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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Mr. McRobb:   I have for tabling the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Legislative Assembly has a role in ensuring that the Crown-owned Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board are seen to be acting in the best interests of the Yukon public;

(2) the parties in the House have agreed that senior representatives of these two bodies will appear annually before the Legislative Assembly and be questioned directly by MLAs;

(3) to ensure that such appearances are as productive as possible, the government House leader must make best efforts to arrange briefings by representatives of the two bodies at least one week prior to their appearance;

(4) the ministers responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board should also arrange to have officials provide written copies of their opening statements to opposition members at least one week in advance;

(5) during their annual appearances, officials should make best efforts to be efficient in their opening statements and in responses to questions, with priority for questioning being given to opposition members; and

THAT this House urges the government to adopt the preceding process to achieve a higher standard of accountability to the people of our territory.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Party government is ignoring the crisis situation with respect to children in care by refusing to act upon the first recommendation of the Child Welfare League of Canada to allocate more funding for social workers;

(2) the Minister of Health and Social Services does not fully comprehend the issues facing Yukon professional social workers, including high caseloads of families in crisis, legal liability of the Government of Yukon and the early burnout of workers; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Health and Social Services to spend a day with a family and children’s services intake worker in order to gain a basic understanding of the work these individuals do.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of a list of all capital allocations in the main estimates for the fiscal year 2003-04 to each Yukon community, in accordance with the practice established by previous governments to provide this information at the time of tabling the main estimates.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of all printed or electronic correspondence since November 30, 2002 related to the review of the Workers’ Compensation Act, including, but not limited to, briefing notes, minutes of meetings, directions from the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board to the board, recommendations or advice to the minister from that board, orders-in-council, letters of appointment, terms of reference and contracts, as well as any correspondence between the minister and any groups or individuals considered Workers’ Compensation Act stakeholders.

Speaker:   Any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. The Commissioner signed the OICs appointing the new chairs to the Workers’ Compensation Board and the appeal tribunal on Monday, March 31. The Cabinet had to approve those OICs the previous week. What direct contact did the minister have with any current or former member of either body before the Cabinet approved the OICs or in the period between the Cabinet approving the OICs and the Commissioner signing them?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I’m uncomfortable with the question, and I don’t know exactly what period of time the member opposite is referring to as to what contact I had with the bodies — which bodies? Could the member opposite be specific in his question? The exact period of time and which bodies?

Mr. Cardiff:   I will read it one more time. What direct contact did the minister have with any current or former member of either body before the Cabinet approved the OICs or in the period between the Cabinet approving the OICs and the Commissioner signing them?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   When the recommendations came forward from the various stakeholder groups, I did discuss the position with a number of the individuals whose names were put forward. I can’t give the member opposite a definitive answer as to when I spoke with these individuals — the exact timing of it — but from memory, subject to checking with my Daytimer, I am of the opinion that it was all prior to these names coming before Cabinet for their approval, which took place on the Thursday, for the OICs to be signed on the Friday.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, we know that the minister did have one telephone conversation with a former employee representative in which the minister asked a number of pointed questions. But apparently the minister did not see fit to advise this former member at that time that his appointment was not being renewed.

On the same day the Commissioner signed the OICs, one of the employer representatives conveniently resigned. This gave the minister the excuse he needed not to reappoint the former employee representative.

When did the minister become aware that an employer representative intended to step aside, which had the effect of allowing the minister to reduce the size of the board?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The date on the letter of the employer rep who resigned was not the date it was received in our office — that was sometime later. As to the exact timing of these occurrences, I can’t be as definitive on the floor of the House as I want to be, but I can provide the member opposite with that information.

Mr. Cardiff:   Yesterday the minister repeated his claim that he had hired the most experienced, most qualified and most able person to chair the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. Why did the minister not apply the same logic when it came to appointing a new chair for the appeal tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the act is very specific that the minister is required to check with all the stakeholder groups and make a determination, and that was done. There was correspondence sent out to the official opposition and the third party prior to these decisions being made, advising them there were a number of nominations and appointments to boards and committees that had to go forward prior to the structure of this all-party committee.

Where the member opposite is headed is that he wants to determine this is an election; it is not. Names are brought forward to the minister by the stakeholder groups, and a determination is made by government as to who that individual or individuals may be.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, it’s not an election, but the minister needs to heed the advice that he receives from stakeholders. The former chair of the appeal tribunal is well-respected by all stakeholders on both sides of this question. Her reappointment was endorsed by employee groups and the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce. Among other things, she brought legal training and a legal perspective to the appeal tribunal. As a result, none of the appeal tribunal’s decisions on this chair’s watch were overturned by the courts. Now the tribunal may be in a position of having to pay extra to get that legal perspective when it comes to writing a decision. Can the minister tell us how much more it will cost the system to obtain the expertise needed to write the decisions that will withstand potential court challenges, and how does he justify that extra expense?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, from memory of the chair of the tribunal last fiscal period, the per diems that were provided were in excess of $40,000 for that individual for the role that was played in her capacity as chair of that tribunal. As far as I’m aware, Mr. Speaker, all the names of all the candidates put forward were very reputable members of the Yukon community, and all were of equal stature here in Yukon.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, I would remind the minister that it’s the injured workers who need the representation, and the minister has made no bones about the fact that he wants a more employer-friendly workers’ compensation process. Earlier this year, the board’s employer consultant criticized the appeal tribunal for ruling in favour of injured workers too often. He has been quoted as saying the success rate for workers’ appeals —

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

Speaker:   The Member for Klondike, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, pursuant to section 19(g) of the Standing Orders, is imputing false or unavowed motives on my part.

Speaker:   The Member for Kluane, on the point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would submit there is no point of order. The member is not imputing falsehoods on anybody’s behalf.

Speaker:   I am ready to rule on this issue.

I believe that the member was imputing motives and I’d ask that he not do that, please. Carry on with the question.

Mr. Cardiff:   The employer consultant has been quoted as saying that the success rate for workers’ appeals should be closer to 60 percent than the 90-percent rate since the tribunal was established.

Does the minister agree with that quota approach to appeals and, if so, what role did that business-friendly perspective have on his decision not to reappoint an experienced, dedicated, highly qualified chair to the appeal tribunal?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, our role as a government is to ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board functions in the correct manner, and that is to ensure that anyone injured while on the job is treated fairly, very quickly, and either is compensated for their injury, their medical conditions and costs are addressed and they are rehabilitated into the workforce, or, if their injury is of a nature that they can no longer work, they receive the appropriate compensation until retirement age.

We are firmly entrenched in believing in the Meredith Principles in our government. We are not deviating from that. What is missing from the member opposite’s whole scenario or overview is the fact that the people who are currently missing out are the injured workers. If anything, we want to see that changed and see injured workers treated quickly, fairly and as expeditiously as possible to be either rehabilitated or compensated for their injury.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, early in the government’s mandate, the advantages of the Yukon Party membership were very clear. There were sole-sourced contracts to former candidates that had no product, key appointments and pay raises for their top political staff. It is kind of like having a particular credit card — membership has its privileges.

My question is for the Premier. I have raised the issue of $20,000 pay increases for the chief of staff and the principal secretary in the Cabinet office. The Premier said in this House that "due process" was followed when this big pay increase was handed out. That due process usually involves the Public Service Commission.

Was the Public Service Commission involved in this decision to reclassify the jobs for the chief of staff and the principal secretary?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, the member opposite knows that the answer to that question is in regard to a private firm that has been solicited on many occasions by government to provide job classifications and job descriptions to the Public Service Commission so that they then can dictate what will be the payscales. In this particular example, that is exactly what happened. A firm was contracted to provide job descriptions and classifications, and the Public Service Commission ensured that everything that came forward was indeed — in terms of dealing with the act, as far as the payscale — exactly as the act lays out.

This is not a case of us giving a raise to anybody. This is a case of the Public Service Commission determining from job classifications that all those things that came forward from the contractor conform to the act. That’s what took place, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   The Chair is uncomfortable with the preamble to the previous question posed by the leader of the third party in that it was suggesting that the member is representing someone other than his constituents. I would ask that she not do that, please.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier just said that due process was followed when the reclassification decision was made providing raises for two political advisors. He said the Public Service Commission was involved.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I filed an access to information request with the Public Service Commission, asking for a copy of the reclassification for the chief of staff and any letters from the transition team or the Premier’s office. This would be proof that the Public Service Commission was involved. The answer I received was that no records were found. In other words, the Public Service Commission was not involved in any way in this decision. It seems to have been handled entirely by the Premier’s office, which is not due process.

The proof is in this access to information request that the Public Service Commission was not involved. Will the Premier outline for the House why he did not follow the rules, as he just stated he did?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, the member opposite — the former Premier — is implying that we did not follow the rules. The facts are that we did follow the rules. A contract was let to provide job descriptions for the principal secretary, chief of staff and communications advisor. Those job descriptions and classifications were presented to the Public Service Commission so they could determine that they fell within the act, which states, "The positions shall be classified and shall have payscales assigned to them in conformity with the same criteria that would be applied if the positions were established in the public service under the Public Service Act." It is not we, the government elected officials, who determine that; it would be the Public Service Commission, which is in charge of ensuring that detail is, in fact, adhered to.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the detail is that for a reclassification decision, the Public Service Commission is involved. The Premier said that for this reclassification decision, the Public Service Commission was involved. Under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the request I filed with the Public Service Commission for this information came back saying that the Public Service Commission has no records relating to a reclassification decision for the positions of chief of staff, Executive Council Office, principal secretary, et cetera.

Now, the Premier is saying — and has said inside the House and outside the House — that the Public Service Commission was involved. The Public Service Commission has said no, they weren’t. Mr. Speaker, the Premier needs to correct the record. The Premier needs to outline the real story for this House, the public record and the record in the media. What is the —

Speaker:   Order please. Will the member ask a question, please.

Ms. Duncan:   Certainly.

Will the Premier correct the record and tell the whole story?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   What’s to correct, Mr. Speaker? The process was embarked upon to create job descriptions and classifications. These processes are related to the Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act and must also conform to the Public Service Act in terms of the payscale. Of course the Public Service Commission would have to provide that advice. We, as an elected body, don’t make those decisions. We don’t know what that payscale is. That’s why the Public Service Commission is there — to provide the necessary advice in these areas.

So let’s recap. A private contractor established job descriptions and classifications. Those job descriptions and classifications are paid based on what is in the acts themselves and the payscale. It’s the classifications and the descriptions that dictate the payscale. The full story is that we follow process. The member opposite obviously has her own opinion.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have some more questions for the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

On April 3, the minister received a hand-delivered letter from the president of the Yukon Employees Union, local Y010, which represents about 1,500 government employees. In that letter, the union expressed its opposition to the minister’s choice for Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board chair and expressed their confidence in promoting the alternate chair to the position of Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board chair.

Will the minister now revoke that appointment and do the proper consultation, as suggested in the motion I tabled yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Here we go again. What the member opposite is asking me to do is conduct an election. The act is very specific as to the role and the rules that I have to follow. They have been completely adhered to and followed to a T. All that the member opposite has to do is examine the act to make that determination. He knows full well that that is very much the situation.

As far as revoking the appointments, I am sorry, the short answer is no, I will not.

Mr. Cardiff:   I am not asking the minister to conduct an election. All I am asking him to do is listen to what the stakeholders in the Workers' Compensation Act process have been asking him and have been suggesting to him — that the process needs to change.

In this same letter, the union expressed concerns regarding the possibility that YTG may pull out of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, concerned about the potential impact that this could have on the continued employment of employees at the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Will the minister ensure that staff jobs at the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board aren’t in jeopardy because of his plans to remake the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the determination as to how the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board is operated and conducts its business is not within my mandate as minister. That is an act — the board conducting and overseeing the affairs of the board. That’s where this task rests. They have a budget that’s presented to them. They either approve it or do not approve it. So the question that the member opposite is directing to me is directed to the wrong individual, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, I’d remind the minister that he’s the one who is ultimately responsible. The Yukon Employees Union is only one of several groups expressing concern about what this minister has in store for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. A lot of those concerns revolve around the possibility that the Yukon government might pull out and either become self-insuring or sign on with another jurisdiction.

And before the minister tries a lateral hand-off to the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, I want to stress that the bottom line of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board is his responsibility.

What studies has this minister considered in coming to the conclusion that YTG pulling out of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board would not adversely affect the board’s financial position?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the whole issue as to whether Government of Yukon is in Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board or out of Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board is not something that is decided by the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. It’s an area that will be brought forward to Cabinet, but, Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer the question because the question hasn’t been raised. So until such time as it comes forward, there isn’t a response to the question.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. The Child Welfare League report was commissioned as part of a two-stage study of conditions facing children in care in the Yukon. The minister’s statistics in the budget show we can expect an increase of five percent in the number of children in permanent care, and temporary care will also increase by five percent. It is not in the best interests of children or families to have children in care longer than absolutely necessary.

What has the minister done to reduce the length of time children remain wards of the director of family and children’s services branch?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I certainly have to agree with the member opposite that the last thing we want to do is take children into care and keep them there for any length of time. What we have is a very serious problem here in the Yukon, and the solutions must be family-based and must involve First Nation communities. That’s where the main problem stems from — the majority of children taken into care are First Nation. Our government will work with the First Nations to find a solution to this issue. It is a very serious one; it’s one we recognize, and it’s one we will be dealing with and currently are dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   Social workers must be in close contact with children in care of the family and children’s services branch. They must also be in touch with their families, the foster homes and group homes on a regular basis to fill plans of care. Can the minister confirm that professional visits to government-run group homes and receiving homes aren’t being made regularly because of the impossible caseloads social workers are being asked to take on?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   No, I can’t confirm that, Mr. Speaker. I’m not familiar with the minute details of the ongoing involvement of the department.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I’m quite surprised at the minister’s answer on that. On one hand, he says there’s a serious problem and they’re doing things to correct it and, on the other hand, he hasn’t looked into the details. We must face the facts. The inevitable will happen. Some tragedy will occur, if it hasn’t already, to a child in this government’s care, as it has in many provinces. We’ve all heard stories of overloaded social workers making careless errors in judgement, resulting in the injury or even death of a child in care.

Is the minister prepared to accept the legal liability for any government social worker who couldn’t perform his or her professional duties fully because of inadequate resources and support, and of being overworked?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, government currently has the liability associated with children in care. That’s a given. That’s spelled out in the act. There’s a tremendous amount of responsibility assumed by government when they apprehend and take a child into care. We must deal with the immediate problem of children in care, and we must also at the same time pay long-term attention to the issues. There’s an issue surrounding the act, the Children’s Act, which must be amended. The rules here in the Yukon must be brought more into line to address the issue of the First Nation members of our community, who are the main people involved in child apprehension cases.

I guess, to spell it out very, very succinctly so that we all understand, the white man law is not working for our First Nation members here in the Yukon, and we’re going to have to dovetail our laws and our rules into the community, the First Nation community, and allow us to go forward in lockstep. We all know it but no one has been brave enough to face up and spell it out in the manner in which it should be spelled out. We have a very serious problem in this area. We are going to have to change the legislation but, at the same time, we’re going to have to have a lot of input from the First Nation members of our community on this issue.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is again to the Minister of Health and Social Services. Yesterday the minister admitted to high staff turnover in family and children’s services. He said it was a very serious problem. He also suggested that there were some very serious problems in children’s services in the Government of Yukon. He said, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "It’s a sad part of society here that a majority, or a great number, of the individuals in care are First Nations…." The minister quite freely brought out and singled out First Nations. The Child Welfare League of Canada report includes both First Nation and non-First Nation children.

While we wait for a new Children’s Act, which could take years, what is the minister doing to ensure that the Yukon government has the capacity to do its job in the interim for both First Nation and non-First Nation children?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, we have a short-term need and a long-term need. The long-term needs I spelled out. In the short term, we’re looking at the conversion of existing overtime costs to auxiliary staffing. We’re spending a lot in that area, and that’s a way that we can address the need in the short term. But down the road, we’re going to have to come to a more cooperative understanding with the First Nations that are involved in this issue, because it is not just staffing. It’s the whole approach to children in care, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, this minister seems to believe that the Child Welfare League of Canada report excludes First Nations. He’s wrong on that. He also suggested yesterday that many social workers are being underutilized. That’s the direct opposite of what the Child Welfare League reported. The fact is that social workers are overworked and they are stressed.

I would like to ask the minister this: exactly how many Yukon government social workers does the minister believe aren’t being used to capacity? Is it 50 percent? Is it 75 percent? Is it 25 percent? Can he tell us?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Let me share with the House and the member opposite an area that our department is responsible for that is well underutilitzed: the young offenders facility. It has a capacity of 20. Normally there are between one or two individuals in there — occasionally, three. There are two social workers, there are school teachers, there are cooks, there are custodial workers. There is an example of the underutilization specifically of social workers.

Mr. Fairclough:   It is amazing that this minister seems to possess such expertise after being responsible for that department for such a short time.

He also said that some social workers are underutilized and they need to be moved around in the department. The minister should quit picking on the social workers and start doing his own job to capacity. He should focus on the very serious problem that he admits to. He said that a new approach is needed to address First Nation children in care.

Is the minister suggesting that no child protection cases involving First Nation children should go to court so that he can save money on social workers? Is that part of his new plan?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I consider that to be very much a stretch of the situation. Now, the issue is that the social workers should be dealing with the family unit and making every effort to resolve the situation with child custody in a family environment.

At times these issues have to go to the courts, but they don’t have to go there virtually 100 percent of the time. They do end up there from time to time and they will continue to end up there from time to time. But let’s make every effort to resolve these issues before we take them to the courts. If it is a custody order, arrangements can be worked out and the courts can ratify it, rather than this back and forth see-saw as to making the determination and the judge having to rule on an issue where, in a large part, arrangements could have been made before it even entered the courts.

So there is a lot of stress involved in this process. We have to take a new approach as a government and we will be taking a new approach.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I’d like to identify the items standing in the name of the third party to be called on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. They are Motion No. 65 and Motion No. 8.

Mr. McRobb:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the official opposition to be called on Wednesday, April 9, 2003. They are Motion No. 46, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

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:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Do members wish a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We’ll stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will come to order. We will continue in general debate on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   When we left off the other day in debate with the leader of the official opposition, we were discussing this year’s budget, the fact that it is the third highest budget in the history of the Yukon Territory, and it’s a budget that takes the steps to address what is a serious problem in the Yukon, and that’s the inability for government to sustain the spending that governments in the past have been doing in terms of the amount of money that they have allocated and spent, when you relate that to the revenues coming in. In short, the governments in the past have been spending far more than what we were earning or bringing in, and the trajectory of that has put us in the situation in which we find ourselves today.

This budget takes the first step to address that inability for government to sustain the level of spending that has been going on in this territory for a number of years.

We’ve pointed out clearly how that’s reflected in terms of trajectory in going as far back as fiscal year 1997-98 and following through to this fiscal year of 2003-04. It’s easy to see, just by looking at the numbers, how that increase in spending has impacted the territory, and the results that we’ve achieved from that increase in spending are, simply put, more dependence on government, less involvement of the private sector, a continuing exodus of our population, an ever-increasing contribution to economic generator dollars from the government side and an ever-decreasing contribution of economic generator dollars from the private sector. That has led us to the position we’re in.

So this budget, Mr. Chair, takes the first step toward addressing that very difficult situation. We could have done like other jurisdictions faced with this same issue, being in the same position. Those close to our territory, such as Alaska and British Columbia, chose to make massive cuts in their budgeting. Those massive cuts resulted in thousands of lost jobs across their jurisdictions. We, on the other hand, chose a much gentler approach. Just a very gentle, downward pressure on spending has brought us to where we are in this fiscal year in terms of annual deficit. We have decreased the annual deficit from some $56 million for the Liberals’ last fiscal year of 2002-03 to $13 million for our first fiscal year, this budget of 2003-04.

That’s the gentle, downward pressure on government spending. That’s the first step to managing the trajectory of spending and changing the course of this territory.

Further to that, Mr. Chair, we have to be very conscious and cognizant of the fact that the loss in population will result in more problems in the government’s ability to maintain or sustain spending levels. The loss in population will result in a decrease in transfer payments from Ottawa, because it is fundamentally based on population. With the loss we’ve experienced — and without having the hard numbers here before me, we can safely say it’s in the neighbourhood of 3,000 people — we will experience a significant cut in transfer payments, and that will further compound the problem we face in government’s ability to sustain the spending levels we have been accustomed to.

We have set aside some $15 million for this eventuality; however, we don’t know for sure whether that will cover the reduction in transfer payments that we, in the Yukon, will soon experience when it comes to monies that flow from Ottawa. So we have to take the steps that we have taken in this budget to ensure that all options are before us and that we do not get into a fiscal situation that would require us to make massive cuts, as other jurisdictions like B.C. and Alaska have, and/or put the Yukon into an accumulated deficit position, which is against the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act.

This step is a step taken out of the firm commitment to maintain spending in areas that are very important to Yukoners. It’s a step toward focusing some resources in the highest priority areas such as formalizing our relationship with First Nations. Obviously, what’s going on today in the corporate world is a prime example of why we, as a government, must take those steps.

The corporate world clearly sees the fact that we can no longer develop resources in our emerging economies and other sectors of our economy without involving the First Nation people in meaningful partnerships. That is why we are contributing resources toward that, whether it be the formalization of our government relationship here in the Yukon with First Nation governments and the Yukon government, or a full economic partnership, where government decision making is a collaboration between our government and the First Nation governments in terms of economic development.

We are setting in motion a process that is in lockstep with what is happening around us in today’s Canada. The Northwest Territories has been very successful in this area. The result is a tremendous amount of investment, including the federal government working diligently with the territories on a pipeline. It’s what’s lacking here — that relationship with First Nations — and we intend to change that and improve on it and ensure that the Yukon is not left out but, indeed, is being provided its fair share of corporate investment and federal government investment in developing our economy in partnership with our First Nations.

Now, the opposition parties have made much about slash-and-burn budgeting, but obviously, given the fact that this is the third highest budget in the history of the Yukon, that approach to the debate cannot be sustained. There’s no way that the opposition parties can provide the burden of proof that this is a slash-and-burn budget. All you have to do is look at the numbers, the values themselves, and it will clearly indicate that this is far from that.

This is a very thoughtful approach to managing a difficult fiscal situation. It is unfortunate that the Liberal government, upon taking office — who were faced with the very same warnings by officials who were well aware of the situation that the Yukon was getting itself into — ignored those warnings and, in fact, in a manner that was unheard of in this territory, dramatically increased government spending.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think we have had enough of the political grandstanding. We all agree we have a major budget in front of us, and it is time to get down to working —

Chair:   Order please. Would the member cite the Standing Order in violation?

There is no point of order. We have a dispute among members here.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I can assure the Member for Kluane that the camera was rolling when he was up on his point of order.

Now, Mr. Chair, we want to proceed here, of course, with constructive debate. We know that the official opposition has shown on many occasions in this House their willingness to contribute to constructive debate, and I look forward to their comments.

But, again, I want to just close out on what I was saying in regard to what has happened when the former Liberal government chose to ignore those warnings and really put the Yukon in a very difficult, if not desperate, fiscal situation. The former Liberal government had a number of choices in regard to how to deal with it. Their choice was to dramatically increase the spending in this territory — unheard of increases in spending by any government in the history of the Yukon Territory. Those dramatic increases have resulted in what, Mr. Chair?

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, on a point of order, there was a Speaker’s ruling very recently with respect to casting aspersions on former members of the Legislature. It was with respect to discussions around the United Keno Hill/Elsa mine. There was discussion and an allegation that a previous member had done something, and the Finance minister is making an allegation that a previous government had done something. I would suggest that that is not in order in this debate.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’m only reflecting what is factual numbers — that the increases in spending in two years — the fiscal year 2001-02 and 2002-03 — were dramatically higher than any other expenditure by any other former government. Those are the facts.

Chair:   Order please. The Chair finds that there is no point of order here. There is simply a dispute among members. It’s not the Chair’s place to rule on the facts.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Getting back to what I was saying, Mr. Chair, those two years really put the Yukon Territory into the fiscal position it finds itself in today, when the former Liberal government did have the options available to it with the very same warnings from the officials who were clear that this spending cannot be sustained.

Mr. Chair, let us go on from where we’re at today. This Yukon Party government’s first budget is a budget to simply lower the trajectory of spending so that we can get within the fiscal restraints that we face to ensure that we do not result in an accumulated deficit position from government spending, and that’s important. But there’s more to it. It’s a fact that governments must realize that balanced budgeting is important. Not only is it important to the taxpayer, but it’s an important message to the corporate world that we are a jurisdiction that has a government that understands that there has to be a measure of balance in terms of —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Mr. McRobb:   Point of order, Mr. Chair. I draw your attention to section 19(b)(i) of the Standing Orders that says a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if that member speaks to other matters than the question under discussion. I draw your attention to the question that was posed to the government. It is in the April 7 edition of the Blues, on page 665. The question was this: "…is this part of the deliberations that may happen under Economic Development and, if so, are there other areas the Yukon Party government has in mind that it would task the Economic Development department with?"

It’s very clear — here’s my argument — that the Premier has opened the issue to much larger issues —

Chair:   Order please.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We are in general debate on the budget. It’s customary during general debate for the government — at least our government’s view — to lay out what the plan is for this budget in general terms, and that’s all I’m doing, Mr. Chair.

Chair:   Order please. The Chair finds that, under general debate, members may speak to that matter of general debate. The matter of debate, the question under discussion, is general debate on the First Appropriation Act, 2003-04, and the member is speaking to that. There is no point of order. Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, this budget not only puts a downward pressure on the spending of government to ensure that we do not get into an accumulated deficit position, but it also reflects the fact that, on the best available information and data that we have, in the long term, we will have a balanced budget. So just let me quickly reflect on that.

We’ve gone from last year’s budgeting of an annual deficit of $56 million to this year’s projected annual deficit of some $13 million. As we carry forward over the next three years with all that available information that we have — it’s the best possible information that we have available to date, Mr. Chair — we are heading, as far as the Yukon’s fiscal situation is concerned, toward an annual surplus, not an annual deficit. That alone, Mr. Chair, puts us in much better positions fiscally when it comes to the overall accumulated surplus position, and it increases the options that government has available to it in spending and in budgeting that will address, I think, in a much more efficient manner — at least our government believes so — the issues that are important to Yukoners, whether it be program service or delivery or whether it would be the development of an economy.

So in providing a clear picture that this territory is heading to balanced budgeting and opening up its options with more available surplus to it, we send a clear signal to the corporate world that the Yukon Territory recognizes what must take place, first by government; and secondly, we as a government understand that we need the corporate world involved in our territory, with their large pools of capital investment, availability, and we feel that that is the way to counter the fiscal position that the Yukon finds itself in. Injection from the private sector is critical to actually developing an economy. Government cannot spend its way out of economic problems, and I think the former Liberal government proved that out.

Its massive increases over two years in spending did nothing to get us out of the economic downturn we were in. Actually, it contributed to a greater exodus of people and a further depression of our economy and a further increase in dependence on government and a further decrease in the contribution that the private sector makes to the economic generator dollars — a factor that is so important to spending power in any jurisdiction.

We are taking steps first and foremost in this budget to address our First Nation governments in this territory. It’s vital that we remove the barriers between us. Thirty years of land claim negotiations have resulted in some of those barriers not being dealt with. Until we do so, we will still have difficulties in developing our resources, for example.

So by removing those barriers and providing a more cost-effective form of government, we can, again, contribute to the overall trajectory of lowering government spending and at the same time increasing our contribution from the private sector.

What is really important here is when we look at the issue of full economic partnerships with our First Nation governments and our First Nation people. That alone will contribute to a comfortable investment climate. That alone will lend greatly to restoring investor confidence in the Yukon Territory. This territory is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and other things that are required in terms of developing an economy. That is one of the first steps we must make. Developing our resources will take us toward a renewal in our economic situation in this territory, and it will set in place the foundations for rebuilding our devastated economy, which has been neglected by past governments by their focus on government spending versus utilizing the assets and the resources we have to engage the private sector, the corporate world, and have them contribute a much larger share to what happens in the territory today and into the future.

In developing our resource, we can realize vast amounts of capital investment, which will result in a great deal of job creation — job creation by the hundreds.

Though the territorial government’s revenue comes from many sectors, one of the biggest portions or percentages of that revenue comes from personal tax, so the more jobs that we can create, the more revenue the government earns. More important, the spending power in the territory increases.

Employed people spend a lot of money. That is the key to economic generator dollars and/or cash flow. We need to see a much larger share of those economic generator dollars flowing from the private sector. It is that thing alone that will help to turn our economy around and allow government to focus its spending in areas that are important to Yukoners, and it’s where government should focus its spending.

We need to address the social ills. We need to address the health care issues. We need to address housing and all other kinds of areas that are critical. But as long as the spending trajectory was to continue as in past governments, it would be impossible, in the very near future, to really effectively address any of those.

We are lowering the spending to the third highest budget in the history of the Yukon. We are working to engage the private sector and the corporate world to come into the Yukon and help offset government spending in areas that, simply, the government should not be in, especially in the private sector, and we couple the two, along with our First Nation partners —

Chair:   The member has two minutes.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We will see a new direction for this territory, a new direction that is simply laid out, the beginnings of that direction simply laid out by this first budget by a Yukon Party government.

I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s once again very nice to hear the same story told over and over. Unfortunately, in this case the repeated telling of the story hasn’t got any better, nor has it got any more reliable in its accuracy.

For instance — and I’m going to go over a few things that this Premier has said — he talked about the revenue going down and that’s an interesting position to take, considering that in front of me I have the Government of Yukon projections, and under "income" it has 2002-03 projected actual, 2003-04, 2004-05 and so on and so forth, up to 2006-07, and it shows a territorial revenue for 2002-03 of $69,700,000, $72,700,000 for 2003-04, $75,300,000 for 2004-05, and so on and so forth again. Then we go down to the transfers from Canada and the projections indicate for 2002-03 the amount of $347 million jumping to $359,800,000 in 2003-04, and then $366,600,000 for 2004-05, $377,600,000 for 2005-2006, and then $391,500,000 for 2006-07 — close to a $50-million increase over four years.

Now, this Premier across the way has just told us the revenue is going down. The total net income over these four years — $438,800,000, $454,500,000, $463,800,000 and $476,500,000 for 2005-06 — by the time we get to 2006-07, we’re at $490 million, a $50-million increase. Now, these are projections, and my understanding is the Premier, who relies very heavily on the Finance department, would be relying on these projections as well. There’s no doubt. I’m sure I’m going to get an explanation about these. However, they are in the book. They’re laid out in front of us. If there’s an explanation why these figures would show an increase or no increase, I would be very interested to hear the spin on this one.

As well, the Premier — who has a tendency to go on and on and on and then run out of words, so he repeats the same story over and over during the course of 20 minutes — has mentioned that more jobs created will create more tax. He’s correct. There is no argument from this side. If we have more people employed, there will be a greater tax base and, hopefully, there will be a return of people who have left the territory, as well as growth in the territory, instead of the continually shrinking territory that we are experiencing and which has not turned around since this Yukon Party government came into play. Nor has there been an increase in building permits, nor has there been an increase in activity out there since this government was elected, although they promised instant and immediate changes. We haven’t seen it yet.

Going back to more jobs create more tax — that’s true, unless this government continues to give million-dollar tax relief as they did last week. If the Yukon Party government identifies a tax base and gives it away, there won’t be an increase in tax and there won’t be an increase in revenue from that source.

So, the Premier can’t have both — as one of his favourite sayings is, "on one hand, and then on the other hand". He can’t say there’s going to be an increase in tax and yet give the tax away if he needs the tax, because the whole argument of this budget since it was tabled has been that the Liberal government put the territory in a huge deficit. That’s the whole argument and the whole basis of this whole budget. For every action taken in this budget, that’s the basis, that’s the line, that’s what they’re going to repeat over and over, Mr. Chair.

Now, I’m not here to defend the Liberals’ actions, and I won’t defend the Liberals’ actions. I also have some misgivings about what happened over the last two and a half years, but I do remember that this Premier said he would not use that as an excuse — he would not use an excuse that has been used time and time again whenever a new government comes in, which is to find the deficit, create the deficit by bookings, by moving money around, and then use that to justify your actions in the budget, or justify your actions for the next year.

Now, he said this after he was sworn in. I remember it very clearly. However, here we are today, and all we hear is how it’s the Liberals’ fault they had to bring in this budget, which doesn’t sound like they’re very proud of it because they constantly use the Liberals as the excuse for some of the cuts they’ve had to make.

So, what’s it going to be? Are we going to move on? Are we going to debate the budget? Are we going to say — from my perspective, I would rather hear the Yukon Party say, "We’re proud of this budget. This is the direction we’re going in. We don’t care about what the Liberals did before. We understand. We have some issues we have to deal with and that they may have been a cause of, but we are setting our own course and we’re not using them as an excuse, Mr. Chair." I would much prefer to hear that. I much prefer to debate this budget based on those merits. However, it’s not happening.

So, just to facilitate quicker debate so that we can move forward and get into departments, I have some questions to ask. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on them. Hopefully, I’ll get the answers. If I don’t get the answers, which seems to be the pattern that we’ve been facing over the last while, so be it. At least the questions will be out there, and maybe we can get the answers some other way.

Going back to yesterday, when I did have a question around the Economic Development department that they planned to create or re-establish, I guess — I’ll start with that one. My understanding is that the loan collections were transferred from the previous Economic Development to Finance, and my question is: are they going to go back to Economic Development or are they going to stay in Finance?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, that was quite a distance travelled to get to that one question. I think I have to just clarify a few things.

First off, we are very proud of this budget. We commended it to this House. No question about it. And the member opposite says he hasn’t heard it, but it’s certainly there in the pages of Hansard, and he may want to just reflect back in Hansard to confirm what we are saying.

Second, this is not about blaming anybody. This is laying out the history here so that it clearly shows everyone where we have come from and why we are in the position we are in today.

The member mentions revenue increasing; however, the problem with that is that the spending was far out-distancing any revenues that were coming in. What the member does not reflect on is that actually, with the loss of population this territory has experienced, our revenues have decreased some $30 million to $40 million if we had not lost that population. So if you think holistically, in the bigger picture, you will come immediately to the realization that the revenues for this territory have been declining for a number of years.

As far as the collections, the outstanding loans that were transferred under the misguided renewal process over to Finance, given the fact that we are now actively working with the department to find a way to resolve those outstanding problems that have been there for many governments in the past — none of which chose to tackle this issue because it was probably too difficult, maybe, Mr. Chair — we have no intention of moving those particular areas of collection from where they sit today in the Department of Finance.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, obviously the government is quite generous in the fact that they’ve spent $1.25 million — $1 million on tax relief, which may or may not have a good effect and may or may not benefit Yukon people; another $200,000 on a consultant; another $40,000 on two people in their staff. That’s $1.25 million that was spent post-Liberals. That’s a substantial amount of giveaway right away when you are talking about a difficult situation, but you can find that amount of money.

My next question is about how the government promised to reinstate the community development fund and the FireSmart to the original amounts. Why the change of mind? Why the change of heart? Why didn’t they do it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We did do it, Mr. Chair. We injected some $3 million into the Yukon economy since January through FireSmart and the community development fund. We are now monitoring the situation because we’ve closed out a fiscal year and we’re entering into a new fiscal year. We’re monitoring the situation to see what lapses there are, and we’ll make decisions accordingly.

The main point is that both those vehicles are very important to Yukoners because of the stimulus they create and the community well-being that results from that. But the member has some confusion around taxes and reduction of taxes and our comments about how important personal tax is to this territory, considering it generates 50 cents of every revenue dollar. We haven’t cut personal taxes.

In terms of the mining issue, that’s not a tax. If assessment work is not done, there’s a penalty. So we’ve given a year-long grace on assessment work. There is no cost there, again, to the government until you determine what assessment work hasn’t been done, and then there’s a penalty charge. It’s certainly not a reduction in tax.

Mr. Chair, the community development fund and the FireSmart program are something that came out of the New Democrats. We recognize them as good programs, and we intend to carry through with them and carry forward with them because we’re committed to using those vehicles, those mechanisms, for short-term stimulus.

Mr. Hardy:   The Premier didn’t answer my question. I asked a very straightforward question of why they weren’t reinstated to the original amounts, as was promised. As the Premier knows, we were in total support of allocating more money, and this government did allocate some more money but they never did all of it. Now, in this budget, it has been reduced way back from what the original amounts were and what was being spent when the NDP was in power, although the promise was very clear at the time.

My question was very simple: why the change of mind? Is the change of mind because there isn’t enough money and they have to hold back in order to deal with the deficit? Is that the reason?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I’ll repeat: there is no change of mind. We re-established the CDF and FireSmart to $3.5 million and $1.5 million respectively. We are now closing out a fiscal year. We managed to inject some $3 million through those two programs into the Yukon economy since January. There are a lot of communities out there that are very pleased with that as their citizens go to work today, as we speak.

We will monitor what happens in terms of lapses and revotes to make that assessment and judgement when we get there, but we intend to use these two programs in a manner that creates short-term stimulus, community well-being, and have certainly continued to honour our commitment with the two programs in question.

That should be sufficient for the member opposite. We’ll have to determine what lapses and revotes are available to make the next decision, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   Were they brought back to the original amount? Was that amount of money spent? Was it spent as was promised previous to this budget? Of course it wasn’t, because we know about that — it wasn’t. There was $7-million worth of applications, supposedly, and they didn’t spend up to the original amounts of the previous community development fund and FireSmart.

Has the same amount been allocated in this budget? Of course not. Will it be spent? Will they allocate more? Will they bring in a supplementary to meet the promise made to re-establish it at the original amounts?

However, I am not going to spend a lot of time on it. I think the point has been made from both sides. We have our different viewpoints on this. Let the record stand on where I am and where the Premier is on it.

Could the government tell me what its policy is on private/public partnerships?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We did re-establish the community development fund and the FireSmart program to its original levels under the NDP government of 1996 to 2000. We have every intention to use those programs to continue the good works that they provide for the territory.

When it comes to P3s, we are going to look at all options available to this government to help rebuild and stimulate our economy. But everything we do must be within the confines of the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act. That is why it’s so important to engage the private sector for them to invest in the territory, especially when it comes to our abundance of resources and assets we have available.

As far as P3s, we have no specific government policy today but we are not going to ignore any possible option here that would help us rebuild our economy and ensure that we maintain budgeting within the confines of the Yukon Taxpayer Protection Act — in other words, conform to the act.

Mr. Hardy:   Could I assume that the Economic Development department will be the one that leads up any kind of negotiations or discussions with the private sector in regard to public/private partnerships?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, we are going to re-establish the Department of Economic Development. That’s a given. We are now in the final stages of recruiting a deputy minister for that department. That’s the most important step. Yes, in this particular area of public/private partnerships, that department would develop policies around this, but they would be of a sectoral nature. One never knows exactly what a P3 may entail, and it might be something that is focused more in another department. So to answer the member’s question, the Department of Economic Development would be the department that looks at the overall policy, but of course it could be of a sectoral nature.

Mr. Hardy:   In looking at all options that the Premier has articulated in trying to attract the private sector back into the territory or try to stimulate it within the territory, the part that already exists here, would he be looking at the delivery of programs, running of facilities, stuff like that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Our government recognizes limitations. There’s nothing we would ever do that would contravene the collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Hardy:   That’s interesting, Mr. Chair, considering he said that this government is open to all options. There’s no question about it that it’s definitely one option. Maybe he can tell me what "all options" actually means now, since he has already restricted it again?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, two things. I haven’t restricted anything. We said we’d look at all options, and with that comes the fact that there are things that the government cannot do. One of them is we cannot contravene a collective bargaining agreement. So when looking at the options, for example, Mr. Chair, if that option would contravene the collective bargaining agreement, obviously it would not be an option the government would proceed with.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Chair, I’ve spent many, many years bargaining for a variety of organizations and unions, and I can assure the Premier that, when you sit down to bargain, the agreement is open and that’s what you’re doing. I don’t know if this government in their negotiations — possibly not this time but obviously the negotiations that they’ll have to come into with their bargaining units within the next two or three years as they come up again, this may be something they would put on the table and look at all options. Sometimes that’s what you do. When you negotiate and bargain, you go to the table with a list of wishes or desires that you have, and this could possibly be one that this government might be interested in doing.

Would this government be interested in putting this on the table in their negotiations? I’m not saying I’m for it, but I’m curious if this is their mindset, recognizing when you negotiate that you’re trying to negotiate from your own perspective and if you’re trying to stimulate the private sector, I’m kind of curious: if they get direction from the private sector to go in this direction, would they bring that to the table?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think what we have here is an example of a situation where the member opposite is trying to imply that we may do something in an area that would affect the union, for example, and I have stated that there is nothing our government would do that would contravene a collective bargaining agreement. But, having said that, our government is not going to preclude options that may come forward. We’re not going to ignore what possibilities are out there. We are going to do the necessary research and critique of any option that comes forward, always bearing in mind that there are restrictions we face, such as collective bargaining agreements, and that we are going to engage the private sector and the corporate world to assist us in rebuilding the Yukon economy.

There’s nothing that stops us from doing that in resource development, for instance — nothing whatsoever. There’s nothing that would stop us in terms of finding ways to help small business. These areas are not things where we just ignore options because they may, through some speculative process, have impacts on contracts or agreements. That’s the work you must do to ensure that you’re not ignoring a good option that will help and, by the same token, you’re not contravening such things as a collective bargaining agreement. You have to do the research.

Mr. Hardy:   I just want to assure the member opposite that I’m not implying anything. These are just questions asked to try to get an understanding of the mindset of the Yukon Party government and the Premier himself. Truthfully, I was very polite about it.

I mentioned that, if they were planning on doing anything that might contravene the collective agreement or were thinking of going in that direction, they would use the proper channels, which would be through the negotiations that the government and the union would participate in.

What’s the government’s policy on public consultation?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Let me first assure the member opposite that, under this Yukon Party government, collective bargaining is alive and well. Make no mistake about it. Negotiations are a great thing, and they can produce a lot.

As far as consultation, it comes in many forms. There’s consultation here in this House. There are processes evolved around specific issues that a specific department will undertake to engage the public. There are the media, which is another form of connecting with the public. That is, to some degree, consultation. There are programs related to consultation that are specific, that we must undertake. When you look at the Umbrella Final Agreement, there are clear commitments on what government must do when it comes to consulting First Nations, so it can come in many forms. We will endeavour to consult with Yukoners, with agencies, with groups, with the First Nation governments on all fronts, but at the end of the day, it would be very hard to give the member opposite a long litany of how we intend to consult other than the fact that we will do so. That’s what governments do and that’s what governments must do. In some cases, like the Umbrella Final Agreement, they are bound to do it. So there is no diminishing of the consultative processes from this government. We hope to even make them a little more efficient and produce more results.

Mr. Hardy:   What role does the government see in the partnerships in the film industry? The stand-alone film commission — is that a view this government has right now — or is the financing of partnerships that are done throughout the country something that this government is looking at?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In general debate I can say that this government is looking at the film industry as a whole, seeing it as a very important element of economic development for the territory. We feel we have a great deal to offer as a territory for the film industry, and partnerships are vital in all these areas. We are certainly looking at them.

The member opposite could get into much more detail on this one when we get into the department debates and the related department to the film industry.

Mr. Hardy:   I always like to know what the leader has got up in his own mind. It is quite nice to tap into that mass, that huge resource there.

How about the securing of port access? That is a promise that was made — Skagway, Haines, the Beaufort, I don’t know; any ideas that the Premier has over there? Are there any partnerships or leases being negotiated at this time?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, we’ve had discussions. What was once a very valuable initiative under the former New Democratic government got lost, unfortunately. The Yukon had an opportunity to own access to tidewater. That didn’t happen so we are, again, exploring our options.

We have had discussions. There may be a number of ways this can happen but, for the most part, it is important — it is vital — that the Yukon does not become landlocked.

I think back to many years ago when Faro was going to reopen and the long, hard negotiations that took place to get access to tidewater. So we felt that looking at our options and entering into dialogue as early as possible was important. That is what we are doing right now.

Mr. Hardy:   Could the Premier — thank you for the answer, or kind of answer, vague answer. How about another one? Could the minister give us an update on the Kaska court challenge, without breaking any confidences, as to where it’s at, as we know we’re getting closer to the time and I know there’s money being spent by the Yukon Party government — a substantial amount of money — to have somebody work on this? Without breaking confidences, is there any kind of statement he can make regarding the ongoing negotiations around this?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We committed to try to avert litigation. Litigation doesn’t help anyone. In fact, it’s a negative no matter how you look at it, so we committed to try to avert it. It’s important to realize, though, that this court challenge is not against Yukon. It’s against Canada. It’s not a question of a legality for Yukon. The importance here is that we try to expedite processes with out First Nation governments and First Nations that have unsettled claims or unfinished business in a manner in which we get results. With litigation hanging over our heads, there was no ability for us to get back to the land claim table, period. The federal government will not entertain any negotiations while the litigations are in effect, so we are trying to avert litigation.

But there is another important facet to this. We are very, very focused on attracting investment into the Yukon and providing a secure investment climate, restoring investor confidence. If we are on a major — and I’m not saying the Yukon government, but if the territory itself is under a major litigation, it will damage our ability to attract that investment.

So it’s actually two very important areas for us. We want to get back to the tables and conclude unfinished business. Second, we don’t want to jeopardize, because of litigation, what may be in the short term a lot of very important investment for us in, for example, the resource sector.

Mr. Hardy:   Obviously I wasn’t going to get an answer. Maybe I’ll just repeat it again, see if there is a chance to get an answer, or if he’s not going to answer it, so be it. Where is it at right now?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As the member well knows, Mr. Chair, we don’t negotiate in the Legislature. The time is short. We’re in the negotiating process with the First Nation, and we’ll see what transpires. But I tried to point out to the member opposite this is not against us. It’s against Canada. We’re trying to use our good offices to solve a problem, and that problem is we want to conclude unfinished business. Without litigation being set into abeyance, there’s no way to get Canada back to the table, and we do not want to jeopardize or compromise what investment we could attract in such areas as resource development. So far, the negotiations have progressed, and we’ll see where we’re at when the negotiations get to their inevitable end.

Mr. Hardy:   It was only a couple of months ago that it was because of devolution; the reason this is happening now is because of investment. My, how time changes stories.

Years ago, then government leader Tony Penikett introduced a policy to have government pay interest on overdue accounts to small businesspeople. Is that still a practice?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, just for the member opposite’s information, the challenge is in regard to devolution, but I would submit to the member opposite that devolution would be somewhat limited if you could not allocate third-party interests. That allocation of third party interests is what will generate investment. Yes, that policy continues in terms of interest being paid.

Mr. Hardy:   What is the collection process for those who owe government, as of today? What is the collection process?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There is a collection policy the government has in place. I could read it into the record if the member so desires. There are a number of areas to it. Firstly, statements are sent monthly to customers with a balance owing on their accounts. These statements state when payments are due — that’s a given. Customers are phoned if their accounts are 20 days in arrears to inquire when payment will be made. A payment schedule may be negotiated if the customer is unable to pay the entire balance immediately. A certified letter is sent when the account is 30 days in arrears. The letter advises the customer that, if payment cannot be made within the next 30 days, to notify accounts receivable of the Department of Finance in order to arrange for a payment schedule.

If there is no response, Finance will use the right to set off on any amounts due to the account holder from the Government of Yukon, pursuant to section 35 of the Financial Administration Act. A small debts court action is considered where the balance owing is $5,000 or under and the debtor resides in the Yukon. Collection agencies are used for pursuing written-off accounts.

Then there’s an allowance for "doubtful" and a write-off process, but that basically outlines the policy for collections, so there are a number of stages.

Mr. Hardy:   Could the Premier ensure I get a copy of that for my own records? Also, could he tell me when that policy was put in place?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We will provide the leader of the official opposition a copy of the policy. It has been in place for quite some time. We can find out when it was first implemented, but it would be years back.

Mr. Hardy:   I assume that the member will give me the information of when it was first put in place. Thank you.

I am just going to go through a couple of things more and I want to ensure that other people have a chance to speak. They are just things that kind of jump out at me.

The Yukon Party has talked a lot about access to resources, roads to resources — that kind of stuff. I guess I would like to know what discussions have happened with regard to that, because I believe the road that they are talking about, from what I’ve read, is mostly in the southeast Yukon. What discussions have happened in the last four months in regard to that and is there any kind of idea of where it is going, how long it would be and what they foresee for when it would be developed?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Of course there are many areas where roads to resources could come into play. But this particular item is something that has been around a long time, coming out to the southeast Yukon.

Resource development in the southeast Yukon will benefit all Yukoners. There is a misconception that somehow this is totally focused on the riding of Watson Lake, which is not the case. For example, in oil and gas right now, in terms of production in the southeast Yukon, hundreds of thousands of dollars accrue to every First Nation in the territory; added revenues to the Yukon government that reflect benefits to all Yukoners are part of that. So the purpose of a road to resources in the southeast Yukon is to help to open up resource development in the sector.

We have had discussions with First Nations, with the community of Watson Lake, with chambers of commerce. This is not a new discussion. It has been evolving for quite some time and our government is committed to deliver on that concept, though there could be many options on how it is done.

For example, it’s not a necessity that government builds it. If we do the right thing in resource development, industry will build it. There are so many ways that this can be implemented, and we want to ensure that we proceed in a proper manner. Of course, it’s all about the need to open up resource development for the benefit of all Yukon people and that, in southeast Yukon, will contribute greatly. This is not something that we created. This is something that is just a fact of nature. Southeast Yukon happens to harbour some of the richest regions there are, and it’s much sought after by industry, whether it be oil and gas, forestry or mining. The bulk of the forest resources are situated in southeast Yukon so, to benefit all Yukoners, it’s important that we start to develop some of those resources in the southeast.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like to say to the Premier that, because I mentioned southeast Yukon does not mean I was implying that his interest happens to be greatest down there. I recognize what he’s saying. When I talk about the road to resources, it has always pointed to that area so, of course, you connect the dots and that’s what we’re talking about — southeast Yukon.

Where’s the most interest in resource development right now in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, it depends on what sector we’re talking about. Let’s just look at oil and gas. Of course, there are interests in north Yukon, but the most interest in oil and gas is in the southeast for the simple reason that it’s hooked to the marketplace. We have producing wells right now, with proven fields, and it’s a very simple process to explore and develop and get the resource flowing to the marketplace and earn revenues in the short term, whereas other regions in this sector of oil and gas involve a much longer term process for revenues to start accruing. It would reflect whether the Mackenzie line gets built or whether the Alaska Highway line gets built. It’s a process of getting the resource to market.

As far as forestry, there are a number of areas that are important, whether it be in the Haines Junction area, the Teslin area or the southeast, again. In mining, I think that’s a given that there’s mining potential throughout the Yukon. So it depends on what sector the member’s talking about.

Mr. Hardy:   Staying with the roads — and I’m sure when we get to the departmental debates, the critics on this side will continue with some of these lines of questions. Just in general, to close up a little bit, I have a couple more. I’m just looking in the budget, and I’m looking at some of the promises made during the election. There’s one that jumps out at me, and it’s to continue efforts to make Kluane National Park more accessible to Yukoners and visitors. Could the Premier explain what he means by that statement?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   What that really means is that we have a jewel in the Yukon: Kluane National Park. We’ve experienced situations where access to that park by a certain entity would have provided benefits to Yukon. What we’re saying here is that, because of that asset we have, we should look to more access to it, in a responsible way, to provide benefits to Yukoners. I know the First Nations are really keen on that. That’s why — beyond the First Nations, but that’s why we want to see if there are ways that Kluane National Park can contribute to more benefits coming into the Yukon Territory. It’s certainly something that is world renowned, and I think we should utilize that a little more, in a responsible way, to provide benefits for all Yukoners.

Mr. Hardy:   There is another area I am looking at, and I’m trying to connect the two documents I have in front of me. "Where feasible and economical, split government contracts to encourage bids for Yukon contractors," could the Premier explain how that would happen?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   One of the fundamental issues that all Yukon contractors face — at least a large percentage of them — is when contracts get to be a certain size, they have great difficulty in being able to participate. Smaller contracts provide Yukon contractors an access to government expenditures, because they don’t have to come up with large bonding or insurances to be able to apply or tender for a contract.

So, I think much of it is about retained spending power, Mr. Chair.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, maybe I’ll just wait for a moment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My point to the leader of the official opposition is, far too often, we experience government contracts going to firms where a great deal of the government money spent is an outflow, and that’s something we want to look at in terms of retained spending power for the territory. Of course we’re bound by contract regulations and restrictions and conditions, but it would be imprudent if a government didn’t look at ways for contracting that would result in an increase of spending power and retained earnings here in the territory from the Yukon taxpayers’ money being spent.

Mr. Hardy:   I have just a couple more questions. There was a promise made, and I didn’t see it in the budget, and I want to know when it’s going to materialize, and that was the whistle-blower legislation. What work has been done in that area, and when can we expect to see a promise that was made?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Governments cannot put together and implement everything in the first few months of a mandate. There is much work to do. There are a number of years left in this mandate, and I am sure that the minister responsible is looking into this issue as diligently as he possibly can.

Mr. Hardy:   I want to assure the Premier opposite that I am looking into this issue as diligently as I can, especially in light of many of the issues that have surfaced over the last couple of months in regard to the employment with government.

But there was a promise made that was supposed to be immediate. I would like to know where the government is on it because it should have been reflected in the budget, or it should have been reflected in the budget speech anyway. I will read it to the member opposite: "Upon formation of government," which has happened, "strike an independent commission of citizens to hold public consultations on electoral reform in the Yukon." That doesn’t sound like it’s that onerous to start something like that. I am wondering why this Premier hasn’t moved forward on that.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, Mr. Chair, government cannot do everything all at once. Those commitments are there and we intend to carry out delivering on those commitments. There is a great deal of work that goes into a lot of these particular initiatives. They are just not going to happen just because we took office on December 2. They are going to take time to work on, work through, and develop something that is acceptable to Yukoners.

We are not here to dictate to Yukoners; we are here to work with them. That is why it takes time, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   This was a very obvious promise that was supposed to happen immediately. We’ve heard the excuse for many of the promises made that they may not even be happening over the next four years, but this is one that was, upon formation of government, pretty straightforward.

Actually, at this time, I’m going to step out of general debate and allow my colleague in the third party to ask some of the questions that she has. I really look forward to the departmental debates and the general debate on line-by-line items. I hope we have a very productive discussion in this House that allows us to get some answers to the questions we asked.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to focus our energies in general debate and go through some straight yes-or-no, straightforward questions with respect to the numbers with the Finance minister. Would the Finance minister agree that the estimated deficit as tabled in 2002–03 — that’s the budget just completed, it was tabled and passed the House whenever we adjourned last spring — the estimated deficit was $41,470,000, with revotes of $16,500 and lapses of $20,000, leaving a projected surplus at the time of tabling of $25,879,000. Does the Premier agree that those were the figures tabled and passed in the 2002–03 budget?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, the member opposite should know. It was her government’s budget. So without having all the detail in front of me, there are various numbers between estimates, projections and actuals, and I would suggest to the member opposite that we wait until the actuals come in so we can agree on what the number is. As far as her projections or our projections, those are items for debate, but they certainly would not warrant a firm answer that that is the exact value, because that can only be determined when the final accounting is done.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I didn’t ask about the final accounting. I asked the minister a very straightforward question, and he ought to know because he was a member in this House at that time as well. I asked what was tabled and passed by this House for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

The facts are that the estimated deficit as passed by the House was $41,470,000 with revotes of $16,500 and lapses of $20 million, with a projected surplus totalling $25,879,000. Those were the figures tabled and passed by the House, March 31, 2002.

Now, the Finance minister wandered into the discussion of what was tabled and was actual, and that, well, they’re two different things. So, let’s just talk for a moment about the actuals. During the election campaign, the Auditor General’s report for 2001-02 became public. The projection that had been tabled in the House was for a surplus of $78,849,000. The Auditor General’s report became public in October, as was required, and it said, amazingly, that the surplus was exactly as it had been projected to be — $78 million.

Does the Premier agree that that was the surplus for 2002 as decreed by the Auditor General in October? Does he agree with that statement? That’s the one the Auditor General made.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, the Auditor General did the final accounting and came forward with what the surplus was at that time for the fiscal year ending 2001-02. We’re talking about a different fiscal year now and the Auditor General hasn’t done the final accounting.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m aware that the Auditor General hasn’t done the final accounting, but what we have established so far this afternoon is that the deficit tabled by the Liberal budget was $41,470,000, and that the surplus — after the revotes and lapses — was $25,879,000. On March 31, 2002, that was what the projection was.

We’ve established that the surplus, when the Auditor General was done with the books on our first budget, was exactly what we said it would be — exactly. So let’s move forward. There was a sessional paper tabled — the Finance minister’s former seatmate tabled a sessional paper, and that sessional paper was tabled on June 12, 2000. What he did was table a sessional paper that was a confidential document, which was the Government of Yukon financial position, unconsolidated.

Now up to that time, no one — except those who had been a Cabinet minister — had ever seen a document like this, and it became a sessional paper. It is a document that goes to the Cabinet ministers, and it tells exactly what the surplus is that month, at that given point of the Cabinet meeting or Management Board meeting. He tabled this document, and it stated a surplus, and he had handwritten in a number of items on it as to when the government started, so on and so forth.

The practice in this House had been to only table what the amount the surplus was when the budget documents were tabled.

That fact was changed with the tabling of this sessional paper.

So I am going to ask the Finance minister — he was very close to the member who tabled this paper —what is the surplus today? What is the surplus as of the last Management Board meeting?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, until we have the completed period 12 variances, we are probably close to what was projected previous to that.

As far as a sessional paper, I am not sure what the member is talking about. The member should probably table it because it’s not something that we’ve looked at in the last few months.

What we have really established is that the former Liberal government dramatically increased spending in the Yukon. Regardless of what the surplus was or wasn’t, the facts are that they increased spending by some $33 million in 2001-02. In 2002-03, they increased spending by some $40 million. So, in two years, they increased the spending of government by some $73 million. Whatever the surplus or deficit was at any of those times, it is a dramatic increase in spending and that is what we have established.

Ms. Duncan:   No, Mr. Chair, we haven’t. What we are talking about is that the member has repeatedly stood on his feet and said that the previous government spent all the money. I would encourage the member, without sounding too sharp, to focus.

What we are talking about is the surplus. What we have established is, without a doubt — the Auditor General confirmed that the surplus was what the Liberals said it was going to be under our first budget. So when we said the surplus was going to be $78 million, it was $78 million. The Auditor General confirmed it. So let’s focus on the surplus.

The sessional paper I’m referring to is a document that was tabled by the former Member for Faro, and the document was the Government of Yukon Financial Position Unconsolidated. It is an Executive Council Office document. It shouldn’t have been tabled in the House, but it was, and it is now a sessional paper. It’s a sessional paper that was tabled in the House, so it became a public document. The public document is a report that goes to every Management Board. It’s the same format. It’s exactly the same. It just has a different date on it. In it, there’s a line that says, "This is what we published for accumulated surplus. This is what the annual deficit is. This is what the estimated annual deficit is. This is the estimated annual surplus." And there’s an estimated accumulated surplus.

Now, I’m asking the Finance minister — he says he won’t tell me what’s in the current document because they haven’t had all the variances in. The last one of these that I would have seen would have been October, because we didn’t call Management Board meetings; we didn’t spend any money during an election period. It wasn’t our job. A special warrant is a Cabinet document and was dealt with. That was the last item. So upon taking office, the Finance minister would have received one of these. I’m asking him a very straightforward question: what did the document say in the estimated accumulated surplus when he took office? What was the figure?

Now, lest anyone think that I’m breaking or that there’s some kind of Cabinet confidentiality to the estimated accumulated surplus, the Government of Canada does this all the time. The Finance minister stands and says, "The surplus today is…. da dut da da." Our Finance minister says there’s no need to access this information, they’re an open and accountable government, "Come on up for coffee," he says, "just ask me." So I’m just asking.

What was the surplus when he took office?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First off, Mr. Chair, I would wonder if we’re debating the fiscal year’s budget of 2003-04 or something the member opposite is trying to claim from budgets past. That’s a question I would have for the member opposite.

Frankly, when we sat down with the opposition parties, we presented to them the fiscal projections, handed them to them in document form. I don’t know what the member did with her copy, but I think that reflects the fiscal position the government was in when we, the newly elected government, took office. As far as anything else, the projections are laid out in her budget, the 2002-03 budget, and the projection for our 2003-04 budget is laid out. If she wants to know the exact accumulated surplus ending period 12, we will get the Auditor General to do that, and I’m sure he will, but the projections don’t change. They show approximately some $17,631,000 and that’s less the census reserve fund, so there’s not much that has changed.

Ms. Duncan:   Good try. The Finance minister knows very well that he received a document that would have given him the estimated accumulated surplus as of March 31, 2002 when he took office — and not at the swearing-in. He would have received that before then, in the briefing during the transition.

In any event, he received it and it had an estimated accumulated surplus on it. The estimated accumulated surplus tabled by our government was in excess of $25 million. That represents the spending decisions for which our government had responsibility.

That was the surplus that was there when it was tabled in this House. That was the estimated surplus. Now the Premier won’t confirm that that was the estimated surplus when he took office. So we’re going to take it for a fact that that was the minimum in the estimated accumulated surplus. There are also revotes in a few other things.

The fact is that the Finance minister won’t prove his argument. He continually states that that terrible Liberal government spent all the money, but he won’t prove it. He won’t tell the House and he won’t tell the public what the surplus was when he took office. So let me give him another opportunity.

It was not made public in the papers, in the documents the member produced for the opposition, because the members didn’t produce this document for the opposition. The members didn’t produce this type of a sessional paper. The members produced their own version with changed forecasts and without lapses, and we’ll be going to that point in a moment.

Will the Premier fully outline precisely what the figure was in the estimated accumulated surplus when he took office in November? Will he tell the House that figure?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We made those numbers available, and not only to the opposition. We had a press conference and provided numbers to the news media. The member is going on and on about some sort of sessional paper. Well, that’s fine. Maybe the member should table it because we don’t have one here.

Furthermore, the member is stuck on this idea of their fiscal year spending and the fact that the Yukon Party government was sworn in on December 2, and that suddenly a large percentage of that fiscal year spending can be attributed to the Yukon Party decision making.

That’s not the case, Mr. Chair. We went through this debate at great length in debating the surplus. The issue is that there were a number of expenditures that already had money allocated.

What we did was add $5 million to that for the community development fund and FireSmart. Whether it’s a sessional paper or the Auditor General’s final accounting or if it’s the projected figures, the issue with that member is who spent what money in their fiscal year.

We have already stated on the floor of this House that we accept responsibility as the government, when bringing forward this supplementary, that those expenditures are in that supplementary and are brought forward here to be passed. Some of them were the former Liberal government’s direction in terms of spending; some of them were ours. Ours was, in total, $5 million.

Ms. Duncan:   We have spent an inordinate amount of time on the responsibility and the facts are clear, although the member opposite refuses to provide the information as to who approved what spending. The facts would be made abundantly clear.

We have even heard some of his ministers recognize yesterday that the Liberals did have a capital budget prepared and ready to go — something that he wasn’t prepared to admit earlier.

I am going to send over this sessional paper so that the minister knows, and it will become abundantly clear and immediately familiar to him as a document that he receives regularly as the Finance minister.

I would like to ask the page to take this over to the Finance minister and ask him to return it.

It’s not a document — I am not tabling this document. I recognize it for what it is. I also recognize that it has been previously tabled in this House — a sample of this — therefore, the precedent has been set for someone — the Finance minister — to stand up and state what the accumulated surplus is as of the date they took office. All I am asking from a Premier and a Finance minister who promised Yukoners openness, accountability, and there are a number of C words — collaborate, cooperative, consultative — to be open and frank. Tell Yukoners what the figure was when he took office. Tell Yukoners the figure as of November 4.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, we did. Upon taking office, we made those figures very public. But the member opposite, if she wants to continue with a practice that she says happened under a former government, then I would suggest the member opposite table her sessional paper from the period leading up to when we took office on December 2.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I’ve said that tabling the document and filing the sessional paper was wrong. The precedent was set for revealing the information. I’m asking about the information. I can’t; I didn’t take that document. That’s a confidential Cabinet document. It goes to the archives. I, and all members, became aware of the existence of documents like that because it was tabled in a sessional document. I’m asking for the information.

And the member opposite is wrong. That information was not provided, because the information that was provided to the media was provided without the discussions around net lapses.

Now, Mr. Chair, we’ve established that the Premier, although he promised consultation and collaboration and to be forthcoming with information, is not. We’ve established that when the Liberals left office, the deficit was, according to the documents tabled in the House, $41,470,000. The accumulated surplus estimated was in excess of $25 million. That’s what we were living with. That’s what the public understood — that we had a surplus in excess of $25 million. Now the Premier won’t tell us. He says, "Oh, the Liberals spent all the money," but he won’t tell us what the surplus was when he took office. He won’t state it on the floor of this House. It has been done before. Why won’t he tell us?

The precedent has been set. I’m not asking for the document to be tabled, because I know that it’s a Cabinet document. I’m asking the member to tell the public, because the public has had the information before; tell the public now. What was the surplus when they took office? And he says he has told the media what that line would be.

Well, say again what it is. He should have no trouble tabling it now, no trouble providing that information now. It should be on the top of his head. If he’s going to maintain his argument that all the money was spent, that only $5 million of this $56-million deficit budget is his — show us. Tell us the number; tell us the surplus number that was on the books when the Finance minister took office.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, the member opposite makes the claim that we’ve established a number of things here and, frankly, we’ve established a sensitivity in that member opposite to what happened under their short reign in government. As far as the financial position of the government when we took office, we presented that position to the opposition in good faith — all the documentation — and we presented that documentation to the media. The numbers were all there and, Mr. Chair, this is a needless debate. The member is just trying to discredit this side of the House for no reason whatsoever. The numbers have all been provided, not only to her and the official opposition, but to the public.

Ms. Duncan:   Okay, Mr. Chair, let’s keep it really simple and focused. What is the surplus today — April 8? What is the surplus today?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We don’t do the surplus on a day-to-day basis, Mr. Chair. We do variance reports period by period, but I’ve already stated on the floor of the Legislature that the surplus is some $17,631,000 less the census reserve fund.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, just so the Premier has it clear and the record is clear, it may not do a surplus day to day but it has been clearly shown in this House that the amount that’s in the surplus is received on a regular basis by Management Board. He won’t give me the surplus as of April 8, and the March 31 figures will be confirmed by the Auditor General, so we’ll wait for those March 31 figures. I asked what the surplus was today; he said he doesn’t have it and gave me a figure of $17 million less the census reserve. He refuses to provide the figure for what the surplus was when he took office.

I would ask the Premier to perhaps review — not perhaps. Would the Premier please review the Blues, review the sessional paper and provide the information I have requested, which is: what was the surplus when they took office and what was the surplus today, or at the most recent Management Board meeting? If they meet on Wednesday or Thursday, April 9 or 10, I’ll take either one of those dates. If he would just provide that by legislative return, I would appreciate it. It is not a state secret. The surplus amount can be released. Other governments have done it on specific dates, so I’m asking for the surplus on those specific dates.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I have provided the member opposite with the surplus, the projected number, net the census dollar value that we have in reserve. And the member opposite should well know that, to achieve any constructive form of debate here, the next step now is to have the Auditor General do the final accounting so that we have the exact surplus figure fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

That would benefit greatly this debate. And then from that point on we’ll deal with the situation we are in fiscally. Our projections are very clear in the budget, where the surplus is at, and we’ve tabled the third largest budget. So it’s not a question of needing to provide any detail. We’ve provided what we have — the projected figures. When the final accounting comes in, we’ll provide that member the exact figures as the Auditor General sees it.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, the Auditor General reports to the whole House, not just the member. The facts of the matter are that the estimated accumulated surplus, according to us, is in excess of $25 million, and when the Auditor General reports, she will either confirm that figure or the Premier’s figure of $17 million less the census reserve. The contingency reserve was taken out of the $25 million, so $25 million after the contingency reserve, so the minister has substantially reduced the surplus.

Now, in the interests of constructive debate — and I notice that when the differences in the minister’s number are pointed out that the debate tends to be reduced somewhat — given that we’re not going to get this information from the Minister of Finance, I’d like to move on to a couple of other specific questions about the financial figures that have been provided by the minister; namely, would he please indicate when the opposition might receive the information with respect to job creation and community distribution? That has not been provided, although it is standard practice to provide it well in advance of the budget.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, again, let me point out that we have provided the projected figures for the member opposite, though she may not like them — some $17 million, net, the census reserve. I think the member opposite is missing a very important point here. It’s about the trajectory of spending that could not be sustained in this territory. That’s evident in the way the surplus was dropping. The surplus was at some $78 million one year prior to the last fiscal year.

Today we are looking at a projected figure subsequent to that former Liberal government spending of some $17 million. That tells you something. The trajectory of spending was way out of line with our ability to sustain that spending. As far as the community breakdown and those types of figures, we will provide that information to the member in the immediate future.

I think we have them now developed, and we will provide them to the House.

Ms. Duncan:   I look forward to that immediate future. Hopefully that, in this case, means this week and not in this mandate. We have seen the definition of "immediately" be a little fast and loose, so I would hope that that would be this week.

The minister was talking about differences. I would really like the minister to explain why in the previous projections and previous supplementaries delivered in this House and in the budget documents delivered — there were revotes and there were also lapses. The lapses at year-end in this supplementary tabled by that Finance minister are $11 million. The lapses in the original budget document were $29 million. How did they get reduced by $18 million?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, the member is dealing with estimates and, as the fiscal year evolved, the estimates changed. What was becoming evident was there were fewer lapses available versus what the original estimates were. I point out to the member opposite that this kind of debate is usually dramatically changed when the Auditor General brings in his final accounting. That’s why the Auditor General does his work, Mr. Chair.

Furthermore, the member’s statement that "this government is fast and loose" is unacceptable. This government commits to providing information, and we do so. The member opposite, though, because she asks at five to 3:00 in the afternoon and expects that same information to be provided at 10 after 3:00 that same afternoon, is going a little beyond a reasonable acceptance of what’s required to put together information and bring it to the member opposite.

There’s no hesitancy on our part to provide information, Mr. Chair — none whatsoever — and we’ve done so daily in this House and will continue to do that.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, I urge the Finance minister to just take a deep breath and calm down. First of all, I asked for the information when I received the budget documents in the budget lock-up, February 27. I think it’s reasonable to have expected them by April 8. That’s reasonable.

So my reference was not to the government playing fast and loose; it was the definition of the word "immediately". The member has varying versions of what "immediately" is. For example, to "immediately" restore the CDF and FireSmart money meant several months into the mandate, and maybe next mandate, in his speech to the Chamber, and "immediately" means that providing information is a month and a bit away.

The facts are what the facts are.

Now, I know the Finance minister finds it uncomfortable as I’m leading him through these figures. However, the Finance minister has also stood on his feet and made several disparaging remarks about the previous government’s ability to manage the finances. So, in fairness, I’d like to talk about the facts of the matter. I’d like to talk about the numbers. That’s what general debate in the budget is about as well — to talk about the numbers.

The facts of the matter are that the deficit under our watch was $41 million, and the projected surplus was in excess of $25 million. Now the minister has taken office. He’s saying the projected surplus is $17 million. There’s a difference there. There’s also a difference in the lapses. He has given different figures than what I had given as Finance minister. He has to explain them, and he has to be accountable for them.

Now, the facts are that he won’t provide the figure for the surplus when he took office, and he has only provided the surplus as per the budget documents. Well, I’ll live with the second; I won’t live with the first. I would like that figure provided.

Moving on, I asked why there was a difference in lapses. There is $18 million that is not accounted for between March 31 and November 4, 2002 — $18 million. Changes in estimates at year-end — well, what changed? The minister really ought to provide a little more detail than "estimates changed". So, $29 million was too high — how did they arrive at $11 million? That’s one question: how did the Minister of Finance arrive at $11 million? That’s an $18-million difference. That’s a lot of money.

The other point is that the revotes are left off the supplementary information. Why are the revotes not there?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, the information as regards the lapsed funds is based on the survey. I don’t provide the number. The Department of Finance does a survey, department by department, engaging them to find out what their estimates for lapses will be, and those things change over the course of a year. Considering that the member does not want to deal with the budget tabled before us — the budget we’re supposed to be debating here in Committee of the Whole — and wants to debate the surplus now, we’ll go dig up the surplus, and I move that we have a short break.

Chair:   Do members wish a recess of 15 minutes?

Some Hon. Member:   Ten minutes. Agreed.

Chair:   A 10-minute recess.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will come to order.

We will continue on with general debate on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Getting back to the issue we were discussing with the member opposite before the break and the difference between the estimated lapses in the 2002-03 budget and the estimated lapses as to the surplus and the revotes. We can probably attribute a great deal of that to the fact that the money was revoted and comes out of the total overall estimated lapse from the original budget and shows up now in the surplus in that amount, which would — again this is an estimate — show $11 million in lapses for fiscal year-end.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m sorry, Mr. Chair. I thought the minister called for a break so he could go upstairs and get me the two figures for the surplus — the November 4 figure and the April 8 figure.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The facts are that we’re dealing with fiscal budget 2003-04. We’ve just spent a great deal of time with the member opposite on previous budgets that have passed this House and been debated. We have provided the member the surplus figure. The member wants exact figures from whatever period they may be in. We consider that irrelevant to the debate. It has no place in this debate on a fiscal budget for the next year, 2003-04, which we are in, by the way. It commenced April 1. The member has all the availability of those numbers when the Auditor General concludes the final accounting and provides the exact numbers for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

Ms. Duncan:   No, Mr. Chair, I don’t. The member thought it was intensely humorous when his former colleague tabled that information in the House when I was the Finance minister. I’m just asking the Finance minister — because he promised collaboration and consultation and openness — for the same information. The Auditor General will not provide a figure of the estimated surplus as of November 4. The Auditor General will confirm the figures at year-end. She will provide that information to the entire House. Turnabout is fair play, I believe is the expression. So all is fair in seeking the same information. I just asked for a figure. It is very relevant to the debate. Will the Premier provide me with the figure for the estimated surplus as of — call it November 1. Will the Premier provide me with that figure? It’s a yes or no. If he says yes, I’ll take it by legislative return. I just would like the figure, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, considering the fact that some member in the past in this House provided a document that may or may not have been relevant to the debate is by no means an issue that should dictate the government to follow suit. I can’t be responsible for what former members have done in this House. We have provided this member all the information we have in terms of the estimates and the projections, and the final accounting will be done by the Auditor General. If that is not sufficient, there is not much I can do to help the member opposite.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, that’s really unfortunate. It’s not consultative, it’s not collaborative, it’s not living up to their word, and it’s not living up to practice in other jurisdictions. The Government of Canada provides that surplus figure all the time. Had I been asked, I would have done it.

I’m not going to belabour the point. The minister refuses to provide the surplus figure as of November 4. He refuses to provide it.

The minister has given an explanation for the difference in lapses and has given a statement as to no revotes. Would the minister confirm for the record the precise amount of the transfer for devolution, both O&M? I believe it’s $37 million or $36 million. Would he confirm the figure and the amount agreed upon for capital in devolution? What are the two figures that are being transferred?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have not, I have not, this government has not refused to provide the information the member seeks. In fact, we did it very openly upon taking office. But if that member is so concerned about those figures, why doesn’t the member just go and look at her own figures that are available to her? The member was responsible during the period of time that would dictate what those numbers were. We provided those numbers, not only to the opposition but to the public, upon taking office.

As far as the devolution figures, it’s coming to Management Board, and the approximates are somewhere around $38 million and $10 million.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I’m not going to argue the point with the member previously. The member has given the figures of $38 million in operation and maintenance and $10 million in capital. Those figures are not reflected in the 2002-03 projections of money from Ottawa — correct?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   No, they are not reflected because we stated already on the floor of this House that there was a final accounting that needs to be done from the federal government side, which is fiscal year-end March 31, 2003. I have provided the member the approximates and that is what they are — some $37,129,000 and some $10,023,000.

Ms. Duncan:   There was a $4.5-million primary health care fund transfer from Ottawa announced on March 3 — it was announced by the Health minister on March 3. Is this figure included in the 2002-03 budget?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, as is the $20-million fund that we just negotiated a three-year term on, so too is the $4.5-million primary health fund. It’s new money and it’s not reflected in this budget. In fact, it hasn’t even arrived yet from Ottawa. Once it is, we will determine when and how to book it.

Ms. Duncan:   So the $4.5 million was a subject of a press release and a banner waving, but it wasn’t booked in the budget. And the $20 million isn’t booked in the budget.

The $12 million, as I understand it, with the health care discussions with Ottawa — there is a $12-million base amount, for lack of a better word, that all the provinces are getting and then there is the $20 million over and above that that the three territories are getting.

There are great discussions going on between the Finance minister and officials and the Health minister. Would the Finance minister exactly outline the health transfers and reconfirm that, no, they are not booked — just those specific items? We can move debate along if we answer the question specifically.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   They’re not booked