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

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there 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 urges ministers of the Yukon government to ensure that their departments are meeting the Yukon Party government’s election commitments by providing regular reports and updates to the Executive Council Office.

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

THAT this House condemns the Yukon Party government’s proposed policy on outstanding government loans for its failure to recognize the principle that ministers of the Crown should be held to a higher standard of conduct than others with regard to their financial obligation to the Yukon people, as well as its failure to ensure that the Cabinet ministers with outstanding debts totalling more than $400,000 will repay these debts in full to the Government of the Yukon.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House rejects the Yukon Party government’s plan to sell delinquent business loans to a collection agency, which could force Yukon-owned businesses into bankruptcy or serious financial hardship and add to the territory’s unacceptable high level of unemployment.

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

THAT this House recognizes that many Yukoners on fixed incomes struggle to make ends meet during the holiday season and

THAT by not releasing January social assistance cheques prior to Christmas, as has been the past practice of government, the Minister of Health is depriving many Yukoners of the ability to afford Christmas presents for their children; and

THAT the expense to government to issue these cheques early would be minimal; and

THAT this House urges to Department of Health to immediately release January social assistance cheques to help relieve the pressure put on low income families at this time of year.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that the squirrel problem in Whitehorse continues to run amuck; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to instruct the Department of Environment to partner with the City of Whitehorse to resolve this problem by following similar steps taken to curb the wolf population, namely:

(1) trap, release and relocate unharmed a significant portion of the Whitehorse squirrel population; and

(2) adopt a squirrel sterilization policy in order to curb the outbreak in the local squirrel population.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that legitimate reasons exist from time to time for the Yukon government to make loans to help achieve social and economic objectives.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   Last week, the Premier unveiled his long-awaited solution for the outstanding loans issue. He even tried to get this House to endorse it during motion debate.

We support the idea of forgiving money owed by non-government organizations. However, we can’t support a so-called solution that could put some small Yukon businesses into bankruptcy and allow his two Cabinet ministers off the hook.

Now, why did the Premier adopt a plan that will let his two delinquent Cabinet ministers avoid paying their debt to Yukon taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, as usual, the leader of the official opposition has missed the point and gotten it wrong. In fact, we are setting up a solution that puts in place a number of safeguards to ensure that there are no bankruptcies, which would include a six-month period to come in and renegotiate terms, conditions and interest rates, plus a three-year hiatus subsequent to the six-month period ending of any interest paid. However, the two members in question from this government do not have that privilege or benefit, and their loans will go forward in full, as they are today.

Mr. Hardy:   The minister did not address the situation in regard to them being able to walk away without paying their loans. We can understand the Premier’s eagerness to end the scandal involving his two ministers, but this won’t do. It’s a bad policy and it won’t work.

It took the Premier 13 months to come up with this scheme. It took the banking community less than 24 hours to shoot it down in flames. Local bankers, at least, aren’t interested in buying up loans they can’t collect on.

What financial institutions did the Premier consult about their willingness to buy up this file during the 13 months it had to develop this so-called solution?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First let me put it this way: after 15 years plus, to have taken 13 months to come forward with a solution is commendable, I think, in terms of the timelines. As the Member for Kluane put it so aptly last week, other governments have looked at this issue and problem and backed away from it because of the political fallout that would be incurred.

This government did not back away from the issue, took it head on and brought forward a solution in 13 short months versus past governments, which had 15 years plus to deal with this issue.

Furthermore, when we talk about banks, in most cases a financial institution would not have made these loans, and therein lies the problem for the delinquencies.

Mr. Hardy:   As usual the Premier is completely wrong on this, especially when he refers to what other members on this side of the House said previously.

I would like to point out, since this minister seems to have a problem recognizing his responsibility in this, he’s the one who created this mess. He put two Cabinet ministers in place that owe over $400,000 to the taxpayers of the Yukon. The Premier’s two Cabinet colleagues have thumbed their noses at taxpayers for years now. If they won’t pay the government, there’s no guarantee that they are going to pay a private creditor. And even if they didn’t, Mr. Speaker, Yukon taxpayers could end up getting only a tiny fraction of what should be coming to them.

Yukon people expect a higher standard of conduct from their MLAs, especially from Cabinet ministers who have squirreled away enough money to repay their debts. Will the Premier bring in a Cabinet ethics policy requiring his delinquent ministers to pay their debts to taxpayers in full, or else resign their positions?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s very interesting how that member and the opposition parties attack two individuals when there are 67 delinquent loans. Now, I take it the NDP’s position is foreclosure. Well, this government takes a fair approach to this issue, and our members do not get the benefit of any renegotiation or any hiatus on interest. Their loans go forward in full. So the NDP has a position of foreclosure. This government is not going to foreclose on people, this government is going to give everybody else a chance, except the two members in this Cabinet who go forward in full to deal with a financial institution. That’s the solution.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Community Services. Did the minister authorize his hand-picked supervisor of Dawson City’s affairs to meet with the former mayor, who is now the Minister of Health and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Dawson City is in financial difficulty and has been for some time. This is the responsibility of the past mayor and council and past governments. This is due in part to past projects that went overbudget, like the arena — which, to make matters worse, is now in arbitration. The new supervisor is predicting that Dawson will be in a deficit situation of $725,000 due to a major error in Dawson’s financial plan.

On top of this, Dawson has outstanding loans in excess of all other municipalities. Under the last minister’s watch, a bylaw was passed at the city to extend their borrowing powers beyond the normal amount allowed under the Municipal Act, to around $4 million. I repeat, Dawson’s financials are dangerously stretched, and that can affect all Yukon taxpayers.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, that wasn’t the question I asked. I asked whether or not he had approved the supervisor to meet with the Minister of Health and Social Services. The minister has already acknowledged that it’s bad optics for the supervisor to stay at the Health minister’s hotel. It’s even worse for this consultant to have private discussions with the Health minister when that minister’s vendetta against the current Dawson City administration is well known.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to table an exchange of e-mails between the new supervisor and the chief administrative officer for Dawson. In his e-mail, the minister’s hand-picked consultant acknowledges having two private meals with the MLA for Klondike at the end of November. Does the minister think it’s appropriate for the new supervisor to be conducting business in this way?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I just want to reiterate for the member opposite that he wasn’t conducting business. The Yukon government is currently, with its payables — we are right now current with all our payables with the City of Dawson. They are requesting over $700,000 as a loan. Of that, roughly $4 million can be borrowed. Only $730,000 is left. They could go to any bank and borrow this amount. The Yukon government will not loan the amount at the present time as we are awaiting the results of the arbitration on the arena.

I would like to repeat that a problem here is the state of Dawson’s finances — a situation created by the past mayor and council under the last government’s watch. As the Minister of Community Services, I take this situation very seriously. I must ensure Yukon taxpayers are not negatively affected by Dawson’s municipal financial problems.

Mr. Cardiff:   I find it very interesting that the Minister of Community Services knows what was discussed between the MLA for Klondike and the new supervisor at dinner. He must have been there too, I guess. The chief administrative officer had expressed concerns about the new supervisor discussing confidential city issues with unauthorized people in a public place. The supervisor’s response had a tone that I would best describe as patronizing, antagonistic and dismissive. The minister may want to correct me on this, but I would assume that he expects the new supervisor to deal with the Dawson City council and administration in a professional and respectful manner and to respect confidentiality.

Can the minister confirm the supervisor’s claim that his contract does not include a confidentiality agreement, and if that is the case, can the minister explain why it doesn’t have such a clause?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, I guess he was there also.

Secondly, I would like to repeat that Dawson City has a financial problem. The problem is one this government inherited from the previous government and the previous mayor and council.

As outlined in the Municipal Act, I will take this situation very seriously. As minister, I have appointed a supervisor to review Dawson’s financial plan. I’m waiting for the supervisor to meet with mayor and council. He will then finalize his report and present it to me. If that report shows breaches in the Municipal Act, for the sake of Yukon taxpayers and especially those in Dawson, I will take the necessary actions required, as I am empowered to do so in accordance with the Municipal Act.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some follow-up questions for the Minister of Community Services. Under instructions from the MLA for Klondike, the minister hired a supervisor for the town of Dawson. This B.C. resident is being paid $800 a day. The recent e-mail from the supervisor to the town of Dawson was tabled by the Member for Mount Lorne. In that e-mail, the supervisor had this to say, and I quote: "In view of the hot news item in the Yukon during my stay up there about Premier Fentie and all, it seems I feel rather special." The supervisor also referred to Dawson and he said, and I quote again: "The mayor has advised me that Dawson used to be a nasty place. It’s reassuring to find out it has not changed much."

This individual is being paid $800 a day, and he’s busy attacking the Premier he works for and the town he’s working in. Does the minister agree with the statements made by the supervisor that Dawson’s a nasty place?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   To that question I will answer, "No."

Ms. Duncan:   A straightforward answer out of the government — a first. I guess the minister does have a problem with the supervisor badmouthing the City of Dawson. The City of Dawson is also very concerned about the fact that the hand-picked supervisor has no confidentiality agreement, as has been mentioned. In other words, he’s free to discuss anything he learns at work with anyone he wants. This is not normal practice. According to the e-mail, the supervisor has been busy running up his expense account at the Eldorado Hotel having lunch with the MLA for Klondike, having dinner with the MLA for Klondike, no doubt to get his marching orders.

Why has the minister not insisted on a confidentiality agreement with the Dawson City supervisor? Why not?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The supervisor is operating under the full ramifications of the Municipal Act.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, judging by the minister’s response, it appears the only reason there’s no confidentiality agreement is so the supervisor can make such disparaging comments about Dawson. Judging by this e-mail, it appears the supervisor spent most of his time in the hotel owned by the MLA for Klondike — Sunday through Friday, lunch, breakfast, dinner and drinks at the minister’s hotel. I’m sure we’re going to get the full accounting of those travel expenses.

Last week, the Premier announced a special deal for Cabinet ministers who are refusing to pay back their loans. The City of Dawson has a loan with the Government of Yukon. Is the minister prepared to renegotiate the terms of that loan with the city, or do these special arrangements just exist for very special fellows?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I’m waiting for the supervisor to meet with the mayor and council. He will then finalize his report and present it to me. If the report shows breaches in the Municipal Act, for the sake of Yukon taxpayers and especially those in Dawson, I will take the necessary actions.

Mr. McRobb:   The time has finally arrived for the territory to do wonderful things with its forest resources now that control has been devolved from the federal government. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had ample time to give directions to the department for his road map to the future, wherever that might take us, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister satisfied with the direction taken by his department?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are working with the department and we are progressing since devolution of the forestry industry in the Yukon. We are taking small steps to get the forest industry up and running and viable in the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister’s forest management branch recently provided Yukon comment to the Forest Stewardship Council of Canada. I will table that letter now. One of the comments was the suggestion to develop, and I quote, "explicit mechanisms for addressing the possibility of an indigenous community or representative making erroneous claims and creating false conflict are needed." Does the minister agree with that recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In southeast Yukon we’re working with the MOU that was signed in 2002. We’re working with the southeast Yukon Kaska forest management groups, and it has been a very positive experience.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister was handed the wrong answer. He totally failed to answer the question. Many people are offended by the language that I just recited. It singles out an identifiable group in our society, in this case our indigenous community, our First Nations people. In addition, the minister’s approach appears to be a convenient way to stifle public discussion on important matters. This letter has been circulated across the country. The Yukon Party has found yet another way to embarrass our territory on the national stage. What will this minister do about that letter, and will he now apologize for that offensive statement?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re working in a very positive way in the forest industry in the Yukon. Certainly we have our problems, but it has been a positive experience for both ourselves and the small communities outside of Whitehorse that depend on some sort of forest industry to stay alive. So we are working in a positive relationship.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, the minister tabled the Education annual report of 2002-03. In there, on page 13 — 21 percent of rural students are on individual education plans while nine percent of urban students are on IEPs.

Now, of all the First Nation students in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, 23 percent of them are on IEPs while seven percent are non-First Nation members. So in how many communities are rural First Nations students on IEPs being treated — not diagnosed but treated by psychologists from the department? I’m talking about clinical psychologists, not school psychologists.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Well, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Education department does a very good job of meeting the demands in the City of Whitehorse and the rural communities.

Mr. Fairclough:   What’s the use of asking questions in this House if the ministers aren’t paying attention in their answers, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, let me continue, and hopefully we’ll get one from the member opposite on this one.

On page 22 of the report, the department’s annual report on Yukon achievement tests in grade 3, First Nations students performed below the established standard performance, while non-First Nation students performed above the acceptable standards. On the same page, in both grade 6 and 9, First Nations failed to meet the expected standards of acceptable performance. All students are expected to write the Yukon achievement test. Those who may not benefit, Mr. Speaker, from the tests are exempt. Exemptions from students writing the YAT have increased from 170 in 2002 to 275 in 2003. That’s a 62-percent increase. Are the exemptions from writing the test being used to pump up the appalling results from Yukon students?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   What the member opposite fails to recognize is anything that is positive and everything that isn’t. I say today to the member opposite that the results of the 2003 Yukon achievement tests show encouraging improvements in the success of First Nations and rural students. I would like to encourage those students and the teachers in every community to keep on with the good work, because this is an issue that didn’t start yesterday, and it’s an issue that is not going to be completed by tomorrow.

Mr. Fairclough:   Like any other departments, this Yukon Party — it just seems like there are no problems under them, but constantly we bring out issues, and they are skirting around them and away from them. Only 11 percent of the students graduating in 2003 are First Nation. While the First Nation population is around 30 percent, the percentage of First Nation graduates was 16 percent in 2001. This year it is at a decline of five percent. The minister must be very concerned about that, so what will the minister do this year to correct these unacceptable results? Tell us his plans?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to point out for the House today that the member opposite also spent four years as a minister in government, and I remember that time period very well. I did not register any miracles that were performed by that member opposite.

I want to state for the record today, Mr. Speaker, that this is an historical issue within the Yukon Territory. The other thing that we might want to note is that the Yukon also has the highest consumption of alcohol per capita across the Yukon.

In my opinion, I believe there is a direct link to the issues that are raised in the communities. I believe that the barriers to education are behind us. They are not in front of us. Those barriers that are behind us are what are stopping us from making a lot of good progress. However, I have to state for the record also that I believe that those issues are starting to be addressed more today.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Minister of Justice. A few weeks ago, the Chief of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation told a local radio station that the new jail will not be built on the same site as the existing Whitehorse Correctional Centre. Can the minister inform this House to confirm this is the case, and will she explain how that decision was reached?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Again, I would like to thank the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin for the question. Mr. Speaker, as I have repeated on a number of occasions in this Legislature over the last year, our government is very much committed to replacing the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. We have also been on record as having said, though, that our government is also committed to ensuring that Yukon First Nations are involved in the review, delivery and evaluation of correctional services in the territory, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are engaging in a public process that involves all Yukoners as well as all Yukon First Nations to this end.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall, the MLA for McIntyre-Takhini and I met with the chief and council and had an opportunity to discuss the matter of correctional reform.

Mrs. Peter:   I mean no disrespect to Kwanlin Dun, but the jail is a Yukon government responsibility. It is a big project involving millions of tax dollars, so it is a legitimate subject to raise in this House. Very little is known about the deal the Premier’s $200,000 consultant negotiated with Kwanlin Dun First Nation.

Apart from a new site for the jail, what other aspects of this project have been decided and exactly who has been involved in this process?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   No decisions have been made, let me be very clear. In fact, what we have committed to doing is to involve all Yukon First Nations, again in the delivery, the review and the evaluation of correctional services in the territory. And part of that process that we have entitled correctional reform will involve the Yukon public as well. We will continue to further those discussions with Yukon First Nations, including Kwanlin Dun First Nation as per our commitments that are outlined with the memorandum of understanding that was signed by the Premier and chief of council earlier this year.

We happen to think that involving Yukon First Nations in these discussions is a good one. We have heard time and time again that we have one of the highest recidivism rates in the country. The largest percentage of our clients within the Whitehorse Correctional Centre is of First Nations ancestry. So to simply put up another facility that will simply warehouse individuals with a revolving door is not something that we wish to pursue at this time.

Mrs. Peter:   A number of people have expressed concern about certain agreements with First Nations that do not have land claims in place. Of course we are very happy that there is now a land claims agreement with Kwanlin Dun First Nation, although it hasn’t been ratified. In the supplementary budget for Justice there is also a $200,000 item for correctional reform. I am hoping the Minister of Justice can provide some details on that and how it relates to the plans to replace the Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

Will the minister provide a written update on any consultations that have taken place with other First Nations, as she had said they had done, or private sector companies regarding construction, ownership, management or programming for a new correctional facility?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker; and I thank the member opposite for the welcomed input. We welcome all input from all Yukoners, including the members opposite.

With respect to correctional reform, we want to ensure that consultation is done properly and done right and done in a timely basis as well. Letters have been sent to all Yukon First Nations asking them to put forward representatives from each of the self-governing First Nations and non-self-governing First Nations, Kwanlin Dun and the Council of Yukon First Nations, to oversee the Yukon-wide consultation on correctional services in the territory. That is exactly what we are doing: hoping to formalize those discussions so that we can get going on immediate consultation that will take place throughout the territory. So that is exactly what we are doing. With respect to any discussions regarding private contractors, I’ve had none.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’d like to give the Minister of Community Services one more opportunity to correct some of the damage he caused with statements he made in the House last week.

On Wednesday, speaking about the former Liberal government, he said this, "When they were in power, they appointed a supervisor that put us in the situation we’re in today." On Thursday, I gave the minister the opportunity to withdraw his attack on the individual in question, but he ducked. Will the minister now withdraw his unfounded allegation that the former supervisor of Dawson City’s financial affairs put the government into the current situation?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The intent of that particular statement was for the Liberal government and not for the supervisor.

Mr. Cardiff:   If the minister wants to know who’s behind the current situation in Dawson, he should look in the mirror, or maybe take a look to his left to the Member for Klondike. Dawson City had a legal loan agreement with the Government of Yukon. The Yukon government reneged on that agreement and manufactured a financial crisis in Dawson City. Why is it doing this? So it can exercise muscle over the elected mayor and council, just the way the Member for Klondike wants it?

Now that the minister has had a weekend to reflect on his pathetic answers so far, will he finally give a credible reason for the political decision to change the supervisors in Dawson?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned before, the problems in Dawson are the result of what Dawson owes. Dawson owes on its loans and it is pending arbitration, which is another issue that will have some difficulty for the City of Dawson. As a result, the City of Dawson is asking for another loan of $730,000, which basically tops out their previous loan requirement.

The Yukon government will not loan this amount at the present time as we are awaiting the results of the arbitration on the arena, and I’ve said this many times. As the minister responsible for Community Services, I take this situation very seriously. I must ensure that Yukon taxpayers are not negatively affected by Dawson’s municipal financial problems.

Mr. Cardiff:   Another pathetic answer, Mr. Speaker.

After the minister took the position he did in the House last Wednesday and Thursday, the former supervisor — who lost his public service job — was obliged to break the silence to defend himself from the minister’s allegations. Will the minister now do the right thing and apologize to the former senior manager of Community Services for injuries to his reputation caused by statements the minister made in this House?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have already indicated it previously in my previous answer with regard to that question.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   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 the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

I understand that we’re going into the Department of Health and Social Services.

Before we begin, do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will rise for a 15-minute recess.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Chair:   We will continue on with Vote 15, Department of Health and Social Services, on general debate.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   When we left general debate on Health and Social Services, there were a number of issues being discussed on the floor of this Legislature. For the record, I’d just like to respond as to where we are at in the Yukon with respect to social assistance payments.

In the Yukon, if you look at the single employable rate — those people who are single and are employable — the annual SA rate here in the Yukon is $12,145. Contrast that to what B.C. pays, which is $6,251, and to what Alberta pays, $4,824.

This is the highest rate in Canada with N.W.T. paying $11,490 and Nunavut, $10,148. And virtually in all categories we are among the highest. If we look at persons with disabilities, in the Yukon they receive $13,645 and in British Columbia, $9,522; in Alberta, $7,380; Nunavut, $12,288; and, in N.W.T. it’s a little higher at $14,830.

In the Yukon, a single parent with one child receives $16,664 per annum in social assistance; in British Columbia, $10,543; in Alberta, $8,565.

A couple with two children, for example, in the Yukon receive $22,246; in British Columbia, $12,973; in Alberta, $13,073 per annum. Again, we are among the highest. Nunavut and N.W.T. in this category are somewhat higher, Mr. Chair, but this bodes well for the social safety net that we have in place in the Yukon. We are very, very happy that as a government, Mr. Chair, we have enhanced it in some respects and in a number of areas. And if we refer to social assistance, seniors in need, with allowances for items of basic care — and these are individuals over 60 years of age — for food, shelter, clothing, incidentals, health care and supplementary needs — for example, winter clothing and household furnishings — the department has paid out $716,000 in this category from April of 2003 to November of 2003

This is another social safety net that we have in place here in the Yukon for part of our population.

There are many, many other areas where we have enhanced programs, and one of the other areas where we have come under the scrutiny of the opposition is the amount that we pay per day for those who are moved around for care outside of their home base. It’s $30 per day after the third day.

The Member for Mayo-Tatchun went on at great length as to what the N.W.T. pays. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun is quite accurate about what he said on the floor of this Legislature, but it refers to only one category. What was not mentioned is that the N.W.T. has a very complicated medical travel program — one with very different levels of coverage being provided to residents based upon which beneficiary group a person belongs to.

There’s one area for status First Nation; there’s another for registered Métis, and there’s another category for those with chronic conditions; and then there are seniors over 60. The remainder of the population receives coverage based upon their family income.

So in the N.W.T., Mr. Chair, there is a means test with a deductible on all travel, and that was not mentioned. The medical travel coverage the Member for Mayo-Tatchun provided to this Legislature and tabled on December 10, applies only to those residents who have chronic conditions or are seniors over the age of 60. This document the Member for Mayo-Tatchun tabled does not reflect the other levels of coverage, so they’re all different.

In the Yukon, we cover 100 percent of the cost of return airfare from Whitehorse to Vancouver, Calgary or Edmonton or in the territory. In the territory, mileage is also paid for in-territory travel and for those who choose to drive to their appointments. In the N.W.T., as I said earlier, there’s a means test. If your family income has grossed over $80,000 per year, there’s a responsibility for a $250 co-payment toward the cost of airfare or the mileage cost, or $125 one way.

Those are the realities of the situation. So on one hand, we’re comparing a program in a neighbouring jurisdiction and saying it’s better, but what the member opposite failed to put forward is that there’s a means test in the N.W.T. There’s no means test here; it’s provided equally to all.

The same holds true for a whole series of other programs. And under the previous Liberal watch, means tests were being entertained by the Department of Health at the insistence of the minister of the day. Fortunately, that didn’t come into place and it wasn’t subscribed to — and rightly so, rightly so. And the previous Minister of Health and I had a number of discussions on that area, and I was vehemently opposed to providing any kind of means tests for any of the programs we have here in the Yukon.

What I’m saying to the members opposite is that the Yukon travel for medical treatment assists eligible Yukon residents with the cost of emergency and non-emergency medical transportation that is necessary, and it’s all covered — it is all covered. No means test, no examination of what money you have in the bank — you have equal access.

We also have quite a program for patients who are not admitted to a hospital but who are receiving outpatient services. They’re also eligible for a subsidy of $30 a day, beginning on the fourth day. And that may go on for a maximum of three months, Mr. Chair. And also, subject to approval, escorts — their transportation costs are paid for and covered, if a professional escort is required. Lay escorts are not covered. But by and large, escorts are pretty well all covered. Another policy we have is that all children under age 18 shall be escorted, and in that case, lay escorts are eligible for a subsidy of $30 per day, beginning on the fourth day, again, to a maximum of three months.

When we look at travel costs for both parents of terminally or critically ill children, they may be covered under the program’s compassionate clause. In a lot of cases they are. Again, there is a maximum of $50 a day for both parents. That may be paid on the fourth day, again, to a maximum of 90 days or three months. So what this points to is in the Yukon we have some of the best programs for medical travel. We provide some of the best, most comprehensive benefits for medical travel, and we pick up the majority of the costs.

There have been a number of other areas that were discussed at great length. At this point in time, I believe that we should thank our federal Member of Parliament, Larry Bagnell, for his efforts on our behalf in the Yukon. The homelessness initiative money has flowed from the federal government to Yukon under the federal watch. Also, the youth counsellor’s position with the Yukon Family Services Association — that money has just recently started to flow under a new agreement to that organization. So these are federal programs with federal money flowing to programs. When they stop, the downside of it is that Yukon is asked to pick up the shortfall in financial considerations. In some cases, it is pretty well self-evident that we have no other choice, but in a lot of cases, it’s best if we examine this area and work with our Member of Parliament and encourage him to go back to the minister responsible for this area and ensure that the funds flow.

And in this case I am pleased to say that the efforts of our Member of Parliament, after lobbying by me and, I’m sure, from other members here in the Yukon — that he has moved forward on this initiative. I would just like to say thank you to our Member of Parliament. He works hard on our behalf.

One of the other areas that we’re always coming under the gun for — the efforts, or not doing enough — is the efforts of drug and alcohol services. We can never do enough in this area. There is always something more that we can be doing.

Drug and alcohol addiction is a very serious addiction — and the Member for Kluane is pointing to the camera. I’m not sure if he’s looking for camera time for himself or what he’s up to, but given that we have our policies that we want to amplify here to enlighten the opposition, I’m sure that they can listen attentively and see what they can grasp.

Our Yukon Party platform is committed to address the addictions issue, the problems here that beset quite a number of Yukoners. It’s a very serious matter and one that requires a very thoughtful and a thoroughly planned approach.

Through the combined efforts of all of the people involved — and we cover not just the Department of Health and Social Services, but the Department of Education and the Department of Justice in this area — the partners in this area are moving forward on a combined effort, and hopefully we’ll begin making inroads with this problem.

Sometimes we just touch the surface; sometimes we have an effect. By and large, the problem continues. Yukon has one of the highest areas of alcohol usage in Canada. Drug addiction is rampant. I’m given to understand that you can currently run downtown in some of our communities and find any one of a number of drugs faster than you can buy a six-pack of beer. That said, there has to be a determined effort that sees these initiatives slowed down or stopped. It’s not a sector of the economy we want to encourage.

Presently, Yukoners are consuming alcohol at a rate of three percent above the national average, but there is a promise that’s very promising. There has been a reduction since 1997 of approximately six percent, so we have been very, very much higher than we are today.

Currently there’s a program underway to determine the amount of hard and soft drug use — how much, by who and where — and that program is being undertaken by the federal government here in Whitehorse.

If we look at one of the other areas, one of the hardest addictions to overcome, Mr. Chair, is the issue of tobacco. We’ve had quite an initiative this year to address the issue of smoking here in the Yukon and to further reduce it. But once again, we have one of the highest levels of penetration of smokers here in the Yukon of any Canadian jurisdiction.

Mr. Chair, if we look at some of our other initiatives within the department, dealing with FASD, we can point to the Child Development Centre and the additional funding that was provided to them for the hiring of an FAS diagnostic coordinator. We’re looking to develop a team to work with the coordinator for the purposes of identifying children who have FASD and putting together the necessary resources to help them and to help their families.

Funding of an FASD prevention position located within the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon, FASSY — and that is another $210,000 that is being provided to FASSY for the funding of that position. That $210,000 will flow over the next three years. So there are many, many initiatives, Mr. Chair, that we are focusing on. We are hopeful that some of the workshops dealing with at-risk women for alcohol consumption and for drug use during the years that they can become pregnant might be possible. Then we’re looking at mental health and medical detox being incorporated into the Whitehorse Hospital, Mr. Chair. We’re also delivering a number of these programs in rural Yukon, and plans are underway to deliver a youth-specific program with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation next spring.

So we’re moving on all fronts. There are a lot of initiatives we have underway. We’re making some inroads, but it is not a perfect world, and we’re always going to have problems with alcohol abuse and drug abuse and use, as long as the federal government takes up the position that they currently have.

I look forward to entertaining further questions on this supplementary budget, which is one of the best additions in our supplementary budget. It shows our caring and respectful need in communities for the provision of health care, for the additional funding needed to pay for drugs, for the amount of money needed for the Whitehorse General Hospital.

Ms. Duncan:   That was an interesting speech by the Minister of Health and an opening response. Unfortunately he did not actually respond to the questions that I had asked and to which he committed to providing a written response today.

Just to review for the minister opposite, I asked why he committed in previous budget debates that there would be an additional $1 million in Canada health and social transfer; the figure came in higher. He undertook to examine this with the Department of Finance and provide a written response. Unfortunately we haven’t seen that.

The other item of note was that there is an additional $389,000 in this supplementary budget related to air travel costs, of which $200,000 is pledged to be recoverable. Detail on that would be useful as well.

I had also asked because previous Health ministers and previous Premiers had worked together with respect to a health initiative across the country toward a common drug formulary. Right now Saskatchewan and Yukon are the same. I had asked the minister at length about what progress had been made in working with other provinces. Unfortunately there was no thorough or complete answer on that.

The minister noted when last we debated on December 4, that the current government is examining the pharmacare and the provision of drugs programs to Yukoners. However, there is no further information on that at this time.

In the interest of moving this debate along and focusing the minister’s attention, I would like to follow up on the last comment he made in his just-delivered speech to the House. He said that we’re looking at, as I understand it — and we don’t have an electronic Hansard in front of us, thank goodness. But I understood the minister to say that the government was examining moving mental health and detox at the hospital. Is this the plan for the Thomson Centre? Is the Thomson Centre, once it has been fully repaired, going to house detox and mental health?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That is one of the options that is being explored, yes. And there is a part of that area that is being looked at.

As to when the Thomson Centre will be up and running, we do not know at this juncture. There has been a team of engineers and a team of architects and other tradespeople who have examined the facility. The cost to repair and bring it up to standards that should have existed before it was occupied in the first place has not been completely identified, which is a sad state of affairs. The facility was never ever granted an occupancy permit by the authority having jurisdiction at the time. That authority is the City of Whitehorse.

The total cost that we’re looking at to bring it up to standards is additionally in the millions of dollars. Currently there is a team of engineers that is looking at it from a seismic standpoint, but because the facility hasn’t been occupied for a year, it has to be brought up to all the applicable codes that currently exist.

That said, we’re hopeful to have this examination completed and an examination of the usage completed that we can dovetail into the facility by sometime early in the new year. Hopefully the next budget cycle will see the necessary funds allocated for putting it back into service.

Mr. Chair, all the furnishings and fixtures have been stripped out of the facility, by and large, and moved to other facilities under the Liberal Party watch. That said, it’ll allow the government of the day to provide new interior fixtures and furnishings for this facility.

Going back to what precipitated all this, it was an issue of a small leak in the roof, which was identified by the Liberal administration as maybe costing $300,000. Well, currently we’re up to $1.3 million something to repair the small little leak in the roof, Mr. Chair, and the cost is growing, given the other deficiencies that were not identified by previous administrations. That is a sad state of affairs.

We inherited another — well, there’s no other way to describe it — mess from the previous administration, and we’re going to have to examine this. We’ve been continuing with that examination for quite some time.

The member opposite mentioned she had not received a copy of some correspondence I committed to. I don’t know — I can’t explain the internal mail or how that works or doesn’t work, but I’ll be happy to send over another copy of that correspondence, Mr. Chair. This copy is unsigned; the original was signed.

Mr. Chair, there is the issue surrounding one of the other requests, and that was for vaccine costs in the Yukon; and may I just outline what is currently spent in this area?

The primary vaccination series is offered to all children and adolescents in the Yukon and is administered by the Whitehorse Health Centre in Whitehorse and all of the health centres around rural Yukon. The series begins at two months of age, with immunization for diphtheria, polio, tetanus, hepatitis B and, as of 1998, haemophilus B. The last immunization in this series is a booster vaccine for tetanus, diphtheria and polio given to adolescents aged 14 to 16 years. Additional vaccines are available for populations at risk. These include vaccines for persons who have a pre-existing medical condition that places them at heightened risks of serious complications if infected, persons travelling to areas where vaccine-preventable illness is evident and persons exposed to an illness, in order to prevent or control an outbreak. Costs for travel-related immunization are borne by the traveller, including the meningicoccal vaccine for departing university students, as are a small number of other vaccines.

In the chart below, if you want to look at the number of shots that have been done, I have that information for the member opposite. I have for the members opposite the cost of the vaccine — yellow fever, $2,135; typhoid, $3,200; tuberculosis, $8,100; tetanus, $2,200; rabies, $2,000; polio, $170; Japanese encephalitis, $2,900; hepatitis A, $8,100; haemophilus B, $78; influenza, $25,000; and pneumococcal infection, $4,400.

To date, the $67,000 is the total cost borne by public health and $17,000 of that additional cost has been borne by the client. That is 2003-04, to date. I have the previous year’s statistics but I thought it would be more relevant to just amplify what currently is transpiring here in the Yukon. There has been quite an uptake year-to-date on quite a number of the vaccines.

We are moving on all fronts and the member opposite may have a few more questions. I trust the responses given in a number of the areas will probably not meet with the approval or satisfaction of the members opposite, but they are an accurate reflection of the problem areas that we are having to deal with as a consequence of the lack of attention paid to this area by the previous administrations, in spite of the fact that it was brought to their attention by the administration of the day. The main workforce here in the government has brought it to their attention but, by and large, they failed to react or didn’t react adequately.

That is not our government’s position. Our government’s position is that we are going to meet the task head-on, we are going to provide sound fiscal management, we are going to look at how we can rebuild the Yukon economy, how we can move forward while, at the same time, addressing the social agenda.

I believe, by and large, this supplementary budget that we have before us today does exactly that. It shows a very, very concentrated effort by this Yukon Party administration to address the areas that require addressing and to move forward in step with all our partners here in the Yukon, save and except the Member for Kluane, perhaps, who has taken exception to —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Mr. McRobb, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, I take exception to the type of tactics demonstrated by this member. We have a limited amount of time in this Legislature to complete the supplementary budget, and he is clearly wasting time. This clearly indicates that there is a problem with these predetermined sitting days because it plays to the advantage of the government to waste time.

Under the old rules we would see a much more cooperative atmosphere in here, one in which the government would be eagerly providing this side with some answers and not wasting time.

Chair:   Mr. Jenkins, on the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On the point of order, what the member points out is that he is not in favour of the Standing Orders that were advanced by the Liberal government. If he wants to check the voting record on it, I didn’t oppose it at the time and it’s just that the member opposite can’t get his own way today and he’s very much opposed now. I would encourage the member opposite to sit down, read the Standing Orders and conduct himself accordingly because there is no point of order.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan, on the point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m not standing on the point of order; I’m waiting for your ruling.

Chair:   There is no point of order here. There is a dispute among members.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you. I would be pleased to carry on debate and I would encourage the minister again to focus his answers. The minister said that they were examining moving mental health and detox into the Thomson Centre. He said that was one of the options. He said they’re looking at other options and he also said he expected the work, which was fully examined and studied and begun, to deal with not just the leak in the roof but the mould and other issues at the Thomson Centre. It was initiated by the previous government — a full and thorough examination. I encourage the minister not to get into the blame game argument. Let’s focus on the issue at hand; the question is the Thomson Centre.

The minister is examining putting mental health and detox into the Thomson Centre. He said that was one of the options being examined. What are the other options? He also said that the anticipated work was to be done by early in the new year; however, there’s money required for whatever of these options are chosen in the next budget for furniture. So what is under examination and when might we anticipate whatever is being moved into the Thomson Centre being located there?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What we are examining is the Thomson Centre and what it will require to get this publicly funded facility up and running again. If the member opposite had such a handle on the facility when handling the reins of government, I’m wondering why so small a sum of money was budgeted for the repairs, Mr. Chair, given there was just a small amount of money budgeted for a repair to the roof. It subsequently ended up well in excess of $1.3 million.

As I clearly indicated previously, what is currently underway is a planning process. That planning process will determine what repairs and upgrades are needed to the Thomson Centre structure to bring it to current codes — codes that in some part existed in the same manner when the building was constructed but were not conformed to, in one method or another. We are examining and planning what the costs will be to bring that building up to the applicable codes, and we’re also looking at the various usage. One of the usages that’s being examined is mental health, medical detox, in the north wing of the Thomson Centre. Whether that comes to fruition or not, it has not been ratified yet but is an option that’s being examined.

As well as that, all the costs associated with refurnishing the facility — just to give it a coat of paint is about $400,000. So we’re looking at a lot of money, and that money will be budgeted for in the next fiscal cycle, which commences April 1 next year.

I’m not in a position to advise the House whether we will be proceeding with any work prior to that, other than work perhaps of an emergency nature to protect the facility — but that, I do not know. But we are underway with a complete review, a complete plan to bring the building up to the applicable codes and to examine the options for its interior use and what would best conform to what we currently have. We know that we are also going to have to be opening up more beds in Copper Ridge Place, and that will be done in the next budget cycle.

But there are a lot of areas that we are examining — as we are rightfully charged to do — but we are going to be right up front with the total costs and how they will be distributed and how they will be recognized. Virtually all the costs that I’m speaking of today, save and except the planning and the examination, will be done in the next budget cycle. That is not to preclude us advancing that, depending on the outcome of the examination and how quickly we can proceed through that planning and examination of the facility exercise.

I hope that provides the necessary response to the members opposite, and I am sure that it will precipitate more meaningful debate from the leader of the third party — perhaps not the same for the Member for Kluane, though, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister did not indicate who was involved in the planning process. We have seen situations elsewhere under his watch where there has been a significant lack of planning and consultation. I don’t want to take up House time going back and forth with the minister as to who is involved with the planning process. I would appreciate a written response to this question: who is involved in the planning process for the Thomson Centre?

With respect to the hospital in the supplementary budget, there are a number of comments that the minister has made and what I would like to do is just perhaps ask a series of questions and then the minister can answer them.

There was the transfer of the outpatients therapeutic programs from continuing care to the Whitehorse General Hospital. I’d like the minister to elaborate on exactly what that means.

There was also funding to the Whitehorse General Hospital for a health partnership position. What exactly is that and what is the person, or persons, going to be doing?

There are also some funding programs transferred to the hospital. How are decisions made on those funding programs? Is it the hospital board? They are part of the $2-million transfer to the hospital — for example, the Liard Basin Task Force and a youth tobacco strategy. How are funding decisions on those being made?

There is also diagnostic medical equipment at the hospital. If I could just have an indication from the minister, exactly what is the government’s position with respect to the purchase of new equipment for the hospital? There is an estimated $600,000 for new equipment. The government is sitting on a $60-million surplus. There is significant fundraising going on in the community, of which we are all supportive. We have fundraised for equipment in the past. I’m asking what the government’s position is with respect to new equipment at the hospital. Is the committee that recommends new equipment still in place? Is the government prepared to significantly contribute? What is the position with respect to the fundraising for the hospital?

Those are my general questions surrounding the hospital and funding allocated in the supplementary budget. The minister will have them written in front of him when he receives and review the Blues. If he wishes to address them all now, that would be great, or he can provide me with a written response.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The whole purpose of general debate is to deal with these issues on the floor. We are not prepared to provide a written response to something that should be dealt with. With respect to —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Mr. McRobb, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would remind the Member for Klondike that indeed there is another way to do things here to expedite the proceedings. We have only about five to six hours to debate the rest of this budget. We are all tired of hearing him go on at length. He can provide a simple legislative return to the questions asked and we could all move on. We would appreciate that.

Chair:   There is no point of order here. Standing Order 42(3) states that speeches in Committee of the Whole are limited to 20 minutes. Standing Order 42(2) says that those speeches should be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Procedurally, the item under consideration is general debate in the Department of Health and Social Services. The idea of the item under consideration is not limited by the precise question put to the minister.

We will continue on with the debate.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Thank you very much.

As I said earlier, we are not going to get into the position where we listen to a whole series of questions and have to respond to them in writing here on the floor. The purpose of general debate is questions and answers on various issues.

With respect to the examination of the Thomson Centre, the issue is being dealt with through property management agency as to the examination of the building envelope. There are outside contractors that have been engaged for that purpose. There are engineering and architectural firms here in the Yukon as well as structural engineers and other trades — i.e. electrical, sprinkler system. As to the review as to the facility, that is being undertaken by the department — officials within the department in consultation with the Whitehorse Hospital executive and their board. A lot of these initiatives will be precipitated on who can best deliver the service and who is best empowered to deliver services.

The exercise is to deliver the service in the most effective manner. The member’s second question deals with the outpatient issue — the outpatient therapy, why was it transferred within the department to the hospital. Basically, it was a more efficient service delivery of this area of health care. What we’re cognizant of at all times is the amount of efficiency we can achieve, as well as primarily meeting the needs of the patient. That is why the transfer took place. The next question that the member asked had to deal with the position of the health care provider within the Whitehorse Hospital. This is an arrangement between the Whitehorse Hospital and Council of Yukon First Nations. There are two First Nation positions now currently staffed and paid for by the Hospital Corporation, and they are here in the Yukon. One is attached to Council of Yukon First Nations; the second one is also in the First Nations’ domain. These are initiatives that have been requested. These positions have been requested by Council of Yukon First Nations and other First Nations and funded by the department, with funding provided to the Hospital Corporation.

The other area the member opposite asked about was with respect to capital funding, and I can advise the House that the same committee is still in place, still used to determine what is required and what is purchased at the Whitehorse Hospital that is of a capital nature. Some of it is replacement of existing equipment. It does have an effective life, and that is an area that must be recognized, as well as the addition of new facilities and new equipment to enhance and improve not only the diagnostic end but the rehabilitation end of service delivery here in the Yukon, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the answer on some of those questions. The planning process for the Thomson Centre — the minister didn’t identify in his answer any front-line staff, and I would just like to register that as a concern. The staff I’ve spoken with and speak with on a regular basis are quite concerned. In particular, the emergency room staff deal quite extensively on issues where they’ve worked with Crossroads and other facilities in the past, and they have a view on that. I would encourage the minister to look wide and listen wide. There are others who have a view on this issue who work directly in the hospital, and I would encourage the minister to hear from the front-line staff.

With respect to the transfer of outpatient therapeutic program, what was missing in the minister’s answer was from the point of view of patient care. I can understand how not all the therapeutic programs are required by continuing care, but there is the potential for concern, and I would encourage the minister to listen to the outpatients who make use of that particular service.

I’d like to move on from the hospital. I’ve registered my concerns with the minister, and I would encourage him that there are points of view other than his own, and I would encourage him to listen to them.

The minister has also talked about ultimately providing health care facilities in Watson Lake and Dawson City. $252,000 has been allocated for equipment, software and feasibility studies in this regard. Is this $250,000 plus — these are for multi-level care facilities in Watson Lake and Dawson City. Is the money allocated for the examination of P3s for this construction, or exactly what does the minister intend to do with this money he’s asking us to approve?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Let’s examine some of the questions so we can set the record correct. With the issue of speaking with the front-line providers in emergency at the hospital with respect to medical detox and drugs, the department is undertaking that review, and I rely on the expertise that we know we have in-house to complete an assessment of this area. So that’s not being overlooked, in fact. The consultation process is thorough and complete. I’m sure the member opposite will always disagree with the successes we’re achieving and the way we go about consultation. It’s one of the few areas that is open to a wide degree of interpretation, and the member opposite is exercising that wide degree of interpretation.

With respect to patient care and the transfer of the outpatient care, there were quite a number of cases where the department was providing care as well as the hospital. There was some confusion. In order to ensure that patients are provided the highest consistent level of care they require, the determination was made that the hospital would be the delivering agent, and we’ve avoided a lot of situations there that occurred previously. It’s basically just setting up a program and administering a program effectively. There is no controversy surrounding the actual people who deliver the program. It’s just a management task to ensure that they’re there in a timely manner when they’re required. That’s what we’ve done.

Mr. Chair, the next issue surrounding the money for the multi-level care facilities in Watson Lake and in Dawson City — money has been earmarked in the previous budget for the examination of a multi-level care facility in those two communities. Whether they are constructed under what format has yet to be determined.

Ms. Duncan:   The multi-level care is also a question that I would appreciate the minister addressing, but before he does that, there is a half a million dollars for diagnostic medical equipment fund in the supplementary. Is this another piece of equipment that is a contribution to the heart equipment, or is it replacing medical equipment that is past its best-before date? Exactly what is it, if he could just outline that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That was additional federal money, the half a million dollars. $250,000 of that will be going to the Hospital Corporation; $250,000 of that will be going to capital requirements in other areas, i.e., dental and other programs provided by Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   I thank the minister for that specific answer. I would just like to briefly touch on the issue of our medical health professionals. The minister stated earlier that there are 65 licensed practitioners in terms of doctors, and so there is one contract with those. I believe there are five doctors who are under contract. Could I have an outline of the current state of the negotiations with those doctors who are in a group and the individual contract? What is the expiry date on them, and are we in negotiations presently?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Negotiations for the fee-for-service doctors will begin next year, Mr. Chair. With respect to the doctors who are on contract, their contract expiry dates vary. I do not have that information before me, but perhaps for next time we come before this Legislature I can get the contract expiry dates of the medical practitioners who are under contract to Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   So if we divide the doctors into two groups, we have this one group and the negotiations will begin next year — is what the minister said. We also have about five doctors who are under contract, and he doesn’t know when we begin negotiations with each of those.

I would like that answer not next time we’re in the Legislature but prior to the Legislature so that we can focus our debate and prepare for it.

Would the minister also indicate when the negotiations begin with the hospital nurses, the territory’s nurses and the nurses in communities? I think there are three different bargaining groups of the nurses. I could be wrong on that. It may be two, but when do we begin negotiations with the territory’s nurses?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, PSAC covers most of the department nurses, and that has been concluded. The binding arbitration decision of the arbitrator has been provided to the bargaining unit and to Yukon. The issue of the hospital — they’re currently in negotiations with the nurses there. I don’t know what stage that is at, but they hire their own negotiators, their own counsel, and they negotiate directly with the bargaining unit.

With respect to the five physicians who are on a contract basis with Yukon, their contracts expire at various times and at various dates. The relevancy of the expiry of that contract — they’re all not concurrent. They’re all different times, depending on the location, where these physicians — there are contract physicians in a number of the communities, as well as there are contract medical professionals here in Whitehorse.

They’re all over the place, as far as the expiry dates. I really don’t know what the relevancy of the expiry date of a contract for a doctor in Faro or Mayo might be, but the member might have some insight on that issue.

The other area that the member speaks of is the fee-for-service. Contract negotiations start with YMA next year. The mandate for their negotiations has been developed and will move forward. I am given to understand that the same negotiator who negotiated with them last time will be negotiating on behalf of the government. I have just been provided the information with respect to one contract with one of the physicians. It expired in July 2003. That was renewed. Another one expires on October 9, 2006, and another one has been the contract doctor that expired in July. There is another doctor who has replaced him and took over on October 10, 2003 for a three-year period. Another contract expires in February 2006. The other rural physicians are basically provided for visiting physician services through a contract with various medical facilities. I am given to understand that nothing has really changed from the previous administration, which I am sure that the member opposite would be thoroughly familiar with.

Ms. Duncan:   Every member of the House has had, I believe, a concern registered with him — certainly the Whitehorse members — with regard to the availability of family physicians, and the only answer we’ve heard so far from the government is that they’re doing an exit survey because they’re finding out why doctors that we had recruited under previous recruitment and retention initiatives have decided to leave.

The very real problem that we have right now is that many Yukon families are forced to present themselves to the Yukon Hospital Corporation with family medical emergencies. Constituents are certainly calling me; I know they’ve called other Whitehorse members; and the government’s response of, "We’re going to do an exit survey to find out why doctors have left," isn’t helping the immediate issue.

Is there any progress or discussion currently underway with the Yukon Medical Association and others to find out how we can help deal with this immediate situation of Yukon families — particularly those in the Whitehorse area — who are unable to locate a family physician?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Yes, Mr. Chair, there’s progress being made on this front, not just for the immediate but for the future.

Ms. Duncan:   That answer is not adequate for my constituents and others who have made similar representations to the Minister of Health.

What progress is being made on this particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The previous examination that took place under the previous administration was for specialists. What we are looking for are family practices and access into a practice for a family or individuals here in Whitehorse. That is being examined with the YMA and it will be the subject of negotiations that are going to be taking place commencing early next year. As to the scope and the realm of this examination and what is being proposed, it is part of the negotiating process and I am very, very hopeful that the benefits will flow to Yukoners as a consequence of our prudent examination of this area and our enhancement initiative that we are proposing to the YMA in the bargaining unit realm. I am not prepared to negotiate a contract on the floor of the House, Mr. Chair, and I’m not prepared to discuss it in detail.

Ms. Duncan:   No one asked the minister opposite to negotiate on the floor of the House. I wanted to be able to answer thoroughly my constituents who have problems. There are many of them who have been unable to locate a family doctor. There were significant recruitment and retention initiatives made in the last contract, and the accreditation initiatives that were undertaken by the previous government with the support of the YMA did show some progress. However, we have seen that slide and, so far, there has been not much of an answer from the government.

The social workers and family services are also under this minister. I would like to ask if the minister intends to make the childcare report from the contractor, which was done shortly after the government took office — I think it was $2,000 some odd — is the government prepared to release that report?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Let’s just back up a little bit here and deal with the issue that the member opposite made mention of, and it was the issue of doctors and recruiting doctors here to the Yukon. There was a change made, and that was made by the previous Liberal administration. It provided for a ministerial permit to allow doctors to practise here in the Yukon. And that brought to the Yukon a number of doctors who hadn’t received the full accreditations to practise in Canada.

What we’re finding out is that, as a consequence of the Liberal government initiative in this regard, Yukon is being used as a conduit for doctors to receive their Canadian accreditation and to move into another jurisdiction. Thus, there is quite a turnover of a lot of MDs in this category. In fact, when you see a doctor recruited to the Yukon who chooses to not bring his wife and family up here and just remain here for the period of time necessary to complete the applicable exams, we know we have a turnover situation that is imminent. But that said, it was an area where the previous Liberal government made the necessary changes to provide for this special permit. It’s still being continued with, but there is a great amount of turnover with doctors in that category. That is coming back to cause us some concerns, and we don’t know where we’re going.

With respect to the children care issue and the childcare situation, family day home operators and daycare centres, I’m pleased to report that the final report from this group will be provided to me, I’m told, in the not too distant future — I’m hoping before the end of this calendar year. There’s a lot of effort and hard work that has gone into it. Mr. Ogden’s report during the transition period, which the member opposite refers to, was a very worthwhile and beneficial document. We have received it only in the preliminary report phase. There didn’t appear to be a need to ask him to conclude that report, given that the substance of the report was working and was work-in-progress.

So whether we spend the necessary money at this juncture and ask Mr. Ogden to conclude this report or not — it doesn’t look like it would be a meaningful expenditure of the taxpayers’ money. But I can assure the member opposite that the information that had been assembled in that report was extremely worthwhile, very beneficial and gave us an overview of what was occurring in the childcare field.

To that end, Mr. Chair, our government has subsequently provided considerable additional funding, through the good works and good efforts of not only Mr. Ogden but a lot of the childcare providers, who are members of the committee. We as a government have worked very closely with the childcare community to enhance the programs, and the DOG — direct operating grant — for homes has been enhanced and improved under our government.

The suggestions that will come forward after this final review is completed and presented to me will be examined.

I’m sure as a government we’ll move forward on examining those initiatives and how we can enhance further our most precious commodity here in the Yukon: our children and their care.

Chair:   Order please. Before debate continues, the Chair would just like to remind members to be very cautious when naming particular individuals as there is no opportunity for those individuals named to comment or defend comments made about them. So again, I would encourage members to follow past practice of this House and be very cautious when naming individuals outside of this Assembly.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m not disregarding your ruling. There was a report done, referred to as the Anglin report. I would like an update on the recommendations — specifically, the Anglin report was delivered to the previous government. There was also a subsequent report done on not just childcare workers but also the social services for families in the territory.

I would like an update on the recommendations of these reports; specifically, how many more social workers have been hired, which was committed to in the spring session? What is the current caseload of these social workers? Have the caseloads gone down? The minister will recall that was an issue that was brought to his attention not only by the Anglin report, but by the social workers and by YEU to the minister.

There is an additional $460,000 for a new group home in the supplementary budget; however, Professor Anglin said do not warehouse these children in care, and yet the government appears to be committing $460,000 toward a new warehouse. So I would like the minister to explain and respond to those three questions, please.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I would encourage the member to go back and really examine the Anglin report and carefully examine what it suggested. It made quite a number of recommendations and suggested that there be smaller group homes, that there be a separation as to sex and age of the individuals who were in these homes. The member fails to mention that part of the Anglin report. What our government has done is carried out a thorough and complete examination of this area. Ten more social workers have been hired: five social workers, five family support workers. In addition to that, the various group homes — we’ve looked at and rationalized. If we look at the various group homes, we have the Annex that presently has four males in that home. The staff complement is 12.5 FTEs in this government facility. We have a children’s receiving home. There are nine males and nine females in there. We have 17 FTEs — total staff complement — and this does not include auxiliaries. In addition to that, we have another residence that has six males, and there is a staff of 14. We have another residence where there are four females and a staff of 13.5. We have another home that has two males; it has a staff of 10.5. We have another home that has three males. There are nine staff, and it utilizes quite a number of auxiliaries.

We have another residence that has three females and we have a staff of eight. We have another residence with three males. We have 11.5. We have another two categories here, but what Mr. Anglin suggested is that there be a separation as to sex and there be a separation as to age group and we’re examining options for another home. We’ve budgeted the $400,000 some odd for the capital cost of that home. We’ve carefully considered the options, and the last thing we want to do is warehouse the children who are taken into government care, but we have to be cognizant at all times as to the level of care that these individuals need. Some of them are there for one reason or another, but when they require a great deal of medical attention, the costs to the department increase tremendously.

There are a lot of things that could have been done differently. We are cognizant at all times of the welfare and well-being of the children in our care. That said, there are ways other than the way Mr. Anglin suggested that we approach the issue here in the Yukon, given the small numbers, given the small jurisdiction. And it’s not necessary the bible on this area. It’s an approach that is being suggested. We’ve taken all of his advice, as well as the advice of others, and the department has made quite a number of changes that are proving to be extremely beneficial. A lot of initiative, a lot of personnel and a lot of costs have been incurred in addressing this area that had not been addressed under the previous two administrations. We’re doing what has to be done, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the minister didn’t answer the question with respect to the caseloads for social workers; have they gone down?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I haven’t that information on those kinds of details. Whether it’s a meaningful dialogue, I do not know. But we have hired additional social workers, but the pressures are up and down. The pressures usually rise before the holidays and then taper off early in the next year. Our government is committed to meeting the demands where the demands exist, and we will do so in the most expeditious manner.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, this was one of the key issues: the hiring of more social workers. One of the reasons was that the caseloads were extraordinarily high, and it was an issue to such a degree that the union took time to raise it with the minister. The minister may find it a tedious detail. I find it very important, as do the social workers in the field, and it’s unfortunate the minister cannot say how many more social workers have been hired. Has it met this burden and this need of the social workers, who are professionals, who want to do their jobs and who can’t do them given the high degree of caseloads? We hired additional workers. Has this enabled the caseloads to go down? One would hope. The minister is unable to indicate that.

The minister has indicated that they’ve done a lot of work on this. There’s more than just the Anglin report. Are there additional reports that have been requested by the department — additional studies? And if so, will he make those available to the members of both opposition parties?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The other report that I referred to is by the Child Welfare League of Canada, done under the previous administration. If the member doesn’t have a copy of it, I am sure that we can find one somewhere. It is a public document and has been from the time it was tabled by the Liberals.

Caseloads vary, as I indicated earlier. We have hired five more social workers directly in this area. If you want to look at the caseloads over the year or if you want to take a snapshot, we can make the statistics come out however you want. But the pressure is currently there on the department. It will be until early in the next year when it tends to peak and cycle down. But you never know what you’re faced with in this area. You never know what you are faced with, Mr. Chair. It’s very, very difficult to staff for that. If you want to look at some of the social workers in some of the other regions of the Yukon, their caseloads are some of the lowest. They might only have two or three, whereas some here in Whitehorse appear to be on the high side, based on an annual volume.

Ms. Duncan:   When will the consultations be undertaken or initiated for the location for the new group home? Where is it going to be?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I don’t know if there is a vacant lot right next to the member opposite, the leader of the third party, but we could probably entertain that. From there, consultation is going on and around the Yukon. There are various sites that have been looked at. One of the sites being looked at is in KDFN area. There is a multitude of options. We do not know at this juncture. We will rely on advice.

But one thing is for sure: unlike the previous administrations, consultation will take place with the immediate neighbours and the neighbourhood before a decision is made to go forward on a group home in any neighbourhood.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister said two things: he said that consultations are underway, and then he said that consultations will take place. So if they are underway, with whom is he consulting, and where are the public meetings? What consultation is taking place? Would he outline for the House exactly what’s happening and with whom?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The consultations are currently taking place within the department as to what options are available and which way we can proceed. The consultations that will take place will be with the respective neighbourhoods once options are provided.

So there are two areas: one is currently underway and the other one will be conducted.

Ms. Duncan:   This money — $460,000 — is in this supplementary budget, which takes us to March 31. Realistically, how does the minister intend — without construction started or a definitive consultation date — that $460,000 will be spent on a new group/receiving home by March 31? We’re going to be revoting this money in the spring, quite obviously.

When is it anticipated this consultation and decisions will be reached?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite is absolutely correct: there is the potential for a revote on some of this money, but it’s an initiative we’ve identified; we’re going forward with it. We have begun the in-house consultation. As to how we’re proceeding, there’s still the potential for construction early this next year and for that construction to be well advanced before the end of the fiscal period. The member knows full well that that could be the case.

Ms. Duncan:   Has any of this money already been spent on the changes that were made and discontinued at the young offender facility? What’s supposed to be going in there? Renovations have been undertaken, but there’s no clear commitment or statement from the government as to what’s happening with them. When does the minister intend to undertake consultations with the staff at the young offender facility as to their future?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The staff at the young offenders facility — their future is secured by the bargaining unit arrangements and the member knows full well. So I would encourage her not to raise any alarm bells in that area and suggest that the government is going to be laying off. Any suggestion like that is patently incorrect. That’s wrong information that the member is conveying to the general public. We’re not going there.

With respect to the young offenders facility, there was a considerable sum of money. I believe it was $100,000 odd that was spent right at the end of the previous administration’s watch for electronic locks and things of that nature. It was over $100,000 for new locks. And the options for the young offenders facility to enhance its operation and dovetail it perhaps with some other function are being examined. We’re not un-turning any stone.

But I’d encourage the member opposite not to go raising alarm bells that the government is going to be shutting down this facility and laying off the staff, because that is not the case. The member is an alarmist and she’s sitting there snickering and making all sorts of gestures that are very inappropriate because we are talking about a very dedicated staff at this facility that are well-recognized for their capable way, their capable role in our society.

Ms. Duncan:   For the member opposite’s information, I didn’t raise this issue on the floor of the House, the member opposite did. It’s well and good for him to stand on the floor of the House and say: "Oh, absolutely, there is nothing going to happen to the young offenders facility and the dedicated staff there." Well, we heard members on that side stand on the floor of this House in April and say they wouldn’t bring forward changes to the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act either. Guess what? It happened anyway.

That’s my concern. There are staff who are dedicated, who have seen changes in institutions before — and a complete lack of changes in the institutions before — and they are concerned. There are changes in legislation that have been brought forward by the federal government — and the member opposite yawns into the record. I am terribly sorry that he finds questions that Yukoners want asked so tedious. Yukoners are concerned about their future and concerned about that facility and concerned about how they will or will not find future employment with the Government of Yukon. There are issues and the minister would be well-advised to address them. They are within his portfolio.

If the minister is unable or unwilling to state what the future of the young offenders facility will be and is unwilling to state when he might be undertaking meetings with the staff to discuss the potential, does he have any indication of what the future of Macaulay Lodge is? He has had a year to rethink his disastrous pronouncements of last year.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the member opposite, the young offenders facility will remain a young offenders facility and Macaulay Lodge will remain Macaulay Lodge. I am given to understand that the building envelope has a future effective life of 10 years plus, and there is no need to change the design or anything.

But if the member just looks back at what was occurring under her watch, there was an expenditure of some $5 million that was contemplated at Macaulay Lodge to turn the facility into a bedsit facility, which was not desired by the residents or anyone else that I spoke with.

That was a major issue. It wasn’t a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers’ money. What is needed here in Whitehorse is a seniors apartment complex of a respectable size, and we’re examining that option. I think in the next budget cycle the members opposite might be very, very pleased with quite a number of initiatives that our government is taking, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, just to follow up on this matter, I’m aware of at least one commitment made by this government to people in the Kluane area, regarding a facility for seniors. From what I understand, the Health minister and the Finance minister have committed to allocate funds from next year’s budget toward a planning study. That would be in the year 2004-05; and for the following budget year, 2005-06, it has committed to allocating funds for construction of this facility.

Now, I’ve been apprised by one member of the community that the government prefers a P3 approach to this facility. Can the minister undertake to provide us information on both what the study will look like — will it involve consultation from the communities of the Kluane region, for instance — and what types of models it envisions for the construction? Now, this is quite a bit of information I’m asking for, Mr. Chair, and I don’t want the minister to stand up and waste further time today. I would like him to provide this information with a legislative return. Would he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’ll be happy to provide the member opposite with a response to his questions here on the floor of the House.

With respect to Haines Junction — and for the member opposite’s information, I must also include Teslin — our government is committed to providing money in the next budget cycle, which is 2004-05 and commences April 1 next year, for an examination of the options for a seniors or multi-level health care facility in both Teslin and Haines Junction, which would encompass the need the member opposite suggests or has identified.

At this time, it is premature to say how we would proceed, whether we would proceed under a P3 or how we would do that, Mr. Chair, but I have committed our government to proceed with this examination. That examination, subject to budget approval next spring, which I’m sure the member opposite will vote against — shame on him. He’ll probably be voting against an initiative to examine such a facility for his community and his riding of Haines Junction, but that’s the nature of the opposition.

We will be proceeding with this examination and, subject to the outcome of that examination for Haines Junction and Teslin, in the next budget cycle we will indicate the method employed. But at this juncture, it’s highly speculative as to whether we will proceed under what options we have available to us as a government, given the tremendous flexibility we now have with the amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act.

So the members opposite voted against the Taxpayer Protection Act; they’ll vote against the budget next year that provides the money for all these wonderful initiatives that we can proceed with.

It defies anyone’s imagination as to where the members opposite are coming from on this. On the one hand they are asking for it — how we are going to do it — and on the other hand they’re voting against it and opposing it all the time.

Mr. McRobb:   We don’t have time left in this sitting to allow for such speculation on how members are going to vote and why they vote for certain things. When the ministers stand up, they should stick to the questions asked and try to accommodate our requests, especially when we request time-saving initiatives like providing a written response. The minister has no compunction whatsoever to help us to move along quickly and that’s why he stands up and insists on orating a response. And in his response he takes a lot of cheap shots. In his response he avoided the question —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Mr. Jenkins, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Standing Order 19(g), the Member for Kluane is imputing false and unavowed motives on me.

Chair:   The Chair concurs and would ask members not to impute motives on others.

Mr. McRobb:   Anyway, in the interest of time, if the minister would just expedite the information, we’re just about at the end of this. My question is: would he provide us with copies of any correspondence related to seniors facilities for any community in the territory that he is privy to? Would he agree to that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I have written a letter to the three First Nations affected in the Member for Kluane’s riding, as well as the Village of Haines Junction. The letter was of a similar nature and we can provide the member opposite with copies of those letters.

Mr. McRobb:   That wasn’t my question. I’ve got a copy of the letter he referred to. I requested copies of any letters related to such facilities in all communities in the Yukon. Would the minister oblige that request, please?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, if the member opposite could be specific — I probably have a great number of letters on file. To that end, I will commit to providing the member opposite with any letter that has gone out under my signature to any seniors organization with respect to a seniors facility. I can commit to that.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, that’s a partial answer and it’s not quite good enough. Unfortunately we don’t have time here to argue about details. It seems that the government fully realizes that it’s to its advantage to spin the hands of time and delay as much as possible any progress on this budget, because it now appears very likely that the budget won’t be debated in its entirety.

Now, in the interest of time, I would like to ask the minister if he would provide us in writing, at some point after New Year’s, an explanation for each of the line items in this department. If he would provide us with that undertaking, we would then move the singular passage of all the lines in the department. It’s a very simple request, one that has been agreed to by previous governments. It is an established tradition. It’s the cooperative tradition, and certainly we don’t have to remind anyone of campaign commitments made only a year ago. But it would be extremely helpful to us in opposition to understand what is happening in this major department of Health and Social Services. The government refused to provide us with a briefing on it. There isn’t time to go through all the line items.

If the minister would undertake to get back to us in the next month or so with a written explanation of each line item, we can move on today.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I’m completely open to responding to any question on the supplementary that the members opposite want to ask here today. I am not prepared to provide a whole written summation of this supplementary to the members opposite, nor will I. Now, that said, Mr. Chair, it’s up to the members opposite to budget their time in this House, and that they have failed to do so is indicative of the dilemma the opposition is faced with at this juncture, where they’re going to have to clear millions and millions of dollars without debate because of their inability to budget their own time here.

Now, Mr. Chair, I’d encourage the members opposite, if they have any questions about any line in Health and Social Services to which this supplementary budget — our government was cognizant of the changes and we provided — unprecedented, Mr. Chair — an embargoed copy of this supplementary to the opposition parties well in advance of the day it was brought forward into this Legislature.

In addition to that, because of the unfamiliarity surrounding the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the devolution transfer, we provided unprecedented briefings to the opposition on these areas. Now, that is unprecedented that any government would provide a briefing on a supplementary budget. We’ve gone the extra mile as a government for the opposition parties in this area, and I’d encourage the members opposite to be more diligent in how they budget their time for debate in here.

If you look at the inordinate waste of time that they’ve spent on specific topics, you can only conclude that the Member for Kluane is currently at this point in debate where he’s asking for written summations of various line items because he has failed — failed to conduct himself in a manner that would allow him opportunity to debate these various areas. We will provide any response on the floor of this Legislature to any question about this specific budget. I specifically deal with Health and Social Services, and I’m quite open and accountable for that budget and will continue to be so. So if the members opposite have any questions on that area, please bring them forward, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, I dispute almost everything the government House leader has said. Furthermore, he addresses me as "the Member for Kluane". I am raising this issue as the House leader for the official opposition on behalf of all our critics in this House. This is a major issue that supersedes his refusal to provide us with explanations of the line items for his department. We’re now getting into the whole House rules on how this government is abusing the time of this Legislature and has consistently done so since day one.

I’ll point out, Mr. Chair, that this government House leader adjourned debate on the very first day of this sitting, right after the budget speech, even though we protested from this side that we would lose several hours that day. Mr. Chair, it continued into the next week when we didn’t have full sitting days.

We saw again, on the very last sitting day, last Thursday, when this government introduced a government motion, which consumed the entire afternoon. The government deprived us of several days’ time we had in which to debate this budget. If you look at the debate from each of the departments — Public Service Commission and Education come to mind — continuous stonewalling by ministers and refusal to answer questions simply amounted to a big waste of time. It produced very little in the way of information to the opposition parties.

The Minister of Health and Social Services, in refusing to provide written explanations, instead standing up and giving us lengthy speeches containing very little information, is simply a continuance of that strategy.

These rules that we’re under regarding fixed sitting days, Mr. Chair, came into force about two years ago, and I believe they could have worked had the government of the day — or any future government — legitimate intentions of providing information.

It probably could have worked, but this government has no intention of living up to any moral obligations to be frank with the answers and forthright with the information. There are all kinds of examples to back that up. This whole system stinks and something should be done about it. This minister is playing along. He knows full well what he is doing.

He stands up and gives a hard-done-by speech about how he is willing to respond orally to each question. He blames it on us for mismanagement. I have already elaborated on our position. The real losers here are the people of the territory, because democracy isn’t what it should be and this government is not accountable.

So I will ask the minister again: will he provide answers to the few line items in his department in writing to us, at some point a month or so from now? Would he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am sure that the member would have concluded questions and I would have concluded responses on those few line items that the member wanted to ask a question about. We are prepared to fully respond, to fully answer any question about any line item. But to request a written response — it is not necessary, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, the minister’s answer speaks for itself. We all know where he is going.

So, pursuant to Standing Order 14(3), the minister will not have to answer any questions on line items because I request unanimous consent of this Committee to deem all lines in Vote 15, the Department of Health and Social Services, cleared or carried as required.

Chair:   Prior to putting forward the request, the Chair will ask if there is any further general debate.

Ms. Duncan:   Prior to that request, I would like to request of the minister — we’ve had many discussions about the ambulance services in the territory. There have been discussions in Question Period; the minister has met with Teslin and with the ambulance attendants. There are three line items that are designated in health services for capital.

Could I have a written explanation from the minister of what —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:  He doesn’t want to give me a written explanation. Will the minister then, briefly, outline specifically how the issues around training will be dealt with for the ambulance attendants? And then that is my last question. Prior to putting the motion forward, I would like that one question answered.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There are a number of ways that we are addressing the issue of training. I’m sure the members opposite are aware that a number of the communities have trainers in place. That said, in addition to that, we’re working with Yukon College and we’re buying a number of seats, commencing in January of next year, for part of the training program. In addition to that, we’re having the position of a trainer who can go out on flex time and provide training in the rural communities after-hours and on weekends — that position is being examined.

So there are a number of ways we’re addressing the issue and it’s coming to a head. But the issue surrounding the problems that the department has had are — as I explained during Question Period surrounding the selection of one individual as a trainer, grievances filed and that whole area — had to be dealt with by the Public Service Commission before we could move forward. So we are moving forward, we have got the programs in place, and hopefully we can be successful in this area, as we have been in the past.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Chair:   Mr. McRobb has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 15, Department of Health and Social Services, cleared or carried as required. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent. That clears that department.

Chair:   I understand that we’re now moving on to Vote 54, the Department of Tourism and Culture. Do members wish to combine our brief recess to allow officials to change with our regular 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Member:   Disagree.

Chair:   We will continue.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I am pleased to introduce the supplementary estimates for the Department of Tourism and Culture. These supplementary estimates contain a decrease of $1,398,000 to its operation and maintenance budget and a $727,000 increase to its capital budget. Key in this 2003-04 supplementary budget is a demonstration of our platform commitment to Yukoners in the last election to establish a Department of Economic Development as well as a stand-alone Department of Tourism and Culture.

The supplementary budget reflects a decrease of $1,531,000 in operation and maintenance funding and a capital budget decrease of $555,000 in program transfers to the Department of Economic Development. I should add that we will continue to work closely with Economic Development and Tourism in growing our territory’s economic future.

This supplementary budget also reflects our commitment to the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon to unite the tourism marketing product development and research functions of the department in one branch. The internal budget net allocation of $305,000 of the tourism-related O&M programs and $185,000 in the capital budget program to the marketing branch is the final administrative step needed. Although Tourism and Culture is not one of the most affected departments in devolution, $31,000 in O&M funds will support additional costs to appraise, acquire, process and conserve archival material at the Yukon Archives. Corporate services receives $126,000 also, primarily in association with devolution personnel requirements.

Now, other activities include the following revotes: the museum assistance program requires a revote of $89,000 in capital spending to complete several projects, such as training for museums board and First Nation cultural centre staff and to cover the cost of architectural plans for the Kluane Museum.

Also in capital spending, the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre revote of $19,000 will replace a security camera system. There is also a revote of $19,000 for the new climate change exhibit. $13,000 of the climate change display is recoverable from our federal government.

The arts fund requires a revote of $75,000 in capital resources to bring forward approvals for projects that are underway in this fiscal year, such as the Dawson City Short Film Festival and the Youth of Today Society workshop and exhibition.

A revote of $32,000 in the capital budget is required to complete showcases, as identified under the craft strategy, for visitor reception centres throughout the territory, including Whitehorse, Watson Lake, and potentially in Faro, Mayo, Haines Junction and Teslin. This project was primarily delayed due to product development in marketing training that was needed prior to promoting artists in showcase displays.

Revotes of $33,000 will complete the Yukon business survey being conducted by the Yukon Bureau of Statistics, and $19,000 is required to complete a tourism digital mapping project for the Whitehorse, Carcross-Southern Lakes and Teslin areas. A further $35,000 revote will allow the Kluane First Nation to participate in the mapping and documentation of heritage trails near Kluane Lake.

A revote of $132,000 will also provide landscaping and parking lot development at the Yukon Transportation Museum. This project was delayed to allow the federal government to complete the cleanup of contaminated soil.

In this supplementary budget I would like to highlight three important new initiatives that will enhance cultural and tourism opportunities in the Yukon. The cultural services branch is providing $300,000 in capital to the Carcross-Tagish First Nation for the planning and development of a cultural centre. This new project will enhance regional tourism initiatives, support heritage and cultural preservation, and create economic development in the Carcross area.

A new program will see $329,000 invested into the creation and maintenance of a Canadian register of historic places and the development and communication of the standards and guidelines for the conservation of historic places in Canada. This project is fully recoverable from Canadian Heritage.

The Department of Tourism and Culture, in conjunction with the Department of Community Services, is also working on a new initiative entitled "the decade of sport and culture". And we as a government are going to involve Yukoners and assist where we can to make the Canada Winter Games — and subsequent games — a tremendous success. This particular initiative will connect the many community-based sport and culture events that are being planned for the next 10 years, such as the 2004 Canada Summer Senior Games, the 2007 Canada Winter Games, and of course, the 2010 Winter Olympics.

As a government we are allocating a total of $320,000 to the decade of sport and culture. Our Department of Tourism and Culture will allocate $200,000 of this total to ensuring that we maximize benefits to the Yukon from all these events.

In addition, the marketing branch will transfer $25,000 in operation and maintenance funding to the Department of Community Services in support of the tourism potential of the Canada Summer 2004 Senior Games. Again, Yukon’s participation in the 2004 Canada Summer Senior Games, the 2007 Canada Winter Games and the 2010 Winter Olympics will provide Yukon communities with an unprecedented opportunity to benefit from and celebrate these very prestigious events.

This concludes the supplementary estimates for the Department of Tourism and Culture, and I would be very happy to entertain any questions the member opposite has.

Mr. McRobb:   I want to start off with product development. Can the minister explain what progress has been made since this spring in that area?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Product development, as the member opposite will recall, was one of the key priorities that the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon had identified. Of course we followed through with that commitment. Product development is, I should add, a very complex, a very progressive development, but we are committed as a department — and as a government, I should add.

With respect to product development, we immediately went on to hire an individual to proceed with product development, so this individual is our product development officer, and in turn this individual has been onboard with our department for a few months already and has made pretty significant progress in various communities, working with partners such as Klondike Visitors Association, other entities within the territory, to develop and promote activities, whether it may be the Dempster Highway anniversary celebrations, whether it may be working with Holland America to expand day and multi-day packages. Also the individual has been working on N2K Learning Travel Product Club, also working on continuing the work on the anchor icon product initiative, as well as community product planning. So this individual has been working pretty diligently.

I should add that product, of course, is not just simply focused on tourism, but it is tourism-related. Whether it be roads, infrastructure, it’s all part and parcel of growing our tourism industry industry.

Mr. McRobb:   I would like some information on the terms of reference for this position, as well as a more detailed explanation of any progress made in this area, as well as a list of priorities for product development. Can the minister undertake to return to us with some written information?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I think that I have outlined as much as I can some of the initiatives that this individual has been working on. I should also add that this position also has been working very closely with our industry association. Again I refer to a whole host of activities that the individual has been working on. But I can certainly go back to the department and see what additional information we could provide the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb:   I am not sure if that was a yes. I did ask for the terms of reference as well as the priorities and a more detailed explanation. She said she will check with the department. That really leaves things up in the air. Can I get a commitment from the minister that she will provide whatever is possible to answer my questions?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Well, I believe that I just made the commitment to go back to the department and see what additional information I can provide.

Mr. McRobb:   I will assume then, Mr. Chair, that any information she can provide will be provided. If I stand corrected, I will expect an elaboration from the minister when she gets up on her feet next.

In the spring, the minister indicated that one of her goals was to increase access to capital for our tourism operators. Can she explain how that is being done?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I don’t recall that particular line of answering, but we work with operators on an ongoing basis. Whether it be through product development, marketing initiatives or our cultural services branch, we always undertake to work with tour operators, whether it be gaining further access to other markets, providing marketing assistance or assistance with business planning. We continue to provide those services and, of course, we always look to expand those services as well.

Mr. McRobb:   For the minister’s convenience, on April 30, she said, and I’ll quote: "The new Yukon investment strategy will develop a strategy to attract investment and increase access to capital." She went on to talk about how that is one of her objectives.

So, once again, what is she doing in that area? I’d also like to ask about the pan-northern economic development agreement the Premier promised people at last year’s tourism roundup. Can she update us on that, please?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   It has now hit home with me with respect to the Yukon investment strategy that I referred to. I was remiss earlier, but it has now come to light that that is a strategy that is actually being pursued by the Department of Economic Development, so this is an initiative that the Premier, as Minister of Economic Development, will be working on.

That has since been transferred over to the Department of Economic Development; therefore, I have no progress to report at this time.

With respect to the economic development agreement that the member opposite referred to — and which is also outlined in our platform, I should add — I can say, as Minister of Tourism and Culture, this is an issue that I have raised at various intervals throughout the last year in meeting with my counterparts, and in particular with ministers of Northwest Territories and Nunavut, raising this very issue at the ministerial table with the former federal Minister of Industry, Allan Rock, basically stating how we do not have access to any EDA funding of any kind, whether it has a tourism component or an economic development component. Instead there are other jurisdictions in Canada that have access to the western diversification fund, to the ACOA funds. I believe it’s to the northern Ontario development regional initiatives. Similarly, regional initiatives identified through Canada Tourism Commission — we are not eligible for those programs either.

So we continue to work as a collective at that end, and I certainly look forward to meeting with the new Minister of Industry, who was just appointed to Cabinet the other day, again raising this issue at the ministerial table.

I should also add that just recently there was a ministers meeting, in which I did not take part — it was in Quebec — and at that time the Council of Tourism Ministers did join forces and they came up with a new body called the Council of Tourism Ministers. They also, at the same time, released a draft document for a national tourism strategy for their discussion. That, I understand, has been somewhat put on hold, but part of that discussion — we as a collective here in the territory will be making a pitch to the federal government, once again, that we are in need of some additional funding, whether it be making our territory more accessible to the rest of the world, enhancing our product, marketing it as such. But we are making those arguments at the federal table.

I know that the Premier, likewise, is also making those arguments.

Mr. McRobb:   I assume that the minister was listening to the discussion that I had with the government House leader. It’s really important to stay focused this afternoon because of the lack of time remaining in this sitting, and there are still a number of departments to go.

So, if she is able to oblige our request for written information, that would be extremely helpful. Of course we are all mindful about keeping our questions and answers to the point.

I would like to follow up by asking what progress has been made along the lines of reintroducing the tourism marketing fund, or whatever program it may be. There was some discussion back in April about the need for such a program to assist small business owners to develop Web sites and so on in the territory. Could the minister update us on that, please?