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.

Speaker:   It is my pleasure today to introduce four Alaska State legislators who are participating in our annual legislative exchange. Members from our two legislatures have been meeting on an annual basis since 1980. The primary purpose of this exchange is to give legislators in our two jurisdictions an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding of the workings of our two differing systems of governance.

As well, it allows us to discuss matters of mutual interest to Alaska and the Yukon. This is done through meetings with caucuses and through one-on-one conversations that take place throughout these exchanges.

Further, visiting legislators are briefed by senior officials of the Government of Yukon on a variety of subjects.

Over the years, these exchanges have been a benefit to our two jurisdictions in furthering our knowledge and understanding of each other in the areas I have mentioned. Perhaps most importantly though, it has provided us with an opportunity to renew acquaintances and to make new friendships at the legislative level.

In this way, the contact between legislative colleagues from each side of the border can contribute to maintaining respectful and friendly relationships between both the governing structures and the citizens of Alaska and the Yukon. Those relationships have endured between our two jurisdictions through thick and thin during our past history and we are determined and confident that they will continue on that basis into the future.

I would now ask that our guests rise as I name them. Today, from the Alaska State Legislature, we have with us Senator Fred Dyson, Senator Donald Olson, Representative Nancy Dahlstrom and Representative Max Gruenberg. Joining them in the gallery is Jeannette James, who was a member of the Alaska House of Representatives from 1992 to 2002 and who is here representing Governor Frank Murkowski on railroad matters.

I would ask all members to give a warm welcome to our friends from Alaska.

Speaker:   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?

Mr. Arntzen:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) the Government of Canada, over the years, has established a practice of providing funding to non-governmental organizations and the Government of Yukon to initiate new programs for the public and then has subsequently reduced or eliminated funding required to operate and maintain those programs; and

(2) the Government of Yukon continues to make its contributions to programs such as the Salvation Army emergency shelter, the Watson Lake youth intervention worker with the Liard Basin task force and the youth outreach program van provided by the Yukon Family Services Association; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to live up to its responsibility to continue to provide funding for programs it has helped initiate.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Mr. McRobb:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) cellular telephone service is a critical component of modern communications, especially in remote and sparsely populated areas such as the Yukon;

(2) reliable cell phone service plays an important role in business, personal communications, recreation, public safety and response to emergency situations;

(3) the previous NDP government recognized the importance of telecommunications by investing millions of dollars in improvements to voice and data services throughout the Yukon;

(4) a recent tourism survey indicated that travellers to the territory place a high value on being able to remain in contact with family and friends, especially in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 tragedy;

(5) industry has expressed an interest in forming a partnership with the Yukon government to explore ways to expand cellular phone service beyond the current limited coverage area; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to begin discussions with industry, other governments, including the governments of Canada, Alaska and the United States, as well as Yukon First Nations governments, to examine the potential of expanding the telecommunications infrastructure in the territory, starting with an expansion of cell phone coverage in strategic areas within the territory.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) Alaska and Yukon enjoy a friendly cross-border relationship;

(2) fees and licences charged for educational and medical services between Yukon and Alaska recognize this friendly relationship; and

(3) the exception to this friendly relationship has been the fees charged to Yukoners for king salmon fishing tags in Alaska; and

THAT the Yukon Legislative Assembly supports the Alaska State Senate Bill No. 56, which would have Yukoners pay the same fees as Alaskan residents for sport fishing and king salmon tags.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Mr. McRobb:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) many Yukon people are experiencing hardship related to skyrocketing fuel prices, combined with a shortage of jobs and, among seniors and elders, the decision of the Yukon Party government not to increase the pioneer utility grant retroactively;

(2) the election commitment to bring back the previous Yukon Party government’s rate relief program could have saved up to $40 on a Yukon electricity consumer’s monthly power bill;

(3) audited financial statements for the Yukon Development Corporation for the 2001 fiscal year-end clearly demonstrate that the Yukon Development Corporation enjoys a healthy financial surplus; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to implement a year-round rate relief program as promised in the Yukon Party election platform, including the elimination of the clawback provision for consumption above 1,500 kilowatt hours per month.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of my government’s policy concerning the division of responsibilities under the Waters Act.

First let me give you a bit of a background. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Water Board is an arm’s-length body established under the Waters Act. The Water Board secretariat provides support to the Water Board. The secretariat staff are government employees who will be transferring to the Yukon government on April 1 and will be housed in the Executive Council Office.

It is my government’s intention to vest the responsibility for approving Type A and Type B water licences — where there has been a public hearing — with the Minister of the Executive Council Office. We believe Yukoners will be best served by giving this responsibility to a corporate government department.

In most other matters concerning the Waters Act, however, the Minister of the Environment will take the lead. The minister will have the responsibility for the management of water, including compliance with and enforcement of all licences, other than inspection of placer mining water licences.

The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be responsible for inspections of placer mining water licences.

Our government’s policy direction in this matter reflects the input we have received from Yukoners, including members of the Water Board and from others, as well as the desire to correct the long-standing issues that have made the issuance of water licences contentious in the past.

This division of responsibilities will be formalized by order of the Commissioner in Executive Council.

The Water Board will remain at arm’s length from government and its responsibilities under the act will not change; however, the board’s support staff, for the purposes of the organizational chart, will be part of the Executive Council Office. They will become Yukon government employees effective April 1.

The staff of the water resources branch will also become Yukon government employees on April 1 and will be part of the Department of Environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to set out our government’s direction in this regard.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, we have a few concerns about this government policy and the decision to locate the board within the Executive Council Office, Mr. Speaker. Primarily our concern is with the independence of the board being compromised. We know the Executive Council Office is a very short, arm’s-length relationship with the government Cabinet; whereas, on the other hand, the Department of Justice is truly an arm’s-length relationship.

The Department of Justice currently houses the Yukon Utilities Board, which is a very similar board to the Yukon Territory Water Board. They are both quasi-judicial boards. They operate in accordance to administrative law in Canada. They believe in the principles of natural justice. If there were any reason to believe the board was not being fair or unbiased in its decisions, these decisions can be appealed by any party to a hearing. It makes it imperative to respect and retain the independence of these boards, and we will be watching very closely in the years ahead, Mr. Speaker, for any political influence into the operations of any of these boards I mentioned.

The Premier indicates that he has the ability to approve Type A and Type B water licences where there has been a hearing. That means that where concerns about an application have been expressed that trigger a hearing, this Premier will be signing off on the water licences. I know how it presently stands with the DIAND minister; he can either say yea or nay to a water licence draft decision from the board but does not have the ability to add, delete or modify any such decision. In his response, I would like the Premier to provide some more detail on his powers under that section.

I would also like the Premier to indicate why we have three government departments involved in the monitoring and the licensing of these matters. It seems that causes unnecessary duplication when we already have support staff in the Department of Justice. It seems sensible to just apply those same resources to help administer another board.

I would also like to ask the Premier if he could quantify the process that was used to consult Yukoners and indicate what questions were posed. We will never have the opportunity to find out what questions were posed to the Water Board members on this matter.

So, in recap, Mr. Speaker, we will be watching very closely in the time ahead for any political influence and ensure that the operation of this board is independent from government.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party caucus to respond to the ministerial statement. I would like to express my thanks to the Premier for the administrative update.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Let me first extend to the third party our appreciation for what I know is support for this matter. I know that, when in government, this was a difficult issue for the government of the day. Yukoners have long lobbied to have this particular area managed in the appropriate government department, especially upon devolution, and I think, in the best interest of Yukoners, that the third party and our government agree on something. We find that quite gratifying because that is how it should be, considering the third party spent a great deal of time on the renewal project, from which this is actually spawned.

With regard to the official opposition, the issue around their concern for independence in this area — that is exactly why the Water Board’s approval process and the signing off of licences will be housed in a corporate government department, the Executive Council Office, to ensure independence and neutrality, to ensure objectivity and to ensure that the process is fair and equitable across the spectrum.

Of course natural justice applies, and of course the opinion will be unbiased. It’s based on recommendation from the appropriate authorities and agencies, including the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. There is no duplication here at all. We have removed duplication, in that the Department of Environment, which is responsible for enforcement, should not have the duplication of also approving and signing off on licences. I think that’s important.

The member of the official opposition stated that their preferred position was the Department of Justice. In that regard, the potential for conflict is there. For example, the Department of Justice will have a major project in the future in building a new correctional facility. In all likelihood, the requirement for a water licence will be there. How can we have the Department of Justice signing off on its own water licence?

The whole purpose of this is to ensure that the regulatory bodies apply the appropriate attention to the legislation and that the Executive Council Office, which is a neutral government department, will be responsible for signing off the water licences, both A and B, but based on the recommendations from the appropriate agencies and departments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. McRobb:   Already this government has built a notorious legacy in terms of helping energy consumers in our territory. Let me recount the steps.

First it refused to increase the pioneer utility grant to help seniors with high fuel costs this past winter. Then it refused to cut the fuel oil taxes they promoted prior to the last election. Then this government refused to join the national call for the creation of a national energy price commission to regulate wholesale fuel prices. Then this government refused to extend coverage for the rate stabilization fund in time for the six months from April to September. Then it refused to eliminate the clawback on the rate stabilization fund, which would have put up to $40 in the pockets of Yukoners each month.

Then we learned last Thursday how this government supported price gouging through the inappropriate use of Rider F. As if that wasn’t enough, we learned on Friday that Rider J has gouged Yukoners again. Can the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation confirm that it has over charged electrical consumers by some $14 million from Rider J?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, can I confirm that we charged $14 million more than we were supposed to charge? No, I can’t. We work with Yukon Development and Yukon Energy at arm’s length. They have the Yukon Utilities Board between us and them. They negotiate the rates. As far as running it, I do not run it on a daily basis. We oversee it as a government, with Yukon Development and Yukon Energy as independent entities, and the Yukon Utilities Board in-between the consumer and the power company. So that’s all I can tell the member across the way.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that answer is inadequate. No matter how you slice and dice it, this minister is the one person within the entire Yukon government who should be held accountable for this Crown corporation. His name implies it. He is the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that’s how you introduced him in today’s question.

The minister shouldn’t try to hide behind a board. I can recall how the Member for Klondike used to accuse the previous government of members hiding behind boards, Mr. Speaker.

So I would like to ask the minister if he can explain to this House why he has done nothing to stop this outrageous price gouging.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   He got me on one of my weaker days. Mr. Speaker, we inherited some problems in Yukon Energy/Yukon Development. We’re here to fix them. That’s why the people of the Yukon elected us. Yes, I am the minister responsible for Yukon Energy. We set up the Yukon Utilities Board so we couldn’t run it from my office. It is not run from my office; it is run from Yukon Energy’s office, and they answer to me on a political level but, as far as a day-to-day operation, we do not run it out of my office.

The member opposite knows that, because that’s why they set it up like that, so it couldn’t be run out of the Minister of Energy’s office.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will work hard to adjust some of the problems we’re having at Yukon Energy. We are committed to looking at the clawback. We are going to look at the clawback. We can’t do everything in four or five months but, this time next year, hopefully everything will be running like a Swiss watch.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:   Maybe a rusty Swiss watch, Mr. Speaker.

This minister is abrogating his responsibilities. He is claiming independence of the board, yet he has the authority to direct the Energy Corporation, and this Cabinet has the authority to call a hearing by this board and investigate matters.

Now, the amount of overcharging is increasing by the day. More than a million dollars more has already been charged to Yukoners so far this year alone. That pushes the total amount to over $15 million of overcollection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the minister: what will he do to rectify this situation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, again, I tell you it’s an arm’s-length corporation, and this idea of running around, telling the world that we overcharged by a million dollars or $10 million or $14 million is just that — it’s conversation.

We have the Yukon Utilities Board — I’ll remind the member again — set up to work with the rates for the consumers. We understand we have some problems and the Utilities Board is going to answer those questions for him.

But I say to the member again: arm’s length means arm’s length. I do not run the Yukon Energy Corporation from my office upstairs.

Mr. McRobb:   Oh boy, Mr. Speaker, what a difference an election makes. This minister is clearly abrogating his responsibility.

Yukoners can’t afford all this price gouging. I want to emphasize that to this minister. It’s no wonder they’re leaving by the droves. There’s nothing for them to look forward to because of this government’s slash and burn budget. Mr. Speaker, there’s nothing optimistic on the horizon. All we get is bad news and price gouging. People are being gouged at the pump; they’re being gouged at the home fuel tank; now they’re being gouged on their power bills.

I would like to ask the minister — the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation — another question: will he refund Yukoners the $15 million overcollected from Rider J?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again we are looking at an arm’s-length corporation, and I am the minister overseeing the arm’s-length corporation. But what I do say to you again is that we do not run it from my office. We have a Utilities Board. We have a board of directors at Yukon Energy, and the reason we set that up 20 years ago was for exactly what that member wants me to do: to fool around with the electrical bills. I don’t do that. My job is to oversee the political arm and represent Yukon Energy in this House, but it certainly isn’t to give back money, take money or otherwise — that is left up to Yukon Energy.

Mr. McRobb:   That reminds me of something my pappy used to say: "There is a short circle in the magnetti." This minister is once again abrogating his responsibility. This minister has the authority to rectify this situation. He can order the refund with a simple stroke of his pen. He is the minister responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation. He can direct this corporation to refund this $15 million to Yukoners. He can no longer hide behind a board. As a matter of fact, this minister sat on that very board for years. I even think this minister sat on that board while Rider J was being created. He should know all about it. He should be well conversed with his responsibilities and know what he can do to rectify this situation.

And so again I ask him: will he order the power company to refund that $15 million that was overcollected from Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, I tell the member that, yes, I did sit on that board, so I understand how the board works. And I cannot, with the stroke of a pen, decide to give money back — or any other day-to-day workings of Yukon Energy Corporation.

My job is to oversee an arm’s-length corporation owned by the taxpayers of the Yukon and do it in a responsible fashion so that we end up with a Yukon Energy Corporation that will benefit all Yukoners.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the minister does not know his job. He is unaware of what tools are at his disposal to protect the interests of Yukoners. That is very clear from his answers today. I’m ashamed.

This government is certainly not what you would call a consumer-friendly government. As a matter of fact, on that last answer, I would say it’s a corporate-friendly government. It doesn’t care about ordinary Yukoners and how much they pay on their power bills.

The minister has continued to hide, saying he doesn’t have the responsibility. So let me narrow it down to one simple question. Maybe we can get a clear, simple answer.

Does the minister have the authority to order the corporation to repay that money?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We go around and around and around. This is an arm’s-length corporation and the member opposite understands the workings of Yukon Energy Corporation. If anybody in this House understands it, it’s him, and I say to you that I’m not about to sign off anything with the Yukon Energy Corporation without the participation of the directors of that corporation and the executives of that corporation. So, I guess I have to say no to his question.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have some questions today for the Minister of Health and Social Services. In only four months on the job, this minister has led quite a new tack on Health and Social Services groups. He has cut funding to the women’s shelter in Dawson City. He has clearly signalled by this action to all non-governmental organizations that their funding agreements with the government are not safe. Family and children’s services branch has been cut by 11 percent. Youth services have been cut by five percent. The budget slashes the health investment fund by 50 percent. This money funds projects related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, youth, people battling alcohol and drug addictions, support for new mothers and support services for people who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that you could find more vulnerable groups in our society than those I have just listed, and that’s where the minister chose to cut the funding. Why has the minister cut the funding for the health investment fund in half?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, our government is proud of its track record as to where it should put the money for health care and health care uses. In the past there has been an up and down wave as to funding of organizations. We have been consistent in the flow of funds, and a lot of these non-governmental organizations that the member opposite mentioned are funded this year to the same level as last year. In addition to that, we have agreed to provide additional funding in very critical and important areas, and that is being done under this Yukon Party government.

Ms. Duncan:   The consistency in the flow of funds has been a consistency of cuts across the board. This government is getting $20 million in new funding for health care, and it has chosen to cut funding from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, youth, people battling alcohol and drug addictions, new mothers and support services for people who have been diagnosed with cancer. This is the same government that had enough money to provide huge salary increases to the Premier’s top political staff. Those are the priorities of the members opposite. The Health minister didn’t stop there with his cuts. He also cut funding to Whitehorse General Hospital. The capital contribution to the hospital has been cut by 25 percent by this minister. The Yukon Party promised in its election platform Yukoners will receive the best possible hospital care. How does cutting the hospital’s capital budget equal the best possible health care?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   It’s interesting to see the member of the third party portraying a story, of which she only knows half. That’s the problem.

If it weren’t for the fact that the Premier of the Yukon got together with his colleagues, the Premier of the Northwest Territories and the Premier of Nunavut, and hammered out a deal with the Prime Minister of Canada on health care funding, we would have been on a per capita basis. A per capita basis wouldn’t have even provided the funding necessary to keep pace with the spending trajectory of health care that Yukon was on. It’s increasing at $7 million to $10 million a year.

Now we have an agreement with Canada, and $20 million is going to flow to the Yukon. Over what period of time has only recently been determined. We’re awaiting an announcement from the Prime Minister’s office on that. But before we get that money spent, let’s identify the areas where it’s going to be needed.

With respect to the Hospital Corporation, its budget will be fully funded after this money is received from Canada.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, half the story from this minister is half the funding, if you happen to partake of the health investment fund. The fact is that the budget tabled by the members opposite cuts the hospital’s capital budget by 25 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the broken promises continue to pile up, and the trust level from Yukoners goes down and down and down, just like this government. Commitments made just a few short months ago on the campaign trail have been tossed out the window.

The minister has talked about the $20 million in new money and has said that the hospital’s capital budget will be fully funded, as well as the hospital.

Now, my question for the minister — and it’s a simple question and it’s a yes-or-no question because I know they’re a favourite of the members opposite — is: will the cuts in health care that we’ve seen in the budget come to an end — these heartless cuts — and will every dime of that new money be spent on health care?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We don’t have any choice. Our agreement Canada earmarks all that money for health care. That is the agreement with Canada and I don’t know where the leader of the third party is coming from by suggesting we are going to be spending it on other initiatives. What we currently have before this House is the third largest budget ever in the history of the Yukon — and with a declining population. Now we have to turn the economy around. We have to restore investor confidence. We have to get the engine of the economy going again so that we can fund all the social programs that Canadians and Yukoners have come to expect and rely on, and we will be doing that.

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to follow up with the minister responsible for Yukon Energy Corporation — although there is some reason to doubt that particular word — on a matter about calling for a general rate application.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Point of order.

Speaker:   There is a point of order. You are imputing motives. Please do not do that.

Mr. McRobb:   I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The minister is responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation, and we on this side of the House and Yukoners would appreciate if he would live up to that responsibility and know his job.

I would like to ask him if he is prepared to call for a general rate application. The last time one was done was seven long years ago. As a matter of fact, if I think back, I happened to be an intervenor in that hearing at that time, before becoming first elected.

Speaker:   Will the member ask his question.

Mr. McRobb:   Will the minister call for a GRA?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We are certainly looking at everything we can do to make the energy bills in the Yukon as realistic as we possibly can and keep the corporation as strong as it can be.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at every angle to strengthen the corporation and, in turn, make it easier for everybody in the Yukon to pay their light bills.

Mr. McRobb:   Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister is having some difficulty answering yes or no to a very simple question.

Yukoners already have no trust in this government’s ability to protect the consumer. I just ask you to refer back to my very first question today, Mr. Speaker, with the notorious legacy already developed by this Yukon Party government.

Now, this government has the power to call for a hearing. According to this December 30, 2002 letter to the Yukon Utilities Board from Yukon Electrical Company Limited, there are several issues that need to be straightened out. We need the independent board to look into this mess and straighten out these power rates. Will this minister ask his Cabinet, this government, to call for a hearing immediately?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, I have to remind the member across the way that in November a new government was elected — 12 members, the Yukon Party. We were elected to do a lot of things. One of the questions was about our energy. We are going to answer those questions that the member has, but we certainly aren’t going to answer them two weeks into a mandate. We are looking at every possible angle so that we can work to make it more economically feasible for people to live in the Yukon. We have responsibility to the taxpayers and we have responsibility to the corporation. So, with the board or directors that are in place today with Yukon Energy Corporation/Yukon Development Corporation, we will hopefully be answering some of his questions in the near future.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, it’s absolutely ridiculous to consider this government has been in power for two weeks. As a matter of fact, this government was afforded a luxury provided to no previous Yukon government. It was afforded 115 days to get its house in order before coming into this Legislature. I remember the Piers McDonald government had less than 60 days. The Pat Duncan government had the same. Mr. Speaker, this government —

Speaker:   Would the member please not mention the leader of the third party by name.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, this government has had ample time to examine these issues. This is the minister responsible. I want to ask the minister responsible if he can confirm that the utilities analyst position in his department is still vacant. The relevance, Mr. Speaker, is that it is that person who advises the government on matters such as these, and it’s possibly quite linked to the reason we’re in such a mess now — that important person has been missing.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, we have a few vacancies in our department. We’re trying to hire people for different positions as we speak. Yukon Energy is a very important part of the Yukon. Energy is a very highly questioned thing in the Yukon. I understand the member across is worried about energy, and we on this side are definitely worried about our light bills and Yukoners’ light bills. So we will proceed in a businesslike fashion, and we will try to fix as many of the problems as humanly possible in as short a period of time as we can. But, as he said, we had the longest honeymoon in the world. These aren’t honeymoons. We have to go to work, and we have to work for the benefit of all Yukoners. So when he says that you can cure all the problems in the Yukon in 120 days, well, obviously the people of the Yukon elected 12 of us for a four-year period to do just that.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   It was just a few weeks ago that this government, the Yukon Party government on the other side, painted a picture of doom and gloom and that if the spending trajectory wasn’t handled the way they can handle it, the territory faces a disaster. About an hour ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced that he is giving miners a break under the Quartz Mining Act on all mineral claims that are in good standing as of midnight tonight. I imagine the mining recorder’s office is very busy right now.

Can the minister tell us how many claims will be affected and whether the decision to grant this relief was made before or after the budget was tabled on March 6 — the doom-and-gloom budget?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   This is the third largest budget ever tabled in the history of the Yukon government, so as far as doom and gloom, it’s a managed budget. As far as the Quartz Mining Act was concerned, it was part of our campaign that we would give relief for that 12-month period after devolution. So, that, again, is an election promise.

Mr. Hardy:   Need I remind the members opposite that it was the Yukon Party government that painted the picture of a spending crisis in the territory. No one else did it; it was the Yukon Party government that created this atmosphere within the territory of doom and gloom.

Out of the blue we see a secret tax cut that could cost Yukon taxpayers half a million dollars — who knows? — while all sorts of other programs are being cut. The member for the third party just listed a whole pile of them — and the Yukon Party is shrinking the size of government. All of a sudden we see the minister riding to the rescue of the miners.

Is the Finance minister not concerned that his spontaneous bit of generosity could make him run afoul of the Taxpayer Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I thought he asked the Minister of Finance the question and I am not the Minister of Finance. As to whether it is going to go against the financial thing we have with Ottawa, I don’t think it is. I am not the Minister of Finance; you should ask that of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Hardy:   It makes us, on this side of the House, wonder who else is or isn’t in line for tax cuts or boosts from this government.

I would like to remind the member opposite who just spoke that it was only a few minutes ago that he said that he could not, with a stroke of a pen, give money back. And yet in this case, with the stroke of a pen, he has given money back.

Can other Yukon businesses that are struggling to make ends meet in this flatlined economy have the assurance that they won’t be turned away when they come knocking at the door of the Finance minister?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have heard a litany of issues brought forward by the members in the opposition today — 100 percent of them are unfounded.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Official opposition House leader, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, I believe the preamble or bootleg we just heard contravenes your previous ruling from a couple of weeks ago.

Speaker:   Government House leader, on the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There is no point of order here. It is just an interpretation made by the official opposition that is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, you ruled earlier in the House today with respect to motives, and to suggest that something is unfounded would be to suggest that it has no basis in fact, which I would say would be casting aspersions and questioning the motives of the member opposite, which you have previously ruled, Mr. Speaker, as out of order.

Speaker:   On the point of order, there is a point of order, in terms of the member of the third party’s point of view. I would ask the Premier not to cast aspersions.

There is no point of order, in terms of the official opposition House leader’s point of order.

Please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I know that this is a sensitive issue, so I’ll rephrase it. It’s incorrect, and the members of the opposition are continually bringing incorrect information. I would urge them to do a little more detailed research.

We have not tabled a doom-and-gloom budget. We have tabled a budget that is all about fiscal management. The members well know that the fiscal situation the Yukon finds itself in is from the mismanagement of previous governments by spending that simply could not be sustained given the revenues that the Yukon government was actually receiving. All spending was, in fact, increased over the revenues received, and anybody knows that that’s not sustainable.

As far as the placer and quartz mining issues, we made a commitment to extend beyond devolution —

Speaker:   Would the member conclude, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We made that commitment, and we followed through with that commitment. And beyond that, we will continue to follow through with our commitments to Yukoners, in contradiction to what the opposition is actually saying.

Mr. Cardiff:   My question is for the Acting Minister of Education. On page 7-14 of the O&M budget, the program objectives for advanced education include promoting apprenticeships, skill training and interprovincial trade standards. This is consistent with the Yukon Party platform promise: "giving priority to the expansion of apprenticeship training programs to assist Yukoners in acquiring new skills and improve employment opportunities."

Will the Acting Minister of Education explain how a 16-percent cut in funds for training programs will fulfill their commitment and help achieve the program objectives?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I would like to remind the member opposite that one of the methods of good budgetary management and good budgetary control, good financial control, is to allow groups, independent bodies, within the government to make their own decisions. Mr. Speaker, it has been previously announced that we increased the budget to the Yukon College by $1 million. The ability of the College to lever additional funds brings that closer to $4 million. This leaves the decisions as to how the Yukon College utilizes the funds in the appropriate place, Mr. Speaker, within the Yukon College.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, we didn’t get an answer to that question, and the reality is that there was an increase in training trust funds but there was no increase to the College. There is a problem there.

Over the past few years, skilled trades people have been leaving the territory in droves. There is a shortage of skilled trades people here locally and nationally. The Minister of Health and Social Services just talked about the engine of the economy. It is trades people who are going to drive the engine of the economy. They’re the ones who are going to do something in the economy. On page 7-17 of the budget, it shows that the government is reducing the number of apprentices that it supports from 11 in 2001-02 down to only two in the current fiscal year, and that starts tomorrow. This reduction of 25 percent —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member ask the question, please.

Mr. Cardiff:   Is this reduction due to the 25-percent cut in capital spending, or is it part of the long-term Yukon Party strategy to reduce the size of government by not filling vacancies as they arise?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   There are elements — the occasional element or point — in that argument. One of the things that I would remind the members opposite, which has certainly been reminded to most Yukoners who think about it, is the fact that the population is down. The number of students is down. The funding to the College is actually up, as the member opposite actually admits. How that is utilized by the College is a College decision.

And we certainly look forward to the line-by-line debate on the main budget if in fact we ever get there.

Mr. Cardiff:   The reality is that the $1.5 million in training trust funds is not the College’s money.

If this government is serious about getting the Yukon economy going again, it is taking a very short-sighted approach to this issue. We know that there will be very little government-sponsored capital activity this season and there are a few private sector projects that may be on the horizon. But if the government finally gets around to replacing the Correctional Centre and building some badly needed new schools, we are going to need those skilled trades people. And they are reducing the number of trades people they support. If you throw in a multiplex, a downtown hotel and the Canada Winter Games projects, our trained labour force is going to be stretched. We aren’t going to have the trades people.

What plans does this government have to fast-track apprenticeship programs so that the territory doesn’t finding itself importing skilled workers while fully able Yukon men and women can’t get work because you are focused on belt tightening?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Again, one of the problems that we have is a shortage of skilled trades people. They’ve moved, Mr. Speaker. Given the budgetary problems, given the fact that the population has dwindled, given the fact that the government previous to ours — and several of them — have pretty well dropped our economy down the kitchen sink, it’s no wonder they’ve moved. One of our strategies is to get them to move back.

In terms of the funding to the College, the member opposite says that it’s not the College’s money. To a degree, he’s right. It’s the taxpayers’ money, and it’s given to the College to administer in the way that they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, it’s an increase. It allows them to lever more money, and while I very much appreciate the member opposite’s passion and fire, I just don’t see the flame.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and we’ll now proceed to Orders of the Day.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and 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. The business at hand is Bill No. 32, the First Nation Indemnification (Fire Management) Act followed by Bill No. 33, Act to Amend the Forest Protection Act.

Do members wish a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will now recess for 15 minutes.

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

Chair:   We will continue on with Bill No. 32, First Nation Indemnification (Fire Management) Act, in general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This particular piece of legislation is in conjunction with the devolution transfer agreement. The Yukon government is required to assume the contracts that the federal government has in place with First Nations when it comes to fire suppression. There are eight of these fire management contracts. This bill allows us to proceed in the same way that the federal government was dealing with the First Nations in this particular area. It is a very simple piece of legislation that ensures that we can further smooth transition starting tomorrow, April 1.

With that, I’ll take any questions.

Ms. Duncan:   In general debate, I expressed my support for this legislation. It’s a routine housekeeping part of the devolution transfer agreement. I’m pleased to rise in support of it.

I would again like to take the opportunity to commend those who have worked on the devolution transfer agreement and, in particular, all the legislation that has come before the House. It has been diligent work indeed, and I thank them for it. I have no questions for the minister on this bill.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

We’ll then continue on, clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 32, entitled First Nation Indemnification (Fire Management) Act be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that Bill No. 32, First Nation Indemnification (Fire Management) Act, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:   We will now continue with Bill No. 33, Act to Amend the Forest Protection Act. Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The forestry protection regulations, Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, trumps today the Forest Protection Act. Tomorrow the Forest Protection Act will trump the mirror forest protection regulations. To maintain the status of today tomorrow, we need to amend so that the mirror forest protection regulations can apply across the Yukon. In other words, the Yukon territorial government has regulations, the federal government has regulations, and what we have to do is mirror them over, so we are going to have a bit of duplication in policy, more than anything else, and so that is what we are doing today.

Ms. Duncan:   This legislation is housekeeping. I’m proud to have been part of the government that concluded the devolution transfer agreement. I appreciate that this is housekeeping legislation, and the more we work with the legislation the more we’re going to see some amendments come forward.

I would just like the minister to indicate the process outlined for changing these regulations in the future. I appreciate that we’re mirroring them now. When does the minister anticipate dealing with initiating a consultation process to deal with any changes?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate that from the member opposite. There is nothing on the table right now to do that, but it is the kind of mirror legislation where it has to be sooner than later. So I will say to the member that we’re going to work at it as soon as humanly possible after devolution.

Ms. Duncan:   Okay, Mr. Chair, I think we had better go back a bit.

My understanding is that we’re passing this mirror legislation. It’s mirror; it’s exactly the same; and the same with the regulations: we’re passing them to provide certainty, so there’s no 10-minute gap when we might be without jurisdiction somewhere.

My question to the minister was if there is a process anticipated for change? What he just answered was, "As soon as possible." What I have understood from the Premier is that no, we were going to work with the legislation for a few years before we looked at changes.

Perhaps the minister may want to give that a little consideration and then re-answer the question. Is he really saying we’re going to start on the forest regulations April 2, or are we going to let them pass and be instituted for awhile — say a year or two — before we start changing them? Could the minister re-address that question, please?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There is going to be a two-year window here when we’re going to be working at it. We’re committed to a two-year window, and I’m sorry I misled you in my answer.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate that that was an unintentional error on the part of the minister. I’m interested in the two-year window though. For example, in some other initiatives under devolution, there are 10-year windows and there are five-year windows. Would the minister just reconfirm that we’re going to allow these regulations to be in place for two years and then begin a consultation process? Is that what the minister’s saying? Could he clarify for me, please?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   It’s an ongoing thing, and we’ve already started. We hope to have the whole thing done in two years, not starting in two years. So we’ve already talked to industry; we’ve talked to First Nations. We’re in the process of doing it at the moment, and hopefully it will be wrapped up in 24 months.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I’ll do some further work on this and come back to the minister with questions. So what we’re doing is dealing with such issues as the Tough report and some of the other initiatives, a memorandum that was signed last summer, that kind of initiative where we’re continuing on and getting into regulations as soon as possible and we hope to have all that work completed in two years. That’s what the minister’s saying? I see the minister nodding.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   As well, the NDP recognizes this as mirror legislation and how it’s being brought over and supports the actions at this present time.

In regard to the two-year window, the minister opposite has indicated that discussions have already begun on the changes to the regulation or changes that may be made. Could the minister inform me who they have been discussing it with and when the discussions actually started? Did they start just with the Yukon Party’s election, or were these discussions that had started previously with the Liberal regime and have flowed into the Yukon Party’s time?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, this is an ongoing process. It wasn’t just started with the Yukon Party. This was something the Liberal Party was working on, so we’re continuing that work to get this policy done within that 24-month window.

Mr. Hardy:   Could the minister tell me: has this been Yukon-wide or has it been specific to certain areas such as the ones that are the strongest in the forestry industry?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Both of the things — we’ve been working with the industry, which is Yukon-wide, and we’ve been working with the First Nations Yukon-wide. So it’s a Yukon-wide consultation process.

Mr. Hardy:   Could the minister tell me who has been consulted to date?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We worked with industry and we had workshops with First Nations here in Whitehorse, which catered to the Yukon-wide First Nations. Then we had another industry-based one. So we’ve actually had two workshops: one industry and one First Nations.

Mr. Hardy:   Is the minister planning to expand the consultation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The next thing is going public. We are working with industry, First Nations and hopefully this summer we will be going into the public consultation. So, yes, we are going to be working with the public.

Mr. Hardy:   Could the minister inform me whether the subsistence people — the ones who rely on sustainable forest practices — have been in on these discussions, since that is part of their livelihood as well, not just the public generally? The ecotourism industry also relies on pristine wilderness. And, as I said, the subsistence people and also the outfitters, trappers and hunters.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes, the stakeholders will be part of this decision making. There will be First Nations, industry, the public and stakeholders too. They will all be involved in the decision making in the next 24 months.

Mr. Hardy:   For the member opposite — I’ve watched him, and I’ve noticed there is a slight confusion. I wouldn’t say he’s confused, but there seems to be a slight confusion, and it hasn’t been pointed out to him yet and that is that you don’t get identified until you stand up. Unless he stands up, Mr. Chair, you can’t identify him, and he’s waiting for you to identify him before he stands up — just as a point for the member opposite. It will make it a lot easier and less confusing.

Has there been any decisions on some of the regulations — the direction this government may be wanting to go in with the new act that is being transferred over? And following up on that question — I’ll ask them both — when you go to the public and expand your consultations, will you be bringing forward an option paper, some ideas that have already been developed that the public can discuss, or is it just going to be a wide open, no-vision type of discussion?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes, we will have option papers out there so we are not opening; we are going to have an option paper when we go to the public.

Mr. Hardy:   The option papers are being developed right now, or they have been developed with the two stakeholders, as you’ve mentioned? Is that what I am to understand?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We haven’t started them yet. We are working with the two stakeholders that we were talking about, and the option papers will come along as we progress to the public meetings.

Ms. Duncan:   I am given to understand that it will be option papers that will go out to public consultation and not draft regulations that the public is asked to consult on. The reason I am asking is because, under the Environment Act — for example, the litter regulations and the beverage container regulations — it is my understanding those regulations go out as a draft and then there is a 60-day consultation window — I think it is 60 days, I am not sure of the time frame — and what I understood from the minister is there should also be a public process around these draft regulations. Could he outline the option paper versus draft regulations in that process for me?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes, and that would be the last process we would go through, and it would probably be the last six months of the 24-month window that we would be working with the actual draft, going out to the public, fine tuning them and getting it down to the regulations.

Ms. Duncan:   What I understood then, just to recap, is that with this legislation we will have authority to do our own forest regulations. We are working in-house, as we have been for some time, on these regulations. We are working in-house, but also in consultation with the public. Within the next 24 months, we are going to look at option papers, and the leader of the official opposition has identified a number of key stakeholders over and above those mentioned by the minister. So they will get an option paper, and then we’ll get some draft regulations. The draft regulations will then go out for their public consultation window and then, presumably, these "made in Yukon" regulations would be passed by Cabinet — and we are looking at a 24-month window. That is just a summary of the discussions this afternoon.

Mr. Chair, I understand the minister is nodding that that is correct.

Mr. Hardy:   As the minister knows, the Premier has an extensive working knowledge of the forest industry, first off as a person who worked in the forest industry but also as somebody who was hired as a commissioner under the previous NDP government. During that period there was a tremendous amount of work done by the Premier in this area, with quite an extensive consultative process. Are any of those recommendations part of where this government is going?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes. We’re using it as a platform and we’re working with that. So one thing the Yukon has no shortage of is forestry policy studies, so we are going through them but that policy, for one, is definitely on our radar screen. It’s a platform. We’re working with it, and in 24 months we’re going to come out with a Yukon-made regulation for the Forest Protection Act of the Yukon.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, thanks a lot to the minister opposite. I know there was a tremendous amount of work done. There was a lot of good work, and there was a lot of input put in from all stakeholders, and I think that’s a good basis to work off of.

Could the minister opposite tell me what kind of cost this consultative process is going to take, considering that he’s already using the studies, the work of the previous commissioner in this, and what kind of costs he expects to have going public and leading up to where we finally come forward in two years?

Hon. Mr. Lang:  We’re going to try to work within the policy framework that we have. We’re certainly working with the background. Like you were saying, the Premier had done an extensive study for the previous NDP government, with which we’re working. We’re trying to minimize our costs here. We’re going to work with the public, First Nations, the industry and the stakeholders.

Can I give you a figure on what it’s going to cost? No, but it’s definitely going to cost us some money, but we’re going to try to minimize the cost to the taxpayers of the Yukon.

Mr. Hardy:   That’s quite a relief, noting the financial situation of the government across the way.

Can he give me assurances then that there won’t be these big consultant contracts going out to do work that has obviously already been done?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   That’s why we, as a government, are going to work with the stakeholders and the First Nations — to get some of those questions answered — as well as work with previous work that has been done in government and hopefully maximize the internal work we can do on these regulations.

I certainly can’t guarantee that we won’t be hiring outside people, but we’re going to be very prudent and try to minimize that kind of cost.

Mr. Fairclough:   Can the minister clarify a situation for us? We’re under the impression that, through devolution, these policies would be adopted for a five-year period. How did that break down to a two-year period?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The five-year policy is just that, but we have flexibility in that five-year policy. There are some things that we wouldn’t change for five years, but on something like this we have the flexibility of moving it ahead a bit, so it’s not written in stone.

Mr. Fairclough:   Does the minister feel that this aids the Premier’s position that we will be addressing the forest industry immediately — I would think it would be this summer and next spring with the present policies — or would these changes to the policies and regulations be moving the industry quite a bit forward from where it is today?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We are going to work with industry, starting — we have been working with industry up until now. We are going to try to get industry out and working, and getting people into the force and working sooner than later. The regulations we have in place now — the mirror regulation with the federal government and the territorial government — will cover some of the bases. So, the question was: can we go to work? Yes, we can go to work, and that won’t harm any of our implementation of a two-year program to get the thing on track. So I think yes, we can go to work.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would think that we need some direction out of government fairly quickly to ensure this industry can get up and going — timber harvest agreements and so on.

I would like to ask the minister if this government is looking at restructuring the department from what it is now.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   No. No, we will be working with the department as it exists today. We will hopefully be fine tuning it a bit, but no big changes are on the horizon.

Mr. Fairclough:   So, two years from now, we will have some new regulations and this minister does not see any changes to the structure of the department or a restructuring of forestry at all? No changes at all? Or is this part of the consultation to communities going to reflect some changes to restructuring?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We have nothing planned in that department. In other words, we are going to work with the department as it is today. Again, I say we are going to work it for the benefit of Yukoners, so I think that probably — are there going to be changes in two years? No guarantees, there might, but it’s not going to be a massive change. It’s going to be a forestry department run by Yukoners for the benefit of Yukoners.

Mr. Fairclough:   Some communities in the Yukon have been asking for some changes in regard to the central fire suppression, for example and so on. They are asking for massive changes, to actually move it out of Whitehorse. Is that something the minister is interested in or looking at at this point?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The fire suppression department is going to be under Community Services. This is part of the problem with our mirror legislation and the policy. We had conflicting things going on, so to make it easier, we took the fire retardant thing and put it into Community Services and we, ourselves are taking over the other aspect of it. That answer would probably be directed to Community Services to see what they are going to do with that part of the department.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would have thought that the ministers would be working together on this whole issue. This is an important issue because one of the things that Yukoners have talked about in regard to logging our forests is to be able to log the fire kills, and we have never been able to do that under the federal government. The talk is that even while a fire is burning, you should be able to log the timber that can be used — not the big stuff but the merchantable timber. That is a change from how the federal government has done it in the past. So there is no structure to the change at all? We will look at two years or maybe five years down the road? I thought we were going to see some massive improvements in how we can make this industry work.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To answer the member opposite, there are not going to be any massive changes, but one thing good about devolution is that I will be working with the Minister of Community Services. We are going to be here and if things have to be changed we will make the changes that have to be, but remember that the government is not here to make massive changes. We are here to work with the government that we have in a positive fashion and make sure that people can work in the forest and make a living for Yukon taxpayers, whatever community they are in.

Mr. Fairclough:   Obviously there have been problems in the past in getting the industry going, so we need to be able to make the changes. I thank the minister for going down that road and being able to do it.

I would like to ask the minister: once the devolution does happen and the department comes over, does he see any duplication of services that will be coming from the federal government over to his department? Is there any duplication of services, and what will happen with those people with duplicated services?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Not in forestry because we’ve never had forestry before, so we’re just acquiring a department. So hopefully we don’t have duplication in the department as it exists today because, in fact, it’s a stand-alone department.

Mr. Fairclough:   There are obviously departmental people who are constantly dealing with this whole issue. What happens with that? Is there going to be an integration or a change to their job description? I notice that in the past that there was a duplication in things like secretarial services and so on. So I would like to know how many of those services are duplicated and what’s going to happen with them?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In Energy, Mines and Resources, we have two jobs that were reclassified.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, just to follow up on the Member for Mayo-Tatchun’s questions, what I understood the minister to say is that, once the forestry department has transferred over to Energy, Mines and Resources, there is no consideration at all being given to any decentralization in forestry by the current Government of the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To the members opposite, it’s a whole new day tomorrow. We don’t want to commit ourselves to say no or yes to things. We’re going to work positively for the forest industry for all of the Yukon. Obviously southeast Yukon is a big player in forestry. If we are going to have a forest industry, it’s in that area that there is a huge resource.

Are we going to decentralize? Certainly we’re going to look at all avenues to streamline forestry in the Yukon, so we maximize our presence and the industry. So are we going to move people tomorrow? No. Are we going to be tied in five years from now? Will we have a different form of centralization? I can’t say yes or no, but I would say that in five years our forest industry in the Yukon will probably look a lot different than it does today, and hopefully in a positive fashion.

Ms. Duncan:   That’s quite a revelation from the member opposite. It’s interesting that today we heard about the Yukon Party government adopting page 6 of the Liberal Party platform from the 2002 campaign, and the decentralization of forestry to Watson Lake is — let’s see — the 1996 campaign. So it’s interesting that the members opposite are following up on this.

What the member just said is that it’s very possible that the government may consider decentralizing the forest industry to southeast Yukon.

Can the minister give a date for when we might see some timber harvest permits issued, given these regulations being passed through and so on? And when will people be going to work in the forest industry in the Yukon, given the Yukon government’s new authority for forestry regulations?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The member opposite talks about the Yukon Party. We’re not against good ideas, as long as they are positive things for Yukoners. So as far as stealing page 6 from some campaign thing in 1996, and if it was a good idea and we implement it, good — that’s good as long as it’s good for Yukoners.

Now, as to when are we going to get wood out; we’re going to get wood out as soon as we can. We are looking at the west of the Cassiar Mountains at the moment. We are hopefully going to have wood out sooner than later — in other words, probably later this fall. We are working on it. It’s very important for our government to get the wood out, because it’s a whole new department for us. It’s a big industry out there and we are looking at sooner rather than later to get wood out.

Ms. Duncan:   So, Mr. Chair, just for the member’s benefit, page 6 was from the 2002 campaign — that was the announcement. It was the Liberal good idea that they’ve taken up on. I’m glad to hear that. I appreciate that. I appreciate the recognition from whence it came.

What I just heard the minister say is that they are looking at having timber harvest permits issued west of the Cassiar Mountains by the fall. That’s what I heard the minister opposite say. He said that it’s very important that we get the wood out, and it’s very important that we get a number of things out in order to encourage the private sector to work.

Does he anticipate timber harvest permits in just this area or elsewhere in the Yukon as well?

What about the beetle-killed wood in the Haines Junction area?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We will get the wood harvest permits out wherever we can, as soon as we can, but we will get wood out by this fall.

Mr. Fairclough:   Are there any additional plans beyond what the federal government was doing in regard to doing a proper inventory across the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   That is definitely a yes. We are going to expand on what is happening at the moment and make sure we have inventory ahead of us at all times for all the Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough:   When is that to take place?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, to repeat the question: when is this to take place?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I am sorry. My hearing is affected by my cold.

It is a process that costs a lot of money. I can’t say to you that it will happen tomorrow, but I will say to you that, as the industry grows and as we get timber out there, this will be done in a very scientific and effective way.

We are looking at that as being part of our forest management, and it is a very important part of our forest management but, as far as going out and doing a whole inventory of the whole Yukon, that is not feasible economically but, as our industry grows, it will certainly be part of the growth with us that this inventory will be taking, and it will be managed.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, I don’t expect the department to do an inventory of all of the Yukon that hasn’t been done by the federal government at this point, but I would like to know when it’s going to start. When is central Yukon going to have some attention paid to it by this government, to do inventory?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly we have to let the dust settle on devolution. We have to get our policies together, and we have to get started on many fronts. We’re working very actively to get our inventory, to get everything in place, and I can tell the member opposite that we will be working on inventory.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I think I caught that one, Mr. Chair. But I’d like to know when — five years from now, four years from now, at the end of this government’s term, or are we going to see some work done this summer in central Yukon? Let’s take central Yukon for now, Mr. Chair. When is central Yukon going to have some work done on it? I’m not saying the whole inventory, but some work done on inventory. There is an industry there, too, not just southeast Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re going to do what we can, but we have nothing on the front burner for inventory for this summer.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Chair, maybe it would be in the best interests of the minister if he did look at this a little more carefully. After all, the minister did say, along with the Premier, that we need to get timber harvest agreements out there, get some of our timber logged and into the sawmills and so on. Before we do that, we need to know what we have for an inventory. There are small sawmills throughout the territory that would like to get into operation. It would be beneficial for communities to have these up and going, and so I would like to ask the minister again — there must have been some plan. I know the federal government didn’t do a proper inventory, even in the southeast part of the territory. When are we going to see some inventory in the rest of the Yukon seriously taking place?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We have forestry planning going on in two or three areas of the Yukon — southeast Yukon, Haines Junction — so we are working on those issues now. As soon as we can get the wherewithal to do this inventory, we certainly will, understanding that this has been going on for 30-some years with the federal government. The federal government has spent a massive pile of money doing inventories that, today, was really a wasted investment. We have to spend our money wisely. Our forest planning groups are locally based. We have First Nations; we have industry; we have the territorial government and we have stakeholders involved. We’re looking at every avenue.

As far as an inventory, we will do what we can to get it out there, but we’re not prioritizing that at the moment. It is on our radar screen, but it’s not a priority for us at the moment.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’m really surprised at that, Mr. Chair, because the way we get timber harvest agreements out is knowing what we have for timber. I’m very surprised the minister would answer that question in that manner.

Is this inventory taking place under field management?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   With the forest planning, it is a form of inventory. I mean, it’s a form of taking inventory of the forest from a land point of view, so we are doing it. We’re doing it in a small way. We don’t have the resources of British Columbia or the expertise. We are going to work at this thing one day at a time and hopefully get some sawmills up and running. It’s not like there are a lot of sawmills out there in the Yukon at the moment, so we are working at the forest planning level. In turn, we’ll get some timber out there as soon as we possibly can.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister said that the department, or the government, is doing it. People would like to know. They would like to go into the logging and sawmill businesses. I would like to ask the minister then: what inventory is available to the general public, say, in the Big Salmon area?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   You understand that we don’t take over until tomorrow, so that is a question the member can ask me tomorrow.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I doubt if the minister will be prepared to answer that question tomorrow, just looking at today’s Question Period. A couple of questions ago, I asked the minister if this is all under field management — is it or is it not?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes, it is under field management. The forest planning unit — the whole thing is field management. It’s on the ground that we manage the forest.

Mr. Fairclough:   Does the minister see a problem with this in his department, where he’s responsible for field management, yet another department is responsible for fire suppression, and the two should be working hand-in-hand? Are we going to see an improvement in that, where we see both in one department?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   No, I don’t think there’s going to be a problem. You know, one good thing about devolution is that we’re going to be involved in it on the ground, and we’re going to be involved in the Yukon. Those decisions are going to be made. So, certainly, it’s going to be a growing experience. I can’t predict the problems, but we’ll be able to manage the problems as they arise and try to minimize them.

Mr. Fairclough:   I am once again very surprised at the minister’s answer that he doesn’t see it as a problem. If the minister did some interviews with the different fire departments around the territory, they would flag that as a number one problem. Who calls the shots when it comes to fire suppression? Is it one department, or is it in fact fuel management, which has all the information and resources? Maybe the minister has time to reflect on his previous answer and can expand more on that.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The fire regulations — they’ll call the shots on this thing.

I think what we are doing is overreacting. I think we are doing the best we can with what we have, understanding that we have taken over a federal agency and turned it into a territorial agency. Community Affairs is going to be handling part of that. I understand the thought that it might be chaotic, but I don’t think it is. We are just a small organization. This government is not a big organization, and I think we can manage this thing in a positive fashion. And also, if it doesn’t work, we can make some changes and we are open to change.

Mr. Fairclough:   Part of the problem is that, yes, we are devolving it from the federal government but when it comes to the Yukon, it is split into two departments. How is that communication going to take place unless there is one unit? Part of the problem with every one of the RMOs when this came down — they flagged it immediately — was the split in their department — who calls the shots and who is going to be in charge of fire suppression. Fuel management has all the information. Sure they could send it over, but they are still in charge of their sector. So I ask the minister again if he would look at this seriously and come back to us about whether or not there will be a change and how we can make that improvement in the future.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate the member opposite’s concern about this. We are going to proceed the way that it has been set out through devolution. We are going to work with it. Certainly, as the member asks, are we willing to make changes if things don’t work? We certainly are, and we are certainly going to red flag this thing and keep an eye on it. So between me and the other ministers, we are going to be watching this.

I appreciate his concern.

Ms. Duncan:   I just want to follow up on a couple of points. The current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has some expertise in the forestry industry. In one of our discussions with respect to the forest industry in the Yukon, he had indicated that he recognized that along with forestry, as it was being transferred to us, we were getting some problems, basically, and some things that had not necessarily gone well — inventory being one of them. He also committed publicly that, "No, we’re not going to pass off problems; we are going to do our work first." He pledged additional resources — I think in excess of $1 million — prior to us getting the forestry.

I just want to confirm with the minister that that has been done. We’ve heard from other ministers about the big, bad, terrible government that doesn’t pay their bills. In this case, I’m quite confident that there has at least been a portion of that work done. I just want confirmation from the minister that all the public commitments by the Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to forestry coming over to the Yukon were met or that they are intended to be met.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Yes, I agree with the member opposite that they have committed resources. They haven’t done the work, but the resources are coming over to us. They’ve done probably three quarters of what they set out to do, so it has been positive.

Ms. Duncan:   As I recall the figures — and I’m just going by memory because I don’t have any notes or anything in front of me on this — it was more than a million dollars that was going to be spent on inventory alone. And this is money over and above the devolution money, over and above the $37 million that the government hasn’t accounted for in this budget, and over and above the $10 million or $11 million that is still being discussed. How much is it, where is it, and when is it being accounted for?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Chair, yes, there is money. The money is $3 million over two years. It’s over and above the devolution money. The money comes in as we invoice, I think. I’ll have to get back to you on how the money flows to us.

Now, that money, I think, is highlighted as the Tough money, is it not? So it’s labelled as the Tough money. As to how it comes in, I would have to get back to you on that, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, this is coming back to me now. It was a follow-up meeting, a meeting between governments. There were First Nation governments, the Yukon government and the Government of Canada there, and it was a follow-up on the Tough report, and the minister pledged this additional money.

So I don’t believe it’s a contribution agreement, or perhaps it is. If it’s a contribution agreement, perhaps the minister could forward it to us.

When will the money show up then? It would show up as a recovery after we’ve paid for the work in our financial books. So I’ll let the minister answer and then I’ll continue on with that question.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   It is a contribution agreement, and the money flows from Ottawa to us. They have spent some resources in southeast Yukon, getting the Kaska organization going in the southeast Yukon. We will get you a copy of that contribution agreement. So there is more money flowing.

Ms. Duncan:   Just so I’m clear — I don’t have the Blues in front of me — is it a three-year agreement and $2 million, or is it a two-year agreement and $3 million? I didn’t hear what he said.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   It’s a two-year agreement, and it’s $3 million.

Ms. Duncan:   With these contribution agreements, what happens is that we do the work and then we get the money back. It shows up as a recovery. Realistically and logically then, as of April 1 of this year — tomorrow — we’ll be doing some of this work and billing the Government of Canada. The recovery probably doesn’t show in the budget, but I believe the work should. So, what work is planned for this year on that contribution agreement, and where is it in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The money flows through to us. They have already credited us with $1 million. They have flowed through $500,000. It flows through and that’s how it works through the Finance department.

Ms. Duncan:   What’s the work planned under the Tough contribution agreement? What work is planned for this summer?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There are 19 recommendations in the Tough report. Some of that money will be going to address them. There is some money going to FEBA — working with that organization, so that’s where the money will flow this summer.

Ms. Duncan:   One of the tough agreements in the Tough report was not funding, as I understood it. I don’t have the Tough report in front of me — one of the forestry organizations. I just heard the minister say the Yukon Party government has changed that recommendation from the Tough report. Can the minister just confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’ll confirm that FEBA is the forest economical — instead of a committee. I said it was a committee, and it isn’t.

Ms. Duncan:   I’ll review Hansard on that and ask the minister some follow-up questions on it. The minister started out saying that, of the 19 recommendations and of this money, it was to be work that was originally planned by the federal government prior to the transfer. It didn’t get done, so the federal government entered into a contribution agreement with YTG to make sure this work got done, and the key of the work was inventory. Now the minister is saying we’re focusing on the entire 19 recommendations, so when and where is the inventory work being done, and what’s planned for this summer?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The Tough report had 19 points on it with FEBA being one of the big ones. The money that flowed — and certainly the member is right, saying that, instead of doing the 19 points that they committed to, they flowed the money so we can do it. Inventory was certainly part of that. We obviously haven’t done that, but we’re working as much as we can on those 19 points to cover our bases on that.

Ms. Duncan:   Could I ask the minister — so we don’t spend forever in this particular debate — to provide me with a legislative return with the dollar amounts and the work being undertaken on these 19 recommendations?

What I am looking for is a legislative return that says, recommendation 1, we are spending $500,000 this summer doing this part of it. If he could provide that in a legislative return — perhaps prior to getting into general debate on his department — it would perhaps expedite debate on this particular piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly could do that for the third party.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? We will then proceed clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 33, Act to Amend the Forest Protection Act, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by the Mr. Lang that Bill No. 33, Act to Amend the Forest Protection Act, be reported out of Committee without amendment.

Chair:   Do members wish to take a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   Committee will recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will now move on to Bill No. 2, Third Appropriation Act, 2002-03.

Chair:   We will continue with Third Appropriation Act, 2002-03, with Vote 54, Business, Tourism and Culture. We are in general debate.

Mr. McRobb:   As we left off on Thursday, I posed a number of questions to the Tourism minister and I’ll give her an opportunity now to respond to those.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I believe the member opposite had posed a question regarding the minutes of the Yukon Tourism Marketing Partnership . What we may do here is — instead of providing all the minutes from past meetings, if it’s all right for the member opposite — have our department, as well as the Tourism Industry Association Yukon, provide a briefing to the member opposite as well as any other members opposite just to bring them up to speed on what activities, what initiatives they are focusing on. From here on out, we’ll ensure that minutes are provided to all of us.

With respect to the comments on the special marketing agency, which I believe the member opposite was alluding to, again, no decisions have been made. It’s a commitment to look at alternate marketing models offered by other jurisdictions in Canada to work with industry. So that’s where we’re at.

Mr. McRobb:   In regard to the special marketing agency, I did ask for some information regarding the terms of reference for the position held by the former Yukon Party Member for Riverdale North. I would like to receive those, along with a progress report on the activities pertaining to the marketing agency. That was another one of my questions.

About the YTMP minutes, maybe we can start afresh on the minutes as of January 1 of this year — start this year on the minutes — and that will be fine. For now, if our needs are any more extensive, we’ll be sure to let the minister know.

In the meantime maybe we could set up a briefing including representatives of the Tourism Industry Association Yukon. I will let her know about that.

One question I would like her to answer now — and it is rather timely since we have the Alaskan delegation in town — can the minister explain why the Welcome Alaska campaign was cancelled? We would appreciate some statistics and maybe performance measurements regarding this program as well if she can provide that.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I will certainly undertake to look into the terms of reference of the study that was undertaken by the previous government, I believe, to take a look at the special marketing agency, if I am not mistaken. As for the request for the minutes January 1 and on regarding YTMP, I will certainly undertake to request those minutes from YTMP as well. Again, if in fact a briefing would suffice, please let me know.

With respect to Welcome Alaska, this is an initiative that was brought in. It was launched in the Alaska market last June, I believe. It was originally designed to offset anticipated losses in revenue due to the unfortunate events of September 11. As I understand, it was indeed to be a retail campaign. It was supposed to target residents of Juneau, Fairbanks, Skagway and Haines, to entice them to choose Yukon as a destination of choice.

As I also understand, preliminary results for the campaign did not meet expectations. The problem was that it was almost impossible — very difficult — to measure and attribute the spending directly to the campaign. In fact, it is my understanding that there were three attempts to measure the results, and it was next to impossible to measure the spending accrued directly to this program, Welcome Alaska.

Mr. McRobb:   All right, is there some written material the minister could provide about what she just orated for us with respect to any performance standards or program evaluation to do with the Welcome Alaska campaign?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I’ll certainly speak with the department and see what we can come up with.

Mr. McRobb:   All right, I’d like to ask the minister a little bit more about her commitment toward cultural centres in the territory. I believe in her opening remarks there was a reference to one in the amount of $50,000. Could she provide some detail on that and any other activities in this area on the go in the territory?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   The $50,000, I believe, is to hire an architect to work on a preliminary design for the cultural centre in Kluane, for the architectural design of the facility.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I believe it’s Burwash Landing, if I’m not mistaken.

If the member will just forgive me, I’ve got a more detailed note here on the Kluane centre.

Yes, a local architect has been identified for the project and, of course, the options and considerations will continue to transpire with the local First Nation, at which time we’ll continue to assist in various ways with the project. In particular, I believe the design concept that has been adopted by the First Nation will include a First Nation cultural exhibit area, a reception/common area, theatre, multipurpose area, classroom area and access to outdoor interpretation and demonstrations. These areas will be connected to the existing museum, which will also undergo a code and facelift, as well.

There are a number of other initiatives, of course, going on with the First Nation cultural centres — a lot of work, actually. We’re working very closely with First Nations on initiatives pursuant to chapter 13 of the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Certainly over the course of the last couple of years, we have continued to work with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Kwanlin Dun, as well as Kluane First Nation, as I was just mentioning.

Mr. McRobb:   Can the minister indicate if there was any kind of report produced as a result of this work on the Kluane cultural centre, and if so, could that be provided? I would also be interested to know the estimated cost of the renovations to the current facility as well as the addition of the new facility, and if the minister is making a commitment that her government will in fact be proceeding to build that facility in the near future.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Regarding the Kluane cultural centre, I can certainly undertake to find out what details have transpired as a result of the architectural design.

It is my understanding that this work is actually ongoing and has not been completed as such. I have not seen a report as of yet.

With respect to the total cost of the project, I am not aware of that either. I suppose it is kind of like putting the carrot before the horse. We have to find out what we are looking at in particular.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Yes, with respect to the member opposite’s question regarding our commitment to build. We are committed to working with the First Nation to identify various options. We are one of the three partners at the table. The federal government and the local First Nation are at the table as well. Certainly we are very much committed to working together on this initiative.

Mr. McRobb:   All right, Mr. Chair, that answers my questions in that area. I’m aware there are other First Nations in the territory that are working toward plans for similar buildings. For instance, the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation has made a lot of progress on its future cultural centre to be located in Haines Junction.

The minister mentioned KDFN. Is there any more information she can tell us about any of those at the present time? Are there any funds or resources that have been appropriated in those areas to help facilitate the construction of such facilities?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   With respect to Kwanlin Dun First Nation, $1.25 million has, of course, been committed by the Yukon government to its heritage centre as a component of its land claim agreement. As well, we’re working closely with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. It’s my understanding that they are coming close to the completion of a business plan identifying the target market and the potential for this facility.

We are also, I understand, working with nine other First Nations on the First Nations heritage working group in identifying areas where we can work together. Of course, in conjunction with the Canadian Conservation Institute, I believe, we are also providing technical assistance, models for development to the existing and proposed cultural centres, in conjunction with the federal government.

We are also working with First Nations on the University of Victoria cultural programs for a First Nation community heritage course to be delivered in the Yukon, hopefully by August of this year.

I believe that $25,000 in the past was provided to Carcross-Tagish First Nation to help out with their business plan. So those are just some of the things that we’ve undertaken — the cultural services branch as well as providing three on-the-job First Nation training corps internships.

Mr. McRobb:   Let’s return now to the area of tourism-related programming. This department, as every other department in this Yukon Party government, refused to provide us in the official opposition and the third party opposition with any briefing material in the briefings. This was highly unusual and is a separation from past practice in that we’ve always received handouts, if you will, of material in the briefings. This material typically covers all the various initiatives, programs and any significant expenditures. It provides detail as well as an explanation and so on. Because the Yukon Party decided on its own, unilaterally, to disengage us with that usual opportunity, there is somewhat of a void when it comes to information available to us in the opposition with which to hold the government accountable. One of the things I would like to request from the minister is an overview of all the programs within this department, such as the Welcome Alaska program, with some detail and explanation as to the performance of these programs. Could she undertake to maybe get a legislative return or something back to us that provides that information?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I can certainly undertake to do an overview of our programs. I guess I’m not too sure if I even have that particular bit of information at my fingertips, but we’ll certainly work toward that.

Mr. McRobb:   All right, Mr. Chair. I don’t have a whole lot more in this area because, for one thing, there is another opportunity when we get to this department in the main budget. There are a couple of matters that are relatively small that have been nagging me. One is, on the north Alaska Highway, as we leave the Yukon and enter Alaska, I noticed there is no "goodbye" sign for our travellers — "Goodbye, return again", that sort of thing. I’ve noticed it’s rather standard for other jurisdictions to have a "hello" sign and a "goodbye, return again soon" sign.

I would like to ask the minister if that’s something she would look into and maybe fill that gap, if she deems it appropriate.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Based on past knowledge, I guess I was always of the understanding there were signs in place. I was just recalling the one outside of Watson Lake, of course, entering and leaving the Yukon. I thought there was one in place, but I’ll certainly look into that. It’s a good idea.

Mr. McRobb:   There is probably one in Watson Lake and one in Dawson but none in Kluane. We are hard done by out in that neck of the woods, Mr. Chair.

Now, something similar is the matter I raised with the former Premier. That is a result of a visit I made to the visitor information centre in Tok, Alaska. For the minister’s information, Tok is at a major crossroads. For visitors leaving Alaska southbound, it presents them with option (a) to continue along the Alaska Highway through to Whitehorse, or option (b) to take the Taylor Highway through Dawson City and down the Klondike Highway to Whitehorse. At the Tok Visitor Reception Centre there is a huge display promoting the Klondike option, compliments of the Klondike Visitors Association. Now, that’s fine. We know the KVA has funds available — some of them accrue from gambling proceeds at Diamond Tooth Gertie’s and so on. They have a large membership base, in that there are several dozen tourism-related businesses in Dawson City.

On the other hand, Kluane is rather hard pressed for a comparable number of businesses and we don’t have any type of gambling revenue to help any sort of association to counter this promotion by the KVA. So I asked the former Premier if she would look into it, and unfortunately she didn’t oblige the request.

So given that, as of November 4, we wiped the slate clean —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Member for Porter Creek South, on a point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   On the point of order, in fact, the member is suggesting a request was not obliged. In fact, it was.

Chair:   The Chair finds there is a dispute among members here.

Mr. McRobb:   That is news to me. I can certainly table her response in the Legislature as early as tomorrow afternoon.

Anyway, let’s get back to the point that, once again, the Kluane region is at a disadvantage when compared to the Yukon Party controlled regions of the territory, and I would like to ask the minister if she would even the odds up a little bit and maybe provide the Kluane area with a small amount of money that would help it set up its own display at the Tok information centre. I am sure she realizes deep down there is a lot to be offered in the Kluane area, all the way from Tatshenshini afternoon river trips, which made the top 10 adventure travel trips in the whole world — and I know we are all proud of that — right to the local Raven Hotel, which is now a three-star dining establishment — one of the top 50 dining establishments in the whole country. There are two examples off the tip of my tongue that are really impressive and support the need to promote this area, at least on an equal footing as the option B route through the Klondike. I would like to ask the minister if she would look into this and try to resolve this inequity.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I happen to concur with the Member for Kluane. Kluane is a beautiful place. It is a destination of choice, as are all our places in the territory. I happen to think the visitor reception centre and the staff who work there — in Beaver Creek, in particular — do a great job in advertising and promoting the Kluane region, and will continue to do so.

I will look into this for the member opposite. I’m also looking forward to seeing what the former government did by way of this request. I will be looking at that.

Mr. McRobb:   I’m sure I can speak for everybody out Kluane way that they appreciate the minister’s undertaking to look into this inequity. I would also like to recognize the excellence provided by the staff of the Beaver Creek Visitor Reception Centre. However, logistically, people who are influenced by the KVA display in Klondike are about 90 miles to the north, and that’s where they make the decisions. So people who have already been influenced and take the option B route through Dawson City don’t ever get to see the visitor reception centre in Beaver Creek.

So there’s a logistical problem with that, but I look forward to seeing some results from the minister. That concludes my questions for the time being, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to ask the Minister of Tourism a few questions with respect to the supplementary budget. The gateway cities line, $250,000, is a key element of the supplementary. There was a substantial involvement of private sector partners, both Air North and other airlines. I would like the minister to indicate what evaluation of the program — first of all, I’d like detail of the uptake of the program, and if she would also provide me with information as to an evaluation of the program. Was there one done, and is it available?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   The gateway cities marketing campaign was introduced by the previous government, and they actually did a very good job of the campaign. I have to commend the previous government on this initiative. It seemed to have worked very well.

With respect to the uptake, I believe the program attracted roughly 2,174 visitors, who spent roughly $1.2 million in the Yukon. Of course, there has been a reduction in this program. That’s unfortunate, but we had to take reductions all over.

We, of course, are continuing the program, and the current YTMP is seeing what we can do with this program. With respect to the overall review, I believe that a review was done, but I believe it was undertaken as part of the overall program delivery by the marketing branch and YTMP. So I can certainly undertake to provide whatever information I can, if that’s all right.

Ms. Duncan:   That’s fine. What I was looking for were performance measures on specific programs instituted — we spent $250,000 — and the minister has given some, such as having in excess of 2,100 visitors who spent $1.2 million.

As I understood it, though, I believe this was also a partner with a private sector program. Was there not also a similar contribution by the private sector? Maybe not $250,000 — and that was the uptake figure I was looking for. What was the private sector contribution to this program?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   The member is absolutely correct. There were other partners involved in there; Air North being one, of course. I don’t have those figures at my fingertips, but I can certainly provide them to the member opposite.

Just on the return on investment, I do have a note here. Six dollars in visitor spending generated for each dollar invested as a result of the gateway cities marketing campaign.

Ms. Duncan:   So the program was very successful, but it didn’t survive the reductions. We’ll leave that debate to another day — the necessity of reductions. The minister did say that the program was continuing, so it must have a somewhat reduced focus. She may wish to elaborate on that in general debate and in the main budget, and I can leave that. Just be on notice that I’ll be asking that question, then: what’s the new direction.

The minister also indicated that, with respect to the Welcome Alaska campaign, preliminary results did not meet expectations. Can the minister substantiate that comment?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I guess as I was mentioning earlier, one of the very large problems was the inability to measure the results attributed directly to the Welcome Alaska program. As I mentioned also, there were three independent approaches to collecting and measuring the visitor numbers and the spending, and all, I believe, were unsuccessful. Again, it was very difficult to directly attribute sales to the campaign initiatives, simply for the fact that businesses, when it came right down to it, were very reluctant to share the information. The only indicator that we have is that, of course, retail sales in the Yukon were up over the same period the previous year, and that the Web site attracted roughly 5,000 unique visitors during the promotional period; however, there is nothing to say that those retail sales were directly attributed to the Welcome Alaska program.

Ms. Duncan:   To summarize what I hear the minister saying is that, although retail sales were up, in fact retails were up every single month for 18 months until November of this year. November, December and January retail sales showed a drop, which is highly unusual but that is what the stats branch tells us — that retail sales have gone down since the Yukon Party took office. Sorry, but those are the facts according to the stats branch.

The Welcome Alaska campaign directly focused on retail sales, directly focused on Alaskans, particularly in southeast Alaska, coming over here to spend money. So retail sales were up but there were three independent approaches to trying to get something more than a gut instinct in retail sales to prove that the campaign worked, and the minister is saying that those three different approaches essentially failed. I mean, short of going down and counting licence plates from Alaska, we don’t seem to be able to prove that this campaign worked, other than the gut instinct of retailers. That is what I hear the minister saying. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Again, I believe that the agency of record did provide a review of the overall campaigns delivered through our marketing branch and through YTMP. I would be very happy to provide her with a review. I believe it was an overall review of all the different programs but I would be very happy to provide her with that.

Again, I believe that, based upon the very difficulty in trying to gauge the results simply because businesses were reluctant in providing statistics or simply because they weren’t able to provide statistics, perhaps there wasn’t that particular mechanism in place. So for those very reasons, it was seen as not working as effectively as it could have been for the money being spent.

Ms. Duncan:   I will look for the evaluation, then, and look forward to reviewing that and discussing it again with the minister.

I have just a couple of other questions about the supplementary budget. The minister, in her opening statement, indicated that there is a project under the cultural services branch that provides $25,000 to develop and test the curriculum to introduce the new academic levels of instruction that allow KIAC — that’s the Klondike Institute of Art and Culture — to become a diploma granting institution. So, what I sense from this is a — I’m going to put it colloquially and see if I’m right in my review of what the minister said — essentially it is $25,000 to help KIAC get accreditation so that their diplomas will be recognized elsewhere. Am I correct in my interpretation?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   That is correct.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister’s comment is that it is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that is providing that funding.

The minister indicated that she has also recently travelled to meet with the Minister of Heritage. Has she also pursued additional funding for the Klondike Institute of Art and Culture from Minister Copps and her department?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   No, not at this time.

Ms. Duncan:   There is also $200,000 for a Northern Research Institute contribution agreement for the Technology Innovation Centre. I would just like to go through a couple of items and ask the minister for some more detail on them.

There is $42,000 for the contribution agreement for technology and communications development and the Yukon Information Technology Industry Society is undertaking funding for a major IT project. Then there is also another study on telecommunication capability. Now, we seem to be doing a lot of research projects in these areas and I would just like the minister to outline where the government is headed. Are we just assessing options at this point and where are we going with that? Also, I have written the minister and her colleague about a particular issue around something that partly falls in this minister’s department in the access to high-speed Internet and Internet access. I would just encourage the minister, if she perhaps has some information in that respect, given that we are discussing technology, to share it with me, if she would.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   There were a lot of questions raised and I will do my best to provide an informative answer.

The member was correct in that there were a number of funds identified for technology and partnerships. The Yukon Information Technology Industry Society contribution agreement is for $13,000. I believe it simply can be attributed to the fact that it wasn’t fully expended due to the other priorities of the society 2001-02.

As per the agreement, this particular revote will be used to develop an application for funding for a major IT project. It is my understanding that this project has not particularly gone very far as of such because they haven’t been able to identify funds from other partners to proceed with the project.

The First Nations contribution agreement is for, I believe, $42,000. Again, that was a revote, and it wasn’t fully expended due to numerous changes in personnel over at the Council of Yukon First Nations. The revote, though, will be used to carry out the objectives of the MOU that was signed by the previous government and CYFN for technology and telecommunications development.

The Northern Research Institute contribution agreement is also a revote and was not fully expended due to the technical delays in a number of innovation funding projects. I believe that this money will be used to complete the projects that have been committed to.

I understand that there were a number of innovation projects that started in January and will run throughout the spring.

With respect to the — there are a couple of areas that are being reviewed right now — $50,000 was identified in the supplementary — one of which was $25,000 and was funding required to undertake a review. I believe it’s a review that’s done every five years. It lays the framework for a plan of action for further development. It’s basically to compare the status of where we are as a territory with respect to the rest of the country in the area of telecommunications. The other was $50,000, and it was required for CRTC consulting to review the service improvement plan. That’s what that is as well. I believe that has just recently been completed.

With respect to the broadband funding I believe the member opposite was referring to, I guess you could say that the biggest challenge for our government is that, in order to participate under this program, each applicant will have to match funding, plus cover the costs of the network and other sustainability costs. Unfortunately, it’s my understanding that Industry Canada does not recognize the large investment the Yukon has already contributed by way of Connect Yukon. So, we’re basically starting from scratch on these initiatives. We are working, though, with Northwestel and Industry Canada as we speak in identifying some of the priorities and what some of these initiatives are that we can work on and proceed with.

Ms. Duncan:   I thank the minister for that answer. My last question, though, was partly answered in the broad policy sense, but could I just use this opportunity to jog the minister’s memory on that letter and see if I could get an answer on that?

With respect to communications throughout the territory and visitors and signs and so on, there are two issues that were left outstanding. One is that the former Minister of Infrastructure had worked very diligently, and we had quite a substantial improvement in our highway signage, particularly for our visitors.

The blue signs are throughout the territory. There has been quite an improvement. We have gotten rid of some of the older ones but, with respect to community signs, some of the communities are missing, and it’s a joint initiative. It’s usually the minister’s department that ends up jogging the Minister of Infrastructure to deal with this — Mayo, in particular, is missing. Beaver Creek has an excellent one, and that one is in quite a state of disrepair.

The other suggestion that was brought back over the summer months with me was reintroducing visitor FM, which was taken out a number of years ago. It’s sorely missed in a number of places. If there are options for looking at that, I would encourage the minister. We were talking about communications and technology — if that’s a possibility.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I actually wasn’t even of the understanding that the visitor radio had been removed. Yes, I believe it played a very important role for our visitors. Of course, it comes down to dollars and cents and priorities within the bigger picture, but I’ll certainly take a look at what expenses would be accrued and if there’s some way we could deliver such a program and reintroduce it. I certainly know, in all my years of working in the visitor reception centre in Watson Lake, it was very well-received. It acted as a point of contact for all kinds of visitor attractions, and it helped guide individuals to the various visitor reception centres and points of interest as well.

I would be very happy to undertake to get the letter of response back to the member opposite, and my apologies for failing to respond earlier.

I would be very happy to undertake to get the letter of response back to the member opposite. My apologies for failing to respond earlier.

With respect to the signage that is going on, I believe that one of the working groups under the YTMP has been working in conjunction with our department and Infrastructure — now Highways and Public Works. It is my understanding — I am just speaking off the top of my head — that there has been a working paper or a policy underway on that particular initiative.

Ms. Duncan:   I would just encourage the minister to keep the work up on the signs because it was long overdue when we undertook it and it needs to be completed.

I have another couple of questions. I find it interesting that the government is looking again at the special marketing agency and the direction we are heading in that respect, and I will look forward to more information in the general debate on the mains on that one.

If I could just put the minister on notice as well that when we get to her other hat, the Justice portfolio and the border crossings information — if she has any up-to-date information, I would like that as well. I understand there have been additional monies expended through Ottawa through the law enforcement agencies in this area. I would like that information prior to the mains.

With respect to the cut to the film infrastructure support, is this a cut to the public/private partnership — the lights and electrics package? So could the minister just outline what that cut is?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   This $62,000 that I believe the member opposite is referring to is ind