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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I’m tabling the government contracting summary report, by department, dated April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling a document entitled An Act to Amend the Public Service Act, whistle-blower legislation of the Second Session of the 30^th Legislative Assembly.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the March 13, 2003 signing of an economic accord between the Premier of Yukon and the Premier of the Northwest Territories demonstrated bilateral cooperation;

(2) should producers decide to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline before the Alaska Highway pipeline, will facilitate the development of northern Yukon oil and natural gas; and

(3) all Yukon and Northwest Territories workers and contractors will be able to take advantage of the jobs, education and training that will result from the construction of either or both of the pipelines; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue its efforts toward more cooperative arrangements with the Northwest Territories and the State of Alaska.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) a decision by the Yukon Party government to reduce public spending by more than $40 million in the 2003-04 fiscal year will have a serious negative impact on the territory’s economy, which will affect all Yukon communities;

(2) direct spending by public employees is a major contributor to the economic health and stability of every Yukon community; and

(3) cutbacks in government spending are already resulting in a loss of income for people who provide services to Yukon government departments, agencies or Crown corporations, particularly in the areas of auxiliary, casual and seasonal employment; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to honour both the letter and the spirit of its commitment not to diminish any kind of workforce within the government in order to avoid any further erosion of the territory’s economy.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Party made a public commitment to implement whistle-blower legislation in their campaign platform;

(2) the now Premier, when he was in opposition, asked the Yukon Liberal government to table whistle-blower legislation;

(3) on April 11, 2002, the Yukon Liberal government tabled whistle-blower legislation in the form of Bill No. 74, an Act to Amend the Public Service Act; and

THAT this House urges the current minister responsible for the Public Service Commission and his Cabinet to stop procrastinating and retable the whistle-blower legislation that already exists.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) two Cabinet ministers in the Yukon Party government owe large sums of money to the Yukon government because they have failed to pay back business loans;

(2) several private sector Yukon companies owe the Government of Yukon money because they have failed to pay back business loans;

(3) the Government of Yukon is currently enforcing a new policy that requires companies to pay back loans when they receive additional income;

(4) the Government of Yukon is allowing Cabinet ministers who recently received a pay raise and are therefore more able to pay back their loans to continue to be delinquent in their payments; and

(5) this has created a double standard, with Cabinet ministers receiving special treatment; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to enforce the same standard of payment on loans by garnisheeing the additional wages of Cabinet ministers who are not paying their debts.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Yesterday the minister took the unusual step of apologizing for what he called errors in a letter written by one of his senior departmental officials. It’s unfortunate that the minister has chosen to put the blame for his own decisions onto the backs of people who can’t defend themselves in public.

Will the minister explain how he expects his department to absorb a cut of 22 percent in family and children's services in rural Yukon without any reduction in programs or personnel costs?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The issue before us today is the same as it was the day before and the day before when the member opposite questioned me in the House. It’s the issue of auxiliary on-call workers for the Government of the Yukon. When these employees are required, they will be called. If there is not a need for these employees, they will not be called. I reiterate once again for the member opposite: there have been no cuts in this area.

Mr. Fairclough:   Maybe the minister can crack open the budget book, turn to page 11-48, and he’ll see the 22-percent decrease. Again, the minister was not able to explain to this House — the minister’s own figures show an 80-percent drop in the number of families in rural Yukon that will receive family support services in the upcoming year.

The minister’s contention that this isn’t a program cut and won’t result in personnel cuts simply defies all logic. So far, we’ve been talking about family support services in rural Yukon, but these aren’t the only job losses in this department, which the minister insists aren’t job losses at all.

Will the minister tell us the status of the six Social Services employees here in Whitehorse who received notices last Friday that their services aren’t wanted any longer, and does he expect us to believe that these cuts aren’t cuts at all?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Once again, we have the member opposite misinterpreting the areas. He’s not correctly analyzing the documents he has before him, Mr. Speaker. That is not fair and not reasonable.

The whole Yukon, under the previous Liberal administration and under the previous NDP administration, suffered a tremendous decline in its economy. We have an exodus of people. The demands on our system are still there, but they’re not at the same level they were previously. Our government is committed to meeting those demands.

Once again, I reiterate for the record: there have been no job cuts.

Mr. Fairclough:   Obviously this minister is into the blame game, and this is certainly a sign of weakness on his part. Mr. Speaker, apparently there is more than one senior official in this minister’s department who may be in error. It seems like everybody is in error except for the minister. Of course, this is the same minister who refuses to admit that he changed his mind about Macaulay Lodge. The bottom line is that the minister is taking food off people’s table — people who have served this government in auxiliary positions, some of them for over 10 years. Will the minister now admit his own errors and find some other way of meeting his budget reduction targets without taking away people’s income?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The individuals in the employ of the Government of Yukon are auxiliary on-call. That is the job classification. If the member opposite wishes, I will undertake to get the Public Service Commission to give the member opposite a full and complete briefing on what auxiliary on-call stands for and what it means. Because, once again, the member is wandering all over and he is not correctly interpreting the information he has before him. There have been no job cuts.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. It is interesting that you are speaking on behalf of him — one minister speaks on behalf of the other but —

Speaker:   Would the member please direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I asked the minister about job losses that we know are happening in this government. In the minister’s response, he came back to the issue of job losses resulting from devolution. I want to make it clear that I am not talking about devolution, Mr. Speaker; I am talking about job losses that are happening — period. Let me start by asking the minister the same question that my colleague asked the Minister of Health yesterday. According to this government, when is a job cut not a job cut?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   That’s kind of a loaded question, I would say: when is a job cut not a job cut? I don’t know.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I would advise the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission to learn when a job cut is not a job cut, maybe learn when a job is a job or when hours that are cut affect a person’s livelihood and, from their viewpoint, consider it a job; because that has to be sorted out right away. The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission must understand this. So my recommendation is that he does a little bit of his homework right now.

The information the minister sent to me on February 6 showed a total of 351 positions in Health and Social Services listed as auxiliary, seasonal or on-call as of last December 31. That means 351 Yukoners derive their family income, in whole or in part, from working for this department. Will the minister tell us the dollar amount this department paid out in these categories during the current fiscal year and the dollar amount estimated for the specific categories in the fiscal year 2003-04?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Obviously I don’t have all the expenses of the government up here in my mind, but I could have a legislative return brought to the member opposite with regard to that question.

Mr. Hardy:   I hope that the legislative return comes over to this side a lot sooner than the other requests that I made about the vacancies. The minister’s letter showed 4,307 positions with YTG departments — the letter that I initially received a few weeks ago. Agencies and Crown corporations were also included as of last December 31. Approximately 200 more federal employees are due to join the YTG workforce in approximately two weeks. This government is cutting its spending by $41 million in the coming year. Using the standard economic multiplier, that’s over $240 million less money circulating in the Yukon’s economy next year, yet the minister wants us to believe that they won’t take the food off any Yukon tables, though we’re hearing differently already. Let’s stick with jobs this government apparently doesn’t consider jobs. What is the total dollar amount that will be paid out in the categories of auxiliary, seasonal or on-call in the current fiscal year, and what amount is estimated for these categories for the fiscal year 2003-04?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I think that’s kind of a question that I won’t be able to answer at this point in time. I believe that devolution has to take place before we actually would really know what is going to transpire out of that devolution process.

Ms. Duncan:   I am pleased to rise today to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources his first question in the Legislature. It is concerning the government’s position on pipeline development. The minister brought forward a motion today.

In opposition, as a member of both the NDP and the Yukon Party benches, the now Premier took the position that the Dempster lateral pipeline should flow south to connect with an Alaska Highway pipeline. The Premier’s position and the Government of Yukon’s position have changed. They now believe that the Dempster lateral should go north to connect with a proposed Mackenzie Valley line. It’s something like the members’ opposite federal cousin, Stockwell Day, who couldn’t decide which way the Niagara River flowed, south or north.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: does the Government of Yukon support the construction of a Dempster lateral pipeline heading northeast to Inuvik or south to connect with an Alaska Highway pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We work with the opportunities that we have in the pipeline industry. We don’t want to commit ourselves to the sense of being in a position of being committed to one or the other. We are going to work with whatever pipeline comes along. If the northern pipeline, the Mackenzie, goes down, we want access to that pipeline.

Certainly we are working for the Alaska Highway pipeline. In a perfect world, that would come first. But, in fact, it looks like the Mackenzie pipeline will come first, and at that point we are going to work with the Mackenzie pipeline on our northern gas reserves and hopefully get it to market sooner than later.

Ms. Duncan:   What I heard the minister state is that he supports both, so I would invite the minister to table correspondence — for example, with the Minister of Natural Resources Canada and withdrawal of the Dempster corridor and that sort of information — to ensure the public is aware of both sides of the support.

I have a further question with respect to pipeline development. I would like to ask the government’s position with respect to the over-the-top proposed pipeline development. The Alaskan Legislature opposes this development. The Berger inquiry of the 1970s ruled it out for very good, very sound environmental reasons — in fact ruled it out categorically. Most of the private sector concedes that they do not support burying billions of dollars of an asset under sea ice that’s inaccessible most of the year — accessible maybe for 10 days of the year. Yukoners oppose it for environmental and economic reasons — flatly oppose the over-the-top route for environmental and economic reasons.

What is the Government of the Yukon’s position on a proposed over-the-top pipeline route?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We agree with the member. We, as a government, are against the over-the-top pipeline.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister’s eagerness to agree with me. It’s kind of a first in this Legislature.

With respect to the further pipeline development, the Alaska Highway pipeline, there has been a great deal of talk about incentives in Washington for the Alaska Highway pipeline. These are similar incentives that were paid in Canada for Hibernia and Sable Island. Previously, the Yukon government supported these incentives. They are repayable by the business community. The Government of Northwest Territories did not; in fact, they lobbied extensively in Washington against these incentives.

What is the Government of Yukon’s current position on repayable tax incentives in Washington to support the construction of the Alaska Highway pipeline? And I would invite the minister again, if he is indicating that the Government of Yukon supports these incentives, to table what they have done. Has the minister written to Governor Murkowski? Has he re-engaged a lobbyist in Washington? If they support these incentives, what have they done?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The producers are going to dictate that, and we really don’t have much to say about that. Do we support them? I guess what we’re working on is a pipeline down the Alaska Highway, so the producers are going to look for the best advantage. Are we going to write a letter to Washington? No, we’re not going to write a letter to Washington at the moment. If the producers ask us to write a letter to Washington, we might write a letter to Washington but, at the moment, we have not communicated with Washington.

Mr. McRobb:   My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. The minister and his colleague who is responsible for the Public Service Commission have gone to great lengths to explain why it isn’t a job cut when someone is told their services won’t be needed any longer. That’s exactly what has happened to the family support workers in Mayo and Pelly Crossing.

Will the minister confirm that the family support worker in Haines Junction has also been notified that the budget cuts apply to that position?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Once again, for the record, the positions the member opposite is referring to are auxiliary on-call, by and large. There have been no cuts. In fact, with respect to Pelly Crossing, our government is enhancing the services by providing a higher, more qualified individual to meet the demands of that community. The department is out recruiting right now to fill that requirement.

So, with respect to cuts, there are none, Mr. Speaker. We, as a government, are addressing the needs, and the issue of auxiliary on-call is exactly that. These individuals are called in when required and will continue to be called in, when and if required.

Mr. McRobb:   That is insulting to my constituents — especially the people losing their jobs. No matter how the members opposite try to spin it, auxiliary workers who provide family support services in rural Yukon are taking a hit. I will be very interested in watching how many hours and how many dollars these auxiliary on-call workers log next year compared to this year, and I’ll guarantee it that our researchers will be on that statistic.

According to the department’s own statistics, the number of families in rural Yukon that are expected to receive family support services will drop from 40 in the current year to only eight in the coming year. Can the minister tell us, are all communities that now have family support workers affected by this drop, or are there any exceptions?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government is committed to meeting the demand and will continue to meet the demand. The issue is auxiliary on-call workers, and these individuals will be called and their services will be required from time to time and they will be engaged and they will be utilized and they will be tasked with addressing their respective responsibility. So there is no shortage of services being provided in this area, and there have been no job cuts and our government is adamant about that. There have been no job cuts in this budget.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister did not answer the question. We did not hear the minister identify any communities in this territory who are affected by these job cuts. He did not identify any communities in the territory.

A few days ago in response to another question, the minister explained that the pecking order for services first goes to Whitehorse, then Watson Lake and Dawson City. How convenient, Mr. Speaker. According to the department’s figures, there is no drop in the number of Whitehorse families that will receive family support services in the coming year. Can the minister tell us now: will there be any reduction in the family support services available to either Watson Lake or Dawson City in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I’m very uncomfortable with the member opposite referring to a pecking order for the services we provide. Our government is committed to providing a consistent high level of service across all of Yukon. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do so in the future. Now, in some areas, the demands are such that we have full-time employees. In other areas, there are auxiliary on-call workers. Those workers will be engaged by the department when the demand exists. There have been no job cuts; there has been no priority setting as to what communities may or may not receive the services. Everyone is treated as equally as possible by this government, and that will continue to be done.

Mrs. Peter:    Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice regarding security at the Andrew A. Philipsen Law Centre. Will the minister explain how the cutback in hours for YTG security personnel will affect evening and weekend security coverage at the Law Centre?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of what the member is alluding to.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, at a time when security of public buildings is increasing in many parts of the world, this government is reducing security. I’d like to follow up with a question to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. It is my understanding that security coverage of YTG buildings is being reduced by something like 56 person hours per week. Will the minister tell us if this reduction in hours will affect permanent employees or does it apply only to casual employees?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The member opposite asked the question whether it affects permanent staff. There is no effect on permanent staff. Our reductions are based on no effect to our current, full-time staff.

Mrs. Peter:   There seems to be a very interesting pattern emerging here. The side opposite insists there are no job cuts in any YTG workforce category, but that seems to depend on what you mean by "workforce." Apparently on-call jobs aren’t jobs to this government. It looks as if casual jobs aren’t jobs either. In the minds of ordinary people, losing your paycheque, or a significant part, amounts to the same thing as a job loss. It means that food is being taken off your table.

Will the minister tell us the dollar amount paid to casual employees in his department during the current fiscal year and the amount estimated for the casual employees, including security personnel in the year 2003-04?

Speaker:   I presume that was to the Minister of Infrastructure.

Mrs. Peter:   Yes.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I guess we could provide an estimate in answer to the members opposite’s question with regard to what we provided in the 2002-03 budget when we get it from the Auditor General and it is confirmed.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. The O&M budget for his department shows a two-percent reduction in information and communications technology, a two-percent reduction in the transportation division, and an eight-percent reduction in supply and services, which includes a 30-percent reduction at the Queen’s Printer. How many jobs will be directly affected by these budget cuts?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   None.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, the personnel line in each one of these divisions shows a negative number. The personnel spending is being reduced, and that’s a fact. There’s also a five-percent cut in French adult language instruction. Now, it defies logic that the cutbacks in these categories won’t have an impact on the people who provide these services, and this doesn’t even take into account contract negotiations that are going on now with government employees.

Will the minister explain how his department is going to achieve these cuts in the personnel budget without affecting people’s jobs?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I’ll reiterate my answer. None of the jobs will be affected.

Mr. Cardiff:   We seem to have a lot of trouble getting this government to spell out exactly what it means by a job. Again, when is a job not a job, and when is job loss not job loss?

We’ll try one more approach here. The Department of Highways and Public Works will be spending $10 million less on capital projects in the coming fiscal year. Using the multiplier, that’s approximately $60 million taken out of circulation in the Yukon’s economy. In the transportation division alone, the cut is $10 million. So how much less does the transportation division expect to pay out to seasonal employees across the Yukon this summer, and how many fewer seasonal workers will the department be employing?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, these jobs will be let out in the private sector and for the majority of these jobs, that is where they will be taken from.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a follow-up question for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. In the past few weeks we have seen some disturbing things on the floor of this Legislature. We see ministers delve into individual personnel matters without any caution. We see ministers contradict senior government officials who aren’t in a position to defend themselves. Does the minister agree that public servants who speak out in good conscience should be protected from reprisals?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the best of my knowledge I believe that our government has some very good policies in place that do protect the workers.

Mr. Hardy:   There is nothing preventing this minister from directing the Public Service Commission to fast track the process of developing whistler-blower legislation, especially since the previous government had already done some work in that area. Interestingly enough, the minister hasn’t yet even referred to the work that has already been done there, and I have to question why. Does he know about it and, if he doesn’t, I would advise the minister to get briefed on this. However, will the minister make a commitment to direct the Public Service Commission to bring forward draft legislation by this fall to protect government employees who expose wrongdoing within the government?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for all the advice he is giving me — it is sure helping me a lot. I would have to say that this isn’t the first time I would be saying in this Legislature that the process is still ongoing. Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   That’s a nice excuse — it doesn’t work.

This has been on the public agenda in the territory for approximately two years now, and there really is nothing preventing this minister from acting decisively and boldly, even if it means stepping outside of the boundaries that the rest of Canada may be in, as the minister has used previously in an excuse.

However, once again, will this minister give directions — very clearly, give directions — to make whistle-blower protection a reality without any further delays?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will say that I’m not responsible for what went on in this Legislature in the past. I have been in this position for three months, and if someone couldn’t complete this in two years plus, how does the member opposite expect me to have something on the table here in three months?

I said before that this is an issue that our government will be dealing with, and we have four years to complete it.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I’d like to identify the items standing in the name of the government private members to be called on Wednesday, March 19, 2003. They are Motion No. 36, standing in the name of the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin, and Motion No. 32, standing in the name of the Member for Southern Lakes.

Speaker:   We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

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

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. Do the members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will now recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We’ll now continue on with general debate on Bill No. 24, Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m pleased to rise to discuss this mirror legislation, the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, that is before Committee of the Whole. The mirror legislation that we’re dealing with, including this act, is legislation that Yukon was asked to pass, and it’s called mirror because it’s virtually the same as the federal laws, so this Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act is the same as the federal legislation, as is currently the Government of Canada’s legislation. Changed in this act before us in the Yukon is that any references to federal institutions, positions or laws are revised to the appropriate Yukon position, the Yukon institution, the Yukon law.

So, if there was a reference in the federal law to "federal" Cabinet minister, the reference has changed to "Yukon". The language has also changed as Yukon wished to reflect more modern conventions that currently are in place, and we also in the Yukon are very concerned and conscious of ensuring that our legislation is not gender specific so that references are true to modern convention and to Yukon standards.

The discussion that the Premier and I were having before we adjourned debate yesterday was with respect to the administration of lands in the Yukon as administered under this Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act. The Yukon Party government has indicated that there is a deficiency in the Yukon act and likewise in this mirror legislation. With respect to, and I quote from the budget speech "…the failure to recognize the Crown in right of Yukon that would grant the ownership of land and resources to the territory…" Now in our discussion yesterday I noted that the Premier, in the mirror legislation, the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, the reference to "Crown" is omitted because the Yukon’s equivalent is the Government of Yukon.

I asked the Premier repeatedly, many times, to explain to Yukoners, in layman’s terms, what this Crown in right of Yukon really means and how this reference was going to be dealt with. The Premier has failed to explain that, and I will be asking him again today, as we carry on in general debate, to explain what the Crown in right of Yukon question is.

In our lengthy debate yesterday, the Premier did not indicate how much the taxpayers of Yukon would be expending in resolving this question, Mr. Chair. In other words, the Premier said in-house legal counsel, by and large, maybe. There was no sense of whether or not additional outside legal counsel would be sought on this question.

For example, what I’m trying to determine from the Premier in this Crown-in-right question is whether or not it is the government’s intention in resolving this — because they mentioned it in the budget speech — to hire a constitutional legal expert and, if so, at what price?

The more important question in all of this is: what is this question about Crown in right of Yukon?

The mirror legislation before us, the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, deals with care and control, management of the land. What the act says is that Cabinet — the government members opposite — can transfer land. They can say, "Yes, this should be developed; no, this should not be developed." That’s what devolution was all about. This is what the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act is all about. It allows Cabinet to transfer the administration of lands in different acts. It doesn’t apply to land that is titled to third parties. So it doesn’t apply to people outside of the government who own land and it doesn’t apply to settlement land. It applies to territorial lands, things like timber cutting, the establishment of land management zones and regulations, setting aside territorial lands for public purposes — like schools, churches, cemeteries, towns, boundary expansions of our hamlets and our communities. It also authorizes the acquisition of lands for right-of-way by railways, by power companies and pipelines and, of course, as I mentioned, timber as well.

So, what this lands act will do is enable the Government of Yukon to deal with all aspects of the land — the control of the land. That’s the issue for Yukoners — who controls the land.

What the Premier has not explained is that this Crown in right of Yukon question could be interpreted as ownership. That’s the concept underlying the Crown. After this lands act is passed and post-April 1, Yukon will have the same jurisdiction and the same authorities enjoyed by Canada with respect to issuing permits, titles and leases. We’ll control public land. That’s what the Yukon will do when this act is passed and after devolution.

What the Premier is pursuing is this question that even he can’t define on the floor of this Legislature. He cannot define for Yukoners what this Crown in right of Yukon question is, what it has to do with the land, and why the government is pursuing it.

As best I can determine, because members of the Yukon Party — both the Member for Klondike and the Member for Watson Lake — used to stand on the floor and ask me to pursue this. This question, Crown in right of Yukon, relates to, in some part, ownership. So the public lands remain vested in Her Majesty of Canada. It’s difficult to explain, and I think that’s why the Premier’s having such trouble, because the average Yukoner doesn’t understand the question, doesn’t understand why the Premier would be spending money pursuing it, and the Premier can’t explain it when I ask why he is pursuing this question.

As I understand it, and I’ve done a little bit of study on this particular question because I was asked it before, it’s whether the Government of Yukon would exercise the prerogatives of the Crown. What does that mean? What Yukoners care about is, can I get a land permit; can the pipeline get a right-of-way; if there’s a railway built, can they get a right-of-way; can you get a timber-cutting permit, and are the settlement lands protected? Yes, to all of those questions. So what I’m trying to get from the Premier in this Committee of the Whole debate relating to territorial lands is, why is he pursuing this question and what is this question and what’s the cost to the Yukon taxpayers of pursuing it?

The question I would also like to follow up on today, if I get answers to those questions, is what is the downside? What’s the unintended consequence of pursuing this?

Provinces and the other two territories supported devolution and supported Yukon’s efforts toward devolution under the Ostashek, McDonald and Duncan governments because they believed — and support in part from the Bloc Québécois was certainly conditional upon. This is not a constitutional amendment. This is not provincehood by the back door. We’ll have all the rights and authorities needed to further the Yukon and to further the economic development, but we are not taking Canada into another constitutional debate for which there is absolutely no appetite.

The unintended consequence of the Premier pursuing this particular question may be just that — a constitutional debate — and then what? All of that support from every other province and territory and every single party in the House of Commons — Bloc Québécois, the various hybrids of the Alliance, Progressive Conservatives, of course the Liberal government, the NDP. They all supported devolution and supported the Yukon Act as it was written, as it passed.

It gives me a great deal of concern to think that the Premier has not considered the unintended consequences of his actions and his government’s actions in pursuing this.

So my questions, again, for the Premier, when he rises on his feet, are to outline why the government is pursuing this Crown-in-right question and what, fundamentally, the question is. How does the Premier — how do members opposite explain in their ridings door to door — if they’re going to go door to door in the other half of Porter Creek, in Laberge and in Pelly-Nisutlin and all through the territory — when members opposite go door to door, how do they explain this question to Yukon voters? How is it to be explained?

What Yukoners care about and what they ask is: can I do what is necessary to further the Yukon economy on the land? Will the government have the ability to transfer the land? Will the government be able to say, "Yes, by all means, cut that timber; work with the First Nation government in furthering economic development on settlement land." Do all of these things — will the pipeline be able to get a right-of-way? Will the government be able to do all these things?

The answer to that question — which is the question that voters are asking at the door — is yes. Yes, we will have all the authorities that one can imagine. We will have all of them. So what is the question the Premier is asking legislative counsel, and who knows who else — a constitutional expert, perhaps, of a law firm somewhere in Canada — what is the question being asked? At what price? What is the time frame on this? Most importantly, what are the unintended consequences?

What are the unintended consequences of asking this question? The Premier has made much of this question in both the throne speech and in the budget speech, and I believe these questions need to be fully answered, and/or the Premier needs to indicate he’s prepared to stand down on this question, because he has given consideration to the unintended consequences. He has heard from colleagues across Canada that the devolution deal is a good one. Certainly, his colleague in the Northwest Territories is very interested in our devolution agreement and, of course, in the mirror legislation.

We agreed to pass the mirror legislation, as it stands, and the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act is a good piece of legislation. It does mirror what we were asked to do in the federal — and most importantly, it gives us the ability, when it comes to land, to pursue economic development opportunities. It gives us care, control and management of the land, and that’s the most fundamental and important point — management of the land.

It doesn’t give us care and control over the national parks either, Mr. Chair, which is understandable, I suppose.

The fact is that this is a good piece of legislation. The side opposite asked that it be passed expeditiously in the House, and we’re prepared to do that. The members opposite also indicated they were prepared to do this in a collaborative effort and be cooperative in the House. I would encourage the Premier, when he rises to his feet, to answer the questions, to outline very clearly what the precise question is that is being posed to legislative counsel in-house, what outside counsel is being asked to provide advice on this question, at what price, and when they are prepared to ensure this answer is provided. The member has indicated he will table it in the House and provide it to me and to members opposite, which I look forward to.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan, you have two minutes.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was just reviewing the questions that I would like the Premier to address when he rises to his feet. What is the question with regard to Crown in right in simple, straightforward terms? What is the question that is being asked? What legislative counsel are being used in-house, and if so how many hours and, if it is outside counsel, at what price? How much is the Premier prepared to spend on this? When the Premier has indicated he will provide the response, I would like to know when and I would like to know if the Premier has given full and due consideration to the unintended consequences of his pursuit of this action?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I guess the question I would have is this: does the leader of the third party have any amendments for this bill, because it certainly sounds like it. We just spent 20 minutes listening to the member go on and on and on about a question. Well, the question is simple. Does the Crown in right in the Yukon exist? That is the question, very simple. In-house legal people are addressing this right now. That is the answer in that regard. Unintended consequences — the member is speculative. There are no unintended consequences. We are merely, as a government, in the best interests of the Yukon public, finding out whether or not this long-standing question in the Yukon Territory in regard to a Crown in right exists. There is nothing too complicated about this. I know the member wanted to fill the camera time and that is fine. We don’t have a problem with that, but we want to be constructive in our debate and we went over this yesterday at great length, over and over and over and over.

Let me recap the answers as the member has recapped her questions. What is the question? The long-standing question: whether a Crown in right of Yukon exists. Who is doing the work? In-house legal people, lawyers. They’re being paid each and every day. They are doing the work. There’s no cost to the taxpayer here other than what was already there. There are no unintended consequences. We are, on behalf of the Yukon public, going to get an answer to whether the Crown in right exists or not.

Beyond that, I don’t really see what it is the member was going on and on about. It’s a pretty simple thing; it’s about governance. It’s about ownership versus management only. The Crown-in-right question has been a question on Yukoners’ minds for a long, long time, probably since the Epp letter. That’s when the question began; it’s still here today. And we as a government are taking the prudent course of action and are going to get advice from our legal people in regard to this question of Crown in right, and that’s all there is. There’s nothing untoward here. There’s nothing that’s going to affect the devolution transfer agreement. There’s nothing that’s going to trigger a constitutional question. None of these things are at play. It’s a simple in-house procedure to provide the government advice so we can be a little more informed on a question that all Yukoners have been asking for a long, long time. And that’s it.

As far as the mirror legislation, in particular the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, there is no bearing on this act, there are no amendments because of this. There’s nothing. This is mirror legislation giving us the authority to take down federal powers on April 1.

It’s mirror legislation because that is what is demanded of us under the devolution transfer agreement. It’s done. It’s here before us. We’re in Committee. If there are any items the member opposite sees in this particular bill — and the member opposite knows full well the content of this bill, because she was probably very much involved in its various stages, has had it presented to her in different capacities, whether in opposition or as a government leader or Premier — are there any amendments, are there any issues? If not, then I would suggest, in the best interests of the Yukon taxpayer, that we advance this bill and get on to the next one.

Ms. Duncan:   I thank the Premier for the answer and I would say that it is in the best interests of the Yukon taxpayer that we not proceed on this question, which the Premier still has not explained.

Does the Crown in right of Yukon exist? There’s a crown on the end of the mace, yes, and it’s a symbol of the Crown, it’s a symbol of the authority of the Yukon. It doesn’t take a constitutional lawyer to figure that one out.

The Premier said, very interestingly, that nothing is going to trigger anything in the courts. The minister is presupposing the answer, then, because if he gets an answer back from his legal people to the question of what does it mean and does the Crown in right of Yukon exist and if the answer is yes, then the Premier is satisfied. If the answer is no, the logical question and the question that his colleague to his far left — right in the political spectrum — asked repeatedly is: will the government take it to court? Will they reference the issue to court?

Now, the Premier has said no, they won’t. Then why are we asking for a legal opinion?

Why is the member pursuing it? The member asked if I have a constructive amendment. Absolutely, I have constructive advice. Have the legal counsel work on whistle-blower legislation, which was a party commitment — they’ve already drafted it once — and end wasting their time on this constitutional question, which has unintended consequences for us that are very negative.

The Premier asked for constructive advice; I’m offering it. I’m also asking the Premier to accept that advice. I’m asking the Premier to reconfirm, also — he said that no matter what the answer he gets on the legal opinion, he is not going to trigger a question to the constitutional court. Will he confirm that no matter what legal opinion he gets back, he will not trigger the court case?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I take the member opposite’s advice under advisement. I thank the member for her advice, but we did commit to look into this. That’s what we’re doing. We will act in a manner that is in the best interests of Yukoners, whatever that may be within the confines of what we are able to do as a Yukon government. There is a particular bill before us here that is up for debate. This is mirror legislation. It’s a very simple piece of legislation in terms of the fact that it’s an exact copy of what has been in place in the Yukon under the federal regime for decades. We are here to pass this particular legislation and ensure its assent so that on April 1, the Yukon can take down management and control of Northern Affairs programs. Beyond that, this question that the member is hung up on is nothing more than an attempt for political grandstanding, Mr. Chair. There is absolutely —

Chair:   Order please. I will ask the member to refrain from inputing false or unavowed motives to another member.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is an attempt for what motivation this side of the House just simply cannot ascertain or determine. This is a very simple exercise, not difficult at all, and the legal people are doing their job — that is why they are there to provide government legal advice. They are providing the government advice on this particular question and they provide the government advice on all other kinds of issues and other questions. So I will take the member’s suggestions under advisement. We are proceeding and I guess the next question is if we’re proceeding with this bill and putting it through Committee as we should be.

Ms. Duncan:   With all due respect to the member opposite, I didn’t put this issue on the table. The member opposite has put it on the table not only as a former individual on this side of the House but twice in his capacity as Premier: once in a throne speech and once in the budget speech. He has indicated that the Government of Yukon is pursuing this Crown in right of Yukon issue. It relates specifically to this mirror legislation the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, because in the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act the interpretation, the comments, the briefing material that everybody has seen says section 1 omits "Crown". Yukon’s equivalent is Commissioner or Government of Yukon, depending on the circumstances. So it is entirely relevant to this debate that I would be raising this Crown-in-right question because (a) it is a commitment of the Premier, not once but twice; and (b) it directly relates to this mirror legislation the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act

To go back, the real issue for Yukoners is who controls the land, who can do what with the land. That’s the real issue for Yukoners. When we’re on their doorsteps, Yukoners ask us questions. They ask, "Why can’t I get land at the lake? Why can’t I buy a cottage lot? Why can’t I get access? Does the pipeline have a right-of-way? What does category A and B on settlement land mean?" Land is near and dear to Yukoners’ hearts. It was the 1978 slogan for the Yukon Party — "Land for all Yukoners". It has been everybody’s slogan.

Land is near and dear to our hearts, and those are the questions Yukoners ask: how do I own land? How do I deal with land? How do I build that cottage or the cabin at the lake? With this act, the Yukon government can deal with it; the Yukon government can do that.

Now, related to that, there’s this Crown in right. What does it mean? In constitutional law and in constitutional briefings I’ve attended and discussions I’ve had, it’s the concept of ownership. So, the Government of Canada’s view is, if we reference this Crown issue, it’s going to require constitutional amendment. There is no appetite in this country for constitutional discussion. There’s no support.

So, do you take ownership? Do you take management and control? Do you take the ability to transfer land? Do you take the ability to do all this stuff, or do you take years and years of constitutional wrangling? I’ll take previous governments; Yukoners will take devolution; they’ll take the lands.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I’d like to beg the indulgence of the House and introduce Wayne Jim, a former Member of this Legislative Assembly, and ask all members to welcome him to this House.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Member for Klondike for making that introduction.

The fact is, we’re discussing this Crown-in-right question that the Premier has been unable to fully explain. The Premier has said that he would take the advice that I offered of letting legal counsel do other work and leave this question be for some time, and the Premier said, "Thanks for the advice but we committed to this and we made a promise." Well, the Premier has broken other promises before. I don’t understand why the Premier could not freely accept that advice in the spirit with which it was offered and say they will not put that forward. I appreciate —

Some Hon. Member:   Mr. Chair, point of order.

Chair:   Mr. Jenkins, on a point of order

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 19(c), Rules of Debate, the member opposite is persisting in needless repetition.

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

Ms. Duncan:   On the point of order, needless repetition would imply that a question had been answered. In fact, the question has not been answered, which is the point I was getting to. It is not needlessly repeating. I’m asking a question to which I deserve an answer in general debate.

Chair:   There is no point of order. I find this to be a dispute between members.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to continue.

Again, I would ask the Premier to indicate, on the floor of this House, that he is prepared to set aside the request of the legal counsel to pursue this ill-defined question and focus his energies and the energies of the government on fully implementing the mirror legislation and the devolution transfer agreement.

Will the Premier set aside asking legal counsel this question?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, let’s get down to brass tacks here. We have answered this question now for two days, over and over and over and over and over. Of course we’re going to answer it in layman’s terms. We’re not lawyers. That’s why the legal officials of the government are looking at the question to provide what would be a journeyman’s response to the issue of Crown in right of the Yukon.

So we have answered the question, over and over and over.

Secondly, no, the government is not going to stand down. This government is capable of doing more than one thing at a time, so we will get legal advice on the Crown-in-right issue among all the other things that we are undertaking today as we speak.

As far as the leader of the third party is concerned, this issue seems to have really agitated the member, and I think it’s because the member opposite does not understand the issue of Crown in right. Because of that misunderstanding or not being able to grasp what the Crown in right is, it has now sparked this very acrimonious debate from the member opposite with this side of the House on a very simple piece of legislation called mirror legislation.

There is nothing in what the Yukon government is doing today in terms of the Crown-in-right question and getting advice from its own legal people on that question, as we committed to do, that will affect or impact the mirror legislation in any way — nothing at all. We are merely seeking advice. That’s what a prudent government would do. That’s what a government that is living up to its responsibilities would do. This is an issue that is in the best interests of the Yukon public. It’s a question that has been around for a long time.

Now, the member says to stand down on this — absolutely not. We are not standing down on this. So we can be here for the next month if the member would like, on this same question, but sooner or later, the Chair will have to rule, once Hansard is reviewed, that we are indeed contravening Standing Order 19(c) because of needless repetition. So the question has been answered. The further detail will be coming once the legal people within government have a chance to review it themselves and provide advice, as it should be.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the member opposite’s attempt; however, I don’t feel that the question I’ve asked has been answered. As for needless repetition and so on, I would invite the member opposite to review Hansard in the 12 days of larvicide debate from his colleague and a few other needless repetitions. The fact is that this is not needless repetition. It’s needless work on the part of the legal counsel — the Government of Yukon. This is not a burning question for Yukoners.

Although the member finds the debate acrimonious and unnecessary, I believe it is necessary. I believe Yukoners should know how much it’s going to cost them, how much time is going to be spent, on a question which the Premier cannot define.

The Premier comes back and says, well, legal counsel has been asked to put it in layman’s terms, so he can then go out to Yukoners and explain that this is what he has asked the legal people to do. If that’s what he’s doing, why not just set it aside, leave it be and get on with devolution. Let legal people do other constructive work, because the Premier has also said that it doesn’t matter what legal opinion we’re getting, we’re not going to take it to court; we’re not going to do anything with it.

So I have to ask, then: what’s the point in asking the question? The Premier can’t define the question — can’t define it for Yukoners, can’t define it for legal counsel and, in turn, is not prepared to do anything once he receives the legal opinion, other than share it with us. What’s the point, when there are so many other constructive questions and so much other work to be done?

I’m asking the Premier again to reconfirm that there will be no taxpayers’ money spent on any outside legal counsel — confirm that there will be no outside constitutional law professors or constitutional lawyers or papers commissioned on this — and further, that the Premier reconfirm that, no matter what the legal opinion is, he does not intend to reference this constitutional question to the courts.

Those two things —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   I believe the record will reflect that the Premier did not wish to answer that question. Could I then move on to the next question, leaving that on the record?

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   The hon. Premier, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The record should reflect that the questions have been answered over and over and over.

Chair:   The Chair finds that there’s no point of order. There’s a dispute between members. Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, again, for the record, I would like to reflect that the question I’m asking the Premier is confirmation that there is to be no contract monies spent anywhere outside or inside the territory — no taxpayers’ dollars — on a paper, a lawyer, a constitutional question, in putting this question, whatever it is, to outside sources — that confirmation, so no outside counsel on this question. Secondly, I asked that the Premier confirm — because he indicated it apparently in his earlier remarks — that, no matter what the legal response or opinion he gets – because he’s fixed on getting one – that he will not reference this question to the constitutional courts. I asked for that confirmation. The Premier does not want to answer them, so I’ll move on to my next questions.

The Crown-in-right question is one of the challenges, and it has to do with land and the lands. Offshore boundaries is also a question to do with lands, and the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act — this is referenced. The boundaries are referenced in the Yukon act. Would the Premier define what the questions are with respect to the offshore boundaries?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’ll go back to the erroneous, incorrect comments by the member opposite, leader of the third party, in regard to the Crown in right. The answer from this side of the House, repeated a number of times, is that this government will act in the best interests of Yukoners on the Crown-in-right question. We’ve defined it as a matter of governance. It’s the difference between just management governance or ownership. We’ve defined that; that’s layman’s terms. We are seeking further information that provides us a more detailed accounting of the question of Crown in right and whether or not it exists in the Yukon.

All those questions have been answered. What the member put on the record a few moments ago was erroneous, incorrect and really has no place in the debate. We, as a government, will act in the best interests of Yukoners on the Crown-in-right question.

When it comes to the offshore boundary issue, I think it’s a well-known fact that that has been another long-standing issue for Yukoners, and it is becoming more heightened in these days of dramatic increase in oil and gas development in the Arctic. The Mackenzie Delta has shown to have a sufficient volume of resources and reserves that are very important to the Northwest Territories. So, too, then, the Yukon must be very focused on its offshore potential, and that’s what this issue is about.

What benefits will accrue to the Yukon public should something be discovered in what can be deemed or determined to be Yukon’s offshore boundary? It’s important, because the importance is related to the need for growth, for benefit, for economic development, for investment — all these things come into play.

So, the question around the north shore boundary is, what is it that we can garner in terms of benefit under the existing devolution transfer agreement and/or is there a way to improve on that with Ottawa to ensure that Yukoners will benefit should there be any discovery of oil, gas or whatever other particular resource may be there that, in time, could be a very large benefit to the Yukon public?

I would question the member opposite on what is the issue here. Any responsible, prudent government would look into this on behalf of its citizens because of what the future may hold. It could hold a significant return to the Yukon public if this question and issue is handled properly. So that, I guess, would be the answer, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   I would like to follow up on the first part of the Premier’s answer. He said that the points I stated were erroneous and incorrect, so I would like to ask the Premier to indicate what was erroneous. Is the government spending money on outside counsel? Am I incorrect in that the Premier is, in fact, spending money on outside counsel? Could the Premier outline what was erroneous there?

The other question I had — the outside counsel was the first question — the second question was the reference to the constitutional court. Is it the Premier’s intention, once he receives a legal opinion, to pursue it or not? What was erroneous and incorrect there? I don’t understand the Premier opposite’s answer.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, like a lot of the information this member brings to the floor of the House, this, too, is erroneous. I did answer the question and said that we would act as a government in the best interests of the Yukon public. I said that we are using in-house legal people to address the question. That was the answer. It was the answer yesterday and it’s the answer today.

We defined the question, in layman’s terms, as best as we, who do not have legal knowledge of this particular issue — we answered the question in the best possible way we could.

Beyond that, we said that we will conduct this review, get the information — as we should be getting on this question — and act in the best interests of the Yukon public. That has been the answer all along. When the member puts on the record that we did not answer the question, or that we were doing something other than what we are doing right now, it is erroneous, and that’s what I’m alluding to.

I know the member wants to stickhandle around this for awhile because, when in government, the member opposite went through great difficulties in Committee of the Whole — she and her government did — and I would assume some of that is reflected in the motivation here. However, that’s fine. We will continue to debate as long as it takes. There’s only —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I believe that the motivation here is, in a negative sense, casting aspersions on me, which is out of order.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There’s no point of order. There’s just a dispute between members.

Chair:   I’d ask that the members not speculate on each other’s motives. I’m also finding that language is becoming dangerously close to imputing false or unavowed motives, and I would like members to keep that in mind when making their responses.

Ms. Duncan:   Unfortunately, I have not received a full and complete answer. I’m asking if there has been any outside advice hired, outside of the legal counsel, or if it is the Premier’s intention to hire any outside advice, outside of the legal counsel. The Premier says, "We have asked in-house legal counsel." But the Premier will not answer the question of if they have hired anyone else or if they intend to hire anyone else.

Will the government consider, or are they considering or have they considered — are we only using in-house legal counsel on this question or is anyone else being contracted by the government to answer this question?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I will repeat again: we are using in-house legal people to provide us with advice. We will act in the best interests of the Yukon public. What more can we answer to this question? Yes, we are using internal sources. There is no cost to the taxpayer here that was not already there. These people are on the payroll. Every day, they are paid. They can either look out the window or they can do something and, today, we have asked them to give us a review of the question of whether a Crown in right exists in Yukon. The question has been answered over and over and over, but I will continue to provide the same answer as long as it takes.

Ms. Duncan:   Let’s try a yes-or-no answer. Has anyone else in addition to in-house legal counsel been asked this question? Has anyone else — yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, essentially I have already answered that question, whether it be yes or no or not. I have said we are using in-house. To anybody out there, that would mean yes, that we haven’t used anybody else, only in-house. There is nobody else who has been asked to address this question. But this is two days now of the same question from the member opposite with the same answers coming forward on a piece of mirror legislation. So, at a $1,000 per hour cost to the Yukon taxpayer, the member opposite has tried a multitude of angles to ask the same question, only to receive the same answer.

This member is accusing this side of the House of wasting taxpayers’ money. Talk about a double standard, Mr. Chair. There is the waste — two days of asking the same question. Two days, and the same answers have been coming forward, and there is no other answer to this question. So the real waste is on the opposite side of the House at $1,000 an hour.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s truly unfortunate that the member sees doing the public’s business as a waste of time. I don’t consider it that, Mr. Chair. What the member opposite has finally stated for the record is that nobody else has been asked for a legal opinion on this issue. The Member for Klondike says "yet". Interesting.

The question that has not been answered is the question of "once the legal opinion has been received". The Premier has previously stated that it is not the government’s intention to pursue this question further. I’d ask him to answer that question, if he could do that. I would appreciate it if he would answer this question: is it his position that this legal question will not be pursued in the courts? Either it will be pursued or it won’t be pursued, and I’m asking which it is. Will the Premier confirm that the question of Crown in right will not be pursued in the courts?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Here we have the member first accusing this side of the House and myself of not being able to define the question. Then we have the member spending endless time, at $1,000 an hour cost to the taxpayer, getting the same answer to the same question with regard to who is providing legal advice. Over and over and over, we have said internally. Now, we’re being asked to determine whether there will be, beyond this, other possible options or venues or initiatives that may take place. That’s a question based on the accusations coming from the member opposite that we, with our limited knowledge, according to the leader of the third party, could never answer anyway. So what I’ve said over and over and over is that we, the government, will act in the best interests of the Yukon public. That’s the answer. It has been the same answer to this question over and over and over. We will act in the best interests of the Yukon public. I think that is fairly clear. Beyond that, we are getting the advice on a question regarding the Crown in right in Yukon. Once we get that advice, hopefully it will clear up the matter for all Yukoners.

Ms. Duncan:   My question is — let me try this another way with the Premier, and perhaps this would bring the debate into focus. Best interests of Yukoners — the Premier states that we will act in the best interests of Yukoners. What does that mean? Does that mean that the Premier intends to take this issue to the courts or not? The Premier is getting a legal opinion. In-house counsel only is providing the Premier with advice — does the Premier intend to pursue that advice? Will he put the question to the courts? That is my question. Does the Premier consider the court to be in the best interests of Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, this side of the House would certainly take a different definition of acting in the best interests of Yukoners than the member opposite did when in government, the shortest lived government in the history of the Yukon. That certainly was a clear example of not acting in the best interests of Yukoners, and on November 4, Yukoners responded in that regard.

We, on the other hand, will act in the best interests of Yukoners as a government, as we were elected to do. On this question, that is the answer. I’m not going to speculate. The government is not going to speculate on anything. We’re here to act responsibly on behalf of the Yukon public, and that’s exactly what we intend to do. So on this question that the member has asked umpteen times, I will provide the same answer. We will act in the best interests of the Yukon public.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that when the Premier doesn’t wish to answer a question or I hit a sensitive point, he makes personal attacks. That’s not casting aspersions. The Premier stood on his feet and just said to me, oh, the shortest lived government and we didn’t act in the best interest. So I’m responding to that and saying that was personal and it missed the point of the question.

The fact is that this Crown in right has been a Yukon Party — specifically one or two members — question. It’s not a question for Yukoners generally.

What Yukoners want is administration and control of Yukon resources held in the hands of Yukoners. They want to know that the person sitting upstairs is responsible. They vote for them or not, and they then sign off on water licences or not, or sign off on the transfer of land or not. That’s what Yukoners want. They’re tired of holding the reins of a horse that’s 3,000 miles away — that is the expression, I believe — and tired of that control — some person who runs in another jurisdiction and isn’t answerable to the voters of Yukon having administration and control over the territory.

Yukoners want administration and control held by Yukoners and the issue is the control of land, not the underlying title, not the question of whether there is a Crown in right of Yukon. The question is management and control. That was resolved in the Yukon Act, it was resolved in the devolution transfer agreement, and it was resolved by the collective efforts of the Ostashek, McDonald, and Duncan governments — that’s a fact.

What devolution and the Yukon Act do, and this mirror legislation does, is provide authority for the government disposition of resources. Yukon has the same jurisdiction — or we will have after April 1 — enjoyed by Canada with respect to issuing permits and titles. We will be able to control public land, sell it, transfer it and do whatever we want with it. It doesn’t matter if it is a Yukon Crown or a federal Crown. It doesn’t matter to Yukoners, and I have submitted over and over and over again that the Premier is wasting legislative counsel’s time, time that could be better spent developing legislation for Yukoners, which could be debated thoroughly. I asked him to stand down on it. He has refused. He has said that they will not spend — and are not spending — additional taxpayers’ dollars on this and that no legal counsel outside of the in-house legal counsel has been asked this question. But his colleague, the Member for Klondike, said "yet". Will the Premier commit that, over the life of this government, it will only be in-house counsel used on this?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I think we have to get to the facts here. In the recent election, part of the Yukon Party’s platform was this issue. We have been given a mandate. That mandate means that we must deliver, to the best of our ability, what we have committed to do.

This is one of those areas, so we’re getting the advice. Beyond that, we’ll act in the best interests of the Yukon public. That’s the answer. The question has been asked many times and the answer is the same. We will act in the best interests of the Yukon public, as we were elected to do.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, I would submit to the member opposite that the best interests of the Yukon public is spending money on necessary social services and health care services, on building roads and furthering the economic development of the territory, and not paying endless hundreds of thousands of dollars for outside legal counsel and others — and who knows how many fees — in submitting a question to the courts, if the Premier intends to do that or not.

Our government and the government previous to us were not prepared to submit this issue to the court. We were absolutely not prepared to. In all likelihood, the unintended consequence of that would have ended the provincial support for the Yukon Act and devolution.

The Yukon Party seemed bound and determined to pursue this ill-defined question and they say they are pursuing it in the best interests of Yukoners. There are a number of other platform commitments that the Premier has indicated — well, not this term, not this mandate, and not yet. Why couldn’t this question be one of them?

Why couldn’t the Premier, upon taking office, recognizing that there is more information out there — I would ask again: would the Premier redirect the in-house legal counsel, because he apparently has not asked anyone else, will he consider redirecting their efforts in setting aside the Crown-in-right question until another point in time, until we have given life and meaning to the Yukon Act as it has been passed, and the devolution transfer agreement? Will the Premier consider setting this aside?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Same question asked again, same answer. We will proceed as we have laid out. In fact, if we were to expedite the debate on the bill, it would get passed and be given assent. The legal counsel is working on many other fronts. This particular issue certainly hasn’t hampered their abilities to do that, so we’re not putting any undue stress on the department and its people. They are very efficient people, with a great deal of capacity, and are more than capable of handling this question among the many others they must deal with on a daily basis.

So, can we proceed with debating this bill and moving it through Committee, or do we want to continue to ask and answer the same question?

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, what I understood the Premier to say is that the government is not, at the moment, seeking any advice — legal or otherwise — other than in-house. The Premier has said he is only seeking in-house legal advice on this particular question.

He has not indicated if that commitment holds good for the life of the government or is good for today. The Premier has said — in fact, his words were, nobody else has been asked — and the other point that was made was, "yet", so there may or may not be more dollars and energies expended on this.

The Premier has not indicated, other than saying he will provide it to members opposite, whether or not he intends to further pursue this matter, whether or not he will seek a reference to the Yukon Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Questions Act. The Premier has not indicated whether or not he will pursue that. He has replied, instead, that they will act in the best interests of Yukoners.

So, I’ll ask the question this way: is a reference to the Yukon Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Questions Act in the best interests of Yukoners or not?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, that all depends on what the Crown-in-right question evolves into. In the best interests of Yukoners is what we committed to do, and that’s what we will do. Frankly, it’s the same question, just asked a different way, and it’s the same answer. We are receiving in-house legal advice on the Crown-in-right question, which has been a question on Yukoners’ minds for decades. We are going to accept that advice, when it comes and, from that, as always, act in the best interests of the Yukon public. We’re not going to speculate on what that outcome will be, or what the options may be, or whatever else may happen, because anything we say right now is speculation.

We haven’t received the advice. We haven’t received the information on the question of the Crown in right and whether it even exists. So, all this is, frankly, a waste of time and effort at a cost of $1,000 per hour to the Yukon taxpayer.

So I say to the member opposite, go ahead, waste all that money. But at the end of the day, the answer is that we will act in the best interests of the Yukon public.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, what the member has just said is that they haven’t received the advice and his expression was, "Go ahead, waste all that money." I just wish the member, quite frankly, would hear what I am trying to say, which is that the Premier is wasting time, wasting money, wasting energy on this question — wasting legal counsels’ time on this question. It’s time that could be better spent on a myriad of legislative issues.

The answer is very clear. To be definitively answered — and the member will get a legal opinion and he will provide it to us because he has committed to do so and I believe he will live up to his commitments, some of them — it’s going to require a reference to the Yukon Court of Appeal constitutional questions. So, what I’m not hearing from the member is just how far he’ll go.

It’s unfortunate that the member is pursuing this particular commitment when there are many, many, many, many, many others that desperately need to be need to be fulfilled — desperately. It’s unfortunate that the member has not been able to define the question thoroughly in layman’s terms so that all Yukoners can appreciate what he is trying to ask the legal counsel to define. It’s unfortunate that he will not commit publicly as to what the dollar figure will be of this pursuit.

And it’s truly unfortunate that the Premier sees these questions as tiresome and a waste of money, because I don’t believe they are a waste of money. I don’t believe that asking the Premier to define how he is directing employees, to define what he considers the best interests of Yukoners, to be a waste of time.

I don’t believe the Premier has reviewed all the endless debates or information on this, because the information would say that we have what we needed to move forward. In the plainest of terms, let’s take that ball and run with it, develop and protect and work toward an economic future for our children. Let’s do that, because that’s what devolution gives us. Let’s not spend endless hours of Government of Yukon employees’ time and who knows how many taxpayers’ dollars arguing questions that are best left to constitutional lawyers and political science professors. Let’s do the real work and get on with developing the Yukon and protecting the Yukon, because we believe, on this side — certainly in this corner of this side — in balance, as I’m sure all members do.

I’d encourage the Premier to table his legal advice when he receives it. Mr. Chair, I encourage the Premier to provide the advice as he has committed to do on the floor of this Legislature to members opposite, and I look forward to reviewing it. I would encourage the Premier to accept, in the spirit with which it’s offered, the friendly advice that this is a question on which we need not waste taxpayers’ money and in-house legal counsels’ time. It’s not going to be definitively decided in the legal opinion.

It’s going to be definitively decided in a court case and I would absolutely not risk the devolution transfer agreement or the Yukon Act with the constitutional questions, because the unintended consequence — if the court came back and ruled that the Yukon was nothing more than an administrative arm of DIAND, where would we be then? We wouldn’t be where we all want to be, which is with a successful DTA and a successful Yukon Act.

I urge the member to consider carefully what I have to say and I appreciate his patience in answering the questions. I believe my colleague has some additional questions.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, how could this side of the House not consider what the member of the third party has had to say? It has been going on for two days. It has been very, very interesting to say the least.

The member was talking about things that were unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we have been having this ridiculous debate.

The member says that we can’t define the question. Well, what we have instructed our internal legal people to do is to give us the answer. Does a Crown in right exist for the Yukon? It’s a simple question. It is about management or ownership. That is the definition in layman’s terms. We have gone on and on and on for two days, and it is unfortunate because it did cost the taxpayer needlessly.

On the other hand, what we are doing with the Crown-in-right question is in-house, the costs were already there to the taxpayer. There is no additional cost to this — none whatsoever — but there certainly is in what has taken place in the last two days, and the responsibility for that cost lies with the third party.

And I want the public to understand that there is a reason to be constructive in this House. And needless repetition of the same question and getting the same answer is not constructive, it is counterproductive and costly to the taxpayer, and the third party, the party of one, has to answer to the Yukon public for that. They did on November 4, 2002, and I am sure they will continue to answer, considering the performance today and yesterday.

Mr. Hardy:   After that little lecture from the Premier, I’m not sure if I dare say a word. It seems that all that’s going to come back is another lecture that we’re wasting time over here when we have concerns to raise, and that’s a shame, because it is part of the job on this side of the House, as the Premier well knows, to ask questions that reflect what they hear in public, but also based upon the knowledge they may have or are receiving.

It’s my understanding, though, listening to this debate, that maybe some of it is repetitious and I don’t disagree with that. It has been quite informative. I do not profess to have the background that the former Premier has, nor do I profess to have the understanding or the support that the existing Premier does.

So, for a layman like myself, there has been some constructive debate. There has definitely been some knowledge shared here. Maybe, as the Premier across the way indicates, it does get a little repetitious and could be a little bit shorter. Sometimes it’s hard to disengage, Mr. Chair.

From my perspective with regard to this act, the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, there could be some piggy-backing of some historic relationships in it, where the former Premier might have felt that it was payback time.

I’m not attempting — sorry, Mr. Chair, I’m just qualifying my statements so that I can assure the Premier across the way that I’m not asking these questions, nor am I going to go for a long time on repetition.

This is general debate, and as I’ve said in the past, my questions are in line-by-line items. I have no intention of going all over the map in general debate or be very specific in it. We will address the line-by-line items as they come forward. We hope that the answers we receive will be concise and knowledgeable.

Ms. Duncan:   We are still in general debate, I take it?

Chair:   Yes, we are.

Ms. Duncan:   Just to conclude the discussion with the Premier — we had lengthy discussion about the Crown in right of Yukon question, and I touched on and the Premier touched on the question around northern offshore boundaries with regard to this lands issue.

Lands is related; however, we are focused on the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act. I’m struggling with how to say this — I suspect the Premier is finding my questions tiresome, but I’m not casting aspersions. Is it the Premier’s wish that we would have a lengthy discussion about the government’s intentions on the Yukon’s offshore boundaries under, say, the Executive Council Office debate, or would he prefer to have it now in the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act? As the boundaries relate to lands and the definition of the Yukon, I am at a loss as to where to put the debate — here or in Executive Council Office where it is in the budget? We could get into that. The Chair has traditionally seen the budget debate as rather far reaching in general debate.

So my question duly put to the Premier is, when does he wish to have the discussion — now or at another point in the life of this particular session?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’m not sure exactly how extensive a debate we can have on this question.

Yukon and Canada are participants on an offshore committee, but Canada is the lead. The Yukon Oil and Gas Act also has provisions that we strike a committee on oil and gas possibilities in offshore Yukon. The boundaries have not been defined, however, and what we want to seek at these committee levels are assurances that the Yukon will maximize its benefits and return to the Yukon public should development and production of oil and gas, for example, take place in the offshore waters of the Yukon Territory in north Yukon.

But these committees met in February. They continue to meet. Those discussions are taking place, but there’s no concrete action or decision as yet, and that’s what it is when it comes to the position of this side of the House. We want assurances from Canada that we will receive benefits, and for now the venue in which these discussions take place is at these particular committees. Beyond that, there is not a whole lot we can debate on this issue because until we get some concrete assurances and answers, we will continue to have those discussions with the federal government.

Ms. Duncan:   Then what I’ve heard the Premier say is an acknowledgement that the Yukon has been in discussions with the Government of Canada — it includes a couple of different departments — about resources and protection of Yukon’s interests in the Beaufort, for lack of another expression, and that this committee of Yukon and Government of Canada that was set up under the Oil and Gas Act in 1993 has started their work. So I know that the requests had been in and that there had been some preliminary work done, so what I’ve heard the Premier confirm is that the committee has started their work. So I’m pleased to hear that.

The other point I didn’t hear the Premier address, though, is — I believe he said that he’s not sure what other work should be done. In the reference to the devolution transfer agreement and the Yukon act, the Yukon Party has said they will pursue this recognition of Yukon’s offshore boundaries. So my question then is: what additional work is being done to fulfill that commitment, or is the Premier saying this committee is the fulfillment of that commitment? Is it the committee, or is there something else that’s being done?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’m sure it’s probably a well-known fact that Canada and Yukon, under the Oil and Gas Accord, have developed what is to be a shared management regime. However, before negotiations in that regard can take place, it is up to both federal and territorial governments to clarify what the issues are, review what exactly it is we’re going to negotiate, so our government is making it very clear publicly and to Canada that we want to define the offshore boundaries, as part of this overall process, so that we — in this so-called shared management approach — are working in the best interests of the Yukon public. Canada is certainly very much a lead player in this, and we want to ensure that, when we get into negotiations, we’re negotiating all the pieces that ensure that the maximum benefits can accrue to Yukoners.

That’s important because oil and gas deposits know no boundaries. We have to be sure that "Yukon offshore" is clearly defined with this so-called shared management regime, and that’s why we have stated the case that we want to be assured that we know clearly what the offshore boundaries are and where this shared management regime will apply its activities.

So a clarification and review of what we are going to negotiate, all these things must take place before what has been struck based on the Oil and Gas Accord — I believe of 1993, and what has been struck from that. We need these clarifications and review before we can start negotiating, and that is what we hope we can get to as quickly as possible.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I just need to be very clear on what the Premier’s response is. What I understood the Premier to say is that the definition of Yukon’s offshore boundaries will be pursued through the establishment of the offshore committee, which is established pursuant to the 1993 Oil and Gas Accord and the Oil and Gas Act. The Oil and Gas Act requires that there be an offshore committee set up. That has been done.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier is saying no, that is not what he said, so can the Premier just clarify for me who is going to, and where this question of the offshore boundaries is going to be referenced.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Before formal negotiations can take place, we must clarify and review the issues. We in Yukon have stated clearly that one of those issues that need to be clarified and/or reviewed is the boundaries. That is a part of this, so we have to — government to government — review and clarify all the issues, and I am sure the federal government will have a number of issues and items they want clarified, and this all has to happen before formal negotiations take place, as per the 1993 Oil and Gas Accord.

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier has said that the Government of the Yukon has stated that this issue of Yukon’s offshore boundaries has to be clarified and has to be clarified before the offshore committee required under the Oil and Gas Act is established. That’s what I heard the Premier say.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier says "before formal negotiations are conducted." Okay — to whom have these formal concerns been expressed? The Premier says the Yukon has to say that we have a problem with our boundary. Who has the Premier said it to, other than Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As we pursue these initiatives, we will be saying it to the related federal people on this particular committee. Canada and Yukon are committed to this, based on the Oil and Gas Accord. One of the items we want to work on, as Yukon, is the offshore boundary. There is an importance to that because we want to ensure that maximum benefits accrue to Yukoners.

So, there are a number of issues, and I can’t speak today on the floor of the Legislature about the issues that the federal government may want to review and clarify and address, because I’m not going to speak for them. But one of the foremost things we want to deal with is this issue of the offshore boundary.

We do have mechanisms like this committee that has been struck vis-à-vis the Oil and Gas Accord of 1993, and we will also endeavour to work on every possible option we have to define the offshore boundary and ensure that Yukoners are given their fair share of what may be developed in the Beaufort as it relates to what would be or should be Yukon’s offshore.

Ms. Duncan:   There are two issues. There is the management regime that is offshore of Yukon and there is management, care and control of resources — there is that management regime. There is also a discussion of what is our boundary between Alaska and the Yukon offshore and between Yukon and Northwest Territories offshore. There are two points: the boundaries and the management regime.

What I hear the Premier saying — and I invite him to correct me if I’m wrong — is that this offshore committee, which is established pursuant to the Yukon Oil and Gas Act, is going to be asked to deal with both our boundaries and the offshore management regime. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s one and the same. Canada and Yukon will have a shared management regime. Before formal negotiations in that regard take place, we must review and address issues. One of Yukon’s issues — and I’m sure the federal government has issues — is to clearly define the offshore boundary. But there is a commitment under the 1993 Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord for a shared management regime. But before formal negotiations take place in that regard, these issues have to be addressed, and we’re working collaboratively on them. But we’re making a very clear point here that one of the issues for Yukon is this question of the offshore boundaries.

Ms. Duncan:   It was always my understanding that the offshore management regime was to be discussed by this committee that is established pursuant to the Oil and Gas Act.

It was not necessary before entering into this discussion with Canada to define the boundaries, and what I hear the Premier saying is that it is this government’s policy and approach to have that boundary discussion before dealing with the management regime. So the Premier is saying that there’s a change in policy, that this government is saying, "No, we are not prepared to go into the management regime discussions until we’ve resolved this boundary discussion." That’s what I hear the Premier say. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   No, the member is incorrect, Mr. Chair. The facts are that both Canada and the Yukon have agreed — I am assuming quite some time ago, long before I got here — that they would review and clarify the issues before formal negotiations on a shared management regime were to take place. That’s exactly what is laid out, and the Yukon government can provide comment, I guess, on decisions the federal government makes on the offshore committee. But when it comes to the shared management regime, we have a commitment to work collaboratively on issues, review the issues. What we’re saying as a government is that one of the main ones for the Yukon is the boundaries. Those are vital to what may happen in the future, and that’s one of the issues we want to deal with.

Ms. Duncan:   Perhaps we could go at it this way. What does the Premier believe resolution of the boundary dispute would provide Yukoners? Will it ensure that Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board rules apply to people working beyond the 12 miles out, beyond the ordinary high-water mark? What will resolution of this boundary dispute provide for Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, one thing it will provide is clarity on exactly where those boundaries are. Secondly, with that clarity, it will ensure that what we can do in a shared management regime, or through any other initiative or mechanism, maximizes the benefits for Yukoners.

Now, if we want to look to our neighbours to the east, they are at this time working to maximize those benefits, and it is showing up. We have to make sure that, on the other hand, if development does take place offshore, if development takes place, that we are clear on what should be Yukon’s benefit. Not all, as we understand that the federal government will do as they do in the Northwest Territories — take their fair share. However, we want the clarity to ensure that we will get our just due, as the Northwest Territories is getting from their offshore or delta development. It is about clarity and it’s about ensuring and maximizing the benefits for Yukon people. I think that is a very prudent course to follow, as a government representing Yukoners.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, does the Premier believe that clarity will give us ownership?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, that’s a real tough question. No, I don’t believe it will give us ownership. Clarity provides us exactly — out there on the ocean, where is it that Yukon should have benefits accruing to its public? That’s not ownership. Not at all.

The question of the offshore boundary is to ensure that we know exactly, when something takes place out there, whether or not the Yukon should be benefiting from it. And we’re saying, like any other jurisdiction that has gone through this with the federal government — whether it be the issue of Hibernia, whether it be what the N.W.T. has gone through in the past with its development — now it’s the Yukon’s turn. We want to make sure that we benefit to the highest possible level for Yukoners because it will, if it happens, generate substantial expenditure.

All we have to do is look at one small little production in the southeast corner of the Yukon. At today’s gas prices, millions accrue to the government, which are shared among all the First Nations. That’s a very small example. You can multiply that by whatever factor you want to choose when it comes to offshore, but it means a lot to the Yukon Territory and its public and its future.

Secondly, we want to make sure that things don’t happen out there that will compromise our environment in a very adverse way. I mean, we want to make sure we have more than just a seat on the bus for the ride. We want to have input. We want to be part of the decision making. We want to ensure it’s done right, and if something does happen out there in the way of development, we want maximum benefits to the Yukon public. I think that’s a good thing.

Ms. Duncan:   Is the maximization of economic benefits to Yukoners achieved through boundary discussions or through negotiations of an offshore management regime?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I would submit that any logical negotiations for an offshore management regime would include exactly what area you are managing. Therefore, having the boundaries set out in the water where there are no posts or border crossings or anything else, but knowing exactly what area this so-called management regime is supposed to be working within, is important. It’s important in a number of ways. But if we’re going to have an effective management regime, we certainly want to know exactly what area this is going to include in terms of offshore so that we’re getting what we desire — to have a seat at this table in this shared management approach.

Ms. Duncan:   The Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Act and the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord in 1993 called for Canada and Yukon to set up this offshore committee. The offshore committee was to be set up within three years and it was to deal with the economic issues management and benefits. It was not to deal with the boundaries. That wasn’t the issue. It was management.

What I hear the Premier telling me is that it’s this government’s position that that offshore committee should deal with boundaries and the management regime. That’s what I hear the Premier telling me, that they should deal with both of them.

I believe and my understanding is that that would be a change of the mandate to this committee. So, can the Premier confirm, then, that that was a change made to this committee, that this committee is going to deal with both boundaries and the management, and that that’s a new direction for the committee?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   No, there’s no change to the committee. Our government is saying that, to ensure the right thing takes place, we want a definition of where those boundaries are. If we are going to understand fully what it means to Yukon in north Yukon on our offshore, we need to be clear on where those boundaries are. How are we going to protect the interests of the Yukon public if we have a seat at the table, a shared management regime, but we don’t know what can be defined as Yukon and what isn’t defined as Yukon potential and resource.

So the logical course here is to define those boundaries so we know exactly, within those boundaries, what should accrue to Yukon as much as we can maximize the benefits and, within those boundaries, decisions must be made in a responsible way. We need to know exactly what those boundaries are, and that’s an important question to this issue. It’s very easy to do it the other way, I suppose, and just sit back and let the federal government dictate what’s going to happen, but I think, in this particular case, that’s not going to be to the benefit of Yukoners as it should be, and that’s not going to protect Yukoners’ interest.

So we’re saying, as part of this overall issue of offshore and the possible oil and gas development and whatever else — it could include an over-the-top pipeline route — I think it’s vital that we define what our boundaries are offshore, and it is within those boundaries that we should have more than just a seat at the table or a ride on the bus. We must have meaningful input. We must be part of the decision making, and we must be able to ensure that Yukoners get what they deserve out of this, and we can protect Yukoners’ interests now and long into the future. One of the elements for that to work is to ensure we know where those boundaries are offshore.

Ms. Duncan:   The Government of Canada and the courts have ruled that it is the Government of Canada that owns, if you will, or has jurisdiction over the offshore of British Columbia, Newfoundland, Northwest Territories and Nunavut — the ordinary high-water mark and so many miles offshore, I believe it’s 12. The rest of that is Canada’s. So the issue for the Yukon is the economics of this, the economics of the management regime offshore, economics like workers’ compensation — does Yukon workers’ compensation apply? Is it Canada? What’s the application? Likewise, the resource revenues and the royalties that flow.

So, that’s why I’m pursuing these questions with the Premier. It’s because I believe that this offshore committee, as required under the Oil and Gas Act, is only dealing with the management regime. They are not dealing with the boundary question because Canada considers the boundary question to be between Canada and the U.S. There is dispute between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories as to where that offshore boundary goes, because we, as provinces and territories, believe that it’s not Canada’s, that it’s ours, but the courts and others have ruled that, no, it’s Canada’s. International law recognizes it as Canada’s.

The Premier is saying it is this offshore committee that will deal with the boundaries, that this offshore committee will resolve this boundary jurisdiction. I challenge that. To me, boundaries are resolved by international boundary commissions. So I would ask the Premier to substantiate that, to substantiate, on the floor, how — or the instructions to the offshore committee, a letter of instruction or advice he has given to officials — he has asked the offshore committee to resolve the boundary discussion.

How have they been asked to do that? I can’t find the reference in the Oil and Gas Act. I can find a reference to the offshore management regime but I don’t find a reference to the offshore boundaries.

The Premier has said this committee is going to resolve it, so the Premier must have given them instructions or must have communicated this in some way. So, could he share that with us please?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member opposite is actually making the case here. She just stood on her feet and said there are issues between the U.S. and Canada on one boundary of the Yukon’s offshore. There are also issues with N.W.T. and Canada on the other boundary off Yukon’s shore. That’s exactly why we want clarity on this issue.

And no, I did not say the committee is going to solve the issue. I said that there are issues that we have to review and address before we get into formal negotiations on a management regime. For the Yukon government, I said clearly this offshore boundary issue is one of those issues that we want addressed, that we want clarity on and, as the member put on the floor moments ago, it is an issue between the United States and between the N.W.T. So, if we’re going to ensure that Yukoners get maximum benefits and that the decision making offshore of Yukon is done in a responsible manner on behalf of the Yukon public, we need to define what those boundaries are, where they are, and that’s in the best interests of the Yukon public.

Ms. Duncan:   So, Mr. Chair, the logical question, then, is: who has the Premier asked to define these boundaries? The Premier said there are issues. I have said there are issues. The Premier said the offshore management committee was dealing with them. I asked him to substantiate that. He didn’t.

The Premier has said this definition of offshore boundaries is an important issue. In fact, the Premier said "before the offshore management regime". So, what the logical listener hears, then, is that the Premier just stood on his feet and said this boundary issue is going to be resolved before the offshore management committee does their work and develops a management regime.

If that’s the case, who is resolving the boundaries?

To whom has the Premier referred the question?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, no that’s not what the Premier has said, period. We have to address issues in regard to this management regime. What I’ve stated on the floor is that our government believes that the boundary question is one of those issues that require clarity. That’s exactly what we’re going to do. We are going to try to get clarity on this issue. That’s what we’ve said. We haven’t said that the committee is going to solve the offshore boundary issue. We haven’t said that the management regime is going to solve the offshore boundary issue. We’ve said that we want clarity on this issue and we will do so with whatever mechanism, initiative or availability with the federal government that we have as a government to address the issue and get clarity on it. It is a question. It is a big problem. It includes the U.S. and the Northwest Territories. The Yukon, being in the middle, should, along with Canada, achieve the answers to this question on what the boundaries are and where they are.

Again, just to recap so the member gets it clear, we have not said that the committee is going to solve this problem. We have not said anybody else is going to solve this problem. We have said that we as a government, on behalf of Yukoners, want clarity on the issue.

Ms. Duncan:   From whom is the Premier seeking this clarity? He said the government wants clarity on this issue. How does he intend to get clarity for Yukoners on this issue? Is he going to write the Prime Minister and ask for an international boundary commission? How is he going to do this? He says he wants clarity. He has committed to it publicly and says it’s a big problem and it deserves the government’s attention and resources — how does he intend to pursue it?

Logically no one would stand and say they were going to do something without knowing how they were going to achieve it. So, to whom is the Premier going to refer the question?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Would the Pope do? We could always ask the Pope. I mean this again is becoming a ridiculous debate. The issue is there, and we as a government are going to seek clarity. We may do it in any number of ways, of which on the floor of this House today I’m not prepared to relay to the member opposite, because those would be something that has to be done in accordance with government decision-making processes. We want clarity and we will seek clarity and we will do it with whatever means we have available to us.

One of the areas is going to be in this particular management regime, because we have the ability to address and review issues before formal negotiations take place. So whatever it takes, Mr. Chair, we will do, but at this time we are not prepared to make a long list for the member of whom we are going to talk to and when we are going to talk to them. This is a ridiculous debate. This is about the Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act mirror legislation; legislation that the member opposite said was going to be smooth and simple and nothing to it, and so on and so forth. We have been dancing around this issue now for another 45 minutes and, frankly, we are again wasting taxpayers’ money at $1,000 an hour for a question that the member has gotten the answer to over and over and over. Our government’s position is we want clarity on the boundary issue and we will seek out whatever means possible to provide that clarity — end of story.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the Premier’s attempt to make light of this debate; however, it is important. The member was put on notice when I gave my second reading speech about the Yukon lands act, as this is where I intended to raise the questions. Now the Premier clearly thought this was a very important issue for Yukoners. It was in his party’s platform, it was in his throne speech, delivered by the Commissioner, and it was in his budget speech that he was going to pursue this for all Yukoners. He was going to pursue this issue of boundaries, so all I am asking is a simple question of how.

How does he intend to do it? He committed to all of Yukon that he was going to do it — not once, not twice but three times publicly. He was going to pursue Yukon’s boundaries.

So if you make a statement like that, logically, the next question that you should be able to answer is: how? What I heard the Premier answer is: "I don’t know yet. We have a secret agenda because the member said matters have to come before Cabinet — Cabinet is secret. The options would come before government."

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Chair:   Member for Klondike, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, there’s a point of order. The member opposite is imputing unavowed motives on the Premier and alleging that he has made statements in this House that he has not done.

Chair:   There is no point of order here. The Premier may clarify his statements the next time he has the floor.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you.

What the Premier said was that he did not have a course of action outlined for how he intends to fulfill this commitment. He cannot answer the question for me that I am asking on behalf of all Yukoners. The Premier committed to pursuing Yukon’s offshore boundaries and these disputes, which we both have recognized on the floor of the House exist. There are disputes that exist about Yukon’s offshore boundary.

The Premier committed several times that he, as leader of the government, intended to pursue this. I’m asking the question on behalf of all Yukoners: how does the Premier intend to pursue this boundary dispute? How does he intend that it be resolved, through what mechanism? And I’ve asked the Premier to please outline that.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, the member did erroneously put on the record that I said that we don’t know, so on and so forth. Again, that’s not the case. I will commit one more time for the member opposite that we are going to seek out defining the offshore boundaries for the Yukon. That’s a commitment, and the answer to the member is "stay tuned".

Ms. Duncan:   Well, "stay tuned" is not the sort of definitive answer Yukoners were looking for. This government pledged that it would defend Yukoners’ boundaries, would fight for their boundaries, and would ensure that Yukon’s boundaries were recognized. I’m asking how. The Premier has not answered the question. Instead, he has responded "stay tuned".

There is an offshore management regime to be negotiated between Canada and Yukon. The committee dealing with that offshore management regime — the Premier is receiving some information so I’ll just wait until he has finished.

The Premier has discussed this definition of Yukon’s offshore boundaries, has indicated that they as a government will pursue, but he has not indicated how they will pursue it. The Premier has also said that there is an offshore management committee. That offshore committee is a result of the Canada-Yukon Oil and Gas Accord. That offshore committee is to deal with the management regime, to deal with how the offshore is to be managed, to deal with those questions.

Is it the Premier’s view that the boundaries must be dealt with prior to the offshore management regime being negotiated? He did say "before" earlier, in one of his answers, Mr. Chair. I will review Hansard, but my understanding is that the Premier said "before" the offshore management regime would be negotiated, the boundaries had to be dealt with.

Is that the Premier’s view, that the boundaries must be dealt with before the offshore management regime?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, one of the Premier’s views is that the former government blew it during devolution when they could have addressed this issue and brought clarity to it. But the facts are that it’s not a question of "before" — what the committee allows Yukon and the Yukon government to do in working collaboratively with the federal government is to review, clarify and address issues before initiating formal negotiations. That’s what the Premier has said. That’s what we’ve been responding to — again, at great length with the member opposite, over and over and over.

So, the answer is the same. The member can ask the same question many different ways but the answer remains the same. We want clarity on the offshore boundaries. We will seek clarity on the offshore boundaries.

Ms. Duncan:   Two points — I was distracted by the reminder of the knowledge that it was the Special Committee on the Yukon Act that noted that the offshore boundaries would be dealt with under a separate process from the Yukon Act and devolution, so to suggest the previous government blew it is, quite frankly, incorrect. The Special Committee on the Yukon Act reported and referenced this.

Is the Premier saying — so I am clear, then — that the offshore management committee, as noted in the Yukon Oil and Gas Act, will carry on their work and will work on a management regime while the government determines how they may or may not pursue this boundary commission — that the two will go on concurrently?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The former government did blow it. We have unhappy federal employees thanks to that former member’s negotiation of devolution. We are facing litigation today on devolution, thanks to that member’s negotiation of devolution. We don’t have clarity on the offshore boundary, thanks to the former government’s negotiation on devolution. We don’t have the Crown-in-right answer — whether it exists in the Yukon — thanks to that member’s faulty negotiations when it comes to devolution.

We have a totally underfunded fire suppression budget in devolution thanks to the faulty negotiations of the former government, and the list goes on and on and on. So I should say that the record is corrected now, but the former government did blow it. The question that the member asked is the same question and the answer is the same. We will seek clarity on the offshore boundary issue, and we are going to do that.

Ms. Duncan:   It is amazing to me, absolutely amazing, how the view has changed. In the short days of this government — we’ve been in the Legislature, what, 10 or 11 days — 11 days, and in that time period the member opposite has flipped from, "Hallelujah, the previous government signed this devolution accord, that is great, that is terrific, I give the member opposite full credit for the devolution accord," to the flop of "Holy, it’s all your fault."

Well, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, the devolution transfer agreement that was negotiated through three different governments of three different stripes, and concluded by our government, is the best deal. And the member opposite’s contention that, oh, we are going to improve it, "Oh, we are going to change it" — well, he has yet to indicate how. And the proof will be, as time goes on and devolution is implemented in this territory, that Yukoners finally will be in control of their resources, finally will move forward. Yes, it was under our watch that the devolution transfer agreement was concluded and the Yukon Act passed both Houses in Canada and, absolutely, I will stand behind every comma and every negotiated point in that agreement, which is also supported by a resolution by the Yukon Council of First Nations.

And I would remind the member opposite, since he brought it up, that he has yet to answer the question of whether or not he has reviewed the information and any legal opinion on the supposed court case challenging devolution.

Mr. Chair, the member has still not answered fully the question: does the member intend to proceed with the offshore management committee and the boundary question at the same time? The offshore management committee had to be established — has been established. They have done some initial work. Are they continuing their work? Are we working on this offshore management regime? If the answer is yes, the work is continuing, and the Premier did say that they had a meeting in February, then is the Premier going to allow that work to conclude before launching — we don’t know how — this boundary dispute? Or does the Premier intend to let the offshore management committee conclude their wor