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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Please join with me in welcoming to the visitor gallery my wife, Karen, who is with us today.

Applause

Speaker:   Any further introductions of visitors?

Speaker:   Under tabling returns and documents, I have for tabling the Report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Accounts of the Government of Yukon for the year ended March 31, 2003.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills for introduction?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the proposed amendments to the Taxpayer Protection Act in Bill No. 36 could have a profound effect on the financial position of the current Government of the Yukon and any future government; and

(2) Yukon people have a right to be consulted on such a significant change in how the territorial government manages their tax dollars; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Finance to have Bill No. 36 withdrawn from the Order Paper for the current sitting of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and to put the question of proposed amendments to the Taxpayer Protection Act directly to the Yukon people, either by calling a referendum for that purpose or by dissolving the House and calling a general election.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to provide improved training opportunities for residents wishing to serve their community as volunteer members on ambulance crews.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to work cooperatively with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, the Village of Carcross and their citizens to avail itself of Government of Canada infrastructure funding, specifically as it pertains to waterfront development in Carcross.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:  I have a question for the Premier in his capacity as the Minister of Finance.

Since this party’s platform in the last election campaign made no mention of this, what mandate does the Premier have to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The mandate is quite simple. The government of the day is here to stimulate the Yukon’s economy, not only by expenditures in the short term but by laying the groundwork for long-term, sustainable economic development for the territory. The member opposite is questioning whether we have a mandate; that is the mandate. But I want to also make mention that what we are doing is providing options for the Yukon and its government to partner with the private sector, to complement government spending with private sector investment.

There is absolutely no way that the government alone can accomplish what is required here when it comes to the Yukon’s economy. The last decade has shown that clearly to us. We as a prudent government — a government with vision and a plan — are moving forward to alleviate those problems by partnering with the private sector. That’s exactly what we’re doing. That is the mandate.

Mr. Hardy:   That sounds like a lot of bafflegab to me. I hope the Premier is prepared for a rough ride, if and when this amendment comes up for debate. It isn’t just MLAs on this side of the House who are vehemently opposed to what the Premier wants to do. In fact, the former Yukon Party government leader, who introduced the act, calls the Premier’s plan a betrayal. He predicts that the Premier’s plan to go on a capital spending spree could lead the territory into great debt.

I’m surprised to find myself agreeing with the former government leader, Mr. Speaker, but that’s exactly how this Premier’s actions look from this side of the House as well. Why is the Premier pursuing a course of action that far more experienced members of his own party consider to be a big mistake?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   All Yukoners have a right to an opinion, but I urge the member opposite, if the official opposition chooses to debate this, to debate the facts. This amendment is a very benign amendment. The amendment does not change in any way, shape or form the integrity of the Taxpayer Protection Act. Quite frankly, even with this amendment, the Yukon can still not go into an accumulated deficit; the Yukon can still not raise taxes, like income tax, without referendum.

And let’s talk about debt. Yukon’s debt is controlled by order-in-council of the federal government, not by the Taxpayer Protection Act. This amendment is a benign amendment, to provide more options for this government and this territory, to partnership with the private sector to help complement government spending by providing capital dollars from the private sector to stimulate our economy in the short term, while we lay the ground work for a long-term, sustainable economy for this territory.

Mr. Hardy:   I consider this to be a sneak attack on the taxpayers of the Yukon. The Premier has stated that both the Auditor General of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants have recommended changing the Yukon government’s accounting procedures. I hope the Premier will table those relevant documents so we can see the content and text of those recommendations.

It’s hard to believe that the Auditor General would approve of this government mortgaging the Yukon’s future to pay off some political IOUs. This proposal could have a major impact on future governments, not to mention Yukon taxpayers in general. The people of the Yukon should have a say in any major change in the way public projects are financed.

In the absence of a clear mandate from the voters, will the Premier now take this amendment off the table and take the question of changing the Taxpayer Protection Act to the Yukon people through a referendum?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, this government is going to exercise political will. This amendment is a very benign amendment and does nothing in terms of what the member opposite is making inferences of. In fact, this amendment will allow the government to provide to the public full disclosure. I challenge that member to explain to the public why, under the Taxpayer Protection Act, more than one set of books has to be kept to ensure we did not contravene the surplus deficit cap by properly booking the post employee benefits.

Mr. Speaker, those were kept separate and away from the public view. With this amendment, we are allowed to provide full disclosure. We are going to run government like business runs itself when it comes to full accrual accounting. And, when it comes to the Auditor General, we are one of the last jurisdictions that will be doing this. The Auditor General is not recommending. The Auditor General is saying that government must go to a full accrual accounting system. That’s the long and the short of it — next question.

Mr. Fairclough:   I hope that I am not dismissed like the Premier has done to my colleague. My question is to the minist —

Speaker:   I remind the member that it is inappropriate to make comments about a previous question. Ask your question please. Please proceed.

Mr. Fairclough:   I hope that I am not dismissed by this Minister of Health to whom my question is directed, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past week the minister has heard, loud and clear, concerns expressed by several communities about the burnout of volunteer ambulance attendants and the training they need.

The minister’s department has an ambulance training position that has been vacant for a year and a half now. Why hasn’t this much-needed position been filled yet?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government recognizes the importance of volunteers across the Yukon. We applaud those volunteers. We recognize the role that they play, not only in the health care system but in the fire departments and everywhere.

The issue surrounding a trainee and the staffing of that position had to be vetted through the Public Service Commission. There’s an issue surrounding flex time that the union had to agree with. Unfortunately that process has taken longer than normal to get through the system and get the concurrence of the union so that we can move forward with the trainer that works flex time.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister ought to check his facts, because, according to the union, an agreement has already been reached between them and the department on the flex-time issue. The position of a rural training coordinator was finally posted in June, close to six months ago. Several qualified applicants are still waiting to hear if they will be interviewed. In the meantime, the minister has come up with a solution of some kind, using highways personnel as ambulance drivers. I presume that he would use this solution wherever it is needed and not just in Teslin.

This solution seems to have been patched together in a hurry, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister cleared this change in job descriptions for highways personnel through their union?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The other issue surrounding why the trainer hasn’t been put up and running is another issue surrounding the Public Service Commission. It’s a grievance that has been filed by those others in the system. Until that is duly resolved, I, as the minister, can’t move forward on this initiative.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, the minister didn’t answer the question. I asked if the job description changes for highways personnel have been agreed to through the union. The minister didn’t answer that question.

There are certainly a number of questions that come up with this temporary fix that the minister has proposed. There are liability issues, for example, not to mention the practicality of highways workers getting from their jobs to an ambulance. The big concern that we have on this side of the House, and that many of the people in the communities have, is the kind of training that the highways personnel will get.

Will highways personnel be trained beyond their basic first aid training so that Yukon people can feel some comfort and safety when it comes to emergencies and having an ambulance service? How will the minister ensure that the training is provided?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What we are talking about here is the ability to recruit and then train volunteers, and it differs significantly from community to community across the Yukon. Some communities have a relatively stable core, whereas others have considerable difficulty in attracting and maintaining volunteers. These people are a very dedicated group. Our department is endeavouring to provide the highest level of training possible, as well as clothing, as well as vehicles. In fact, our supplementary budget just tabled identifies a sum of money for a new ambulance to go into Ross River.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Finance regarding his decision to gut the Taxpayer Protection Act.

The Yukon Party is changing the act, and the result will be a huge increase in the long-term debt owed by Yukon taxpayers. The changes will allow this government, the Yukon Party government, to charge millions of dollars in debt to a VISA card, and it will be future governments that have to pay it off.

This spring, I asked the Minister of Finance if he planned to change the Taxpayer Protection Act, and he said no. In fact, he said, "Why would we have gone through this exercise of lowering the spending in government if we were going to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act? We would have just amended it and started spending. It’s the Yukon Party that brought in the Taxpayer Protection Act because of runaway spending by governments."

Mr. Speaker, that was only eight months ago. The minister has broken a commitment. It’s no wonder public trust in government is being dissolved. Why is the Finance minister breaking a commitment he made only eight months ago in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Firstly, we are not breaking a commitment. This is a very benign amendment that does not compromise, in any way, shape or form, the integrity of the Taxpayer Protection Act. Furthermore, this member, in alluding and implying that this is gutting the Taxpayer Protection Act, is doing a disservice to the public by adding negatively to a debate with insinuations and fabrication.

Also, the reference to credit card —

Speaker:   Order please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I retract "fabrication".

Speaker:   Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is the member’s opinion, and that doesn’t mean an opinion is correct.

And references to a credit card are also not the case. This is not about government going on a spending spree; this is about government finding ways to engage with the private sector, to have the private sector invest in this territory to help stimulate the economy by complementing what government can spend.

The issue here is, Mr. Speaker, even with this very benign amendment, the territory can still not go into an accumulated deficit — that’s very important. Secondly, the territory still cannot raise taxes, like income tax, without a referendum. Thirdly, the territory’s debt is still controlled by the federal government, through order-in-council. Nothing has changed.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, the Finance minister said that the changes are benign. In fact, the changes are malignant, and the cancer is long-term debt. The government is changing the Taxpayer Protection Act so it can run up millions of dollars in long-term debt. Last week a former Finance minister, a former Premier, a former leader of the Yukon Party, John Ostashek, described the proposed changes as a mistake. He also said there was only one reason the minister would change the act — he’s going on a spending spree. Otherwise, there’s no hurry.

Now, the former leader of the Yukon Party — as a former Finance minister myself, in this case, I agree with him. The government wants to go on a spending spree, but public comments clearly show that the Yukon Party is not united on these changes.

Does the current Finance minister agree with the comments made by the former leader of his once proud party? Does the minister think the former leader of the Yukon Party is right or wrong?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, every Yukoner, including former members of this Legislative Assembly and party leaders, are entitled to an opinion. Now, it’s a good thing that that member is no longer the Minister of Finance, given the fact that the member has stated clearly on the floor of this Legislature today that the member does not understand the difference between debt and deficit — and there is a big difference.

It’s not the government going on a spending spree at all. It’s the government creating options with what it has available to it, to engage the private sector, partner with the private sector and provide stimulus to the Yukon economy with private sector investment. This is not a bad thing; it’s a good thing. We will ensure that whatever projects the private sector is going to invest in, the public is very much a part of choosing those projects.

The upside to this, Mr. Speaker, is that we have found a way to increase government options in partnering with the private sector for stimulus — not debt, stimulus. And I challenge that member to explain to the Yukon public about the highest rate of rent ever in the history of the Yukon, for a rental building that we, at the end of the term, will not own. Under public/private partnerships, that building would have been in the ownership of the Yukon taxpayer.

Who, really, has put the territory into debt — that member through rent or this issue about deficit, not debt?

Ms. Duncan:   The member opposite failed to answer the question as to whether or not he agreed with the former leader of the Yukon Party. It was a straightforward yes or no, and he failed to answer the question.

The changes that the Finance minister has brought forward to the Taxpayer Protection Act were made in the back room. There was no public consultation. These changes are being made so the government can run up a long-term debt that future generations — future Yukoners — will have to pay off. That will be the legacy of that government — long-term debt.

The government is making fundamental changes to the way we keep our books and it didn’t bother to tell anyone about it.

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

Speaker:  Member for Porter Creek North.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House, Guideline No. 7 of the Guidelines for Oral Question Period, "a one-sentence preamble will be allowed in the case of each supplementary question." The previous question, at 11 sentences and two questions, and this one at eight and rising, makes one wonder if there is a question to all of this.

Speaker:   Leader of the official opposition, on the point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   I submit the member opposite has challenged your previous rulings that that particular clause in the Standing Orders is not firm and it enjoys a great amount of flexibility as determined by past practice in this House.

Speaker:   Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   The past practice of this Legislature has been to deal with Question Period in a fair and just manner by rulings, such as yours, that allow, in terms of flexibility of questions in supplementary, time limitations as opposed to specific sentences. Perhaps if the member opposite had greater longevity in the House, he would have recognized that.

Speaker:   Government House leader, on the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Why do we have rules for this sitting if we are not going to abide by them, Mr. Speaker? And that’s the question that has been raised here. It appears from the questions raised by the third party and the official opposition that the House rules, the Standing Orders, are not being adhered to.

Speaker:   There is no point of order; however, there has been more than a one-sentence preamble, so I have allowed some flexibility. I have also allowed some flexibility on the government side in terms of answering the questions, so I would hope that the House would respect these rulings.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government, in essence, is panicking because they’ve made no progress on a far too high unemployment rate. The government is desperate to change that and is willing to sacrifice the territory’s long-term economic health with these changes that will allow the territory to go into long-term debt. Will the Finance minister address the issue and commit that the divided Yukon Party will not ram the changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act through this House until there has been complete, full, public consultation in this matter of utmost importance?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, to get into a constructive debate, we have to make sure that this member understands the difference between debt, deficit, long-term debt. Furthermore, I did point out in my original answer that everybody is entitled to an opinion, and we don’t preclude any Yukoner from having an opinion. However, the point is that this amendment doesn’t change the Taxpayer Protection Act whatsoever. What it does is provide government and this territory more options to stimulate the economy.

This government isn’t panicked. This government has a vision and a plan. This government all along has stated that we intend to partner with the private sector to stimulate the Yukon’s economy, to complement government spending. That’s what this amendment does.

Furthermore, I would point out, just for the member opposite’s benefit in future debate, that deficit surplus is the same as retained earnings. In a business, full accrual accounting is the same thing that is done in accounting in business. The government is doing nothing different. We are going to run government like a business.

Furthermore, with this amendment, we will provide one set of books — full disclosure to the Yukon public, unlike that member in hiding the liabilities of employment benefits.

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

Speaker:   Order. Leader of the third party on the point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   The Finance minister has just suggested motives with respect to the public accounting done under our government. He suggested that we had hidden something with respect to full disclosure. That is motives, and that is not correct and not in order. I would ask the member, with all due respect, to kindly withdraw that comment.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I would challenge the member to explain to the Yukon public why the full accounting for the post-employee benefits was not on the books.

Speaker:   Order. Order please.

The Chair is going to have to review the Blues on this issue, and I’ll come back tomorrow with a ruling.

Mr. McRobb:   I have a question for the Energy minister on the extended rate relief he announced last week. This program extension will eventually provide only a slight benefit to commercial and municipal customers during the short window from April to September 2004. It does not, and will not, apply to anyone else at any other time.

That could have been different had the minister done his job. The benefit could have doubled had the minister acted in time to engage the extension before this past summer, but he delayed taking action, even though all it would have taken was a stroke of a pen. When I asked the minister to do exactly that on March 25, his response was, "We’re looking at a new policy, and we will announce it as soon as we can."

My question for this "can’t do" minister: where is this new policy that ended up costing those customers their subsidy this past summer?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   This was one of the platform commitments made by this government when we were out campaigning. We have met our commitment. It’s good news for Yukon, and we’ve done our job.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister has not done his job. Perhaps the minister should have been doing his job, instead of letting a $175,000 sole-source contract for a full-time chair. Aside from the minister’s excuses on that matter, we do have other concerns.

In the minister’s announcement, he said that it makes sense to introduce the amendment now, as there is a surplus of hydro. However, in Watson Lake and other communities not connected to the hydro grids, the minister’s announcement will result in more diesel generation and a greater reliance on fossil fuels.

Can the minister explain how this increase to the overall subsidy will send signals to consumers that conservation is a good thing?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   My job as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is to be answerable to Yukoners. It’s very easy for the members opposite to be critical. I guess that’s what their job is. But I will tell you right now that the platform was that we would do this. We did it, and it’s good news for business and it’s good news for Yukoners. In three years, Yukoners will make that decision.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, Yukoners are making their decision now, and they’re saying that the minister didn’t do his job in time.

This government is doing nothing to promote energy conservation. To the contrary, this program extension removes the customer incentive to conserve energy. For the minister’s information, at the time the rate stabilization fund was originally announced in 1998, it was balanced with initiatives to enhance energy conservation, to promote green power, and to install the territory’s first commercial-scale wind turbine.

On the other hand, the Yukon Party’s approach is not balanced. Can the minister explain for us why his unbalanced agenda excludes energy conservation initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The member opposite is creating wind that will eventually, I guess, drive our wind hydro. But I’m telling you right now, Mr. Speaker, our job is to the business community and to the residents of the Yukon. We have to make the right decisions and we have made the right decision on energy in the Yukon.

When we talk about all sorts of other issues, which are Yukon Development, Yukon Energy — ask me questions on that, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got a lot of answers on that.

But as far as the rate, it’s a level playing field. We did it because it was part of our platform. It’s a job well done, and Yukoners will all benefit.

Mr. McRobb:   My next question is for the same minister about the full-time chair he appointed to the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation.

On May 26, the minister suddenly replaced the chair of the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation with a full-time chair. There are many troubling repercussions from the minister’s unilateral action.

This undertaking came as a complete surprise. It came less than a month after the previous chair appeared before this Legislature. It was not identified in the Yukon Party’s campaign material. It seems it was not an issue to anyone other than the minister himself.

This sole-source contract will cost Yukoners at least $175,000 for the period of his one-year appointment.

Can the minister explain why this exorbitant cost was necessary, and why was it sole sourced to someone outside the territory?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   For the information of the members opposite, why did I appoint a full-time chair? They should look to their left and ask the member of the third party, because when we took over in December of last year, this contract — the line from Mayo to Dawson — was a month overdue. The contractor had quit and we had a problem on our hands — a challenge. Anybody north of Crestview understands why we had to take hold of that contract — part of it was a full-time chair of the board to solve the challenges that we met in December of last year.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, it’s going to be difficult making sense out of that answer, like the minister’s other answers, even from reading the Blues, I’m sure.

So much for the all-party commitment on appointments to boards and committees.

One of the other concerns was the chair’s mandate. The minister announced that the chair would be developing and implementing a revised corporate governance structure to improve the accountability of Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation. However, the minister said on the radio the other day that the chair is, in effect, dealing with operational issues such as power in Dawson City, paying subcontractors, signing easements and finalizing the line with the contractor.

Can the minister explain for us what changes this $175,000 chair has made to the governance structure of the corporations? Does the chair of the board now have added responsibility for operational matters?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   This side of the House took on a challenge in December. The challenge was that we had a huge commitment to finish the line between Mayo and Dawson, and when we hired a full-time chair, that issue was on the front burner. We would be remiss if we didn’t put him on that job to get it done. Today, the subcontractors are paid, the contractor is back on the job, and Dawson has power. Those three issues were on the front burner. My job was to get the contract finished — it’s a job in progress — and I would like to report that it’s coming closer and closer to a finale.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the project is more than a year late and $9 million overbudget and counting.

There’s another interesting problem caused by this minister’s sole-sourcing activities. In the list of credentials identified by the minister when announcing the new chair, an important part of his background was missing — that was his involvement in the recommendation to privatize the publicly owned power corporation in the Northwest Territories. We know this government is already sliding down the slippery slope of privatization when it comes to public services, like highway maintenance, but that appears to be the tip of the iceberg.

Yukoners have contacted us with their concerns about what appears to be a hidden agenda to privatize energy infrastructure in the Yukon. Will the minister acknowledge that the chair’s real mandate goes beyond what he told the public?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I can tell the member opposite that the reason we hired the man we did to be chair of the energy board is because he was the best qualified guy at the time. What he did in another jurisdiction, we have no control over. We had a project that was double its money; it was a challenge, and we have met those challenges as an elected government. It is our job to get challenges like this behind us, and we have to go forward.

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

Speaker:   Before calling private members’ business, the Chair would deliver a ruling regarding notices of motion for the production of papers. The ruling concerns Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 19, given by the leader of the third party. This notice read:

"THAT this House do issue an order for the return of records of all correspondence, including verbal, written and electronic, between the MLA for Porter Creek North and the Yukon’s Conflicts Commissioner regarding the Conflicts Commissioner’s investigation into the proposed subdivision on Wann Road and the disposition of Versluce Meadows in Whitehorse, Yukon."

Our Standing Orders make mention of motions for the production of papers but do not discuss them in detail. Pursuant to Standing Order 1, therefore, we refer to the practice of the House of Commons of Canada in determining what is in order and out of order regarding such motions. This information can be found in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at pages 398 to 404.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice advises that the basic purpose of notices of motion for the production of papers is to allow members to request "that the government compile or produce certain papers or documents and table them in the House." However, the documents requested by the leader of the third party are not in the possession of the government.

In 1995, the Yukon Legislature enacted the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act. This act established an independent Conflicts Commission to deal with issues of conflict and potential conflict. The office of the Conflicts Commissioner is not subject to the authority of any minister of the government. The Conflicts Commissioner is subject to the authority of the Assembly as a whole. However, the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act establishes the kinds of information that members may access from the Conflicts Commissioner and the process by which that information may be accessed.

It is clear, therefore, that through the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act, this House has already established the procedures it wishes to follow regarding requests such as that made by the leader of the third party. It is not in order, therefore, for the Assembly to attempt to supersede the provisions of legislation by way of a notice of motion for the production of papers. The Chair therefore rules that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 19 is not in order and orders that it be removed from the Order Paper.

Clerk:   Motion No. 27, standing in the name of Mr. Arntzen.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Copperbelt

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Porcupine caribou herd is a vital part of the life, culture and heritage of the Vuntut Gwitchin people; and

(2) drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would endanger the calving areas for the Porcupine caribou herd; and

THAT this House support the Vuntut Gwitchin in their efforts to prevent oil and gas exploration within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Arntzen:   It gives me great pleasure to debate and speak on this motion today. The Porcupine caribou herd is a world-class treasure that must be preserved and protected for all time.

Where else in North America is there a free-running herd of animals of this enormous size? Only in Africa would you find something equivalent to this wonder of nature.

The herd size peaked in 1989 at 178,000 caribou. Since then it has declined at a rate of three percent per year from 1989 to 1998 and 1.5 percent per year from 1998 to present.

The last count of the Porcupine caribou herd occurred in 2001 and showed 123,000 caribou in that herd. The decline in the herd began during a series of hard winters from 1990 to 1992, which reduced calf production and survival.

More recently, persistent snow cover during May and June of 2000 and 2001 delayed the herd from reaching its preferred calving grounds on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This reduced several calves so that only 44 to 51 percent of cows were accompanied by calves at the end of June — the lowest rate recorded during more than 20 years of research on this herd.

As you see, the Porcupine caribou herd has enough challenges to overcome problems presented by Mother Nature herself, without having to face added pressure from the herd caused by actions of mankind.

Successive Yukon governments have consistently supported the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd, and this position has been consistently communicated over the years to the Government of Alaska, members of the U.S. Congress, as well as to our own Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of our motion here today — to carry on this tradition. The second part of my motion states that "the drilling for oil and gas within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would endanger the calving areas for the Porcupine caribou herd."

Now, I would like to give the House a little background history about how the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was established. On December 2, 1960, then President Eisenhower’s Secretary of Interior, Fred Seaton, established an $8.9-million acre Arctic Range by executive proclamation and revoked public land order 82 that opened 20 million acres of the North Slope to potential resource development, including the area around Prudhoe Bay.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Wilderness Act. Then, in 1971, the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which included a provision under section 17(d)-2 calling for 80 million acres of federal lands in Alaska to be protected as a park and wildlife refuge.

In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed, which nearly doubled the size of the arctic range. It was renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Nearly all of the former range had been designated as part of the national wilderness preservation system. But in a compromise with the U.S. Senate, section 1002, mandating a study of the oil potential and biological resources of the portion, was omitted from wilderness designation to coastal plain. However, Congressman Moe Udall also ensured inclusion of a provision that closed the coastal plain to oil and gas exploration unless specifically opened by Congress. Today, 1002 lands are so named because of section 1002 of the act.

The present U.S. administration is working actively to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, while both the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon have made their position abundantly clear that no drilling should occur in the 1002 lands for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

There is another reason for my motion today. The final part of my motion stipulates that this House supports the Vuntut Gwitchin in their efforts to prevent oil and gas exploration within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

And I believe every member in this House, and especially the member from Old Crow, agrees with this premise that the most effective and appropriate lobbyists to protect the Porcupine caribou herd are the Vuntut Gwitchin themselves.

Successive governments of Yukon have recognized this fact and have provided funding to support the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation lobbying efforts. Mr. Speaker, our government will continue in this tradition by providing intergovernmental and financial support to assist the lobbying efforts of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.

In closing, I urge all members of this House to support this motion.

Mahsi' cho.

Mrs. Peter:   It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak to this motion today, and I thank the member opposite for bringing it forward. The Arctic Wildlife National Reserve is very, very important to the Gwichin Nation, Mr. Speaker. The people of Old Crow have always relied on the Porcupine caribou herd — for thousands and thousands of years. Our ancestors have always lived off of this herd and relied on this herd for their food, for their clothing, and for their livelihood — for 25,000 years or more, Mr. Speaker.

Growing up in our small community of Old Crow, I heard stories about the nomadic way of life of the Gwichin people. They moved throughout the lands in different seasons to harvest food such as caribou, fish and berries.

Wherever the food was plentiful, Mr. Speaker, for that season, that would be where they would live for awhile. Rampart House, which is situated at the now Alaska-Canada border, served as the meeting place of the Gwichin and became a community later on, where supplies were bought for the next trek out on the land. Rampart House today is a heritage site. It’s a designated heritage site, and that’s where, in our own history, a lot of our people started their life in that area.

We talk about the importance of these areas — the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is situated in northeast Alaska. This is the place where the Porcupine caribou give birth to their young. We’ve heard from successive governments how they support us in our lobbying efforts with the United States on this issue. We have heard many commitments from the previous government and the government of today on how much they support us on this issue, yet we have yet to see any financial assistance come forward.

The travel to the United States is expensive. Our people sacrifice much to travel away from their homes and families for two or three weeks at a time to be able to educate the people of the United States about how important this issue is to the Gwichin people. Our people have been doing this, addressing this issue, for over 20 years.

When they were campaigning in the last election, the Yukon Party of today said in their platform on how they were going to support our people with the Porcupine caribou herd issue. That was only lip service paid to our people. There has been much travel done by the Premier of the Yukon and various Cabinet ministers. They have travelled to Alaska, throughout Canada and to the United States. There has been no mention of how important this issue has been to the Gwichin people in north Yukon.

They play a key role in this area, while attending meetings, whether it be an oil and gas meeting in Calgary or attending a legislative meeting in Juneau, Alaska. They have the ear of key people. They can make this message loud and clear to those people that we are concerned. But did we get that, Mr. Speaker? No, we did not.

Mr. Speaker, our people have lived for thousands and thousands of years; year after year our people get excited when the caribou come into our community so that we will survive for another year. And when we see the caribou on their migration going back to their birthing grounds — that, Mr. Speaker, makes us happy because the cycle of life is going to continue.

On their way back to the birthing grounds, Mr. Speaker, it’s a very, very sacred time for these animals. They are going to give birth to their young and our people have respect for that. We allow them that time because it is needed. They need the peace; they need the quiet and they do not need any stress.

This, Mr. Speaker, has been known by our people for centuries. It’s an unspoken law in the Gwichin Nation, and we respect that. We have been dealing with proposed oil and gas development to the core calving areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We continue to travel to the United States. We continue to educate the people who are mostly going to be impacted. We have thousands of volunteers helping us throughout the Lower 48. They take time out of their lives because they, too, have the responsibility of taking care of their lands. They respect the Gwichin Nation for trying to protect their very way of life, and they do make a difference.

We need, today, a government that will be true partners with the Gwichin people to make that kind of a difference. We need the government of today to be more outspoken, to bring the message loud and clear to their colleagues in Alaska and to the people they meet at conferences they attend, to say that we have a group of people in north Yukon who are very concerned about an issue, and we support them. We need the government of the day to take that risk to actually speak on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, do we count in the Yukon Territory, that we can be represented in that way? I believe we are all voters in this democratic society, and we do believe that we deserve a strong voice.

The government of the day has that responsibility to the people in north Yukon and the users of the Porcupine caribou herd. We no longer deserve lip service on this issue, Mr. Speaker. Our people have taken the initiative. We have raised money through whatever means so that we can travel to Washington, so that we can travel to wherever people will listen to us and carry our message to the representatives. We need that kind of partnership from the government of the day. That’s what we are asking for. We have consistently asked for that kind of support.

Today there is another vote before the Senate and the House of Congress in Washington. Over the years, when this happens, it has been too close for comfort.

May I make a suggestion to the Premier of the Yukon and his colleagues? When we need help at these very crucial times, I ask that the Premier, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources accompany a delegation to Washington, D.C. and help us to make that message loud and clear to the people across the border — that that piece of land is not for sale, that that little piece of land they want so badly is going to be destructive to the culture that you talk about in this motion, to the very heritage of the people of north Yukon and which has been a vital part of our life for centuries.

We are decision makers of today, and the decisions that we make in this House today will affect generations and generations to come. Mr. Speaker, does this government consider future generations?

The elders of our communities have always based their decisions on taking care of our future generations and have never paid lip service to that. Members of the government have travelled to our community and heard that message. I’ve witnessed it, and I wonder if it really sinks in.

I have a granddaughter, Mr. Speaker, who is two years old. She and I enjoy our meals together. It’s a blessing when I can share a meal of caribou with my granddaughter. She has shared a meal of caribou with her great-grandmother.

My mother has sewn a pair of moccasins made from caribou hide for my granddaughter. We talk about our heritage, about our culture — that is what’s precious. This cycle of life of our people and our animals and the land they walk on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four more minutes.

Speaker:   My apology to the member. Your time is unlimited.

Mrs. Peter:   Earlier, I mentioned that the Gwichin people were nomadic, that a place on the Porcupine River called Rampart House, which is situated on the now Alaska-Canada border and served as a meeting place, is now a heritage site for the Gwichin people.

Supplies were purchased in that community, and stops were made there so that the trappers could again make their trek back out on the land. Johnson’s Village is another place on the Porcupine River that is another area of significance. Herschel Island, on the Yukon’s northern coastline, was at one time the only trading post where people were able to trade their trapped furs for food and goods that they needed.

All the travel during that time was done by dog teams. Crow Flats was one of the places to be in the spring. In a time when guns were scarce, caribou fences were used. Fur-bearing animals were trapped, and this was the economy at that time. Survival was what life was all about. The land fed the people, Mr. Speaker — that was our only resource.

Some winters were hard when the animals were not plentiful. People had to help each other in order to survive. I heard stories when, some winters, people starved because animals were not plentiful.

I want to share a story with you, Mr. Speaker, right now. My grandfather walked on his two legs from Neets’aii Gwichin, which is Arctic Village, Alaska, today. He walked from Arctic Village area to Rampart House with his two children. He had two dogs and whatever little supplies he could carry on the dog pack. That’s how he got from Arctic Village to Rampart House.

This was after he lost his wife and his two children to diseases. He made his home at Rampart House and was remarried. My mom was born at Rampart House in 1917. My grandmother passed away while she was very young, and she was blessed with adoptive parents who brought her up at Johnson’s Village.

Old Crow was established close to the 1930s, as it was central to all the travelling that was being done throughout the land. There was a trading post situated there for people who had to purchase their food and what they needed out on the land. The most important thing was it was on the main migratory route of the Porcupine caribou herd. That was one of the main reasons why the community formed in that area.

Through many changes over the years, today Old Crow is a thriving community, I’m very proud to say. To many people’s surprise when they come to visit our community, we have the best of both worlds. Our First Nation government plays leadership roles in the territory in business ventures, in progress and implementation of our land claims agreement, in protecting that which is important to us: our land and our animals.

The Porcupine caribou herd travels every spring to northeast Alaska, to a place that is known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This small area of land, Mr. Speaker, is very, very important to the caribou, and I shared that information earlier. This is where they give birth to their young. And how important it is for our people to have respect for an animal when it is in that time of carrying their young. It’s a very sacred time in their life, and we can’t cause them any harm or stress.

Our people have never gone to that place. We didn’t need to. My mother has never gone there, nor my grandmother or my great-great-grandmother. We didn’t need to go to that place to see, because we believe. Our only hope was that they were going to make the trip back so that we could continue to live.

I have witnessed on many occasions their travel back to their sacred place. Many times while I was out on the land with my mother and my sisters, I’d sit outside the tent and watch them walk by slowly. We knew where they were going.

Our hope was that they would have a sacred journey. These times that I’ve witnessed that and these times that I’ve spent out on the land with my family were the happiest times of my life. That was the foundation that I lived on up until now. It might not mean much to anyone, but we were taught to respect the land, the animals and to respect people. That was the very mandate that we were given in 1988 when the first Gwichin gathering was held in Arctic Village, Alaska. The elders stood and gave that mandate to the young people of the Gwichin Nation who travel to the United States — to wherever — to educate people on how important the caribou are to us, to protect their calving grounds and to do whatever it takes until that goal is reached. They asked us to do that in a good way. That’s the responsibility that we carry today. We have been doing that.

We’ve been asking and asking for financial assistance from successive governments, and it has not come through. I have witnessed, heard and read many news releases on how wonderful our governments are doing and how they speak on our behalf when they travel throughout Canada and to Alaska. That’s great, Mr. Speaker, but the message my people are hoping to hear is the message that’s in this motion before us today. We want to hear, and would like to see, governments represent us the way we would like to be represented.

I know that representatives in the Alaska Legislature have friends on this side of the border, and if that message were brought to the different representatives, at different levels, it might be heard. And it’s not being done.

There are many people throughout the United States who attend the oil and gas conferences throughout Canada, and our own representatives have been at those meetings where there’s a chance for this issue to be voiced, and it’s not done.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 20 years, against all odds, the Gwichin people have been successful in protecting the birthing grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd — against all odds, and against the most powerful government in the world.

I think that says a lot about our people, about the faith they have in themselves, about the hope that they have for generations to come, and how important it is for us to take care of what we’ve been given, meaning our land and our animals. If we don’t have that, Mr. Speaker, our people will be very poor.

I had a chance to travel down to Washington on several occasions. I was given three minutes in a Senator’s office to defend 25,000 years of our life, our culture, our heritage.

Is that fair? Do we call that fair?

The people who come to support us in our efforts in Washington know very little about who we are, but they believe in us. They believe that they will not stand by idly while decisions are being made in Washington, in their own backyard, that will affect and impact a First Nation’s culture for the rest of their life and they have to live with that. They refuse to stand by and watch this happen. And yet, in our territory, Mr. Speaker, we have to constantly, constantly ask for help, to no avail.

We had the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Environment in Ottawa and the Minister of Foreign Affairs — they have tried to help us in our efforts. Every time they have a chance for the Prime Minister to meet with President Bush, that’s one of the three issues that he brings forward, and we’re grateful for that.

We have the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Foreign Affairs — they have the ear of key people in Washington, and they bring that issue forward on our behalf. We are very grateful for that. This issue has not only touched the Gwichin people, our brothers and sisters in Alaska and in the Northwest Territories, it is now an international issue. It is on the agenda at the United Nations. That is only because of the efforts of the Gwichin people talking to the right people at the right time.

This government has an aggressive stand on resource development. We hear that over and over and over again. I would suggest to this government that they take that same aggressive stand and voice their concerns on our behalf, that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge needs to be protected forever. The Porcupine caribou herd give birth to their young in that area and that area needs to be protected forever.

We need to hear that message loud and clear across Canada so that our colleagues across this country can also help us in this cause we have.

Who is going to pay the price? Is it our great-great-great-grandchildren? Are they going to have the opportunity to witness the beauty that we have in this land today? The decisions that are brought forward by the government of today will have an impact on our children tomorrow. Who is going to pay the price?

We, the Gwichin people, have always had hope and we always will. We’ve moved forward on addressing this issue, whether the government was with us or not. We’ve done that on many occasions, addressing many issues of concern in our community. This issue has touched our very lives, Mr. Speaker, yet we have continued to travel, to talk to people, and our message is out there.

I’d like to suggest to the Premier of the Yukon that he take this message loudly and clearly to the rest of Canada and in his travels throughout the United States. I’m sure he’ll be travelling internationally within the next four years. He should take this message out there and say to the people that Gwichin people in the Yukon Territory have a grave concern and need their help.

We need to make sure that the President of the United States does not — does not — go into this sacred area and destroy what is there. We’ve heard lots of statements in our travels that have been made by government representatives from the U.S. about how that land is just a bare nothingness. From the pictures I’ve seen — the beautiful mountains, the flowers and the wildlife that live there — it is not a nothingness. The land of nothingness, as they say, has taken care of our people for centuries.

So I ask that this government take a risk and voice our concerns. I know the Premier is travelling to a meeting this weekend with the next Prime Minister in waiting. He can bring that message to that person, who will eventually travel to Washington, so he is prepared. That person has already heard from the Gwichin people in north Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this government to help us to be the teachers, to help our people so that we will be able to take care of future generations. We ask that you help us, be our ambassadors that you were elected to be. Our people will always be grateful.

Mr. Speaker, after carefully looking at this motion, I think that this House can do more. I think that this House can go further with our commitments to this issue at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mrs. Peter:   I would like to propose an amendment to Motion No. 27.

I move

THAT Motion No. 27 be amended in the final paragraph by replacing the words following "THAT this House…" with the following: "…urges the Yukon government to demonstrate its support for the Vuntut Gwitchin in their efforts to prevent oil and gas exploration within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by:

(a) providing financial assistance to members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray the costs of their international lobbying efforts;

(b) designating a senior intergovernmental affairs officer in the Executive Council Office to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on this matter, as requested;

(c) ensuring that the Government of Yukon has a Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips to Alaska, Ottawa or Washington, D.C. on this matter;

(d) ensuring that all ministerial speeches with respect to oil and gas include a statement opposing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;

(e) adding a message in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to all relevant documents, publications and displays, including the Web sites of both the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; and

(f) ensuring that all intergovernmental accords related to economic development between the Government of Yukon and the N.W.T., Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, the Government of Canada or the Government of the United States of America include a clear reference to the Yukon’s opposition to oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Member for Vuntut Gwitchin

THAT Motion No. 27 be amended in the final paragraph by replacing the words following "THAT this House…" with the following: "…urges the Yukon government to demonstrate its support for the Vuntut Gwitchin in their efforts to prevent oil and gas exploration within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by:

(a) providing financial assistance to members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray the costs of their international lobbying efforts;

(b) designating a senior intergovernmental affairs officer in the Executive Council Office to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on this matter, as requested;

(c) ensuring that the Government of Yukon has a Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips to Alaska, Ottawa or Washington, D.C. on this matter;

(d) ensuring that all ministerial speeches with respect to oil and gas include a statement opposing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;

(e) adding a message in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to all relevant documents, publications and displays, including the Web sites of both the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; and

(f) ensuring that all intergovernmental accords related to economic development between the Government of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, Alaska, Alberta and British Columbia, the Government of Canada or the Government of the United States of America include a clear reference to the Yukon’s opposition to oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, you have 20 minutes.

Mrs. Peter:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me, again, great pleasure to speak to this amendment. As it states in the amendment, a list of six key provisions that we, as the Vuntut Gwitchin, would like to see assistance on, number one being providing financial assistance to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help with the cost of travelling on our lobbying efforts to the United States.

The last time I, or anybody, can recall any financial assistance being given to us was by the previous NDP government. Our travels to the United States sometimes takes about three weeks. There is a lot of road travel. During that time, people are eating on the run, and trying to get to the next place where we hold our public event.

I just want to share with you that when we hold our public events, it’s a very, very emotional time for the person who is sharing their life and their culture with people.

It’s a very emotional time because they are giving of themselves, of their time, and of their energy. It’s not just talking to a bunch of people just because it’s for their own good. They carry the responsibility because any decisions that are made around this issue impact many people.

Part (b) says "designating a senior intergovernmental affairs officer in the Executive Council Office to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on this matter." That is only fair, I believe, because members of the present government are ambassadors for the people of the Yukon Territory, like we are ambassadors to the people of Vuntut Gwitchin. They have that responsibility to deliver messages on behalf of the Yukon people, and we are part of the Yukon Territory.

Part (c) is "ensuring that the Government of Yukon has a Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips to Alaska, Ottawa and Washington…"

These three areas hold offices of people who help to make these decisions.

The Government of the Yukon has that responsibility to deliver that message on our behalf.

Part (d) is "ensuring that all ministerial speeches with respect to oil and gas include a statement opposing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge". I’ve seen the aggressive approach of this government to attract resource development in the territory. I would like to see that same kind of energy put toward delivering this message that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge needs to be protected, especially the core calving area of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Part (e) is "adding a message in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to all relevant documents, publications and displays, including the Web sites of both the Department of Environment and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources". There are many people interested in what goes on in these two departments, and they play a key role in the well-being of the land and animals in this territory. I believe that message is loud and clear, not only from the Gwichin people, but all the First Nations throughout this territory. That is one of the most important responsibilities of this government.

Part (f) ensuring that all intergovernmental accords relating to economic development between the Government of Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Alaska, Alberta, British Columbia, the Government of Canada or the Government of the United States of America, include a clear reference to the Yukon’s opposition to oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

I think that is only a fair statement to make. We are elected in our offices to be ambassadors for our people, and I don’t think that’s a laughing matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for anyone, not when our lives depend on it; not when, for the past 20 years, our people had to educate the world about who we are — and they listened. They listened to us because they care, because they felt a certain amount of responsibility. They might live in another part of the world, but at least they thought a group of people deserves the right to survive — a people who were here 25,000 years ago. Today we have to deal with successive governments who pay us lip service.

Those are my suggestions for the government of today. I would suggest, on behalf of the people of Old Crow, that this is not much to ask. It has been 20 years in the making, and we would like to see these commitments made.

With that, Mr. Speaker, those are my closing comments.

Mahsi’ cho.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I rise today to speak to the amendment to the motion, and have to admit to having a little concern over the numbers that have come out today and some of the intent.

Interestingly, in the history of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, it has been mentioned several times now that it does lie within the United States, and that is, of course, a jurisdiction that, much as we might like to, we don’t control. The member opposite refers to "a piece of land that is not for sale". Unfortunately, it’s not for us to sell or not sell. But the Government of Yukon certainly supports, 100 percent, the concept of no drilling and the concept of supporting the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, and the Gwichin Nation, in general, in their efforts.

Some of the interesting points that I have to scratch my head about, though, include that a conservative estimate of operations and maintenance and capital costs for the Department of Environment alone in the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation traditional territory is approximately $353,000 in the year 2002-03. And those are actual costs, Mr. Speaker.

These costs include personnel and programs costs for conservation officers’ services to protect the herd, parks maintenance and improvement and Porcupine caribou herd monitoring. It does not, for your information, Mr. Speaker, include any portion of departmental administrative costs. So to say that nothing is being put in is an understatement perhaps to the extreme.

Another comment that was made is that over the years no government other than an NDP government has put money into the support of the herd. And yet, in 2001 — $30,000; 2000 — $25,000, and even back in 1999 — $100,000 were all put into the Porcupine Caribou Management Board to continue its efforts to gain protection of the 1002 lands.

Some of that was NDP and some of that even was for the brief stay of the Liberal government, but this has been done for many years so again I have to sort of question the numbers.

With the background of the wildlife refuge, in December 2, 1960, U.S. President Eisenhower’s Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, established 8.9 million acres called the Arctic Range by executive proclamation and revoked public land order 82 that opened 20 million acres on the North Slope to potential resource development, including the area around Prudhoe Bay.

Four years later, in 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Wilderness Act, and in 1971 the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which included a provision, specifically section 17(d)-2, calling for 80 million acres of federal lands in Alaska to be protected as a parks and wildlife refuge.

In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was passed, and that doubled the size of the Arctic Range and it was renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge at that time.

Nearly all of the former range has been designated as part of the national wilderness preservation system. But in a compromise with the U.S. Senate, section 1002 mandating a study of the oil potential and biological resources of that portion was omitted from the wilderness designation — the coastal plain. However, Congressman Moe Udall also ensured inclusion of a provision that closed the coastal plain to oil and gas exploration unless specifically opened by Congress. Today, those lands are referred to as the 1002 lands and they are so named because of section 1002 of the act.

The present U.S. administration is working actively to open ANWR to drilling; we know that and we address that on a daily basis.

Alaskan legislators — Congressman Young, Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens and the new Alaskan governor and former Senator Murkowski — support them. Senator Stevens is chair of the powerful appropriations committee. Including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on an energy bill can and will be filibustered, and the majority Senate leader plans to get ANWR through the House by including a line item in the budget for the interior department to give it a line item of $1 billion with no funding attached. In order for the department to meet its budget requirements, it will be forced to let permits in order to collect the $1 billion in its budget.

Recently, Senator McCain and six other Republican senators took a stand against this strategy and against drilling in the 1002 lands; however, the Senate majority leader appears to believe that he has the necessary 50 percent plus one. I remind the Speaker that the vice-president of the Senate casts the deciding vote in the event of a tie, and this would then get the budget passed.

Strategists believe that Senator Stevens, in his role as appropriations chair, will use his monetary clout to get reluctant Republicans into line. All of this is an ongoing scenario, of course, and one that we seem to deal with each year.

One of the things we certainly look at in this and any kind of initiative, is that it is necessary for someone to take the lead, someone to coordinate the effort. There are a number of ways to fund this, there are a number of different groups that could do it, but certainly, the feeling over many, many years, and at the request of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Gwichin should have the lead on this, and they should be supported in this.

This can be done in a number of ways — small amounts of money to the Porcupine caribou herd. And as the member opposite pointed out, much of that was done under an NDP government, and he might be surprised to find me agreeing with him and saying, "Yes, it was a tiny little amount." Right idea — not very enthusiastic, I might say, but the right idea.

But the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation receives a share of Yukon oil and gas revenues — which few people seem to know about — in accordance with an agreement subsequent and consistent with the Umbrella Final Agreement. In 2001, for instance, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation received $153,425.65 in oil and gas royalties. A portion of these royalties could be designated by the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation for efforts on behalf of the Porcupine caribou herd. It is, and has to be, a joint effort.

One of the things I have to again scratch my head about is one of the claims by the member moving the amendment that she doesn’t know of any speeches that have been given at the Cabinet level in support of the Porcupine caribou herd and against drilling. Well, having delivered two of them myself, I can assure that member that they certainly have been given, and we will continue to make such statements, by all means.

There are a number of different things we have to look at in terms of that herd — not only the effects on drilling and protecting it, but its size, what’s happening to it, and how are we going to support that herd?

A previous speaker referred to the last count of the Porcupine caribou herd — and actually it was in 2001 — and it was an estimated 123,000 caribou. The herd grew at approximately five percent per year from 1972 to 1989, when the herd size peaked at 178,000. I don’t hear anyone opposite asking who was in power during that government.

Since then, it has declined at a rate of three percent per year from 1989 to 1998, and that halved to 1.5 percent per year from 1998 to the present.

When you graph this out, it shows a nice bell curve. Where we are today is well ahead of where we were in 1972. Should we be concerned about that drop? Of course. But should we panic at this point and try to lay blame and point fingers? Perhaps there’s a better way to do it, I would submit.

The next survey is scheduled for the summer of 2004, and we certainly will be supporting that, again making decisions with data, Mr. Speaker, however novel that concept is sometimes to some members.

The decline began during a series of hard winters from 1990 to 1992. The weather had a severe impact on the herd. That reduced calf populations and survival. Recently, persistent snow cover during May and June in 2000 and 2001 delayed the herd in reaching its preferred calving grounds on the coastal plains of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There’s a marvellous Web site that shows where most of these calves are born and while more often than not this is within ANWR and the State of Alaska, some years it is within the Yukon and even, for a couple of years, within the Northwest Territories — most interesting data.

This reduced the survival of calves, obviously, so that only 44 percent to 51 percent of cows still had calves at the end of June, the lowest rates recorded during the more than 20 years of research on this herd. Thus, we knew the herd was going to be declining.

This wasn’t particularly a great revelation. We knew that was going to happen.

There are a number of things that come up in this.

The Porcupine Caribou Management Board does not have a mandate to lobby individuals, organizations or governments for the protection of the 1002 lands. This is something that the Vuntut Gwitchin or the Gwichin Nation should take the lead on and has taken the lead on, and has done a marvellous job of. I suggest that we not tamper with what has been actually quite successful so far.

The primary purpose of that management board is to focus on domestic conservation and use issues — Dempster regulations come to mind.

One of the things I have to point out, too, in terms of statistics, is that when you look at the hunting and harvest statistics over the last few years, only about 10 percent of the animals harvested out of the Porcupine caribou herd are from licensed hunters. Ninety percent is First Nation harvest. There is nothing bad about that, but it does show to me, anyway, that the First Nation should have the lead and the information on that and be the ones to lead the charge. They are doing a good job.

Specifically to the amendment, there are a number of things that do bother me with this. I find myself unable to support it as it is written.

Providing financial assistance to the members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray costs of international lobbying efforts — again, I’m confused about this, Mr. Speaker, since our Premier, through the northern premiers, has already agreed to provide financial support to all Gwichin people. That has already been done, and we’ve already talked to the Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin on this and await his reply — delayed I’m sure because of the election, very appropriately I’m sure.

I have a difficult time understanding why we have to pass a motion to do what has already been done and done better and with a more appropriate group.

Part (c) of the amendment: "ensuring that the Government of Yukon has Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips" goes against everything that has been done in the past. Clearly the Gwichin Nation has the lead, has always had the lead, and it should remain with the lead. Putting a Cabinet-level representative from the Yukon government in the matrix goes against everything, and to my mind may even go so far as to disrespect previous agreements.

Part (e): "adding a message in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to all relevant documents, publications, all displays, including Web sites…" Well, first of all, at the oil and gas seminar in Ottawa the Premier included this. We included it in discussions last year at the Cordilleran; we’ve included it at meetings in the Canadian Consul of Ministers of Renewable Resources, Canadian Consul of Ministers of Wildlife, Canadian Consul on Endangered Species. But to have to put statements on all relevant documents, publications and displays, Mr. Speaker, what are we supposed to do, put them on presents as Santa Claus goes around with his caribou? I mean, how far are we supposed to take this? We’re already doing this.

The bottom line really comes down to maintaining the Gwichin Nation and despite, Mr. Speaker, the wisecracks from the opposite side of the floor, from one of the members, even in an NDP government, the Gwichin had the lead. Okay, maybe I’m recognizing another good NDP idea. It’s interesting now that the NDP don’t want to recognize that idea, but that’s okay; we can live with that.

One of the things that concerns me and that I would much rather put into this is to look at the funding as is proposed and as is established already through the northern premiers to all Gwichin is to put our money into research on diseases, to find out what’s going on within that herd. We have a small amount of information on that and, as the member opposite continues his heckling — no, I didn’t have anything to do with this. Sorry. And if you have any information otherwise, please put it out. I’ll use this as a good example. I don’t know anybody in the Irving family, and I have never been to an Irving fish camp to study salmon either.

But in data done by the Department of Environment — and my goodness, Mr. Speaker, much of it done under an NDP government. My God, they did a few things right. They came out with some interesting statistics — no serologic evidence of blue tongue out of 281 animals tested. However, the Porcupine caribou herd does show a relatively high antibody prevalence for bovine viral diarrhoea — 52 percent tested positive for that.

Now, the members opposite, in other Question Periods, brought up the fact that there was a disease brought in with some illegal buffalo — bison, to some — and how terrible it was that we might have introduced this disease. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is many years prior, and 52 percent of the Porcupine caribou herd already had the disease — data, fact. Know what you’re talking about.

Exposure to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis — another that appeared through a number of the different herds of caribou. It seemed to be higher in some herds, but that’s consistent with the weather patterns and what these animals go through. That doesn’t particularly surprise me. It’s just something that we would have expected.

We should monitor the prevalence of these diseases, know if the population is going up or down and why it’s going up or down — don’t just guess; deal with facts. To that end, we will be doing more testing in the future — and more abilities to try to look at this. It’s expensive to put a helicopter up to try to draw blood samples but, two weeks ago, I had the good fortune of going up to Old Crow and to meet with members of the Porcupine Caribou Management Board and with members of the RRC, to talk further about getting blood samples from their hunters. That is a more reasonable place for our money to go, especially since money has already been put into the project through the northern premiers.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, I find it not possible to support the amendment.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise today to speak to the amendment that has been brought forward by the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin. I’d like to express my compliments to the member. She and other members who have preceded her in representing that particular riding have represented people and the people of Old Crow and have spoken eloquently for those who cannot speak in this Legislature.

Personally, as a member of the Legislature and as a representative in this Chamber, I have been to Old Crow on several occasions. I always have been made to feel welcome in Old Crow. There has always been a respectful atmosphere in discussions and, fundamentally, I’ve always been made aware of the part of the life and culture — indeed the heartbeat — that is the Porcupine caribou herd to the people of Old Crow and to the Gwichin throughout the north.

As a member of the Legislature, I’ve supported motions and amendments similar to this motion that’s before us today, and the amendment, in the past, both as a member of the opposition and in my capacity as Premier.

In that capacity, I have lobbied American governments, state, attended the Western Governors Association meetings, spoken with both the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. and the U.S. Ambassador to Canada on this issue. At my urging and with the support from the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, I also wrote to Prime Minister Chrétien, who lobbied President Clinton on this particular issue as well.

I would just like to say a word about that particular lobbying effort by our Prime Minister. Certainly, the Prime Minister’s legacy in different parts of the country is unique. Here in the Yukon, Prime Minister Chrétien was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development when Kluane National Park was created. He has been part and parcel of our land claim process and he has, throughout his time, supported the members and the initiative by the Gwichin and the people of Old Crow and supported the Porcupine caribou herd.

Environment Minister David Anderson has done likewise. He has spoken publicly on many occasions and lobbied the American governments — by that I mean state and federal — on many occasions in support of the preservation of the herd. When I say "in support of the preservation of the herd", I am also saying in opposition to drilling for oil and gas within ANWR — the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and recognizing that this would endanger the calving areas of the Porcupine caribou herd.

The amendment has brought forward an enhancement to a motion that has unanimously passed this House before.

It’s enhancing the motion because it’s challenging governments — if you’ll forgive me the colloquial, Mr. Speaker — to put their money where their mouth is, to actually dedicate their efforts, to dedicate personnel, to ensure it’s a Cabinet-level representative, to ensure that there is reference to ANWR in speeches, to take the time to ensure that this is included on Web sites and, with respect to intergovernmental accords, many governments have lobbied the Government of Northwest Territories to financially contribute to these lobbying efforts, without success.

Now, the Minister of Environment says there has been success achieved. I, for one, would like to see it. Is the Government of Northwest Territories finally going to contribute to the Gwichin efforts and lobbying efforts in Washington? If they do, it will be a first. They haven’t in the past, although previous governments of all political stripes have worked at this and have made financial contributions.

In reference to putting money toward demonstrating a commitment, to really and truly express that there is a fundamental commitment to the preservation of ANWR and to the survival of the Porcupine caribou herd, I think, as the amendment suggests — and I support the amendment — the government should not only do as the amendment suggests and put a financial commitment to this, but I think — and I won’t be bringing forward an amendment to the amendment; I would just like to recognize it in my speech — I believe we should also reach the public on this issue.

Where we should reach the public — we should also be speaking with our children, in our school system, about the science and the culture of the caribou. I understand we do this, in part, in the Yukon. Education makes some efforts in this regard. I think we also need to reach the Canadian, North American children on this issue.

The Minister of Environment said, What’s next? Santa’s reindeer? Well, Mr. Speaker, zoologically reindeer and caribou are the same species. And it’s an important fact in discussing the species with our children, but I don’t know how many Canadians recognize facts such as that the caribou are terrific swimmers and have the ability to move across cold, rushing rivers. We know that, we live here and we understand that. Does everyone understand the power of the animals that can travel up to 80 kilometres per hour, that within hours of their birth these tiny caribou calves can stand and within days have the ability to outrun humans?

Facts like that are interesting, not just to children but to adults as well. The more that North Americans understand about the species of caribou, when Gwichin people explain what the caribou mean to the people of Old Crow and also of Alaska and the Northwest Territories, then maybe that message becomes that much easier and that much more readily understood.

I note that children are always interested in different facts. They also travel far and wide in their imaginations, and these days, on the Internet. And I note that the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, as part of what they call their reindeer research program, hosts presentations and tours for elementary school children. Just a suggestion — why aren’t we doing the same in educating North Americans about the Porcupine caribou herd and about the importance of the 1002 lands, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? We should do the same and more. We should pursue these efforts.

In closing, I would like to again say that I support the amendment to the motion. I believe that the financial assistance to the Vuntut Gwitchin to help defray the costs of international lobbying efforts has been offered by other governments in the past. There has also been substantial assistance to the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, which has a different role, although they are also supported.

I believe that both the governments of the Northwest Territories and Alaska should be assisting the Gwichin in their efforts to lobby on this internationally.

Designating a senior government affairs officer is good government. We have an individual in the Canadian Embassy in Washington who monitors this situation very closely. There is no reason why Yukon should also not be monitoring developments in this respect. In fact, there are a number of developments in Washington that we should be lobbying on, Mr. Speaker. We should make a significant lobbying trip to Washington.

Including the statement that the Government of Yukon, indeed the Yukon Legislative Assembly as a whole, opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ensuring such statement is also on our Web site isn’t a huge financial cost. There is no reason for it not to be done. It’s a matter of statement of fact.

As far as the intergovernmental accords, I would be delighted to see the Northwest Territories come to the table in support of these efforts. The Government of Alberta has been very supportive of a number of Yukon initiatives, as have the Alaskans. The Alaska State Governors have had a very clear understanding of the Yukon’s position, and I see no reason for that to change. I would hope that our current Premier reinforces the message when next he meets with Governor Murkowski.

In short, I support the motion. I encourage the people of Old Crow and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to continue their efforts, to continue their public education. I encourage them to reach children on this issue — all North American children — and to continue to speak with the eloquence with which they have explained the importance — indeed, the heartbeat and the culture and how important the Porcupine caribou herd is to the Gwichin of North America.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment to this motion. It’s quite something to listen to my colleague from Vuntut Gwitchin speak so eloquently about where she lives and about the importance of the Porcupine caribou herd to her community and to the whole Gwichin Nation.

I guess I’d like to go back a little bit to why we’re here debating this. What is the need for this oil that the Americans want to take from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the 1002 lands? Well, it’s because of short-sightedness by a lot of people, I think. It’s because effective conservation efforts aren’t being made in other jurisdictions.

Oil exploration and oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, plain and simple, is a bad idea. It’s going to destroy the wilderness and the calving grounds forever. It’s something you can’t take back.

Over the weekend, I was looking at some slides on the Internet, doing some research, and saw some of the damage that has been done in the Prudhoe Bay area, where oil and gas development has taken place for a number of years.

The fact is that there is a lot of environmental damage. There are waste dumps. There are huge gravel quarries — gravel mines they call them; they don’t even call them quarries. There are quarries up on the South Access here. These are mines the size of what you would imagine a mine like when you go to Viceroy or Anvil Range — huge gravel mines that have a huge impact on the environment and the landscape.

There is also a lot of air pollution, oil spills, toxic waste that affects the environment. Now, do we want to see that happen in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Shouldn’t we be lobbying effectively like it says in the motion and making a statement as a government? Shouldn’t the Premier, when he goes to the Grey Cup, talk to Mr. Martin, the future Prime Minister of Canada, and tell him how important it is that we preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and tell him that the Government of Yukon and unanimously this House is opposed to development and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? I think that that is very important.

There are a lot of things the Premier and the Member for Porter Creek North, the Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources could lobby and get the message out about how important it is to save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and prevent this development from happening.

Providing financial assistance to members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray their costs — I don’t see why the government can’t do that. I think it would be a worthwhile investment, you might say, in helping them to get their message out and preserving the Porcupine caribou herd and the calving grounds. There was a comment made that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be something akin to drilling on the maternity ward at Whitehorse General Hospital, or rebuilding an engine over in the maternity ward where babies are being delivered. This is a very important and vital piece of the life and heritage of the Gwichin Nation, and we need to preserve that.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask the Premier or the ministers of this government or, for that matter, members on this side of the House, even, to spend time and ensure they represent the views of Yukoners on this important issue. So I don’t see why the Member for Porter Creek North would oppose this.

Adding a message on relevant documents — this isn’t something that would be attached to the Minister of Environment’s letterhead necessarily, but on relevant documents, publications about oil and gas development, about caribou habitat preservation and on the Web site. I think it’s not a huge expense to the government to do this.

Ensuring that all intergovernmental accords related to economic development between various governments — and they are listed — isn’t, I don’t think, a huge thing to ask, Mr. Speaker. It’s very important. The Premier sits down with these people and he seems to like to tout all of the accords that he has come to — the agreements, the good discussions that he has had. Maybe when I’m done here he can get up and he can tell us this: how many times has he raised this issue in his meetings with the Government of the Northwest Territories, with the Premier of the Northwest Territories or with the Governor of Alaska or Premier Klein in Alberta or the Premier of British Columbia? When he goes to the Grey Cup, he will have lots of opportunity to talk to all of the premiers — because my understanding is that they are all going to the Grey Cup. We are not sure whether "Air Irving" is taking him or how he is getting there. That would be another question, I suppose, that he could throw in the answer, too, if he gets up and speaks to this — who is paying for the trip?

Speaker:   Order please. The member is speaking to the amendment.

Mr. Cardiff:   I know.

Speaker:   Please carry on.

Mr. Cardiff:   So, when the Premier goes to the football game, if he could raise the issue and express our support for this motion and the amendment to the motion, which basically says the Government of Yukon, this Legislature, the people of the Yukon, don’t support oil and gas development within the calving grounds of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I think there are actually a lot of other messages that we do need to get out, and one would be more suitable for the Minister of Environment to get out, and that is energy conservation and how that would do away with the necessity to develop the oil and gas under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Just recently, it came to my attention that the American — and if you can get this message out there about how wrong-headed this is — Congress this year decided to allow small business owners, doctors, lawyers, real estate developers, to deduct up to $100,000 from their taxable income for business purchases, including SUVs. So you can go out and buy an SUV and get a $100,000 tax deduction. You might have to buy more than one but, at the same time, that’s what they’re doing. This is what Washington is doing.

On the other hand, why not promote conservation by reducing fuel consumption in vehicles, light trucks and SUVs. You wouldn’t even need to develop oil and gas. So that’s an important message, and I think the Minister of Environment could probably carry that message.

Seeing as how he likes NDP messages so much, federally, the NDP does have a plan to promote energy conservation and industrial development in this area.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff: Well, the Member for Klondike just said, "Shut everything down." Well, it’s about saving the environment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating jobs — something —

Some Hon. Members:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order please. I would ask all members to quit the chatter from each side of the floor, please, and would remind the member speaking, once again, that you are speaking to the amendment. Please carry on.

Mr. Cardiff:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just trying to give the members opposite some messages they could take out there. As I said, the Member for Porter Creek North, the Minister of Environment, seems to like to talk about NDP initiatives, and here I am offering one that actually helps to save the environment, promotes fuel efficiency in vehicles, and it creates jobs in the auto sector. It’s about building alternative-fuel vehicles. It’s about promoting —

Speaker:   I would urge the member to stick to the amendment as laid out, please. Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ll send it over to the Minister of Environment, and maybe the Member for Klondike, seeing as he had so many comments about it.

Mr. Speaker, I think adding a message in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a minor cost. I think it’s something this government could do.

What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is about walking the talk. We’ve heard the Minister of Environment talk about all the good things they are doing and all of the good things that have been done in the past, but they don’t seem to want to do any more. They want to rest on their laurels and get by with a Mother Earth-and-apple pie statement about what they believe in. But they don’t want to attach any actions, anything that would maybe cause them a lot of work. I don’t see anything here that would cause them a lot of — it wouldn’t take a lot to do any of these things.

By speaking against this amendment, I would assume that they don’t support international lobbying efforts and they don’t want to speak at oil and gas conferences about what Yukoners feel about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and it’s sad that the Premier and the ministers of this government don’t want to go on record in Calgary or in Ottawa or in Regina, for that matter, and say how we feel here in the Yukon about oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So, I am speaking obviously in favour of the amendment to the motion. I hope that the members on the other side will reconsider their stand on this amendment, and I hope that more of them will get up and speak to this as well.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, I am pleased to speak in favour of this amendment today because what this amendment does is finally bring substance to the Yukon government’s position on protecting the ANWR lands.

Up until this point, the public has heard rhetoric from governments about what they are doing to protect ANWR and the caribou and everything else that goes with it, but the public has not had in its possession much evidence to support the fact that that goal was being achieved.

So what the New Democratic caucus has done today by preparing this amendment is to bring some substance and performance measures, if you will, Mr. Speaker, into this whole issue as it is handled by this Yukon government and any successive Yukon government, for that matter.

A quick visit to any Web site of the government will produce very little in the way of results on what this government has said to protect ANWR.

Instead, the public has to rely on accounts from the government side as to what actually happened at any meetings with other governments, or any conventions or conferences, et cetera.

That’s not right, Mr. Speaker, because the Yukon public deserves more than a smokescreen-and-mirrors display with respect to this issue. The public deserves to know exactly what this government is saying. If this government truly wants to be accountable and transparent, and act in the public interest, then it has no real motive to hide the number of action items included within this amendment.

These action items do not carry a heavy price tag. Instead, these action items are simply undertakings aimed at making the government’s actions more transparent to the public.

Let’s take a look at that. Amendment (a) "providing financial assistance to members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray the costs of their international lobbying efforts." Mr. Speaker, this is something that has been done by previous governments. It’s something our first speaker on this motion related to that was subsequently misinterpreted by the Minister of Environment. I listened carefully to what she said, and her comments about previous funding were not exclusive to one government.

So I think the minister was a little oversensitive. Perhaps he should focus on what his government is actually doing in this regard, instead of trying to find fault with other governments, as many of the ministers do in this House all too frequently.

There is a cost attached to this but it is nothing out of the ordinary. Previous governments have allocated funds in the neighbourhood of $100,000 toward lobbying efforts, and I would think that something in that order would be a reasonable cost to be allocated on an annual basis, in order to ensure that lobby efforts continue and are prepared in advance and are able to react to any sudden manoeuvre that may threaten the protection of the ANWR lands.

We have seen this numerous times in the past year. I am referring to when the United States Congress, in particular, in bills that it is dealing with, has an inclusion of ANWR drilling and so on. A lot of the debate is focused on whether ANWR is included in energy bills or other bills. We have heard statements coming out of the United States to the effect that ANWR is not part of the energy bill. I remember that announcement on a Monday a couple of months ago. Then, on Tuesday, suddenly it was in the bill after all. I believe by the next day we saw lobby efforts in Washington to protect ANWR.

So, this entire lobby to protect ANWR must be prepared and ready to go at virtually any time of the year and at short notice. And that costs money. Is it fair to place that whole burden on the First Nation from northern Yukon, which happens to be probably the smallest in number of any First Nation in the territory? Is it fair to place that financial burden on the Vuntut Gwitchin without offering some financial assistance on behalf of the Yukon government, which includes Yukon taxpayers and federal taxpayers from across the country? As we all know, most of our annual budget is courtesy of the federal government.

I think it’s fair to say that if there were a poll of Canadians with respect to the protection of ANWR, there would be a very favourable reply, in terms of numbers, for the protection of the ANWR lands. That is an important point. Since the Yukon government receives most of its funding from the federal government, is it not right that, in its actions, the Yukon government should also represent this national interest, which happens to support our territorial interest? Well, I would think it does. I see some members nodding their heads. I would agree. It does make sense.

Part (a) is reasonable and it provides funding where it’s needed and, after all, who knows best but the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation — whose very existence is owed to the topic before us today.

In addition, the Vuntut Gwitchin have the experience and local traditional knowledge to best represent these interests. Furthermore, the Vuntut Gwitchin carry the most impact when it comes to lobbying American politicians or anyone else for that matter, because they speak from the heart on this matter, and nobody should deny that.

Part (b) designates a senior intergovernmental affairs officer in the Executive Council Office to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on this matter. This is an important designation. As we all know, monitoring this matter is pretty well a full-time responsibility, especially with all the curve balls thrown our way by politicians from other countries who are trying to open up the 1002 lands and ANWR to development.

We’re also talking about big oil here and, when we talk big oil, we’re talking bottomless pits when it comes to funds for lobby efforts.

So we have to designate whatever resources we can to fight our battles. Having someone in the department designated to this cause is a great idea. It could very well be someone who is already under the employ of the Yukon government in that department, who simply takes on this task and becomes known as the point person for the ANWR issue.

It would be delightful if we in this Legislature could call one person we all know who is a point person and find out the latest in terms of ANWR development. It would also be great if members of the Vuntut Gwitchin could do the same. That is the point of (b). I also see members nodding in favour of that, and reasonably so. This is a good amendment to the motion.

That brings me to (c), which ensures that the Government of Yukon has a Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips to Alaska, Ottawa or Washington, D.C. Well, this part also makes sense. We are talking about having on these lobby trips either the Premier or a minister representing this matter before the jurisdictions previously named.

Protection of ANWR and opening it up for development are political matters at the highest level.

And it is the elected representatives of Cabinet who must attend any such encounters with other governments, and they are who can best represent Yukoners on these matters in a political forum.

So, this is a reasonable part to the amendment. What it does is prevent any government from sending someone other than the minister or Premier to represent the government on this matter when dealing with other governments, such as in Washington, Ottawa or Alaska. That’s not to preclude any discussions taking place at a departmental level. We’re talking about lobbying trips, representing the Yukon government at the Cabinet level.

Part (d) ensures that all ministerial speeches with respect to oil and gas include a statement opposing oil and gas exploration in ANWR. This is the one I particularly like and I referred to it in my opening comments before getting into detail. As it stands, Yukoners do not know what governments are saying on this matter in speeches, at various functions or to other governments, or to whomever. We need a transparent process. This particular clause ensures that all speeches will contain a statement opposing oil and gas exploration in ANWR.

So, Mr. Speaker, it’s a good aspect, it’s a good action item to include in this motion. It costs nothing and it’s doable.

So, we have so far four items out of six that are all reasonable. Again, I see members even across the floor nodding their heads.

The fifth item is adding a message opposing drilling in ANWR to all relevant documents, publications, displays and Web sites of two government departments — the Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources. This is similar to the preceding clause in that it adds an element of transparency and accountability to the message from the government. The cost of this is negligible, yet it achieves what could be great results.

Finally, clause (f), in the sixth of six clauses, ensures that all intergovernmental accords related to economic development between the Yukon and its neighbours and Canada and the United States include a clear reference to our opposition to oil and gas development in ANWR. Well, this brings some life to those rather lacklustre accords that this government has signed during the past year. Again, it brings some transparency. It brings productivity because it will turn these meaningless accords into something that actually does something. Now, wouldn’t that be a change, Mr. Speaker?

So, what’s the cost of this? Well, I don’t evidently see any costs to this particular clause. It is simply something that the Premier and his colleagues could do when developing any further accords. It’s also something they could do to try to beef up the existing accords, which really do very little.

For your information, the existing accords have very general language, such as "these governments will work together to achieve common goals." At best they might identify some common goals but, again, those goals are very general. The question should —

Deputy Speaker:   The member has two minutes.

Mr. McRobb:   The question should be asked: why don’t those accords contain reference to ANWR if, in fact, it’s that important to this government? Well, I think today the light is shining through and the answer is there for all to see.

The Environment minister indicated he would not be voting in support of this amendment. I think we can connect the dots here. This government talks the talk but it doesn’t walk the talk with respect to ANWR. ANWR, to it, is a façade. It wants to appear as if it supports ANWR but, in the back room and in the oil lobbies and conferences it attends, it probably does anything but. That’s why it fears being held accountable and being held transparent to the Yukon public, because it would expose the true agenda of this government, which is to develop ANWR, and that’s why it doesn’t mention it and that’s why it will be voting against this amendment. And for that I say, shame.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I have been listening with great interest to this debate, and I can tell you that it’s clear that the official opposition is doing something here to avoid being accountable by voting in this House on a motion that clearly outlines what position this government takes and is taking at the request of another government, the Vuntut Gwitchin government. Let me expand on that.

It was quite some time ago when the Vuntut Gwitchin government requested of our government that they be the lead on issues about ANWR and the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd. We agreed. Not only that, we also work closely with the Northwest Territories government to ensure that we are committed, when requested by the Gwichin people, to assist in their efforts. But they are adamant: this is something that we are responsible for. This is something that, as a government, we want to take the lead in. And we agreed.

This amendment is, quite frankly, an attempt to not have to vote on this motion because the members opposite have no desire to be cooperative in any way, shape or form. And I want to point some more things out. I’ve heard all kinds of wonderful things about accords. I say to the official opposition: where were these elements of this amendment in their accords with other governments, whether they be with B.C., Alaska or the N.W.T.? What we are doing in establishing relationships with other governments is not a new thing. Past governments have done the same. Nowhere were these amendments to this motion reflected in that government’s accords when in power. So, there is a problem here. There is a major problem here.

I want to talk about the Member for Kluane and his colleague making the point about fossil fuel consumption in this territory, and I say this because it has to be said.

The Member for Kluane opposed any further reduction of levels in Aishihik Lake under the water licence, forcing the Yukon government to burn vast amounts of diesel in this territory to produce electricity. That’s a fact. That took place and it cost the Yukon millions of dollars. That member would not support the use of hydro, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Order please. I would urge the Premier to speak to the amendment, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I am speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so. I just really want to reflect on some of the points made to ensure that the record has a contrast of factual information, because that side of the House has made some serious insinuations of what this motion is all about. Those insinuations are incorrect, and we must put on the record the factual information.

When you look at the amendment itself, it is very clear that we, the government, are already doing a number of the things that this amendment requests. Therefore, why not just simply support a motion that clearly outlines the position of this government — the same position, I might add, that other governments have taken in the past.

However, on the last particular portion of the amendment, I think that we all understand that we can’t dictate to other governments. We don’t dictate positions of other governments; we work with other governments. Our position is clear with Alaska. Our position is clear with the Northwest Territories. It has been clear all along.

Recently in Calgary at the Resource Expo, I clearly articulated to the industry and to the public that the Yukon government’s position is that there be full protection of the Porcupine caribou herd.

That was said clearly on the record, Mr. Speaker. Nothing else is involved here other than our position on the protection of this herd in working with the government of the Vuntut Gwitchin people, as they requested. And we will continue to work with them on this very important issue.

In listening to this debate, I am also somewhat concerned that the members opposite have not stated what the Vuntut Gwitchin people, along with others, have accomplished over this long arduous process. They have kept at bay one of the biggest, most powerful industries on the planet. One little community, one little First Nation, has accomplished this. There is a tremendous accomplishment in this territory and from that community as it relates to the Porcupine caribou herd and the sensitive habitat that is necessary for protection.

Past governments in the Yukon have clearly presented that position for all, as this government has — nothing has changed. Our motion need not be amended; the motion should have been simply voted on in support. When requested by the Vuntut Gwitchin people, we will assist, as we have clearly committed to do, and so will the N.W.T. There is no need to play this political game.

There is a clear need to hear from the members opposite what their real position is, given all the debate that they have injected into this one simple position that government takes. This government, through this motion, has merely requested that we get unanimous support from this House on the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd, in working with the Vuntut Gwitchin people and its government, and that we support their efforts — their efforts, Mr. Speaker. They are the lead, by their very own request.

I think that’s where it should be left. It’s not up to us to dictate how they want to do this. It’s not up to us to dictate when they should do something about this. It’s not up to us to dictate whom they should associate and work with on this issue. It’s up to us to provide support to another government. That’s what this motion speaks to and that’s what this government is committed to do.

With the amendment brought forward — though I would suspect great merit is coming from the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin — there is obviously a political bent here, to play games on the floor of this Legislature with an issue so important to the people not only of Old Crow, but to the Vuntut Gwitchin people and the Gwichin people in general.

There was no need for this stuff. Let’s read the record. Let’s look at Hansard tomorrow and go over what was said, coming from that side of the House, with regard to this motion. Let’s have the members opposite clearly state to the public the necessity for the amendment. Outside of the rhetoric, there was no statement of fact that this was required. There was absolutely nothing in that regard. There was no reflection on the fact that this motion mirrors what the Vuntut Gwitchin people and their government have requested we do. There was no reflection on the fact that past governments have done the exact same thing and our position is remaining consistent. There is no reflection on the fact that this issue is a broad issue on the international stage. What is Canada’s position? I think that’s a question that could have been debated in this House. What is Canada’s position?

In Calgary, for example, we clearly stated that this territory would never support an over-the-top route, further compromising ANWR and the Porcupine caribou herd. I didn’t hear the members opposite talk about that.

We are taking on Canada. We, as Canadians and First Nation peoples, are making our position clear. The members opposite, on the other hand, have muddied the waters with political rhetoric and needless political debate. I challenge the members opposite to explain — if there are any speakers left — what it is about this motion that is unacceptable to support. And what is it about this motion that requires not only redundancy — because the first five issues they brought forward are being done today — but how do they expect to dictate to other governments what other governments’ positions should be? That’s not called good governance. That is called a very imprudent course to take.

Our job is to work with other governments to show them the merits of supporting the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd. Our position was clear with the State of Alaska, for example, in stating to the governor some weeks ago that we have no intention to change our position on ANWR. We were clear. We’ve been clear all along. All we’ve done with this motion is to provide clarity from this House. The members opposite chose to play politics. That’s an unfortunate thing.

Now, let’s go through and, point by point, dispel some of the stuff that the members opposite have brought forward. The first portion of their amendment says "providing financial assistance to the members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to help defray the costs of their international lobbying efforts." I’m somewhat dismayed that the members opposite would connect a few dollars of assistance to how critical this issue is to the Vuntut Gwitchin people.

We have committed, along with the N.W.T., to provide support when requested. There’s no secret here. There’s no confusion here between us and the government of the Vuntut Gwitchin.

Why would this amendment be there if that commitment has already been made by both governments — Yukon and Northwest Territories?

The next one goes on to say "designating the senior intergovernmental affairs officer in the Executive Council Office to assist the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation on this matter, as requested". Well, Mr. Speaker, we have, based on the request of the Vuntut Gwitchin, stepped back and allowed them to be the lead government on this. And when they request assistance from us, we’ve informed them clearly that we will be there.

The third item — "ensuring that the Government of Yukon has a Cabinet-level representative on all significant lobbying trips to Alaska, Ottawa or Washington, D.C. on this matter". If we are asked by another order of government — I repeat "if we are asked to send representatives" — we will. When we’re not asked, out of due respect for another order of government, Mr. S