear that there are not. The issue is concluded. I am asking a simple question. Has the matter been fully concluded?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, the matter is a Public Service Commission issue, as all personnel matters are. The advice I had from the Premier’s office was that the matter has been resolved. That’s where it stands. The member opposite knows full well how procedures work and who is responsible for what. This is an area of the Public Service Commission domain and it remains there.

Ms. Duncan:   There were a number of counselling positions, although the member opposite goes on and on and on about silos of administration. In fact, there were counsellor positions filled. There was programming being delivered. The minister himself stood on his feet and said that there were a number of recruitment initiatives for counsellors. Some competitions I’m sure had closed; others were still in progress. How many addictions counsellors were not hired by this government as a result of the minister’s action?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite is referring to the community workers. Whether they were actually defined as counsellors or not, I don’t recall, as that occurred under the previous watch. They may or may not have been, but there were objections raised by a number of the First Nation groups and the programs were brought in-house. One position was created out of three, and the needs are being addressed.

Ms. Duncan:   It was the member opposite’s reference to counsellors that I followed up on. The member opposite has stood on his feet and said there was no programming going on, and now has stood and said programs were brought in-house. Will the minister responsible say how many counsellors were scheduled to be hired under the alcohol and drug secretariat and were subsequently not hired? How many counsellors; and what programs have ended as a result of the firing of the ADS director?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I believe three individuals were not hired. That is subject to confirmation after we go back and look over the situation but, at the end of the day, we are not going to be setting up another bureaucracy, another stovepipe of administration. The exercise is to deliver programs. The programs that were being delivered by drug and alcohol services still remain there. There was very, very little in the way of transition back from a drug and alcohol secretariat to drug and alcohol services. The most visible signs were a change in the name and not needing a further $1.3 million, and it looks like we are probably going to lapse some of the $700,000 that the previous administration approved for this set-up of the drug and alcohol secretariat.

So at the end of the day, our government is delivering very good programming with fewer administration costs, and that’s the exercise, Mr. Chair. It’s an administration exercise; it’s basic management.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, it’s also basic management and basic responsibility to deal with issues and to ensure that the programming that’s required and that will meet a need is being addressed. What I have heard from the member opposite is that they don’t like that plan, don’t like that review, so off with the administration and they’re going to do it their way. And what the Health minister has said is that the alcohol and drug secretariat — well, hopefully we won’t be spending all that money. There are three fewer jobs in the Yukon dealing with an important issue, a societal issue that crosses all levels of government and throughout Yukon. Instead, the Health minister has said that, no, we’re going to do it our way. We’re going to use the primary health care transition fund, but we can’t talk about that until next year’s budget.

So we’ll move on, and he can rest assured that we will be talking at length about it in next year’s budget.

The supplementary before us contains additional funding for recruitment and retention of doctors and nurses. How much of the supplementary is dedicated to the recruitment and retention of doctors, and how much is for nurses?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Before we leave the issue of alcohol and drug services and what has transpired under that, I’d like to put on the record what actually transpired. Yes, there were three individuals who weren’t hired — they weren’t needed, Mr. Chair — but what the department has done is put that money into community addiction initiatives. So we’re making the best use of the money and the programming end of it, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to see what we’re trying to accomplish here. We’re trying to put as much money as we possibly can right where it’s needed.

There is an area I do share and agree with the member opposite on, Mr. Chair, and that is that we do have a serious problem with drug and alcohol addiction here in the Yukon. We do have a serious problem, and it’s our government’s game plan that is on the table here and will be in the next budget. It’s not in this supplementary.

We are going forward with implementing that initiative to serve the needs of those afflicted with FASD, with a whole series of programs that currently exist and some that we can enhance. This group we’re putting together, for the record, consists of YMA, FASSY and the Child Development Centre. We have met with all three groups, and they all bring to the table a tremendous degree of expertise in this field. We’re working cooperatively with these groups and, in the primary health care transfer fund for next year, the funding will be identified. But that’s in next year’s budget.

The funding for these groups is in next year’s budget. What we have here is the supplementary, and as to the question that the member opposite asked with respect to what we’re spending on recruitment, there was an increase of $180,000 to the Yukon Medical Association for the attraction and recruitment of health care professionals.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that it’s counsellors who meet the needs of individuals who are coming in, and it’s counsellors who deliver programming. And it doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that there are three fewer jobs because that’s what the minister just said.

He goes on and on about the future programming, although he doesn’t want to talk about it until next year’s mains, and goes on and on about this great plan that talks about the Child Development Centre and FASSY, and I have absolute respect for those organizations. I also know there’s a tremendous need out there for youth — a tremendous need — at the high school level and at the junior high level. It has been an issue for a long time and the issue is access to counsellors. That’s one of the issues. And three fewer counsellors means I don’t know how many more teens who go without services.

The member can speak with laudatory words of his programs in the future all he likes. The fact is that there will be a lengthy discussion about this government’s intentions in the mains on ADS, and the fact is that there are three fewer counsellors, and it’s a result of this government.

The member has mentioned $180,000 in additional funding in this supplementary for recruitment that has been paid to the Yukon Medical Association. The initiatives were recruitment and retention and they were for doctors and nurses.

Could he outline the amount for recruitment and retention of nurses throughout the territory? The additional funding is reflected in this supplementary. Perhaps the minister would care to advise whether or not the initiatives will continue?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   With respect to the question about the amount of funds that were transferred to the Yukon Medical Association, that was specifically for YMA and for doctors. The nurses and the bonus is not in this supplementary; it’s contained in the mains, as the member opposite knows full well.

Ms. Duncan:   So, in other words, there is no additional recruitment and retention money for nurses in the supplementary; it’s only for the doctors. That’s what the minister has confirmed. In other words, upon taking office, there was no additional funding directed to that.

In June of this year, the Government of Yukon received a report from the Child Welfare League of Canada. There are a number of recommendations they made, and the former government was working toward implementing them. One of their recommendations is that there be information systems set up in family and children's services — explore the information systems used by other jurisdictions. There is additional money for systems development of $152,000 in Health and Social Services. Is this systems development part of the Child Welfare League recommendations or is it something else?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I feel it is important to set the record straight with respect to the bonuses for the nurses, that there is not any additional funding in here. The nurses are covered by a collective agreement. That collective agreement spells out the terms of their bonuses and their recruitment and retention. That’s under the purview of the Public Service Commission. It’s not an area where we get into a supplementary unless there is a new collective agreement, unless something has to be enhanced in the program. The member opposite knows full well that that is the case.

On another matter with respect to these three — what the member refers to as community workers or addiction workers or counsellors — the member says there are three fewer people in alcohol and drug services. There are three positions that were requiring an additional $1.3 million to impart staff in that area, among other things. That additional funding was not provided. The member is incorrect when she says that that there are three. There is only one fewer person in the staff complement over there and that was the head of the alcohol and drug secretariat.

So there’s one less person. There are other positions that were not filled and were not budgeted to be filled. That’s the issue.

Ms. Duncan:   The issue is that the member opposite chose not to deal in a very real, concrete way with the issue of alcohol and drug addiction. The member has just decided that he knows best and that leading individuals in their field don’t know anything — the member opposite knows best. So the government won’t staff those positions. My point was, as a result of not staffing, as a result of not putting money in, that although there is additional money in the supplementary, there is not the money for the counsellors, and the member himself admitted that. And that’s an issue, because there are hundreds, if not thousands, who are going without services because of the choices made by the minister.

I asked the question and didn’t receive an answer. The money in systems development in this supplementary is a result of the Child Welfare League of Canada recommendations, or is it something else? And perhaps in considering his answer, the minister could advise which recommendations of the Child Welfare League are included in this supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There’s $67,000 for implementation. That’s the amount that’s identified in the supplementary.

Ms. Duncan:   There’s $67,000 identified in the supplementary for implementation of the Child Welfare League of Canada recommendations. Would the minister advise which recommendations are being implemented?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That was to look at the planning, the planning for how we could look at phasing in what appears to be an additional $8 million in costs. We are not a government that just throws money at a project. We have to carefully consider all the areas, and the planning exercise that is underway will identify how best to address this need.

Chair:   Order please. Do members wish a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Member:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

We will continue with the Third Appropriation Act, 2002-03, with general debate on Vote 15, Health and Social Services.

Ms. Duncan:   I am pleased to resume general debate on the additional supplementary funding being sought by the Department of Health and Social Services.

I did have an opportunity to briefly review my notes from the discussion earlier today, and I would like to recap briefly if I might, so that we’re clear on what legislative returns we are waiting for out of the initial part of the debate. My understanding is that the minister is providing a legislative return with respect to the details of when the approvals took place for the additional expenditures in Health and Social Services. The minister is also going to confirm, by legislative return, for the record, when the additional funding was granted to Kaushee’s.

Although the side opposite has taken credit a number of times for this additional funding, they are going to confirm the actual date of the funding approval by legislative return.

And clearly the additional $50,000 for Kaushee’s Place is in this supplementary; the $50,000 reduction in funding to Dawson is for next year, so we will debate that in next year’s mains.

The minister also confirmed that he fired the head of the alcohol and drug secretariat who was hired under a previous administration. He confirmed there was no outstanding lawsuit and he also confirmed that the severance paid out by the Yukon Party government is consistent with the deputy ministers severance policy.

The minister also went on at great length about administration and that they would be ending the administrative silos in alcohol and drug services and focus on programming. I would like a precise answer from the minister now that he has had a chance to look at his notes. What programming is provided under the alcohol and drug secretariat — what programming and what programs were offered by the previous administration and what is being offered now and contained within the supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I can provide the member opposite with a list of the programs we will be providing and what was provided under her watch. We’ll go back and assemble that information for the member opposite. For the record, there is the issue of the removal of Corliss Burke as the head of the alcohol and drug secretariat, and that is an issue before the Public Service Commission and has been dealt with, to the best of my knowledge, in the manner prescribed. In a discussion I had with the Premier, whom the deputy ministers report to, he confirmed previously that the areas that he is responsible for had been resolved. If there are some outstanding matters, they are between this individual and the Public Service Commission. But, to the best of my knowledge, I am not aware of any outstanding situation.

Mr. Chair, we have agreed to provide to the members opposite information by legislative return as to the timing and where the approvals stem from, from this funding and the supplementaries, and we will be doing so — the same legislative return to both the official opposition and the third party.

Ms. Duncan:   So for the record, actually that’s two legislative returns — one is on the breakdown of funding and the other is the date of approval for the additional funding for Kaushee’s Place. Although the government has taken credit for approving that additional money, I would like to know the date when it actually was approved.

I find it interesting that the member opposite has a tendency to duck responsibility — I believe that’s parliamentary — shed himself of