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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Minister of Finance should be open and accountable to the Legislature and the taxpayer;

(2) the Minister of Finance receives weekly updates regarding the financial position of the Government of Yukon, including the surplus; and

(3) the Minister of Finance has repeatedly refused to provide this information to the public; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Finance to publicly report the current surplus position of the Government of Yukon on a quarterly basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Premier today. The Yukon Party’s election platform made a commitment to work cooperatively with First Nation governments to coordinate the management of settlement lands and public lands. Does the Premier believe that the principle of cooperation should also apply to lands in the traditional territories of First Nations that have not yet finalized their land claims and self-government agreements?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, our government does believe that it applies, and I can inform the member opposite that we are deeply concerned about how things have evolved over the past number of years in terms of dealing with the First Nations on a government-to-government basis. That is why we have chosen to take the route that we are taking to formalize our relationship at a government-to-government level. That is one of the first and most important steps to solving these problems that we have continually faced in this territory over many, many years in trying to deal in a respectful and a mutual-interest based process with our First Nations.

Mr. Cardiff:   The government is currently developing plans for a subdivision on Atlin Lake involving 39 cottage lots and a 17-site campground. The land in question lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation and the Taku River Tlingit overlap. Both First Nations wrote to the Premier objecting to this development and they’re still waiting for a reply. In the meantime, they are upset about this government’s approach to consultation. One spokesman termed the process basically meaningless and suggested that the government was just going through the motions to cover its backside.

Given his emphasis on respectful government-to-government relations and on partnerships with First Nations, why hasn’t the Premier directed the Minister of Community Services to halt the work on this project until a proper consultation has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We are very concerned about the developments on this particular issue. It goes much deeper than what we have just committed to First Nations as a government in developing and formalizing our relationship. It includes Canada, which agreed to even fund a land use planning commission in this traditional territory. So, we obviously have a serious problem here and we are taking steps to rectify that problem.

The plan is nothing more than conceptual and we are going to deal with the First Nations impacted on a respectful level, on a level that we committed to as governments, and we will solve this problem.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, it is a little bit more than conceptual. There has been activity taking place on the land this past winter. There are drills and Cats being walked across recreational trails, so it is a little bit more than conceptual. There is a nice coloured map and everything that goes along with this.

As the Premier well knows, this is not the only YTG land development project that has the people most directly affected up in arms. The difference this time is that this recreational development affects transboundary lands in an area where land claims have not been finalized and it puts it squarely in the Premier’s court.

This government is not honouring its obligations to consult. It is not treating the First Nations involved with respect. It is not consulting with adjacent property owners, such as Bethany Tabernacle. This high-handed way of doing things is the direct opposite of what this government promised to do.

Speaker:   Would the member ask his question, please?

Mr. Cardiff:   Certainly. Will the Premier put the brakes on this project and send a qualified senior official from his land claims office to resolve this impasse, or is he prepared to see this government project head for the law courts?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, I must point out that, to defend the argument the member is making, he must provide the necessary burden of proof that we are, indeed, proceeding with this development, which we are not. In fact, I have drafted a letter to the First Nations outlining the fact that we are not going to proceed, that the process is flawed, and we intend to fix it. I also want to reiterate that Canada has made a very significant commitment under the MOU to the Carcross-Tagish First Nation to the Dakh Ka Land Use Planning Commission. This particular process the government had embarked upon is also in conflict with that commitment. That’s why we are taking the steps we are to ensure that this process does not proceed as it is laid out, and that we sit down, as governments, with the First Nation to make sure the land use planning process continues as was committed to them by the federal government and by the Yukon government, by signing on to the MOU with Carcross-Tagish First Nation.

So, we are taking the steps to rectify the situation, and that clearly lays out the burden of proof that we are honouring our commitment to deal with First Nations in a respectful way and on a government-to-government basis.

Mr. Hardy:   After yesterday’s motion and questions, I’m following up from that. My question is for the Premier.

I think the Premier would agree that elected members of the Assembly should lead by example. I hope the Premier also agrees that MLAs and Cabinet ministers, in particular, should hold themselves to a high standard of ethical conduct in their public and private lives.

Why does the Premier continue to allow members of his Cabinet to avoid their responsibilities to repay money they have owed the Yukon government for many years, and why did he and his caucus colleagues vote yesterday to condone that practice?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a stretch to say that yesterday’s vote on what was a flawed motion, given the fact that it was incorrect — there was no new policy — because it’s questionable whether we can even garnishee wages, as a government, and furthermore, does that mean then, in a fair and equitable process, we garnishee wages of everybody who owes money to the government? I think not.

So we’re not condoning the practice whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing is taking the steps necessary to find a solution to a long-standing problem. That means we want to proceed fairly and equitably with all those delinquent loans and those proponents who owe them money. We cannot fairly single out two individuals who happen to have committed and dedicated themselves to providing a service to the Yukon public.

But I agree with the member that we must set a higher standard, and that is what we are doing by going to work on this issue and finding a solution to bring it to closure.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, since the debate yesterday, the discussions out on the street, the comments in calls I’ve received from my constituents, point to a totally different viewpoint than this Premier is casting on this issue.

As I said yesterday, I want to make it very clear — because the Premier has said it previously — that no one in this House wants to see anybody go into bankruptcy or be put out of business around this issue. We don’t want to see community groups put in a position where they can’t function. But what we are asking for this Premier and members of his Cabinet to demonstrate is ethical leadership.

The Premier talks about treating everyone equally. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Premier voted for a double standard yesterday. The majority of individuals and businesses that borrowed money from the government have either paid off their loans or are making best efforts to do so. Two of his Cabinet ministers, who can well afford to pay, are being allowed to thumb their nose at taxpayers by not meeting their obligations, Mr. Speaker. What kind of ethical leadership is that? When the Premier was —

Speaker:   Order please. Would you ask the question, please?

Mr. Hardy:   I am, Mr. Speaker. Sorry.

When the Premier was choosing his Cabinet last fall, why did he not do the right thing and tell his MLAs that they cannot serve as Cabinet ministers until they deal with any outstanding government loans, which I believe they’re capable of doing?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There is not a double standard here. I pointed out in my first answer that it would be very difficult for the government to support a motion on which the government cannot deliver. Second, we have no interest in garnisheeing people’s wages, especially those hard-working NGO volunteers, where the NGOs in some cases owe money to the government through these programs. Certainly the members opposite must understand that. We were more than willing, though, to accept input from the opposite benches on how to deal with this particular issue, but that didn’t come.

On the question, Mr. Speaker, the decision is made on the basis that the bar has been set by those who have repaid their loans. That’s where we are taking this issue — to that standard, to that level. But we have to also ask the question: does this, in fact, compromise or jeopardize in any way the individuals’ abilities to carry out their duties and responsibilities? It does not, and that’s why we proceeded as we have.

Mr. Hardy:   By public opinion in the Yukon today, it does compromise this government by the very actions of the Premier in selecting these people as Cabinet ministers without dealing with this issue.

I also should remind the Premier that it was the Yukon Party government that hired a welfare cop to hound the very, very small percentage of social assistance recipients who were cheating the system. The Yukon government quite rightly pursued parents who were not honouring their child support obligations.

This government cut services to people because it claims to be short of money, yet the Premier allows members of this Cabinet to remain in default on almost half a million dollars’ worth of debt to this cash-strapped government. That is a double standard, Mr. Speaker.

What directions has the Premier given his Cabinet members about getting their debts in order while we wait for a plan of action from his department, which we asked the Premier to table on the first day of this sitting?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We are going to continue on with developing a plan on how to bring closure to this issue. We are not going to single out people unfairly. We are going to proceed in the fashion that we have embarked on, on the course that we have charted. We are going to bring forward a plan. It’s a very complex issue. I think that the members opposite will understand that, given the fact that other governments did not want to go near this issue — and for obvious reasons. There are great political ramifications to it. It’s a very complex issue in terms of conditions and structures of these loans. In fact, it was a process that probably was ill-advised when it was commenced.

That is the situation that we, as a government, have inherited and we, as a government, are dealing with it. When we have concluded our research and our work, we will be bringing forward a plan to bring closure to this issue.

I also take exception, Mr. Speaker, in the correlation that we are somehow shirking our duties to those in need in this territory when we are in this budget — the third highest budget in the history of the Yukon — pouring millions of dollars into the hands of those who need it.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Finance about tax policies of the government. Under the previous Yukon Party government, the territory saw plenty of tax increases. In February of 2000 from Hansard, the now Premier, the Member for Watson Lake, described a Yukon Party budget this way, and it’s a quote, Mr. Speaker: "That had the most obscene tax increases ever witnessed in this territory: increase in income tax, Mr. Speaker, increase in general corporate rate, increase in small-business corporate rate, increase in fuel oil tax, tobacco — increase across the board."

I agree with the Premier, the Yukon Party has a reputation for increasing taxes. The Liberal government cut taxes. Yesterday the Premier met with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They asked the minister to cut taxes for small business.

During the recent election campaign, the Liberal Party proposed to reduce the small business tax rate from six to four percent — it was in our platform.

Will the Premier follow up on this good idea and cut taxes for small business?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’d like to point out that, first, it was not the Liberal government that came up with the idea of the tax incentives that we experience today in the Yukon. It was hard-working Yukoners, through the tax round table, commissioned by the former New Democratic government. Second, it’s the former Liberal government that cut taxes based on those recommendations but then, in turn, raised fees. It’s little wonder that the public was upset.

We have committed to look at all options in this area, understanding that tax incentives are one vehicle that will help us in enticing and attracting investment into the territory. That’s why we continued on with the extension of the mineral tax credit, for example. That’s why we have added sawmills and golf courses to fuel exemption taxation, and there are many other areas that we can look into. Today we have not cut taxes to small business, but it certainly is an option that bears some merit and, as I said, we are looking into all options that will help us turn the economy around.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Speaker, the facts are that the Yukon Party has already adopted several good ideas from the Liberal Party, such as the access corridor study, the one-year relief from mining claims, and I would urge them to give full consideration and enact the part of our platform that reduced small business tax from six to four percent. Businesses in the Yukon are looking for tax relief from the government and, compared to our neighbours, we have high business taxes. I do hope the government gives full consideration to it.

Another concern from small business owners is property taxes. The government has promised it will not raise taxes. However, last week, I asked the Minister of Community Services to commit that there would be no property tax increases over the next four years. The minister said, "I’ll commit for this year." It sounds like Yukoners can look forward to property tax increases next year from the government.

Let me ask the Premier: will the Premier commit that there will be no property tax increases for the next four years — yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, we’ve certainly stated publicly that we intend to not proceed with any tax increases, but when it comes to property taxes, the member conveniently ignores the fact that there’s a process of assessments that are always ongoing. That does not necessarily dictate the tax increases will be in order. There are many other ways to deal with that, but we cannot stop what is required — assessments take place. These assessments have taken place in the past and will continue to take place in the future. It’s up to us as a government to make best efforts when these things happen to diminish any impacts that may be experienced. But assessments are something that we must deal with. We as a government, though, will not, in direct fashion, raise taxes. We will do everything we can to ensure that taxes aren’t raised and use every option available to us in taxation, as I said, to help attract and entice investment into this territory.

Ms. Duncan:   That was not a clear and unambiguous answer from the Premier. The Yukon Party has set records for breaking promises. There was going to be a fall sitting of the Legislature. There were going to be immediate increases in the wages for childcare workers. They were going to cut fuel taxes; they were going to buy the game farm; they were going to have respectful relationships with First Nations. They were going to increase student grants. None of those things have happened. They also promised no tax increases whatsoever — no tax increases.

Last week the Minister of Community Services refused to rule out property tax increases. Today the Premier has done the same thing. Listen very carefully to the Premier’s answer. He has refused to rule out property tax increases. The advice from the Liberal caucus, the advice from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents 300 businesses in the Yukon — will the Premier commit that there will be no property tax increases for the next four years? A clear commitment — yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, Mr. Speaker, I must respond by saying the only record that has been set in this Assembly in this sitting is the amount of erroneous information being brought forward, especially by the member of the third party. That erroneous information is counterproductive.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier cannot accuse members of misrepresentation in this House, or presenting erroneous information.

Speaker:   The government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There is no point of order, Mr. Speaker. It’s an interpretation being placed on an issue by the leader of the third party that is incorrect.

Speaker:   I’m ready for a ruling. It’s simply a dispute between members. I’d ask the Premier to carry on.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So that is the record that has been set — incorrect information does not lend constructively to the debate, and we urge the leader of the third party, the former Premier, to reflect on that and try to make best efforts to add constructively to the debate.

As far as the property taxation issue, we are committed not to raise taxes, but there are things such as property assessments that must take place. When those assessments are concluded in whatever region or area of the Yukon that they are happening in, that’s when we have to look at the issue to see what the outcomes will be.

Our commitment is to not raise taxes, but we have to deal with property assessments.

Mr. McRobb:   I wish to follow up with the Minister of Highways and Public Works on a highway issue.

It has already been established that this Yukon Party government has cut $10 million from the highway construction budget. That decision will cut more than 100 highway-worker jobs this year.

Yesterday we learned that the real cut to the territory-wide highway maintenance budget is more like 14 percent. We still don’t know how many jobs will be lost as the result of that, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the government put out a news release on a contract west of Champagne. That release has caused confusion and misunderstanding about what little work is actually being done. The minister needs to clarify this matter.

For the record, does this government’s budget provide for the reconstruction of the old six-kilometre section that is sandwiched between the recently opened Champagne bypass section and the section referred to in yesterday’s news release?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are working on the section of the highway the member opposite mentioned this year, and there are approximately 12 kilometres in that particular area this year.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, the minister is ashamed to say no.

This calls into question this government’s priorities for highway projects. Why would it not complete this old, substandard section before trotting off to other, lower priority, projects?

Today the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations wrote to this minister and the Premier about this matter, and I will table this letter now for the benefit of every member in this House. The chief is very concerned with this government’s decision to trot off to other projects. He says it makes no sense to stop work on this section. A year ago, Yukoners were told that this section would be reconstructed this year. The minister should be aware of the public interest in this matter.

Exactly what did he decide? Why did he decide to shift the priority away from this particular road section?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   In short, we have priorities. Those and the availability of funding are the main aspects for determining where highway construction will take place.

At the present moment, we have four priorities for highway building in the Yukon besides the Shakwak projects. One is the structural and seismic strengthening of Johnsons Crossing bridge on the Teslin River. This is a critical project and has been in place for some time, and it’s required to ensure the safety and integrity of our main bridge on that artery.

This project has been planned for quite some time, and it is an important aspect of maintaining our flow-through of traffic.

Mr. McRobb:   The chief has warned that leaving a six-kilometre section of old, bad road between the two modern sections is a recipe for disaster. Many people are concerned with this government’s decision to tie the new section into a bad dip followed immediately by a sharp corner. The chief fears that such a treacherous combination is sure to lead to accidents and, potentially, the loss of life.

The minister needs to consider other options for the safety of our citizens and our visitors. There are two obvious options: either he can do the right thing and pull his stop-work order on this old section, or he can extend the tie-in past the bad dip and sharp corner. What is this minister going to do to avoid this treacherous situation?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will assure the member opposite that we will take his concerns and the chief’s concerns into consideration, and we will take it up with our maintenance crew and we will look at that particular aspect.

Mr. Fairclough:   I am sure that the Minister of Education isn’t too happy when I recite the litany of budget cuts in his department, so I will just mention a few of them. School support is cut by three percent — a small percentage but a huge impact. Public schools and administration are cut by 28 percent. Special programs are cut by four percent and the arts contribution by 39 percent, school councils by 34 percent, and on and on it goes. We also know that there could be as many as 30 fewer teachers in the system this coming year. In small schools, especially in rural Yukon, the loss of even one teacher poses a serious challenge to make sure that all subject areas are covered.

If the loss of one or more teachers in a small rural school means certain programs would be cut, is the minister prepared to go outside the student/teacher ratio to make sure that those programs can continue?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe I’ve mentioned on the floor of this House before that education is a priority to this government, and I can assure the member opposite that no school will be deprived of a teacher.

Mr. Fairclough:   Education is a priority but we see many cuts in this department — no school even built in Carmacks. This minister talks about core curriculum, the good old code for a back-to-the-basics approach to education — reading, writing and arithmetic. All the rest is what this government considers frills — music, arts in schools and so on. But we haven’t had much luck in getting this minister to spell out exactly what he considers to be core curriculum and what he considers frills. When the reduction in the number of teachers means programs will be cut, what will the minister’s choices be? What programs will disappear first?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I want to confirm to the member opposite that education is a priority to this government and always will be.

With regard to cuts, there are slight reductions and, again, it has to do with the financial situation that this government is in. It has nothing to do with my preference over which program I cut. It has to do with being able to survive as a government.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, that’s not very satisfactory to our students or the educators out there, Mr. Speaker. This government tries to portray itself as facing some sort of budget crisis, and we know that nothing is further from the truth, and Yukon people know it too.

Speaker:   Order please.

That characterization that nothing is "further from the truth" is imputing that the government is lying, and I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr. Fairclough:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

At a time when we should be going "Build, build, build," this government is going "Cut, cut, cut." Of course, their attitude to consultation is, "This is what we’re going to do; how do you like us so far?"

Now that the minister has also cut funding for school councils, how is he going to ensure that parents have the input they are guaranteed under the Education Act when it comes to what programs are being offered in their schools and which ones will be discontinued?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The member opposite wants to build, build, build, while people leave, leave, leave. The two don’t add up. You need to have students to put into these schools the opposition wants to build. I don’t believe it’s in the best interests of any government to build a bunch of vacant buildings.

As far as trying to put words into one’s mouth about which programs would be honoured and which ones wouldn’t, I think the Education department has already stated that the core curriculum will be maintained, first and foremost, and those core curriculum subjects are ones that will enable the individual to graduate.

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

Speaker:   Government bills.

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 28, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move that Bill No. 28, entitled Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Deputy Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 28, entitled Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Deputy Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 28 has passed this House.

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 31, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 31, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 31 has passed this House.

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 29, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Taylor.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Mr. Speaker, I move Bill No. 29, entitled Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 29, entitled Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 29 has passed this House.

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 30, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Taylor.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I move that Bill No. 30, entitled Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 30, entitled Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 30 has passed this House.

Clerk:   Third reading, Bill No. 34, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Hart.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 34, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved the Minister of Community Services that Bill No. 34, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 34 has passed this House.

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

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move

THAT Craig Tuton, chair of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon 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.

Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins

THAT Craig Tuton, chair of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon 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.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I move

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.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins

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.

Chair:   We will now proceed with the First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Chair, I’d like to read a little bit from a document called "Public Expectations on Post-Secondary Education". This is a document that was produced by the Council of Ministers of Education. It’s about public expectations for post-secondary education in Canada.

I think that it’s very relevant. Canadians, and I’m sure people in the Yukon, look to post-secondary education to make a vital contribution to the social and cultural well-being of this country and to serve as pillars of regional economic growth and global competitiveness. I’m sure here, in the territory, that includes national competitiveness in the workplace.

The ministers recognize that post-secondary education is a long-term societal investment and I think we need to take that to heart. We do have to look at education as a whole and post-secondary education as an investment in our community’s future, the future of all communities here in the territory.

So what are the government’s roles in providing post-secondary education? The governments have roles in areas of policy, in areas of legislation, in areas of funding, quality and accountability. The governments help to develop the goals and to clarify the public priorities.

In turn, they inform the operations and decisions of the institutions responsible for the program delivery. There is one institution here that is responsible for program delivery in the Yukon — that is Yukon College.

Governments provide the regulatory framework for that through the legislation. Governments provide funding to post-secondary education, because it’s in the public interest to do that. Examples of that funding include core funding and capital needs of the institutions, learner assistants and research support. Public funding reflects the sectoral and institutional mandates and the provincial and territorial expectations, needs and priorities. Governments maintain a funding regime that is objective and transparent and allows for medium- to long-term planning.

The College has gone on for many years with no increase to its base budget, and the minister can stand up and tell me, as his colleague did — his colleague tried to tell us they had increased the budget by $1 million, and we know that’s not the case. The case is that they put $1 million into a training trust fund, which the minister thinks will solve the woes of all the apprentices in the Yukon.

The history behind the training trust fund is it delivers far more than apprenticeship training and skills training in communities. It delivers a wide variety of training in all communities, and I applaud the government for putting money into the training trust fund.

Where we run into a problem is the base funding for the College. Accessing training trust funds costs money. Somebody has to write the proposals. It’s either somebody at the College here in Whitehorse, somebody at the College in a community, or it’s an NGO or a First Nation government, and all that takes resources.

The College has not had an increase in their base budget, save for increases due to collective bargaining, for many, many years. This is an investment that warrants an increase in funding. We have seen this past winter where the College has had to make some tough decisions around how it staffs the College. The fact of the matter is that I think they have done an excellent job in trying to maintain delivery of programs, but they have had to make cuts in some very important areas, such as making applications for training trust funds and going after third party activity. It would be very good for this government to make the right investment and to increase the base funding to the College.

Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe the member opposite must realize that the $1 million that was put into the community training trust fund by this government has the potential to triple, which brings that to approximately $4.5 million, and I don’t think we can downplay just how important that is with regard to training.

By increasing this fund in the community training trust fund, it greatly increases the potential for the college to make some revenues off of that.

I want to say that —

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will state for the record, a part of the vision of the Education department under this government is that we want to make sure that all Yukoners have access to a wide range of learning opportunities. Whether these are in the schools, post-secondary education or training apprenticeship, adult literacy or on the job, I want to make sure that the linkages along the education service continuum are strong and that students can move from high schools to post-secondary training and education easily and with success.

Having said that, I want to stress to the member opposite that this government dearly respects the importance of anyone being able to obtain post-secondary education. It’s my understanding that when one has the ability and the means to go forward in education, it does a lot for the individual’s self-esteem. It’s a necessary part of being able to provide for a family. I think this government is well aware of the importance of being able to have available the process or the avenues for the individual to choose whichever career they may want to participate in. Whether it be in a professional field as a social worker or a school teacher or even in medicine, that avenue should be provided in the school system.

Once again, I can’t stress enough how important it is for an individual who chooses a career path in post-secondary education, that all the means available are there to assist that individual. I believe this government is providing, and will continue to provide, support for any Yukoner who chooses to go into post-secondary education.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, I also have some questions for the Minister of Education and this department. I’m hoping for some short answers from the minister, and maybe we can get through a number of questions. Some I have asked the minister before in regard to the First Nation Education Commission. I’d like to have a little clearer answer, whether or not there is a desire of this minister to fund the First Nation Education Commission in the future. I understand there isn’t any funding here, but is there a desire to fund the education commission?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   In response to the member opposite, I would definitely say that if the money were available, I would surely be willing to put as much into any educational group, whether it be French, Catholic or First Nation. I think they’re all important. All avenues of education are important, and this government still hasn’t had that consultation with the First Nations to see even if this is a request of the First Nations. But this government does intend to have those discussions as soon as possible to determine what and how we could work together and come up with the best solutions to these areas.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   I take it that answer is yes, if the money is there, and I’m sure it is. We can always find it in government. They have a surplus. So, I’ll pass that message on to those who have been asking me to ask this question in regard to the First Nation Education Commission.

I would like to know what the minister’s position is on First Nation-controlled schools.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   This government is aware of the fact that the First Nations do have that right to draw down education through their self-government agreements and, to the best of my knowledge, what is being transmitted to this government today by First Nations is that there is more interest in working cooperatively with the Yukon government. However, when those discussions do come about, if they ever do, then and only then can this government really be able to answer that question fully. I can’t and I don’t think it would be good practice to speculate on such an important item as this.

Mr. Fairclough:   I thank the minister for that. I’d like to explore that a bit more, but time is tight here. I’d like to ask a question about the YNTEP program.

Is the department prepared to give first preference to First Nation graduates in hiring in the schools? Right now, we only have 50 percent of the graduates employed, at a cost of some $40,000 per student. Is the minister prepared to give first preference to those graduates?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I think one of the things the member opposite should be aware of is that this government is obligated through a collective bargaining process with teachers that has to be honoured. It is critically important, I think, that we do utilize as many First Nation YNTEP students who come out of the program. Again, it would be a little beyond my saying right now that I would give first preference. I think there’s an administration department in place that will do the hiring and, again, it would be quite important to match up the student with the correct facility.

Mr. Fairclough:   Is there any desire of this minister and this government to open up the YNTEP program to the general public?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   This program was developed some years ago for training of First Nation students. I believe, at this point in time, there would probably be an advantage to having non-First Nation people go through this course, just because they do work with our children, and it would be somewhat of a cross-cultural advantage for them. But I have not had these discussions with anyone, and I definitely wouldn’t make any decision on this with regard to this issue until there was full consultation with the chiefs of the Yukon Territory.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, in the platform commitment, under excellence in education, this is what it says: "Working in conjunction with Yukon College to develop a teacher training program open to all Yukon graduates to obtain their education degree in the Yukon for work in the Yukon." So that’s why I asked the question about whether or not Yukon Party is following through with their commitments. I would think not at this point, because First Nations right now want to ensure that the program is working and they’re getting a fair percentage of teachers in the schools. So, if there is any more to that, I would like the minister to send me, over by legislative return, what direction they’re taking on this matter.

In regard to the Education Act, the member opposite said that they were doing some strategic plans — First Nation education and advanced education. Does the minister feel that this will enhance the amendments to the Education Act review?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe with regard to the issue you mentioned in the platform about providing a teacher education degree program in the Yukon, it’s something that hasn’t really been discussed to any extent at this point in time, and it’s something that this government is interested in pursuing.

With regard to — I forgot what the other question was. Could you repeat your question, please?

Mr. Fairclough:   I was asking about the YNTEP, the fact that there was a commitment there and the fact that First Nations want to have a percentage of teachers in the schools. So I’m hoping to get some written response from the member opposite.

I would like to know a little bit more about the strategic plans. Has the minister identified funding for these strategic plans: First Nation education and advanced education?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I believe I have stated on the floor of this Legislature before that this strategic plan is in the preliminary stages and talks at this time. I assure the member opposite that whenever anything develops to a point where it can be put on paper, they will get a copy of it.

Mr. Fairclough:   That’s fine, Mr. Speaker. I am hoping that the member opposite can give us a schedule with that. I’ve asked for that before and I haven’t received that information.

In regard to school councils, there are cutbacks. I would like to know — the minister is talking about topping up. I would like to know what he really means by "topping up". There are cuts in the school councils. Basically, it is going toward the administration of school councils. The minister has cut that back and now he is talking about "topping up". I would just like a clear definition of what that means.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Well, with regard to this student council fund — over the years a certain amount of surplus was gathered up. An example that I will give is that a school council may have been getting honoraria for 10 members maybe and, for a large part of the year, they might have only had seven, so they got paid for the extra three members throughout the year, which created a surplus for them.

What we are saying today is that we would like them to use up their surplus. Of course, according to the Education Act — we will comply with that — and that states that we are to provide monies for the honoraria and the secretary-treasurer.

Mr. Fairclough:   It’s clear that this government is taking away from school councils. The school council liaison person in the department is retiring. Will he be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to correct what the member opposite stated, that this government was taking away from school councils, because I really don’t believe we are. With regard to the position referred to, that is going to be moved into the partnership program. It will be continued.

Mr. Fairclough:   Maybe the minister can clarify that. What partnership program is he talking about? Can he clarify that with us?

I understand there is some training for school councils. Because there is a large turnover with new school council members, is the training going to continue for them? Is it being provided for them in every community?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The partners and operations we’re talking about are with the Department of Education. It wishes to build a strong partnership and maintain functional relationships with First Nations, the francophone community, the Catholic education community, the Yukon Teachers Association, home educators and stakeholders. The partnership and operations unit will develop and implement partnership strategies, policies, goals and objectives, and initiatives required to maintain effective partnerships with stakeholders. The Department of Education is reorganizing to improve communication with partners to support involvement of First Nations in education and to provide support for school councils to demonstrate more accountability and to have more final decisions made at the local level. The training will continue for school councils.

Mr. Fairclough:   Will the school councils be involved in the strategic planning that the minister has started? I would like to know how and when.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will state to the member opposite that the strategic planning that’s being referred to is in very preliminary stages and the member opposite will be notified of any planning that is done.

Mr. Fairclough:   There’s no real commitment there.

I’d like to go to the innovators in schools program. There has been a decrease in this program by some 65 percent. I would like to know if the coordinator’s position will exist after June.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I want to state to the member opposite that this is, once again, a really good example of a program that was started by the federal government and then dropped. It was approximately three years ago when they quit funding it, so the College has basically picked up that program.

However, it’s one that will not be renewed at this time. The experiential science and innovative programs continue to be an important part of the school curriculum, and this has shown results. I am pleased to say that the Yukon has been nationally recognized for innovative use of technology for learning. Out of 115 schools across Canada, the Yukon has four schools represented in the school network of innovative schools. That speaks for itself. We have excellence and innovative learning opportunities in Yukon schools.

Mr. Fairclough:   I only have a couple more questions with regard to teachers. I would like to know the total number of teachers who are working in the department and the number of teaching assistants and educational assistants in YTG. If the member doesn’t have the figures in front of him, he can send them by legislative return. I also would like to know: how many fewer teachers are we expecting in our school system next year?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   In response to the first request, I believe that we can send the member opposite a letter with regard to the figures that were requested. There will be 12 fewer teachers next year.

Mr. Fairclough:   Will the teacher/student ratio that now exists continue to be the case in the next school year?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The student/teacher ratio will increase slightly, but the Yukon will still have the lowest in Canada.

Mr. Fairclough:   In regard to psychologists, since the elimination of the clinical psychologist position, who will do the counselling assessments in the schools?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   At this time, the Education department has three full-time education psychologists. The department feels at this point in time that is adequate. If the need arises — and there is more need — there are provisions to contact consultants who are available.

Mr. Fairclough:  Is the minister saying that they will pay for a private psychologist to travel to communities? If so, how often?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I will restate what I just mentioned. The department does have the resources to provide that service if necessary.

Ms. Duncan:   I would like to begin with the discussion that was touched on briefly by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun: classroom size. The minister is quoted as saying he wanted to move toward the national average. We are, of course, much better than the national average, in large part because of the situation in rural Yukon where we have few students and the necessary resources that are there to serve those students, to educate students.

Is the minister going ahead with this move toward the national class size?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   We are aware of the situation that’s happening within the Yukon right now, and we’re just going to be monitoring it to see how it goes. As far as the national average, I don’t believe that’s our target.

Ms. Duncan:   We’re not going to move toward the national average then, is what I heard the minister say.

I’m very concerned about this reduction of 12 teachers. The department has, with all due respect, been known to be wrong in their estimates on occasion for the number of students. We see this every year in September — it goes up, goes down, students move around.

Is this anticipated loss of teachers, retirement of teachers, largely in the Whitehorse area? I’m concerned because I’m hearing concerns from teachers in schools about larger class sizes.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   For the record, I will state that over the years there has been a real fluctuation in the number of retirements and people leaving. For example, for 2002, there were 28; in 2001, there were 51; in 2000, there were 26; in 1999, there were 29. When we talk about the 12 FTEs, eight of those 12 were from the restructuring, who should not have been here over the last year but, due to some technicalities, they had to stay until the end of this school year. The other four we’re talking about are probably ones who will be retiring.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister telling me the number of people who have retired each year. It’s an interesting and worthwhile statistic, but it’s not very useful if we don’t know how many teachers have been hired and where the gaps are. We’re anticipating 12 FTEs — 12 teachers, as I understand it. And we’re not talking about departmental staff; we’re talking about teachers in the classroom. We are looking at 12 fewer. Where are those reductions? Is it in the Whitehorse area? Is it in rural schools? Where are the reductions?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   That is a process that’s ongoing with the schools and the administration.

Ms. Duncan:   That’s where I am hearing the concerns — from teachers and from administrators who are looking at fewer resources when, every single day, we demand more of our teachers. We have given them and demanded of them an almost impossible task. We have far too high of an incidence of FASD. We have far too few educational assistants in our classrooms, and we have classroom issues that are difficult for teachers at every single grade level. I am concerned about this situation, and I am registering the concerns with the minister on this.

We could spend the entire 36 days on debate in Education but, in the interest of time, I am going to register my concerns with the minister and move on, and ask him for confirmation that the Yukon Party government, during his term in office, will ensure that there will be no closures of Yukon schools.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the member opposite, this government is aware of the situations in the schools and of some of the conditions that exist within the classroom. That is why this minister has stated from day one that this is not just an education problem: this is a community problem. I believe that everyone has to take responsibility here. Regardless of the problems that exist in the school, the Yukon still has the best student/teacher ratio in Canada.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m aware of that. We also have a number of other statistics we can refer to and can be very proud of. There are also some we are not proud of, that are community issues we have to deal with, and that’s why we see community volunteers doing the vision screening in our schools. That’s why we see volunteers in our classrooms in the mornings helping children learning to read. These are important issues, and no one underestimates the value of the volunteers in our classrooms and the importance of the community in the school.

However, I also don’t underestimate the importance of the government’s resources behind this. What I asked the minister was to confirm that there would be no schools closing under this government.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I want to state to the member opposite that this government is committed to providing the best education possible for Yukon citizens.

Ms. Duncan:   So there is no commitment, and the schools are up for closure.

The Yukon Party candidates committed very clearly, in black and white, there would be funding for educational assistants in our classrooms — more EAs in the classrooms — and they are needed. Why is the promised money for the EAs not in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I am pleased to say that this government has been able to provide the amount of funds that were available to the schools. Again, I will state that, due to the physical restraints, one can’t really predict how many extra people could be hired, and I understand that EAs are a necessary aide to the classrooms.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, it’s difficult for ministers to stand on their feet and argue fiscal restraints when the Finance minister won’t tell us what the surplus is, or tell the Yukon public. The fact is, the Yukon Party committed door-to-door in the election campaign, in black and white, in writing, that they would provide additional educational assistants in the classrooms. It hasn’t happened.

There was also money to be spent for individualized education plans. Can the minister confirm that that hasn’t happened either?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   In answer to that question, this government and the Education department will produce those individual education plans as required.

I would also like to state that this government has maintained the same level of EAs as were present last year.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, that was an increase as a result of the Liberal government’s work.

There were promises also for the student grants to have been indexed. When might we see that? That was a platform commitment. When is it going to happen? The students should be showing up on our doorsteps any day, coming home looking for their jobs, and this was certainly a verbal promise by the Yukon Party during the campaign because it came back to me several times.

When is it going to happen, or is it another broken promise?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I want to correct the member opposite. We haven’t broken any promises.

The member opposite is correct that this was a campaign promise and this government intends to continue to look at that issue. It’s something that is in the works right now.

Ms. Duncan:   If it is in the works, when might we see it delivered? Next budget?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   When it is finalized, it will be brought forward.

Ms. Duncan:   Not much hope or help for the students who are coming back, Mr. Chair.

It has been some years since the Department of Education budget has been cut to the extent that we have seen this cut, so I would encourage the minister to go back in time and look at previous budgets.

One of the issues that I am very concerned about — I have followed the progress of this particular program for some years — is the reading recovery program, which has been very successful. Reading recovery is a funded program under the Department of Education as is literacy — Yukon Learn and other literacy initiatives. Have these programs seen reductions in staff or contributions from the government?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would have to agree with the member opposite that the reading recovery program is excellent. I had the opportunity to go and observe one of the sessions and I was very impressed at the excellent work that the staff were doing and how great their accomplishments were. I was totally amazed at the progress that the young person was making. It was very encouraging for me to be able to witness that.

Literacy is very a very important building block. This government intends to continue with these things, especially the reading recovery program.

Ms. Duncan:   Is the funding at the same level, and do we anticipate the same number of reading recovery teachers, or are we hiring additional staff, given that the minister believes in the program and has seen it work?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I don’t have the exact numbers — but will stay the same.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun raised the issue of the Yukon native teacher education program, and there was also a teacher education program. That program has been in existence for a number of years. It’s available and open to First Nations only. There are a number of Yukoners, a tremendous number of Yukoners, who have asked for years and years to have a Bachelor of Education after-degree program. That was a commitment of our government. We had looked into the cost, and it was able to be instituted.

The Yukon Party in the election campaign put something different forward, a four-year degree-type program, I believe it was. I don’t have the platform in front of me.

Earlier this afternoon, I heard the minister say, well, there hasn’t been that much talk of it and maybe it won’t happen. Well, the candidate who promised it didn’t get elected, but that’s no excuse for abandoning that promise because I have constituents who phone me weekly about this sort of an issue. They want to see that program available here in the Yukon, either a Bachelor of Education after-degree or a four-year degree program that they, as non-First Nations, can access. When are they going to see it? The Yukon Party promised it.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would state to the member opposite that this is something that this government is interested in, and we certainly are going to continue exploring options to make it a reality.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the exploring of options to make it a reality has happened. There has been significant research work done. There are options with either UBC or the University of Regina, I believe. It’s a matter of cost and it’s a matter of political will.

What I’m asking is: does the political will exist to get this program in place? Is it going to happen, or are we going to wait four years for the Yukon Party to realize that they didn’t fulfill yet another campaign promise?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   This initiative may have been explored but not by this government. This government intends to continue to keep this issue on the plate. It’s not something that’s going to be put by the wayside. It’s of importance to me, as minister, to ensure that we do our very best to meet the demands of citizens in the Yukon Territory, and we’ll continue to do that.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, could I have a direct answer from the minister? What do I tell my constituents? They want to know. It takes some time to put your life on hold, to prepare to go back to school. When will this program be available, either the four-year or the Bachelor of Education after-degree program? When will it be available — 2003, 2004, when?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I think the member opposite should be and is aware of the fact that I have been in this office for four months, five months, whatever. A large part of that time was spent in transition. A large part of it was spent developing the budget along with addressing issues of the day, and, quite frankly, this is an issue that this government intends to pursue. Once the House has finished sitting, we will have time to start looking at a lot of these issues, and it’s something that we are going to continue to try to get into place.

Ms. Duncan:   I’ll share that answer of "hurry up and wait" with my constituents. Mr. Chair, the Yukon Party promised more funding for home educators and home schooling. Has the minister met with any of the home educators, and where are the additional resources they were promised?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The answer to whether I have met with home educators is yes. I attended one of their meetings and had a very good discussion with them. In fact, I was there for a couple of hours, and they are pleased with the additional resources this government is providing to them. The government is extending the availability of the course work.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, for the record, I would like to remind the minister of the commitment he made in the media release during the election campaign, when he said, "Why doesn’t the Yukon already have a teacher training program open to all Yukon graduates to obtain their education degree in Yukon for work in the Yukon?"

Why was the commitment made to go ahead with a teaching program if they hadn’t planned out the new program, if all I can tell my constituents now is "hurry up and wait", that the government hasn’t had time? Constituents have been asking for this program throughout the Yukon, and they’re going to find the minister’s answer unacceptable.

Can the minister give a better answer with respect to where the funding for the Yukon Excellence Awards — which is also in the platform — might be instituted? And where’s the funding for the Yukon Achievement Awards, which is also a platform commitment?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The member opposite keeps raising this issue about a teacher program when, in fact, their government had two and a half years to put something in place, but there was nothing in place. I think it’s a little bit much to expect this minister or this government to do something in a matter of four months. As I stated before, it’s something that is going to be of interest to this government, and we are going to continue to pursue it.

As for the student indexing, again, I want to stress that there is nothing in this budget — that’s true — but it’s something that this government will continue to pursue.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister was provided a line-by-line detailed breakdown in his briefing of the finances of the Department of Education. We could have him read it in the record here, or we could have it sent over by written record. Will the minister provide a written breakdown for us in order to expedite debate?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, what I am seeking from the minister is — it is customary for the minister, when we are going through the lines of the budget, to give a line explanation of the expenditures in the department. For example, on 7-4 there is education support services at $11 million. The department writes out a briefing note that explains that. Will he provide that to us in writing so that we may then clear the lines rather than have him read that into the record? Is he prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   We’re prepared to do that, if members so wish.

Mr. McRobb:   Following up on that commitment, Mr. Chair, pursuant to Standing Order 14.3, I request the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:  I’m sorry. We’re supposed to clear general debate. Let’s do that first.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Mr. McRobb:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.3, I request the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 03, Department of Education, cleared or carried as required.

Chair:   Mr. McRobb has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 03, Department of Education, cleared or carried as required. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent. That completes the department.

Chair:   We’ll now proceed, then, with Vote 07, Economic Development.

Is there any general debate?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, under the circumstances, we felt this was the best course to take, considering we wanted to go through a fairly comprehensive process engaging stakeholders and, of course, our employees in government in structuring the new Department of Economic Development. To do that, we had to give it validity. That’s why it’s in the budget at $1, and our process for choosing a deputy minister is well advanced, in the final stages. We should have from the committee, which includes stakeholder participation, some recommendations on whom the person may be to take on the duties of deputy minister for the new Department of Economic Development.

With that we’re willing to answer questions; however, under the existing structure of government, most individuals who were in the former department are dispersed throughout a number of other departments in government, and we are trying to find ways to ensure that we can direct their efforts toward economic development in a way that fits with the process that we have embarked on.

Mr. McRobb:   I thank the minister for those comments. This department was being discussed here and there throughout the seven or eight weeks of this sitting. I was wondering if the minister could provide an overview and update exactly where things are at as far as the timeline and schedule for putting things into place, with some specifics like when will a deputy minister be announced, when will this department be functioning, how will it be resourced? Will it be resourced from a supplementary budget in the fall and so on — just the basic mechanics of how this department is expected to function and get up and going?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, it’s very difficult to give the member opposite exact dates. The first step is to get the deputy minister in place. Much of what the deputy minister will do initially is provide me, as minister responsible, and, of course, caucus and Cabinet, some ideas on how best to pull it together. As far as resources, for the most part these resources exist today within government. The structure is important here, because we are going to utilize those existing resources by moving components of what exists in government today into this new Department of Economic Development, but it has to begin with the deputy minister position being finalized, that person being put in place, and allowing that person to go to work so that we can get on with the structuring of the department and, of course, a supplementary budget in the fall will reflect that work.

Mr. McRobb:   I was wondering if the minister would oblige us, in writing, with an overview of how the department will be set up and what type of consultation process he envisions, including who will be involved in that consultation process. Would he give us that? It’s probably in existence now. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request.

Could he provide something like that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We’d be delighted to provide that information, once the deputy minister has done that work and has provided it to us.

Mr. McRobb:   How many applications did the government receive for the deputy minister position?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, in making best efforts to not be involved in the hiring process, I’m not aware of the exact number of applications. We can find out how many applications came in, but that will be done with the Public Service Commission and the committee, and we’ll endeavour to get that information to the member. However, I sometimes question what validity this would have, because many of those applications may not even have met the threshold for proceeding into the next phases of what could become a possible hire.

I’m not sure what the information would provide the member. I think it’s more important to focus on where we got to in terms of those deemed eligible to go into the final phase of this deputy minister process.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s no surprise there might be a difference in value put on information between the opposition and government sides. Obviously, if we ask for information, we do place a value on it, and it shouldn’t be up to the ministers to determine if the information is valuable. Instead, in a cooperative atmosphere, Mr. Chair, the minister should just oblige the request, if it’s available and something that can be provided.

Moving on, the department had its Web site up and running, and I note that there were several categories on the Web site, including the services of the department. Under that section there were about 10 bullets, each describing a different area of service that would be provided by this department. Now, this raises a question: how can all of this have been developed if what the government is doing is waiting for the deputy minister?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, first off, I want to commend the employees who have experienced what I consider and they consider to be a difficult time through renewal and seeing their department completely dismantled. Much of these things exist and were existing under the former Department of Economic Development. Those officials and employees are out there, dispersed through government. This is a really good first cut at something, but we are not going to deviate from a process that we intend to follow, and that begins with the deputy minister being put in place and then consultation with our employees, with First Nations and other stakeholders to structure this department. However, some of these programs may very well become hard and fast programs in the new department. For instance, the film industry is quite excited about being deemed a possible economic engine and being associated with Economic Development. These are things that we will determine as we go through the process.

For the time being, though, there had to be something there, at least showing that there is a minister now in place and we are embarking on a process and here are some ideas. Beyond that, we will continue on with how we have decided to proceed with structuring this department and look forward to the input of First Nations, of our employees, of stakeholders — many Yukoners who have a great deal to offer in terms of developing our economy and have a keen interest in how this department will be structured.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, I detect the minister distancing himself from the information posted on the Web site. Is that the case?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, it’s not the case. Although the member opposite may have an opinion on that, I can tell you that I’m not distancing myself or this government from economic development or our commitment to create a Department of Economic Development — not at all. We will have our sleeves rolled up, be knuckled down and working diligently in this area. That’s what we were elected to do.

Mr. McRobb:   I’m sure the minister will be slaving away at getting the wheels of the economy rolling again, Mr. Chair. But my question pertained to the publicized services of the department, for which there were about 10 bullets, each identifying an area of service to be provided by this department, and the question centred around, basically: is the government standing behind these areas that were put out to the public as to services that would be provided by this department? Will the government stand behind that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The government stands behind its employees and their efforts. We applaud employees who take the initiative, see that as a very good thing, a very positive sign, and beyond that, the member shouldn’t be reading too much into this. There’s a lot of work to do, and this structure could see substantive changes over the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, Mr. Chair, it sounds like this whole area is a bit foggy here, but we might pursue that further at a later date.

I want to follow up on some of the areas of service to be provided by the department from the information that was publicly available from the department’s Web site. One area is providing information about government policies, programs, and regulatory requirements. How does the minister perceive all of that to happen in this department?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, much of this again is from employees who were involved in the Department of Economic Development. These were areas they were dealing with in the past, but again I point out to the member, contrary to the statement of being in a fog, it’s very clear what we’re doing and we have said it over and over and over. The deputy minister will be appointed; the deputy minister will be charged with the duties of going to work on structuring the Department of Economic Development. This cut in terms of what’s on the net, I say, as before, I applaud the employees who are doing this. We had to put something on there versus a blank piece of paper with the minister’s name on it. These are good items of discussion. They are being discussed. The member opposite should probably, instead of trying to wrangle some cheap political points, be offering some —

Chair:   Order. The member is familiar with the Standing Order regarding imputing motive, and I ask that he retract that statement.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In this Legislature, political issues are certainly something that are a daily occurrence and, in this regard, I will say to the member opposite: what would the member see as a structure for Economic Development?

Mr. McRobb:   Oh, boy, Mr. Chair. My, how times have changed since the last election.

It seems the government is refusing to take ownership of the messages that it broadcast to the public. Why is the minister qualifying his support for the outlying services of the Department of Economic Development that were broadcast on the government Web site? The only connection the minister has admitted to is that employees within the department put out this information.

Is the minister saying that neither he nor someone else in the Yukon Party government signed off on this information before it was broadcast on the Web site?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s obvious that the answers the member is looking for are just simply not answers the government can deliver, because they would be incorrect answers. All the member has to do is read all the information that has been put out to the public. "The Yukon government intends to consult with the Yukon business community and other stakeholders to define the role and organization of the new Department of Economic Development." There’s no qualification of statement here. The facts are the facts.

The member opposite is looking for something, but I can assure the member he will not find it, but the member can certainly use his time constructively and provide us with some suggestions on a structure for Economic Development.

Chair:   Order please. The Chair requested that a member retract a statement earlier, and no retraction was made. I would appreciate it if the member retracted the statement that was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   My apologies. I thought I had done that, Mr. Chair, but I retract the statement and would point the Member for Kluane to the facts that are on the Web site, which clearly state what the government’s intentions are in structuring the department.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s very difficult to even get to square one when the minister won’t even own up to the information about his department that’s publicly broadcast on the Web site. My questions are related to the service areas of the department. There’s nothing wrong with that. Mr. Chair, you look awfully perplexed. Are you about to rule against me on something I may have said?

Chair:   Carry on, Mr. McRobb.

Mr. McRobb:   Anyway, Mr. Chair, not to be distracted, my questions relate to the service areas broadcast to this department. The minister should be standing up and answering these questions. They are completely legitimate.

Now, he has refused to answer that one. What about another one, Mr. Chair? Let’s see if we can get anywhere here. What about the proposed Yukon business immigrant nominee program, where the department says it’s looking for business people to develop the Yukon’s business potential?

It is seeking people with business background and experience that would enhance the production of marketing of goods, services, exports, and what have you, and it is looking for someone whose eligibility is restricted to a few items that are posted. One is sufficient, proven experience in operating a business to implement the proposed business plan. Another item is a minimum net worth of $250,000 Canadian. Another is someone who has visited the Yukon at least once within the past three years. Another one is reasonable communication skills in one of Canada’s official languages.

Well, Mr. Chair, obviously this program is aimed at attracting a certain clientele to the territory. I would like to ask the Premier: do the First Nations that he is governing hand-in-hand with fully support this program?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I have to correct the record, to begin with. The answers have been given to the member opposite. The member just does not like the answers. Second, the member should be very familiar with this program. It was created by the former NDP government; it is the immigrant investor fund.

These things that the member is speaking to exist in government today, dispersed throughout the government structure. They have put this on the Web site to provide public information. We have stated along with that that the Yukon government intends to consult with Yukon businesses, communities, stakeholders, and so on and so forth, on the role and the organization of the department. That is a clear statement on how this is going to proceed.

We have also stated to the member numerous times this afternoon that it begins with putting the deputy minister in the position to begin that work. However, what exists in government today just does not simply disappear. It is there, and it’s a good thing that employees are out there working diligently trying to inform the public that these things are in place in government today, albeit dispersed in a manner that, certainly, reflected negatively on our ability to address the economic situation we are in. That’s why we are doing what we’re doing. We are going to restructure the Department of Economic Development. We are going to do it through the process we have laid out — nothing changes, Mr. Chair. The member can ask all afternoon long. The facts are stated clearly on the Web site.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, there’s no reason for the minister to get mad at us, Mr. Chair. We’re merely asking questions.

The minister also failed to answer the question, and we don’t have all afternoon, Mr. Chair. There are 30 minutes before the scheduled break, and then we have the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board coming in. We actually hoped to clear the Women’s Directorate before that time, as well. So time is short, and I would appreciate short and to-the-point answers.

What is this minister’s position on returning the trade and investment fund? We know the previous government put it on the shelf. This Premier, when in opposition, went on at length about this fund. And there was a report eventually released that indicated that the fund was functioning very well, and it was an effective tool to help rebuild the territory’s economy. Is this something that we can expect the return of, and when might that be, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, it’s true. The trade and investment program — the fund and the mechanism — was a good thing, and many Yukoners have stated that. It will be those stakeholders in the business community and First Nations and our employees that give us recommendations on what to do with trade and investment, and that’s part of the exciting news that we are going to restructure the Department of Economic Development. By now the member opposite, I’m sure, is aware of how we’re going to do it. So when it comes to the issue of trade and investment, we await the input of Yukoners and others in this matter, because they are who will be the first to be engaged in how we structure this department, as it is publicly noted on the Web site.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, this is going nowhere. This is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. So in the interests of time, we stand down.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I just have a few questions in general debate for the Minister of Economic Development.

The minister has spoken about the need for hiring a deputy minister, and I believe the ads were placed in the Globe and Mail and locally. The experience I have had with this is that deputy ministers are appointed by the Premier and, for the last two hirings that took place under our government, we had members of the private sector as part of a panel as well as senior deputy ministers as part of the panel. Has the Premier constructed a similar panel for this hiring, and who is on it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, Mr. Chair. First, the deputy minister position is very important, because without one, we — the politicians, the ministers responsible — have a very difficult time being able to direct flows of information through the chain of command. We don’t normally go into offices among the government buildings and direct employees. The deputy minister does that through the chain of command. So we need that person in place, and yes, we have a similar process, which includes stakeholders and government officials and so on, but I do not sit on the committee.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I didn’t sit on the last two committees either in my capacity as Premier, but that’s not the question I asked. I asked the Premier who is on the panel.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Does the member want the names or the structure? It’s very similar to the one the member opposite’s government had, but I don’t have the names of the people who will be sitting on the committee.

Ms. Duncan:   Fair enough. Is it two members of the private sector? What the Premier is indicating is it is two members of the private sector, presumably the Public Service Commissioner and the most senior deputy.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Yes. Thank you. That’s all I asked.

When one is searching for a deputy minister, one of the issues is the supervisory experience of that individual. We would need to have some kind of idea of the size of the department. Is it 100 people they will be supervising — 50 people? We must have some kind of an idea of the size — ballpark. Does the minister have that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   More than one and less than 50 — lean, mean and focused on developing the economy.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you. I appreciate the direct answer.

Just generally speaking, there was a lengthy process, and I don’t want to get into a discussion about the member opposite’s views on renewal, but there was a very thoughtful process that went into the structuring of each department. There was substantial work done by employees and by individuals: for example, research work that indicated that financial functions, like the loans issue and like the production of the economic outlook, should more properly be in the Department of Finance or a treasury branch. I’m speaking of those two functions in particular.

If it’s with Finance, the economic outlook can be perceived to be perhaps more independent. I’m just curious if the minister has an idea of whether those financial type of functions in particular — the production of the economic outlook and collection of loans — is it the minister’s intention they would be moved back to Economic Development or would they stay with Finance?

I realize we don’t have the deputy, but do we have some idea in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We know now where these particular areas of responsibility rest today within government. The two areas that the member speaks of are in the Department of Finance as we speak. But we haven’t had — as a Cabinet or caucus — any real in-depth discussions on what to do about those particular areas because we are going to await the recommendations that the deputy minister brings forward once he has delved into these issues to give us the best available information on structure. At this stage of the game, we are not committed to move them out; however, there may be valid reasons brought forward for why they might be better placed somewhere else. We will allow the process to provide that information to us and make the decision then.

But for now they will stay in the Department of Finance and the duties will be carried out as normal, as they always have. For now we will just leave it at that.

Ms. Duncan:   So, what I am hearing is that what the minister has asked for is vote authority to create the department. The stage we are at is that we are going to hire a deputy minister. He or she will come in and give advice to the government, and Cabinet and caucus. Presumably because it’s an inclusive process, we are told, we’ll have input as to how this department will be structured.

I have a question about the process: would the minister be interested in any of those background papers from renewal that sort of led to the advice? Will he allow the new deputy minister to look at that information that suggested, for example, that Finance should get the loans and the economic outlook? There is some background material that is available. Now, it may be buried in archives, and if that is the case, given that it is my signature that gives the permission, I would be happy to provide that if there was some interest in having a look at it. Is the minister interested in seeing that background work?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, we want to make decisions with the best information that we can put together, but I also want to say to the member, and this is with all due respect, that we are tending not to look backward as much as we are focusing on what’s ahead. I think there is sufficient enough information available within the departments where the original pieces of Economic Development have been dispersed to, to provide a deputy minister with information that is at an acceptable level. But if the deputy minister comes to me, the minister responsible, and says the best course here is for us to get into those archives and look at that information, then I will certainly be contacting the member opposite. But at this stage of the game, the member can stand down and we’ll wait until the deputy minister determines whether the information he has gleaned from the departments in his first steps here on instructing the department is sufficient or not.

Ms. Duncan:   I had forgotten about being told to stand down by that member opposite. It’s too bad that those who — there’s an old expression about those who do not know their history are destined to repeat it. So it’s too bad that the minister is not interested in the hard work of employees who provided very good advice.

I just have a couple of other questions. The immigrant investor fund was mentioned. Is it the minister’s broad-ranging view — and I understand we’re waiting for a deputy, but is it the minister’s broad-ranging view that this department would be the investment arm, if you will, of government, or does he see that remaining with Finance?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I guess there are a couple of ways to look at this. When it comes to strictly managing finances and the fiscal situation of government, department by department, obviously the Department of Finance is the vehicle — the agency that should do that — within the corporate structure. But when it comes to investment in the private sector and how government can engage itself into attracting and enticing that investment into the Yukon or investing in things that may help lay the groundwork and create the environment for a positive investment climate, then we have to look seriously at a Department of Economic Development because that’s the specific initiative we’re trying to achieve.

So, I would say to the member that we’re certainly interested in that aspect and how the Department of Economic Development can be involved there, but it’s something that bears a great deal of work to figure out how best should the Economic Development department become involved in investment and how best the department can be structured to accommodate that particular initiative.

Ms. Duncan:   So, on the order-in-council, then — and I guess I have to go look it up, but there’s an order-in-council that changes the appointments to — it’s the immigrant investor fund and there’s another fund that lists — it’s usually the Minister of Finance and then it involves deputy ministers, and it’s the Deputy Minister of Finance who is there and it’s the Minister of Economic Development. At one point in time, it was also the Deputy Minister of Economic Development.

So, what I hear the minister saying is that it’s going back that road. I’ll have to go look up the numbered company — it’s a Yukon numbered company that controls the immigrant investor fund and controls the other one. There are orders-in-council passed that name the directors of those companies. I’m looking for that order-in-council. I’m sure we must have it, but maybe the staff could send me over a copy, just to see who is on it, because presumably that’s going to change when the new deputy minister is named. What I am looking for: is it the minister’s vision that it would be the deputy minister on that?

Sometimes it takes awhile to get those changed, so maybe they haven’t been done yet.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, it does sometimes take awhile to get changes in government, and those are some of the challenges we face. I think the member is speaking specifically of the immigrant investor fund and, right now, it’s in Finance. It’s something we are now paying back, so it’s an initiative that’s being monitored on a fiscal basis versus an investment basis, and that’s the point I was trying to make to the member. It depends on what it is. We’re certainly going to look closely at this but, for now, the Department of Finance is in charge. This particular area is housed in the Department of Finance, and we are now paying back that expenditure that took place in the Yukon.

Former governments got the credit for spending the money, and we are the government that gets the responsibility of paying that spent money back.

Ms. Duncan:   That balloon payment sticks out like a sore thumb on the financial statements — absolutely, I agree with the minister on that one — a rare moment in the House.

The other point I was going to make is there was still some additional money to be invested out of that immigrant investor fund — a very small sum. Who is dealing with that now? Is it the minister as Minister of Finance and Minister of Economic Development? I think it has been sitting for some time without the right idea.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As things exist today, it’s in Finance. I am the minister responsible for Finance, so that’s where we’re dealing with it right now but, if there are some changes here, I’m also responsible for Economic Development, so at least we have one commonality here between departments, which is the minister. For now we’ll leave it exactly where it is and see what we can accomplish with it.

Ms. Duncan:   Does the Premier intend to appoint an eighth Cabinet minister once we have the deputy minister in place?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I am going to deliberate at great length over this issue because it’s a very important issue and we have the luxury of numbers. But there are a number of scenarios that have to be looked at and it takes some time to go over those things. We want to make sure that what is done here is going to return the results that we seek, the results that Yukoners desire. Of course, the minister in charge — whomever that may be for the long term — is a very important selection.

I merely step into this role because of what we had to do under the circumstances in creating this in the budget. Somebody had to defend that. Somebody has to speak for now what is an actual department, although the validity is based on a one-dollar allocation, but it is now sitting in government structure and we are about to build it.

So, I merely take on the duties because that was the logical course to take. But I will, as I said, deliberate at great length on the position of minister for this department.

Ms. Duncan:   I will encourage the minister to do that and cut the minister some slack and not repeat all the comments he made to me about not holding two portfolios and the Minister of Economic Development and so on. We won’t rag the puck on that one.

I would just encourage the minister to give careful consideration to the construction of the department and wish him luck in his search for a deputy.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I thank the member for her comments, but I also would add that my comments in the past were based on worry for the member opposite, not wanting to see the member overload herself with work. So my intentions were very honourable, Mr. Chair, I can assure you.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? We’ll then proceed with line-by-line.

Chair:   We will now proceed with Vote No. 11, Women’s Directorate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   While we await the director, the official for the Women’s Directorate, I will just briefly go over this particular directorate. We had committed to reinstate the Women’s Directorate. We have done that in our first budget. We are excited about the Women’s Directorate and its works within government and also externally, outside government and look forward to the directorate being very much involved not only in government policy but participating in and dealing with the issues and challenges that women in the territory face.

That is why we chose to reinstate it to a level that it deserves and requires, so that it can carry out its duties in a manner that I think the women of this territory seek, and they should be given that just due. So, with that, I will entertain any questions from the members opposite.

Mrs. Peter:   I agree with the minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate that we were happy that they reinstated this department. I just wanted to address a few issues. The Women’s Directorate was not reinstated to its original status. I believe this department previously had a deputy minister. I just wondered if that would be the case in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I would like to point something out that I think is very important on this issue. We have actually taken one step further. The directorate now reports directly to a minister versus a manager and/or deputy minister. The directorate is now linked directly to the Premier’s office, as the minister responsible.

Further to that, the Women’s Directorate now participates at the formal Deputy Ministers Policy Review Committee. So I think we’ve enhanced, more than just reinstated, the Women’s Directorate’s role and ability to carry out its duties on behalf of the women of this territory.

Mrs. Peter:   I just heard the minister in another capacity earlier — a few minutes ago — state in the debate that a deputy minister, in a chain of command, plays a very important role. If I understand that correctly, Mr. Chair, does the minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate play that key role? I understand that whoever has a direct contact with the minister responsible — and the minister is also the Premier. And that’s, you know — that’s fine.

Is there a missing link? I just need to understand that. Why is that chain of command different for this department?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There are a number of reasons, one of them being the Financial Administration Act. But in this case, the deputy minister would be the DM of the Executive Council Office. But, under the structure for the Women’s Directorate, the authorities of that position have been delegated to the director of the Women’s Directorate.

Again I point out that that is enhancing the role of the directorate. We have given the directorate and its personnel — especially its leadership through its director — the responsibilities of carrying out its duties in a matter than unfetters it. We felt it important that the directorate be given the role and the responsibilities due to it so that it can do its work within government — especially on policy areas. But there are many issues that we face today in this territory when it comes to our women, and the challenges need to be met.

We felt that this was the best structure that we could put in place under the circumstances. This is not in any way diminishing our commitment to or the role of the Women’s Directorate. In fact, it’s quite the contrary — it’s enhancing it.

My answer to the question is the DM of ECO, but in this instance the authority has been delegated to the director of the Women’s Directorate.

Mrs. Peter:   I will just leave that question for now. There are a few issues that I’d like to bring forward for this department.

One of the main objectives of this very important department is to consult and collaborate with Yukon women and also to advise on government policies to ensure gender-equitable outcomes and to offer and provide effective public education on women’s equality and violence prevention issues.

Mr. Chair, the women of the Yukon Territory face many challenges today, and I don’t think I need to remind this House of what the statistics show in the area of violence. Also, addressing violence leads to dealing with legal issues, and then that leads to addressing medical issues. This department plays a very important role in that regard. It’s not only central to Whitehorse. These issues need to be addressed at community levels.

The resources in the communities are very limited, and the role of the resources in Whitehorse need to be stretched beyond Whitehorse limits. There are women in this territory who face challenges that we need to take leadership in. One of them is that the non-First Nation women in the territory are not covered by medical expenses when they come into Whitehorse when they’re expecting a child. That’s one of the key issues that we need to take a look at, provide some answers on and provide some leadership in that regard. The women, when they’re in that condition, do not need more stress when they leave their homes, leave their families and have to stay in Whitehorse for three to four weeks at a time. And there are no shelters provided for them. If they don’t have any relatives who live in Whitehorse where they can stay for that length of time, then it becomes a problem. Much of the time, they don’t have the financial resources to stay in a hotel for three or four weeks. I’m sure the minister can appreciate what these women face when they’re up against that.

There were statements made in the media by the vice-chair of the Assembly of First Nations two to three weeks ago, and it’s very alarming that First Nation women in Canada still face a lot of discrimination in this nation and that, in this territory, we also face that. Those are the issues that, in the Women’s Directorate, we need to address and take a closer look at.

We no longer can pretend that it’s not there, and we need a department like the Women’s Directorate to take a leadership role in those areas. I commend the people who work in this department who provide the public education out there so we can address those issues.

I realize we’re on a time limit now. How much time do we have before a break will be called?

Chair:   We will reconvene at 4:00 p.m. to hear from witnesses.

Mrs. Peter:   I believe there was a prearranged break scheduled for right now.

I move that we report progress on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mrs. Peter that we report progress on Bill No. 4, First Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Chair:   Pursuant to Committee of the Whole Motion No. 1, the Committee will receive witnesses from the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. In order to allow the witnesses to take their place in the Chamber, the Committee will now recess briefly and reconvene at 4:00 p.m. sharp.

Deputy Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Committee of the Whole Motion No. 1 passed today, April 24, I’d like to welcome to this House Craig Tuton, the Chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Tony Armstrong, the president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. They are here today to appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole.

There will be some opening remarks from the president and, from there, they will entertain questions — both Mr. Tuton and Mr. Armstrong — directed through the Chair.

Mr. Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was taking the nod to be a recognition, but I thought I would wait and stand on formality.

Thank you for the opportunity. We are pleased to appear before the Legislature pursuant to section 93.1 of the Workers' Compensation Act and at the pleasure of the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

As members know, the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board is established by legislation, specifically the Workers' Compensation Act. The board is charged with responsibility for administering this act along with other pertinent pieces of legislation. Within this legislative framework, we strive to adhere to the Meredith Principles and establish appropriate guides for conducting our daily activities. Within this area, Mr. Chair, I am pleased to report that the members of the board have developed and adopted a comprehensive governance handbook for their use. This handbook deals with all manners of issues related to roles, duties and responsibilities of board members.

Further along this line is the board’s strategic plan, which sets out the future direction of the organization focusing our resources on those issues identified as critical to moving the compensation system forward in Yukon.

In 2001, the board approved changes to the strategic plan. Included in those changes was a three-year business plan covering the years 2002 to 2004. This three-year business plan brings focus and attention to the core strategies required to accomplish the strategic plan. In 2002, this business plan was updated to cover the years 2003 to 2005. A status report will be provided to the stakeholder advisory committees at their next meeting regarding implementation.

Mr. Chair, based on the board’s strategic plan and three-year business plan, a yearly operational plan is developed. It is this yearly operational plan that forms the foundation of the board’s budget.

Now, Mr. Chair, to update members on some issues.

The assessment premium review: extensive consultations were held around the territory regarding the phased removal of the assessment premium subsidies. These subsidies have been in place for a number of years. In 1998, the board consulted with stakeholders regarding the disposition of an identified one-time surplus and, as a result, established a rate transition reserve and a prevention and benefit enhancement reserve. The subsidies have been paid from the rate transition reserve, which requires that an operating deficit be run each year.

Mr. Chair, assessment premiums were held static for the years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. During those years, the average assessment subsidy was 54 percent. This has been reduced to an average of 41 percent in 2003 and 32 percent in 2004.

This creates an average 2003 assessment rate in Yukon of $1.43, the lowest in Canada, compared to average assessment rates of: Newfoundland and Labrador, $3.24; New Brunswick, $2.07; Nova Scotia, $2.54; P.E.I., $2.39; Quebec, $1.93; Ontario, $2.19; Manitoba, $1.56; Saskatchewan, $1.91; Alberta, $1.89; B.C., $1.92; N.W.T. and Nunavut, $1.60.

It should be noted, Mr. Chair, that the government classification group does not receive any subsidization of its assessment rate but does receive a discount on administration costs of their claims due to economies of scale they offer as a large employer.

Achieving better customer service project: in 2002, the board approved the start of a major project to improve service. This project, or ABCS, as it has come to be known, was to respond to many of the issues and concerns raised by the 1996 public inquiry, the 1999 task force review of the Workers’ Compensation Act, the stakeholder surveys conducted by the Yukon Bureau of Statistics in 2001, and the special examination done by the Auditor General of Canada in 2002.

The goals of the ABCS were: to change the way we work to serve the needs of injured workers and employers; to provide better and more useful information; to improve access to our information and services; to provide better data to employers and workers to help us all target prevention programs, reduce workplace injuries and bring down claims costs.

Given the need for the organization to upgrade some of the technological systems, Mr. Chair, and an identified need for technological support in areas where there is currently none, requiring a great deal of manual transactions, the question before us was: do you look at a new system that replicates current practices, or do you first review and change your business practices to reflect best business practices and service levels before you implement systems that support these?

It was strongly felt that there was no point in bringing in new systems that would enshrine current practices when there was an opportunity to review best practices and improve services. At this point, phase 1A has been completed, resulting in a possible blueprint for improving services, including systems support. Just before the end of phase 1A, it became apparent that the estimated cost for the overall project was going to be higher than originally anticipated. Based on this information, and based on the current economic climate, the board has been reviewing its options regarding the project and badly needed upgrades.

At this point, no final decision has been made. The project is continuing with follow-up work from phase 1A using internal staff.

Employer consultant: in 2002, the board entered into a two-year agreement with the Yukon Chamber of Commerce to provide the services of an employer consultant. This position is intended to provide educational services and supports to employers in the areas of assessments, occupational health and safety and general workers’ compensation issues.

Special examination: a major initiative that came to fruition in 2002 was the release of the 18-month special examination of the Yukon workers’ compensation system by the Auditor General of Canada. This special examination not only looked at the finances of the board but also at its operations, initiatives and accountability, including governance issues. The report, which was prepared with the counsel of well-respected and seasoned experts in workers’ compensation across the country, found that, "The system is fundamentally sound and responsive to the needs of those injured in the workplace." Having said that, the report goes on to make a number of recommendations aimed at further improving the system. We are committed to fully considering and implementing where possible those recommendations for improvement in areas under our jurisdiction

To that end, Mr. Chair, most of the recommendations of the Auditor General were included in the updates to the board’s three-year business plan that I mentioned earlier, at least to the extent possible. We are reminded that some of the recommendations impact on resources and possibly increase costs. In these areas we will begin exploratory work to determine how best to proceed.

Governing legislation: in the spring of 2002 the previous Legislature passed two bills relating to workers’ compensation. These bills were Bill 73, an Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, which dealt with the maximum wage rate under old legislation, and Bill 64, the act that reinstated spousal benefits. Mr. Chair, both pieces of legislation have been fully implemented.

Policy CL-35: another activity that was concluded since our last appearance was adoption of revisions to the loss of earnings benefits policy, known as CL-35.

Occupational health and safety regulations: a three-year consultation process on revisions to the bulk of the occupational health and safety regulations was completed in 2002. This included consultations with many Yukon employers and workers, along with the Government of Yukon, and concluded with a public session in June of 2002.

Young worker safety: the board continues its emphasis on safety for young workers. We have expanded the young worker safety awareness sessions to include after-school programs while continuing to work with schools to provide appropriate materials and curriculum support.

The board initiated a young worker safety contest a few years ago to raise safety awareness. This contest has proven itself to be both useful and successful.

Mr. Chair, I would just like to take a moment or two to comment on the current state of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board. The Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board is still one of the best funded boards in Canada. All jurisdictions have been experiencing a decline in investment revenues post-September 11, and the Yukon is no exception. We are still in a healthy financial state but, given the decline in investment revenues, there is no doubt the board will need to keep a watchful eye on our finances until this situation improves.

One thing to note is that, although we are running at an operating deficit, this is necessary in order to draw down the reserve set up to provide the subsidy for employers’ assessment premiums. This was planned in full consultation with all stakeholders when the surplus was first identified in 1998-99.

The area of claims expenses or claims costs also warrants careful attention. Claims expenses in 1998 — just using rounded figures — were $9.1 million. In 1999 they were $13.8 million — a 51-percent increase over the previous year. In 2000, they were $14.2 million — a three-percent increase over the previous year. In 2001, they were $17.5 million — a 23-percent increase over the prior year — and in 2002, the projected and unaudited figures are $27 million — approximately a 50-percent increase over the prior year. These figures are just the claims expenses and do not include administrative costs.

It is important to note that other jurisdictions in Canada are experiencing major increases in their claims costs as well. This is not strictly a Yukon phenomenon. These figures serve to illustrate that by far the cost drivers within the compensation system are costs of claims. These figures only represent the financial impact of disabilities arising from the workplace and do not speak to the human impact of these disabilities for workers and their families.

Over this same period of time — 1999 to 2002 inclusive — administra