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.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Party government to pay tribute to a true Yukoner. Al Kapty recently passed from this world, but not before making significant contributions to Yukon society and industry.

Al was born in 1937, in Warspite, Alberta, the youngest of 10 children. In 1960, he moved to the Yukon to work for Klondike Helicopters in Dawson City and served in various positions, including accountant, partsman, base manager and, finally, vice-president.

In 1967, after a brief stint in Calgary, Al moved back to the Yukon to start his own helicopter operation. With partners Ron Connelly, Gordon Davis and Chuck Hankins, Trans North Turbo Air was born. For more than 37 years, Trans North Turbo Air has served western and northern Canada. Right up to his passing, Al still requested regular updates and reports on the business.

As keenly interested as he was in the operation of Trans North Turbo Air, Al always found time for his many other interests and was an important and passionate voice for northern aviation.

He was actively involved with the Air Transport Association of Canada and was the founding director of the Northern Air Transport Association and was an honourary life member.

Al was the founding president of the Yukon Transportation Association. He was active in the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce and served as president in 1972. He was a member of the Whitehorse Lion’s Club and an active member of the Knights of Columbus.

While Al’s passion was the aviation industry, as chair of the Yukon Placer Committee and its predecessor, he made an incredible contribution to the mining industry in the Yukon.

Al was also known and respected as a very passionate and dedicated family man. He dearly loved not only Eunice, his first wife and mother of their children, who predeceased him in 1992, but also his second wife, Elissa, and finally Judy, his loving partner and pal and caregiver to the end.

Al also dearly loved his children, Ken and Kimberly, and their spouses, Debra and Lewis, his three grandchildren and dearest family friend, Auntie Irma Gordon.

Mr. Speaker, with the House’s indulgence, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce in the gallery with us today Al’s son, Ken Kapty, and his daughter-in-law, Debra, and of course, in his own words, his partner and pal, Judy.

We’d like to express our government’s condolences to them for their loss, and it’s fair to say the Yukon has certainly lost a great and respected man in Al. He will truly be missed.

Mr. McRobb:   I rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the late Al Kapty. Al was a man of greatness. This greatness was supported by several pillars: pioneering the aviation industry in the north, his remarkable contributions to community initiatives and organizations, his many achievements at the political level, his straightforward and honest character and his love for his family.

Al’s greatness was solidified by his perseverance. That was demonstrated through his repeated efforts to rebuild his company after it was struck by a major fire on two occasions in the 1990s.

His greatness was known through the honourable treatment of his employees. Soon after the second fire he pronounced that all 25 of his employees would not miss a moment’s pay. Al not only knew the true value of good employees, he also valued each person as a friend. Al Kapty was well known and respected in virtually every community in the territory. In Old Crow, for instance, he always made a point of visiting the late Sarah Abel-Chitze, who fondly acknowledged Al as "my grandchild."

Mr. Speaker, much more can be said about this remarkable man and much more will be said. If it’s true that a person can be measured by his impact on others, then undeniably Al was a pillar of the community we know as the Yukon.

Our sincere condolences to his family and many friends, some of whom are with us today.

Thank you. Mahsi' cho.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise with my colleagues in the Legislature to join in tribute to Al Kapty.

Mr. Kapty, as I knew him, came to the Yukon in the early 1960s. It was only much later in life that I felt I could call him Al. A partner in founding Trans North Turbo Air and an aviation leader, Al and his wife, Eunice, raised their children, Ken and Kimberly, as Yukoners. These simple facts do not begin to translate the tremendous contribution Al Kapty made to aviation, to the survival of the placer mining industry in the Yukon and to our community. Al Kapty has been thanked publicly in the past in this Legislature for this contribution.

The profound sense of loss with Al’s passing was highlighted for many Yukoners at the close of Al’s prayerful remembrance last Thursday.

I have been told that during war when aircraft returned from battle, they returned in formation. An anxious family watching on the ground would count the returning aircraft. It is unknown which pilot is missing until they are on the ground because the pilots move up in the formation. There has evolved what has become known as "the missing man fly past". The flight of the Trans North helicopters at the close of Al’s service, followed by an on-the-ground funeral procession of GMC Yukons on an especially scenic day said it all — someone’s missing.

We have lost someone very special to the Yukon. He piloted a higher standard for community service and he will be sorely missed.

Ken, Kimberly, Judy, and the past and present staff at Trans North who supported Al in his community work as a Yukoner, may I offer my heartfelt thank you for sharing your father and your partner with us.

Our Yukon community is a better place because of Al Kapty. We share your sorrow, and please accept our sympathies.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women throughout the Yukon who help care for Yukon children. I refer to the people who work in childcare centres and family day homes.

Today is Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day, a fitting time, I believe, to acknowledge the valuable contribution that early childhood educators make by providing quality care for our children. Early childhood educators in the Yukon look after our children when we, as parents, are not available. But more than that, they teach them. We know, and research confirms, that the people who care for our children play a very significant role in shaping their social, physical, emotional and cognitive development.

Actions taken by our government in the past six months clearly acknowledge our commitment to quality, affordable childcare. New funding provided by our government ensures workers are paid fairly and that centres can continue to provide quality services. As well, we are working with childcare providers to craft a four-year plan to improve childcare in the Yukon for providers and for our most valuable resource, our children.

Mr. Speaker, we salute our early childhood educators.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   With the House’s indulgence, I would like to introduce a very well-known advocate of the childcare movement and representative of the childcare centres, who is with us today in the visitors gallery, Jasbir Randhawa.

Mr. Cardiff:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as well, to pay tribute to our many childcare educators working in the Yukon on this Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day.

Mr. Speaker, women do two-thirds of the unpaid work in this country. Most of that is caregiving. But 63 percent of Canadian mothers are also in the paid workforce — most of them out of necessity in our stretched economy. Many parents are forced to use unregulated care for their children, paying babysitters in their own homes. For parents, this means a worry about the level and the consistency of care. For a babysitter, it means low wages, ad hoc employment, no job security and a low status. Nannies are often immigrants from Third World countries whose contracts leave them open to abuse.

The result is that there is a great need for regulated daycare centres and for trained childcare educators. We’re not meeting that need in Canada or in the Yukon. The vast majority of childcare educators are women. They suffer low wages, unacceptable work conditions, and insufficient access to training opportunities. As consumers of childcare, Canadian parents pay on average 50 percent of the costs, unlike any other education service. They acknowledge this with the fact that childcare educators are an extremely important part of family life.

Today we pay tribute to the stamina, the commitment, and the long-term goals of the Yukon childcare educators.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to express my appreciation for the trained and knowledgeable childcare staff who work in the Yukon. May I express my thanks on this, the Early Childhood Educator Appreciation Day.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today to ask my colleagues in this House to recognize National Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week. Down’s syndrome is one of the leading causes of delayed development in infants in the world. It is not linked to race, nationality, religion or socioeconomic status. There is nothing that a mother or father does or does not do during pregnancy that will cause Down’s syndrome. The exact cause is still unknown.

We have Down’s syndrome individuals here in the Yukon. They are adults, youth, children and infants, and all make a contribution to the territory with their own unique abilities and strengths. With early intervention and medical care, people with Down’s syndrome are living full and rewarding lives. Society today is much more welcoming than in the past, and I am pleased to note that, within the Yukon, we supply and support services to these individuals.

The one thing that we as a government cannot guarantee is the acceptance within the community, but many organizations and individuals work extremely hard to ensure that there is meaningful inclusion within community life for those with Down’s syndrome. Our government acknowledges and recognizes the individuals, their families and friends, and organizations here and nationally who work very hard to enhance the quality of life for individuals who have Down’s syndrome, and to ensure their place within our community.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   I rise as well today, on behalf of the official opposition, in tribute to Down’s Syndrome Awareness Week. This was once a misunderstood condition and sufferers were badly treated.

In 1929 the life expectancy for Down’s syndrome was about nine years. Today, Down’s syndrome people can expect to live to 50 years and beyond. They are given opportunities to be included in regular classrooms and are living fuller, richer lives and contributing to society. Many are living semi-independently and are employed full-time.

These position changes have come about by the hard work of parents and volunteers who have contributed greatly to our understanding of these conditions through organizations such as Community Living, which is present in the Yukon.

The Canadian Down’s Syndrome Society advocates for Down’s syndrome people nationally with education and networking. In the Yukon, Special Olympics volunteers have offered year-round sports and competition opportunities locally, nationally and internationally. Special Olympics is present in 150 countries and serves a million Down’s syndrome people.

Another organization we would like to pay tribute to in the Yukon is Challenge Community Vocational Alternatives. Challenge has completed a woodworking program, which enabled four clients to move into the paid workforce.

We bring these special efforts to the attention of the House and trust that the Yukon will continue to work toward inclusion of people with development disabilities.

Speaker:   Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I have for tabling the Yukon Public Service Staff Relations Board Annual Report for 2002-03.

I have for tabling the annual report of the Yukon Education Staff Relations Board First Annual Report.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any introductions of bills?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 36, entitled Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 36, entitled Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 41, entitled Health Professions Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Community Services that Bill No. 41, entitled Health Professions Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   Are there any further bills for introduction?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to make electricity rates more affordable by establishing a rate-relief program eliminating the surcharge for those consumers who utilize more that 1,500 kilowatt hours per month.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to provide Yukon athletes with sufficient ongoing funding to allow them to fully prepare for participation in the 2007 Canada Winter Games to be held in Whitehorse, Yukon.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I rise today to table what has become known in some circles as the Church report on game farming in the Yukon.

We are releasing this today because it has become a matter of public interest, and it is our view that we must now move to clear up the misunderstandings that may have been read into what this document does or does not recommend.

The report was commissioned essentially to see if there was an answer to the question raised by the Yukon game farmers that the administration of game farming regulations be transferred from the Department of Environment to the agriculture branch of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in order to make the issue of ownership clearer. Ownership of their animals is absolutely essential to their business, a business that the Yukon government has signed agreements to recognize since 1995 and before. And our government intends to honour these agreements.

There was the belief among the farmers that there was precedent for this in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and a similar model might be used here. We asked Dr. Church to look at this question because he has a wide range of government and private practice experience that put him in a unique position to look at the issues from all sides.

Various Yukon government administrations engage consultants from time to time, as well as strike consultative committees and boards. Their reports are seen as recommendations. A government can choose to adopt all of the recommendations, some of the recommendations or none of the recommendations.

Our government has already served notice that we are reviewing the definition of wildlife in the Wildlife Act and looking at regulations where change is appropriate.

Our government has received representation from the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Game Growers Association, and I anticipate that the Yukon Fish and Game Association will also comment, after our very fruitful discussions last evening. These will all take time to consider and to consult with other affected interests.

However, I want to take this moment to reiterate and to clarify that there is one recommendation in the Church report that my government is not prepared to follow or adopt. It is on the question of hunt farms. Dr. Church recommended that we allow hunting on game farms. Mr. Speaker, that practice is presently illegal under the Wildlife Act and will remain illegal. It is not this government’s intention to amend the Wildlife Act to permit hunt farms in the Yukon.

This government never asked for a recommendation on hunt farms. That recommendation was outside the terms of reference for the drafting of the report and was never identified as an interest of the Game Growers Association. I also table the terms of reference for the contract that was let out to Dr. Church, and I also table the actual contract that was let out.

For the record, Dr. Church has been advised that the hunt farm recommendation was far outside the terms of reference, and was not requested by the government. Mr. Speaker, I also table a letter from our Deputy Minister of the Department of Environment to Dr. Church to express our government’s disappointment that he chose to make recommendations outside of his terms of reference and which are clearly illegal in the Yukon. Our government recognizes that hunt farms are not favoured by Yukoners, and we will continue to not consider them in any future legislation.

To be sure, there will be much discussion in the months to come on the future of game farming in the territory and where to go with wildlife preserves but, on behalf of this government, I also want to again assure everyone that hunt farms will not be part of those discussions, as my government does not and will not favour their establishment in this territory.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank the minister for finally making a statement on this issue of interest to all Yukoners. Here’s what we know to be true: several months after receiving notice, the minister finally agreed with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board recommendation 1.17 that the commercial hunting of any wildlife in captivity, including game animals, continue to be prohibited. He wrote to the board, "The Wildlife Act prohibits this activity and there is no intention to revisit this prohibition." Let’s face the facts here, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Environment tried every trick in the book and then some to block some efforts made by the board, by the news media, and by others to get the Church report, a report that was paid for by Yukon taxpayers. What we heard here today was not a ministerial statement but a simple exercise in damage control.

Only after the success of groups using the ATIPP process to get the Church report, only after the minister had failed in his efforts to block the report’s release, did he plan and deliver the damage control we are seeing here today. This is a damage control measure the minister disguises by calling it a ministerial statement. The reasons the minister provides in his statement may be true in the minister’s mind, but the facts speak otherwise. The minister was forced to release the report only as the result of the access to information process. He should have released this Church report when it was completed and requested by interested groups months ago.

On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we are not sure what goodwill the Minister of Environment enjoys. Is it with the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board whose recommendations he rushed to reject and is now trying to cover his tracks? Does he enjoy goodwill with the renewable resource councils? They wrote the minister last month expressing their concerns over the minister’s commitment to the land claims agreements and his credibility, and indeed the entire Yukon Party government’s credibility, on the appointment process for the renewable resource councils.

The Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board did recommend to the minister that he investigate options for people managing wildlife in captivity. These options include harvesting and their velvet, meat production, wildlife viewing and scientific study. However, the minister went off on his own tangent with a study that looked into the hunting on game farms, an activity that most Yukoners oppose.

The closing decades of the 20^th century, Mr. Speaker, saw the rise of a new kind of sport in North America. Although canned hunts advertise under a variety —

Speaker:   Order please. The member’s time is up.

Ms. Duncan:   The statement made by the minister today raises more questions than answers. Perhaps the minister could begin by explaining why this report is being released. Over the summer months he said he wasn’t going to release it. The Church report is confidential to two ministers and deputy ministers, the minister said in a June 3 e-mail. It’s not to be released.

It was a report prepared for Cabinet and is considered to be confidential, said the Cabinet spokesperson in a newspaper story.

That position didn’t go over very well with Yukoners. The chair of the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board referred to it as "underhanded". He said on June 6, "This government was elected on a platform of being upfront and forthright with Yukoners, yet behind the scenes stuff like this is happening." Why has the minister changed his mind? What has changed in four months, other than that the minister has been continually embarrassed by the opposition parties, the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the media into releasing the report?

It may also have something to do with the minister bungling the captive wildlife regulations so badly. Perhaps the minister can explain his change of heart.

Yukon taxpayers spent $12,000 on an outside consultant asking whether or not the Yukon should bring in hunt farms. On January 31, 2003, the minister received a letter from the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board. It said, "The Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board recommends that the commercial hunting of any wildlife in captivity, including game farm animals, continue to be prohibited." What was the minister’s response?

In a May 1 letter back to the board, he set this recommendation aside. He said a simple ban on hunting may be overly restrictive. In other words, the government was considering allowing hunt farms. Now, six months later, the minister is finally agreeing with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and a majority of Yukoners. Too bad Yukon taxpayers are out $12,000 for the report.

On a related issue, the government continues to permit animals that are exported from the Yukon to go to hunt farms in other parts of Canada. Will the minister commit to banning that practice?

Finally, this is a government that brags about how it works government to government with First Nations. The Fish and Wildlife Management Board is out consulting on new regulations. Meanwhile the minister is commissioning — up until today — a secret report on the same topic, and refuses to make it public. So much for working in cooperation. The chair of the board certainly didn’t appreciate being undermined. He said that their consultations cost the board over $10,000 and included meetings with Yukoners in Old Crow, Mayo, Haines Junction, Dawson City, Pelly Crossing and Whitehorse.

To undermine that process was an insult to the board and to the public, said the chair. Why are we going through this exercise if the government’s already moving in a completely different direction, he asked. Is the Yukon public being shown its due respect? Right now, they’re under the impression they’re going to have some captive wildlife regulations under the Wildlife Act.

Meanwhile, the government has been contemplating some really drastic changes to the way Yukon wildlife and the Yukon public connect. Maybe the minister didn’t get the memo from his boss that said he’s supposed to be working with First Nation governments, not starting arguments with them.

The Member for Lake Laberge made an election commitment to some of his constituents that they would get private ownership of their wildlife if they voted for him. That promise appears more important to this government —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Member for Lake Laberge, on a point of order.

Mr. Cathers:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is making claims that she has no knowledge about, and the accusation she has made is false.

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

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, this is nothing more than a rude interruption by the government side. There is no point of order. No rule was cited, and there is no such rule.

Speaker:   On the point of order, leader of the third party.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the reference was to campaign commitments by the Member for Lake Laberge, and the campaign commitments are well-documented by constituents in the riding. It would appear to be a dispute between members.

Speaker:   The Chair feels that this is a dispute between members, and I’d ask the leader of the third party to carry on. You have five seconds to finish.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In short, we see, once again, what commitments the government keeps and which ones it’s going to break.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I’m certainly glad to see that my critic in the official opposition quotes the proper section of 1.17 in that report which, again, does say that hunt farms are illegal. That’s one of the reasons why I felt it necessary to make the statement — because members on the other side simply don’t seem to get it. We keep clearly stating that, and yet they claim "damage control" when they don’t understand it.

Certainly one of the things that concerned me, again, is the twisting of truth. The member opposite refers to a rushed —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Minister, I’m sorry, I cannot allow you to say "the twisting of truth". That’s out of order. I’d ask you to retract that, please.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I certainly retract that, Mr. Speaker.

The varieties of answers are certainly astounding. It is claimed that we rushed a reply when, in fact, it was the last day legally permitted under the Umbrella Final Agreement. Also, the member opposite refers to a study on hunt farming and hunting, and I would challenge the member opposite to present that study to the House, because I’m not aware of any studies that were done on hunt farming.

We’ve always intended to eventually release this document, because it is a confidential bit of advice. But we, on this side, like to study and look at reports. The leader of the last party refers to the word "embarrassed". Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed at the utter lack of her ability to understand the Umbrella Final Agreement, as witnessed by the motion yesterday calling for an all-party committee to look at the chair of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. The Umbrella Final Agreement clearly states that that chair is chosen by the board. I am embarrassed when the opposition suggests that there be political interference in that decision.

For the leader of the official opposition, that did come from the last party, not from the official opposition. In terms of the animals going to hunt farms, nothing changes and nothing will change in the regime. We will still consider that.

I would point out that the complaints in the past about animals that might possibly have gone to hunt farms were made under the Liberal government as well as the previous NDP government. Nothing has changed. We intend to change that, and that’s the whole idea of the exercise.

Yes, I am embarrassed at some of those attitudes.

Speaker:   This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   When the Premier tabled his main budget last February he told Yukon people that the government’s bank account at the start of the fiscal year would be about $17.6 million. In the supplementary budget that he finally got around to tabling yesterday, he acknowledges what the Auditor General of Canada has already told us, that he actually had $70 million in his bank. That’s seven zero, Mr. Speaker, not one seven.

Can the Premier explain why he gave Yukoners such a wildly inaccurate estimate of the accumulated surplus last spring?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, if that were the case, the government side could explain it, but it’s not the case. The member should well know, given the station of his position, that the Auditor General’s final accountings did not come out until this fall. This spring when we tabled the budget, we were dealing with projected figures based on all the available knowledge to the government, taking the prudent course and committing firmly to Yukoners that we would get a clear understanding of the finances of this territory and get them firmly in hand.

We were not going to make any rash decisions. We respect the fact that government must expend the monies on behalf of its taxpayers in a very prudent and responsible manner, and that’s exactly what we did in tabling the budget.

Once our work was concluded, along with the Auditor General’s final accounting, as any reasonable business person would do, we then booked the exact and final numbers as we presented here to the Legislature and to the public. That is a very prudent course of fiscal management.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I think we on this side disagree that it’s considered a prudent course of fiscal management. I think it’s scare tactics. The Premier and his colleagues made a big deal about how tough times were for this government. No money for this; no money for that, Mr. Speaker. The government’s going broke, the trajectory is out of control. We have to tighten our belts. People didn’t like it, Mr. Speaker, but they took the Premier’s word for it. They watched unemployment lines get longer. They watched even more Yukon families pull up stakes and leave the territory because of the doom-and-gloom predictions of this Premier. They believed this Premier when he said it was necessary to chop the capital budget by 24 percent. Why did the Premier adopt the old John Ostashek playbook of claiming the government’s finances were in big trouble, when he knew that this was not the case at all?

Speaker:   Order please. Before the Premier proceeds, it’s not appropriate to mention individuals by name in the House. I’d ask the leader of the official opposition not to do that, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The leader of the official opposition is quick to react for political purposes in his questioning today, but if the member was truly keen on representing the Yukon taxpayer in this matter, he would also preface his comments and his questions with this fact: that under this government’s watch, thanks to the hardworking officials in the statistics branch, the Department of Finance and officials in Ottawa, we took a $17-million projected surplus and added to it $50 million. The reason today that the Yukon Territory has a surplus of some $69 million is, to a great degree, thanks to the efforts of many hardworking officials in government and our prudent fiscal management. That’s why we have the surplus; and when we had that surplus truly calculated so we understood exactly where the finances of this territory were, we then made expenditures in areas that would help Yukoners in this time of need, creating jobs and dealing with those on the social side of the agenda who require our assistance. That’s reflected throughout the supplementary budget. That is good news, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   How many more times are the people of the Yukon going to have to listen to that kind of statement, the Yukon Party spin? We’re in a gloom-and-doom situation, but all of a sudden we have riches and guess what we did in a few months? We created it.

Last spring the Premier said there was only $1 million left in the bank at the end of this fiscal year. Now he says there will be at least $61 million, and it could be much, much more than that, Mr. Speaker.

This supplementary budget only restores some of the $31 million he chopped from the capital budget last spring. It’s too late to help the people who couldn’t get work this year because of that draconian action. But this supplementary budget doesn’t suggest the Premier has any sense of urgency about creating jobs immediately, and it certainly doesn’t show any long-term vision or economic leadership.

The Premier still has time to correct this, though. Will he now go back and prepare a second supplementary budget to introduce this sitting that has definite targets for creating jobs for Yukon people this winter, with no delays?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The only correction required here is the correction of the member opposite’s erroneous assessment of how this surplus came about. Let me put some facts on the floor of the Legislature.

This government, under its watch, thanks to its hard-working, dedicated officials, received 23 million new dollars from Ottawa because we did the due diligence on the undercount and the census adjustment — $23 million, Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, there was $15 million booked to deal with the contingency fund on the census, and it’s an important fact because once we established that we were correct on the undercount, that money no longer had to be spent, creating $38 million of surplus under this government’s watch, post-2002 fiscal year-end.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we dissolved a number of funds that the former Liberal government put in place that were doing absolutely nothing for Yukoners: $10 million in the permanent fund, back in the general revenue; $1.5 million in trust funds, back in the general revenue. Add it all up: Mr. Speaker, under this government’s watch, some $50 million put back into the surplus, and now we are spending it to help Yukoners. That is good news.

Mrs. Peter:   The Minister of Justice has made many attempts this week to avoid answering some basic questions about the Capital Towing fiasco. I’d like to give her another opportunity to tell the Yukon people what they have a right to know, and I’ll keep the questions simple.

Why was it wrong for the RCMP to impound a tow truck that was being driven by someone who was so drunk that he was a menace to himself and everyone else on the road?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As the member opposite points out, the person who was picked up, who was drinking and driving, who was impaired, who did break the law, is behind bars and is serving his sentence. Again, I will be very clear with respect to the Capital Towing matter. I acted in strict accordance with the law, which provides that the Minister of Justice shall act if, in fact, the vehicle was impounded wrongfully.

Mrs. Peter:   It’s awfully hard to understand this minister’s logic. She has decided it was wrong to impound this vehicle because the drunk driver wasn’t the owner. She won’t explain how she came to that decision, and she won’t provide the information she used to reach that decision.

Does the minister believe it is wrong to impound any vehicle being driven by someone other than the owner, or just if it’s a commercial vehicle?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   First of all, I’d like to be crystal clear. I acted, again, in strict accordance with the law. I acted based on the legal application that was made to our office which, I add, was submitted to our assistant deputy minister of Justice, to our senior legal counsel. The legal case was made to our senior legal counsel. I made a decision. That was based on that slim, single provision within the Motor Vehicles Act for wrongful impoundment. That is what I acted on. It has absolutely nothing to do with the blood level count of the individual who was driving. That is an absolutely separate matter. I don’t know how much clear I can be.

Mrs. Peter:   The minister says she’s totally against drunk driving, but her actions in this case don’t match her words. If a taxi company needs a driver, is it okay for them to cruise past the liquor store and offer keys to anyone they see? Would it be okay for Whitehorse Transit to just let anyone behind the wheel of a bus, regardless of what condition they’re in? Of course not. That would be outrageous.

Will the minister give her assurance that any amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act will not let the owner of a commercial vehicle avoid any responsibility for allowing someone who is drunk or otherwise impaired to drive that vehicle on their behalf?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   What is outrageous is the member opposite’s accusations about my actions. Again, my action specifically had to do with the wrongful impoundment provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act. It had absolutely nothing to do with blood-alcohol level of the individual who was behind the wheel and who is actually serving time behind bars right now.

Ms. Duncan:   The government’s integrity has been called into question because of several bad decisions it has made over the last few months. There is the MLA for Klondike refusing to pay back loans, and we have the Minister of Justice, who continues to embarrass herself by siding with a drunk driver instead of with public safety.

Yesterday, on the floor of the House, the minister admitted that she ignored the advice of her own officials. She also stated, while providing no proof whatsoever, that the RCMP is behind her 100 percent. Yesterday in this House, the minister insisted that she made her decision to interfere with the judiciary based on a legal case — she said that again today — that was presented to the department’s senior legal counsel.

Now, in the interest of being open and accountable, I would like the minister to release that legal case. It’s a case she stated she has. Will the minister release it?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I can’t be clearer about this matter. I have been open and accountable about this entire matter throughout the entire summer. I held a press conference. I have taken all media calls on this particular case. I draw your reference to a number of interviews that I held over the course of the summer, so I can’t be more open and accountable than what I have been already.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister can be more open and accountable. She has made several references to a legal case. I have asked that she provide it.

The minister interfered in the justice system for some reason, and she won’t tell the public why.

There have been 1,066 impoundments since the amendment giving the minister discretion to release vehicles was added to the Motor Vehicles Act. Not one of those vehicles was released until this Justice minister came along. Perhaps she was taking advice from her Lake Laberge colleague. He said in this House — and perhaps he encouraged the Minister of Justice to boldly go where no other Minister of Justice had ever gone before.

The open and accountable Yukon Party government is once again refusing to release information to the public. The Minister of Environment was asked to release letters he wrote to the Conflicts Commissioner. He refused. The Minister of Highways and Public Works was asked to release the new letter of instruction that he wrote to Dawson City.

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member ask the question, please.

Ms. Duncan:   Absolutely. The government is refusing to provide information to the public. Will the minister release the legal case she says she based her decision on?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Here we go again here. The application was made.

The reason why this is the very first decision that was ever made by a Minister of Justice was because it was the very first application that was ever made to the Minister of Justice, I should add. It is truly unfortunate that the member is not familiar, or I should say, does not have a better understanding of how the law actually reads. If she did, she would know that, under the Motor Vehicles Act, peace officers, review officers and the Minister of Justice all have specific, separate but very distinct roles. Whereas a review officer has the sole authority to rule on early release provisions as outlined under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Minister of Justice has the sole authority over the wrongful impoundment provisions, as also outlined under the Motor Vehicles Act.

And again, just to correct the record, I do not have the authority to appeal the decision of the review officer, just as the review officer does not have the authority to overrule my decision. So to claim that I’ve overruled the justice of the peace review officer is simply incorrect. What I find ironic, however, is the very fact that had the leader of the Liberal Party and her previous government not changed the law that took away the discretionary powers of the review officer in the first place, that application would never have come to my office.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, what’s painfully obvious to the public is the sensitivity on the opposite benches to admitting when they’ve made a mistake. They’re very sensitive to this, Mr. Speaker. And what the minister has not answered in all her various high dudgeons that she expressed is will she or will she not release the case she based her decision on? She has yet to prove to the public she had a reason for making this decision. She won’t provide the legal case. She will not provide any substantiation that the vehicle was wrongfully impounded in the first place. She states on the floor of this House that the RCMP are behind her 100 percent. She won’t and can’t prove it. She will not provide the legal case she says she has. It’s a straightforward, simple question. Please, will the minister provide the members of this House with the legal case she says she has?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Mr. Speaker, again, I acted in strict accordance with the law. Unfortunately, there is a particular provision that refers to wrongful impoundment and if, in fact, a vehicle is found to be wrongfully impounded — in this case it was — as Minister of Justice, I made my decision. People will judge me at the end of the day. And I’m sorry, but I made my decision, and it is time to move on.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Community Services today. Will the minister confirm that the gentleman from Rossland, B.C., who is supervising Dawson City’s affairs, is being paid $800 a day on a three-month contract worth up to $30,000?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We have entered into an arrangement with the supervisor we have in place for the amount indicated.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’m glad the minister has the answer to that question, but we can forget BIP at this point. He made the right move on the business incentive policy with the city multiplex, but you can forget local hire on this job. What we have with this minister is local fire and outside hire. It’s the same policy his colleague used to find the chair for the Yukon Development Corporation.

Under clause 35(6) of the Municipal Act, when a supervisor is appointed, Cabinet may direct that the supervisor’s fees and expenses will be paid by the municipality. Does the minister plan to stick Dawson City with the bill for this high-priced outside talent, when the municipality had nothing to do with the minister’s questionable decision to get rid of the previous supervisor?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   In responding to the member opposite’s question, I believe that, in this particular case, we would not be burdening the village of Dawson with this particular cost. We need this information for us to do our appropriate due diligence with regard to the City of Dawson’s financial information.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, once again we have fat and sassy contracts being sole sourced by this government to meet political objectives that they refuse to admit or explain. The minister keeps saying the government wants to take a new direction regarding the supervision of Dawson City’s affairs. That direction seems to be direct management — direct, politically motivated management.

I’m asking the minister to come clean. Why did he, or his department, or his Cabinet colleagues feel it was necessary to get a high-priced new supervisor for Dawson and to give him such a sweeping mandate to run Dawson’s affairs? Is there a crisis in Dawson, or is this about something else?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I think, for the member opposite, we’re looking at giving a fresh view of what’s happening in Dawson. We feel that this individual has the expertise to provide it to us and we’ll carry on. We’re awaiting his report to us and to get back to the member opposite.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s time for this government to stop dancing around the serious matters that are raised in this House. A few days ago the Minister of Community Services was given the opportunity to move a cloud of suspicion surrounding the firing of the former senior manager of municipal affairs. He refused and so did the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, Mr. Speaker.

I’m asking the Premier to do the honourable thing in this regard. Will the Premier state for the record that this person was not fired for sending or receiving inappropriate e-mails?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will state for the record that any personnel issues are confidential.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s music to my ears to hear the Premier’s voice spoken in the House.

Once again, there is a lot more here than meets the eye, and I can assure the Premier that we will not be backing off just because the government’s game plan is to stonewall on this matter.

This is a small community, full of rumours and speculation. The fiasco this government made of its computer use investigation is hurting many, many individuals and families. This is a personnel issue, but there are critical public policy issues involved as well. We have a responsibility to pursue those policy issues.

Once again, will the Premier, or the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, or the Minister of Community Services do the honourable thing and confirm that this person was not fired for sending or receiving inappropriate e-mails?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I’d like to remind the member opposite that this government does not operate on rumours. We tend to stick to factual issues.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a personnel issue, and it is one that will be, and has been, dealt with by the Public Service Commission in a very professional and respectable manner. I can’t elaborate enough on how well the confidentiality was maintained, and how the whole process was handled professionally.

Mr. Hardy:   We have a reason to believe that this firing did have a connection to the computer use investigation and that the Premier played a role in it advertently or inadvertently. I am putting the Premier on notice in this regard that I intend to spell out that role clearly in the very near future. But for today I would like to ask the Premier one more related question. How much of the $3.9 million contingency in his supplementary budget is set aside to pay for arbitration and wrongful dismissal cases related to the computer use investigation?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I will close this debate by just simply saying to the member opposite that it is the member’s prerogative to make any decisions they feel on speculation.

Mr. McRobb:   My question today is for the Energy minister. It is about the Mayo-to-Dawson line and the $9 million cost overrun of that project. It is interesting to see how the cost of this project has spiralled out of control under this minister — under this government’s watch, Mr. Speaker.

When this government took office a year ago, the estimated cost of this project was $27 million. Earlier this year, under this government’s watch, it rose to $30 million. Suddenly, under this government’s watch, it is $36 million. That begs the question: when did this minister first become aware that he had lost control of this project’s costs?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I would like to correct one of the members opposite. When this government hired the chair, Mr. Morrison, and the insinuation that he is not a Yukoner —

Speaker:   Order please. Please do not refer to an individual by his name.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The new chair we put in place when we understood the problems that the Energy Corporation was having with the Mayo-to-Dawson line, Mr. Morrison —

Excuse me, I am sorry.

The chair went to school here, worked with NCPC, and went on to further his knowledge in the energy industry. We brought a Yukoner home. We have a Yukon family in the Yukon today — both of them, his wife being raised in the Yukon as well. So as far as the Mayo-Dawson line is concerned, Mr. Speaker, in answering that question, I say to you: you only have to look at the opposite side to find out where the problems are. It was consummated by the Liberal Party and put together by the NDP. When we took office a year ago today, did we understand there was a problem? Contractors hadn’t been paid under the Liberal government. The thing certainly had problems. We were in charge of fixing the problems. The Yukon public elected us to face that challenge, and we’ve done that today. The board of directors and the chair have required the Auditor General to come in and do a specific audit on the line between Mayo and Dawson. Are we concerned on this side of the House? Certainly we are concerned. Yukon Energy is owned by all Yukoners. All Yukoners are shareholders in that corporation. The success of it is very important. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a gross evasion of responsibility. The Premier often says, "We’ll lead, follow or get out of the way." Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest they get out of the way. The Auditor General has accepted the request to investigate this matter. That begs the question, Mr. Speaker: when was the Auditor General asked to do this review? The minister didn’t indicate when he first knew costs were beginning to spiral out of his control.

The Auditor General option is the easy way out for this minister and this government. Yesterday I asked the Premier if he would use the public watchdog, the Yukon Utilities Board, to explore this matter with local energy experts, using local knowledge, and he refused, Mr. Speaker. This is the easy way out, using the Auditor General. Can the minister table all documentation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The Auditor General of Canada is the public audit corporation and it is fitting that the chair and the board of directors requested the audit. As far as when the Auditor General was approached, it was approached when the chair and the board of directors made that decision. Then they consulted with me and I agreed with them at that point. The Energy Corporation is being run by a chair and a board of directors, they’ve done the right things, they are concerned about the overruns, and the Auditor General will come out with its report.

Mr. McRobb:   Still no answers, Mr. Speaker. We have strike two on this minister. He refused to agree to table all correspondence on this matter. That was question two. He refused to answer question one — indicate when he was first aware of this latest cost overrun of this project. So he’ll now have three questions to answer.

I’m concerned about the impact on consumers. This cost overrun comes from the same budget as the rate subsidy, the bill subsidy that Yukon electrical consumers get, known as the rate stabilization fund. Last spring I asked the minister when he would be living up to his campaign promise to enhance the rate stabilization fund. He refused, Mr. Speaker, and it’s costing each ratepayer some $40 a month.

This minister needs to acknowledge the connection yet he denies it. Will the minister table the documentation I asked for, indicate when he first became aware of this huge cost overrun, and will he also acknowledge that there is potential here for impacts to electrical bills?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Let’s let the Auditor General of Canada’s office do its job. It is the watchdog. It will come back with a report and, at that point, I can answer many questions.

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

Clerk:   Motion No. 54, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy; adjourned debate, Mr. Hardy.

Speaker:   Members will be aware debate began on Motion No. 54 on April 23, 2003. To assist the viewing and listening audience, the Chair will read the text of Motion No. 54 into the record. It reads as follows:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hardy:   This motion is a carry-over from last spring. It was brought before the House over our concerns about the direction that the Yukon Party government was taking this territory in. In many cases, we have been hearing about jobs not being filled when people have left those positions. We have heard about extreme shortages within departments that were causing a strain on the work environments and making it very difficult for those working in those environments to fulfill their jobs and creating stress which, of course, led to a greater degree of stress relief and, ultimately, the desire to possibly look elsewhere for work.

We have felt that the Yukon Party government had brought in a different type of treatment toward the public servants. It was one of negativity and disrespect, and one that would ultimately lead to a reduction in the workforce of the territory. Of course a great concern of ours was not only that we were losing valuable people who contribute tremendously to the well-being of the territory, but also that we were losing people who lived here, spent their wages here, and contributed to the other economy, the private sector economy, which relies heavily on the public servants’ income and the numbers that are employed by the territorial government throughout the territory.

When the Yukon Party was elected, they assured us there would be no reduction to the workforce, and yet, time and time again, we have seen evidence that there was a reduction and that it was continuing and growing.

Now, the impact of taking $40 million out of the budget has a profound effect throughout the territory. The huge reduction of money that is put into the capital works, historically, to be dropped to that level, sent a massive shift of perceptions for the future of this territory. And what we saw was a continual exodus of people leaving the territory from the private sector and the public sector because they believed what the Yukon Party said back then, which was that it is a doom-and-gloom place, this is not a place where you have much future, there is no money, the piggy bank is empty, there is a $1-million surplus, the spending trajectory is out of control and we have got to reel it in, we have got to roll it back, we are leading up to a precipice and we are going to fall over the edge. These were all the words that were used last spring. They were quite interesting.

The public hears this. The public servants hear this, and what are they supposed to assume? Well, obviously this is a new government. They have looked at the books. They have a good handle on the financial situation in the territory, and therefore we are going to trust them and we are going to make our decisions accordingly. Well, they have told us that there is no future here; let’s start looking elsewhere. Maybe there is a brighter spot out in Canada where we can go and work.

That is not just the private sector that has been doing that. That is also with the public sector. Because if that’s the case and if that’s what the government is saying, if the government is saying the trajectory is all out of whack and the spending practices are way too high, then of course there are going to be cutbacks. There are going to be cutbacks in the very areas that they work in, and they have been happening. So, maybe there is not a future for them.

So, because of that kind of messaging, we are seeing an erosion of belief in this territory. We’re also seeing an erosion of the spending power of money that is spread throughout the territory by the proper distribution through wages. Instead of a lot of money going to very few people, which this government seems to like to do, the collective agreement ensures that there is a decent and honourable wage paid to a large percentage of people, which can then put that money back into the economy, which then can generate employment opportunities in the private sector, who then can ensure that many of these businesses — some of them have been around for 50, 80 years — will continue to operate. Unfortunately, that’s not the direction the Yukon Party felt we had to go in.

The economy was already struggling. There’s no question about it. Unemployment was already very high. So what was the solution? Let’s cut some more. That’s going to really stimulate the economy — let’s cut some more. And the Yukon Party’s position is we’re going to base our argument on this false position that we’re going to put out, and that’s the position that there is no money in the kitty, we are broke, and we’re going to make some very serious cuts. But not only that, we’re not going to outright fire people, we’re not going to outright lay people off, because the Yukon Party said that’s not the way they were going to do it. What we’re going to do is we’re just not going to fill positions. As positions become vacant, we’re going to leave them open, we’re going to leave them empty, which means the work that was being done by, say, six people is now being done by five, then it’s being done by four. And you shrink the public sector.

And you do it in a very behind-a-door way. You do it in a way that you feel you can still live up to your election promise but still get the results you want, and that is a reduced workforce with the public servants.

That work still has to be done. So, if the trajectory was wrong, if the Yukon Party’s position was wrong — and today we find out that of course it was wrong, because there is a huge surplus and there is a substantial amount of money and they were completely inaccurate. The Premier himself even admitted that today, that the Auditor General’s report was accurate, that there was $70 million and that he obviously read it wrong. If that is proven today, then what is the motivation for shrinking the workforce? It’s an ideological one. This is a government — a Yukon Party government — that firmly and truly believes that public servants have a very small role to play in our economy and that it should be driven by the private sector.

We have seen this applied all around the world. We have seen it applied by a multitude of governments in Canada as they have come and gone. We have seen it applied, as I said, all around the world, and we’ve seen it applied and we’ve seen that it doesn’t hold true.

But these are ideological people. This is their mantra. This is what they believe in. These are the promises they made behind the scenes, that they would shrink the public sector because this is what they stand for. Somehow they would shift that responsibility and those duties that are often delivered through the public sector, for the public good, into the hands of for-profit private sector.

They believe that is good for the economy. And that’s a fundamental belief. I stand here and say today quite clearly that that’s what they stand for. That’s what Conservative governments have often stood for historically, even when they’ve been proven wrong and when we’ve seen the disasters of some of the governments in other provinces when they have adopted this approach with too much vigour and force. We have seen extreme cost overruns when it has shifted that way. There are limits to how much you can shift that.

Now, that is the challenge here. How far do you push your public servants, and how do you shrink them and push it over to the private sector before you go too far and have a failure of the system — failure of delivery, a more expensive delivery, costs and less and less accountability to the public?

Now, I’m a firm believer in a mixed economy. I believe in a multitude of industries running. I also believe very strongly in the fact that public servants are hard-working, professional people and that many of our departments deliver programs that are best suited to be delivered by the public servants. They do it cost effectively, and they do it well, and they do it for the public good, without the idea of profit behind them. Health care is a perfect example.

I also believe, as I said, in a mixed economy, and therefore believe that the private sector has a role to play as well. It’s finding that proper balance that best delivers programs, some through the public service and others through the private side. Overall, the Yukon has been shifting back and forth on this.

But every time a Yukon Party government comes in, we see this large, large shove in one direction and it starts to create problems. We don’t have to look too far back in our history — in 1992-96, where we saw a tremendous amount of difficulty during that period under a previous Yukon Party government, and realized that, no, we have to find that balance, we have to work to achieve a balance that is best for the people of the territory.

But when you’re driven by an ideologue, that this is the direction you have to go in, you can also make very foolish mistakes because you can’t step back and analyze if this is the best way of delivering a program, if this is the best decision we can make for the people of the territory, because you rely too much on that mantra that constantly runs through your head and you try to shove it forward that way. Unfortunately, people get hurt. The government that is in power gets hurt because often the public will respond quite strongly. I feel that’s what is starting to happen.

I also believe that there is another side to this. The Yukon Party, recognizing that there would be some resistance to this and wanting to hurry up some of the reductions of the workforce, has created an environment with their own employees, one of, I guess you could say, a poor work environment, one where employees feel that they don’t have the confidence of their employers.

That’s difficult for an employee because your day could be made up of eight or 10 hours — many of our employees work 10 or 12 hours a day, they take work home on the weekends, they’re very dedicated, they put in a lot of time because they truly believe that what they are doing is good and they are committed to doing the best job that they possibly can. As I said earlier, they’re over overworked, burdened with far too much work. Of course that happens because the government doesn’t want to hire anybody else to relieve the pressure on them.

So they have to get this work done, so they take more and more on, and it does affect their quality of life. However, they’re very dedicated people. When they feel that the elected government doesn’t value them, then they wonder why are they here, dedicating eight, 10, 12 hours of their day to working for the public good. Their employer doesn’t respect them in that manner. Five days a week — that’s a substantial amount of a person’s life dedicated to the public good that is being undermined by an attitude of a new government. Now, we’ve seen failed negotiations already with the one of the unions that represents the majority of the workers with the government. And that always causes stress. That doesn’t send out a good signal, but it does happen. That can be recognized. Sometimes it’s just too difficult to come to terms. Still, it’s not an indication from the government that they value their employees. We are aware of positions that are not being filled, and that’s putting a greater strain on the employees, and at some point they say, "Enough is enough. I can’t do any more."

Now we have to add on top of that the computer use investigation. There’s no question about it; I think we’re all aware that there were a few people who were working for the government that had abused their usage of computers and had abused it in a manner that is totally unacceptable for any reasonable scale that you want to put it on.

But those few people should not have been used as an excuse to go after almost a quarter of the workforce in such a manner that it demoralized the whole workforce. I have heard the position taken in Question Period that at all times the investigation was conducted with respect and dignity and they value their employees. If that is the case, then look on the other side. Stand as an employee, not as an employer. Stand as an employee and see what it looks like from that side when you are targeted. When your department receives letters — 60 letters in some departments, or even more — and all of a sudden people go missing for one day, two days, five days. You don’t know if they’ve taken holidays. You don’t know if they are being disciplined for inappropriate computer use. You don’t even know what it is for. I am talking about the people who didn’t receive the letters at this moment. But all of a sudden you wonder what is going on in your workplace. What value does the Yukon government place on the workers when they are quite willing and quite eager to conduct an investigation that has spiralled out of control, to conduct an investigation when many other organizations and agencies, not just in Canada but definitely in North America and around the world, do not use that method.

We have examples within the government workplace where the corporations have used a different method, and they did not end up with one appeal. They delivered a policy on computer use; they educated their workforce and they treated them with dignity and respect. They didn’t attack them and, in the end, as I said, they didn’t end up with one appeal. They ended up with the employees buying in and working together to resolve an issue and a problem that, in many cases, is being considered almost endemic, not just in the Yukon but across Canada, not just with governments, but with many corporations and businesses.

How do you deal with that? You can make a choice. You can do it so it demoralizes people, puts fear in them and causes tremendous stress and is basically extremely heavy handed, or you can do it so it engages them, talks about the problem, works to find solutions together, recognizes there’s a serious problem that has to be addressed but that we’re going to do it together.

The Yukon Party government made a choice; they liked the heavy-handed approach. They like to hammer their employees to the ground. So why was that decision made?

Well, we’ve already seen some of the results: a reduction of the workforce. There’s no question about that. There has also been a demoralization of the workforce; it’s not a good place to work. There’s no confidence in the newly elected people, no belief that they value them. Frankly, if you look at it, in many cases it looks like it’s part of the picture. It just happened to fall in their laps. Well, let’s use it.

The impact that this is having in the territory is substantial. We have heard many businesses saying, "We’re not getting the spending that we had." That’s because people weren’t sure if they were going to have a job or not. People weren’t sure if they wanted to stay here and work for these people, so they pulled back on their spending and started saving some money, thinking that they might have to quit their job. They might have to search elsewhere and might be facing a move. They just don’t want to spend money in a territory working for a government that has no value for them, that is trying to reduce the work force, that has started an investigation against them and has not shown any compassion about it.

It’s a government that won’t take any responsibility for its own actions. Of course, we’ve already heard one of the members across the way blame the opposition as the cause of this investigation and all of the problems surrounding it. I don’t know what fantasy land he’s living in, but I wish he’d come to earth and visit the working people of this territory. Obviously, his position and his perspective don’t come from talking to the employees or workers. It’s from sitting in a little office and imagining everything is fine, even though he doesn’t know what’s going on, which he’s publicly admitted.

We can ill afford to continue along this path. The economy is not doing well. I know the Yukon Party is committed to rejuvenating the non-renewable sector, and I applaud them for that. That’s always a good task to take on. It shouldn’t be the only one. I wish they would dedicate the same kind of interest and dedication to their own employees as they do to re-establishing industries that often say they don’t want any government interference. Of course, we know that’s kind of a funny spin on that one because I have never heard one refuse government assistance.

I’ve often seen that people who preach that government should get out of the economy and get out of the private sector, hand out lots of money to the private sector. So the actions and the words don’t really work out well, and most people have looked at the way economies work and the way governments work within an economy and recognize that it’s just rhetoric, frankly, and the truth is they’re interrelated, they’re very well connected, and they do need each other. We can’t pretend that you just pull away and everything’s going to be rosy. That’s not the way it works.

I think they are realizing that across the way, and I see some indications by their commitment in some of these sectors, and I applaud them for some of those initiatives. But the motion today is really around the public servants, and it’s around what is happening to them. They make up a huge part of this economy, and there’s no question about it. The Yukon government’s the biggest employer in the territory. The amount of money that is shared, that is spread out through wages and contracts and other methods, through NGOs, in most cases stays in the Yukon and runs through the whole system. And the goal, of course, is to try to ensure that as much money as possible that we spend stays in the Yukon and cycles through the Yukon economy more than once, that it touches enough people to generate more jobs.

I’m not sure if there is a study out there at this present time. I should ask some of the economists how big of an impact the public servants’ wages and benefits have in the economy. How many times does that money circle through? How many businesses and people and families does that money, that $40,000 wage, how many times does that come through and benefit somebody else? Because that would be a very fascinating study to understand the true impact that one single public servant wage has on our communities and the Yukon.

Actually, I’d like to see the Yukon government initiate something like that. It would be quite beneficial, I think, for everybody.

Now, in communities — I know my colleagues will talk more about this — but in communities, two or three jobs can quite easily have a huge impact on the economy there, when you are talking about a community of 300 or 500 people and you’re talking about wages of anywhere from, say, $35,000 to $55,000. People live there; they spend their money there; they go to the grocery store; they do their recreational stuff there. That can have a significant impact.

When we see a loss of a job in those areas, it’s felt; there is no question about it. It is felt not only on an economic side but it’s felt on a — what would be the proper word here? — on a social side definitely, but on a belief that the community itself is health and strong and continuing.

I feel it’s very important that the government recognizes that one or two cuts in a small community send a very dire message, send a very negative message to the community that this government has any faith in it.

I would really encourage the government to be conscious of the mental impact it has — not just a financial impact, but the mental impact it has on the people who live in these communities. The government must believe in the communities in order to assist the communities to believe in themselves. All governments — municipal, territorial, federal, First Nation — we must believe. And we must believe through our actions. So where it’s possible we should be trying to generate work and we should be trying to generate work not just through the private sector but also through the public sector.

There’s a tremendous opportunity to do that, and one way to do that is to not make cuts. Don’t allow positions that become empty to remain empty. Don’t allow the burden to fall upon the workers who are left, when, in most cases, they are already working very hard. Don’t allow that to pile up on top of them. Don’t allow services to diminish because of that, but replace people.

We’ve heard of cuts already. The Minister of Education cut 12 positions; there have been cuts in the Health and Social Services areas; I’m sure there are cuts in other areas. Interestingly enough, it’s very difficult to get that kind of information. The opposition on this side has asked for it, and we haven’t been able to get a good reading on what departments have been most hit because of the actions of this new government.

I would like to see this government reinvest in the public service, reinvest in the very good workers that we do have. Offer more training; indicate to them that they have a tremendous role to play in our economy, in our social well-being, in the fabric of the territory.

I would like to see a change in attitude toward the public servants by the Yukon Party government. I think it would benefit them, frankly.

Now, they can smile; they can think that my words, advice and wish to them is nonsense, but I’m speaking from a worker’s perspective. I’m speaking from what it’s like to be a public servant and what they would like to see. I’m not standing here speaking from an MLA’s position. I’m speaking from their perspective and how they would like to be treated, not what has been happening so far, but how they would like to be treated, how they would like to be valued, how they would like to see their employers place their value — indicate it, give them some assistance, hire some of these positions back. There’s no question about it — the government is awash in money.

The spring gloom-and-doom message was nonsense — absolute and utter nonsense. And now the money is there. A small investment can go a long way to restoring confidence in our public servants. It can go a long way to indicating to the rest of the people who don’t work for the government directly that this government values their employees and stands by them, not against them, which is what we have seen over the last few months.

That’s my advice, in this regard: stop the cuts, fill some of those positions, and find new ways to serve the public better, re-establish your sense of trust and value in your own employees, and defend your employees once in awhile instead of defending yourself and your departments. Defend your employees, once in awhile. Once, maybe, would be nice.

Mr. Cathers:   It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today. I appreciate the comments by the leader of the official opposition, and I’ve been looking forward to debating this motion that he tabled in the spring.

Mr. Speaker, this motion gives reference to cuts, cuts of $40 million in public spending, and suggests that cuts by this government have had and/or will have a serious negative impact on the territory’s economy.

The supplementary budget that was tabled yesterday refutes these claims here. We have here a total value in the supplementary budget of $95.5 million in expenditures.

I’d like to refer to a few of the areas in which spending by this government and prudent fiscal management, as well as prudent direction of expenditures, have had a positive effect on building the start of an economic resurgence in the Yukon and ways that, I believe, will have an effect on that.

In an economy there are certain numbers, such as the unemployment figures that were cited by the leader of the official opposition, that are a fairly good indicator of certainly who is working. But there are other trends, other indicators, that show the beginning of a fiscal resurgence of an economic re-growth. The Yukon has been suffering for the last number of years from a made-in-Yukon recession from actions that our caucus here, when we were elected just over a year ago — a year ago as of yesterday. We believe that the economic problems faced by the Yukon were not due, as some would say, to declining values and mineral costs in the resource sector or to some hocus pocus magic out there that just happened to catch the Yukon. We believe they were directly due to the management and mismanagement of the Yukon by previous governments.

It has been our intention to make sure that we reverse that trend, that we begin the economic resurgence of the Yukon, that we create true economic growth, and economic growth must begin with the private sector. The public sector is a very important part of our lives. Public service employees do deserve great respect because they are responsible for managing the direction that the government takes. But the purpose of a public sector is generally to manage the activities of individuals and of the private sector.

We don’t have much of a private sector left in the Yukon today. Those who do have been struggling. We see the signs today — since our election a year ago and taking office 11 months ago — that things are starting to turn around, but these things do take time. One thing that our government gave Yukoners, and gave those thinking of investing in the Yukon, was hope. It’s something that they’ve been missing for a long time.

Now, as I said, there have been recent indicators that the economic trends, that the recession we’re facing, are starting to turn around, somewhat like the iceberg — 90 percent of it is below the surface. Well, we’re starting to see the lead trends that are not visible in many people’s lives yet — we’re aware of that. They’re starting to have an effect. There’s the increase in retail sales. They have gone up substantially. There’s a document that I’m searching for in the pile of papers on my desk — building permits, numbers from September 2003, released by the Yukon Bureau of Statistics. I believe this is already a public document. I don’t believe there’s a need to table this, although I will if requested. These are building permits as of September 2003, prepared by Yukon Bureau of Statistics, released by Statistics Canada, November 4, 2003.

The total value of Yukon building permits increased $18.3 million, or 84.5 percent seasonally adjusted, comparing the period from January to September 2003 with January to September 2002 — an 84.5-percent increase. That’s pretty substantial. The value of residential permits in the Yukon increased $2.3 million, or 15.1 percent, while the value of non-residential permits increased $15.9 million, or 265.7 percent, for this period.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Mr. McRobb:   The Member for Lake Laberge indicated that he is prepared to table a document but he expressed his view that he thought it may already be a public document. Well, I’m not so sure about that because he claims that all the indicators are up. My understanding is that all the indicators are down. So I would request that he do table that document. I certainly would appreciate a copy of it.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here. There has been no citing of any Standing Orders that have been breeched. It’s just a dispute between members.

Deputy Speaker:   During the Member for Lake Laberge’s comments he indicated a willingness to table the document. As it has been requested by the Member for Kluane that the document be tabled, I would ask the Member for Laberge to do so, to table the documents.

Mr. Cathers:   Yes, I am quite happy to table that document at this time so that the hon. Member for Kluane may peruse this to his heart’s content.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cathers:   I thank the Member for Kluane for his helpful interruption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I’m trying to regain my train of thought here, as I was referring to the increases in building permits, which have been quite significant as the numbers I just read and the document that I have just tabled will show.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over a few areas here that are examples of how this government has taken action to achieve the opposite of what the leader of the opposition has referred to in his speech as far as his comments of an economic reversal.

I’d first like to reference the community development fund, some of the awards that have been given. This is a tool that has been used by this government, an initiative of the NDP formerly, that we have taken and that we believe we have made improvements to it. It was an initiative that was cancelled by our predecessors, the Liberal government, which we felt was in error. We have taken steps to reinstitute that program at the original funding level, and we have put in place methods that we believe make the awarding of this more successful and more respectful of the technical merits of this program.

We want to be sure that this is a program that doesn’t end up, at any point, fostering unfair competition or creating an unfair disparity between people. But we believe that it can be a very valuable tool if properly directed. It has been the action of this government to put in place steps that we believe have made it more capable of being properly directed, and we hope it is being directed in that manner.

Of course, if problems arise — as problems can arise with any program; nothing is perfect — we will immediately take those constructive inputs and take the appropriate action.

Some of the areas in which the community development fund has been used to create direct stimulus and direct impact of value to the lives of Yukoners have been in the approval of community development fund for the Champagne-Aishihik First Nation: $13,900 for the youth centre roof repair. This project will create 744 hours of employment for four people. For the Dawson City Art Society, $377,195 is for renovations and additions to the old liquor store. This project will create 3,900 hours of employment for 30 people. For the Dawson Snow Trails Association, $35,000 is for a snow trail groomer. For the Klondike Placer Miners Association, $25,000 is for an executive director. This project will create 1,280 hours of employment for one person. This, of course, is part of this government’s ongoing commitment to the Yukon placer authorization in developing a fair and complete strategy in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which respects the interests of the economy, but also protects fish and fish habitat and puts in place a sensible balance between conservation and requiring purified water to go back into streams that are naturally extremely silty.

There are other community development fund projects. For the Klondike Snowmobile Association, there is $68,935 for the Trans Canada Trail. This project will create 2,460 hours of employment for 10 people. For Learning Disabilities Association of Yukon, there is $21,600 for making reading work. This project will create 680 hours of employment for two people. And that’s an initiative, Mr. Speaker, that I’m very happy to see. I believe that not being able to read is probably the most serious impediment, in some ways, that can be faced by an individual. It is so much of an impediment that it can be as great as a physical handicap in the effect that it has on someone’s life in preventing them from fully participating in society and from understanding society. It’s very beneficial to see this money going forward to assist individuals who have difficulty learning to read in becoming fully capable of reading and fluent. Another project, the Old Crow Recreation Society, received $20,900 for Old Crow youth health and fitness. This project will create 1,950 hours of employment for three people.

The Pelly Banks Aboriginal Society — $18,200 for restoration. This project will create 1,120 hours of employment for eight people. The Teslin Recreation Society — $41,986 for playground equipment at the Teslin Friendship Park. This project will create 80 hours of employment for two people. The Teslin Tlingit Council, Village of Teslin received $59,360 for the George Johnston Trail. This project will create 1,600 hours of employment for four people. The Town of Faro and the Ross River Dena Council have been approved for $49,000 for the Dena Cho Trail interpretive plan. This project will create 600 hours of employment for three people. The Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in First Nation received $22,596 to support the Moosehide gathering. This project will create 1,275 hours of employment for three people. The Village of Carmacks — $65,000 for a visitor kiosk and highway pullout. This project will create 960 hours of employment for three people. Whitehorse Youth Centre — $24,908, youth worker internship and training. The project will create 960 hours of employment for two people. Youth of Today Society — $74,592, "bridging the gap". This project will create 3,840 hours of employment for three people. Yukon Council on Disabilities, $44,764 for "fit to work". This project will create 1,184 hours of employment for two people.

For the Yukon ElderActive Recreation Association, there is $25,000 to assist in the hosting of the Canada Senior Games. This project will create 5,030 of employment for three people. This is also part of this government’s commitment to sports, recreation and toward advancing physical fitness within our society.

Another project: the Yukon River Commercial Fishing Association — $40,000 for the Yukon River Salmon Cooperative. The project will create 10,440 of employment for 13 people. There is $51,000 for the Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous festival. This project will create 1,800 hours of employment for three people.

There are some large community development fund projects. City of Whitehorse — $75,000 for heritage fire hall renovations. This project will create 2,072 hours of employment for 23 people. Town of Faro — $120,285 for Faro’s golf course cultivation. This project will create 6,000 hours of employment for 10 people. Yukon aboriginal sports circle, $55,000 for aboriginal sport development and aboriginal sport role model program. This project will create 2,080 hours of employment for 11 people. There is $150,000 for the Yukon Arts Centre technical equipment upgrade.

I don’t have numbers on how many person hours that’s expected to create.

Mr. Speaker, those are just a few examples of ways our government has expended money to create a direct impact on people’s lives, to create a direct impact on employment, in assisting people and creating real community impact in a positive manner.

I’d like to go over a few of the areas in which this supplementary budget for 2003-04 has implemented items — or, put items in place. I shouldn’t refer to them as "implemented", as it hasn’t been passed, but it includes items that will also provide direct positive economic impact for Canadians.

In this supplementary budget, we have $100,000 for the Canada Senior Games. For the Canada Winter Games host society and infrastructure fund we have two different line items, each for $2 million. There’s money in this budget for the Mae Bachur Animal Shelter — $75,000 core funding. That’s one that I’m very pleased personally to see, Mr. Speaker. It’s an issue that has been raised by a number of constituents and for which I have previously requested our government allocate funding. I’m very pleased to see that item in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I have so many items here of good news, it’s hard to flip to the right page. Moving on, Mr. Speaker, to more good news here, we have the Tantalus School replacement, an item I’m sure that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun will be very pleased to see: $400,000 for planning the replacement of the Tantalus School. This has been an ongoing concern of the community of Carmacks. It has been a request that they have asked for time and time again, and this government has taken the action to address that demonstrated need.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve heard the members opposite go on and on for what seems like hours or perhaps days about this government favouring its own, only giving money to our friends and only supporting our constituents — $400,000 for the Tantalus School replacement in a riding that is represented by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, who happens to sit in the NDP caucus. We represent all Yukoners and make best efforts to address the needs of all Yukoners. Previous governments, including one that the current Member for Mayo-Tatchun was a member of, did nothing to address the need in Carmacks for a new school. We have allocated those funds and, subject to the approval of this Legislature, that money for the planning of replacing the Tantalus School will be flowing in this fiscal year.

Yet another commitment to education — Porter Creek Secondary School, shop and cafeteria expansion, $200,000.

Mr. Speaker, moving on to more education items, this government is currently spending $1 million on an education needs assessment. We have made it very clear to all Yukoners that it is the intention of our government, where a demonstrated need exists, to fill it.

I heard the leader of the opposition, in his discussion on this motion, refer to a cut of 12 teachers by this government in the spring. I am very happy to let the leader of the opposition know that we have increased teachers and education assistants where a demonstrated need exists. In fact, in this supplementary budget there is $456,000 for increasing teachers and education assistants in the schools.

Mr. Speaker, another thing our government is very proud of is the rapid agreement with the teachers on their contract. We made it very clear that we would deal with teachers and with the public employees in a fair manner when we were constructing contracts. We wouldn’t get into an intense adversarial situation of trying to whittle them down to the lowest possible dollar. We make it clear — our government’s commitment to those areas and our respect toward the job that they do.

We want the best and so we intend to pay for the best. We have given to the teachers a very fair offer and to the public employees an offer that we feel is fair and we will be, I understand, hearing from arbitration on that — that was a less fortunate side.

But to the teachers, we presented an offer that was second to none, and we received a rapid agreement with them. The previous government got into the first ever teacher strike in Yukon’s history. We laid a fair offer on the table and received approval.

We have more money in here to address the needs of education, proving our government’s commitment to the future, to our young people, the children who will one day grow up to do everything in society. We hope to have them well-educated in doing so.

For the Association of Yukon School Councils, there is $60,000 in this supplementary budget. School council honorarium, $50,000 — this was a priority area for us. Earlier on this year when we faced a very uncertain, at best, financial future, we were forced to trim a large number of areas that we were not happy about, but through sound fiscal management and through our success with the federal government on the census undercount issue, we are in the position now where we are fortunately able to address these issues that we feel are of great importance. There is $50,000 in here for honoraria for school councils.

But the good news doesn’t end there. Yukoners are well aware of the success achieved by our government, in cooperation with the other two territories, on the health care front — how our Premier approached the premiers of the N.W.T. and Nunavut — and, in cooperation, they went forward to the federal government and laid down a hard line and made it very clear that the federal government, for years, has not been properly addressing the needs of our citizens.

Per capita funding does not address the needs of the northern territories. The three northern territories in total comprise 39 percent of Canada’s land mass, yet we only have a few thousand people. The areas we must cover, the distances we must travel — the distances involved when people require emergency medical treatment or surgery to reach a major medical centre — are far, far greater than those in southern centres.

The northern health care accord is a $60-million agreement — $20 million per territory — for three years. What’s more important is that we have finally achieved, for the first time in history — this government, in cooperation with our two northern neighbours, has finally got the federal government to admit that per capita funding does not address the needs of northern Canadians.

This is a very historic step, and it applies in other areas. It has been referred to before, the large amounts of money — I can’t recall the figures. It was $1 billion and some handed out by the federal government for daycare, but the amount that accrues to the Yukon is a mere $23,000.

$23,000 — that vast number that sounds so wonderful when they announce it, but it means very little to northern Canadians, because they have not been addressing our needs and recognizing that per capita funding does not work for northern Canadians. Mr. Speaker, it was a very, very historic achievement that the three northern territories were able to get on this, achieving the admission from the federal government that per capita funding does not address our needs and receiving the agreement of all the provinces and their support for us in our approach to the federal government on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have some other notes on the health care issue that I also must flip through my notes for. For diagnostic medical equipment, there is $500,000 in this supplementary budget. It is this government’s intention to fully meet the needs of Yukoners in health care to the best of our ability. We are still underfunded by the federal government. That $20 million that we will receive over the three-year period only addressed the rising costs of health care per year. This is still an area where we are facing rising costs in the order of $7 million to $10 million per year upon taking office. This is an area that every jurisdiction in this country is having trouble dealing with: the ageing population, the rising cost of prescription drugs, a number of factors. Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy area to deal with. It’s a very difficult portfolio that the Member for Klondike, the Minister of Health and Social Services, has taken on in dealing with this, but we are making every effort to meet those needs to the very best of our ability.

Mr. Speaker, this supplementary budget is composed of money to fulfill our platform commitments — as well as items in response to the needs of our constituents and all Yukoners as well as, of course, the large number of ongoing items and needs which were continuing when we took office.

The leader of the opposition attacks us rather heavily on this budget. My understanding is that he was claiming that we pled poverty in the spring session when such was not the case. I would encourage the leader of the official opposition to actually look at the books. I am a little surprised to see this, as it is my understanding that the leader of the opposition is actually the chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I would think that he would have access to this information and realize that much of the information is contained in this supplementary budget, without even getting into a detailed account analysis of the money that this government has succeeded in adding to the surplus through sound fiscal management.

We worked hard to create this surplus. The census undercount was a very large item. The census undercount — as many Yukoners are aware, as we’ve spoken on this before — was an ongoing issue that we’ve been dealing with with the Government of Canada, the argument being that Statistics Canada, in their census, undercounts the population of the Yukon and has been doing so consistently.

You may recall in the last Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that one of the major issues that came up constantly — the grave worry of the future — was the issue of the census adjustment that was expected and with the outflow of Yukoners from the territory. The expectation was that the Yukon would be facing a major, major adjustment in the transfer payments.

We had booked, as advised by the Department of Finance, $15 million as a contingency fund to cover costs that we expected to occur in that area. We expected to have the federal government cut our transfer payments and $15 million was the amount that was booked to deal with that possible adjustment – because that adjustment was retroactive to transfer payments.

However, through hard work on the part of the Premier, who is the Minister of Finance, and his Finance department officials, they succeeded in making the case successfully to the federal government that the federal government has been consistently undercounting the number of Yukoners back to 1996.

Mr. Speaker, this supplementary budget is $95.5 million. Forty-four point nine of that is directly due to the transfer of control of Yukon lands and resources from the Government of Canada to the Yukon under the devolution transfer agreement.

There were 245 federal employees transferred from the federal government to the Yukon government. The money coming from the federal government was pursuant to the devolution transfer agreement. The exact numbers were not known at the time of the last budget, which is why they were not included in it, but the ballpark basic amount of it was no secret.

So, $44.9 million of this $95.5 million budget is directly due to devolution. We were criticized this summer for putting that money — which was a direct flow-through from the federal government, already committed to specified areas — through in a special warrant rather than recalling the House at that point.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the House is not supposed to be a place for us to waste our time. It’s supposed to achieve productive results, and everyone who analyzed this knew that that $44.9 million was a direct flow-through from the federal government, already committed to designated activities.

Not only is this supplementary budget large, but the surplus is indeed large now. However, this is due to hard work. Upon taking office, this government tried very hard to get a handle on the fiscal picture, to make sure that money that had been voted on for a certain purpose, but not utilized, was not then reallocated to a new purpose.

It’s prudent fiscal management.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the first thing any prudent and intelligent business person does when taking over a new business, or any sensible government does upon taking office, is to get a handle on what is being spent and how. We are here to manage government. And whether you like it or not, finances are required to do every single thing that government wants to do.

Now, there are times when I suspect that the leader of the opposition would rather just deal with broad concepts and theories, but you have to have the dollars to back it up. Everything the government does require money. Even the communists, in their attempt to create a perfect system in which everyone would work together and love each other, were brought to their knees in the end because even they came down to the bottom line of any economy, of any system, which is that money is required. Government can’t just pull out the printing presses and print off more money, because pretty soon it doesn’t mean anything. Inflation goes right through the ceiling, and soon the money you have isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. You might as well just light your fires.

So as I say, Mr. Speaker, the first thing any prudent, intelligent business person does when they take over a new business, or a sensible government does upon taking office, is to get a handle on what’s being spent. You take money that has been allocated to wasteful or non-productive areas of expenditure, and you redirect those funds to areas that will create real benefit and real economic growth.

Let’s make no mistake. The private sector is the engine of the economy. The government is a very necessary component of our society and system in keeping balance, in creating regulations and making sure that we are not all put at the mercy of whoever has the biggest wallet or the biggest army. But the private sector has always been, and always will be, the engine of any economy.

Studies from around the world — New Zealand, World Bank studies — show the amount it costs for government to take a dollar from the private sector and spend it. Those studies show that the cost for one dollar is at least between $1.30 and $1.60 on average, and it can be as high as $3.

So, Mr. Speaker, the goal of this government has to be to foster private sector growth. We’re doing this on a number of fronts. The recently formed Red Tape Review Committee — a platform commitment we’ve delivered on — was put in place to address this need and to fix this problem. The committee is chaired by my colleague, the Member for Copperbelt, and I am a member of this committee. The goal of this committee is to reduce regulations and red tape, to eliminate overlap and duplication. Basically, we want to make sure that the regulations, laws, policies, et cetera, that are in place are sensible, needed and achieve the intended effect, and that businesses, private citizens and whoever are not required to jump through unnecessary hoops or cut through morasses of red tape to get something done. We want to remove the roadblocks to people’s lives and to economic growth in particular, because the economy has been addressed as the main concern of Yukoners.

This government was elected a year and one day ago and took office 11 months ago. On the doorsteps a year ago, I can tell you that the economy was by far the main issue which my constituents were concerned about. Economic growth is of course the main goal that we have to achieve.

Now, these things do take time. Upon taking office, it takes awhile to get a handle on where everything is, and then you begin taking steps to achieve real effect. I believe that we’ve made a lot of progress there. I believe that the steps that have been taken have already begun that economic turnaround. The more than doubling of investment in mining exploration in this year, when compared to last year, is a real positive sign. The Yukon’s investment in mining exploration has been in a downward trend since 1996, which just happened to be the last time a Yukon Party government was in power.

It has been going down and down and down. This year it has gone up. It has gone up in large part due to the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his department. They have been working very hard on this issue, on speaking to investors, going to the Cordilleran Roundup and other venues to promote Yukon’s willingness — we are open for business. We are not saying to anyone, "Come in and do whatever; we are not going to pay attention to it." There are in place a lot of regulations to control land use and to make sure that development does not have an adverse impact on the environment. The goal is laudable. In some cases there is a tremendous amount of red tape in those areas.

The Yukon, I believe, has a record of taking four years, on average, to approve or disapprove a major mine application.

Other jurisdictions, such as Manitoba, have a set timeline. I understand it is six months for Manitoba. The application is made, there is an environmental review that’s very clear — what the process is for environmental review, for community input, for assessment. It is assessed, the decision is given: yes or no.

They come to the Yukon and, for the last number of years, they have been told, "Come to the Yukon and four years from now we might get around to giving you a decision on this, but maybe not. But it might be." Or they can go to Manitoba and six months later they find out yes or no. It costs companies a lot of time to sit and wait for government to make up its mind.

Unfortunately, it seems that one thing previous governments have not been aware of is the effect that even a couple of weeks of government delay can have on a business. It can be enough to stop the project. Well, if we’re going to stop the project, let’s let them know right off the bat what the rules are and why it would end up being stopped — not take so long to find ourselves that we never know whether it’s going to happen or not.

The protected areas strategy, which was undertaken by our two predecessor governments, was a perfect example of disastrous government policy. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, upon taking office, one of the first things our government did was to cancel that protected areas strategy.

Let me be perfectly clear: this government does not condone and has no intention of permitting environmental devastation. We want companies, resource developers, to be responsible corporate citizens and we want to take every necessary step to make sure that they are responsible corporate citizens. If they are not, they reap the consequences of their actions — not Yukoners.

This government made it very clear that the Yukon Territory is open for business.

I spoke of our surplus in this budget — $69.7 million. Of this, $34.5 million is the result of direct actions taken by this government. Of that surplus, $23 million came as a direct result of the work on the census undercount issue and successfully convincing the federal government that it had underestimated the Yukon population for a number of years. On top of that, there was $15 million that had been booked for the contingency fund, assuming our transfer payments were cut, which they were not. There is $38 million directly as a result of that work.

Additionally, there is $10 million from the dissolution of the permanent fund. This was an initiative of the previous Liberal government that was based on their taking a look at Alaska’s fund and the Alberta heritage fund. It had large amounts of money sitting in the bank and the interest from these funds could be used for valuable and positive public activities.

Those funds were very successful. However, the previous government took a mere $10 million at a time when interest rates were at an unprecedented low and put it into a fund, set aside where it could do nothing except just sit there and earn very poor interest.

That did not make sense, particularly when the Yukon is in a time of unprecedented economic trouble. It is the intention of this government to sensibly utilize government money to create long-term economic benefit to Yukoners and other initiatives such as the community development fund to create short-term economic benefit so that we don’t see Yukon citizens, Yukon contractors, employees, numerous private companies leaving the territory because they have no work. We have put this in place as a short-term solution to keep them here, because once they go it’s hard to get them back, and if we get them back for a project such as the pipeline — the touted saviour of the Yukon’s economic fortunes by the previous government, the solution from heaven, perhaps. Even if it does come through, which certainly it looks very hopeful that it will someday, but that’s down the road, by the time it ever got to that stage, who would be left in the Yukon that would have the skills to work on that pipeline? There is a grave, grave chance that the people working on that pipeline would all be transient workers from Alberta, B.C., et cetera, and that very little of the money would end up staying in the Yukon.

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

Speaker:   Member for Kluane, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   Point of order, Mr. Chair. I’ve been listening to these circular arguments from the Member for Lake Laberge, and I’m concerned that he may be too dizzy to drive home tonight, and I would ask you to remind him to stick to the contents of the motion.

Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. I’m simply presenting the arguments for how this government has achieved the opposite of what the motion says it has, and it’s simply an amusing commentary by the Member for Kluane.

Speaker:   The Chair rules that there is no point of order. It is simply a dispute between members, and I ask the Member for Laberge to carry on, please.

Mr. Cathers:   I appreciate the Member for Kluane’s sense of humour on this, though I must say that, as enjoyable as it has been being back in the House and listening to the comments, helpful suggestions and witty — or not so witty — attacks from the members opposite, I am a little bit puzzled as to what they think this is. The leader of the opposition earlier referred to tap dancing. Does he think this is a dance class? Now the Member for Kluane — is he under the impression that this is a comedy club?

Another comment earlier by the leader of the opposition to one of my caucus colleagues and suggested that he come down to earth. I would like to express my relief that the story carried in the newspaper earlier this summer about the leader of the official opposition being kidnapped by aliens appears to have been inaccurate or, if it was indeed accurate, that they seem to have returned him in full health.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cathers:   I must express to the members opposite how much I appreciate their witty commentary and suggestions that are undoubtedly intended to be helpful on this.

Now, to regain my train of thought, this government has also made it very clear that we believe all governments in this territory must work together — rather than spending their time fighting each other — if we, as Yukoners, are to move forward. We made it clear during the election campaign, and have made every attempt to make this clear since taking office, that we respect the final agreements with Yukon First Nations. We recognize that they are a constitutionally recognized order of government. They have their role, as the Yukon government has its role. Previous governments seem to have spent a tremendous portion of their time fighting with Yukon First Nations.

There are difficult areas of discussion that must be resolved from time to time in certain matters with First Nations, and we recognize that. We will have areas of disagreement, but we will always — always — endeavour to have any disagreements conducted respectfully and fairly. We respect that they are a level of government.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon the Yukon government, and the governments of Yukon First Nations, to work together for the good of all Yukoners. It has been a belief of mine and other members of this caucus, as well as a point we promoted very heavily during the election campaign of just over a year ago, that if we’re not working together, no one is going to be working at all.

It’s very, very important that we work together and, where areas of dispute exist, we must make every effort to resolve those in a fair and respectful manner.

There have been a number of areas where this has been proven by this government: signing of consultation protocols outlining how the Yukon government consults with First Nations and how they consult with us, and what areas that must apply to; there has been the agreement with the Kaska Nation, the bi-lateral accord that, in absence of a land claim, is intended to allow Yukoners to permit access of investment into that area. This has been a benefit for Kaska members and all other Yukoners alike.

The federal government has pulled away from land claims negotiation with the Kaska Nation. We do not, unfortunately sometimes, control the federal government, but we’re making every effort to work together with or without federal involvement on this issue.

We remain committed to settling land claims once and for all, moving forward together as Yukoners toward a brighter future. But we do not control the federal elements of this and we are working together to the best of our ability to achieve agreement with First Nations to get economic activity, investment, resource development and other activities happening within traditional territories with the agreement of the Yukon government and of the First Nation government to achieve economic result for all Yukon citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the Holy Grail, for lack of a better word — the solution from heaven touted by our predecessors, the Liberal government of the day — of the Alaska Highway pipeline. Well, our government has been very clear that we do support the Alaska Highway pipeline. But unlike our predecessors, we’re not putting all our eggs in one basket. In fact, for them, it wasn’t just all the eggs in one basket; there was only one egg in the basket, and it was an egg that you wouldn’t be able to cook for a long, long time.

One of the reasons that the producers have favoured the Mackenzie Valley route going first is because of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group in the area. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear, as I believe we as a government have always been, that it is the producers who will make the decisions on which pipeline will go first or if any will go at all or if both will be built, or whatever happens. And we do believe that both pipelines will probably be built, based on the best assessment of the indicators that we can come up with. But it certainly looks like the Mackenzie Valley route will probably be built first.

There are questions around that. Certainly the recent controversy regarding a federal official and alleged impropriety regarding land transactions could create a potential problem for that.

But the issue in this area is: how did the Mackenzie Valley route get approval from the producers over the Alaska Highway route? In large part, that was due to the existence, the formation, of the Aboriginal Pipeline Group in the Northwest Territories that put the First Nations in the area together in a group that made it very clear that they were willing and happy to see pipeline development.

Our predecessors, the Liberal government of the day, didn’t do the groundwork in this area. So when producers looked at where to put a pipeline, they say that the Northwest Territories, the people are ready for this, the First Nations are ready for this, the