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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) under the contract between the Department of Education, the University of Regina, and Yukon College an evaluation of the Yukon native teacher education program is required every five years;

(2) neither of the two evaluations of the YNTE program done in the 14 years since its inception has been acceptable to the parties; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to fund a competent and thorough evaluation of the YNTE program before deciding its future, including whether or not to open it up to non-First Nation students.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to improve training and upgrade the equipment of volunteer ambulance services in rural Yukon.

Speaker:   Any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   Yesterday I began a line of questioning on behalf of my constituent, the victim in this matter. The lack of answers caused a great deal of distress for her and also for the people who were in the gallery supporting her. I’ll try again though.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. And I’ll repeat that: it is for the Minister of Justice and not the Minister of Health and Social Services. On February 19, 2002, the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court released his reasons for sentence in the brutal rape case I raised in the House yesterday. The minister’s colleague, in a letter to me on November 21, said that his department and the Department of Justice have met to review the suggestions made by the judge.

I will ask the Minister of Justice the same question I put to her colleague yesterday. What specific steps has her department taken to address the nine recommendations the former Chief Judge made in his reasons for sentence?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I thank the member opposite for this question. It is a very serious matter. The matter that the member opposite speaks of indeed was a tragedy that happened well over two years ago. While the victim survived the assault, the trauma that came as a result has, in no doubt, changed her life in ways that I, and all of us, cannot even begin to comprehend.

There are a number of problems systemic in our society today, each of which require our government’s attention as well as the attention of other previous governments over the number of years. As a government, it is our job to ensure that our laws are adhered to and that the appropriate policies and programs are in place to meet the needs of all Yukoners. In response to the member’s specific questions surrounding the recommendations that took place during the trial — and with respect to Judge Stuart’s recommendations, I should add — I can report that an investigation did take place soon after the assault took place over two years ago, and the appropriate actions resulting from that investigation have been in the works. We always continue to strive to improve these.

Mr. Hardy:   I didn’t get an answer to the specific steps that have been taken in regard to the nine recommendations, but I’ll move on from that.

In his letter to me, the Justice minister’s colleague went on to say that the departments will continue to work to strengthen partnerships with each other and with other justice organizations. Mr. Speaker, that statement is as empty, hollow and meaningless as the ridiculous answers we’ve been getting in this House. It’s an insult to this House, to the Yukon people and especially to my constituent, who endured the terror of this brutal episode.

Let me ask the Minister of Justice another question, and I put it to her colleague yesterday. Will the minister agree to pick up half the cost of the 20 additional therapy sessions my constituent’s psychologist has recommended? It would cost her department a pittance, about $1,000. Will she do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This issue that is before the House today — it is a very inappropriate place to deal with this individual who was victimized. In fact, all the official opposition is going to do as a consequence of this is revictimize this individual. Let me assure the House that a number of treatments have been specified for this individual, and the Department of Health and Social Services will incur whatever expenses are necessary after it has been determined by health care professionals what level of additional care this individual requires or needs. Whether it be counselling or care, the department will ensure that that level of care is provided.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I find that absolutely astounding that that minister would talk about my constituent and indicate that she is being revictimized without even talking to her — that he would make this assumption, Mr. Speaker. When she was in the stands yesterday, when she directed me to ask these questions, she finds this liberating; she is finding this as assisting her in her situation — and he would make this assumption on her part.

This government can find a few hundred thousand dollars, Mr. Speaker, to buy a house in the Justice minister’s riding that has a flooded basement. This minister, the Justice minister, has all the time in the world to rescue tow trucks from impounded yards, yet when it comes to helping an innocent victim get the help she needs, all we get is stonewalling and denial.

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

Mr. Hardy:   Will the minister stop hiding behind her bureaucracy, and the other minister, and start doing what is right for my constituent and other crime victims who need ongoing help. Will she do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, what the department is currently doing in conjunction with the Department of Justice is providing counselling to this individual. As I laid out earlier, the department is very concerned. Whatever this individual requires by way of counselling or additional assistance, the department will be providing that to this individual.

Mr. Speaker, I also offered the Member for Whitehorse Centre a full and complete briefing on this issue in order to take it out of this forum, because what is happening is that this individual will be revictimized as a consequence of this being all over the front pages of the press. That’s not fair to this individual. What we have to look at is fair and reasonable treatment of this individual so that she can deal with the trauma that she was a victim of.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services, but let me just refer to that full and complete briefing he offered. He offered it if I would stop asking questions, when I said I had to ask these questions on behalf of my constituent. This is what she has directed me to do, but I would like that full and complete briefing — he denied it then. He said, "There are only deals here."

I have a question for this minister. Shortly after my constituent was brutally assaulted in her own home on July 4, 2001, she was advised to seek help from the mental health services branch. When she did so, she was told she would be put on the end of a three-month waiting period. She then contacted a social worker with the minister’s department and was told the worker’s supervisor might approve interim professional counselling and that she would have to provide three different price quotations.

Does the minister consider this an appropriate response to someone who has recently endured such a brutal and degrading assault?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That we would deal with this matter on the floor of this Legislature is certainly appalling. Mr. Speaker, the individual in question was provided assistance — 10 sessions with a local psychologist, and she hasn’t concluded those sessions. I’m not going to make the determination of what additional assistance this individual needs. It’ll be done by the health care professionals. That’s who will be doing it, and I can assure this House — and specifically the member opposite — the department will go the extra mile to ensure this individual, who was so brutally victimized, will be treated fairly and be provided with assistance in whatever form the health care professionals determine is necessary.

I can’t make it more specific. What we don’t want to do is revictimize this individual, Mr. Speaker. We want to assist and help this individual to the best possible level we can.

Mr. Hardy:   Unbelievable — unbelievable thumping over that.

This is a case where the minister wants to sweep violence against women under the rug once again, where it has been for many, many years. People have fought to bring it out in the open. This person — my constituent — wants it out in the open.

My constituent informed me that she eventually did receive an apology for the delay in getting her the help that she needed. She later did attend several sessions with the mental health services counsellor but found out that it was not meeting her needs and was only adding to her distress.

Because of the nature of the crime against her, my constituent did not feel able to work with the only psychiatrist serving the Yukon — who was a male. What she needed and what she asked for was professional counselling specifically related to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Why did the minister’s department arbitrarily decide to reject the professional psychologist’s advice that this woman should receive another 20 treatment sessions?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   No one has rejected anything as far as treatment is concerned. What the member is doing is speculating about various forms of treatment for this individual in an area that he is probably as well-qualified as I am — and I’m not qualified at all to make a determination regarding level of assistance. We have professionals who deal with those matters.

All that is being done here today on the floor of this House is an appalling display by the leader of the NDP caucus to re-victimize this individual. Shame.

Let the health professionals provide the assistance and care that this individual needs. She has gone through a very traumatic experience and she needs help. The department is providing that help and will continue to provide that help.

Mr. Hardy:   This minister is not listening to what I am saying on this side of the House. He’s not listening to what my constituent is asking for. Once again, he's casting judgement on this.

Yesterday the minister blathered on about how well my constituent is being treated by this government. He also said that that the determination of the level of care that this individual needs is being determined by the medical profession — the minister’s exact words, Mr. Speaker. Yet on October 11, the professional psychologist wrote to the minister’s department and to the Department of Justice recommending 20 more treatment sessions. The psychologist also stated that the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder are becoming more ingrained and serious the longer they are left untreated. Will the minister now direct his department to take the advice of the medical professional and allow my constituent the ongoing treatment she needs? This is what she is asking for.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The ongoing treatment that the member opposite alleges that this individual is not receiving is totally and patently incorrect. There are two individuals providing care and dealing on a professional level with this individual, and if more assistance is needed, the department will provide more assistance to this individual.

I’m just very, very uncomfortable dealing with this matter out in the public forum because all it is going to serve to do is re-victimize this individual and I really don’t think that’s in the best interest of this individual. Let the health care professionals address the needs of this individual. Allow them to do their work. We’re here to support her. We’re here to support the department in dealing with this matter, and if she needs more treatments, more treatments will be provided.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Environment and the MLA for Porter Creek North about a letter he wrote to the City of Whitehorse this summer, asking the city not to subdivide a property near his residence. The letter made representations about his own property and suggested some environmental concerns regarding the adjacent Versluce Meadows. The minister, when asked for this correspondence with the Conflicts Commissioner a month ago, said a number of things. He said the matter has been presented to and resolved by the Conflicts Commissioner. He said we’re still in some discussion with him on some collateral issues. He said the matter is well in hand. The matter has been discussed and ruled on by the Conflicts Commissioner, who sees no conflict. He said that there’s some ongoing correspondence, and he would certainly be happy to table it at that point.

The minister may have forgotten that he had publicly committed to releasing this exchange of correspondence with the Conflicts Commissioner over a month ago, but Yukoners have not. Will the minister now — today — release all correspondence, whether it’s in progress or not, and any transcripts or notes taken during phone calls with the Conflicts Commissioner.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   When the member opposite refers to making comments about my property, she fails to note that it was to divulge the fact that I had property on that side. What she failed to note, of course, was the fact that it was on MLA letterhead and signed off as the MLA giving the address, so the origin of that was very much apparent to city council. So again, the member opposite continues to look at part of a story but sort of ignores the rest of the story.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is failing to recognize is that that’s the whole problem: he wrote on his MLA letterhead. I have asked for this correspondence with the Conflicts Commissioner. I asked that he provide the "all-clear" from the Conflicts Commissioner. He committed to doing so in the House, and he has failed to do so. Will the minister now — today — he publicly committed to doing it — release his exchange of correspondence with the Conflicts Commissioner on this issue? Will he release the information?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   As the member so graciously has joined in the Porter Creek Community Association in trying to retain the character of the Versluce Meadows — something that she seems to find fault with my doing but she does appear to attend meetings and support that initiative.

The Meadows has a very unique characteristic for people in Porter Creek South, Porter Creek Centre, and Porter Creek North. The fact that Porter Creek residents also attend those meetings and have also contacted me concerning the preservation of those meadows, and utilize those meadows — it is very much a Porter Creek North issue.

Ms. Duncan:   The facts are the MLA for Porter Creek North raised with the City of Whitehorse issues around the subdivision near his property. He wrote on MLA letterhead. I asked and he publicly committed to deal with the Conflicts Commissioner on that inappropriate action. He said that he would publicly release it. He has not done so.

I am glad, however, that he brought up the issue of the adjacent Versluce Meadows. It is owned by the Government of Yukon, and it is leased for light industrial use. The lease expires in 2005. The other member for Porter Creek, who has responsibility once the lease expires, has gone to the Porter Creek Community Association and said, "Let’s make this a park." The Member for Porter Creek North also said publicly in the meeting that the Member for Porter Creek North has a conflict in this area. The Member for Porter Creek North will not —

Speaker:   Order please. Will the member please ask the question?

Ms. Duncan:   Yes, I will ask the question. Will the minister, the Member for Porter Creek North, finally release his correspondence with the Conflicts Commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Certainly when that correspondence is complete, it will be put out there. It should be noted also — again a fact that the member opposite refuses to acknowledge — the fact that the Member for Porter Creek Centre, whose riding that was in at the time of the subdivision, was out of the country — or at least out of the territory. Therefore, at the advice of city employees, it was necessary to get a letter in right away — and with full divulgence of that.

But what this avoids is some of the real questions that Yukoners have to think about. For instance, when I applied for a government passport to travel on government business, I am told that the former Minister of Environment — 13 months after the election — had still retained his passport. Now, I still have to ask: didn’t he notice that there was an election? Are there other passports out there? Did he use the passport? More importantly, why didn’t the leader of the Liberal Party look after this simple housekeeping and leave one of her own Cabinet ministers out to dry?

I think that is of more importance to Yukoners today.

Mr. McRobb:   I think I hear a shuffle coming.

Speaker:   Order please. It is inappropriate to comment on previous questions.

Please ask your question.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that I was not commenting on a previous question.

Speaker:   Order please. Order.

Please respect the rulings of the Chair. It is not open for debate. The Chair made a ruling; I would ask that the member respect it.

Carry on with your question, please.

Mr. McRobb:   I was starting afresh from what I heard.

I have a constituency question for the Premier. On November 24, the Chief and Council of the White River First Nation wrote to both the federal and territorial governments with concerns about infringements on their aboriginal rights and title. I will send over a copy of the letter to him as well as table a copy.

What has the Premier done to straighten out this serious situation since he received that letter?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, we have received the letter. It’s certainly being looked into. The government is not aware of infringements in this case. What we are aware of is that we’re proceeding through the MOU process that was signed by White River, the federal government and the Yukon territorial government. They are in the ratification process, which would conclude a land claim for the White River First Nation. I would certainly like to hear from the First Nation on specifics of such infringements, if there are any, and we would open up discussions with the First Nation on that matter.

But I think it’s important to recognize that we also must follow due process when we do something in any traditional territory, in terms of the consultation process that we are obligated to undertake. So in this case, without knowing what the infringements are, it’s fairly difficult to comment on how to deal with them.

Mr. McRobb:   I wonder what the Premier heard when he met with the White River First Nation, which I believe was just a few days before this letter was penned. So obviously the Premier is not listening to their concerns.

Well, he makes much of this government’s relationships with First Nations. He even appointed a $200,000-a-year consultant to develop those relationships, yet a First Nation in my riding is clearly not very happy. Let me quote from the letter, "Your bureaucrats have failed to consult with and accommodate us in respect of our existing aboriginal rights and entitlement when considering applications for mining explorations, water, road construction, oil and gas pipelines and other land resource uses and so forth."

Can the Premier tell us if and when his gold-plated consultant last met with the Chief and Council of the White River First Nation?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In the first place, the consultant we have hired has specific duties in formalizing our government-to-government relationships and working on full economic partnerships. The issue of aboriginal rights, titles and interests being referred to here could go back a long way. The Alaska Highway, for example, has been there a long time. The corridor for the pipeline is entrenched. It’s third-party interest protected.

Without knowing what specific issues are to be addressed here it’s very difficult to comment but, in my meeting with the White River First Nation, we talked openly about pursuing and proceeding with the ratification process, allowing their citizens to make the decision and pass judgement on the claim before them. We talked openly about the willingness of the government to pursue the extra 50 square miles of land base for the White River First Nation. We talked openly about how we can assist in the community in stimulating some development, not only for the First Nation but for the community of Beaver Creek. In fact, it was a very positive meeting. The member opposite, in trying to make political hay here, is not putting on the floor of the Legislature specific infringements and I think that’s a requirement.

Mr. McRobb:   There is no requirement other than the Premier reaching out and discussing matters with the First Nation, especially when he just met with the First Nation a few days before this letter was authored. White River has clearly spelled out what steps that it expects this government to follow in the future. "We require that in the future you’d notify us and provide us with a package of all relevant information pertinent to an application for tenure and use of any land or resource within our territory. We will then set a date for a meeting in which to enter into meaningful negotiations regarding accommodation of our rights and compensation where we deem applicable."

Has the Premier given his ministers and deputy ministers clear directions to proceed in the manner set out by the chief and council in this letter and, if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, right now the focus by the First Nation and, of course, governments is the memorandum of understanding ratification process. Should that not be successful and the citizens of the White River First Nation decide that they do not want to accept the land claim, then we as a government, along with the federal government, which has the fiduciary responsibility, must deal with the White River First Nation as an Indian Act band. I also stated at my recent meeting with the First Nation, should that be the case, our government would be very interested in sitting down and negotiating a bilateral agreement with another Indian Act band in the Yukon, as we have with the Kaska Nation, which has no land claim and no mandate to negotiate one. But this is up to the citizens of White River. If they ratify their land claim, then they have a final agreement and a self-government agreement that clearly spells out how we the government must conduct ourselves with another order of government here in the territory — in this case, the White River First Nation.

Mrs. Peter:  Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Premier. Yesterday, during his address to the local Chamber of Commerce, the Governor of Alaska made some interesting statements regarding the Gwichin people and the oil and gas development on Alaska’s North Slope.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, these are his words: "I would encourage the Gwichins to go and visit the area, particularly to see the benefits that the Prudhoe Bay’s development has provided the Eskimo people up in Barrow and other areas, and unfortunately the environmental community has used its influence to ensure that the Gwichin people not visit the area." Does the Premier agree with the Governor of Alaska’s statements about the Gwichin people being influenced in such a way by the environmental community?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think the important fact here is what the Yukon government’s position is when it comes to the issue of the Gwichin people and the Porcupine caribou herd and the protection of the critical habitat. Our position is clear: it has been public; in fact, it was stated yesterday right in front of the Governor of Alaska. The Yukon government will continue to support the Gwichin people in their efforts to protect the Porcupine caribou herd, as past governments have. We will do this as requested by a government, the Vuntut Gwitchin government, that they be the lead agency, that they take the lead on this matter. We are there to support and assist; we will not deviate from that commitment, regardless of what a Governor of the State of Alaska says.

Mrs. Peter:   I was pleased to note that the Premier made it clear to Governor Murkowski that Yukon people do not support oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is not the issue. The issue is that the governor made statements on Yukon soil about the Gwichin people that many people found insulting. The Grand Chief of CYFN took immediate steps to distance himself from the Governor of Alaska’s position.

As MLA for the Gwichin riding in the Yukon, I appreciated that. Will the Premier now undertake, Mr. Speaker, to convey politely to the governor that his public comments about the Gwichin people were not appreciated?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I will state this, that I will convey to the government exactly what I did yesterday publicly, that we will continue to support the Gwichin people in their efforts to protect the Porcupine caribou herd.

In regard to the governor’s statements, it’s another level of state. This is the government of the State of Alaska. They have particular views. I do not, nor does this government, always share the same views, but I can tell you that we will maintain our position. It’s a consistent position, and it’s one of support, along with the Gwichin people, to protect that herd.

The State of Alaska may have different views, but they are also a different jurisdiction. In the Yukon’s case, nothing has changed.

Mrs. Peter:   The governor was here as the Premier’s guest. Certainly the Premier can’t be held accountable for the governor’s attitudes, which are quite well-known. However, the Premier could help to address some of the concerns that this has caused for people.

Will the Premier undertake to write a letter to Chief and Council of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, making it clear that this government does not hold the same views as the governor about the relationship between the Gwichin people and the environmental community?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I have made it clear by stating publicly yesterday with the governor here and present, by stating it publicly in an oil and gas forum in Calgary, by stating it publicly to the government of the Vuntut Gwitchin, by working with the Premier of the Northwest Territories to collaborate on support for the Gwichin people. Nothing could be more public. Nothing could be more supportive. Nothing could be more clear on this government’s position when it comes to the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwichin people.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Mr. McRobb:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the official opposition to be called on Wednesday, December 3, 2003. They are Motion No. 105, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre, and — for the first time ever in this House, I believe — Motion No. 15, which is a motion for the production of papers, standing in the name of the Member for Kluane.

Ms. Duncan:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the item standing in the name of the third party to be called on Wednesday, December 3, 2003. It is Motion for the Production of Papers No. 18.

Speaker:   We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 36, Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Before we begin, do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 36, Act to Amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, and general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As we were debating yesterday on the Taxpayer Protection Act amendments, we were discussing the issues around what it is exactly that is going to be required here, and the member of the third party is interested in the format, what are the liabilities and the assets that would be booked. I must point out that this will not come into force and effect until April 1, 2004. There are a number of options for format that we will be critiquing and making a decision on — which is going to be the best for presenting the budget and the financial picture for Yukon? Also, though we have approximations on assets, it’s still a work-in-progress and so are the exact liabilities.

These values must be determined. There are many months of work ahead of us. This is just the first step. We also will be coming forward to the public with a public/private partnership consultative process on policy as one other element of what we intend to proceed with, and of course ensuring that, as sound fiscal managers, the public will clearly understand that what we are doing is not, in any way, shape or form, going to create any problems fiscally. In fact, quite the contrary. It will remove this issue where past governments had circumvented the Taxpayer Protection Act in many forms, by even putting this territory into debt, Mr. Chair — a debt that does not show on the financial statements released to the public, a debt that is clearly a huge one: some $15 million of the immigrant investor fund, a huge $6-million rental/lease agreement by the third party when in government.

In total, you’re looking at $21 million of debt committed to by past governments, committing the taxpayer to that debt by past governments. So we are taking the steps to clearly and correctly show the true financial picture of the Yukon with this amendment and also provide more options for us to partner with other governments and the private sector to increase the spending power in the territory by private sector investment.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m pleased to rise in general debate to address this issue of the Taxpayer Protection Act. When we closed debate on this last evening, the Finance minister made quite a lengthy series of remarks about the Taxpayer Protection Act and what it would mean to Yukoners and the behaviour of previous governments. I’d like to address some of that — first of all, what the Taxpayer Protection Act amendments are all about. The Yukon Party has said and implied in their media releases that the Auditor General and some chief accountants somewhere are dictating that the territory must amend the Taxpayer Protection Act, and that’s not the case.

The recommendation of the Auditor General and the Public Sector Accounting Board is that the government move to full accrual accounting — the capitalization of assets. The Finance minister and I agreed that there was no requirement to change the Taxpayer Protection Act; there’s a requirement to move to this type of accounting. Previous governments of Yukon have worked very hard on this and our assets are fairly well-accounted for, with the exception of bridges, highways and airstrips. We know that there are approximately $300 million in assets.

The recommendation has also been made, and is slowly but surely coming to agreement across the country, that we also start to record our environment liabilities. The Finance minister can’t tell us what that side of the ledger — even an approximation — is going to show. Yet this is coming into force April 1, 2004. We should be seeing both sides of the equation. We have not.

The minister stood on his feet a moment ago and said that previous governments have circumvented the Taxpayer Protection Act. I disagree with him. The amount owing on a previous public/private partnership entered into by a government of which he was a part — namely the Connect Yukon project —has clearly shown in the long-term financial plans of other governments. It has been clearly stated that this is the amount due and to be paid.

With respect to the rental agreement previously entered into by our previous government, I would caution the Finance minister if he’s going to decry and suggest that expenditure shouldn’t have been made, where was he when the previous government entered into a very similar arrangement for the Health and Social Services buildings? The fact is the Government of Yukon does not own, but leases, many buildings in Whitehorse and will not own them at the end of those leases. It’s very true.

Not only that, but is the member suggesting that a previous government — which entered into such a lease arrangement entirely on the fair-bid system, entirely within Management Board guidelines — should not have done so? I beg to differ. It has been a long-standing practice, and it is much supported by the private sector as well. Is the Minister of Finance saying that the new Government of Yukon — supposedly the party of private business — is going to get out of all lease arrangements with the private sector on all government buildings in Whitehorse? I think not.

Those leases are entirely within Management Board guidelines and so was the lease for the one-stop shop.

And to suggest it was done with anything less than entirely within Management Board guidelines is quite incorrect and must not be allowed to stand on the record. With respect to the Taxpayer Protection Act, the government says that the Taxpayer Protection Act amendments are benign. It’s not going to change anything. What it changes is, in the very simplest of terms — it is moving the goalposts. Previously the Government of Yukon showed the deficit — and we can get into a discussion, and we will later this afternoon about the Finance minister’s commitment to a balanced budget. But it showed the deficit for the year and the amount remaining in surplus. That’s what Yukoners used to see. With this benign amendment, what Yukoners are going to see is a substantially enhanced surplus. He has moved the goalposts.

The Finance minister often says, "Well, we’ve removed the punitive measures." They’ve removed the protection, the measure that said to call an election when you trip the wire of an accumulated deficit. He has changed the goalposts. Members on this side — I speak for myself at this point and I have spoken yesterday in support of the members of the NDP caucus on a motion that said, "Bring forward the witnesses, prove your case." Members of the public are deeply concerned about this act, deeply concerned about the amendments that the Yukon Party is suggesting are benign, which we on this side believe are not benign. They are taking the protection out of the Taxpayer Protection Act and Yukoners are deeply concerned.

The government was presented with an opportunity. People want to see their politicians hard at work. They want to see them asking reasonable questions, and they want to see those reasonable questions answered. "Let’s call in the experts" was the motion; let’s call in people who have spoken on this. And the Member for Klondike referred to that suggestion as worthless. Mr. Chair, I’m concerned about that. I don’t believe that the opinions of the esteemed public servants, the former politicians, the Auditor General or the Canadian Taxpayers Federation are worthless. I believe they mean a lot to the people of the Yukon, and I believe we should have had an opportunity to hear from them. We have not. The government has refused that.

There are a number of issues with regard to the Taxpayer Protection Act amendments. As I’ve stated, they are not required by this move to full accrual accounting. They are not benign. What they do is move the goalposts. We are now going to look at a substantially enhanced surplus; and I also believe, and members opposite believe, the government intends to spend down that surplus — spend it down significantly — but because they’ve changed the Taxpayer Protection Act, where it would have triggered an election, now it will not. Those amendments are not benign.

There has been much discussion about the argument that the government presents that this will free up the economy; this will stimulate the economy, it will enhance private sector investment. Amazingly enough when they were on this side of the House, they said — and what the business community said over and over — was that what would stimulate the economy and attract investment to the territory was certainty.

Certainty comes with devolution. It comes with settled land claim agreements. This government has operated in reaching special arrangements outside of the land claim agreement, and they are now, by changing the act, going to be acting without the protection of the Taxpayer Protection Act. Taxpayers will not have that protection.

There was a discussion that public/private partnerships are the answer. The minister has said, "Well, previous governments have looked at this, so it must be the answer." Well, there are a number of points that the Minister of Finance hasn’t made with respect to the previous government’s work on public/private partnerships. Number one, it has been done before within the Taxpayer Protection Act. Connect Yukon, which was done when the current Finance minister was a member of the NDP government — he now seems to be against it, although he supported it at the time. The fact is Connect Yukon is a public/private partnership. It has enhanced the infrastructure in this territory. It was done without triggering the Taxpayer Protection Act. It achieved the end result. Although it may not be the way that other governments would have subsequently negotiated, it was a good thing for the Yukon.

The film and video industry — the purchase of light and grip equipment was a public/private partnership entered into by our government. It worked.

No, the Government of Yukon won’t own the equipment at the end. It will be owned by the industry. It works. It’s a public/private partnership that works.

Leasing buildings — it has worked for a very long time, in particular in the City of Whitehorse, but it has also worked elsewhere in the territory.

We don’t always have to own the asset at the end. It isn’t necessarily the way to go.

The point about public/private partnerships and the point that has been made to every single government in the analysis that they do on them — and I am not just referring to the Yukon government, but every government outside of the government as well — is that P3s need very, very, very careful analysis.

Other Finance ministers and I have had several discussions about the public/private partnerships and some of the successes across the country and some of the failures. The new highway in Ontario is not a stellar success. The Nova Scotia schools are not proving to be a stellar success — the Confederation Bridge.

There are those who are saying that, yes, public/private partnerships work, and no, they don’t. The point is that if any government is to enter into public/private partnerships, they deserve very full, thorough, careful consideration by the public, and a thorough debate on the floor of this Legislature.

Unfortunately, we have seen commitment after commitment after commitment broken by the government, including a commitment that there would be public consultation on legislation that is proposed and of a concern. The amendments to the Taxpayer Protection Act, which we are speaking about today are a very clear example of where the government has not engaged in public consultation on this issue. There has not been a thorough and full consideration and a public discussion with the proposed legislation.

We have enabled there to be some discussion on the floor of this House, but a full public discussion with experts in attendance outside of government who can speak to the legislation, government won’t allow it, although they committed to full public consultation.

The government also committed in their election platform to maintaining the Taxpayer Protection Act. They’re taking the teeth out of it. Interestingly enough, the Finance minister committed on April 8, 2003, on the floor of this Legislature, that he would not be changing the Taxpayer Protection Act and yet he has done so. He also committed that the government would reach a balanced budget in 2005-06 and I would like to ask him about the commitment in a moment.

The issue for Yukoners who have listened to their politicians engage in debate on this, who have read many articles in the newspapers about it and have listened to the other media interviews, the radio interviews — the issue for the public is: why are we doing this? We’ve established that the Auditor General is not recommending changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act, and the government says that the changes are benign but they’re doing them to entice private investment. The changes are not benign because what the government is doing with this amendment is they are moving the goalposts. The surplus will now show differently and the protection that is an election call when there is an accumulated deficit — how are you going to show an accumulated deficit when you’ve changed the surplus to being $300 million plus.

The government has been asked to hear from witnesses. And I’ve asked the Finance minister why in particular a former leader of his party has come out very strongly indicating that he is opposed to these changes.

There is a way that the government could do this, and the government has refused to answer those questions — refused to engage in that full and public debate. If these amendments are so benign, what is the government truly avoiding with a full public discussion?

The other issue is, is there another way for the government to do this full accrual accounting and still live within the Taxpayer Protection Act and not bring forward the amendments? Yes, there is, and previous governments had contemplated it. The way to do that is to keep two sets of books, to show the capitalization of the assets as has been suggested, but also to maintain the discipline of the Taxpayer Protection Act and live within our means, live within that surplus, continue to show that to Yukoners. Don’t remove the protection of the Taxpayer Protection Act; don’t remove that discipline that many previous governments have lived within.

There’s a way to do that, but the government is refusing. The other argument they’re putting forward is that it will attract investment in these public/private partnerships. Other governments have done public/private partnerships and attracted investment and lived within the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Buying that lighting and grip equipment was a request to work with the film and video industry. It worked well, and it has worked and it has generated work for Yukoners. Our film and video industry is a strong and growing element of our economy. Many Yukoners got work this winter in Dawson City — many young people — in filming the hockey commercials for Home Depot.

Being able to have that equipment here was a public/private partnership that worked. It was done within the Taxpayer Protection Act, and it worked. We didn’t need to change the act to attract that investment, to grow that industry, as the industry requested it grow.

Another discussion that I’ve had at length with the Finance minister is about debt and deficit and the differences between the two — the amount of debt that we actually have in the territory, and whether or not the government, which has said that getting in the loans business is a bad idea and we’ll continue with the very worthwhile policy objectives of the Yukon Housing Corporation, which also loans money and qualifies people for mortgages, and we carry a substantial amount of debt. The Premier has said yes, they will continue with that. I was pleased to hear that.

The other discussion we got into — just to refresh the Finance minister’s memory on this — was in respect to the discussion around debt. The Premier has stated over and over again that the amount of debt of the territory is controlled by an order-in-council of the Government of Canada. That is well known. It is also well known that our colleagues and neighbours to the east in the Northwest Territories…

Chair:   The member has two minutes.

Ms. Duncan:   … are continually asking the Government of Canada to increase their level of debt. The Premier went on at great length. I believe that he committed that he would not, as Finance minister — or any Finance minister of this government — be seeking an increase to the limit on our debt that is imposed by the Government of Canada.

I would just like for the Finance minister, when he gets on his feet, to address two points. Will he again commit on the floor of this House that the Yukon Party government will not seek an increase to the order-in-council that limits the amount of debt the territory can hold? And will he, on the subject of public/private partnership, commit that any public/private partnership discussion entered into by the Government of Yukon, will be subjected to an independent board for analysis prior to it being engaged in by the Government of Yukon? Will he commit to those two things?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. The member has made a number of statements, some of them obviously very constructive that certainly bear merit; others, though, questionable. I want to begin by saying that I find it of concern how quickly the leader of the third party dismisses the experts within the Yukon government’s Department of Finance, considering the detailed and full briefing provided the opposition by experts, by officials who have to live within the confines of their professional obligations. Certainly that warrants some mention.

When the member opposite makes the claim that there was no information, no expertise, no ability for the opposition to understand what the amendments were all about, I beg to differ. A tremendous amount of effort from experts was provided the members opposite, so we can only come to one conclusion, given the fact that the members opposite never did support the Taxpayer Protection Act — period. Regardless of what it looked like, what it was doing, they never supported it, never supported it at all. Now, suddenly, they take great issue with an amendment that removes the restrictive areas of the Taxpayer Protection Act, which allows government to fully benefit from a full accrual accounting system.

So I would hope that the member opposite doesn’t have that low an opinion of our officials in the Department of Finance, because that is of concern, and I think it’s important that the member make sure that, when relaying to the public the position of the third party, it should include the fact that the expertise was provided in a very detailed accounting and briefing of the amendments presented to the opposition, which surely should give them ample material, should have informed them to the point where a debate could have taken place versus some political manoeuvring.

However, we will continue on with due process as the days go by, with some $95.5 million left to debate in a supplementary budget, with millions toward job creation in the territory, and millions more injected into our social fabric.

The member also makes the statement that past governments lived within the Taxpayer Protection Act. No, that’s incorrect. Past governments did not live within the Taxpayer Protection Act. They found many ways to work outside of it. They did not — and this member opposite who was just on her feet — live within the Taxpayer Protection Act and, furthermore, did not report the correct liabilities, and that is why, as a Finance minister, the books produced by the member opposite received a qualified audited statement, because the member, in not living within the Taxpayer Protection Act, was capping and uncapping the post-employment benefits of our employees. That is why the top accountant in the land qualified the books for the Yukon Territory. It was a qualified audit, Mr. Chair. I find that of concern, also, that the member would put on the public record those kinds of statements when the Auditor General was clearly not happy and clearly disgruntled with how the Yukon Territory was presenting its financial accounting.

As far as public/private partnerships, I find, with interest, how a public/private partnership in the member’s mind is one that produces a project where the taxpayer — at the end of it all, after millions are expended by the taxpayer — would not even own the project. It does have a problem in that type of thinking.

One would question the fiscal management area of the member opposite in terms of how that focus is brought to bear when it comes to sound fiscal management, because it only stands to reason that if you’re going to enter into a public/private partnership, one of the values that you should be determining is ownership at the end, so that the taxpayer has something at the end of it all.

Then we look at the member’s comparison to a 10-year lease of the highest rent known — at least in my time in terms of what the taxpayer is paying for a rental arrangement. It’s for 10 years and the taxpayer — we — will not own the facility at the end of the 10 years. It’s probably double the cost of the building itself. The building may have cost somewhere over $3 million. We’ll be paying somewhere over $6 million just in rent and won’t own it. Then the member makes comparisons to Health and Social Services buildings. Well, frankly, Mr. Chair, those rental agreements were much lower in their cost per monthly or yearly rent, and they were only for three to five years. Quite a difference. The member opposite has made arguments on the public record that certainly bear some scrutiny by the public. I don’t want to spend great amounts of time here exposing all those errors and all those statements that are incorrect; I just merely want to allude to them so that the public may want to delve into them themselves at some point.

On public/private partnerships, Mr. Chair, our approach will be one of engaging the public and First Nation governments and municipalities on a public/private partnership policy to ensure that the business case — when we proceed with any project with this type of mechanism — can be made and that it’s solid, to ensure that the policy that we proceed with is in the best interest of the Yukon taxpayer. What we want to achieve is a cooperative venture between the public and the private sectors, built on the expertise of each partner, which is important.

That expertise is clearly something that we require in the Yukon. Capacity — we need to build capacity in the Yukon that best meets the clearly defined public needs, which is why we are going out on a very stringent and detailed consultative process on this policy. Those needs are met through the appropriate allocation of resources, not setting up numbered companies off the balance sheet, not doing all kinds of wonderful wrinkles that deal with expenditure of taxpayers’ money and, of course, the return to the taxpayer is critical.

All these things are work to be done. The amendment here is merely the first step in establishing a change in how the Yukon government will be operating in the future. That change is toward partnerships with the private sector. That change will result in our ability to build infrastructure in this territory that will promote, in many cases, responsible and sustainable development in the Yukon. The infrastructure is critical to putting in place the foundation, the building blocks, for economic development in the Yukon. Bringing in that private sector expertise and capacity is critical to helping to grow our economy further.

These are not sinister things by any stretch of the imagination. They are not even political. They are fairly easy to determine. They are based on arithmetic. The sole purpose here is to improve the situation that the Yukon Territory is in and diminish that dependence on government. The dependence on government has shown clearly that that is creating a problem in this territory. We are shrinking, yet government costs and expenses go up. The territory shrinks. That shouldn’t be too difficult to understand. The shrinkage is in the private sector. That is a serious problem.

We are making moves here to change that, turn it around, and get the private sector back into the territory, and instead of shrinking, growing.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, there are a number of points which were just made in the Finance minister’s response. I would like to start with the first point, the public employees leave liability account. He has several times now chided for capping and uncapping, namely our government. Will he commit on the floor of this House today — although we have seen what has happened to previous commitments — that he will never cap the leave liability account, as long as he is in government? Will he commit that and state that, unequivocally on the floor of this House, that he will not cap the leave liability account?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I am crushed, Mr. Chair. The member opposite is questioning my integrity. The member opposite actually implies that this government has broken commitments. That is an outrage, considering that we have never broken a commitment.

In fact, we have delivered, in one short year, on a number of commitments, unlike the member opposite who launched the Yukon Territory’s ship with no rudder, and we crashed on the rocks in two and a half years — the rocks of desperation, and we have turned that situation around. I am hurt, and I am devastated that the member opposite would question our integrity. However, with full accrual accounting, to get to the member’s question, we have to book the liability, the true, correct liability.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I’m truly saddened that the minister did not answer my question. I’ve tried so hard and asked him so nicely if he would please just make that straightforward commitment on the floor of the House. And it is not an issue around recording capitalization of assets. I understand the liabilities. He has not yet stated what the environmental liabilities, for example, are.

But we have just also transferred — and, thankfully, many have come over from the federal government to work for the Government of Yukon. And our employee leave liability account stands to be enhanced even further after an actuarial valuation with the addition of these employees. He has committed already to actuarial evaluations; and with the budget figures, the leave liability account will now be in excess of $42 million. This is a liability of which $3 million is only paid out every year. That is the most that has been paid out, according to the figures. Now, maybe officials can stand to correct me, but my understanding from those same officials in this full and thorough briefing indicated that that’s the most that has ever been paid out.

So will the minister say — in all seriousness, will he stand on the floor and say — that, as Finance minister or the government, the Yukon Party government, will not, during their term in office, however long we have to endure it, cap the leave liability account? He will not cap the leave liability account — that’s what I want him to say on the floor of the House. Will he say it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I’m prone to say a lot of things on the floor of the House, Mr. Chair, so let me begin. The member opposite is making an argument that because we only pay out on an annual basis — and I’ll use the member’s number of $3 million for the post-employee benefits — that means the rest of it isn’t a liability?

The member’s argument is incorrect and — I’ll rest my case here, Mr. Chair — that is why we get qualified audits in capping the liability. When we cap the post-employment benefit liability, we get qualified, because it’s not following standard, correct and acceptable accounting procedures — period.

So the answer to the member’s question is, "Read the amendment." The amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act removes that problem of continuing to get qualified audits. We are now legally bound to fully accrue the liabilities for the Yukon Territory, which means that we will not be capping and uncapping the liability, because we can’t.

Ms. Duncan:   Will the Finance minister go even further and state that, under his watch — because he likes to use that word — the Government of Yukon will never receive a qualified audit?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Now we’re getting silly, Mr. Chair. I can’t stand here on the floor of the Legislature and say that. In the massive amount of bookkeeping done by the Yukon government, once the Auditor General’s office has done their work, they may find something that does not fit within the definition of "standard accounting procedures" as they see it, and we may then get a qualified statement.

I certainly can’t stand on the floor and prejudge today what the Auditor General’s office may do tomorrow or years from now. To prejudge the Auditor General’s findings would not be prudent of me — not at all.

We’re certainly, though, after consultation with the Auditor General, taking the steps to solve what is a serious problem in the Auditor General’s mind of how we do our bookkeeping. We’ve solved that with this amendment.

Ms. Duncan:   The argument that the Finance minister has made is that, "Oh my goodness; the previous governments were absolutely terrible. They were awful. They capped and uncapped the leave liability account and, oh my goodness, we’ve got a qualified statement and this is just awful." The notification of whether or not a statement is going to be qualified is well known to Management Board, well known to Finance; it’s a conscious decision to the Finance minister — it’s a conscious decision. It’s an understood, what’s coming, so it’s not a surprise. But the Finance minister has said, "Not us; we won’t cap or uncap the leave liability account, because that’s what qualified the statements."

So make the next logical leap — commit on the floor of the House then that the Finance minister, the Yukon Party government, won’t get qualified statements. Because, Mr. Chair, it happened before. The statements were qualified in 1994, because the Yukon Party government overexpended a vote by $1.7 million, and the government made two loans without the authority of an act. Qualified audited statements have happened before, non-qualified audited statements saying they were perfect have also happened before, under our watch as well as the qualification.

For the minister to say, "Well, we have to make this change because we don’t want a qualified audited statement" and yet will not make the commitment that he will never bring forward a qualified audited statement — his arguments don’t hold water. He has no reason for making these changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act. He doesn’t have the strength of argument, and he doesn’t have the strength of political persuasion, because he won’t allow full and thorough debate on the subject with the experts. And that is not decrying the experts or saying anything against the officials in the Department of Finance who are employees of the government.

We are talking about individuals — one of whom is still an employee of the government, who has not been able to speak in this particular forum because that minister won’t let him speak. He won’t let Yukoners ask questions. Why not? Why not?

In the openness and accountability and the suggestion that we improve decorum in this Legislature, that we work with the opposition, that we work with good ideas wherever they come — not unless they happen to be the Yukon Party’s good ideas.

The minister will not make the commitment that he will never bring forward a qualified audit. He won’t make the commitment that they may cap the leave liability account.

I would like to move on to the issues around public/private partnerships. I know that the leader of the official opposition wants to enter into this discussion as well.

Public/private partnerships — there are some, at least 12 different types of public/private partnerships. They talk about value for money. They talk about the protection of public interest. These are two considerations that have to be made.

Now, the Finance minister talks about the private sector. That’s who owns the Health and Social Services building. That’s who owns the Burns Road building. That’s who owns the building where Energy, Mines and Resources used to be located, and are in part, and health services are located. That just names three in the City of Whitehorse — there are many outside — where we will not at the end of our lease arrangements own the building, where we will not own the assets, where we have stimulated the private sector, which has made substantial investments in these buildings and will continue to do so. There are arguments for both sides. There are arguments for leasing property. There are arguments for owning buildings in the market, and the fair market and fair tendering process determines the rent.

I have asked before — and I’d like a clear statement from the minister. In the examination of public/private partnerships by the Government of Yukon, what process do they intend to use for examining those public/private partnerships? He has said publicly that P3s will not be used for health care buildings, for the jail — the Whitehorse Correctional Centre — or for schools. Will he say again for the public record of Hansard and of this Legislature: what does he intend to use the public/private partnerships for, and by what process will the Government of Yukon engage in a public/private partnership? By what process? Will it be a tender? Will there be a public debate? Will he consent — and another constructive idea, not just from the opposition benches but employed by other governments, such as the Government of Alberta. Will he submit the examination of any public/private partnership to an independent board for full analysis?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, in the first place, I want to point out that I’m not here to argue at all with the member opposite. That being the case, we certainly wouldn’t do it here. We could go somewhere else and argue, because I’m sure the member argues quite a bit. It appears the member is very practised at it.

I’m here to debate what we have done as a government in amending the Taxpayer Protection Act. We’ve stated countless times now why we’re doing it. We’ve stated countless times what it does. I’ve also stated — and I’ll correct the member opposite — that we would not use public/private partnerships for jails, hospitals or schools — jails, hospitals or schools. That’s what we said.

Beyond that, the member is asking a question I’ve already answered. I said we will go forward with a process to determine what policy will be used for public/private partnerships. What is the government going to do in proceeding with that particular mechanism? That’s the work that has yet to be done: what format the budget will take on and all those things. This is something that we are working on.

The member may want an answer today, but that’s unfortunate because the member won’t get an answer today. We’re going to allow the public to participate in that answer, something the member opposite doesn’t really understand, as was evidenced in recent history.

However, Mr. Chair, I think what’s at stake here is the opposition’s ability to debate the $95.5 million of expenditure in the budget. They seem to feel that this is their issue, though they have a serious problem, considering that they never supported in the first place — and they probably still don’t — the Taxpayer Protection Act at all. Unless they have come up with some rationale for what has changed their position — we don’t know that, but they do have a problem. So all the debate, as it rages on, relates to what? What is the purpose? What are we getting out of this, really? The members say they need experts to come in and bear witness when we provided them as much expertise as you could possibly provide them and, I think, gave them every bit of detail necessary to have an informed debate.

If we read Hansard, we can see that much of the debate is not informed or constructive at all — in fact, far from it. Considering the detail that was provided them in the briefing, they haven’t even touched on that.

We have a long list of questions — of matters that they brought up in the briefing — that certainly haven’t materialized here on the floor of the House. So we will continue on with the debate, at the members’ choice. We have presented the business of the House within the confines of the rules of this House, and we are here prepared to debate it on behalf of the public. The rest is up to the members opposite to manage their time.

Ms. Duncan:   The member opposite has suggested that the opposition has an inability to debate the $95-million supplementary budget. I would just remind the Finance minister — in his previous experience as a House leader, he will recognize that the order for debate by the government is determined by the government House leader. The government House leader has steadfastly refused to call that for debate. That’s not an inability of the opposition; it’s an inability of the government House leader.

But we have asked for change there before and that performance evaluation just doesn’t seem to hit home with the Finance minister — speaking of inability to listen to the public.

The other suggestion is that the Finance minister has said that any debate coming from this side of the House is not informed, not constructive. His House leader used the term "worthless". Well, the questions I asked in the briefing by officials were questions around format. The minister has steadfastly refused to answer them. There were questions around environmental liability; the Finance minister refuses to answer them. There was a question around how much will be the capitalization of assets. The Finance minister did answer that question.

What the Finance minister refuses to hear or recognize is that there are other individuals who could also provide expert assistance, who do not have to speak in support of their employer. They have the ability, given precedence; they have the ability, given their stature and knowledge, to speak on this particular issue.

The Finance minister has so little belief in his bill and his government’s ability that he refuses to let us hear from them.

The minister has not answered the question. He said that in public/private partnerships the government has ruled out the use of P3s for hospitals, jails and schools. One could conclude from that answer, reasonably, given the member’s comments made at other times in the House, that public/private partnership are being considered by the government for the two-tier health care facilities they are proposing in Watson Lake and Dawson City and for the bridge in Dawson City, given the comments from the Minister of Health.

Will the minister confirm that that’s what the public/private partnerships are being examined for? And he said we’ll use a public process. What process? The fair tendering process? A process whereby the government brings forward a partnership or a bill and then insists that any questions from the opposition are worthless, or any ideas or amendments are worthless? What kind of a process does he anticipate for engaging in that activity of tremendous significance to Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’ve never ever pointed to the members opposite as worthless and I think that’s a big stretch by the third party. It has no place on the floor of this Legislature; in fact, it’s irrelevant to the debate. As far as process, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it. Maybe I should chisel it in granite and present it to the member opposite in the form of the tablets. I could bring them down from the mountain in the form of tablets, present them to the member opposite on the fact that we are going to design a public/private partnership policy with the public.

Entertaining anything beyond that today is not the prudent course a government of our beliefs and commitments to the public would take. We are going to go out and, with the public, ensure that we design a public/private partnership policy that makes sense for Yukon. There has been no discussion with any private sector company, individual — you name it — on any project. We are talking about policy, first step. Along with what we have done with the amendment, we are advancing this whole process. The member opposite seems to think that this debate is getting us somewhere. The answer is the same: policy first.

Ms. Duncan:  How does the minister intend to develop that policy? Is it simply going to be done within the Department of Finance? Or does he intend that there be a public process of some kind? If so, what public process? How is an average citizen going to have input into the development of the structure around public/private partnerships?

The minister has yet to answer the question if he will subject any evaluation of a proposed public/private partnership to an independent board. Will he do that, so that someone from outside government — without a vested interest, not employed by the government — can take a thorough look at what is proposed? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I think that what we are dealing with here is a failure to communicate. That is the problem: it is a failure to communicate. I am not sure that we will ever get beyond that. This failure to communicate has obviously got motivation. I say to the member opposite, did the member opposite consult an independent board when the member opposite committed the Yukon taxpayer to some $6 million of rent over the next decade? Not that I know of.

I have stated again for the record that we will proceed with a policy with the public, with stakeholders. There are so many positives in what’s happening here that I am just totally sorry for the member opposite being so mired in the negativity, so overcome by the negative aspects of some misguided vision of where this territory is and where it’s going. That’s truly unfortunate, but that’s the quagmire the member opposite is stuck in.

We’re much more focused on accentuating the positives here: what we can do for this territory, how we can build in hope and a more positive attitude — which, by the way, is being reflected to some degree now, but we want to continue to build on that — how we can grow the economy for the territory, how we can build a future, how we can engage our citizens, our businesses and the private sector. This government is about ensuring that the private sector has a role to play and an environment within which to work. We’re a positive force. We’re a positive government. We come to work every day with a positive attitude. The member opposite is stuck in the quagmire of negativity — and that, Mr. Chair, I’ve come to the conclusion, is why we have a failure to communicate.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, isn’t that interesting. We get a lecture on failure to communicate, and what it is is just a verbal attack upon us on this side, particularly the member from the third party. Isn’t that fascinating that the Minister of Finance doesn’t actually look at his own words and recognize what he’s doing?

Part of the problem in here, Mr. Chair, is that we’re not getting answers to a lot of our questions, and I would also say there’s a degree of distrust that exists within the Legislative Assembly at this present time. It could be distrust from this particular perspective, based on the perceived treatment we’ve received from members on the other side when we have asked questions, whether in Question Period or not, and the kind of answers we get, whether it’s some of the history of the last year and what the Yukon Party leader has said in the past and what he’s doing now, which raises some serious doubt on our part.

But possibly it also exists on the other side as well, Mr. Chair, and we have to recognize that. I’ve had the fortune — actually myself, the leader of the third party, the member across the way, the three who are in debate right now, have all had the advantage, I guess, of being in government and being in opposition, and because of that, our perspective should be broader and more aware of both sides and what it takes to make things work.

Definitely one way it doesn’t work is when it’s a verbal attack for responses to questions that are asked. All that does is entrench people into their positions. Often what it demonstrates is frustration on the person’s part and why they’re just verbally attacking, and the fact that they really don’t want to engage in any meaningful direction or way, which is fine.

Now, from our perspective, it seems like the Yukon Party has found a loophole to advance their own agenda, and the loophole, of course, is the Taxpayer Protection Act, because there’s really nothing that has been proven in the arguments to date to indicate this has to be changed. But I’m not going to go back and re-argue those points.

I think that where a lot of the discussion has shifted today, and where it is probably going to continue to shift, is into what the government is planning to do with the changes that they are making. We have heard the Minister of Finance indicate that jails will not be part of public/private partnerships, schools will not be part of public/private partnerships, and hospitals will not be part of public/private partnerships.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   That’s fine, Mr. Premier. I think that I can say it as well, to repeat your words.

Hospitals also will not be part of public/private partnerships.

This is refreshing — a new face to look at in the Chair. Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Hassard.

That’s good to know. The debate going around on the privatization or public/private partnerships — all the angles and twists and turns that it can take — is something that I hope we are going to explore over the next while.

But a question that I have to ask — and I have to ask this in regard to something that happened in a previous government. That was their decision to try to privatize certain aspects of hospital delivery. I think that most people are very conscious of that move — that was the CT scanner, Mr. Deputy Chair — and the backlash that was felt among the people of this territory. That was a move, again, that wasn’t done in a manner that I find acceptable, which is that if you are going to make a fundamental shift in the delivery of programs and services offered and buildings and how you have done it in the past, then I believe that you owe it to the public to engage them in debate.

Now when that happened under the Liberal government, when they tried to move into private delivery in some aspects of the hospital care and then the CT scanner, there was definitely a reaction from the public. But it was a reaction from the public because they weren’t part of the debate in the initial stages and also because they completely disagree with seeing privatization of the delivery of health care.

From looking at a little bit of the past history and positions that have been put forward by the Liberals when they were in power, I can’t see them having too many problems moving into public/private partnerships and even moving into services being offered. We know that about the Liberals back then, because they did indicate where they were going at times, even though they failed in some of those areas. My question to the Premier: when we talk about the buildings, as seems to be the talk here, can he also assure us that there will not also be services delivered under this model in those areas?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   What the member opposite refers to is privatization. That is not something that we are pursuing at all with this initiative. We are pursuing projects of infrastructure that build the territory, not privatization of programs and services. I want to lay aside the member’s fears about privatization. That’s not what we are doing here at all. I would hope the member understands that. First we go out to get this policy so that the public clearly understands what it is we are pursuing and the stakeholders clearly understand what it is we are pursuing with a public/private partnership.

I want to point something else out. There’s a question out here about the government’s ability to borrow money, and we’ve gotten into that debate a couple of times. We have no intention of going out to borrow money. Our debt is regulated, dictated by the federal government, and going into debt is probably not the best thing to do. But if the government was to borrow money on a capital project of infrastructure, for example, the financing costs are just one component of a capital project. But the flip side of this is the really important element — the total cost over the life cycle of a project is a much better indicator of the overall cost to taxpayers than simply the cost of borrowing. In a public/private partnership, Mr. Chair, the efficiencies of the private sector and the benefits of risk transferred often result in greater savings to the government than any lower cost of borrowing. So obviously the purpose here is to design the appropriate policy that will capture that very element of what it is we want to achieve with a public/private partnership.

I urge the member opposite to understand that we’re not like a bull in a china shop here. We are taking this one, logical, methodical step at a time. We’ve solved the problem with qualified audited statements. We believe that in the best interest of our employees we should be fully booking the liability of post-employment benefits. And I think the member will understand that, as we evolve into the future over the next few years, in the not-too-distant future, we will experience a lot of retirement increasing the annual cost. It’s important that our employees are comforted that we have fully booked what is owed to them in post-employment.

Now we are going to move on to another phase of developing a process for public/private partnerships that will give us this benefit of efficiencies and risk transfers and greater savings to the taxpayer and, at the same time, create jobs and benefit and infrastructure to help build the future of this territory.

Mr. Hardy:   That is going to be a very interesting debate — the point that he made that there are efficiencies in going into public/private partnerships — because the jury is still out on that one. There is absolutely no question whatsoever that many governments across this country are cancelling or trying to get out of public/private partnerships. They are trying to get out because of the extra burden of cost and control and quality. Every single province that has ventured down this road has tried to break those deals or has cancelled projects going in that direction. That’s a debate that we are going to be entering into. There is no question about it.

It will be very interesting to see where this government goes with it, how they present their arguments and how much they allow the people of this territory to be part of that debate. It would be a shame to see them moving forward on a project without that proper analysis and consideration.

It’s not good enough just to stand up and read something that says there is greater efficiency and it costs less. That doesn’t cut it. What we need to do is have an engaged and informed debate on this subject. I would like to know — with respect — if the minister could outline how he plans to engage the territory in that kind of debate once they start moving in that direction — if he could give me an outline and tell me what kind of model they plan to use. What does he envision in the consultative process? Does he plan to engage experts in this field from all aspects? Is he willing to do that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There is good reason why we have already stated publicly, right at the initial stages of this debate, that public/private partnerships in jails and schools were not something that we were going to do. Because the member spoke of problems and those appear to be areas where there were problems. We are not going down that road.

Of course, when it comes to developing the policy for a public/private partnership, expertise is required. But first the government has to flush out all the data and information that it has, design a process that is relevant to the public and meaningful for the public so that their input is a part of the equation. Do we bring up expertise to go over the policy of public/private partnerships? That is certainly a preferred option that we are looking at already. But for the debate here on the amendment, I am trying to get to the point where we understand that this is just one step. There are many steps and many safeguards to come. That is the work that we will be undertaking in the coming weeks and months.

This does not come into force and effect until April 2004, and the members opposite are more than welcome to participate in what is going to transpire over the next while as we advance this territory’s ability to solicit private sector investment and help build a future for the territory.

Mr. Hardy:   I agree with the Premier’s previous comments. He had suggested that this is a major move and I totally agree with him. Any kind of move of this magnitude does demand a very thorough, thoughtful analysis, as well as consideration of long-term impact.

I’m not willing to just stop my line of thinking at the first-step scenario. I would much rather enter in and discuss the broader context and the longer term impacts. To me, in some ways, we’re already engaged in this debate. It’s going to happen; it’s happening on the floor today, and there are many, many reasons why we have concerns.

The minister has indicated that he favours bringing in outside experts to discuss this. Is the minister willing to bring up those from both sides of the equation, the ones that are huge promoters of public/private partnerships as well as those that have some very strong concerns in it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I mentioned that that’s an option, but we haven’t got to that step yet. We are going out with policy in this area. You know, we could probably speculate here for days on what may be, but that’s why we as a government don’t speculate. We do things in a manner that there is clear understanding of what it is that must transpire. The first step has been taken, and it’s a very limited one. It’s merely amending a couple of provisions in the Taxpayer Protection Act and maintaining the overall integrity of the act. Now we’re going to work on a policy that could be an asset to go along with this amendment, which is public/private partnerships, and we will ensure that that work is inclusive.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I didn’t get the commitment that I was looking for, so I have to assume that the minister hasn’t been considering the fact that there might be some experts out there who have concerns about this direction that governments are going in and who have a different perspective.

Well, I hope that when and if they consider bringing in experts in these fields that they bring in experts from all aspects and all sides with difference perspectives and not just a one-sided angle. That’s what I would hope for so that we can have really informed strong debate around this. We have a lot of concerns about public/private partnerships because a lot of them end up leading to privatization. We don’t have a great deal of faith in the direction the government has gone in so far, so we do have that concern that always rests in the back of our mind, that this government, once again, has a bigger plan of where they’re going; however, we have to debate what’s going on.

One of the models that has been proposed — and actually it’s probably beyond proposal because the Member for Klondike has indicated that the bridge will be built by public/private partnership. Can the Minister of Finance inform me what work has already been done along that line and if there has been any kind of investigation about the impact it has, the cost and that? Would he be willing to supply me with that kind of information?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Just before I get to that question, I want to point out to the member opposite that I did state on the floor that this is not about privatization. This is about partnering with investment so that there is ownership for the public and/or others. When I say others, not only is this model usable with the private sector, but now we have more options to partner with First Nation governments on the building of infrastructure. I think we all understand that, in First Nation communities, there are requirements there that are needs and infrastructure, and there are other examples. It brings in those options in partnering with First Nation governments and also the possibility of partnering with municipalities. So it’s not in the privatization mode at all, Mr. Chair.

As far as the bridge in Dawson, the statements are that this is an example that makes sense. As far as any work on the bridge itself, in terms of a P3 — no, that hasn’t been done. I know that in the past there has been work on the abutments and all the rest of it — and I am sure that the Member for Klondike would probably confirm this, but there has probably been some environmental work done on assessing the crossing. But beyond that, we have not engaged with any company, person or entity on a P3 for the bridge. But it makes sense, and I will go over why it makes sense.

We are, on behalf of the taxpayer, committing $1 million a year to operate a ferry. We also will, in coming years, when the ferry itself is time-expired, have to replace that ferry. So the cost of that replacement is also in the millions. If we were to take that and allocate those monies toward the construction of a bridge, that’s why it makes sense, because in the fullness of time, it will save money for the taxpayer.

That’s about all I can provide the member opposite on the bridge in Dawson. We have not talked to any company about a P3. There has been work done on the environmental issues, the abutments and the crossing. Beyond that, we are just dealing with the debate that the member is putting on the floor.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, P3s can take a variety of forms, but there really are two main approaches on how they are done. The first approach, of course, is for the private sector to design, build, own and finance assets that previously would have been built, owned and financed by the government. I get the impression that this government is looking at that.

The private sector then leases these assets back to the government in what are usually long-term arrangements. Now, the government across the way is saying it’s not a lease-back, it’s a purchase-back; but the second approach involves the private sector being given a budget by the public sector to take over and operate public sector operations. And both those models can be combined quite nicely. Then you can use P3s for just about anything, doing any kind of work, going in any different direction, and adjusting those models.

Now, there are some models out there — around the bridges out there — and they’re quite interesting, because in almost every case, where P3s have been used to build a bridge, it has been looked at and calculated that it has cost the taxpayers a substantial amount more money with going in that direction from the Confederation Bridge. I think the estimate for the Confederation Bridge is something like $45 million more, to go with a P3 model.

Now, both the Minister of Finance and — I’m not totally sure about the Member for Klondike, but the Minister of Finance has indicated that tolls might be a part of the bridge in Dawson City. If he is considering that already, then he must have had some thought around the bridge in Dawson City. The government, I suspect, must have done some work in regard to the bridge in Dawson City, if they put that out as part of their backgrounder when they were proposing the changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act in the Legislature. So obviously they have advanced some work in that area. It’s not just something they haven’t even considered other than that’s a project that’s looming. So I don’t really buy the story that there hasn’t been any work done or very little work done in looking at using P3 models.

The question is: does the Premier envision that tolls will be part of that bridge?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member opposite isn’t buying a story because this side of the House is not selling one. It’s not a story at all. We simply use the bridge as an example of where a public/private partnership would make sense. Beyond that, the only work that has been done is on the environmental issues, and on the abutments and the crossing. There certainly hasn’t been any work done on anything else, be it toll or whatever.

This is simply an example that was used, because it is a sensible example and the arithmetic is very simple. It clearly shows that a bridge can be a cost-saving for the taxpayer if you factor in the cost of the ferry — not only its operation and maintenance, but its replacement costs.

Mr. Hardy:   We are trying to get an idea of what the government is doing, and it is very difficult when they deny that they are even thinking over there. We are looking at the projections, estimates of impact and the changes things like this would have over 10, 20 or 30 years. There must have been some consideration when the Premier brings this idea forward and continually talks about P3s, and the benefits and about engaging the private sector and all that jazz. There must be contemplation on what kind of impact this will have over 10, 20 or 50 years. There must have been some analysis, wouldn’t you think? Can the Premier stand up and tell me what analysis has been done on P3s to date, and what impact it will have on the territory?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think we should take this back to what it is that we are debating. We’re debating an amendment on the Taxpayer Protection Act. Because of the fact that we are going to go to full accrual accounting, we are going to make an amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act so that we get the benefit of full accrual accounting by creating the options in this territory to engage other governments like First Nations, possibly municipalities and the private sector to increase the spending power in the Yukon and, in doing so, focus on infrastructure projects as one example.

Then we brought forward the example of the bridge because it makes sense. It’s a cost saver. No matter how you account for this at the end of the day, a bridge in Dawson versus the ferry will be a cost saver for the taxpayer. Period. There are no issues here that the member should be concerned about. We’ve stated we’d go out to the public, a very transparent process, to develop the policy. Past governments have done a lot of work on P3s and that’s certainly something they didn’t do in the public, but we are going to do it in the public. I think in the context of trying to move this debate along, maybe the members opposite have some suggestions on what would be a good candidate for a public/private partnership in the Yukon.

Mr. Hardy:   I really look forward to that debate when he is actually willing to talk to the public about this instead of trying to shift the questions. It’s interesting, when we started to explore P3s, it went right back to, oh, no, no, we’re just talking about a minor change in the Taxpayer Protection Act. Yet for the last few days everything is about the Taxpayer Protection Act being changed so that we can maximize the benefits and the leverage so we can do P3s. It’s a moving target here depending on the questions that you ask.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Actually, I had asked a question on whether the members opposite had any ideas on what they would deem to be a good candidate for a P3 project. Let us go to the issue at hand.

Nobody has ever said that we couldn’t partner with anybody today, but it certainly is on a very limited basis. But I think that the members opposite may have some good ideas on what public/private partnerships could do for the Yukon and what would be good candidates.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, thank you very much. I really like the vote of confidence that I received from the Premier, and I definitely do have some ideas, but they might not necessarily sit that well with the Premier. But we will get into that discussion when it is time to talk about even the benefits of public/private partnerships.

That’s actually where I am at right now, is the benefits of them. I think you need a really good analysis of the direction you are going and the perceived benefits — if they are real and if they are long-term — before you start to pick subjects or projects. I would recommend that that is the format that should be used, to engage in that debate at that level first before you start to decide what will become the public/private partnerships that this government is so bent on having.

Going back to my questions, one of my questions is: what analysis has been done? I will accept this — if the Premier says that they have done nothing whatsoever in regard to analyzing the impact that P3s will have, the long-term costs on any project whatsoever, I will accept that. If there has actually been no thought, or very, very little thought, if the departments haven’t been given any direction whatsoever, other than just changing the Taxpayer Protection Act, I will accept the fact that this government over here has done no work whatsoever on P3s. Is that the situation?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Past governments have done work on P3s. Obviously we’re looking at that and fleshing that out, but the member’s point, I must say, has to reflect the fact that it’s project-specific. You must be able to make the business case, and the member also made another point that relates back to the Taxpayer Protection Act, and I think we have to put on the record that, currently without the amendment, in any given year the Yukon is restricted to a very narrow definition of surplus, because it does not reflect the true asset base.

That in itself has certainly diminished our response to the economy in this territory, or our ability to respond to it. But as far as this debate about a P3, we’ve said that past governments have looked into it, we are fleshing out the material, we are going to go forward with a very public process — transparent — to decide and design a policy for P3s.

We don’t see P3s in the context of jails, hospitals and schools — jails, hospitals and schools as the candidates for public/private partnerships. We see them in other areas as being positive, having a positive impact. We’ve given the example of the bridge in Dawson. We give the rationale why — it’s because of the cost of the ferry O&M and replacement value can be allocated or transferred to the cost of a bridge so, in the long run, it saves money for the taxpayer.

Sound fiscal management, to a great degree, is about saving money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Hardy:   Can the Premier assure me that hydro is not part of this list as well?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I stated hospitals, jails and schools.

Mr. Hardy:   Can the member assure me, as well, that care facilities are not part of this model?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I said hospitals, jails and schools.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a long list here, but I think I get the message of the limitations that have been put on it by the Premier, and that’s good to know. One thing we do know where they have actually admitted to go to is roads to resources. What roads would they be looking at?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Of course, Mr. Chair, roads to resources are an important component of infrastructure to help attract investment and provide economic growth. Again, roads to resources, though, must make sense. There must be a business case. That’s important because, when you consider an example of a road to resources, you must also factor in that there is a royalty to the resource, and the sensible approach for any road to resource has to factor in what return is being provided to the taxpayer by putting in the expenditure for that access to a resource. That is something that requires an in-depth assessment in making the business case. So we are committed to roads to resources. It’s a possible candidate because it’s not a jail, it’s not a school and it’s not a hospital.

Mr. Hardy:   Actually, I am really enjoying this line of questioning, Mr. Chair. This is a lot of fun. How about government buildings? I know there has been a lot of discussion in regard to leases and bad leases and even worse leases and who signed those agreements — well, every government has in the past. Of course, we do know one that’s the predominant one in the discussions today, and it is pretty grim. However, I get the feeling, listening to this discussion, that the government could possibly be considering down the road a public/private partnership for the building of a new government building when the need arises. Is that a possibility?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Actually, what we’re considering now in this one particular area of public/private partnership is designing and developing a policy.

Mr. Hardy:   That’s not the question I asked and the Premier has actually been very forthcoming in the last couple of minutes. I thought I’d take advantage of it. I thought we had a little roll going on here but he went back into his shell. We’ll try one more time.

This question is asked in all good faith and with all due respect, Mr. Chair. Is it one of the considerations that when there is a need identified for a necessary government building or to consolidate some departments or to try to lower some costs of the leases or running out and this government wants to take a different direction than past governments, to consider a public/private partnership in this area?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Here is what has been done to date. We’ve made this very operational, benign amendment to the Taxpayer Protection Act. We are going to full accrual accounting. We have stated that this amendment provides more options by correctly reporting the asset base to respond to the economic needs of the territory. One of the mechanisms for that is public/private partnerships. We’ve listed an example of what would make sense in a public/private partnership; that’s the bridge in Dawson because of the cost of the ferry. We have stated publicly that we will not utilize public/private partnerships for hospitals, jails or schools. We are going to embark on this transparent process and I hope the members opposite get involved — nothing else, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Hardy:   Exploring more of this — we know that roads to resources is part of the equation, because the member has indicated that. How about maintenance on those roads — would that be a consideration?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Roads to resources is something that we are committed to. It has to make sense. There has to be a business case. The full equation, which is the return to the taxpayer, is paramount. What resources are being accessed? What is the cost to get to them? What are we getting in return for allowing access and extraction of the resource? There are many factors, but a road to resources is an important element of growing an economy, because it’s a way to work with the investment community to open up what is another asset, and that is a resource that may be marketable.

Mr. Hardy:   To shift off the road a little bit, we will just use highways. Is highway maintenance a consideration? Would grader stations and new buildings like that be considered as public/private partnerships?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have already stated that we have no intention of privatization.

Mr. Hardy:   It doesn’t always fall under the title of "privatization". Often, it can be maintenance contracts tied in with the public/private partnerships in the building of the road and during the lifetime of the agreement on the building of the road, the maintenance is part of the package. Would that be the direction that this government is going in? Would they consider, even in a public/private partnership, including maintenance during that period of money owed?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is one thing to talk about a highway — whether it be primary or secondary roads in the Yukon. It is another thing to talk about roads to resources. It may be only winter access. It may be a simple tote road. There is a big stretch here from the maintenance that I know the member opposite is referring to, which is maintenance on primary and secondary roads, versus what kind of maintenance would be required on a road to resources.

I think, once we determine if and when a road to resources gets built, then you address that issue, depending on what you’re dealing with. And if it’s just winter access, that’s one thing. If it’s year-round access, that’s another. Are there bridges? There are all kinds of issues here, Mr. Chair. But today we have no intention of privatizing highway maintenance through public/private partnerships on primary or secondary roads and the existing infrastructure. A road to resources, though, is something that is quite different. Its design is related solely to one purpose — the extraction of a resource or the access to it.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I don’t think that’s what I was pointing toward. The Premier has indicated that, yes, the building of a road would be considered in the public/private partnership as a model that they would be using. There are many different parts of an agreement. One part of the agreement is — let me back up for a second, Mr. Chair.

In the agreement, it can be considered that as long as the government owes money on that road, the road is not actually owned by the government but is owned by the private company. Many of these companies that build these roads are not content just to build it. That’s not where they want to go; that’s not what they want; that’s not where they make a lot of their money, although they do make a substantial amount. What they are more interested in — and what they really want to get their hands on, of course — is the maintenance of the road and the cost of maintaining that road during that period. Now, the argument can be made that, because they are a private company, they do own the road until it has been bought by the government, that they have the first right to deliver the maintenance on that road. Is that what the minister is indicating when he talks about building a new road? Would that be part of it?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, I want to point out that when we access, for instance, forest resources, the private sector is already building roads and maintaining the roads themselves at their own costs. Those are very suspect, because we’re seeing a patchwork of road accesses off main highways, going in each and every direction. That is something that, being environmentally conscious, this government is going to address. There has to be a focused approach to access to resources, not a piecemeal, shotgun approach which the federal government was conducting for years here in the territory.

The other item is that it is not necessarily the case in a public/private partnership that the private sector actually owns anything — depending on the policy and what the form of the partnership is. That is why I keep pointing out to the member opposite that our next step is to design this policy. What is the Yukon government and the Yukon Territory going to commit to if it entertains public/private partnerships? What is the framework within which we will work?

This includes First Nation governments. The option there is a positive one also. We are dealing with some speculative issues here; they are hard to answer. The government tends not to get involved in speculative debate. The facts are as we have presented them. We have no intention to use public/private partnerships for jails, for schools, for hospitals. We certainly made the case that a bridge in Dawson is a sensible approach. It makes sense. It is going to save the taxpayer money in the long run. That is an easy one.

We talked about roads to resources. There is a possibility there, but there is much work to be done. I said a number of times now that we must take the full equation into account. What is the return to the taxpayer? What is the resource that we are accessing? What are we getting in return for allowing access? What is the return to the taxpayer in the cost of the road? Can it be a royalty charge? A fee on royalties that pay back for the cost of the road? There are many variables, but we are committed to roads to resources, where they make sense.

Mr. Hardy:   This is very interesting because we’ve realized now that when the Premier says schools, hospitals and jails — that there won’t be public/private partnerships in those areas — that it actually doesn’t really mean that. It’s not that defined. When we brought up the care facilities, there was no answer. When we brought up government buildings, there was no answer. When we brought up hydro, there was no answer, no very definitive position being taken in that area. We brought up maintenance on roads — avoid the answer. I just touched on a few of them. I can imagine how many loopholes there are in this area, and it’s going to be interesting once again to try to find out exactly what is going on over there.

Because contrary to what the Premier said, he hasn’t made the case that going public/private partnership for the bridge in Dawson City is the right way to go. There has been no case made on this floor yet. There have been no figures brought out. There has been no analysis done on it. He has indicated on the other side that he has made the case. Well, where is the case? Where is his argument that this is the right way to go? Zero. He has even admitted in this Legislature that they don’t involve themselves in speculative debate or speculative thinking, that that’s not what the government should do.

I put it to him that that’s what this whole thing is about. He’s speculating but he’s not giving us any concrete information, any studies. Has he directed any departments to look at the ramifications of going to a public/private partnership on the jail? Absolutely not.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Not the jail. That was a Freudian slip. I think that, deep down, I actually believe they are going to find a way to do a public/private partnership around the jail and they’re going to try a smokescreen to do it. However, we’re talking about the bridge, since he says he has made the case. Excuse me, but some people on this side of the House haven’t heard a single figure. We haven’t heard a single study. There is nothing. Zero.

That’s what he calls "making a case"? Well, excuse me, but I think the people of this territory deserve a little bit better from a Finance minister.

Now there are a lot of concerns about jails. I will give you an example: the Charleswood Bridge in Winnipeg is a very clear example of greater costs. The company that financed the bridge-building project paid a higher interest rate than would the city — in this case, it was the agreement with the city. That’s what would happen with the bridge in Dawson City. It would be estimated in this case to cost taxpayers an additional $1.2 million. It’s not like $10,000 or $100,000 — we are talking big money here.

Also, the city normally repays loans over a 20-year period while the company chose a 30-year period, which increased costs and incurred debt for an additional 10 years that they have to carry. Furthermore, the lease payments made by the city on the bridge are considered financial liabilities, so the city’s financial status is not improved by the P3 project. That is one example.

We could use the Confederation Bridge where the studies have proven that it is going to cost $45 million more for that bridge by going P3. There is example after example after example.

I would encourage the Premier, since he has indicated already that he hasn’t done any kind of thinking along this line — no speculative thinking, no analysis at all — that he actually take a serious look at what some of the other governments in Canada have encountered with the cost overruns, with the overbuilt facilities and with the long-term deals and how difficult it is to get out of them, and who actually owns it, and toll bridges, and the list goes on and on and on.

We have some very, very strong concerns. We haven’t even touched on quality of construction and access to that building.

I will give you an example with schools. He says there are going to be no schools, but I am sure that there is a way to get around that one as well. They have managed to get around a lot of things they have said already. How about access? Who actually owns the school while you are paying on it? Who actually has use of the school after hours, or do you have to pay more for that as well?

How about quality control? How about janitorial services? How about maintenance? How about safety in the schools? But let’s move off schools. Let’s put safety on the bridge. Let’s put jobs and building it. What guarantees are there that the business incentive policy would be part of this? None. What guarantees that there would be Yukon people working on these jobs? Zero. We’ve already seen this government very, very reluctant to enforce the business incentive policy with the city. Fortunately, and I take my hat off to them, they finally did see the light, as one of their favourite sayings is, they saw the light and indicated that the business incentive policy would be part of the infrastructure for the Canada Winter Games — thank goodness, under a tremendous amount of pressure from the public.

Working conditions, wages — what guarantees that there would be fair wages on this? What guarantees there would be benefits, long-term benefits to working people? What guarantees are there that local contractors — small local contractors — would have an opportunity to do the work on these buildings? What guarantees are there that any local contractors would get an opportunity, or would there just be a token effort?

How about taxpayers? These projects invariably cost more. There are huge profits made by the private sector in a lot of these areas — not all, but in a lot of these areas, huge profits because that’s what they’re driven by, to make profit. So of course you’re going to see that. And often we see this slipping into essential services being offered.

The other thing that’s a big concern is private monopolies. This is what can happen, and this is just a warning for the Premier. There are only a few companies that have the size and financing available to deliver these projects. What you’re creating is a private monopoly for one or two companies to be able to do a substantial amount of development in this territory.

Does that serve the general public? Does that serve our contractors? No, it doesn’t. There’s also the avoidance of taxes. There’s the ability by these companies to avoid taxes on this. These are all questions that need to be answered before the minister tells us they’ve made their case on the bridge. We would like to have a response on that.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I must say I’ve just experienced witnessing a vapour lock in a cranium. I’ve never seen it before, Mr. Chair. We said we are going to go out to develop a policy.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Mr. McRobb:   Point of order, Mr. Chair. What we’ve just heard is insulting language. If you would like me to cite the Standing Order, I will require some time to do that.

Chair:   The Chair concurs that the term "vapour lock in a cranium" is an insulting and derogatory term and I’d ask the member to retract the statement, please.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Certainly I’ll retract the statement, Mr. Chair, but we are seeming to not get the point. We are going to go out and design a policy that reflects the needs and benefits of Yukoners. A lot of speculation has been put on the floor of the Legislature by the member opposite in this rant about public/private partnerships.

Now, we all know how the members opposite — the official opposition, the New Democratic Party of this territory — oppose the private sector. They want to eradicate the private sector completely. They have no use for the private sector. Oh, and "profit" is a bad word. Profit is no good. Let us never make a profit; that’s not good; that will destroy the territory. Profit simply has no place in the doctrine of the members opposite.

The members are talking about all kinds of speculation in jails and schools and buildings and this and that — ridiculous. We’re talking policy. We’re talking policy first to ensure that the issues the members opposite are speculating on are being managed properly. The members opposite also brought up the BIP issue. That’s an interesting one. When we can assure the public and the House that the government was very clear with the city — you show us how you're going to maximize the return to the Yukon public on this very large project, and when you can make that case, then we will consider not proceeding with BIP. The city failed to make the case and we implemented the business incentive policy — as simple as that.

Frankly, nothing that the member has just put on the floor has added to the debate at all.

But I can tell you that the public is aware of this anti-private sector sentiment from the New Democrats, even though we as a government partner with First Nations like the Vuntut Gwitchin to ensure that a private sector company and the Vuntut Gwitchin can join forces to provide work and benefits for the people of Old Crow, to do bank restabilization, to do a number of things out there that are required. That’s an issue out there in the public because of this anti-private sector sentiment coming from the members opposite.

The members opposite can debate this for the next 10 years if they want. This government is going to proceed in turning this territory around, in partnering with the private sector and First Nation governments, in building a future for the people of this territory. I challenge the members opposite to come forward with logical, meaningful, constructive suggestions on what they would do besides continuing our dependence on the southern taxpayer.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I listened with interest to the discussion that the Finance minister had with the leader of the NDP in the Legislature, and he talked about the surplus and how the surplus will be reflected and changed as a result of the capitalization of assets. The surplus will be increased. Will he tell us what the surplus is today?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, if the member would take the time to open up the budget she has just received, I’m sure that will provide her the information she’s asking for. Beyond that, I don’t know how else I can help that member. The information should be on her desk. If not, it probably could be sent in from our office.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the surplus is tabled at Management Board. It’s item number two on the agenda. The Finance minister has also clearly stated in this House that the surplus — the figure — changes as more information becomes available. He wouldn’t tell me, for example, when they first learned of the undercounts, of what that figure was, how much it would increase the surplus. He wouldn’t tell us when Management Board made the decision to release the $15 million held in reserve. That changed the figure in the surplus. I asked him a simple, straightforward question that, as an open and accountable government, he should be prepared to share with all Yukoners. After all, these are just benign amendments to the Taxpayer Protection Act, where the government is happy to share with the public how much the surplus is. So I know very well what the surplus figure is that is shown in the budget supplementary tabled in the House, and I’m perfectly capable — contrary to what the member likes to put on the record — of reading that. I’d like to know what the surplus is today. He has steadfastly refused to tell this House, and I see him reaching for the supplementary budget. Why doesn’t he just stand in the House and say he’s not going to tell the taxpayers of the Yukon what the surplus is today?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, well, well, here we go again.

Thanks to the good work of the government increasing the sur