Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

Speaker: As we commence proceedings today in the Assembly, we ask for divine guidance. May the deliberations in this House be characterized by temperance, understanding and reason to the end that we may better serve those who have made the members of this House guardians of, and trustees for, all of the citizens of Yukon.

Amen.

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all members of this Legislature in paying tribute to a well-known elder and grand matriarch of the Upper Tanana people.

Bessie John was born to Lucy and White River Johnny in the spring of 1923, just north of Beaver Creek at Sourdough Hill, or Nìi'ìi. She was raised in the traditions of the Upper Tanana and Northern Tutchone people and given the native name, Nel Nah.

For people of her generation, "your life was your work and your work was your life." It wasn't easy surviving the long, extremely cold winters on the land in the remote north. Her family kept on the move between Coffee Creek and Little Scottie Creek along the Yukon/Alaska border.

Although Bessie could not participate in the public school system, she painstakingly learned from her own elders about the geography, place names and traditional stories of the Scottie Creek drainage in culturally appropriate ways, every bit as formal as our western education.

Later in life, she appreciated the adult education training course, started by the Yukon Vocational School. She was extremely proud of her son-in-law, then-Government Leader, Tony Penikett, whose government supported the native language initiative.

During the Council for Yukon First Nation's general assembly at Aishihik in 1989, it was Bessie's uplifting and emotional speech that convinced the chiefs to accept the White River First Nation as the fourteenth Yukon First Nation at the land claims table.

Training as a native language instructor at Yukon College was another highlight of her life. She was honoured when John Ritter, now director of the Yukon Native Language Centre, learned to speak in her language. Mr. Ritter also designed a program in which adult native people, with little formal education, could earn a teaching certificate.

At Yukon College in 1992, Chancellor Pierre Berton presented Bessie with her teaching certificate. She taught the upper Tanana language at the Beaver Creek school from 1989 to 1993, before retiring in 1994.

In the year following, she helped produced the Upper Tanana-Scottie Dialect Glossary, which, Mr. Speaker, I tributed in this House on April 15, 1997.

Bessie was very, very proud of her heritage, and she loved to express herself through storytelling and singing. She recorded information on native medicine and many native songs for television and radio and was a regular guest at the Yukon International Storytelling Festival in Whitehorse. Her daughter, Doris Johns, assisted in her language and cultural work. Her only other daughter, Lula Johns-Penikett, assisted her in recording traditional knowledge, along with good friend, anthropologist Norm Easton.

Predeceased by her mother and father - Lucy and White River Johnny - brothers Peter Johnny and Joe Johnny, and half-sister Cecilia Johnny, Bessie is survived by her husband Edgar Albert; sisters Jenny Sanford and Marilyn VanderMeer Sanford; brothers Tommy Johnny, Patrick Johnny and Chief David Johnny; daughters Lula Johns-Penikett and Doris Johns; sons Richard Johns, Gordon Johns and stepson Robert Johnny; and many grandchildren and other relations throughout the north.

Bessie passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on June 3, 2000, at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver after a lengthy heart operation. Her funeral services spanned the past three days, from Beaver Creek to Northway, Alaska, and Sourdough Hill, or Nì'ìi', where she was laid to rest yesterday afternoon.

Bessie's love of her language and pride in her native tradition are irreplaceable. She will be greatly missed by her people, friends and relations throughout Alaska and the Yukon.

Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce three guests who are in the gallery this afternoon. They are Rachel Grantham, director of the Whitehorse Community Choir; Joan Stanton, president of the choir; and, Pam Lattin, the vice-president of the choir.

The choir has brought great honour to the Yukon. The Association of Canadian Choral Conductors have selected the choir's Voices of the Klondike, a choral concert celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Klondike Gold Rush, as Canada's outstanding choral event of the last two years. That is a wonderful accomplishment, and speaks to the hard work of the director, the executive and every choir member.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling a letter to the hon. Bob Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, signed by me as Minister of Economic Development.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions.

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon government should implement an action plan to deal with FAS/FAE that would include the following:

(a) prevention programs to eliminate or reduce alcohol consumption of high-risk parents in order to foster the birth of healthy babies;

(b) early diagnosis of FAS/FAE before the age of six;

(c) supporting people and families with FAS/FAE through a wide range of services, such as professional counselling and foster homes, in order to provide a stable, nurturing home environment for those afflicted with FAS/FAE, especially those between the ages of eight to 12;

(d) a team of professionals trained in psychology, personal counselling, social work and health to be formed to provide services to Yukon schools in order to provide support for FAS/FAE students and their families; and (e) investigation of the feasibility of establishing group homes for adults with FAS/FAE.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Services, implement a student alcohol and drug treatment program as an alternative to expulsion from schools for students caught using alcohol and drugs.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that a Crossroads-type inpatient alcohol and drug rehabilitation centre should be re-established in Whitehorse.

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

It is the opinion of this House that highways, airports, communications and other basic infrastructure systems are the foundation of our Yukon communities;

THAT development of infrastructure in the Yukon is all about improving the quality of life of all Yukoners; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to:

(1) ensure community involvement in the design of government-funded projects;

(2) review and prioritize the sewer and water infrastructure needs for all Yukon communities and begin planning for their construction; and

(3) support alternative energy sources such as wind and solar generation.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Yukon must continue to build upon the success realized in our tourism industry;

THAT the Yukon must continue to capitalize on our natural environment and historic and prehistoric past; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to:

(1) partner with the Yukon Convention Bureau, communities and local businesses to promote the Yukon as a convention destination;

(2) work with the tourism industry and other stakeholders to develop visitor attractions and other tourism infrastructure to encourage all-season tourism throughout the Yukon.

Speaker: Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Harding: I have a question for the Premier on the Liberals' flip-flop of the day.

In 1992, during the election campaign, the then-former Yukon Party leader in the now-infamous quote said that, at that time it would have been obscene for the NDP government of that day to raise taxes. He promptly got into government and did just that. Now we have a Liberal Premier who told Yukoners that our 12-percent tax cut wasn't enough and that she would cut more. As soon as she gets into government, she then tells Yukoners she'll be raising their tax rates.

My question to the Premier: why did the Premier tell Yukon families that she'll cut their taxes more than the NDP did and then get into government only to jack their taxes back up?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government had four years to cut taxes. They waited until the very last portion of their mandate to even make an attempt at it, and then did not pass the budget that reflected those tax cuts. I committed to Yukoners throughout the election campaign that we would implement the initial tax cut and we would examine the books further. And that is exactly what we have done in the bill that is coming before this House.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is inaccurate. First of all, the NDP, two years ago, cut taxes first for low-income families in this territory and then funded and budgeted for a 12-percent tax-cut reduction for Yukon families so that everyone could benefit. The reality is that there is plenty of money in this budget. The government has a huge surplus. The problem is that there's not enough money to fund these tax cuts and the huge list of Liberal promises out there, and, with every Finance briefing, they're learning how difficult it's going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a quote by the Premier, on February 22 of this year, where she said, in response to our tax cut plan, "I think the government could have gone further with this initial tax cut. We could have gone further one additional point." Mr. Speaker, that was then, this is now.

Will the Premier commit to reducing taxes more and say to Yukoners unequivocally that she will not jack their taxes back up?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I said, and let me quote for the member opposite, "If the current spending patterns were to continue, the surplus would only be $4.5 million at the end of the 2002-03 fiscal year." We are doing exactly what we said we would do with Yukoners. We said we would take a good look at the books, and that's exactly what we're doing. We're implementing the tax cut for this year, and we're looking at the books. We will examine our options for the future. We will do that in light of the NDP pattern of spending down the surplus to where the projection is only $4.5 million at the end of 2002-03 - a surplus, Mr. Speaker, that will not allow for the pressure points we are experiencing such as escalating health care costs.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll get to that. This is the Premier who told Yukoners that what the NDP did in the way of tax cuts wasn't enough. The Liberals said they would cut taxes more. This is the Premier who is sitting on a $60-million surplus, and today is telling Yukoners that she is going to jack their taxes back up, creating even more uncertainty for those Yukon families.

I would like to ask the Premier, how are Yukoners going to know when she says something she really means to do, versus when she says something just to get elected?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is right on one point. This is the Premier. The member is not right when he says we are sitting on a $60-million surplus, as he full well knows. If the member would examine the budget books, he would see that there is not a $60-million surplus. I would encourage the member opposite to examine them fully.

During the election campaign, when asked directly if we would implement the tax cut, I said we would implement this year's and we would look at the books. That is what we're doing.

Question re: Income tax rate increases

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I read the quote of the Premier to the Yukon public on February 22, this year, where she clearly committed herself. She is not doing what she said she would do. But, because the Liberals have been spinning this tale about the state of the surplus when they took over government, we have no choice today but to table a confidential Management Board document that shows that, as of April 25, this year, one week after the election and only one week before they were sworn in, the Department of Finance officials predicted a $41-million surplus for the last fiscal year. That is without factoring in the traditional $15 million to $20 million in lapsed funding, which will push the surplus closer to $60 million, when they took over government.

What will the Liberals spend of the surplus in this budget year, and in supplementaries, is their responsibility and they have to be accountable for that. I might also point out that their supplementary spends the surplus down even more. They haven't cut any spending. So, with all this money, why is the Premier saying that she is going to cut the NDP tax cuts that she previously said were too small?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the budget documents, as the member full well knows, in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1, indicate that the estimated accumulated surplus as of March 31, 2001, is $14,724,000.

The Yukon Liberal government is, and will be, prudent fiscal managers. We said we would implement the tax cut for this year and we would examine further tax cuts once we have had a good look at the books - that's what we're doing.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, this is a big Liberal flip-flop.

First of all, she just quoted the surplus at the end of 2001's fiscal year. That is the Liberal's year. The surplus at the end of March 31, 2000, was the NDP year, and we left them $60 million in the bank. So, Mr. Speaker, it's a question of choices.

Now, we've seen a Liberal government, in five days in this House, make promise after promise and then break them. First of all, on Tombstone, they said they'd buy out the claims, now they're backing off. On Argus, they campaigned against the Yukon government's infrastructure commitment. Now, they're saying they're not going to back out on it, when they have the opportunity with a dead deal.

On legal aid, they said they cared about it and it should be funded now and, with their supplementary, we saw no funding.

And now on the tax cuts that they said were too small, they're saying they're not prepared to cut them more, as they promised Yukoners. All of this in five days.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Premier do what she said she'd do and cut taxes more?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we said we would look at the books. That's what we're doing. We said we would. We tabled the NDP budget in its entirety in order to provide Yukoners with certainty. That's what we have done.

We have said we will treat people with respect, which is exactly what we have done. We have respected the terms of the Argus agreement that was negotiated by the previous government. We said we would be prudent fiscal managers and that is exactly what we are doing.

We have implemented the tax cut for this year. We will look at next year, when we've finished looking at the books.

Mr. Harding: The fact remains that she said the tax cuts were too small; she said she'd cut them and, today, with a $60-million surplus, she could provide certainty to Yukon families who are doing their budgets. With regard to Argus, she could ask for that $750,000 back from the city and buy a kidney dialysis machine. She could put more money into legal aid. This is all about choice. She is saying she couldn't sustain the spending of the NDP, and is using that to justify cutting the tax cuts. Well, Mr. Speaker, she has done nothing but spend more: $250,000 for prospector grants, a million-dollar signing bonus for the YTA.

With this huge surplus, why did the Liberals abandon this 12-percent tax cut plan of the NDP's they said was far too small, and will the Premier now commit, unequivocally, to restoring that and adding more to it, which she said she was going to do before the election?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants to bootleg all kinds of issues into this question. Let's respond to some of them.

First of all, the reference to the terms of the agreement with the teachers is a reference to a retention allowance, and I would encourage the member to examine that in detail.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The retention allowance deals with a specific issue, which we heard throughout the campaign.

With respect to Argus, the NDP government negotiated this deal. When they were in government, it was not unfair; it was a great deal, it was a wonderful deal. Now, they have changed sides and, all of a sudden, they want us to rip up deals with Yukoners. We are not going to do that. The deal is not dead, and I do not have a choice, contrary to what the member opposite is kibitzing across the floor of the House.

We treat other governments and citizens with respect. I said during the election campaign that we would implement the initial year of the tax cut. That is exactly what we have done. With regard to speculating on future tax cuts, we will look at the fiscal situation of the Government of Yukon, and we will be prudent fiscal managers.

Question re: Seniors housing, extended care facility in Copper Ridge

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services on the new continuing care facility in Copper Ridge. The minister's recent decision to develop the full 96 beds rather than just proceeding with phase 1 construction of 72 beds is, I believe, a wise decision and I commend the minister for making it.

While the facility is a much-needed one, the Member for Riverdale South, at the announcement last June, questioned the location of the facility in view of its distance from the hospital, the increased operational and maintenance costs, the difficulty in commuting for families and friends, as well as the fact that most other senior services are located in downtown Whitehorse. She raised the concerns again during the election, and in a letter written on behalf of the Member for Whitehorse Centre, the Liberals went so far as to state that the location of the facility was making seniors second-class citizens.

Does the minister have the same reservations about the location of the facility, or does he disagree with his Liberal colleagues and support the decision of the previous NDP minister to locate the much-needed facility in Copper Ridge?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, we have issued the contract as of last Friday. Work has begun, and we have not changed the location. We have agreed with the work that had been done in preparing the residence and the site for where it is now going to be. So nothing has changed.

Mr. Jenkins: So during the election campaign, we have one story to win the election. After the election is concluded, we come forward with another story. We have found we can't do anything about it, it would appear. Well, during the election the issue of the location was raised by some seniors at the door. So I'd like to ask the minister if he is confident that Yukon seniors and elders have been properly consulted and that the majority of them are in agreement to construct a new extended care facility in Copper Ridge. Can he give the House that assurance?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Being in the job for five weeks, I guess we could probably answer a lot of questions with a lot of surety. But I have to say that this was one project that was done right, as far as looking at consulting with the stakeholders, as far as dealing with the various people who are basically going to be affected by this particular residence. After the briefing notes had been prepared and shared with me, I felt that this was how we should do all our projects, and so I have to commend the fact that this was done right. And I don't think we want to change it because we do things right.

Mr. Jenkins: Once again, it is clearly pointed out that the Liberals have one position when they are fighting an election, and then, after the election is over, they read their briefing notes, they read the reality of the situation, and they conclude that it's one project that is done right.

Can the minister also advise the House if he agrees with the previous NDP government's decision to change the Thomson Centre into a level 1 and 2 facility, when it was designed to provide the highest level of care and has immediate access to the Whitehorse General Hospital? Does that make the same amount of sense as the previous evaluation, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: At this point, we haven't decided what we are going to be doing with that particular facility. We are taking one step at a time. We cannot answer all the questions at this point but, over time, I'm sure we will come up with what is in the best interest of Yukoners.

Question re: Education policy regarding home-schooling

Mr. Fairclough:My question is to the Minister of Education. It is essential to involve the public in shaping the best possible education system to serve the needs of all of our students. I was disappointed that the Liberal government ended Conversations in Education early and suspended the dialogue with communities that many Yukon people enjoyed and participated in.

Can the minister tell me if he has met with the Yukon Home Educators Society and parents to continue discussions on improvements to the policies for home-schooled students?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: No, I haven't.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite surprised with the answer that the minister has given. In opposition, the Liberals said that the distance education policy administered by the Department of Education was discriminatory and should be changed "forthwith".

Does the Minister of Education agree with the Member for Porter Creek South that the distance education policy is discriminatory, and has he given any direction to change this policy?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot give you a qualified answer at this time. I would be more than willing, at a later date, to supply a qualified answer to your question. I'm sorry.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in opposition, this was important to them, and they questioned the government over and over on it. As a matter of fact, their Premier wrote a letter in December stating that the Department of Education is obliged, in her view, to provide the necessary resources for home-schooled students to receive distance education courses by early January 2000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the NDP government has left a surplus of $60 million to the Liberal government. Can the minister outline what is the estimated annual cost for making this change in policies, what the changes to policies will be and will he be bringing forward a supplementary budget in the fall to cover the costs of distance education courses for home-schooled students?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that the Premier did meet with the groups on a frequent basis and there will be adequate time where the Premier can brief me on those issues. I will be meeting directly with them when time allows, and that will be in the nearest future as possible.

Question re: Oil and gas, pipeline route

Mr. Fentie:My question is for the Premier in her capacity as the Minister for Economic Development, and it relates to the development of the oil and gas industry here in the Yukon.

Recently, the Premier, in a speech to the Chamber, stated that the development of the oil and gas industry here in the territory is a tremendous opportunity for Yukoners. The Premier also went on, as leader of the official opposition, to table a motion in this Legislature that encouraged the Yukon government to aggressively promote the development of that industry. In recent days in this Legislature, we have witnessed the Liberal government do a complete reversal on many of their priorities and commitments, whether it be land claims, taxes, Tombstone claims, legal aid, the Argus issue. They're on the run from those priorities. It could be compared to a fugitive running from the scene of a crime.

Can the Premier inform this House in what order of priority does the development of oil and gas industry rest with the Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, as we have spoken at great length throughout the election campaign and in this House in the short time we have been sitting so far, the top priority of the Liberal government is the settlement of land claims, devolution, turning the Yukon economy around. With respect to turning the Yukon economy around, that includes oil and gas. As the member full well knows, I will be participating in the World Petroleum Congress National Petroleum Show in that regard, with respect to promotion of Yukon's oil and gas. Prior to the end of the election campaign, I had also taken steps in terms of pipeline promotion.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that's interesting. The Premier has just stated that when it comes to the economy of this territory, the oil and gas industry is a very high priority. Yet, when the Premier had an opportunity to attend the annual Pipeline Energy Association meeting in Calgary a short time ago, the Premier neglected to do so. However, a competing jurisdiction for a pipeline route into market in the south, the Northwest Territories, had their Premier at the association meeting, and the Premier from the Northwest Territories lobbied heavily for the Mackenzie route. It's a given that the development of the oil and gas industry in this territory is directly linked to the development of infrastructure - in short, a pipeline to be able to send product to market.

Can the Premier explain why the Premier did not represent this territory and the Alaska Highway route at such an important annual meeting of the Pipeline Energy Association?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will be attending, at a minimum in the next six weeks, two very important meetings, with respect to pipelines and oil and gas development in the Yukon. They are the World Petroleum Congress and the National Petroleum Show this week, and there are other meetings scheduled early in July, specifically for the Yukon with respect to meeting with petroleum executives. There are a number of them that have been scheduled.

With respect to Premier Kakfwi, and his efforts, Premier Kakfwi has quite correctly recognized that there is an opportunity and he has spoken on behalf of his territory. I don't answer for his actions and he doesn't answer for mine.

Mr. Fentie: Well, I'm glad the Premier of the Yukon government recognizes the importance that the pipeline has to the Northwest Territories. Unfortunately, she didn't represent that fact at the association's annual meeting.

It's all well and good for the Premier to attend the world conference, but the Yukon will be lost on the world stage. This is a huge conference. The Premier will probably have trouble getting lunch.

At the pipeline association meeting, the Premier had a golden opportunity to take political leadership and state the Yukon Territory's case when it comes to the Alaska Highway pipeline.

Can the Premier table today for this House any letters she may have written - a record of phone calls, records of meetings - anything that has to do with the Yukon Liberal government's position of aggressively promoting the oil and gas industry and more specifically, the Alaska Highway pipeline? Will she undertake to do so today?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there are assistants who are listening to this and I would respectfully request that the letters I exchanged with the Prime Minister during the election campaign be tabled for this House. As well, I am prepared to list for the member opposite, who seems so desperately interested in my schedule, the number of meetings I have had with Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd. and Westcoast, as well as meetings with other individuals, such as the Yukon Chamber of Commerce and others who have spoken with me about this initiative.

The Yukon Liberals have been absolutely crystal clear with everyone with respect to this pipeline. Our commitment was to progressively promote it and that is precisely what we have done from the middle of the election campaign and on. My summer and the time over the next immediate few weeks will be focused on meeting with executives and ensuring the Yukon's voice is heard.

I also made representation on this with respect to the western premiers and spoke with my colleagues about it at some length.

There are a number of factors to do with this pipeline that need to be emphasized and need to be pointed out to individuals, and we are working on aggressively promoting it

Question re: Land claims, unresolved issues

Mr. Harding: I must point out to the Yukon public that when it mattered most on the ANGTS project, the Premier was AWOL.

With regard to the issue of land claims in this territory is another area - a so-called top priority - where the Liberals have missed the boat. Five weeks after the election, at the gold show, there was a terrific opportunity to settle a number of Yukon land claims and to move the land claims process ahead immensely. A year after Minister Nault told Yukon First Nations that he was going to make major moves on two substantive, key issues that would settle a number of claims in this territory, after the election here in the territory, he came up, backed out and dropped the bomb on the table saying he was no longer going to do what he said he was going to do.

I'd like to ask the Premier a very simple question. Does the Premier agree with Bob Nault's position on the loan-repayment and taxation issues, or does she support Yukon First Nations' issues and positions?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The NDP was in power for four years. They signed one land claim. The Yukon Liberal government has been in office for less than two months. Settlement of the seven outstanding land claims is a top priority with our government. The action I have taken at the principals meeting and the position I have taken since is to ensure that Government of Yukon issues are resolved and that our government is making best efforts to ensure that these seven outstanding land claims are settled.

Mr. Harding: The Premier avoided the question. She did not answer it. I'm going to ask her again, but first of all I'll give her a history lesson. In terms of the issue around land claims and the agreements that were signed, she is conveniently forgetting the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in land claim and the fact that if these two issues are resolved, there will be four more claims that are essentially finished from a Yukon perspective.

So let me ask her the simple question again, and she can answer it for the Yukon public clearly and concisely. Does the Premier agree with Bob Nault's position on the loan-repayment and the section 87 issues, or does she support the Yukon First Nations' position? What is her position?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Let me answer for the member, very clearly, so that he understands it. Settlement of seven outstanding land claims is a top priority. We have made every effort since taking office to ensure that none of the issues at the seven outstanding land claims tables are Yukon issues, and the member full well knows that there are Government of Yukon issues. I would remind the member that if he revisits his public exchange of correspondence with the Chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, he will recall that there are Government of Yukon issues that need to be resolved. Those issues will be resolved. Settlement of seven outstanding land claims will be, and is, a top priority of this government, and we will ensure that best efforts are made.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is skating on some thin ice. The Yukon public will clearly hear that she did not answer the question. Now, this is the Premier who said one week before the election with regard to the taxation issues, "I think it's a matter of Paul Martin's been here before. Let's get him to the principals meeting in May - that's the one at the gold show - and resolve this log jam. It's not a difficult resolution." That's what she said one week before the election. Then we had the gold show and, lo and behold, look at what Minister Nault had to say.

I'm going to ask her once again: will she answer a simple question? Does she support Minister Nault's position on the loan repayment in section 87, or does she support Yukon First Nations' position - which one?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was not at either the previous principals negotiations or these ones. The member opposite needs to remember that we have said that the settlement of seven outstanding land claims will be a top priority, and they will be a top priority. They are a top priority. I do not speak for Minister Nault, nor do I speak for the grand chief. I speak for Yukoners. That's my task, and that's what I intend to do. In speaking for Yukoners, they want to see - we all want to see - the settlement of seven outstanding land claims done and accomplished forthwith. And that's exactly what we're trying to do.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Ms. Tucker: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

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

Motion agreed to

committee of the whole

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Before we start on general debate, I would like to thank the members of this House for entrusting me with the position of Chair of Committee of the Whole. I promise to be non-partisan. I promise to be even-handed. I promise to ask the members to respect the decorum and leadership of the House that we show to the people of the Yukon Territory. That being said, I would like to now proceed with general debate on Bill No. 2, First Appropriation Act, 2000-01.

Bill No. 2 - First Appropriation Act, 2000-01

Hon. Ms. Duncan: We have spent some time tabling this piece of legislation. I would remind members again that the timing of the election call created uncertainty for Yukoners in that, by adopting this budget, we are endeavouring to cause as little disruption as possible to the economy and to government operations, and it is for that reason, and that reason alone, that we proceeded with the numbers before us. I am certainly looking forward to members' questions.

Mr. Harding: I welcome the opportunity to talk about uncertainty, because there has been a lot more uncertainty created in the territory as a result of the actions that have been taken by this Liberal government thus far. The only saving grace for them that they've demonstrated so far is the NDP budget, which I believe was a good move for them to bring forward, because it's doing a lot to create work in construction opportunities out there in the Yukon public. We see, by the March and April employment numbers, the economy, because of the NDP budget, is certainly starting to turn around and create some work in the territory.

But there are a number of issues that I have to explore with the Premier extensively, and I look forward to doing that today and next week when she returns from Calgary. I think it's going to be incumbent on the Yukon people to see, in a whole host of areas, exactly what the positions of this government are, as they pertain to key issues that are out there in the minds of Yukon people.

I'm going to be asking her about the Tombstone claims. It's very apparent to Yukoners that there has been a backtrack by the Liberal government on buying out the claims. One only has to read the letter that I received today - the member tabled it - in which she is already setting up the equation that she intends to be backing out of the commitment to buy out the Tombstone claims. And I have to tell the member opposite that, with regard to a negotiated settlement, I am sure that if the price is right, they will have a deal on the Tombstone buyout, but every day that the Premier delays, the price is going to go up.

Now, the member likes to say that the situation is there because of NDP inaction. Well, I must tell her that the course that was taken that resulted in the claims being finalized was basically that the mining company had the right, under the Quartz Mining Act, to stake claims. Under the protected areas strategy, it called for the identification of study areas, not immediate interim withdrawals. As a matter of fact, the mining industry had protested that immensely - the fact that once a study area is defined, there should be an immediate withdrawal. They asked for map notation. The time we took to ask for the withdrawal of the area to work its way through the federal government process - the federal government, her Liberal colleagues. It takes months, sometimes six months.

The same thing happened with regard to Fishing Branch, and the only way to resolve it will be having in the Yukon protected areas strategy immediate mineral withdrawal and a quick-responding Liberal federal government to that request by the Yukon government. The ultimate solution is going to be a change to protected areas, should the Liberals wish to make it - which will result in immediate withdrawal - and a Cabinet decision - which will be rendered by devolution - that the area will be withdrawn from mineral staking. That will require that we do, indeed, conclude devolution. Otherwise, no matter what decision is made at the territorial Cabinet, you'll still have to go through the painful delay, a long process of removing areas from mineral staking.

I am sure that, should they buy out the claims of Canadian United Minerals - I'm sure that if the price is high enough, anybody is willing to look at an offer because they're in business to make money - that a new industry will be created in this territory. I'm looking forward to seeing how, in the future, the government deals with that.

As well, I want to talk a lot about the budgeting philosophy of this Premier, because it used to be amusing to me to listen to her talk about "red ink", saying that the government shouldn't bring in current-year deficit budgets, when she has just brought in a supplementary budget that increases the current year's deficit - thus, more red ink. Yet, in Question Period today, she stood up and said that she can't keep spending like the NDP, even though she has spent more than the NDP. So, she's trying to have that one both ways. The public may buy it for awhile, but certainly, my job in opposition is to hold her accountable and point out that she is not doing what she said she was going to do.

I have read and researched her second reading comments on the budget, when they voted against the NDP budget, and we're going to have an extensive discussion about her comments then versus her comments now; her actions then versus her actions now; her actions since she brought in this particular budget and statements she has made since then, when she increased spending.

I want to extensively explore Argus with her and the Argus decision and the fact that the Liberals have now committed to continuing funding the "corporate welfare", as the Member for Whitehorse Centre was fond of calling it. It's going to be, I think, important that it's exposed to Yukoners that the Liberals now have a choice to cancel the funding to the Argus mall for the infrastructure and deal with the tax revisions, yet are now making the decision to continue to fund it.

The deal that was signed by the New Democrats is dead and we'd be more than happy for this government to continue the policy of not breaking signed agreements, as long as they're valid. In this case, it's a choice for the Liberal government to kill the Argus deal, because it has been violated by the other party, in our estimation.

They have an ability to take $750,000 back to the city. That money was granted for the sole purpose of the infrastructure commitment to the offsite water and sewer. We are puzzled as to why it was called corporate welfare by the Liberals before the election and why, now, they're continuing to hand Argus and their subsequent main tenant, Walmart, this particular funding.

They found it quite atrocious in the election campaign, and actually received a lot of support from the people who felt they were going to kill the deal. Now we see the government has the choice and they don't take it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to have an extensive discussion about that. We will survey that issue in some detail. I also want to talk about where the surplus is at. I want to know what the projected lapse funding is going to be for the year ending March 31, 2000. The Liberals were sworn in some five weeks after that. The election was on April 17. The last document that I have from Management Board indicates that Finance officials were contemplating a $41-million surplus prior to lapses. I would like to know what the lapses are? I expect we will end up somewhere with a projection coming out in the Auditor General's report of $55 million to $60 million, and that will be the sum that the Liberals will end up starting their government with.

Now, they did not have to bring in the NDP budget. They did not have to increase spending as they have chosen to do in this fiscal year. What the surplus is as of March 31, 2001 is the Liberals' own making and the Liberals' own responsibility. They have to be accountable for that. It's a matter of choice. They're the government now.

The Premier could have - if she was, as she said in opposition, against red ink - come in with a supplementary budget that actually reduced spending, thus bringing up the surplus as of March 31, 2001. She chose, contrary to that, to actually increase the deficit, drawing down the surplus. We have been seeing spending commitments from ministers daily in the papers, which is very enjoyable for us, for continuing care facilities, a $1-million signing bonus for the YTA, more for legal aid - and we know now, with the immense shortage of health care professionals, that they will be dealing with the retention issues for them.

This is only going to serve to further create more what the Premier, when she was in opposition, liked to call "red ink."

One thing she signalled of great concern that we have to explore is health care cuts. She has continually mentioned one specific about cost overruns and areas she wants to target for cuts, and that is health care. Her colleagues in Ottawa have proven very adept at cutting health care.

We, the Yukon New Democrats, increased funding in that area dramatically in our time in government, and we believe that it is a necessary and important fundamental service for Yukoners, and in particular seniors. We want to see that funding committed. So, I want to know if she is prepared to give a firm commitment that she will, indeed, not cut health care at all and, in fact, increase funding in that area, as her ministers have indicated they will be doing.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have to scope out numerous issues with the Premier around legal aid. We will have to talk extensively about devolution. It is a very important issue for Yukoners. I know that the government is relatively new, but we have to know what their vision is and what their sense of priorities are. We have to know where they want to take this territory with regard to land claims settlements and implementation, because seven of the First Nations already have final agreement. They are very anxious in many cases to move on with implementation. There are a whole slew of issues around implementation that are of some consternation to First Nations with band final agreements.

One of the most extensive problems we had in opposition was dealing with the federal government and ministers, who were either unwilling or unknowing about the extensive commitments that were made to program service transfer agreements. The funding for those agreements has been woefully lacking by the federal government.

Implementation issues are paramount, in our estimation, along with the settlement issues.

So, Mr. Chair - and I would like to welcome you to your position - there are a lot of issues that have to be scoped out in general debate, and there are also some more minor, but nonetheless important issues that we are going to have to deal with in the coming weeks.

So, Mr. Chair, I look forward to this debate and I want to assure the member that we, on this side of the House, are more than prepared to move this expeditiously along but we have to have answers. One of the things that was painfully apparent today in Question Period was on the issue of whether the Premier supported Yukon First Nations or Bob Nault with regard to loan repayment and section 87. She was not prepared to answer that question in a very open and accountable way, and it's important that she's very open and accountable, as she promised Yukoners, because they have expectations that she is going to act in that same vein that she promised. However, today we saw the skating and the evasiveness surrounding an important issue and I think it's incumbent on us to flush that out a little bit.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to say that we have numerous questions on the economy. We want to know where the Premier, who is also the Minister of Economic Development, is going to go economically. We have seen nothing from this Liberal government economically, absolutely nothing. So far, in two months, we have seen them take steps backwards economically.

A big bomb has been dropped in the land claims process. We have seen continued uncertainty - we heard today that the president of the Chamber of Mines is down in Ottawa talking about how the Liberals are destroying the mining industry in the territory, creating tremendous uncertainty. This whole Tombstone buyout issue is going to be an albatross for this Liberal government until they resolve it.

We also have to get to the bottom of just who is going to make the first move, because Minister Nault said he was waiting on the Premier with regard to a cheque for a buyout offer. I want to know what the initial buyout offer is going to be to Canadian United Minerals and what they are prepared to spend. I know they don't, of course, want to give us their entire hand as to what they want to pay Canadian United Minerals for this buyout that they promised Yukoners, but we would sure like to know what their initial offer is going to be.

I want to get a sense of the magnitude of whether this was a serious commitment by the Liberals or just one to attract people who indeed wanted those claims removed from this wilderness park, and that will be an interesting discussion.

Of course we also have a lot of questions about boards and communities that only the Premier can answer, and we have a lot of questions about how they are going to be changing the boards and committees process - as they have promised - to make it much more inclusive and non-partisan. They campaigned on that.

We have questions about the issues surrounding the community development fund and all of the other boards and committees that they campaigned on providing performance indicators for and, as well, campaigned on improving the accountability. So there are some interesting issues there.

All is well with regard to Health and Social Services. There are some significant issues which we have touched on just briefly because there has been so much in other areas in Question Period on the issues that are going to certainly come within the purview of the Premier and the Finance Minister - and we have to do some scoping surrounding those issues as well.

There are some extensive discussions we have to have with the Premier with regard to the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. We know that she has already missed a tremendous opportunity to support Yukoners' interests in getting that pipeline. We want to know what her plan is from here on in. We thought we would probably see, given the talk from the Premier before the election, some more funding for this particular endeavour in the supplementary budget. That was not to be the case. We also feel that - we were surprised, frankly, with regard to the Yukon mineral strategy, the blue book, the development assessment process, the Liberals had absolutely nothing to say in the throne speech or their first budget speech. And, along with completely cutting out rural Yukon in those particular speeches, we have some concern about that, because it indicates a lack of decisiveness, a lack of direction and a lack of any new vision on the economy.

By the good graces of the NDP budget, the job numbers have improved, but we expected more from the Liberals, in terms of new ideas. I think, basically, what they have been bent on now is renaming NDP programs to put their own sort of twist on it and claim that they have come up with a new idea. Over two months, their record in that regard is very transparent to the average Yukoner.

We're very concerned about the protected areas strategy and where this Premier intends to take it. Is she going to have, for example, immediate interim withdrawal requests with study areas? That's a good question. We haven't heard any answer from the Premier on that - no statement whatsoever. She has committed to putting it in legislation, but I don't think she really knows what she's dealing with regarding that. Are we going to receive that legislation this fall? We would expect, given what she has talked about with uncertainty, she's going to have to deliver it this fall, because people in the territory are demanding it. Right now, the Liberals, according to the president of the Chamber of Mines, are destroying the mining industry in this territory. So, Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is a severely difficult problem.

I know the Member for Klondike is extremely concerned about how the development assessment process is going to affect development. I know that we, on this side, share the same concern and are, frankly, disappointed that we have received no statement whatsoever from the Liberal Premier with regard to dealing with that issue of uncertainty.

But I think it's becoming quite apparent that the government really isn't sure how to approach these key issues. We have seen advisors in from the Prime Minister's Office; we have seen people who have worked for B.C. Liberals coming up to advise the Premier. We know the B.C. Liberals are very anti-land claims, and that is a concern to us. They have campaigned against the Nisga'a treaty. We know, with regard to land claims, that this government is weak, given the issues stated by the federal minister, Mr. Nault, in Dawson City, and we saw it today in Question Period - an inability for the Premier to take a position, whether with regard to Yukon First Nations or Minister Nault on loan repayment and section 87.

This is a significant concern to the NDP caucus and the official opposition, and we're going to have to flesh these issues out a little bit.

Mr. Chair, we saw a lot from the Premier, and she talked a lot about fetal alcohol syndrome in this Legislature in opposition. We were completely blown away to see no funding in that area in the supplementary budget. We thought for sure the Liberals meant what they said they believed in when they were in opposition, but yet there was $250,000 more in prospector grants but nothing to fight fetal alcohol syndrome in this territory. That says something about a questionable list of priorities by this government. People really believed that the Liberals cared about this issue, but setting up a commission - as they have developed as their be-all, end-all ideas - comes fraught with its own list of concerns, and we will get into that in due course. We're doing a lot of preparation for engaging that debate, and I look forward to that particular endeavour with the members opposite.

We have a lot of questions about the highways. The Liberals committed to increasing highway construction budgets and maintenance, and we've seen no evidence of that. I know that a lot of people could be put to work if the Liberals would have put more dollars into highway construction and maintenance. We have seen no evidence of that in the supplementary budget, and they have $60 million in the bank. I know from talking to a number of the contractors that they are hurting. They feel that the Liberals have abandoned them on this commitment that they made, and we are going to hold them accountable for that.

Now, they have promised us all, they have said to hold off, just wait, there is going to be a new supplementary budget in the fall, and there is going to be a new opportunity, a new budget speech, a new throne speech, and we are going to lay out our priorities and our spending commitments. Well, Mr. Chair, we have put the Liberals on notice in this legislative session, when they are still on their honeymoon, that we very much look forward to the fall session. We are beside ourselves with anticipation for this hold-off budget in the spring that is going to produce major moves in all of the areas that they identified as problems.

They asked for money, not four years from now, not three years from now, not two years from now, but they used to ask us for money now. They'd say, "Put the money in the budget now. You've got the money; put it in the budget now."

Today, we heard a motion from the Member for Riverside, talking about planning and strategizing and creating funding needs well into the future. Well, when you look at areas like the Carmacks sewage system, we were told to fund it now by the Liberals in opposition - no ifs, ands or buts. Fund it now. And so we are going to be expecting them to carry out the words that they said they were going to do, and that means a fall supplementary.

I want to read a comment from the Premier. In her second reading speech, when she was criticizing the budget the NDP just tabled, she said, "What about the sewage and water systems in Ross River, Carmacks and the growing community of Marsh Lake?" - the House leader's riding

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that they're going to have to deliver on these commitments because they've raised expectations that they're going to deal with them, and, Mr. Speaker, we can have a lot of discussion in those areas, because these are very, very large items. Nonetheless, the Premier felt, in opposition, that it was something that should be dealt with immediately. And certainly, the Member for Riverdale South expressed similar opinions.

The financial picture of the territory when the Liberals came in was extremely rosy. It's better than anywhere else in the north - and, I would argue, probably better than anywhere in the country - because the government has, on a per capita basis, the size of the surplus the Liberals inherited from the NDP. We hope they spend it wisely, but we have to say with regard to the issues that we've dealt with so far, we are very, very disappointed.

I guess I'll begin with the Premier - there so many issues and so little opportunity this week to talk to her - with the issue of deficit budgeting in the current year deficit and her commitment to not using red ink.

I will just read her a quote from her second reading speech, just to refresh her memory. "How have the NDP chosen to present our financial picture? We can accuse them of using bright, Harrison-like bold colours, and they can accuse the official opposition - as they no doubt will - of using dull browns and greys. The fact is, since 1996 when this government took office, there has been a lot of red ink in the NDP budgets. There have been four budgets all with deficits, Mr. Speaker, of $10 million, $8 million, $21 million and, this year, a $27 million-deficit." Which they have just increased.

So, Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the Premier, is she planning on bringing in balanced budgets?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, that was quite a performance by the interim leader of the official opposition. There were a number of issues touched upon for the edification of members and the camera.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Yes, I caught that, as the member has so duly noted.

There were a number of issues. There was only one specific question. This government and I, as its Finance minister, intend to be prudent fiscal managers. The situation is such that there is an estimated accumulated surplus as of March 31, 2001, of slightly over $13 million. Whether or not that is enough to have in the bank at any one point in time for a surplus is a question that many Finance ministers have wrestled with. The member knows full well that we cannot have debt, and the question really that the member is asking is, "Do we intend to ensure that there is an adequate surplus? Certainly, we, as prudent fiscal managers, will do our best.

Mr. Harding: We're going to be here a long time. That's just not going to cut the mustard, Mr. Chair. Question Period has a time limit and the Speaker can save the member by the bell. In Committee of the Whole, that's not the case.

I want to ask the Premier again: is it her intention to bring in balanced budgets?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: You're right, we're going to be here a long time.

Is the member asking if we intend that the revenue and expenditures should be equal, in that form of a balanced budget?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No.

Mr. Harding: I thank the member opposite for a clear answer. Well, the problem with that is that it's a complete turnaround from what she said when she was in opposition. It's a problem for her; it's certainly a good thing for the opposition.

Mr. Chair, she talked a lot. There are lots of quotes. We have done our research and found all kinds of things she said about red ink and NDP budgets. But, she's now telling us that she will not table balanced budgets - meaning, her budgets will not have a revenue picture that exceeds a planned expenditure. I just want her to confirm that once more. The Premier is telling us that she will not table budgets where the revenue picture exceeds the planned expenditures. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: That is not what I said.

Mr. Harding: What did she say?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the issue is whether Government of Yukon's revenues and expenditures are going to be equal. That certainly would be a goal. This government will be prudent fiscal managers. The way the NDP were spending money, we would have been down to a surplus of $4.5 million. That is not sustainable. We cannot continually table deficit budgets, without at some point running into debt, which we are not legally able to do.

What the member is trying to do is play an elaborate word game so that he can fax Hansard from here to eternity, suggesting that I am not a prudent fiscal manager and neither is our government. That is exactly what we intend to be.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, she didn't answer the question and, again, I must say, she has just accused the NDP of overspending. Did she or did she not make a decision to table the NDP budget and a supplementary that increased spending in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we tabled a budget - retabled the NDP budget in its entirety. It was - and it still is, because it is still the same budget - a deficit budget. The additional supplementary budget, which is not what we are debating right now, calls for an additional $943,000 in expenditures. That money is from revotes.

Mr. Harding: Did they have a choice to cut the expenditures?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No, Mr. Chair, if we had cut the expenditures, we would not have retabled the NDP budget in its entirety and we would have pulled the rug out from under people. We would have been in a position where it would have been extremely difficult to cut expenditures given that, prior to taking office, $212 million had already been appropriated through Commissioner's warrants. So, to turn around and try and cut any of those expenditures would have been difficult in the extreme.

Mr. Harding: Could Cabinet have made a decision to cut the expenditures?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Could Cabinet have made that decision? Not and been honest with Yukoners, we could not have.

Mr. Harding: Well, we'll get into a lot of areas where the Liberals have not been entirely honest with Yukoners, but I want to ask her: could the Liberals, at their Cabinet table, have made a decision to cut the expenditures they tabled in the supplementary and main budgets?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, the member is being somewhat hypothetical. We could have made a decision, because we were elected and have spending authority. Would we have done that? No.

Mr. Harding: That's not what I'm asking her. Could she have cut the expenditures - yes or no? Could Cabinet have done that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I just stated - yes, we had the legal authority to do that. We could have gone in and suggested all manner of things. Unfortunately, our options were limited, in that $212,370,000 had already been spent. It would have been a matter of going in and examining those expenditures, and it would have been totally against our principles.

Mr. Harding: So, the member just agreed that the Liberal Cabinet had a choice. They could have cut expenditures. They chose not to. So, Mr. Chair, what that says is that the Liberals have made a choice. They made a choice to table a deficit budget this year.

The Minister of Renewable Resources is shaking his head, "Yes, yes." But what he doesn't understand, because he wasn't in the House, is that for three and a half years his colleague on his right stated that a government should not table a budget where the planned expenditures exceed the planned revenues. So, this is all new to me. It's not new to him because he was a part of the decision or the choice to table a current-year deficit budget and make another decision - make another choice - to increase the expenditure, thus increasing that current-year deficit, which came as a surprise to me, because I had listened to untold numbers of comments from the Premier that she did not believe in that.

She has further muddied the waters by saying that she can't keep spending like the NDP, even though she's spending more than the NDP. So I want to ask the Premier this: will it be her policy to table budgets in which planned expenditures exceed their planned revenues?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Some years, as this year, expenditures will exceed the revenues that come in. Sometimes they will be in balance. Most importantly, we cannot go into debt, and the spending pattern exhibited by successive NDP governments consisted of all deficit budgets, which spent down the surplus projected to somewhere around $4.5 million. That level of spending is not sustainable. It is our intention to be prudent fiscal managers. This is the Yukon taxpayers' pocketbook we're looking after, and we're going to do that responsibly and thoughtfully.

Mr. Harding: Is the Liberal level of spending sustainable?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: As tabled in this NDP budget? No.

Mr. Harding: Then why are they spending more?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Because this is not new money; it is money from revotes, and that is the supplementary budget, which we're not yet debating.

Mr. Harding: Is she arguing that that has no impact on the accumulated surplus?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, no, I am not. I am suggesting that the member focus the debate. He's talking about the spending in the supplementary budget. We're dealing in general debate on this budget. In general debate on this budget, the deficit that was tabled by the NDP and retabled by the Liberal government - this level of spending - is not sustainable.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, well again, the Premier has just admitted that the supplementary expenditure she has made was a choice to spend more. At the same time, she's arguing that the expenditure patterns of the NDP were not sustainable.

She has also admitted that the spending patterns of the Liberals, who are spending more than the NDP, are not sustainable.

So, it brings us to the question, Mr. Chair, of what exactly she intends to do.

She said, "Some years we will spend less than we project for revenues and some years we will spend more." How does that reconcile with her earlier concerns, as the leader of the official opposition, about red ink and current-year deficits?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I said that, in some years, expenditures will exceed the inflow; in some years revenues will exceed expenditures and, in some years, they will be in balance. Over time, we have to maintain an accumulated surplus as is required by law, and that's what we intend to do.

The member opposite has asked my opinion on successive deficit budgets tabled by the previous NDP government. That level of spending was not sustainable. It spent down the surplus in 2002-03 to $4.5 million and, as the member well knows - because he touched upon them in his opening remarks for the cameras - there are serious areas of concern with respect to government spending - points of pressure - that must be recognized and dealt with, and we intend to do that.

Mr. Harding: Well, the Premier has opened up a few doors with that. The Premier presumably knows now what the March 31, 2000, year-end lapses are and what she's going to have either to budget or what she's going to have to revote and what the surplus projections are for March 31, 2000. She has admitted that the Liberals, level of spending at the present time is not sustainable.

She said that there will be years when there'll be projected expenditures exceeding revenues that are projected. Does she believe that, next year, she's going to have to bring in budgets where planned expenditures do not exceed planned revenues?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member opposite is asking me if I'll table a deficit budget next year. I will be examining the books over the course of the summer. That's a hypothetical question.

I'm not going to say next year's will be a deficit or a surplus, until we've dealt with a number of issues before us.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, we've got to get to the bottom of this, because if she's saying that the Liberal level of spending is not sustainable, but more commitments are being made and she's saying the surplus is down to $14 million, if she tables another one that has the same sized deficit, she's saying the accumulated surplus will be gone. So, I have to ask her, and I have to find out, if she's going to make cuts to deal with that.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we won't know the budget projected surplus or deficit next year until we have gone through the books. The estimated surplus, as of March 31, 2001, is over $13 million. That's what we're looking at right now.

So, as whether next year's budget will be a surplus or a deficit, there are a number of factors that will have to be taken into consideration - and they will be taken into consideration in due course.

Mr. Harding: What does the Premier know about normal anticipated lapses? What's the usual number of lapsed funding? What is the usual number in millions, on average, over the last couple of years? Surely, she's been briefed on that.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, it was $14 million this year. I was well aware of that and had been briefed. My understanding is also that that is normal, that it can be $12 million to $13 million, so $14 million is not extraordinary.

Mr. Harding: Which year is she talking about - March 31, 2000, or March 31, 2001?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The estimated lapses at year-end on the year 2000 is $14 million.

Mr. Harding: So, she is expecting, as of the year-end March 31, 2000, that the surplus will be between $55 million and $60 million. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the member opposite used the figure 2000?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: March 31, 2000.

The forecast accumulated surplus - March 31, 2000 - is $56 million, as the member well knows. The estimated lapses at year-end is $14 million of that. That is the estimated surplus at year-end, the year 2000. That is prior to the previous government spending in excess of $200 million in Commissioner's warrants.

Mr. Harding: Oh, Mr. Chair, that is so weak. The Premier had an ability to bring in this budget that she has brought in, or not. She had an ability to make revotes, or not. She has an ability to bring in a supplementary budget, or not. The Liberals made a choice. The Liberals are accountable for this fiscal year, and they will be accountable for what is left as of March 31, 2001. We can't do it because we are not the government. She is the Premier, they have choices to make. That's what government is all about. And, Mr. Chair, it's pretty clear - we've just learned, and it has been confirmed by the Premier - that we left the Liberals $56 million in the bank. They have choices to make. When they became Cabinet - and even leading up into Cabinet with their transition team as to whether they were going to continue to sustain the budgetary spending priorities that the NDP had put forward, which projected a current-year deficit of $27 million.

They made a choice to do that. Now, the reality is that it won't be that, because it will be lapsed funding, as the member just said. Traditionally, it's around $12 million to $15 million. The same thing will hold true as of March 31, 2001, which is now projected at somewhere around $14 million. But, given the way the Liberals have been spending since they came in, which the Premier admitted can't be sustained, and given the commitments that have been made on a go-by-go basis by ministers as they get asked questions by the press, she's going to have a tough time dealing with that. So, it's interesting to now hear that she has become a believer in current-year deficits when, in fact, she was quite the opposite in opposition.

So, I'd like to ask the Premier, now that she has admitted that they took over with a $56-million bank account: did they anticipate, given that it's still early, I realize, that there will be a traditional level of lapses in the fiscal year 2001?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, the member opposite said we had choices when we took office. The member is absolutely right. We could have behaved in the traditional NDP manner and yanked the rug out from under people. We didn't do that. We behaved responsibly and soundly, as prudent fiscal managers. We retabled the existing budget, and we are answering for it.

The member has said, "She is going to be faced with some tough choices." The Liberal government will be faced with tough choices. Nobody said it was going to be easy. We are fully prepared to make those tough choices.

Now, with respect to the fiscal and financial picture of the Government of Yukon, the member opposite loves to stand on his feet and say, "Oh, yeah, we left them with a $60-million bank account."

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: $56,218,000. That $56,218,000 also includes a deficit budget that they tabled - $27,551,000. In our supplementary, we spent under $1 million. Take that into account, out of the bank, because let's also bear in mind that they had already spent half of the year's budget, and the surplus, which is the real state of the bank account - the projected surplus for 2001 - is $14,724,000.

The revote, the lapsed funding at year-end, comes to this House for a revote, as the member knows. The estimated revotes, this year, are $13 million.

Mr. Harding: What's a revote?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Money that has to come back to the House to be revoted.

Mr. Harding: Does the government have to revote this money?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not the commitment has been made. As the member knows full well, we certainly wouldn't yank the rug out from under someone and cancel the extended care facility or the Mayo school as NDP governments have done. Where there is no commitment and money has not been expended, there is a choice, as the member knows.

Mr. Harding: Precisely; there is a choice and that's what it's all about. Choices, now, isn't it? So, on one hand, the Premier criticizes us for increasing our level of spending, saying it's not sustainable. Then she increases spending more and says the Liberals' pattern of spending is not sustainable, and she criticizes us for bringing in special warrants and spending the money so we didn't put people into uncertainty so they could begin projects. On the other hand, she says that we yanked the rug out from under them. How does she reconcile that? On one hand, she criticizes us for special warrants so that people can start to go to work. On the other hand, she accuses us of yanking the rug out from underneath them. How does that reconcile?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, I would suggest to the member that I have probably spent more time reconciling bank accounts than he has, in a former life. It is very straightforward. The bank account, as the member loves to refer to it, is not $56 million. There are commitments to Yukoners. The estimated surplus at the end of March 31, 2001, is $14,724,000. It doesn't matter how long the member wants to discuss this issue; that's the fact.

Mr. Harding: I just asked her if they are expecting the traditional level of lapses in the year ending March 21, 2001, and she said yes. So she already knows that she is going to have more than $14 million. She has admitted that this year is $56 million. We can't be responsible, on this side of the House, for the expenditures of the Liberal government. A noted Yukon political scientist made the same argument, which I read the other day. It's about choice. Now, politically, I suppose the member opposite, on one hand, wants to distance herself from any of the tougher decisions and take credit for contracts that are going out and continuing care facilities that are going up and job numbers but, on the other hand, say, "That's not our budget." However, while it may be a good attempt at a strategy, it is not going to wash because, whatever the deficit is, or the bank account at the end of this fiscal year, that's a Liberal decision and they're responsible for it.

Has the Premier directed Management Board or departmental officials to hold off on any of the expenditures shown in the NDP budget she tabled?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No, there has been no such Management Board directive; however, I would caution the member that it is my understanding that that sort of discussion, such as tabling of confidential government documents, is an area that we may not want to discuss this afternoon.

Mr. Harding: Au contraire, Mr. Chair, we do; we do want to discuss it. I didn't ask the member whether she has given any formal Management Board directives; I asked if the Premier has directed Management Board or departmental officials, either as Premier or as a constituted body of Cabinet or Management Board, to hold off on any of the expenditures shown in the NDP budget.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: No.

Mr. Harding: The Premier has just told us that everything in the NDP budget will go ahead and that she has not told anybody to hold off.

I'd like to ask her: have any of the ministers had discussions with deputy ministers or Finance officials on items that remain in the budget but will not, in effect, proceed?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the member is asking me if the ministers have had any discussions with their deputies about holding off on expenditures in this budget. This budget has not yet passed the House. When it passes the House, it's my understanding that there are certainly no projects in here where I have said, "No, this isn't going to happen," and I don't expect that any of my ministers or deputy ministers have said that. However, I have not asked them that direct question.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, it's disturbing that she hasn't discussed this issue with her ministers. Is she telling this House that she hasn't talked with her ministers about implementing the directives contained within this budget that she just tabled?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the member opposite's fishing for some specific project that he believes we have said won't go ahead, and there has been no such discussion. Our caucus and Cabinet discussions, which are not a matter of public record, have been around passing this budget through the House, so such expenditures as have begun already or were close to beginning, such as the Mayo school, are items that we certainly anticipate going ahead with. We said we wouldn't pull the rug out from under anybody, so if there's a planned expenditure and a commitment made to Yukoners in this budget, we intend to follow through with it.

Mr. Harding: Well, I'm so glad to hear that, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk a little about multi-year projects and the commitments in multi-year projects. There was a capital plan put forward in the NDP budget. Now that the Liberals have tabled the NDP budget, are they committed to all the long-term capital plans that were tabled with the budget?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we have committed to those projects that have started and that will start this year. We have not committed to the rest.

Mr. Harding: Have they had any discussions about which projects may or may not be included in the future multi-year capital plans?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Unless the project is committed to start this year or has started this year - no.

Mr. Harding: Does the Premier anticipate - as leader and Premier - projects that she foresees will not be planned or will not go ahead that are contained in the multi-year capital plan?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to speculate on future budgets. We agreed and we've committed to passage of this budget because, as we've said, there are summer plans in place by Yukoners, so we've committed to the passage of this budget and have committed to the projects that have already begun. Future speculation on what may or may not be in a future budget is not something I'm going to entertain.

Mr. Harding: Well, let's get it specific then. The Tagish Road is contained in the multi-year capital plan. The Liberals say that they're going to proceed with the funding that was scheduled in this fiscal year. Is the Premier committing to continue along with the program in the next fiscal year, or is she leaving that open?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I already said that I'm not to speculate about what may or may not be in future budgets. If the member wants to go into detail on the Community and Transportation Services budget, where that program is contained, he's welcome to do that; however, we have to pass general debate first.

Mr. Harding: So, let's just get this crystal clear. The Tagish Road, for example, is contained in the three-year capital plan, and work that is going on this fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 will continue as tabled by the NDP and further tabled by the Liberal government. But beyond that, those citizens in Tagish are receiving no commitment to the second layer of work to be done on the Tagish Road. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, I already stated that our commitment is for what is in this budget, half of which has already been spent. The member wants to discuss a specific road and a specific road project and I certainly invite him to discuss that with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services; however, I would assure him again that we are not going to speculate on what will be in future budgets. What we are committing to do is pass this budget through the House, half of which has already been spent.

Mr. Harding: I don't want to discuss this with the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. I'm using the Tagish Road as an example. There are many; I could use another. I am just using it to bring some symbolic clarity, for no other reason. It could be any of the long-term capital projects.

Just so I understand what the Premier is saying - just so I'm clear, and so Yukoners are clear and we can tell them with clarity what we heard - even though there is work going on this year on this particular project, this government is not committing to carrying on with the multi-year plans beyond this fiscal year.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we are not going to leave the Mayo school half-built. We are not going to abandon the extended care facility once the sod has been turned. We are not going to do what the previous government did and leave the NDP road to Beringia half-finished with an unenticing bar across it for several years. We are not going to leave projects half-done. We are committed to this budget. Where a substantial project has been started, we will of course finish it.

Beyond those substantial projects, such as the extended care, the Mayo school and several others, I am not going to speculate on what will or will not be in future budgets.

Mr. Harding: Well, that's excellent. I'm enjoying this question terrifically. It's excellent trolling.

We will talk about Beringia at some great length. I'm surprised, given the high words from the member opposite, that there wasn't anything in the supplementary budget to deal with increased funding to Beringia. We'll wait for the fall with bated breath. This is going to be one doozy of a Supplementary No. 2. This is going to be one doozy of a throne speech, because the decisions and the commitments have been racking up. This is good. We're glad that it's in the fall. The government is going to be well over their newness and their recent honeymoon with the voters.

I have to ask the member: with regard to these multi-year projects, she said that all the substantive projects that are funded in this year will continue to be funded to completion in the future years. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, what I said was that we would not leave a project like the extended care half-built, and like the Mayo school, half-built. Those are projects that are committed to in this budget. Those commitments, provided we can get the budget through this House, stand. That's what we have said to Yukoners, and that's what we will do.

Mr. Harding: Let's look, and, at the break, I'll dig out the multi-year list. Now, she has identified a couple that she has committed to on a multi-year basis. So, we'll go through them, one by one, and we'll find out which ones she has committed to and which ones she has not. That will be a good exercise because then we can let Yukoners know what the Liberals are committed to and what they're not. So, we'll come back to that when I get that list. Perhaps if my officials are listening - I guess I can't call them "my officials" any more. Perhaps if our staff is listening, they can send us in a list, and we can proceed in that vein, because she has now gone on the record as supporting some projects in multi-year phases, but she's ambivalent in terms of naming others. So, we'll have to go through them and identify where there's going to be multi-year funding for sure and where there's not, and which projects they are and which projects they aren't.

Let's talk a little bit about the issue of - we have done a lot on budgets so far. We have concluded that there was a $56-million surplus when this government took over. Those numbers are in. We have concluded that the Liberal Premier is now a proponent of current-year deficit budgets, whereas she was not when in opposition. We have concluded that they expect the traditional level of lapses in the year ending March 31, 2001. We have concluded that, in her words, the Liberal level of spending is not sustainable. This has been productive. We have also concluded that she is going to carry on with multi-year funding, which the NDP had proposed, of all substantive - I believe that was the word she used - projects.

And she went on to name a couple that she is absolutely committed to. Well, Mr. Chair, looky here. We now have the list of multi-year projects.

Chair: Order. I would like to remind members that we are now in general debate, and while specifics may be used to illustrate points, we will be going line by line further on in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, I would ask you to review past practice in this Legislature and opposition questions for the years that I have been a member of this House. I will respect your ruling, but I will respect it in the willingness that the Chair expresses to review precedent. I can remember, as a minister, extensive, lengthy, extremely broad questioning on issues. At times they were focused, as a corollary to that, on line items. What I am trying to establish today is how the Premier - the Finance minister - is going to approach the issue of long-term capital plans and implementation of funding, because it is extremely important to Yukoners. I think general debate, as a collective, should allow me to do that.

Now, she has put on the table specific items: Mayo school, for example. I didn't do that. She did. I used Tagish Road as an example. She has now told me specific items that she is going to use to illustrate that she is committed to their long-term funding. So, in order for me to establish whether they are indeed committed into the future, I have to find out, and I think general debate is certainly a way to do that. If we are restricted in that capacity, that would certainly be quite a departure from precedent.

So, Mr. Chair, let me ask the Premier this, then: what is her definition of a substantive project? Would the Old Crow airport facility be a substantive project?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'd remind the member that, while he is crowing that he has managed to conclude something, the numbers are published. The numbers are there for everyone to see and the numbers are readily understood by the Yukon public.

I have stated and our party members - our candidates, our Cabinet ministers - have stated that we will live up to existing commitments. So, that applies to long-term and future budgeting. If there is an existing commitment, we will live up to it.

I used examples. The member can attempt to use other examples and to attempt to frustrate debate. That's not going to happen. We're not going to speculate on what will or will not be in future budgets. We are going to live up to the existing commitments in this budget that was tabled by the NDP and retabled by the Liberals - the main estimates. We will live up to the commitments in this budget.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, if there's a frustration today, it's the member's own comments that are causing it. She just said in her statement she's going to implement the spending even into the multi-years that are identified as commitments in this budget. Then she turned around and said she's going to implement this spending in this budget. I'm trying to find out whether she's committed to the multi-year or whether she is not, and she has contradicted herself in that last statement she made.

So, I freely admit, I am frustrated, so I have to continue to ask the member.

She has also raised this issue of what is a substantive project and what is not. She made the bold statement that substantive projects will receive multi-year funding, as identified in the NDP budget. That begs the question of what is a substantive project in the definition of the Premier. People out there - for example, as I mentioned in another speech, the Old Crow airport facility, or, as another example, the Tagish Road - are depending on what the Premier says. The buck stops with her. We're trying to establish just what her mindset is, and we're trying to establish what qualifies as a substantive capital project, one that's going to receive the benefit of her favour as Premier for multi-year funding.

She has mentioned the Mayo school, and what was the other example she mentioned?

She's not helping me out any more. She's not cooperative any more. She's frustrating debate.

But, Mr. Chair, she has not mentioned others, so perhaps she could stand up and tell us what qualifies as a substantive capital project. Is that a monetary value? Is it $100,000 or $1 million? What's a substantive capital project?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, one of the points that everyone enjoys about general debate is the opportunity to go back and forth on different issues and to exchange views. Perhaps I could ask the member: what is a commitment to Yukoners?

Mr. Harding: Well, it's called a long-term capital plan project listing, and we put it in writing and made the commitment to Yukoners. So, I'm trying to find out if the Premier is making the same commitment. So, what is a substantive project, by her definition?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, a substantive project is getting this budget through the House this afternoon and in the next couple of weeks.

This is the commitment to Yukoners. This is the guiding document. This is the document that we retabled in the House at the request of Yukoners. This is our commitment to Yukoners: to pass this budget, to live up to what's contained within it.

I'm not going to speculate on what's going to be in future budgets. I'm not going to speculate if we enjoy the support of the Yukon public if, after our first term, we might do who knows what? I'm not going to speculate on that. I'm not going to speculate on what we might do in our second year, our third year or our final year of our current mandate. What I am going to do is to be accountable for this document. I'm going to live up to a commitment to Yukoners to pass this document, to do what's in it and, furthermore, to be prudent fiscal managers while we're doing it.

Mr. Harding: So, if she's not going to raise any further commitment, she is now saying that no multi-year projects will have definite funding in the following years. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I am not speculating on future budgets.

Mr. Harding: So the Mayo school may or may not receive capital funding next year?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The Mayo school is a commitment in this budget. We're living up to the commitments in this budget.

Mr. Harding: Yes, but it's also a multi-year commitment. So, is the Mayo school receiving funding for that commitment for next year, or not?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I have said I am not going to speculate on what's in future budgets and I am not going to do that. I am going to live up to existing commitments. Once the spending authority has passed this House, as the member I am sure is aware, we will be doing our planning for future budget years - future expenditures - that's planning that's already underway to some degree. We will live up to the commitments in this budget, and I am not going to speculate on what's going to be in next year's budget.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, the Premier has just changed her position in the last 10 minutes on this issue, on the floor of this House. How are Yukoners going to get any certainty from this Premier when, under a little bit of questioning, she completely throws up another trial balloon? She just lectured us that she's not going to pull the rug out from under the Mayo school like the NDP did, so if there is funding in this year, she's going to provide the funding for next year. Then she just stood up a minute ago and said she's not going to make any commitments for the Mayo school for next year's budget. Why is she changing her position every 10 minutes?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'm not - however the member wants to paint it. I have said, over and over again, we will live up to the commitments that are in this budget, and we will do that. We want to pass this budget through the House and get on with the business of doing government, which is what Yukoners asked us to do. We have retabled this budget in its entirety to provide Yukoners with certainty. That's what we're doing. We want to pass the budget and we want to live up to the commitments that are in it. In every community, there were a number of commitments made to Yukoners. We want to live up to the commitments that are in this budget and we will do that.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, thank you. We'll review Hansard and it will be clear that she has changed her position in the last 10 minutes and I will review that with her.

Now she said she wanted to provide certainty, but she has just told this House that multi-year capital projects have no commitment under her administration for the following fiscal years. How can that develop any certainty?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, there are commitments in this budget. We'll live up to those commitments. We are not going to pull the rug out from under anybody. We are going to live up to this budget. There will be future budgets tabled by the Liberal government and we will answer for them, and we will come to the House with them. But I am not going to speculate on what is going to be in those budgets right now on the floor of this House. We have planning exercises and government has exercises in which budgets are developed. We will be doing those, as governments do. We will also be passing this budget and living up to it.

Mr. Harding: I don't see how this is creating any certainty for anybody. People are going to start work on the Mayo school this year, but the Premier has told us that she's not committed to funding it next year. People are going to start work on other projects like the Tagish Road. Citizens of that particular area are going to come to depend that this is going to be completed, but the Premier has just told them to forget it. You'll have to wait and see.

People in the area of Faro and Ross River and Carmacks are looking for work to be done on the Campbell Highway, but the Premier has just told this House and those people that they are going to have to wait and see. Even though these are multi-year commitments, she is not prepared to commit to them. They may or they may not receive the funding next year to complete the school. How does that bring certainty?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, with respect to specific projects, there is a commitment with the contractor that the contractor will do X and that the government will pay X amount of dollars. It's an exception when those projects are entirely contained in one budget. In fact, the member will well recall that there are a number of different schools that have been in a number of different budgets.

Multi-year projects don't have commitments beyond the current year, because that would require multi-year voting and our House doesn't have it. What we have is a commitment to projects. So, we have a signed contract with the general contractor for extended care. We will live up to existing commitments to Yukoners. We will do that. We said that we would do that.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Completing projects that are started? You have to assume, Mr. Chair - and I know that this is a stretch for some of the members opposite, but you have to assume that there's a certain amount of rationale to government decision making. There's a budget here. This budget contains commitments to Yukoners. For specifics, the member wants to talk about different construction projects. There are a number of commitments to Yukoners. We will live up to them. That's what we said we'd do.

There are some stand-alone projects, and there are some that stretch over a number of budgets. We will live up to the existing commitments that are in the budget, which we are endeavouring to have passed by this House.

Mr. Harding: Well, thank you. We have just got our third position from the Premier in the last 15 minutes. First of all, she said that substantive projects will get funding in each fiscal year to complete the projects. Then, she said that she's not going to commit to future-year funding. And now, she has just stood up and said, "Those projects, which have signed, long-term commitments will receive multi-year funding, but others will not." Why does she continue to change her position?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, the member and I could argue all afternoon. I don't feel I have changed my position. The member is trying to suggest that I have. My position has not changed from April whatever, or March whatever - March 13, when the campaign started. We will live up to existing commitments to Yukoners. We're not going to pull the rug out from anybody. We're not going to leave anything half-done. We're not like that. We want to live up to the existing commitments in this budget. That's what we want to do, and that's what we are doing.

Mr. Harding: That is - I don't know how I can get this through the Premier's mind - but that is a change. She's the Premier now. What she says now is very important, and when she, with nuances, changes her position and, in many cases, boldly changes it, it has an impact. When she says that she'll live up to commitments in this budget, that's different from saying she'll live up to commitments for multi-year capital plans and funding. Does she not concede that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Concede what, Mr. Chair? We said we would live up to existing commitments. That's what we're doing. We said we would not pull the rug out from under any Yukoners. In fact, we used that exact expression many, many times. Concede what? That we want to pass an NDP budget - that they're the authors of the budget? It's already been stated. Concede what? That we're accountable and responsible for it? You bet, and we will be responsible, prudent fiscal managers. If I'm conceding the fact that - I can't see what I'm conceding. We're doing what we said we'd do.

Mr. Harding: Good, good, good, Mr. Chair. So that means that, for the folks who live around Tagish or who are relying on the Tagish Road, some work is being done this year, and there's an identified amount for next year in the multi-year plan, and they can expect to receive that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we will live up to existing commitments.

Mr. Harding: So, was that an existing commitment?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: This year, what's in the Community and Transportation Services budget line items will be debated by my colleague, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. The overall commitment that we made to Yukoners is that we would retable the NDP budget in its entirety. What's in this budget is the same thing as was in this budget when it was first tabled. It's still there. It's in its entirety. That's what we said we'd do, and that's what we're doing.

Mr. Harding: Well, again we have a shift in position, depending on when the Premier gets up.

Does she believe in these multi-year project commitments? Does she believe in that long-term planning? Are they a good idea?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we, as a caucus, will be doing some long-term planning after the House rises, and we will be examining the fiscal situation of the government. It was prudent planning to suggest to Yukoners that we would retable this budget, as the member knows, and it's prudent planning to get it through the House, and it's prudent planning to examine the options in the future. We are living up to our commitments, and we will be planning.

Mr. Harding: That's kind of fuzzy, Mr. Chair. The Premier has told us today - has she not? - that she will live up to multi-year capital commitments for all projects that have been started in this year. Correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, what I've said is that our government will live up to the existing commitments in the budget. That is what we have said.

Mr. Harding: No, that's not what I asked her.

I said that the Premier has committed to completing all projects started in this fiscal year that are identified in the long-term capital plan. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the long-term capital plan, while it may have been tabled with this budget, is not this budget document. This budget document has commitments to Yukoners. It has commitments such as a new school in Mayo and the completion of the Ross River school. It has a number of Education and other departmental commitments in it. We will live up to existing commitments.

Mr. Harding: So, if there is an existing commitment that started this year, the Liberals will continue to fund it into the multi-year? Correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, we will live up to existing commitments in this budget.

Mr. Harding: We could round and round the mulberry bush, and we will. But that's not what I asked the Premier.

Now, the Premier has to understand the implications for Yukoners here. When she wants to try to skirt around the issues, she's not being very accountable, not being very forthright with the people.

Now, she has given us three different views of the world in the last half hour. First of all, she said yes to substantive projects and she named the Mayo school. That will be funded in the long term. They won't pull the rug out from under anything.

Then, she said that she's not going to make any commitments in any future budgets on the floor of this Legislature. So, I asked, well, if that's the case, how can the people in Mayo be assured that there is going to be funding in the next fiscal year's budget for their school? Then, she said that, well, if there's a contractual long-term commitment, then they can be assured that they will receive long-term funding from this government. So, there are three different positions, the three different times she got up.

One can only conclude that the Premier doesn't have a clue what she is doing, because she's not building any certainty with citizens out there who are relying on her every word. Now she's telling Yukoners that she will live up to the commitments in this budget. So I'm back to asking the question, what does that mean? Does that mean that the citizens who live along the Tagish Road or the citizens up in Old Crow, who want to know that their airport is going to be completed, are going to get their funding right through to completion? Or does that mean this year's money will be there, but they will review it at the end of this year and see whether they finish the job or not? Which one?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, I'd remind the member that we are not in lines yet; however, in the Department of Education budget, there is money budgeted for the Mayo school. We said we would live up to the commitments in the budget and that is what we are doing. And it doesn't matter how many ways the member tries to slice and dice it, we are in general debate in the budget and we have said we'll live up to commitments and that's what we are going to do. And I've said I'm not going to speculate on future budgets and I'm not, so we can just keep doing that.

Mr. Harding: Well, she has again changed her position. She said - she just said - "We are not going to make any commitments in future budgets." She wasn't going to speculate. Well, that's a very important policy area for the Premier and she sort of walked within and - I mean, we have enough Hansard quotes already for our own purposes on this, but I must get to the bottom of this issue because the Premier has to learn that she can't just take three different positions in 15 minutes and not expect to be called into accountability for it.

I'm sure the Member for Klondike - from the Yukon Party - has been listening to this and he's probably wondering whether these multi-year expenditures are going to be lived up to, or whether they are not. Now, he may not want them to be, because he voted against this budget.

When I go around the territory and I talk to citizens in Tagish - and I will be - I want to be able to say with some certainty whether the Premier is committed in the long term to what we proposed in our long-term capital plan and budget. Whether we pass budgets here in this House, and the dos and don'ts of the Financial Administration Act and legislative procedure is one thing. That's very important, but the Premier is a politician, and the people - the citizenry - will ask her, "Will you commit, Premier, to completing this road, or this building, or this sewage system, or this jail?" And, as a politician, she has the duty to say whether she is going to commit or not.

Now, today, she is committed and she is uncommitted. She said she is committed to everything in this budget into the future, then she said it is only for substantive projects. When I question her on the definition of "substantive project", she has offered nothing. Then she says, "Well, that's not really what I said. What I meant was that if there is a contractual commitment over bridging different fiscal years, then we'll live up to that." That's a different position. Not all these items are contractual commitments. So, on behalf of the citizens we represent, it is incumbent on us to get to the bottom of this, to get a clear, concise answer from the Premier, to have some certainty provided. So, I have to ask the Premier, with regard to long-term planning, is it the position of the Liberal government that they will honour long-term contractual commitments to multi-year spending, but they will not necessarily honour other expenditures that are decided on a year-to-year basis?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, what we have said is that we are committed to this budget, and we are. We are committed to passage of this budget, and we are committed to living up to the commitments to Yukoners. On behalf of the citizens whom we all represent, that's what we said. I also said that I am not going to speculate on what might or might not be in future budgets, and I'm not going to do that.

Mr. Harding: So, next year, will there be funding for the Mayo school and Tagish Road?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Chair, I'm sure that the member would like to ask that question in the line-by-line debate in specific projects. The money that was allocated - the member has highlighted the Mayo school. That was in last year's budget, and that's in this year's budget. It has to get through this House. That's what has to happen. You have to walk before you can run, Mr. Chair. We have got to pass this budget.

Mr. Harding: Well, frankly, I'm trying to get the Premier to crawl, and we're having trouble with that because she doesn't seem to be well-educated about the budgeting process and about what her commitments mean to Yukoners - or don't mean, for that matter.

The Premier said that the buck stops with her. Today, she's trying to pass us off to other ministers to take this into a line-by-line item debate. This is not a line-by-line item debate. This is a debate about the long-term capital expenditures of this government. She has stood up three times in 15 minutes and has taken three different positions.

So, in response to the question about the Tagish Road and Mayo school, she just stood up and said that the Mayo school is in this budget, and it will have funding in the next budget. She didn't answer the question about the Tagish Road. For questioning purposes, one could substitute in there "Campbell Highway"or "Old Crow airport facility". I just want to know: will there be funding, through to completion in the multi-year capital plan, by the Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I pointed out earlier to the member that we, as a Legislature and as a jurisdiction, do not have multi-year project funding. That would require multi-year voting, and we don't have that.

Completing projects that have been started - I pointed out to the member that rational, reasonable people expect that the Liberal government would live up to existing commitments. Rational, reasonable people expect that. That's what we said we'd do, and that's what we're endeavouring to do, and we will live up to the commitments that are in this budget.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Chair, I'm asking the Premier - I'm not asking her about legislative process. If she goes to a meeting in Tagish and someone stands up and says, "Are you going to fund us right through to completion on the Tagish Road?" because they know what the project is. The MLA has indicated that it's over three years, that this amount of dollars is going to be allocated, and this is the amount of work that's going to be done.

If the Premier stood up and said, "Well, we can only commit to this year because we're not allowed to even contemplate publicly what we might fund or give you a commitment to what we might fund," she'd be laughed right out of the meeting. The Premier can propose - and can state as a politician - to the citizens that she's going to fund, and she has the majority to do it, so technically, no, we have to vote each year. Yes, we do. But she's got a 10-member majority, so if she says that she's going to fund the Tagish Road for three years, who's going to stop it? Is her back bench going to revolt and say no? Are her ministers going to walk away, throw their hands up in the air and say no? She's got the majority. So, if she says to the people of Tagish or the people of Old Crow, "Yes, your project was in the NDP budget that we tabled, and yes, we know it's over three years and yes, we're going to fund it," great. It will be funded. And yes, we'll come in here every year and we'll go through the democratic process of voting the budget, but the reality is, as long as all 10 Liberal members stay committed to supporting it, it will pass, and thus the funding will come.

So, she ought not to cling to legislative procedural arguments when she is the Premier. It holds no water out there among the public. The question is, can we, as legislators, such as the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, go to his constituents and say, with some certainty, yes, the Liberal government has committed to continuing the funding for the multi-year project list over the life of the project, as was proposed. That is the essence of what they need to know. That is the essence of what all three of us on the front bench need to know.

I know the Premier might not recognize this, but for the people of Ross River, Faro or Carmacks, for example, a mult-year commitment to the Campbell Highway is an important issue. What she has told us today are three different things. First, we don't know whether it will qualify for funding under her criteria, because she said that they will fund in the long term list if it's a substantive project. Second, she said that she's not going to make any commitments whatsoever for future years. So, I started asking her if that means that the Mayo school that you just said will receive funding will not receive funding? Third, she got up and said that anything with a contractual commitment over the multi-year will continue to receive funding in each fiscal year. That's very unclear. The Premier has been very unclear.

So, the uncertainty that has been created out there, just like her handling of the Tombstone buyout issue and the land claims with Mr. Nault's statement, is starting to mount. The uncertainty about what she's going to do with taxes and what she's going to spend of the accumulated surplus is starting to mount. This, in the two months since the election.

For the first time, the NDP government gave communities some certainty about long-term planning in the budget. Of course, you lay your expenditures out there and you can be criticized for them. We were; we were accountable. The voters spoke, certainly in Whitehorse, and we are now in opposition. It is obvious that we were prepared to be accountable.

What I want to say to the member is that, by giving me three different stories, based on which way the questioning is going, she is not creating certainty.

So, she is the member telling people in the territory that unless there's a long-term contractual commitment that extends beyond this budget year, they will make decisions on future years' spending on a year-to-year basis?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, what I am saying to the member, and what I have said to the member, and what I will continue to say to the member for the rest of the afternoon and the next 76 days, if that's what the member intends, is that the Liberal government will live up to existing commitments that are in this budget. We have said that to Yukoners, I'll say it again, and I'll say it again. We will live up - we're not going to pull the rug out from under anybody. We will live up to the commitments that are in the budget as was tabled by the NDP and retabled by us.

I have a lot of respect for this Legislature, and I'm not going to prejudge or speculate on the future or future budgets. Likewise, I have a lot of respect for my colleagues and for Yukoners. What Yukoners need to know and what they want to know, is: would we live up to what's in this budget? Would we live up to the funding that was tabled by the NDP for X, Y, Z? We said, throughout the campaign and throughout this afternoon, that we will live up to existing commitments.

Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Chair, that's not a clear answer and we're going to have to keep going back to this until we get a clear answer, because we have an obligation on behalf of our constituents to take a clear message back.

I have great respect for this Legislature. I have great respect for my colleagues and this House, but frankly, that's why I'm asking these questions and why I need a clear answer. My constituents, the members' constituents - everybody - wants to know what the Premier's policy is on long-term funding, and she doesn't have one that has been clear yet. There have been three different policies today.

There are a couple more ancillary issues that I must also get into on this particular topic. Mr. Chair, is it the policy of the Premier that only multi-year capital commitments, which have contractual multi-year obligations, will be funded?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, it is the policy of the Premier; it's the policy of the Minister of Tourism; it's the policy of the Minister of Government Services; it's the policy of the Minister of Department of Community and Transportation Services; it's the policy of the Minister of Renewable Resources; it's the policy of the Minister of Health and Social Services and it's the policy of the Member for Mount Lorne and the Member for Riverside and for Whitehorse Centre and for Whitehorse West that we would live up to the existing commitments in the budget - and that's what we're going to do.

Mr. Harding: That's not the answer to the question. The Premier is skirting the issue.

Mr. Chair, I can assure the member, I'm not looking for her group-hug policies. I mean, she did that on the opposition benches. She's the Premier now, and I want to know if the money's going to flow. That's what I want to know.

So, let me ask the Premier again: is it her policy that multi-year funding commitments will only be given to long-term capital projects if there is an existing, long-term capital financial commitment?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, despite the derogatory remarks about group hugs and so on from the member opposite, we said we would come in, table the existing NDP budget - retable - and that's what we did. Whether or not the money is going to flow is the exact question that we were asked in the campaign, and the exact answer I gave was that we would honour existing commitments and that's what we are doing by passing this budget; we are honouring existing commitments.

Mr. Harding: Well, no she's not, with all due respect, honouring existing commitments, because there's a long-term capital plan. And these commitments go into this year and next year and the following year. What she is telling us now - she has told us many different things. I mean, she's not going to pull the rug out from under anything. She's going to fund all of the substantive projects into the coming years. But what she's telling us now though is - I can't go back with certainty - nor can my colleagues on either side of me, to constituents and say that, for the Campbell Highway, they know that there's going to be a million bucks in the budget next year, because the Liberal Premier has said she will not commit to that funding for my constituents and for the members on either sides of me. Is that the case?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: What is in this budget and what is in this document, the long-term capital plan 2000-01, in the mains, the first column in this document - which is this budget. The first column in this long-term capital plan is this budget. This budget is what we told Yukoners we would do - this budget - and that's what we're doing. This budget is what we told Yukoners we would do; it's what we committed to Yukoners. What I will not do is speculate on future budgets. I will not speculate this afternoon on future budgets. What I will do is defend this document, and this document contains commitments to Yukoners, and that's what we are living up to.

Mr. Harding: So, she just said that the Mayo school has no commitment for funding for next year for construction.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I just said that, if the member wants to get into lines, there is $5,480,000 for the Mayo school. That's what is in this budget, and that's what we will live up to. I'm not asking the member opposite to defend the fact that there was $2 million last year for the Mayo school. I'm not talking about last year, and I'm not going to talk about next year. I'm talking about this year.

In discussing this, the member should assume - as in excess of whatever the figure was for the percent of Yukoners assumed - that the Liberal government would be prudent fiscal managers. That's what we are going to do, that we would live up to existing commitments and be prudent fiscal managers in the future. That's what we're going to do.

Mr. Harding: So, is there a funding commitment for the Mayo school for construction next year or not?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, I'm not speculating on future budgets. I'm endeavouring to pass this budget, and this budget has $5.4 million for the Mayo school. If the members opposite assist us in passing it, that money will certainly be spent.

Mr. Harding: So the Mayo school does not have a commitment for capital construction funding next year - correct?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The Mayo school has a capital construction project commitment for $5,480,000 this year, and that's what we're living up to.

Mr. Harding: How does that create certainty?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Because we said we'd be rational, Mr. Chair. Because we said we'd be prudent fiscal managers. We committed to the people of Yukon that we wouldn't pull the rug out from under anyone, and we won't do that. We will live up to the commitments. We said we'd be rational; we said we'd be prudent fiscal managers; we said we'd do what we set out to do, which was to provide Yukoners with good government. We will pass this budget. This budget includes, since the member wants to dwell on it, $5.4 million for the Mayo school. Interestingly enough, that's a school that - let's see - Conservatives, Yukon Party and NDP governments - all of them - pledged to build, and none of them actually did it.

Mr. Harding: So, when I am in a meeting with my constituents, and they ask me about the Campbell Highway, I'm going to say, no, the Liberal Premier won't give me a commitment to fund the Campbell Highway next year, but don't you worry, because they are going to be prudent fiscal managers, and they are going to be rational. So, you just settle down - simmer down now. Don't get too excited, because the Premier will be prudent and rational.

Mr. Chair, that is not going to cut the mustard for the Premier or this MLA. Therefore it is incumbent on me to get to the bottom of this issue. And this is only the first one. How many times is she going to change her position? She has already changed it four times on the Tombstone buyout. Wait until we get into that. I mean, we're probably up in the dozens.

The Premier has just said - this is the fourth position on the Mayo school. Let me ask her this: is the Mayo school a long-term contractual commitment?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, the member started out his question talking about the Campbell Highway. There's $1 million in this budget for the Campbell Highway, and that's what we'll live up to. There is $5,480,000 for the Mayo school, and that's what we'll live up to.

Mr. Harding: Can they count on $1 million next year for the Campbell Highway?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'm not going to speculate on what's in next year's budget. I'm not going to speculate on that. We will live up to the commitments in this budget. We will be prudent fiscal managers. We will be rational about what we do.

What the member really wants is for me to lay out a list of priorities and reel off a great long list and restate all of our election commitments so that he can then cherry pick them when he comes back in the House and say, "Well, you didn't do this in your throne speech." I would remind the member that this is June 12, so we have been in office since May 6. We aren't going to accomplish everything in six or seven weeks.

This is the spending authority. We are endeavouring to pass this budget and live up to these commitments. We will do just that, Mr. Chair. We will live up to the commitments. We will live up to the commitments in this budget.

In the fall, there will be a throne speech and there will be a supplementary budget, and there will be more years of Liberal government budgets. There is plenty of time for the member to assess our priorities and to try, as the opposition is elected to do, to ensure that we are held accountable, that we do what we said we'll do. And I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to being held accountable, to do what I said I'd do, as are all of our party members.

What we're trying to d