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

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

Tributes.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a very special group of Yukon employees. Professional assistants are crucial to the smooth operation of any office. They are called upon to keep offices running efficiently, coordinate work calendars and schedules, deal with inquiries and requests from other governments and agencies, private businesses and the public, write letters, take minutes, keep filing systems up to date, arrange office functions, and many, many other tasks.

I can’t imagine any organization functioning without them. They are the glue that holds organizations together. From my experience, they carry out their work within tight and sometimes close-to-impossible time frames and do so with professionalism, dignity and good humour. Yet for all that they do, many of them don’t often get the thanks and the credit they deserve.

I urge my fellow MLAs to take the time today to say thank you for a job well done. I’d like to take this opportunity during Professional Assistants Week to extend my personal thanks. I’d particularly like to express my gratitude to my own staff, who have taken on the rather massive job of keeping my office running smoothly. I have relied on you heavily many times, and you have always come through with flying colours. Your dedication and energy is an inspiration to all of us.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today to recognize this week, April 20 to April 27, as National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. Last year in Canada, more than 100 people died while waiting for an organ transplant that never came. In the Yukon, we are aware of several individuals who are waiting for life-saving or life-enhancing transplants. The demand for organ transplants continues to outstrip the supply and, with more people reaching end-stage organ failure, the need for organ transplants continues to increase.

The Yukon’s organ donor registry was introduced in 2000. This registry gives individuals the opportunity to be a donor. Yukon donors will have their gift indicated on their health care insurance card.

I can’t stress enough how important it is to register because it ensures that a person’s decision is recorded and saves the family from making a difficult decision at a very traumatic time.

Yukon residents have been very generous. Approximately 15 percent of Yukoners have registered to be donors with some 4,200 indicating their desire to give the gift of life.

Realistically, it is far more likely that we will receive an organ or tissue donation than it is that we will ever become a donor. We as individuals, our families, our friends may be in need one day. A sudden virus could affect the heart; liver disease could strike. Becoming a donor could save a life, just as other donors could save ours.

I encourage all Yukoners in this House and beyond to seriously consider becoming an organ donor and possibly giving the gift of life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I rise to mark the opening day of Yukon Writers Festival. The Yukon Writers Festival brings Yukon people together with visiting writers to celebrate community writing and the joy of reading. It is a joint production of government, national and local arts organizations and local businesses. The major partners are Yukon public libraries, public school branch, Nakai Theatre, the Yukon News, and the Out of Service magazine. I’d also like to recognize the Canada Council for the Arts, Writers Union of Canada, Canadian Playwright Guild, Air North, the arts branch, Westmark Whitehorse, Mac’s Fireweed Books, and the Riverview Hotel for their generous contributions and assistance in support of the Writers Festival.

All the festival events are free or at minimal charge and are open to all the public.

The library is hosting a reading and reception tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitehorse Public Library. Community Services is also hosting community readings at Watson Lake library next Tuesday, April 29, at 7:00 p.m. and at the Teslin library next Wednesday, April 30, at 6:00 p.m. Other events include the poetry slam on Friday, April 25, and the literary cabaret on Saturday, both at 8:00 p.m. at the Backwater Lounge.

I’d also like to mention the young authors conference tomorrow and Friday during school hours at F.H. Collins for high school students from Whitehorse and the communities.

As a government, we are happy to help make the Yukon Writers Festival possible as part of our commitment to reading and Canadian literature. I encourage all Yukoners to participate in this year’s festival.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Yukon Legislature, I rise today to pay tribute to a long-time Yukoner who left us last year. Giovanni Castellarin was born on September 18, 1931, in San Giovanni di Casarsa, Italy, which is near Trieste in northern Italy. He grew up in quite an extended family, took up the carpentry trade and served in the Italian military before the call of Canada beckoned him. He immigrated in 1951, landing in Halifax. He then moved on to Montreal, Toronto and finally Vancouver, where he stayed with one of the Braga uncles, and he went to work for a construction company there. In 1952, Joe moved to the Yukon. He worked in Keno and Elsa.

Since the days of the Klondike Gold Rush, the historical piece of ground at the intersection of the Klondike and Yukon rivers has attracted some very unique individuals who have stood out from the many thousands who have come and gone over the decades. These are the people who, through their deeds or actions, have made their mark and helped shape the history of Dawson and our territory. Joe arrived in the Klondike capital and went to work for the Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation on the dredges. He then moved on to working at the hospital for the Sisters of St. Anne’s. It was during this time that he met Betty Schumacher, whom he married in 1959. Their union produced two children, Sandra and Mark.

With Joe’s background as a carpenter, he taught woodworking at Robert Service School, worked on many projects around Dawson and went on to become the project manager for Parks Canada. With two partners, Jack Cruden and Jim Bierlmeier, Joe started Triple J Cabins, which has evolved into the Triple J Hotel of today.

Italy’s gift to the Yukon, Giovanni Castellarin, was one of those unique individuals the Klondike has become so famous for. Joe served on the Dawson City council, Dawson City Museum, the Dawson City Curling Club, the Tourism Industry Association of the Yukon and its predecessor, the YVA, which he was president of, the Yukon Tourism Marketing Council, the Centennial Society, St. Mary’s Church, the Yukon Order of Pioneers, the World Gold Panning Committee and the annual Yukon Gold Panning Championships Committee, but where he devoted a tremendous amount of his time and effort was to the Klondike Visitors Association.

Now, in many parts of the world when you refer to an individual of Italian background as "the godfather", it has many connotations. Joe became known as the godfather of tourism here in the Yukon out of respect and admiration for having been one of the driving forces that created our visitor industry. He was there in the beginning as a founding member of the Klondike Visitors Association. He was there in its subsequent years to supply insight and guidance. He was the longest serving chairman that the Klondike Visitors Association has ever had. The KVA is what it is today because of Joe Castellarin. The legend of Giovanni is all around us. Dawson City and the Yukon are much richer because of him, and we all remain forever in his debt. He is a mentor to many of us.

We often refer to people who make contributions above and beyond the call of duty as being pillars of our community. In order to do justice to Giovanni’s contributions, we would have to encase all of the pillars in concrete and call Joe the complete foundation. Joe meant different things to different people but, in the words of his daughter, he was simply someone the family loved dearly and will miss terribly.

While Giovanni has left us, he also remains with us. Everyone who had the privilege of knowing Joe has their own special memories of him. These memories remain and will help temper our loss, for he will always be with us. Our condolences go out to Joe’s wife Betty and his family.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   On behalf of the official opposition, I also rise to pay tribute to Giovanni Castellarin. His contributions to the life of Dawson City and to the tourism industry in the Yukon are truly the stuff of legend.

Although I did not have the opportunity to meet Mr. Castellarin, I know that one of the highlights of this weekend’s TIAY convention in Watson Lake will be the stories that people will share about him and his uncanny ability to be at the right place at the right time with the right skills or the right words of wisdom and humour.

Our thoughts and best wishes go out to his family and to his many, many friends in Dawson and throughout the Yukon and Alaska.

Ms. Duncan:   I, too, rise in tribute to Giovanni Castellarin.

Yukoners throughout the territory, especially those involved in the tourism industry, counted on Joe as a personal friend. His advice was fair and frank and he was much appreciated by many, including me. His warmth and generous spirit are sorely missed and fondly remembered.

I join with others in the House in offering our condolences to his family.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I also rise in tribute today to Canada Book Week, April 21 to 27.

Every Yukoner’s favourite bookstore, Mac’s, with their branch in Dawson City, Maximilian’s, is celebrating Canada Book Week with an excellent display of Canadian literature.

Our schools are celebrating Canada Book Week in a variety of ways, and I would like to pay special tribute to Brenda Morrison and the students at Jack Hulland School. Their theme for Canada Book Week is "Plant a Seed — Read". It ties in wonderfully with readers of all ages and with spring in the Yukon.

The Minister of Education has read at Jack Hulland, as has our Member of Parliament, Larry Bagnell, and I look forward to Friday, when I will have the pleasure of reading to the students.

One of the starting skills to readers is, of course, the alphabet. I would like to also acknowledge today the work of Michael Brooks and the Alphabet Bears. Their encouragement with music and song for the very young to learn the alphabet, vowels and literacy is an excellent Yukon product.

I would highly recommend, as a parent, the tapes and the CDs; especially as Yukoners, we find ourselves travelling highways at great length with our children, and these are excellent tools for learning the alphabet and for encouraging literacy.

During Canada Book Week, I encourage Yukoners of all ages to read.

Speaker:   Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I rise to table a legislative return regarding the Canadian strategic infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund and the infrastructure Canada program.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table a legislative return with regard to the winter works project, identifying the applicants who were successful in obtaining funding as well as the amount being requested and approved.

Speaker:   Are there any further 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?

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

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is currently a worldwide health problem with serious consequences for the global economy;

(2) SARS originated in the Guandong Province of China on November 16, 2002, and subsequently spread to Hong Kong, Singapore and Hanoi before travellers carried the infection to Toronto, Canada; and

(3) the SARS infection is now spreading within Canada beyond the Toronto area with probable or potential cases being reported in British Columbia and possibly Nunavut; and

THAT this House urges the federal Minister of Health, the Hon. Anne McLellan, to play a lead role by working in cooperation with provincial and territorial ministers of health to implement stringent health measures to combat the further spread of the SARS infection.

Mr. Cathers:   I rise to give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Dawson City Airport normally has the second highest level of air traffic in the Yukon;

(2) the Government of Canada had the responsibility to ensure that the Dawson City Airport was brought up to proper standards prior to its transfer to the Government of Yukon;

(3) the Government of Canada has invested $4 million to begin upgrading the Dawson City Airport to meet the requirements of a fully modern airport to serve the Yukon, and specifically the Klondike region; and

(4) an additional $4 million is needed to pave the runway and bring the airport to modern standards; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to meet its obligations by providing an immediate transfer of the $4 million required to fully upgrade and pave the Dawson City Airport.

Speaker:   Are there further notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) many aboriginal students suffered abuse in the residential schools established by the Government of Canada in northern Canada;

(2) the Government of Canada has accepted its responsibility for the impacts on the students of these schools by the establishment of a $350-million healing fund;

(3) although this fund is much appreciated, the abuse these students suffered has resulted in their inability to provide good parenting to their children; and

(4) this results in their children and grandchildren experiencing more incidents of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, alcoholism, drug abuse and lagging behind their non-aboriginal peers in their school careers; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to work with First Nation governments, provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal groups to develop the programs and funding needed to improve the health, social and educational conditions of the children and grandchildren of residential school students.

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

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) issues affecting the health and well-being of children cross the boundaries of various government departments; and

(2) the root causes of issues such as children in care, early childhood intervention and FASD are best addressed by coordinating the services of all departments involved; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to coordinate the services of the Department of Health and Social Services, the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Youth Directorate and the Women’s Directorate to best help children in need.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT Craig Tuton, chair of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, president and chief executive officer of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 24, 2003, to discuss matters relating to the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT Lorne Austring, chair of the Yukon Development Corporation, and Duncan Sinclair, chief executive officer of the Yukon Development Corporation, appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 28, 2003, to discuss matters related to the Yukon Development Corporation.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Many daycares and family day homes are in violation of the Yukon childcare regulations. They are supposed to have trained staff but they don’t have them. At least 35 percent of childcare workers are untrained. They are hiring workers who have little knowledge of how to care for children in an institution that this government is funding, and it’s frightening to me, Mr. Speaker, that my children are being cared for by someone who doesn’t have the proper training.

The Yukon Child Care Association has been asking for training money for awhile now. Will the minister tell us what plans he has for assisting childcare workers to obtain the training that is called for in his own regulations?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We do have an issue and that’s why our government is undertaking the review that we have underway. We have initially addressed the short-term funding shortfall in the direct operating grants by providing $230,000 of additional funding to the daycare and day home operators. They are making the determination as to how these funds will flow to the workers in the system. Further to that, we are involved in a process extending over the next six months that will conclude with additional funding flowing to these initiatives, in a manner that’s yet to be determined, to address this need.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, $5 million is being put into childcare here in the Yukon. It is one of the highest — if not the highest — per capita amounts going to children in day homes and daycares of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, by the sounds of the minister’s answers, it appears that everything is okay in the Yukon Territory. So why are we having the problems? We’re asking for the plans; lay out the plans. People want clear answers from this minister. An educational assistant working in the schools is paid twice as much as a childcare worker. Even when trained workers are available, childcare facilities have to hire untrained staff because they can’t afford to hire the qualified staff. Even people who are trained are receiving less than they do in other jurisdictions. When can daycares and family day homes expect to receive adequate funding from this minister to pay their staff so that our children can be safe and cared for in a proper way?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, I’m very, very disconcerted, Mr. Speaker, with the issue that the children are not being properly cared for now. That’s simply not the case.

We can improve on the system as it currently exists. That’s what we’re doing. I’ve already indicated on many, many occasions in this House, Mr. Speaker, that our government has committed another $230,000. The determination as to how this money is going to flow is to be made by the daycare and the day home operators. That’s a given.

Now, we have underway simultaneously a review, and at the end of that period of time that will probably end up with more funds flowing to this initiative. But currently, if you look at just over 800 children in daycare and day homes here in the Yukon and the over $5 million that is being expended by our government and that has been increased by $230,000 directly, that is one of the highest levels of support for daycare and day homes of any jurisdiction in Canada. And we as a government are going to be improving on that.

Mr. Fairclough:   Again, it appears that everything is fine. But let’s look at it a little more carefully, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the minister has put up $230,000 to begin to look at this problem. But the childcare workers started this budget year with a reduction of $160,000. That’s from the previous year. This means that they are only receiving $70,000 from this minister.

Now, there is a committee that is looking into how to get the money directly to childcare workers. That’s great, but the minister knows what to do. This has been talked about before. There is a crisis and we shouldn’t be playing around with children’s lives. I know the minister thinks that there isn’t a problem, but there is and that’s why we are bringing it up.

When we look at the recoveries in the department — $240,000 from the federal government for the Yukon child benefit. This minister could use this money to begin with.

Will the minister commit to immediately increasing the direct operating grant to daycares and family day homes, as the Yukon Party government promised during the election campaign?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That’s exactly what we are doing.

Now, the spin that the member opposite has put on this is that there has been a reduction of $160,000. That is simply incorrect. What has happened is that the flow of funds go two ways: the direct operating grant and the support. Now, the support uptake is not what it has been because of the deplorable state of the economy and the exodus of individuals from the Yukon caused by the previous two governments — the Liberal government and the NDP government.

Now, at the end of the period of time, our government is going to have in place a complete review of the programs and funding flowing to the day home and daycare operators, that will ensure that the needs are met.

Currently we have committed to an additional $230,000. The exercise is to get that money to the workers and for their training. That is why we have gone to the day home operators and the daycare operators and said, "Help us. You make the determination as to how best to flow these funds so that they end up for the purpose intended." That is exactly what we are doing, but our commitment now is for over $5 million.

Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the Premier. In January, the Government of the Northwest Territories issued a paper titled, "Toward an Energy Strategy for the N.W.T." That paper includes an endorsement of an over-the-top pipeline route from Alaska to the top end of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

Since that time, the Premier has signed a cooperation accord with the N.W.T. government on many issues, including pipelines. During the development of that accord, did the Premier advise the Premier of the Northwest Territories that the Yukon opposes an over-the-top route, or does the Premier now support that option too?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, in our dealings with the Northwest Territories government, we’ve made it very clear, not simply advised — made it crystal clear — that the Yukon will never support an over-the-top route. Furthermore, it must be said that the debate on the pipeline and the issue of the over-the-top route was generated by an ill-advised policy in dealing with these pipelines.

We must recognize who ultimately makes the decision. It’s the producers. North of 60, we’d much rather have $23 billion of capital investment than $3 billion or maybe $20 billion. We want to see the overall access to resources, the development of those resources, the flow of those resources to the marketplace, which is south of us, benefit the Yukon on whichever side of the border they occur, and we are willing to work with the N.W.T. in that regard.

So what we’re saying is no to the over-the-top route. The Northwest Territories government, in our discussions, are very clear on that and are taking steps themselves to address that issue, and we are willing to work with them, as they are with us, to maximize the benefits for north of 60 citizens on both projects.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, the N.W.T. energy strategy paper is very clear. It says that there are tremendous benefits to both Alaska and the Northwest Territories by having the over-the-top pipeline built to connect the reserves in both areas. There’s no mention about the Yukon, either in terms of benefits or in terms of the seriousness of a proposed pipeline under the Beaufort Sea.

The Yukon Party platform talks about securing access to the Beaufort. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is gung-ho on access corridors, including a study that shows an access corridor to the Beaufort Sea. We need to know exactly where this government stands in order to promote his vision of the pan-northern cooperation and jobs for Yukoners in the N.W.T. Is this Premier planning to dismiss Yukon concerns about an over-the-top pipeline route, or will he tell the N.W.T. government that the Yukon is against it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, that’s essentially the same question, and the answer is the same. It has been made crystal clear that the Yukon will never support an over-the-top route. It has also been evident in discussions that the N.W.T. is moving off this. The issue of over the top, for them, was generated by an ill-advised pipeline debate that no longer exists — not to mention the fact that the State of Alaska does not support an over-the-top route. The federal government does not support an over-the-top route. So essentially, Mr. Speaker, the over-the-top route is something that we will ensure, with the best efforts, that it will not happen.

We want to see maximized benefits for citizens north of 60. There is certainly every reason to focus in on the Alaska Highway pipeline. We do have the Yukon advantage in place. It’s an agreement between Washington and Ottawa. The Northern Pipeline Agency has done its work. I’m sure we’ll soon have the report on the status of the ANGTS agreement, and we are doing our work here in the Yukon in generating dialogue and discussions on how to put together a united front to ensure that the Alaska Highway route maintains a priority status with the producers, and we are also willing to share that with the N.W.T., as they are with us, should a Mackenzie line go, in terms of benefits accruing to Yukon citizens.

Mrs. Peter:   He still hasn’t answered my question.

All parties in this House are on record in support of protecting the Porcupine caribou herd. We’re on record against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now this Yukon Party government is caught in the middle with the U.S. administration pushing for development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the N.W.T. favouring a pipeline through the Beaufort.

What consultations has this Premier had with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Porcupine Caribou Management Board or the North Yukon Renewable Resource Council before signing that accord with a government that is promoting the benefits of an over-the-top pipeline?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, Mr. Speaker, it has been very clear by this government’s presentation publicly on our position when it comes to the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd on the over-the-top route. There’s no question of what our position is. It’s clear. As far as consultation with the Vuntut Gwitchin, it wasn’t that long ago I talked with the chief, who said clearly that the Vuntut Gwitchin want to maintain a leadership role. We offered whatever we can to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin in their endeavours to protect the Porcupine caribou herd. So, too, has the N.W.T. government, by the way, Mr. Speaker, who are in lockstep with the Yukon in the protection of that herd.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is an old issue that the official opposition has dragged up stemming from a previous pipeline debate that’s no longer in play.

Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. We do not support, and never will support, an over-the-top pipeline route, and we will continue to support fully the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd as we have in the past and continue to do today and into the future.

Ms. Duncan:   Yukoners are getting used to the sound of breaking promises from this government. We’re also getting used to a number of excuses for the broken promises. The latest excuse the government has pulled out is to say it cannot afford to keep its election promises because it has no money. For example, it says it can’t keep its promise to "ensure government spending on education, justice and health and social services is maintained."

Yesterday the Minister of the Environment said the government can’t keep a promise to buy the game farm because it has no money. The fact of the matter is the government does have money in the bank. My question for the Minister of Finance: how much money is in the bank today? What’s the surplus?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, we deal with projections. The surplus is clearly listed in the budget document before this House. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that’s the number we have to deal with until the final accounting comes in. The member opposite knows that full well, and I’d like to point out that this constant discussion about broken promises coming from the opposite bench — especially the third party — is simply not the case. We have not broken any promises. In fact, we’ve been very diligent in carrying out our commitments, whether they be in our First Nation relationship and the development of that relationship, in dealing with childcare and daycare homes, in dealing with establishing more productive relationships with other governments, like the N.W.T. and Alaska and Ottawa, the health care issue being a clear example of that. We are working and delivering on our commitments. Because it is a very ambitious agenda, all of them can’t be delivered in the first four months, but we intend to carry on delivering on those commitments, Mr. Speaker, and have every reason to do so, because that’s what the Yukon public wanted in the last election.

Ms. Duncan:   With all due respect, the minister didn’t answer the question. We have to ask: what’s the big secret? It’s normal practice across Canada to provide this type of information. Yukoners want to know what they have in the bank. Why is the minister denying that information?

The minister is not answering the question, because it would blow the excuse that the government is using to break election promises. It is very similar behaviour to what we’ve seen from previous Yukon Party governments. They told everybody that they had no money, and they had to roll back the wages of government workers. Of course, then we found out later that there had actually been a huge surplus of money the entire time.

I am asking the Finance minister once again: will he tell the public what the surplus is today? As minister, he gets a weekly update from his official. This money, after all, is the public’s money. It’s not the minister’s; it is the public’s money.

How much money is in the bank today?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such nonsense.

The budget documents show what the surplus is. As far as money in the bank, that is ever evolving — daily. The Yukon government, for the first time, had to reduce itself to paying borrowing charges because of a restriction in cash flow. That speaks volumes for the fiscal position that that member left this territory in through the massive spending of two years of Liberal government.

The budget shows that we have a surplus of just over $1 million. It’s also a fact that we are paying borrowing charges because of the limited cash reserves we have in place. We also will be dealing with a serious problem in the census adjustment because of some 3,000 people who have left this territory. We are dealing with a very difficult fiscal situation.

No matter what the third party may say, it is due to their fiscal mismanagement. We are the government that now will be fixing that fiscal mismanagement.

Ms. Duncan:   As Finance minister, I said to the Yukon public that there would be a $78-million surplus, and the Auditor General confirmed that. Also as Finance minister, I, encouraged by my colleagues in this House, set aside $15 million to deal with that census adjustment.

This government has $20,000 raises, has money for sole-source contracts, but it doesn’t have money to keep election promises. Will the minister tell the people of the territory what the surplus is today so they can decide for themselves whether the government can afford to keep its election promises?

I suspect that the Finance minister is sitting on a $40-million or $50-million surplus, and the government promised consensus, collaboration and cooperation with the opposition. It’s a simple question. I’d like the cooperation. How much money is in the bank today? What is the surplus today?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Maybe this is the problem that we face, Mr. Speaker. The member opposite can’t even ascertain the difference between money in the bank and a surplus. Frankly, when the member stands on the floor and says that the Auditor General clearly stated through the final accounting that there was a $78-million surplus, we agree because the Auditor General provided those figures. What the member conveniently ignored and didn’t state to the House and the public was that the Liberal government, in two years, increased spending by some $80 million — so much for the $78-million surplus.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I have stated that the surplus is just over $1 million. That’s what we have. I have stated that we have to resort to borrowing to meet cash requirements. For the first time ever, we’re paying borrowing charges to meet our daily cash requirements. That speaks volumes for the fiscal situation that the former Liberal government left this territory in. We are dealing with it. We have done so, in what I would say is an admirable way, by reducing spending gently, not by massive cuts, and we show through long-term projections that we are heading to balanced budgets so we don’t get into this situation again and are increasing the overall surplus on behalf of the Yukon taxpayer. That’s what they want, and that’s what we’re delivering on.

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to follow up with the Minister of the Department of Highways and Public Works on the $526,000 contract award for gravel crushing, announced last week. Apparently this is part of a $2-million project to resurface the Alaska Highway north of Beaver Creek toward the U.S. Customs station. People are wondering why this government has not said much about this project, other than to announce a gravel-crushing contract.

I’ve also heard that this project is only the first of what might be a three-year project, costing some $6 million. The minister needs to shed some light on what appears to be a major capital project. Can the minister tell us what he’s doing up there?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As the member opposite indicated, we are providing a gravel contract for the road in that particular area.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that doesn’t shed much light. Things are getting darker all the time.

Capital projects include reconstruction of highways, including resurfacing, yet this project was budgeted as a maintenance item. Can we connect the dots with what we learned yesterday, Mr. Speaker? I’m referring to the Yukon Party’s 7.3-percent cut to the highway maintenance budget, or $2.2 million, not counting the extra 20-percent spending in Klondike. Can the minister tell us why this project was quietly entered as a maintenance item? Was it to avoid criticism of what would have otherwise been a 14-percent cut to the highway maintenance budget?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There is no hidden agenda for this particular project. We are processing this contract in the normal process.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, many Yukoners are questioning this government’s priorities on highway spending. People are outraged at this government for stopping work on the Alaska Highway west of Champagne. This government is only completing the second year of a two-year cost-shared program with the federal government this year. Instead, the government has chosen to start an expensive new three-year project on the Teslin bridge. As a consequence of that decision, a dangerous 6-kilometre original section of Old Alaska Highway will be left sandwiched between the two upgraded, modern sections.

When the rubber hits the road, the spending priorities of this government are in question. Why did the minister decide to upgrade a low-priority area north of Beaver Creek instead of attending to the public’s priority by completing the section west of Champagne?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Just as a point of interest, the section of highway that he is referring to will be reviewed in next year’s budget. We will look at upgrading that particular section.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

We have learned that the number of patients in the Copper Ridge extended care facility has increased. The minister’s own budget estimates that it will operate this year at 98-percent capacity, but the number of caretakers has not increased. This means that some patients are not receiving basic care, staff are working 50-hour weeks trying to keep up, some patients go for 10 days without a bath. Is the minister aware that standards of care at the extended care facility at Copper Ridge are not being met?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   To the best of my knowledge, the level of care provided at Copper Ridge by our very capable staff meets the criteria.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to pay attention to this matter, because it’s important. The amount of money for family and children’s services, social services, health services, policy and planning and administration have cuts in this budget of up to 12 percent. And this is all happening at a time when this department is receiving over $36 million from the federal government over the next three years. That’s a lot of money, and a huge portion of that money is for health care, and the issue at Copper Ridge is a health care issue.

What is the minister’s plan to correct these problems at the extended care facility, and when will it happen? The minister doesn’t even know that there is a problem at this point. It’s an outrage. The minister has to pay attention.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Was there a question?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The plans are to operate the facility, Mr. Speaker, as the facility should be operated. It’s a brand new facility. There’s one wing that has yet to be opened. There’s a very high ratio of staff to residents. The department hasn’t brought anything to my attention that would give me cause for concern that we’re not meeting the guidelines for the care of our elders.

Mr. Speaker, the elders and the other individuals who are in that facility are, to the best of my knowledge, being well looked after. We have some of the best staff, some of the best facilities. I don’t know where the member opposite is coming from.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, it’s clear where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker. I am telling the minister that there is a problem and he should check into it. He hasn’t even committed to that. The minister, however, seems to have his own secret plans and he refuses to share them with the public — so much for being open and accountable.

Here is an opportunity for the minister to lay out his plans for people in his care. The minister had all kinds of plans for Macaulay Lodge, the Thomson Centre and Copper Ridge when he first got elected, and we would like to know where they are. Are the plans still in place? Have they fallen apart, or what? It’s a simple question. Now that the minister has had time to think about this for awhile, can he give us an update? All that I am asking for is to be updated — the questions are getting simpler, Mr. Speaker — on what his plans are for the Thomson Centre and Macaulay Lodge and how those plans affect Copper Ridge.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, for the member opposite’s information, due to the inability of the previous NDP government to control the construction project, we are faced at the Thomson Centre with spending probably approaching $2 million on renovations and repairs to that building. As to when they will be completed and what that will entail, we do not know.

The Macaulay Lodge will continue to be operated and there are approximately 30 residents there, but it has a capacity for 50. In addition to that, the Copper Ridge centre, a brand new facility, has opened. It is staffed to the level that is required for the capacity currently there. All of these areas are constantly being monitored by the capable staff within the department. But I will ask the department if there are any issues at Copper Ridge and if there are some problems there.

I am sure that, in the size of the organization that has the largest budget — the third highest budget ever in the Yukon government’s history, this current budget that has been tabled — and in the $142 million that is being expended in the Department of Health and Social Services, there are bound to be difficulties. But if there are, I will ascertain to uncover what they are. To date, I am not aware of any.

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

Clerk:   Motion No. 56, standing in the name of Ms. Duncan.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the third party

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order please. Would the members refrain from making extraneous comments while other members are speaking or while the Speaker is speaking, please. Please carry on.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I am personally disappointed that I have even had to call this motion. Under the business program that loaned this money to Yukoners, over 85 percent have paid it back. You should not need a policy to make people pay back what they owe. Many businesses have had and are having a very tough go. They still pay their suppliers and the banks. This situation is more difficult because it is taxpayers’ money, not banks’ money, and it should not have come to this.

To quote a famous Yukoners, Robert Service: "A promise made is a debt unpaid." There have been promises to pay, and there are still unpaid debts.

I will make brief comments on each specific point in the motion and then speak to the action item at the end.

First of all, the Government of Yukon has no one to blame but itself for the motion coming forward. If the government did what they said they would do, there would be no need for the motion. Very early in its mandate, the government publicly committed to come up with a new policy to deal with outstanding business loans. This has not happened.

Instead, the government has applied a new policy of loan collection to one group of people and another policy to Cabinet ministers. It’s because of this double standard created by the government that the motion is before us today.

Point 1 of the motion: two ministers owe large sums of money to the Yukon taxpayer because they have not paid back business loans. The Member for Klondike owes $267,000 to the taxpayers of the territory on an outstanding loan related to operations of the hotel in Dawson City. The Member for Porter Creek Centre owes, through three separate companies, almost $130,000. The outstanding amount, then, owed to Yukon taxpayers is almost $400,000.

Point 2: several private sector Yukon companies owe the Government of Yukon money because they failed to pay back business loans. Each year, the Government of Yukon publishes a list of outstanding business loans. It has been publishing these lists and making them public for several years, through Yukon Party governments, Liberal governments and NDP governments. They are a couple of pages long. The most recent one tabled in the House is dated March 19, 2003. It lists the outstanding loans of several businesses, including the $267,000 in loans to the Member for Klondike and almost $130,000 in loans to the Member for Porter Creek Centre.

There are several other outstanding loans on the public document. It should be noted that approximately 1,500 loans have been issued under programs established in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Of these, about 1,280 — or 85 percent — have since been repaid.

In financial terms, there is approximately $2.5 million in arrears from overdue loans. That’s $2.5 million that could be used to fund a lot of daycare worker wages, tourism marketing, rebuilding our roads, or educational assistants. Instead, it does nothing but sit on the books.

Point 3: the government is currently enforcing a new policy that requires companies to pay back loans when they receive additional income.

Under both the NDP and the Liberal governments, there was some policy work done on new loans policies. There’s obviously a problem in the Yukon where some loans have not been paid back for a number of years. In some cases, the amount owing in interest is more than the original loan. It has become an issue of fundamental fairness, where some companies have paid and others have not.

I know that, under our government, the issue came to Management Board at least twice and was sent back to the department for further work. It is also noted in the accountability plan of the Department of Finance tabled in the last budget.

In the meantime, we also, as a government, as others did, worked with companies who wanted to pay back loans. Some did; others did not. As a government, we did not go out and put companies into bankruptcy. We did encourage companies to pay back what they could, and in some cases companies did pay what they could. After an especially good season, some chose to pay additional amounts. We did not, however, when a company came into a sum of money, tell the company that they had to pay it all back to the government.

Under the Yukon Party, this is what has happened for some companies. In particular, a company recently had to pay over $100,000 all at once. In other words, it was in a better position to pay its loan and the Yukon government took the money. This is a new policy that has come into force under the Yukon Party government — if a company comes into new money, it has to pay right away. No questions asked.

Point 4: the Government of Yukon is allowing the Cabinet ministers, who recently received a pay raise and are therefore more able to pay back their loans, to continue to be delinquent. As MLAs, we’re all paid a salary. If a member of the House is a Cabinet minister or a leader, there is an extra $21,000 in salary.

There are, as I’ve mentioned, two ministers who are in the additional Cabinet minister salary category. Neither of these ministers, despite having received this pay increase, have been forced to hand over that new money toward repayment of the outstanding loans. There have also not been payments made willingly.

This is not leading by example, and it makes all politicians look bad. I believe that ministers have been advised to make a payment. They have not done so.

This point 5 brings me to the double standard where Cabinet ministers are receiving special treatment. Businesses that have come into extra money have been forced to put it toward their outstanding loans. Cabinet ministers who have received an extra pay increase, over and above their MLA salaries, do not have to pay that increase toward their outstanding loan. That is one set of rules for the private sector and one set of rules for Cabinet.

Two ministers making $80,000, then, are not being accountable to the public by paying back these outstanding loans to the taxpayer. Private sector companies under a new policy have to pay up if they receive a one-time influx.

I began today by pointing out that the government has brought this problem on itself. There has been one set of rules for ministers and one set for private sector businesses. It has done so by committing publicly that it is going to come up with a loans policy and not following up. All we have had from the Premier are promises to deal with this issue and no follow-up. It is very clear that the government is hoping that the issue will go away and that they can say, "Well, we are working on it and that will get us through the session." Well, the government has produced nothing, despite promising that it would, and that is a broken promise.

There is a simple way to level the playing field. If the government is going to apply new rules, it should do so equally.

Ministers should not have to be forced. However, when voluntary compliance is not working, then stronger measures are needed. It has been clear that there is not a willingness to meet the obligation. It is not acceptable to not pay these outstanding amounts.

The motion, at the conclusion, proposes a very straightforward remedy: that the government enforce the same standard of payments — and it suggests garnisheeing the additional wages of Cabinet ministers. So this is the $21,000 a year. That’s a straightforward solution to a problem that government has created, and this is a very public issue, Mr. Speaker. A number of constituents — business people throughout the territory — have raised this with me and with others in this Legislature. They want to see the government do the right thing. They want to see fairness.

When I say that individual business people and members have raised this with me, this isn’t a partisan, political issue. This is a Yukon issue. It’s about fairness.

I know the government will come up with a number of reasons why they can’t support this motion, and they will probably come up with a number of amendments. This is about accountability for promises made and debts unpaid. There will also be a whole host of other issues not related to the motion that will be brought up.

I believe there will also be a suggestion that collecting on loans could put people out of business. I am not suggesting that that be done. There will also be suggestions that previous governments should have done something. I have said that policies came before previous governments and certainly before us, and were sent back for more work.

There will be an argument that there is no new policy because of the collection action on the one. As I said, there will probably be amendments. It’s a very tough question and, as I said at the very beginning when I rose to speak this afternoon, I’m personally disappointed that I even had to call the motion.

It’s a tough question. I hope that members will find the courage to vote in favour of the motion, to deal with the motion, and I hope that the MLAs who have heard from their constituents will speak to this motion as their constituents have spoken to them.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this afternoon and I will listen with interest to what my colleagues have to say.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   I seem to have adopted a deep voice, like Brad sometimes adopts. Mine is based on my cold, though, so please bear with me.

Speaker:   It’s not appropriate to mention a member by name. Please refrain from doing so. Voice tone is fine; the name is not appropriate.

Mr. Hardy:   Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am out of line on that. I thought I was in my living room or something.

This is a very, very difficult motion, and I don’t think anyone brings a motion like this forward without a lot of thought and a lot of consideration of the ramifications of what is actually being said.

The situation facing the government is unique, and it is my understanding that hasn’t happened in this Legislature before. The previous governments that have worked on and dealt with many of the issues around these loans have continued to work on them to try to resolve them. They never were in a situation where one of the elected members within government was also the one that had not been making their payments on loans they had borrowed from the government many years ago.

There are huge challenges for the government on their side, and we recognize it on this side. How do you deal with something like this, Mr. Speaker? How do you ensure that the public good is represented in this matter? How do you ensure that there isn’t special treatment being perceived by the public or by the opposition, and how do you actually collect the monies that are owed?

We had this discussion earlier. I know I’ve had this discussion about these loans with the Premier on this floor, and in the Finance debate we talked a little bit about it. My curiosity was about what was being done, what stage they were at with the options being brought forward by the Finance department, when would the government be looking at those options, what were in those options, if there were any, and who would be making the decisions on how to ensure that these loans are collected and done in a manner that is fair to the taxpayers of the Yukon while recognizing the unique situations of some of these people and businesses owing money, such as the two who are now Cabinet ministers.

There have been a lot of suggestions by people from the Yukon and people in here that the Premier possibly should not have made the two people who owe money Cabinet ministers until they’ve cleared up what is owed. There’s some justification in that position.

There’s also the belief that these ministers should not be allowed to run in politics unless they have cleared up their outstanding loans to the taxpayers of the Yukon, which ultimately is the money we’re talking about.

That’s another suggestion. And then, of course, finally what I think a lot of people would like to see is some type of loan payment, some way to indicate good faith, from both these ministers as well as other companies and individuals who owe this money. But never, never has it been suggested in this Legislature, or out of it, that the government should go after this money and bankrupt individuals or people.

I have stood in this House and talked about this, only to have the Premier stand up on the other side and make that accusation, which seems to be a common reaction to anything he doesn’t like to hear. It’s immediately an accusation or interpretation spin that he feels most comfortable with from his own perspective, but I have not ever heard anybody on this side, or outside, suggest that people should be bankrupted to collect this money. So let’s get that clear right away.

To me, there’s a bigger issue here in many ways. In one way, it’s about the morality of the issue, and it’s about the perception within the public. I believe you should not separate morality and politics. If you do, then you have very few guiding principles or values to help you make wise and firm decisions — the directions that will stand up over a long period of time and direction that is for the benefit of all people in this territory, at least.

The problem that we have here is that the government at this present time — in the situation that they are in with the two ministers — is now put on a higher responsibility level to act in a manner that is seen by the public as fair and accountable. That puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the Premier and his colleagues. I would suspect that this is an issue that has been discussed by the MLAs on the other side — possibly in groups but possibly as a whole group together — about what is the proper resolution to this issue that we are discussing today.

The leader of the third party has put forward a motion that lays out one option in dealing with this. It says: "That this House urges the Government of Yukon to enforce the same standard of payment on loans by garnisheeing the additional wages of the Cabinet ministers who are not paying their debts."

I would suspect — and I stand to be corrected by the leader of the third party — that she is applying the rules of collection that the government applies to somebody who has had to go and get a loan from Social Services to help pay for some food and to purchase food or school supplies when there has been an exceptional increase in their set salary, their set income.

This is not really that uncommon. People go to Social Services and are able to acquire some financial help, which they pay back. Interestingly enough, most of them pay it back, and they are generally on a very, very small income. They are there because there is a very, very definite need at that point, and there is an arrangement to pay it back over a certain period of time, and they do it under their fixed income.

If they don’t, it’s my understanding — I always stand to be corrected on this stuff, because I do not work in these departments and I do not have the background — but if they do not collect it, my understanding is that, after a period of time of trying to collect it, it goes to a collection agency, and then they go after the money. It could be $300, Mr. Speaker; it could be $600, and it’s recognized what assistance it is for — I used the example, just a minute ago, of school supplies. I’m using that, because I could see how that would happen. If a couple or a single mother with, say, three children — she works, she’s on a very fixed income, she budgets very tightly — or it could be a working family, but they’re budgeting very tightly. Then school comes in the fall, and the cost of going to school, the initial cost of going to school with three children could quite easily be $800 to $1,200.

That increase on a very tight budget is, in most cases, almost impossible to meet when you don’t have the flexibility of investments, hotels, or whatever — you’re not able to access any money and you want to ensure that your children have what other children have. So you may have to borrow this money, and you may do it through one of the government agencies and then pay it back over a set period of time — this will allow you to do it.

Now, for some reason, that person — those children — cannot make that payment and, after a certain period of time, they get sent off to the collection agency and then they come after her. That’s pretty difficult for a family, pretty difficult for a person.

I’m thinking of that situation. I’m also thinking of the situation where a couple with children breaks up. One side or the other does not make their maintenance payment contributions. What happens? The court can order that the wages be garnisheed and the agency, if involved in some form, can actually garnishee wages. That’s similar to this. I would suspect that, in some ways, what the leader of the third party was thinking about was that if it happens already within our government, if that is how we collect monies for other people who owe money and if that’s what our method of operation to collect money is, then why doesn’t it apply here?

I think there’s another option here as well. The question is: are the two people able to pay the debt they owe? Are they financially well off enough to make the payment on the money that was borrowed in good faith? If they are, the question is why they have not. Why have they not removed this whole debate? Why have they not removed this from the public eye and public discourse that is happening throughout the Yukon?

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many, many people in the Yukon are watching very closely how the government handles this, and they are talking about it. It is raised at many functions I attend. I can go into a store and it’s asked of me, and I would suspect it’s asked of the members opposite too: "When are you going to resolve this issue? How are you going to resolve this issue?" I’ve heard a variety of opinions. I’ve been stopped on the street and business people have said that they should pay it; of course they should pay it; this money should be collected, but not by bankrupting people, not bankrupting businesses. I totally agree.

I’ve heard others say more pointedly that the two ministers should clear this up, and they should step aside until it’s cleared up. That’s more directly pointed toward the two ministers in government, as this motion is, and I agree there too. It should be cleared up. They should clear it up on a moral ground.

Going back to what I said earlier about politics and morality, I also believe that our very actions and how we decide issues and the direction we go in will often reflect the opinions people have of all politicians. I’m a firm believer that we will be judged by how we live our lives in our society. When we run for public office, we must put ourselves at a higher standard. It is expected of us. And where I think it has been failing is that people now run in politics and forget that they’re now a representative; they are now going to be judged by their personal life, because you don’t have the privacy any more. You’re not a private citizen, so you can be judged by your personal life and your own personal decisions and your own actions as easily as by your public decisions.

A very simple and immediate example of that is the situation that happened with the Premier of British Columbia. We are all very conscious of the huge reaction to a personal decision he made and an action that he took in Hawaii — I am referring, of course, to the drinking and driving situation. The public outcry that issued from it and the huge debate that happened within our society about the responsibilities of a person in public office and their accountability when they act in a manner that can be considered not acceptable in our society, especially when they are representative of a large group of people — if a situation like that happened 20 years ago, he would have to resign. There would be no question about it, because they did. They would have to step aside. That doesn’t happen any more. You have to question why. Why is there no longer a sense of value placed on us as public people? And why, now, if we have a course of action that is not acceptable in this society and that we stand and speak against it but do it ourselves and get found out about or caught, do we not pay the consequences?

I am not sure what is happening in our politics that has allowed that to happen, but what I’m concerned about is how the public now views us as politicians. Voting has been dropping; everybody knows that. There has been more and more of a disengagement of the public with our democratic process and our institutions that we work in. There is, without a doubt — and I’m sure everybody has heard this — a very vocal belief that what we say and what we do are two different things.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for indicating that I only have a couple minutes left. I’d like to wrap up with a couple things.

I believe that, regardless of our political background, we could agree that the political status quo is simply not morally acceptable in many areas, and it is up to us to make the change. And we have the opportunity to make a change in here. We could all work together to make that change.

If we are to have a moral, intelligent Assembly, if we’re going to govern with decency and responsibility, Mr. Speaker, with sincerity, civility and tolerance, then we also must recognize that it is only through long-term and endless, endless work by us that that will happen. It’s not so much what we do in here. This is important; this is what’s seen. But we also have to have that inside ourselves to know what is right or wrong, what is common decency, what is the common good that we are all working for.

Now, I know I have to wrap up, and I was going to state five guidelines for the government debtors to start loan repayments now. I have five points that I thought were very important, but I’ll allow other people to talk, and if there’s another opportunity to stand up and speak, I’d like to share that with people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   The Chair awaits your pleasure. Member for Kluane.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, I agree with many of the comments made this afternoon. I also believe that this is principally an issue of morality. We all must understand that the standards set by ministers should be above reproach. Above reproach doesn’t mean simply meeting the requirements of the law, whether it be the Yukon Legislative Assembly Act or whatever; it is going beyond what is expected by the public. That is what makes it a morality issue.

Now, ministers need to be judged to a higher standard. People across the territory look to us in here for guidance and, in some cases, they see some people as role models. Well, what kind of an example does it set if ministers can’t repay their outstanding loans to the government?

Now, I know that, at the municipal level, Mr. Speaker, such practices are not allowed. Why aren’t ministers at the territorial government level at least held to the same standards that politicians are held to at the municipal level?

Now, it befuddles me that the ministers haven’t paid up. When this issue flared up after the election, I thought to myself, well, the Yukon Party, being a new government and wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing, would come out before the start of the spring sitting with an announcement that something had been worked out to resolve this issue.

As we got closer to the start of this spring sitting, which was February 27, it became apparent that, instead of coming out doing the right thing, the government was defending itself, it was adopting more of a bunker mentality, it was defending its decision to not take action on this matter.

Well, politically, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe it because this is one of those issues where a high price will be paid, and the amount of the outstanding debt will seem like a small price to pay for what is ultimately paid by this government. Every member of this government will be wearing this issue of these outstanding loans. Every member of this government will be wearing the fact that this government is hiding behind whatever to avoid dealing with this issue and coming out and doing the right thing.

When we vote on this issue later this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, it will be very interesting to see how all members on that side vote. Will they be voting as a block against it? Will they be voting against it because they believe the ministers shouldn’t have to pay back government loans? Is that how they’re going to feel? Or will they do the right thing and vote with their conscience? I look forward to that vote, and it shouldn’t be too far away.

The ministers should go beyond any requirement in law to do what is right, to set a standard of high moral standards. In my riding and in Whitehorse, from people I have talked to in the past few months, I have heard a considerable amount of concern on this matter.

Many of the people I’ve spoken with have, in the past, supported the Yukon Party. In fact, some of them have taken an active role in the Yukon Party, whether it be at the constituency riding level or as a member of the executive in the Yukon Party itself. These people have told me that they will not be supporting this party in the future unless these ministers do the right thing.

That’s very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and it makes me wonder why this government hasn’t done the right thing to date. Is it an issue of affordability? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Just look in the parking lot at the expensive, shiny metal that these ministers are driving, and it’s clearly not an issue of affordability.

What about the sacrifice made by entrepreneurs who have repaid their loans over the years? There are plenty of them in the territory. They’ve done without over the years. They’ve made the sacrifice. Why should they be unfairly punished for doing the right thing? They’re not driving shiny new vehicles, Mr. Speaker. They’re making do because they’re doing the right thing by repaying their debts to the people of the Yukon.

I have a constituent, the owner of Kluane Wilderness Village at mile 1118 on the Alaska Highway who, this very month, will be making his final payment to the government — this stems back some 15 years. He doesn’t drive a new vehicle. His business could have used the money over the years, which, in turn, had it been invested, would have produced more money. He has done without, Mr. Speaker. These ministers haven’t done without.

This is not setting an example.

Mr. Speaker, waiting for some internal policy to develop and holding off on doing the right thing just doesn’t cut it with Yukon people. These ministers need to resolve this issue at the earliest opportunity. This money is desperately needed. Every day, we hear about how budget cuts are removing much-needed services from Yukon people, whether it’s for childcare or nursing homes, seniors facilities, youth centres, highway maintenance. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. If this money is repaid, it can help address some of those other issues.

So, Mr. Speaker, I’ll be interested to hear the reaction from the government side to this motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   I rise today to also speak to this motion. I believe that this is a very important issue that is on the minds of many Yukoners. I know this has been brought up to me by many people, my constituents as well as people on the street. I think it’s about perception, to a large degree — the perception that there are rules for some people and a different set of rules for other people.

I think that, as consumers, most people on the street deal with financial institutions fairly regularly, and my colleague from Whitehorse Centre talked about a couple of instances, whether you’re dealing with Health and Social Services or — I can’t remember what the other one was off the top of my head. But when somebody borrows money or takes advantage of a program through which they receive money and they’re expected to pay it back, I think that everybody, when they do participate in something like that — if they go to the bank and they borrow money to buy a car or a house, go on a holiday — in their mind, they’re going to pay that back.

I don’t see why this situation should be any different. I also think that, when we were elected, people do have the perception that politicians do say many things during elections. And when they get elected, a lot of times they do other things. It’s important that we do make that effort to change that perception in the public and to live up to the highest standards that we possibly can. And I agree: we don’t want to create undue hardship for anybody. Most financial institutions will work with clients to set up repayment schedules as well, and I think this was an important enough issue — I know the Premier has said previously that they’re working on this, but I think this is an important enough issue for the public — and I’m sure they’ve heard this — that it should have been made more of a priority.

I’m not about to try to amend the motion. I think the motion speaks for itself. There may be some other options. One of the other options might be for the Premier or his officials to work out that payment scheme so that they don’t have to garnishee the additional wages. If that had been done, then we wouldn’t even be talking about this motion today.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. It’s up to us to lead by example, and it’s up to the ministers on the other side to lead by example and make some effort to repay or negotiate a repayment scheme for these loans.

This was the public’s money. I have heard the members opposite talk about the budget and the public’s money. Well, this is the public’s money too. This came out of the public purse and was lent to businesses. There is no doubt in my mind that there isn’t a benefit to that — that those businesses create employment in their communities and that that money goes round and round in the economy. That is a good thing, but there is still an onus to repay that money, just like there is an onus for me to repay my mortgage or for anyone in here to repay their vehicle loan or their credit card bill.

I think that is all that the public expects. I think that the Premier and the ministers who are not paying their debts could change the perception in the public drastically by at least making some sort of an effort to address this situation in a positive manner. It would put them and the government and everyone in this House in a more positive light in the public.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will end. Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   I have some comments also on this motion.

I would like to thank the leader of the third party for bringing this forward. I think it’s an issue that we need to clear up once and for all.

Like many of my colleagues, I hear the same thing from my constituents up and down the highway, from businesses — that this is not good. It is not good to see Cabinet ministers owing government money and not making an effort to pay it back, especially when we have businesses that are struggling, that were not able to get a government loan and are trying to make ends meet.

They’re the ones who are working hard and, when they see government Cabinet ministers who owe a lot of money to government — which is public money — they don’t see it in a very good light at all. They are the same people, Mr. Speaker, who are controlling the spending of public monies. We want to see that improvement take place, and that’s why this motion has come to the floor.

It’s also at a time when this government says money is important. We don’t have the surpluses to deal with the needs and desires of organizations and communities out there, and it is the time when we are seeing some small cuts in departments that mean a lot. The arts contribution was cut by 39 percent. That meant a lot to kids out there.

I can remember the time when the Yukon Party threatened businesses to get them to repay their loans. If that had taken place and they didn’t get elected — even though they threatened to do it — these businesses would have gone bankrupt. Some of them are in my riding. It’s unfortunate, but the businesses were continuing to pay off their debt with government. The one thing that was disappointing in this whole thing is that we have the Premier here who can make things happen and also ensure that payments take place with these two ministers. The government put out their list of delinquent loans. One of them happened to be the Carmacks Development Corporation. I called up right away, as soon as I noticed this. They have had this loan for almost 10 years, and they faithfully paid every month.

I think they were late one time, and it was through the end of a fiscal year that they didn’t have a payment. Well, what happens to that? It’s a corporation trying to get the economy going, trying to get people working — now they have a bad name. It would be a perception anyway. If you have someone who can’t pay their bills, why would you invest in that corporation?

To date, they want more than just an apology from the Premier and from the government about that and to find ways to fix it so that they can have businesses approach them again and use them as a corporation and deal with them and have people working. So that’s an important part.

When that has taken place, nothing has been done on the other side, where we have Cabinet ministers who owe money.

Simply put, I think, out there with the economy the way it is, it is hard for people to take. I guess that is the bottom line — it’s tough. We would like to see it cleared up because we on this side of the House are not exempt from that. When this takes place with elected members, then we are painted with that same brush, too, and, again, put in as the way some people perceive politicians these days.

I really encourage all members on that side of the House to have enough in them to respond to the motion. I hope that they are not given the direction not to speak to the motion if they feel strongly about it. I am sure that many people — as a matter of fact, I know that many of them in their ridings are saying the same thing. Many of the people who are approaching us are not our party supporters; they are mostly Yukon Party supporters. We cannot leave this alone and let it drag on and on. I am sure that the Premier has thought about ways of trying to correct this, and this motion is simply trying to give some direction to that. I certainly look forward to hearing what the Premier has to say on how we can resolve this and move on, and not have to have this hanging over our heads — hanging over government’s head, for that matter — in years to come.

I feel we’re in a tough position in the Yukon. The government is talking about cutting back spending, focusing on administration and so on, and here we are: we could be collecting some monies that could go toward things like childcare and social services and so on.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing what the Premier has to say and how we can move on with this whole issue. Hopefully, it can be resolved.

Thank you.

Mrs. Peter:   I, too, would like to put on record some of the issues that I have regarding this motion. We are talking about two Cabinet ministers who hold very, very important roles in government, and they make very serious decisions on behalf of the Yukon people in this Legislature and in their own departments. It’s not only a moral issue; it’s an issue out there that places public perception on every one of the elected members in this House, and I am very concerned about that.

I was just in my community over the last few days and this issue came up in Old Crow. Not only that, this issue has been brought to my attention while I’m out and about in the City of Whitehorse attending public gatherings and other activities throughout the city.

And to me, that is a surprise, and it also gives me a strong message that the people of the Yukon are not going to take issues like this lying down. They want our government officials to be held accountable. We have high expectations of not only our performance in here but of how we address issues. We have people out there who call us on a daily basis, and that’s how we bring our questions into this public forum. I said it before, and I’m going to say it again: I ask questions in here on behalf of my constituents and on behalf of the Yukon public. It’s not only for my own benefit.

When the Yukon Party was elected — and it is also printed in their platform — they committed to change the conduct in this House. Again, I’ve heard it before. This issue of two Cabinet ministers owing a large sum of money to the Yukon government is not only a moral issue, but it also gives the Yukon public a strong message on how we conduct ourselves here.

I have a little bit of experience in this area, Mr. Speaker. I worked in a banking institution before. When you want to borrow money from a bank, there is a process you follow, and by the time you walk out of that institution that has agreed to lend you the money, an agreement has been signed saying that, yes, I will pay back this money — whether it’s on a monthly basis, or by whatever means you can do it. That agreement is a commitment that, yes, you will follow through with it. I believe that holds true not only in a banking institution, but in many other areas.

This money that was loaned out is the public’s money. For myself, that is very serious. We need to set an example. I need to set an example because of the people who elected me to represent them in this House. I am painted with that same brush, and that’s why that issue came up in my community this weekend. What is going to take place with this? How is the government going to go about it?

The reason that this issue arises is the state of the economy. People are struggling. There are very few jobs for families out there.

In my community, people are excited. This time of the year is a new beginning. Young families are starting to come back and take their families out on the land, because the caribou are coming, it is trapping season and it’s a very important time of year for my people — for whatever or however they can get the very basic needs so that they can take their families out on the land and teach them to be self-sufficient, to be responsible out on the land and teach them environmental values. They will do that because of what they believe in, because they know what the true value of having to be a responsible person on this planet Earth is all about.

I have personal experience of living in poverty, of being a single parent and trying to make ends meet, and I am proud to say today that I achieved that. I know that there are many women out there whom I have spoken to and whom I have encouraged and supported, who are struggling along in their daily lives, trying to get an education so they can provide for their children, trying to make ends meet because the price of food is so high in the community, be able to provide very basic necessities so that their children can grow up in a healthy way and to be able to go to school and pay attention and learn so that they can, in the end, be responsible people in our community.

And then I come here and have to address issues like this. We try to teach our youth today, Mr. Speaker, and try to pave the way so that we can leave behind for them a great place to live and to carry on the values and traditions that we hold so dear. They are our future leaders, and yet agreements we make and commitments that we make are thrown to the wayside and not taken very seriously. When I’m painted with that same brush, Mr. Speaker, I take that very seriously and I would encourage the Premier to encourage his ministers to address this issue on behalf of the Yukon people so that we can move on, and that they can govern and have the kind of relationship with the communities out there that I’ve heard them speak of over and over again.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve sat here and listened intently to the comments made by the members opposite and, for the most part, I entirely agree with them. Loans must be repaid. That is a standard set. When we look at this particular issue, the bar has been set by those companies and individuals who have repaid the monies borrowed through this particular program.

Now, we could go on at great length in regard to the program itself and what it has done in terms of the government’s ability to actually collect these monies, and I think we can agree that, given the long-standing and outstanding issues we face in this particular area, there are some serious problems with what has taken place, but this is not to make excuses. This is to point out that there is much more to this issue than singling out two individuals who have chosen, by their own free will, to contribute to Yukon society in a manner that is of the highest station in political office, by becoming Cabinet ministers.

Now let’s deal with the moral question. Yes, there is a moral question here. No doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. But there’s another side to the moral issue and that is: does this issue, because there are so many others who are in the very same position, preclude individuals from contributing to today’s Yukon in the manner that these two individuals have chosen? Further to that, I would say it’s somewhat unfair in this motion to single out the two individuals in question when there are so many other delinquencies when it comes to this program. The motion should have reflected that. First and foremost, all those delinquent loans owe money to the government and to the taxpayer, not just two individuals who happen to have chosen to run for public office, seek election, were elected, and have been charged with duties as Cabinet ministers. We must ask the question: is it fair to single them out when they are taking on these responsibilities and contributing in this manner through dedication and commitment?

Now, the fact that their companies owe money certainly enters into this debate, but should it preclude them from doing what they are doing? Should the situation evolve so that it treats them differently than all the others who are delinquent in monies owed to the Yukon government?

That is the dilemma that the government faces. I, for one, do not agree that, because companies that these two individuals are involved with owe money through these loan programs, it should preclude them from being in public office or that it diminishes in any way, shape or form their abilities to carry out their duties and responsibilities. It doesn’t do that.

It leaves a question in the mind of the public, but so, too, should all the other delinquent loans leave in the public’s mind the question: why have these monies not been collected? Our government is seeking a solution to this.

These go back years — delinquencies for many years. Governments in the past have not dealt with it. Contrary to the leader of the third party, it hasn’t happened. We, on the other hand, have directed the department to come forward with the options on how we can deal with this, considering the variances, the different conditions and all that goes with the confusion around this program. And there is confusion, there are variances and there are differences.

Now, there is an issue here when the members opposite talk about the state of the economy, because there are conditions around some of these loans that reflect directly on that ability to pay, based on revenues or profitability and so on, but I am not here to debate that.

What we want to do is establish a fair process for all concerned so that we can move on, bring this to closure, bring these delinquent loans to a current state and, of course, above all, ensure that the bar is being met by those who have repaid their monies.

It’s interesting to note that in one instance — the Watson Lake Hotel, for example, sits today in Watson Lake with plywood on the windows. Now, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: should an individual who is involved with a company of a hotel that has plywood on the windows be singled out to immediately pay the loan or have his wages garnisheed when we want to establish a fair and equitable process so that all are paid?

Let’s look at the member opposite’s idea of garnishee. First, it brings into question if the government can even do this, which I highly doubt, because we’re dealing with corporations, limited companies, and we’re dealing with individuals who are part of or representatives of these particular corporate entities. But it goes beyond that. If the members opposite are not singling out two individuals in the manner that is required from us in this Legislature, that we deal with this issue on all levels and all instances when it comes to the delinquencies of monies owed. Are the members saying that we should garnishee everybody? How, then, can we garnishee NGOs, and the people who contribute their time to non-government organizations, to repay large sums of money that are owed under this program? We’re not about to do that. Should we proceed down this road and garnishee all the people involved here? I don’t think that’s a fair process to undertake.

I think there are other options available, and that’s why we were taking the time to do the necessary work and research, and put together something that will solve this issue once and for all. It has been well over a decade that this issue has gone on and not been dealt with.

The leader of the third party has put together this motion in a manner that tries to establish or imply that there’s some sort of a new policy. Frankly, there is no new policy. At this time, there is no new policy for collections of monies owed to government. It’s the same as it was under the member’s government, the same as it was under the former NDP government, and the same as it was prior to that.

The issue in question here is not an issue of policy; it’s an issue of condition of a loan, and the condition is that the loss payee of a certain amount of money for a certain company was the Yukon territorial government. In an insurance claim, the insurance company is bound by that condition, because of the fact the Yukon government is listed as the loss payee, to pay the money out to the loss payee. This is not a question of policy; it’s a question of condition of the loan.

Therefore, the argument here is reflective of a very disturbing trend by the leader of the third party in singling out two individuals of this government who, along with many others, owe money.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that there is a double standard. How can this be when the standard remains the same? We are now in the process of trying to change, coming up with options to change, coming up with some process to change the existing policy because it has not worked.

I don’t think we have to argue that point. With the long-standing delinquencies here, it’s obvious that the policy has not worked. Now, I guess the government could just simply throw these into collections. However, that’s not the preferred route because we do not want to, under the circumstances, place undue hardship on companies and people and NGOs that are already struggling. We want to find a way that solves the problem without adding further to the undue hardship point because this should not, in any way, shape or form, further problems that people are experiencing.

I’m going to totally agree with the members opposite on the fact that we in this House must set a higher standard by virtue of the fact that we are elected to do so. I agree with that. However, there are a number of ways that that higher standard can be represented, and that brings me back, Mr. Speaker, to the moral question.

This is a situation that must include, in the entire equation, what the individuals in question are doing in terms of their dedication and commitment to this territory and its citizens. That does not remove the fact that they are involved in companies that owe money and are delinquent. However, I would expect that, when we have concluded our work and have come up with the solution, they, along with everybody else who finds themselves in this particular situation and this particular predicament, will be treated fairly, equally and become current in payment of monies owed to the government.

We would have supported a motion right away that reflected the full equation, reflected the need for fairness and equality and an equitable approach. I take exception to singling people out because of the choices they make in areas like running for public office. It’s a very, very long stretch to point fingers at delinquent payments and somehow associate that with being completely blacklisted from doing the job they’re doing. Again, I point out that it does not reflect on their ability to carry out their duties.

I’m very concerned about the issue and have been for some time. I have experienced this issue in the past under the former NDP government and the reluctance to try to deal with it because of the complexities and the problems that go with it. I must point out that we are dealing with it and have set out an immediate course of action to deal with this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a solution and a policy on how to deal with this, but we are going to make sure that we have made every effort to deal with the issues and the complexity of the issues as they are today, not because of two individuals that have been singled out, but because of the circumstances that have led us to where we are today in this particular area of delinquent loans to the government.

There is no double standard, and there never was. It is incorrect to put that on the floor of this Legislature. It dramatically diminishes the member’s ability to argue the moral question, because it’s erroneous.

To argue the moral question, we must present the real facts. We must make the case. It is convenient to ignore the flipside of the moral question but it is not correct. We, on the other hand, as government, must consider all sides of the issue. That is what we are doing.

I will not single out two ministers of this government. The Department of Finance will bring forward the options available to the government to deal with this issue, and this government will treat those ministers and all Yukoners who are in this situation the very same — equally, fairly, not adding burden or undue hardship to their situation, but finding a way to bring this to closure and to make these loans current.

Now, the member for the third party who brought this in has to deal with some serious issues here, because the member was in government and did not address this issue — no matter what the member said on the floor here today, she did not address this issue.

There is more to it than what transpired here in this House, and outside of the House, when it comes to this issue. It smacks, again, of an attempt to single out individuals, as this motion does.

There could have been a way to couch this motion and structure this motion that brought all parties onside in dealing with this issue as it should be, because a responsibility also rests with the members opposite, who had the opportunity to deal with this issue and collect these monies, but chose not to.

The leader of the official opposition is saying "Blame somebody else." I am not blaming anybody. I am pointing out the issue here for debate, and that the members opposite must, in a manner of full disclosure, point that out to the public.

If their intention is to deal with the issue in its entirety and not single out individuals, then they would have put that on the floor of the Legislature today in debate. They did not do so, so I must, in the debate, in a constructive way, put it out there. I can understand, now that I have gone through this issue in more detail, the reluctance of former governments to try to deal with it. It is a difficult one. It’s not because we happen to have two elected members on this side of the House who are involved in this program through companies they have an association with, ownership with or are directors of.

Have the members opposite done the research on the company structures and on who else is involved here? Should members who are partners or directors of corporate entities be singled out because of their position and be forced to pay something that others involved with them also have a responsibility for? That is why we must look at the entire equation here and not do it the way the members opposite have tried today, though I will stand down in making any point of what the intentions were.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to deal with this issue, as I said. I for one think it’s a serious issue. I for one have paid my bills. Past experience has been that, many times, it was very difficult to do so. However, I’ve done that, and I will hold the members on this side of the House to that standard.

The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin also pointed out banking institutions and made the case that this is how business is done. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a banking institution that loaned this money — it was government — and therein lies one of the fundamental problems with what we are facing today.

So we will address this issue, as we have been doing. It is going to take some time to work through the complexities and the variances with all these delinquent loans. We are very focused on the standard of where the bar has been set by those who have paid back their loans, and that requires that we find a way to ensure that all others live up to their responsibility, including members on this side of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   If the member now speaks, she will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to thank everyone who spoke today. I’d like to begin by addressing the comments made by the most recent speaker, the Premier. First of all, the Premier has said that we did not deal with this issue during our time in office. I think his exact words were "no matter what I said on the floor of the House." Well, we’re going to agree to disagree and only the facts and the opening up of Cabinet documents in the future would ever confirm what I have said. The fact is that the now Premier also said that now that he is in government, he fully understands this issue. Then he should fully understand why a previous Cabinet and Management Board sent a draft policy back at least twice. The suggestion that other governments have not dealt with this issue because it’s very complex is not the case. Other governments have dealt with this and have worked very hard at it, as have, if one examines again the 1,500 loans, the 1,280 people and businesses who have paid back — and as the Member for Kluane noted, those who are struggling each season to pay back.

The now Premier has suggested that it’s incorrect to single out two individuals. The fact is that those two individuals are being paid from the public purse. They’re receiving extra salary over and above what other MLAs receive, and that’s the point in question. That’s the moral issue and the high standards we should hold ourselves to that others have spoken about.

The Finance minister has said that garnisheeing isn’t the right way. Well, amend the motion. Make a suggestion. On this side of the House, everyone has said very clearly that this is not about imposing financial hardship on anyone. It’s about dealing with the issue at hand.

The Premier has said and taken great exception to the point in the motion with respect to other private sectors that have been forced into or who have come into extra money and have had to pay their loans back, saying that this was simply a condition of the loan. The government had a choice in that respect — a very clear choice. When the decision was reached, the government could have allowed the business a portion of that money, taken a small portion of the loan, said it was still in question, could have dealt with that in another way. They did not and that is what has forced the issue here. It’s because government, in its very early days, made a specific choice and dealt with the delinquent loan in one way. The individual came into additional money. That’s the distinction — again also being paid from the public purse, there is extra salary over and above the MLA salary.

When one business comes into extra money, they pay. When ministers get extra, they don’t pay. The government has singled out this other business and made them pay back immediately. The same measures should apply.

The Premier asked if we, on this side, were familiar with the corporate structure. I can’t speak for other members on this side, but yes, I am familiar with the corporate structures of business. It’s about choices, and no one said being in government was easy. It’s a very tough, difficult job.

As I said at the outset, I’m personally disappointed that I even had to call this motion. It’s a tough issue. By the same token, each of us was elected, no matter what the political stripe, to deal with these tough issues. Without question, this particular issue is on the minds, and in the conversations, and reflects the views, of constituents. This is a public issue.

It’s also — I might digress for a moment — a very recent public issue in Canada with a court case where a government agency failed to take any measures to deal with this issue. As a result, the public purse was out the money — and there’s no other way to put it.

The other point that has been made this afternoon is that, in politics, perception is reality. And the perception we are all dealing with is about politicians, about standards and the standards we set for ourselves. It’s also about the fundamental issue of fairness. A policy that is applied to one private sector business should be applied to all. Again, of the 1,280 businesses that have paid back their loans — and the others that struggle to do this, no matter how old the loans are — I appreciate, as all Yukoners do, the efforts you are making.

We are offering, in a very serious manner, on a very tough issue — everyone who has spoken has, quite frankly, offered a very clear piece of advice: make a payment, however small; resolve this outstanding issue. There is no disagreement. It has dragged on for far, far too long. Most important, let’s put the public money to work for the public.

Mr. Speaker, when you open our House each day, you ask us to speak on behalf of our constituents. You ask us to speak from our heart. You ask us to be truthful and to be fair. The motion I have put forward today asks no less of the government.

Again, I thank everyone who spoke today.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Will the Clerk please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Disagree.

Mr. Arntzen:   Disagree.

Mr. Rouble:   Disagree.

Mr. Hassard:   Disagree.

Mr. Cathers:   Disagree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are six yea, nine nay.

Speaker:   The nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.

Clerk:   Motion No. 80, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Speaker:   It is moved by the leader of the official opposition

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) during the past election campaign and since, the Yukon Party government promised to adopt an approach to governing based on consensus, cooperation and compromise, and

(2) a more cooperative approach to governing should include cooperating with elected representatives of the Yukon people who sit on the opposition side of this House in their attempts to get the information they need to examine government policies and spending priorities; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to respect both its election commitments and the proper role of this House by providing information related to government policies and spending priorities in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner, as requested both orally and in written form by opposition MLAs.

Mr. Hardy:   In some ways, this motion is slightly connected to the previous motion in that it talks about election campaign promises that were made during October and early November and the positions parties take in order to convince people that they deserve their vote.

Unfortunately, many, many people who do get convinced to vote for a party often are very disillusioned within a short period of time, and I think more so in the Yukon than just about anywhere else in Canada because we seem to have a history, Mr. Speaker, of going from party to party as each party seems to fail to meet the requirements of the electorate or else to live up to their own campaign promises that they make in order to solicit the support of the electorate.

As I said earlier in the previous motion, it erodes people’s sense of belief in our democratic structures and, as well, it erodes a sense of belief in the people who are actually running.

One of the problems that parties get caught up in is that, as the election goes along, they start to make promises that often aren’t ones that have been thought out prior to the election, and that is often driven by a fairly basic principle and human nature — the desire to win. People do run in order to win. I don’t think anybody really seeks to go through a 30-day election period just so that they have their name on a ballot. Everybody does hope that they will be successful in it.

As time goes on during an election — and if it looks like it is fairly close and the other parties may be taking a position that you feel that you have to, you will find election promises coming out midway to the end of an election are probably, in some cases, not sustainable once the government is elected.

What I think happened in the last election is that there were promises made that are probably not sustainable. Unfortunately, I am not pointing my finger at any one particular party; I believe that this has happened throughout history in Canada and probably in some cases in the Yukon as well.

I think it’s essential, if we are going to re-establish a belief in what we stand for, that we are diligent during the election not to be swayed or pulled into making promises that we may regret. If we can distance ourselves during an election — step back and do an analysis of a promise that may be made or may be thinking of being made, we may find that we wouldn’t do it, because we just know that we are not going to be able to live up to it in four years.

We have already heard from the other side — from the Premier who was speaking to the chambers, I believe — of course, not the other people of the Yukon, but to the chambers specifically — that many of the promises made during the election are not going to be fulfilled in this mandate, which begs the question: why did you make the promise in the first place? As I said earlier, you made the promise so you could get the vote and you get the vote so that you can win. Then you win and you don’t fulfill the promise and the electorate gets very discouraged with you, and you come to their doorstep four years later with your new pledges of promises, and you get questioned about your own integrity and your own ability to deliver on what you are saying, so you have a record that shows you haven’t been able to do it.

Often what happens is you find yourself facing a very different situation from the first time around.

The first part of this motion talks about the past election campaign and the promise the Yukon Party government made to adopt an approach to govern based on consensus, cooperation and compromise. From our perspective in the Legislature, we have not experienced that type of position in the first few months of this government. We have found it to be, in retrospect, just the opposite. We have found that the Yukon Party has adopted a pretty standard type of behaviour: first, in the Legislature around Question Period, where most questions are not answered; and second, in debate, where I cannot honestly believe that cooperation is happening. We’re also seeing it in some of the committees we’re trying to work on, and SCREP is definitely one of those.

The government is in the position — not the opposition, but the government — to make some very, very fundamental, positive changes that would enable all people within the Legislature to participate — not the opposition; it’s the government. It’s the government’s opportunity and role — if they made the promises — to fulfill them.

Unfortunately, since we’ve been in here, there hasn’t been a single change — there hasn’t been one single change from previously. That’s quite a surprise because, if the Yukon Party was talking about a new way of governing and one that is inclusive of the opposition, you would feel that some of the changes would be brought forward to allow an inclusion of the opposition members and the inclusion of all MLAs. I won’t just say the opposition members. I should say, "more inclusive of even the backbenchers."

I can speak from past experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A backbencher is often not privy to much of the information that’s happening at the Cabinet level, whether they’re told that or not. They are often not necessarily part of the decisions that are being made. If the Yukon Party government is planning to live up to its election promises and is very sincere about that, one of the places they could start would be within their ranks, restructuring how they work and how decisions are made, and the involvement and participation of all their colleagues — all the MLAs, the backbenchers and the Cabinet ministers.

I would bet that there has been very little change. If anything, I would suspect that they quickly fell into the same patterns and habits of the previous government. In many ways, I would suspect they’re similar to the previous government.

We’re definitely finding that the responses the NDP got from the former Premier when she was in government sound awfully familiar to the responses that the new Premier is giving. As I said, most of the responses are not answers — they’re just responses.

So we ask questions, we seek information, and we are getting responses but not answers. That’s a big point with us. It’s one of the things driving this motion.

Now, if the changes haven’t happened within the Yukon Party, the elected members, I guess we can’t really expect the changes to happen with us over here as the official opposition. As I said earlier, we haven’t seen those changes. If anything, we are still experiencing basically the status quo, which is a huge disappointment not just for us on this side — because we did make an effort to work together and we worked together initially. An example would have been the community development fund and the FireSmart, in which we were very supportive of the Yukon Party government immediately bringing forward some monies to get people to work in the communities and in Whitehorse. That was a gesture of goodwill; however, that seems to pretty well be the only one, other than many of the motions brought to this House by the government side — predominantly the backbenchers, of course — that we have actually supported.

Again, that was an attempt on our part to work collectively and cooperatively, trying to strive for a consensus — in other words, using the words that the Yukon Party stated during their campaign — to make this a better place.

Our biggest problem, once we recognized that it’s just going to be status quo and that there really is no change and no appetite for change on the other side, is the flow of information relating to government policies and spending priorities and the timeliness.

We have been struggling to acquire the information, partly, of course, to be able to answer questions from our constituents and also to have a better understanding of the direction the Yukon Party government is going in, and definitely to be able to have more informed and intelligent debate on the floor. Without information, it is very difficult to have an informed debate, especially one that may lead to some solutions to problems that exist. When one side has access to all the information and the other side doesn’t, what you end up doing is spending a lot of your time and energy just trying to get information that, in most cases, if it were supplied, would probably be a constructive addition to the debate we would be engaged in and might, ultimately, develop a better relationship among all parties.

I, for one, know that our debate would be more productive, and I believe more beneficial, both for the Yukon Party government on that side and for us on this side as well as for the constituents we represent. But nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing has changed. If anything, I would say this government has set the record for closing the doors on the flow of information. I do know already that the feeling among the media is that this has become a government that is not accessible and not willing to answer questions. Some of the ministers have obviously been more receptive to the media and willing to talk to them; others have not, and I know that definitely has created some problems among the media. But it’s also the same situation with us.

I have a casework list here, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to the Premier yesterday in Committee of the Whole regarding casework, and he pledged to me that if there were a problem with the flow of information in casework, he would address is personally and deal with it and ensure that there were responses in time. I believe that I informed him at that time that I had the numbers and I do have a problem and I wanted to talk with him about it.

What I will do right now is go over some of the numbers — some of the ministers and the departments — and how long it has taken to get answers to some of the casework questions that we have. The Minister of Education — 10 days, 32 days, 26 days, 53 days, 77 days, and still counting. So, out of five questions, we have one that has taken 77 days and counting — no answer to a casework question. We have one that is 53 days. We had one that was 26 days, which is close to a month. We had one that was over a month — 32 days. Then there was one that I applaud the Minister of Education for — it was only 10 days, which was really good. Interestingly enough, that was the first one. It seems that as soon as we got past the first one, the numbers started piling up to the point where, like I said, we are still waiting — 77 days and counting and we still haven’t got a reply, so he is getting pretty close to the record. I will go down this list and see if he actually holds the record. Maybe there is somebody else who does.

The Minister of Infrastructure has questions from the members opposite here. I’m just talking to clarify something, Mr. Speaker. I’m talking about the official opposition; I’m not talking about the leader of the third party and the questions she may be waiting on. There is: 53 days, 40 days, 36 days, 36 days, 41 days, 24 days. Here’s a good one — 94 days for a casework question for the Minister of Infrastructure — 94 days and still no reply. We might set a new record; we may get up to 100 by next week if there’s no reply on the casework question — and 27 days.

That’s interesting. These are often constituents’ questions, and they’re waiting for us to get back to them on the inquiries we’ve made on their behalf. We’re already talking over three months for a response to a question. The 27 days with the Minister of Infrastructure is still not in yet, so that could quite easily go over. Most of his are quite high, actually. There’s nothing less than 27 days, as far as I can see.

The Minister of Community Services: 51 days, 59 days, 30 days, 51 days — substantial numbers, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health and Social Services: this one goes back to December 3, 2002 — eight days; excellent. Looking down this list, I have to applaud the Minister of Health and Social Services. This is the best response we’ve had to a question, and we really appreciate that.

Actually, I apologize. There is actually somebody better — just underneath them. The Minister of Environment, on December 10, 2002, took two days to reply to a casework letter. That is very, very impressive. He is setting a standard that I would hope his colleagues can measure up to, though it may be a challenge — it may be a challenge. But if he did that, as far as I’m concerned, we wouldn’t even have to be debating this motion. Unfortunately, some of the numbers I’ve read already are quite substantial.

He has managed to keep a pretty good record. In March, the Minister of Environment was able to respond in 14 days, which is, I believe, acceptable for a casework response. That’s two weeks. Departments should be able to respond to a casework inquiry within two weeks. I don’t think it should be that onerous. So I have to take my hat off for the response from the Minister of Environment.

The Minister of Yukon Energy Corporation took 22 days for an inquiry. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources took 29 days to respond, 13 days for another, and 13 days again for another one. That’s not too bad — 19 days for another one.

The Minister of Executive Council Office took 27 days. That’s starting to get up there again. We’re talking about almost a month.

And then we have the Minister of Justice. I don’t know what it is. What’s the problem with Justice? It took 60 days for one casework and 70 days for another casework. Now it’s obvious from looking at this list that some ministers are having a very difficult time dealing with casework questions. Other ministers are not. They are looking at them and dealing with them as soon as possible, and we appreciate that. But for some reason, there are definitely ministers who are struggling with this, for whatever reasons — I don’t know.

But I do know that the Premier assured me yesterday that he would address this issue. So now it’s going to be in Hansard. It’s going to be on record, so he’ll be able to look at this. I expect him to reply that this is going to be dealt with.

In a nuts