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

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

Tributes.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:  I rise today to recognize and to congratulate the Yukon Fish and Game Association for its recent award by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The presentation ceremony was held today in Ottawa to present the 2004 recreational fisheries award to the Yukon Fish and Game Association, as well as four other recipients from across Canada. The award was presented by the Hon. Geoff Regan, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to three associations, one organization and one individual who were recognized for their efforts to protect and to enhance Canada’s recreational fisheries and their habitat and to encourage increased recreational fishing opportunities, tourism and development. These individuals and organizations have played — and continue to play — a very important role in sustaining and developing the recreational fishing experience throughout Canada. The Yukon Fish and Game Association was cited for its involvement in projects associated with the Whitehorse Rapids fish hatchery and the fishway.

That work has included renovations to the fishway viewing facilities, which have contributed to its success as the number one visitor attraction in Whitehorse and over 30,000 residents and visitors walking through the facility each summer.

In presenting the award, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans noted that the association endeavours to ensure the sound management of fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation resources in the best interests of all residents of the Yukon, as well as to educate residents on the value of the local resources, and to promote sportsmanship and outdoor recreation safety in the community.

This government and my department also recognize the important role played by the association and its work at the fishway, and that is why we are supporting the fishway in this year’s budget. We will be providing $10,000 this year to develop a freshwater-fish interpretive program in cooperation with the agencies involved with the viewing and the fishway, and with the involvement of Whitehorse, Tourism, businesses and stakeholders. A priority is to improve the aquarium displays of live Yukon freshwater fish.

I ask the entire House to join me in welcoming in the gallery today some of the executive of the Yukon Fish and Game Association: Mr. Jim Haney, Mr. John Carney, Mr. Barry Drury and Manfred Hoefs.

Mr. McRobb:   We too are pleased and would like to congratulate all members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association on this award. We would have been even more pleased to do a tribute today, Mr. Speaker; however, it was decided in the House leaders meeting this morning that only the leader of the third party would be doing the tribute.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise today to pay tribute to the Yukon Fish and Game Association, which is receiving a national recreational fisheries award in Ottawa today from Geoff Regan, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The awards are presented to Canadian individuals and organizations in recognition of their work in protecting and enhancing recreational fisheries and their habitat and encouraging increased recreational fishing opportunities, tourism and development.

This is the second national recreational fishing award for the Yukon Fish and Game Association. They also received one in 1993. Fisheries and Oceans gives out five national awards annually.

The Yukon Fish and Game Association is receiving their award in recognition of its numerous projects such as the salmon-viewing area at the Whitehorse fish ladder and the Yukon fish hatchery, along with numerous workshops on the catch-and-release program.

The Fish and Game Association’s efforts have helped turn the Whitehorse Rapids fish hatchery and fishway into the number one visitor attraction in Whitehorse.

A famous quote from a Chinese philosopher reads: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Education plays a very large role in the Fish and Game Association’s mandate. The association seeks to teach Yukoners to enjoy and respect this bountiful natural resource that we are so lucky to have and to make the public recognize the place of fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation in our lives.

They also educate residents on the value of local resources, promoting sportsmanship and outdoor recreational safety in the community.

The association also sponsors numerous workshops, forums and events, including the family ice fishing days. One took place this weekend at Fisheye Lake in Faro and there are two more coming up in the territory: at Pine Lake near Haines Junction on Sunday, April 4, and at Wrong Lake, south of Stewart Crossing, on Sunday, April 11.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I congratulate the Yukon Fish and Game Association on their award and wish them continued success in their important Yukon work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan:   I would ask all Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to join me in welcoming today Mr. Jim Haney and members of the Yukon Fish and Game Association. Welcome.

Speaker:   Are there any other introductions 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?

Ms. Duncan:   I move that an act entitled the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:  It has been moved by the leader of the third party that a bill entitled Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:  Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of the House that

(1) the Government of Yukon has failed to present a convincing business case to justify the expenditure of $25 million or more to build a bridge over the Yukon River at Dawson City;

(2) the Town of Dawson City is under court direction to build a sewage treatment facility before the end of the current fiscal year;

(3) no funds for a sewage treatment facility in Dawson City have been allocated in the 2004-05 territorial budget; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to set aside an appropriate territorial share of the cost of building a sewage treatment facility in Dawson City before proceeding with construction of a bridge over the Yukon River at Dawson.

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

THAT this House commends officials within the Department of Finance, Bureau of Statistics and the Yukon government intergovernmental relations Ottawa office, whose hard work and diligence in interpreting the territorial formula funding agreement with federal government officials led to millions of dollars in increased funding from the Government of Canada to Yukon.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the plan to collect outstanding loans owed to the Government of Yukon, which the Minister of Finance tabled in the fall sitting, fails to ensure that Cabinet ministers with long-standing loans will be required to repay them;

(2) the plan does not provide any assurance that Yukon-owned businesses will not be forced into bankruptcy by a private loan collection agency; and

THAT this House calls upon the Government of Yukon to rescind the loans collection plan previously tabled by the Minister of Finance and introduce a new policy that will not allow Cabinet ministers to evade their financial responsibilities to Yukon taxpayers and that will not have the effect of needlessly forcing Yukon-owned businesses into bankruptcy.

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

THAT this House urges the official opposition and the third party to accept the government’s offer to establish an all-party committee to undertake an in-depth review of the insurance industry with emphasis on the issue of escalating insurance rates and the diminishing ability of Yukoners to obtain satisfactory insurance coverage.

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

THAT this House calls upon the Liberal Government of Canada to reverse its ill-advised changes to the federal Unemployment Insurance Act, which have had the effect of taking $18.6 million per year out of the territory’s economy by denying unemployment benefits to many hard-working Yukon people who would otherwise have qualified for such benefits.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   The Minister of Community Services was on the radio this morning talking about a new agreement with the City of Whitehorse on the multiplex cost overruns. Unfortunately, the minister played coy this morning about the price tag. So I’m going to ask the obvious question: how much of the Yukon taxpayers’ money did he put on the table during his meeting with the city on Friday afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will indicate that we negotiated an agreement with the city, and we’ll let the city bring that forth to the council tonight. I don’t think it’s provident for us to do so here.

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, we’re not talking about commercial confidentiality here. We’re talking about a territorial government expenditure, and the amount should be announced here, in the Legislature, not at Whitehorse City Hall.

I’m positive that we all support the Canada Winter Games and the jobs that the multiplex project is going to create. The minister should know that I have already had calls from Dawson City asking why he has their mayor and council on a short leash and a choker collar, but he’ll hand out to the Whitehorse mayor a cool couple of million dollars just for the asking.

So how much did the minister offer the city, and will it come from existing departmental revenue or will there be a supplementary budget to cover it?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There are so many questions in that particular one it’s hard to be sure where we are. I believe that we negotiated an agreement with the city. We indicated we would share in some of the expenditures that they’re dealing with, and we’ll address that after council reviews that agreement.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister didn’t answer the question again. Last October, the minister stated publicly that he would backstop any additional cost to apply to the government’s business incentive policy and the fair wage schedule to phase 2 of the multiplex. We recently learned that the city’s tender did not apply the fair wage schedule to category D workers such as labourers.

After Friday’s meeting in the Premier’s office, has that changed, and will category D workers now be covered by the fair wage schedule?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, that issue did come up and we will be addressing that.

Mr. Hardy:   Now we all know the Premier is not a secretive type of person; he’s a straight shooter, as he likes to say, so my question is for the Premier.

Last Thursday, the Premier tabled a massive budget for 2004-05 that amounted to $23,500 for every man, woman and child in the Yukon. Now we’ve learned that this record budget may be out of date already, thanks to a new financial agreement with the City of Whitehorse.

Will the Premier set the record straight? Is the money for the multiplex cost overrun included in the budget he tabled on Thursday, or has the $706 million budget already turned into a $708 million one, or more?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned earlier, we’re negotiating with the City of Whitehorse. When they present their case tonight at council, we’ll get back to the member opposite on his question.

Mr. Hardy:  Well, maybe I have to retract that statement about the Premier being a straight shooter and not secretive at all. Last year, the Premier and his colleagues were so worried about the spending trajectory that they ran around like Chicken Little saying, "The sky is falling; the sky is falling."

Then the poll results started coming in, showing how unpopular this government had become in a very, very short period of time. So the Premier decided to go for broke with this budget and buy back some popularity with a big spending spree.

Does the Premier expect the Yukon people to believe this roller-coaster kind of budgeting represents sound fiscal management?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think first off — let’s cut right to the issue. Any government must get a firm grip on the fiscal situation of their jurisdiction. That’s exactly what we have done as a government.

Considering the fact that in the last 12 months, the government has managed to turn the financial position of the Yukon government — if you factor in the new health care fund, it has been able to turn that position to the positive by some $70 million — then any logical, thinking person would understand that we now have the fiscal room and options available to increase the stimulus in this territory, which we committed to do at the outset — that we would increase the stimulus in the Yukon Territory, provide jobs and benefits and more spending power for Yukoners.

Speaker:   Leader of the official opposition, new question.

Mr. Hardy:   That’s a very interesting spin that this Premier has put on the last —

Speaker:   Leader of the official opposition, that is your final supplementary — my mistake.

Mr. Hardy:   Okay — I wouldn’t have minded more, but that’s all right.

This is a very interesting spin that the Premier has put on it, considering that when the financial statements were presented to us, there was approximately $78 million recognized as a surplus, contrary to what this party said when they got elected. This begs the question: do they really know how to read a financial statement or follow the books?

Now, if the Premier could be caught off guard so easily by something like a cost overrun on the multiplex, it doesn’t inspire much confidence in his planning ability. I am sure that the Premier is happy that he changed the bookkeeping system because this kind of reckless spending — which he likes — could have easily got him into trouble with the Taxpayer Protection Act. In fact, the government’s own projections for two years down the road show the territory’s financial assets drawing down to just over $4 million. One more deal like Friday’s and the Premier could have been forced to call an election over the old accounting system.

Now, what other seven-figure items could the government be asking to pay for that aren’t reflected in this budget, and how does the Premier plan to deal with those requests?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal of constructive measures being invested in in this budget, as it should be on behalf of Yukoners. It’s unfortunate the opposition simply cannot differentiate between a spending spree and an investment in the future of the territory. It is also unfortunate that the opposition — the NDP in this House — continue to be mired in negativity, reconstructing the past, while the government side is focused on building a future for the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Environment. In the budget tabled last week, there is $5,000 set aside for something called a "Yukon environment board game". Now, as all Yukoners have learned, the minister loves to play games with boards. His favourite game has been to stack boards with people who agree with him and who hold Yukon Party membership cards.

The minister has been fighting with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board since he was first elected. His solution: stack the board with Yukon Party supporters, and on February 16, he did just that. One of the appointees came right out and said it publicly. He said — and I quote — "If I’m a Yukon Party member and it helped me get on the board, so be it." The minister’s hand-picked choice has admitted he was put on this $200-per-day board just because he’s a Yukon Party supporter. Does the minister agree with that statement?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   In regard to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, which the member opposite so thankfully gives me an opportunity to address, that board came down with a number of recommendations on captive wildlife some time ago, and it was my problem at the time that many of the recommendations that were made were not something that the government could do and so therefore they had to be set aside. They were not rejected, Mr. Speaker; they were set aside. So at that point, seven were accepted, seven were accepted with a variation, and the remainder were set aside. Through the good work of our department and through the good work of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, three remain set aside at the moment. It is our hope that in a very short period of time all of them will be accepted. The purchase of the Yukon Wildlife Preserve is a good example of how I worked with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

I would also point out to the member opposite, the Fish and Wildlife Management Board recently communicated to us that they hoped that those recommendations and the regulations would actively be put in place as soon as possible. We are now in complete agreement — again, working as a team, Mr. Speaker, a concept that the member opposite, again, shows very little ability to understand.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister did not answer the question and he did not agree with the statement, and it is not the first time the minister has disagreed with board members.

Membership has its privilege. The person was appointed because he is a member of the Yukon Party. When a spot came open on the board, the minister received several letters urging him to reappoint an existing member. The minister went out of his way to reject that advice and pick a member of the party faithful instead. After doing so, the minister tried desperately to make it look like the appointment was not partisan. In a Government of Yukon news release, he described his hand-picked choice as: "…an active member of the Yukon Fish and Game Association". The president of the Yukon Fish and Game Association subsequently said this about the appointment: "He’s not an active member. He’s not a member of the association at all."

Will the minister now admit the information he provided to the public was wrong and that he ignored the advice of Yukoners, which was to reappoint one of the existing board members?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I should point out to the member opposite that the individual involved also has a diploma in renewable resource management and a long-standing radio show on fishing.

Given the problems that we have had with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and our wonderful federal Liberal government, it was important to have someone with a fishing background on that board. In consultation with a wide range of people — not just one group from within the board itself — this individual was overwhelmingly recommended to me as a member. He brings a very wide and deep skill set to the board. I would remind everyone that all of these boards, once appointed — be it a First Nations appointment or a government appointment — these people are chosen for their ability to analyze a situation and make reasonable and intelligent decisions. They do not represent the appointing party.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Obviously, the official opposition has its own theory on that as they try to talk over me. I look forward to their opinions on this.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has spent a large portion of his time in office fighting with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. In an attempt to silence the criticism from the board, the minister made a blatantly political appointment. The individual selected has even admitted that the reason he was selected is because he’s a member of the Yukon Party.

The minister knew he was going to have a hard time convincing the public that this was anything but rewarding friends and insiders. He issued a news release that contained wrong information, and that has been demonstrated. He has been caught outright.

Will the minister undo the damage he has caused and rescind this appointment? Will he accept the advice of Yukoners who strongly recommended the reappointment of an existing board member? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Again, the individual has for many years been involved with the Fish and Game Association. Whether he’s current or not I think is immaterial. I’m not current either by paying this year’s dues, but that’s another story.

In terms of the individual, I would also point out that the first interview he gave to the media was to attack me. Again, if this is a party faithful and a reward, I suggest that I made a horrible mistake on that one.

The overwhelming —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor. Do I, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you.

I am just a bit concerned about this, but I do take a marvellous opportunity to discuss the board game that the member opposite referred to. That board game has been on the proposals for 12 years. For 12 years, the department has been trying to get a board game together to educate our youth and to work with the schools and this sort of thing. Through all stripes of government, that has fallen off the table and not been included in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of sitting on the paper, I’m rather happy to announce that that will go ahead and it is in this budget. I hope the member opposite supports that, although I am suspicious that she’ll probably vote against it.

Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the Minister of Justice.

February 1 of this year, 10 computers were reported stolen from the probation offices in the Department of Justice.

Information on stolen probation files, such as pre-sentence reports, can contain very private information about previous offences, about personal health, about personal relationships, financial information, and is considered completely confidential. We assume that there has been an internal investigation into this serious breach of security.

Will the minister tell this House what the internal investigation revealed?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I would like to thank the member opposite for bringing this very important matter to Yukoners’ attention.

I would just like to reiterate first-hand on the public record that the security and safety of all Yukoners is of paramount importance to me, as Minister of Justice, as well as to this government. To ensure the continued safety of our citizens, the Department of Justice — like all other departments of Justice across this country — continues to evaluate and review its policies and procedures on an ongoing basis.

With respect to the particular break-in at the Prospector Building that happened earlier this year, I am very pleased to say that immediate steps were taken to notify each of the affected clients. As well, an offer was made to meet with them to review their individual cases and talk about the information that was retrieved.

A technical briefing for the media was held soon after the incident. Awards through Crime Stoppers and our Department of Justice were posted in our local papers, media outlets, as well as in the rolling ads. Other steps that were immediately taken after the break-in were the changing of locks and the lock system. In addition, the department, as the member opposite just alluded to, is also conducting a review of the overall safety and security of the building and its contents —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the minister conclude her answer.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Thank you.

Mrs. Peter:   Internal investigations lead to changes in policy and procedure. It has been two months since the break-in — plenty of time to implement these changes. What kinds of changes have been made to the minister’s department to prevent another breach of security, besides changing the locks?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   A number of changes have occurred. While it’s very difficult to release specific details that have come out of this particular investigation because of security concerns, I’m very reluctant to relay some of those action items. However, the director of community and correctional services just completed a relatively straightforward interview on CBC this afternoon at the lunchtime hour and revealed some of those particular actions coming out of the investigation here.

I have to say that the investigation of the break-in at the Prospector Building was and continues to be handled in such a manner that I believe is both open and transparent, and that it’s not only being addressed by our department but by the RCMP. It’s also in the hands of the Privacy Commissioner, as he was also on the radio earlier this morning.

So, working closely with his office, the Privacy Commissioner has been provided with a list of the measures that were in place prior to the break-in, the measures taken in response to the incident itself and the measures planned but not yet implemented, as well as those that have been implemented.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, the lack of information around the handling of this investigation is key, and the Yukon public needs answers from the Minister of Justice. Citizens have every right to protection of their private affairs and some may be contemplating suing this government because of the theft of that very private information.

Has the minister obtained a legal opinion on the liability of her department in this matter?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Mr. Speaker, just, again, for the public record, we have operated in a very open and accountable, very transparent manner, particularly in how this whole investigation was held and continues to be held here. We are also prepared to be accountable, and that is why the Privacy Commissioner is also involved, to ensure that the safety and security of Yukoners and their personal information is held with utmost importance. So by ensuring this particular officer’s involvement, we are very confident that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that is held.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. On January 30 of this year there was a sole-source contract for two ambulances at just over $224,000. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, the Premier said in this House, and I quote, "We as a government make those decisions totally within the confines of the policy of the sole-source initiative." Mr. Speaker, contracts over $50,000 must be publicly advertised through a request for bids, or they must invite bids from all sources on an open source list. Did the minister receive a recommendation from his departmental officials to sole-source this contract, or did the minister make that decision on his own?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Now, what the member opposite should have asked, Mr. Speaker, is: what is the government doing for the ambulance service and for emergency medical services?

Mr. Speaker, let me share with you some of the initiatives that we have begun. First of all, there is additional training; there are additional wages; there is an additional clothing allowance for all of the rural volunteers. This is quite an extensive improvement in the conditions under which they work and the remuneration or the honouraria they are paid. This has not been adjusted by any government since the early 1970s. In addition to that, our government committed to a replacement procedure for ambulances well within the policy guidelines. And we have gone ahead and we have purchased two ambulances.

Mr. Fairclough:   There must be something to my question because the minister again avoided answering the question directly, so I will carry on. This question will not go away. If the minister thinks he can avoid it now, I will ask that one again sometime soon. In Hansard on March 25 in Question Period, the minister said, "There is one source of this type of vehicle and that source has two branches in western Canada. There is one branch of this firm in B.C. and a second branch in Alberta." So has the department investigated all other vehicle manufacturers in Canada who are able to convert vans into ambulances? Did they do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   All procedures for sole sourcing contracts were followed. As I said earlier, there are not a great number of firms from which you can buy ambulances in western Canada. The same company has two distributors — one in British Columbia, the other one in Alberta. They provide the same product, so we could go to Alberta or we could go to British Columbia. Traditionally, the Government of Yukon has had dealings with British Columbia, and in the past has sole sourced ambulances to that same firm. Nothing has changed under which the government is conducting its business. The issue is to address the need for Yukon to have ambulances, and we have addressed that need.

Mr. Fairclough:   Again, the minister avoids the question, and I am wondering where he is going with this and why information is not being presented in an open fashion in this House. So I will ask another question and see if the minister will attempt to answer it or try to avoid it and talk about purchasing ambulances that were purchased years ago.

We have done some research on companies, and there are many companies out there that are able to supply ambulances or vans that are converted into ambulances to this government and to many other governments. Crestline in Saskatoon was previously contracted and found reliable and cheaper than what was purchased here by this minister, so why did the minister choose not to compare prices from all possible companies and save taxpayers’ dollars; why did he not do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   If the member opposite had an understanding of what she was speaking about, I’d be quite prepared to debate the issue. The issue is a four-wheel-drive ambulance. There is the issue of conversion of a Ford van, which is an after-market conversion. The costs and the guarantees associated with that type of a conversion are not very good. This is a new four-wheel-drive vehicle, cabin chassis on which the manufacturer of the ambulance units adds that to the back. The exercise we are engaged in is meeting the needs of the emergency medical services here in the Yukon and providing new ambulances, and we have done that, Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government. You have to go back quite a number of years to find the purchase of a new ambulance here in the Yukon.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. On page 15 of the Yukon Party platform document, there’s a promise to implement effective whistle-blower legislation, which protects the anonymity of public employees who report abuse within the government and provides a clear process for the full and fair investigation.

Will the minister bring that legislation forward during this sitting?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I do thank the member opposite for bringing this question forward. At this point in time, I would like to confirm the value of all employees. This government does have the utmost respect for all employees. This legislation he’s talking about is something that’s in discussion within the federal government. This government does intend to wait and see the outcome of that legislation.

Mr. Hardy:   I didn’t hear a commitment there. I hope that the minister doesn’t expect that this matter will just go away. Many public employees feel very vulnerable because there isn’t any legislation protecting them when they want to do the right thing and report abuses as they see them.

I would like the minister to be more specific. Will the whistle-blower legislation be presented to this House while the member opposite is still a minister, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I guess I would have to say to the member opposite that it all depends. It depends on how fast the federal government moves on their legislation for this government to review it.

Thank you.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order please. Order please.

Extraneous chatter — I would ask the members to just knock if off, please.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, it would be nice to get answers out of this government.

Now, I would like to ask the Health minister a question on a matter that was identified by my constituents as their top priority — a seniors facility. In fact, the minister will recall that I personally brought this matter to the attention of the Premier shortly after the last election.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister for finally getting around to addressing the needs of the elderly in the Kluane region. In a letter dated November 19, 2003, he commits funds to plan this facility this year. Those funds are apparently in the budget that we will examine in detail this sitting.

His letter also commits to fund the construction of the facility in next year’s budget. We will be looking forward to that, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister is a simple one. Is he prepared to go the extra mile to ensure that the design and purpose of the facility will meet the needs of my constituents?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government’s position is that, if there is a demonstrated need, we will do our utmost best to meet that demonstrated need.

I had occasion to meet with the seniors and the First Nations in the member from Kluane’s riding, and they brought to me this issue. They all had concerns surrounding the need for a seniors complex, and I committed to undertaking in the next budget cycle, which we have before us — which I am sure the member from Kluane will vote against. We identified funds to proceed with the initial stage and review the need for a multilevel health care facility to address the needs of seniors housing in the member’s riding.

Mr. McRobb:   Let us make no mistake: I am heavily in favour of this project. That is why I brought it to the Premier’s attention as a top priority for the Kluane riding.

Now I should elaborate that a regional facility based in Haines Junction could serve the needs of several smaller communities spread throughout the region as far as the Alaska border on both the Alaska Highway and the Haines Road. There are several good reasons that substantiate a full-service facility to serve the elderly in this region. At the top of that list is the need to provide live-in care facilities that would allow the elderly to continue to live in and contribute to the region in which they live.

Does the minister intend to follow through on his commitment to build a facility based on the needs of the people for whom the facility is intended to serve, or will he insist on continuing to force the elderly to move to Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There is no secret to what our party’s position is with respect to multi-level health care facilities. We have committed initially to study the situation in Watson Lake and Dawson. In this budget cycle we are into the planning and the first phase of the design, and next year we will be tendering these projects in both Watson Lake and Dawson City. That said, we have also committed to identifying the needs in the member’s riding of Haines Junction to place a multi-level care facility in that community, along with the community of Teslin — because let us not eliminate Teslin because they have a need that is probably equal to, if not maybe larger than Haines Junction. So, yes, we have identified the need. If there is a demonstrated need, I will do my utmost to persuade my Cabinet and caucus colleagues to put in the budget for the next fiscal cycle money to build this facility.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the minister was listening when I described how this is a regional facility. Even though it may be situated in Haines Junction, it serves several other communities. If the minister does his math, he’ll soon discover that the population is far greater than the community of Teslin.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is a government on a wild spending spree, yet it can’t find the funds to allow the elderly to continue living in their home communities. It’s a capital budget with a record amount. The same with the O&M budget; it has lots of money to throw around for expensive pet projects and can afford to write off outstanding government loans. There is growing concern this government will be dictating the type of facility rather than designing it based on the needs of the people. This facility was identified as a top priority by the people in the Kluane region. Doesn’t that mean anything? Will he encourage his colleagues to back off on their personal agendas until at least the priorities of other Yukoners are addressed?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, that was a message and a half from the Member for Kluane. I hope everyone is listening to it. Our government’s position is: if there is a demonstrated need, we will do our utmost and level best to address that demonstrated need. Our government’s commitment to multi-level care facilities in both Teslin and Haines Junction is exactly that. If the need exists, we will do our level best to construct them. I must add, though, that the member is trying to make the case that everybody shouldn’t be moved to Whitehorse, and yet he suggested everybody be moved into Haines Junction. The bottom line is we will only be able to provide level I and level II care in rural Yukon. For levels III, IV and V, we have just one facility in the Yukon — Copper Ridge Place — where we are able to provide that level of care. In this budget cycle, we’re opening up another 12 beds in Copper Ridge Place and another six beds in Macaulay. The budget item is another $1.8 million. It’s primarily for wages for these two facilities. I’m sure the member opposite will vote against that money also, Mr. Speaker.

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

Deputy Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 9, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, be now read a second time.

Speaker:  It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   My remarks will be quite brief. It is a great pleasure to introduce Bill No. 9. The act requests spending authority that in total is not to exceed $328,149,000, and it is for defraying several charges and expenses of the public service of the Yukon, payable over the three-month period of April 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004. The amounts for operation and maintenance expenditures are $234,733,000 and for capital $93,416,000.

The detail of these expenses will be discussed obviously during general debate, which should be quite short as much of the information has been articulated to the public by this government, taking the steps necessary to inform its public on what its government is doing.

These expenditures are certainly investments both on the development side of the ledger and on the social side of the ledger, and we commend the interim supply bill to the House and are quite confident of its speedy passage.

Mr. Hardy:   I’m pleased to be able to respond to Bill No. 9 for the period of April to June of this year.

It’s a substantial amount of money — $328,149,000 — and there are items in here I really look forward to discussing when we do get into general debate.

But we do have some concerns. Part of it is the method that the Premier has used to try to — I guess I would say to force this through. I think it really stems from a lack of trust; not just a lack of trust in the opposition but a lack of trust in his own members in many ways.

Just in case he hasn’t counted how many people he has over there — there are approximately 11 people on the other side, as well as the Speaker himself, who is a member of the Yukon Party. There is no doubt about it that they do have the authority — the voting power — to pass this bill without a question.

So, what happens in this matter?

Historically, interim supply bills are debated, they are passed, and we move forward and we get to debate the budget that is before us following this. As far as I understand, there has never been a need on behalf of any government to have to put in a special warrant to ensure that an interim supply bill wouldn’t go forward. But the Premier believes that he has to use a hammer to try to ram this through. He has to use something he made promises to the people of this territory that he would not do, and that is use special warrants where they are inappropriate.

So, what we have here around the interim supply bill — following it over and over — is a special warrant. It really is contempt for the Legislature because there is no history of our times in opposition where we have done something like this.

Now, there is a small history, Mr. Speaker, and it applies to the Yukon Party. When they were in opposition, they played silly politics. That did not stop the bill from going forward but it did cause some concern in here. But that was done at the initiative of the Yukon Party. It has never been done by the NDP.

Our word stands for something. Now I can assure this Premier that we would have passed this interim supply bill — we would not have been playing any silly games — but he will not believe that; he cannot believe it. So what do they do? They use the method called "special warrants". Special warrants are not meant to be used in this manner, and it is connected to the interim supply bill.

A special warrant is — I am going to read right out of the Financial Administration Act of 19(2),

"(a) a report is received from the management board that no provision of an act authorizes a payment from the consolidated revenue fund that is urgently and immediately required for the public good; and

"(b) the Legislative Assembly is dissolved, prorogued, adjourned indefinitely, or adjourned with more than seven days remaining in its period of adjournment."

That is where you would use a special warrant. Where does it apply to the interim supply bill? It does not. Only in the minds of the Yukon Party would it actually apply — that they would feel that they have to use them. This is not the first time that they have wanted to use a special warrant. The partial reason you will see governments trying to use a special warrant outside the context of what they are originally meant for is to avoid debate, to avoid the scrutinizing of the expenditures.

Now we have some very serious concerns about the spending habits of this government. Last year we were told that we were heading to a precipice that, with the trajectory the way it was going, this government would be bankrupt. Within one short year, all of a sudden there is richness everywhere. And we said that on this side. We tried to point out to them that they were incorrect, but that was the position they took.

And what we did see in the fall was a substantial supplementary budget come forward, because they practically put the territory in a recession by their actions, Mr. Speaker. And now we’re swinging way over on the other side, and we have a fairly large interim supply bill that is being brought forward now. But guess what’s attached to it, or guess what’s hovering around it? It’s a special warrant, because there’s a big lack of trust.

I think the lack of trust does not exist on this side. We will debate, but we will debate fairly. We will question the expenditures of the government opposite. We will challenge their spending patterns. We will try to do the public good. But on the other side, they don’t trust each other. They don’t trust us, and they don’t trust each other. And it is reflective of the way that spending has gone since they have been elected. It’s all over the map.

Unfortunately, with their actions, they’re trashing the Financial Administration Act, and it’s basically based upon actions that they themselves took a few years ago when they were in opposition. They themselves took action that belittled the dignity of the Legislature.

I have assured this House that we would not do that on an interim supply bill. We understand why it is being brought in. There is no question about that. The Premier himself has made that very clear in a press release. Employees will be paid; the government will be able to continue operating; business of the day will happen. We agree with that. We recognize the role and the reason you have interim supply bills. That’s never a question. That doesn’t mean you don’t have debate but, at the end of the day, when it’s time, you will pass that. There are other issues to debate. There is a new budget to debate. There is spending that we may disagree with, directions that this government may be taking, but we will not play silly politics around something like this that will affect people’s lives in this territory.

That’s not something we’re planning to do. There is a certain degree of trust in an interim supply bill. There’s not a lot of detail. We may ask questions, depending on the departments, of why this amount, why that amount, what’s being spent here, and we will try to come to some sort of summary of the needs to ensure this money that’s being allocated is being spent properly. We will hope the money is being spread throughout the Yukon, and we’ll do that in general debate, but it won’t take a lot of time from our perspective, because there is a matter of trust in the interim supply bill.

Historically, oppositions have the exchange and then they go forward, Mr. Speaker. They pass it and they move on to debate the budget of the day, and that’s what we will be focusing on later this afternoon: the budget. There’s obviously a lot to debate there. We see such a huge contrast from last year to this year that we have to ask questions. We have to do our job, but it also raises serious questions about the operation across the way. How cohesive are they? How much do they really know about the finances of Yukon? From their perspective, how are they going to stimulate the economy and still protect the environment?

It’s all tied together. These are the finances we’re talking about here. From our perspective, given the circumstances we face, we will do our best to provide full accountability of the government’s actions so the people will know where the government is going, even if they themselves do not. That’s what we will do over here.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   I would just remind all members — during Question Period I asked the opposition to not make extraneous comments. I will ask the same of the government side. Please carry on.

Mr. Hardy:   I actually enjoy the debate that we have in here. I enjoy hearing the presentations and ideas that are coming from the other side. I may not necessarily agree with them. We have a huge job ahead of us in debating the budget.

You are right, Mr. Speaker. We don’t need a lot of little chatter coming from the other side.

The interim supply bill is $328 million. It is a substantial interim supply bill. But there is a difference in the special warrant, which was, interestingly enough, $223 million. The wording in the press release that came out is quite fascinating, because it said here, "Commissioner Jack Cable signed a $223-million special warrant today" — this would be March 17, 2004 — "as a precautionary measure to ensure the government can continue to provide services to the Yukon April 1."

As a precautionary measure — I mean, what are they saying on that side? That the government was going to stop operating; there would be no money at all left and everybody would have to stop working?

This is the paranoia that we are now witnessing on the other side. These are the people who are in charge of the Government of Yukon — with such paranoia. It’s shocking, Mr. Speaker, that this is the type of language that they would put out in a press release, and that this is the kind of approach and attitude that they would have toward the opposition — absolutely no respect for this side.

Now it goes on to say, "We are making use of a special warrant as a safeguard in the event the interim supply bill is not approved by the opposition members by March 31."

Let’s see, as I stated earlier there are 11 on that side, there are six on this side. It would be quite a feat for us to be able to overthrow this government on a vote on this floor, I would suspect, unless, as what happened during the budget speech last week, half of them wandered off and the other half fell asleep, and then maybe we could surprise them. But I don’t see that happening around the interim supply bill.

The Finance minister goes on to say, "We want to be absolutely sure organizations like Yukon College and Yukon Hospital Corporation get their funding as expected on April 1. In the event the interim supply bill is approved by the end of the month, a special warrant will not be necessary."

Well, was it necessary to even go this far? Did the Premier call my office and say, "This is the interim supply bill. Do you think there is going to be any problem with it, Todd?" I never got a call; he just automatically assumes that he has to take precautionary measures to ensure that this will pass, that he will be able to use a special warrant. And that worries me because ultimately that means there is a breakdown in the Legislature. No matter how hard you try, Mr. Speaker, to try to keep decorum to ensure that the debate is civil, that does not change the underlying principles or the underlying feelings and attitudes toward each other in here.

So you can create a nice environment to have debate, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a fair exchange and a good degree of trust and respect shown on each side of the House. That has to be earned. The government on that side has all the power; they still have to earn our respect.

We hope we conduct our debate, we bring forward our positions and ideas, we challenge them in a manner that ensures they do respect our opinions and we hope, ultimately at the end of the day, some of our ideas, some of our beliefs, some of the positions we take — whether we’re representing our communities, our ridings, the broader context, whether it’s health or one of the departments — will be considered by the government opposite. That’s not new thinking.

If you look in the past, governments have made adjustments in their budget to accommodate some of the comments and presentations made by the opposition side. They have adjusted the budget accordingly because, frankly, everybody knows that no one’s perfect, no one has all the answers.

It’s our hope that when we bring forward our beliefs and our ideas, that the other side does listen to our contributions. We applaud them if they once in awhile maybe incorporate some of those ideas instead of feeling like they have to resist everything we do. We do not present that as always a negative. We will talk about other care facilities; we will talk about other projects and concerns we have that individuals bring forward; we hope that those will be responded to in a positive light. We don’t expect everything, but once in awhile we do expect acknowledgement of a good idea.

This is a special warrant based upon precautionary measures and lack of trust. That kind of action and the way the interim supply bill has been presented with this hammer doesn’t give me a great deal of faith for the next couple of years in the Legislature if this is the way we’re going to operate. I had hoped it wouldn’t be that way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, usually these bills pass with little comment. They’re very operational in nature. Sometimes the Finance minister has a speech that outlines and highlights some of the interim supply spending, a particular grant or other, but they don’t usually engender a great deal of debate. What they do is they allow interim spending authority for the first month of the year until a full budget can be passed; and usually the members save the debate for the full budget and pass the interim supply bill as a pro forma bill. The debate, as I said, focuses on the budget itself.

Now, there was one occasion when that didn’t happen, and the leader of the official opposition referred to it. We were both members of this House at the time, and I happen to recall the situation perhaps a little differently than he does. As I recall it, that particular debate toward the end of the month was an Easter weekend in this Legislature. It was right before the four-day weekend. The NDP House leader at the time had a great love of sport, a particular sport. He was known to use such phrases as "ragging the puck," and he viewed this place very much as an arena.

Well, the leader of the official opposition at the time, who was the leader of the Yukon Party, found the play of the NDP House leader rather annoying and thought he would teach the rookie a lesson. In the teaching of the lesson, what he ended up doing was ragging the puck or speaking at great length in an afternoon and holding up the interim supply bill. So the House adjourned over an Easter weekend without the interim supply bill having been passed because the NDP House leader, quite frankly, hadn’t done his work.

Well, was that silly politics? Was it a clean check or was it a hit from behind?

The referees will certainly decide. However, the referees are the Yukon public and the fact is that the message got through to the NDP House leader. The arrogance was toned down quite substantially.

Did the Government of Yukon employees get paid? Yes, they did. Did the transfers get made? Yes.

The fact is that there is also a story behind this interim supply bill, and I’m not sure that all the members of caucus have heard the entire story or just portions of the play, if you will.

I would just like to share with them, and share with this House, the discussion I had with the House leader, who has a habit of dropping into my office unannounced. He probably thinks I don’t appreciate it.

The fact is that the House leader suggested that the government was looking at March 2, 18, or 25 to call the House back, to which I responded that any of those dates would be fine; however, if they were going in as late as the March 25, he needed an interim supply bill and I was more than prepared and committed — in front of witnesses — to pass that interim supply bill on a Monday or Tuesday, but make sure you get the interim supply bill ready because we don’t want to be caught in our House rules of having to have it tabled and so on; let’s get it done. I absolutely was the first to raise it in that conversation with the House leader and I gave him a commitment that I would pass it, as a member of this Legislature, and I was fully prepared to do the business.

Unfortunately, the way the interim supply bill has arrived in this House — as is typical with the Yukon Party — it’s not direct. The government has the ability to spend this money because they obtained a special warrant. In other words, they bypassed the duly elected members — all of them — of this Legislature.

All the government had to do was do as the House leader requested: get the interim supply, table it with the budget speech, and bring it forward for debate on the Monday. No, the government chose — Management Board chose to pass a special warrant: $200 million, without any approval, without any discussion from a democratically elected legislature. That is contempt for and that is arrogance toward this Legislature. It could have been entirely avoided if the Legislature had been convened at the normal time of year, late February or early March. One has to wonder why that did not happen. Was it the House leader’s lack of full communication with members opposite? Was it that the House agenda was not ready? Was it that the budget was not ready? Was it the Premier’s travel schedule?

However, we have come back on the 25^th. We could have passed the interim supply and we could have done it without the special warrant. The special warrant was made even worse — the bypassing of the Legislature — by the government’s press release, media release, that looked for someone to blame for them taking this action of the special warrant. Oh, let’s blame the opposition. Well, hello, Mr. Speaker, the opposition had already given the government the commitment that they would pass the interim supply. The government waited so long they ran out of time and then they tried to blame the members on this side of the House. Nice try. It didn’t work with the Yukon public and it’s not working today.

The interim supply bill is housekeeping legislation. It does not require a great deal of comment. It requires working with all parties in this House. The government has not done that. They have shown their contempt by bypassing the Legislature and passing a special warrant, going ahead and doing it anyway — we really don’t care what you duly elected members think. That’s what they have said in the subtext of their message.

Needless to say, although I find that the actions of the government and the passing of the special warrant demonstrate contempt for the Legislature and for the members and for the Yukoners who elected them, I do recognize the reason for an interim supply bill. As I have already committed to the government House leader, I am certainly prepared to pass it and get on with the business of the full and thorough debate of the budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I think we can just quickly cut to the issue at hand; that is, the passage of the interim supply bill. A number of accusations have been made from across the floor, none that would withstand the test of scrutiny. None bear the burden of proof and none are in any way related to constructive debate. The fact is that if the opposition passes the interim supply bill before April 1, the special warrant will be redundant and will not be required. So the challenge rests squarely with the opposition to be constructive, productive and expeditious in their debate.

The information is before them, but there is another important challenge in this House for the opposition today: the government has chosen to inform its public in much greater detail so that the public is much more in tune with the debate that is going on in this Legislative Assembly. The public, being informed as they are today, will be better able to draw conclusions on the debate in this Assembly. Therefore, the challenge rests with the opposition to be constructive, productive and expeditious in their debate. That’s what this is about. The government side is not in contempt of this Assembly. In fact, quite the contrary: the government has placed the highest regard in this Assembly by informing its public in great detail before we convened, and we will keep doing that as a government.

The opposition benches have accused the government on many occasions of being closed and secretive. How, then, Mr. Speaker, can it be the case when we have been out in the public consistently informing the Yukon electorate exactly what its government is doing? We will continue to do that.

Now we have the scrutiny of the House to complement that dissemination of information to the Yukon public. I think that what we have chosen to do will lend itself greatly to improving what we do in this Assembly.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Deputy Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Agree.

Mr. Arntzen:  Agree.

Mr. Rouble:   Agree.

Mr. Hassard:   Agree.

Mr. Cathers:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Deputy Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 17 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:   The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Deputy Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 10, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie — adjourned debate, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, after two budgets and excessive abuse of special warrants, I believe that the public is more confused than ever over whom they actually elected and what this Yukon Party government stands for and, ultimately, where they are going. That is a serious concern, because if the government doesn’t really know where they are going or what their spending priorities are, as they lurch from year to year, then how can the public have any confidence in the future? This is a government that, at this present time, hasn’t presented any type of cohesive planning or bridging that is so important for people in their daily lives, that they can rely upon. And I use an example, for instance, of small businesses out there. Last year, the government had indicated that there was not enough money; they had to pull back. This year, there is all kinds of money. Next year, they are indicating on the capital side, in the capital expenditures, another reduction. The year following they will lose the election, so where is the stability with a government that lurches from year to year, different types of spending, different types of approaches, and different messaging?

I am going to give you an example of the two budget speeches, because they are only approximately a year apart and they say a lot about this government.

Last year, the title of the budget speech was, "Controlling the Trajectory of Spending". This year, the budget speech says, "Putting our Fiscal House in Order and Setting the Future Agenda."

So controlling the trajectory of spending, as was said and has been said many times by the people opposite, including the backbenchers — was the spending of the territorial government was going up and that had to be stopped. They had to get a handle on it. They had to get a control on it. And I remember the ministers and the backbenchers all saying the same thing, all standing up and piping the same line. So on our side, of course, we’re assuming that their approach is going to be to pull back from government involvement and participation with the economic might that the territorial government has — so pull that back and shrink the capital and operating and maintenance budget. A year later, we have "Putting our Fiscal House in Order" as a title. So a year later, they’re still putting their fiscal house in order, they’re still trying to figure out, probably, what "fiscal" means, on the other side. And "Setting a Future Agenda" is the second part of the title. That doesn’t lend itself to a lot of confidence because they haven’t got their fiscal house in order, by their own admission, by their own title, and they’re just now starting to set a future agenda in this one.

But these titles are misleading, when you start to read. Last year, the Premier stood in this House and informed the people of this territory that the trajectory of spending had to be curtailed. He talked about the territorial government’s spending leading the territory to a precipice. He talked about controlling that spending. So the Yukon Party government brought forward a budget last year. The total capital and operation and maintenance budget for 2003-04 is $550 million.

They implemented their way of dealing with what they considered a trajectory of spending. Now, people would assume that this is what these people on the other side, the members elected in the Yukon Party government, believed in. This year we have a different view. Twelve months — it is quite amazing what can happen upstairs. The total capital and operation and maintenance budget for 2004-05 is $705 million. Actually we can round it up to $706 million, but of course we also can keep rounding the darn thing up because, guess what? We just heard an announcement on Friday that there is probably another couple of million dollars being spent.

Now, earlier today I asked the question: was it reflected in the budget that had been drawn up that this was going to be something that happened? I got no answer for it; but we will get the answer, there is no question about it, because it will be reflected at some time. You could make it really, really simple and just answer the question in Question Period but, no, got to keep things secret.

So here we are: $550 million. The Premier is saying that they have to get control of the trajectory of spending. The government was in a very dangerous situation; it did not have money. A year later, $150 million more is being spent on top of this. So what happened to the trajectory of last year? What happened in 12 months? Now, the operation and maintenance budget totalled $451.3 million last year. The operation and maintenance budget totals $543 million this year. Where was the control? Like, which end is wrong here?

They both can’t be right. The capital budget totals $98.7 million. I stood in the House and told them what they were doing was going to have a serious impact on the industries, on businesses. And it did have. And I’m sure they heard it from many businesses out there, because I sure heard about it — many of them are their supporters. I’m sure they called them up, because I said, "Call up your friends. You probably have more influence than we have over here." They assured me that they were going to.

Well — guess what — the pendulum swung again, Mr. Speaker. The capital budget totals $162.6 million. That’s a $64-million difference in 12 months. Again, I have to ask the question: which one is right? Which philosophy is the Yukon Party adopting here? Or do they not know where they’re going? Because that’s what the people of this territory are starting to wonder. You cannot go and preach to the people that you have a financial crisis looming. A year later, you’re awash in riches. You’re spending like mad. One year, you’re starving. It’s called a boom-bust type of cycle, the very thing that most people in this territory do not want to see. Many of us have lived through boom-and-bust cycles. They are not good for long-term stability.

One of the backbenchers over there is agreeing with me. He’s flipping and flopping from side to side. I totally agree with him. That’s the way it feels on this side, watching the Yukon Party try to devise a budget, because it is absolutely nuts. I have heard some people in the public call it bizarre. What do they stand for? No one knows. Where are they going to spend? Haven’t got a clue. Next year, are we going to hear from the Yukon Party, "Whoa, guess what, Mr. Speaker? We just blew the budget again. I guess we’ll have to pull back the reins. Everybody is going to go into another recession. We’ll create it. But guess what, election year is coming a year later. We’re saving some money for that one."

So, what was said in these two budget addresses? He said that this budget — in 2003 — represents a concerted effort toward lowering the Government of Yukon’s trajectory of spending. In 2004 he said, "This is the largest capital budget in the history of the Yukon. It is designed to stimulate the economy in the short, mid and long term."

The Premier had the gall to sit there and say it with a straight face. What a bunch of nonsense.

I will not take a bow when the Yukon Party is clapping. I am only going to point out the facts — and these are words right out of the mouth of the horse.

What else is said here? It is a simple fact that the growth in government spending cannot be sustained.

Some Hon. Member:  Point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   It took you awhile.

Speaker:   There is no need for a point of order. Everybody understands exactly what has been done. Please retract that.

Mr. Hardy:   I will reject it. I am getting a little hoarse myself, so I will take a drink.

It was too hard to resist. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   I am waiting for the retraction now.

Mr. Hardy:   I did, didn’t I?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Sorry. Thanks for the correction.

I retract the word "horse" in reference to a member opposite.

Speaker:   Thank you. Please carry on.

Mr. Hardy:   Okay. I will read some more of his brilliant words that were spoken in 2003 and the absolutely brilliant words that were spoken in 2004 and see if they actually match up, because they sure haven’t so far.

"It is a simple fact that a growth in government spending cannot be sustained."

So, I believe the public, when they hear that, assume that the government is going to try to get some control on their spending.

They are going to reconsolidate; they are going to — depending on their philosophy — do what they think is necessary to get some kind of control over that kind of spending. That goes on to say, "…and with our government only having been elected on November 4, 2002, the prudent course of action is to exercise fiscal restraint." In 2004: a $705-million budget; $155 million more being spent. I am quoting from the budget speech of 2004. "In 2003-04, our government was tasked with changing the spending patterns of government, with getting the territory’s fiscal house in order. Our government has done exactly that. Our financial officers have been working particularly hard to bring this about."

I stand to be corrected later on when there are rebuttals, but when you have concerns about your spending pattern trajectories, as has often been said by the Premier, when you indicate to the people that you have to address that by using fiscal prudence, we would assume that a budget brought forward would have that kind of reflection, but it does not. We see $155 million more being spent. So what happened? Where did the change happen?

Well, I would say that there are two things we have to consider here. One is last year when the new Yukon Party government sat down, they figured that what they had to try to do was lower expectations. They had to try to demonstrate to the public that the finances of the territory are in bad shape, and part of it is the old politics style in which you try to blame the previous government for those mistakes. They tried it with the NDP the last time they were elected. They tried it with the Liberals this time. In every case it has been wrong, but that is what they felt they had to present. I personally believe that the public in the Yukon is a bit more intelligent and do not necessarily buy that, and I think we have seen that.

Now, of course, what happened when they did these cuts in the capital and put restraints on some of their spending last year is they caused serious problems within the industry, and I believe the variety of industries that make the territory run — the economic engines — took them to task.

The other thing that happened is they realized they were totally wrong in their calculations. Either they were wrong in their calculations or else they knew full well they were wrong and this was just the political messaging that they felt would serve their needs. I would like to think they were wrong, even if it is a pretty major mistake, that they could not identify the fact that there was over $70 million some in the surplus — we’re not talking small potatoes in the Yukon — that they could not see the spending patterns year after year after year.

I really look forward to hearing their responses on how they could be so far off target in their calculations. They went on in the budget speech of last year, "Reducing the current level of government spending in the territory affords our government the opportunity to be innovative in our thinking and to explore better ways of meeting our goals. We must become wiser in how we spend our money and strive toward improving the effectiveness and efficiency of our programs." What happened to that?

What happened to that kind of messaging? Where did it change? There are a lot of people in the territory who want to know what happened over there. Was it all of a sudden the realization that they had a heck of a lot more money than they knew, that possibly what they were saying to the public for all those months was totally incorrect? By the time the fall came around, they had a large surplus, came out with a supplementary budget, in many cases too late to stimulate some of the industries that were suffering.

So here we are today, all their trajectories, all their charts, everything they were showing, completely gone — one year, it disappeared like that. Here we are today with the largest budget in the history of the Yukon, the largest capital expenditure in the history of the Yukon. We have gone from a bust type of budget last year to a boom budget this year. And as they forecast in the budget speech — as they forecast — we will see a substantial drop once again next year. So does that mean we are going to see another bust and then the year following that we’re going to see another boom?

Some Hon. Member:  Point of order.

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

Mr. Cathers:   Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming two visitors to our gallery: the former Member for Hootalinqua, Al Falle, and Mr. Todd Walter of Balanced Power, one of the many fine companies eyeing the Yukon’s economic potential.

Mr. Hardy:   So now we have a budget that is going to stimulate the economy. There are a lot of areas in here that we are going to discuss. I know many of my colleagues on this side have been looking at it, looking in their critic areas, and are quite interested in talking about some of the spending in those areas, as well as the effect it has upon the communities they represent. I know that within my own community there are some very serious concerns about some of the changes that are happening, the impact the spending habits of government is having, and the future for them as well. I am going to touch on them in a few minutes.

I will tell you what I have a genuine fear of, and that is that the government has, in 14 short — well, from budget to budget, we can say; I think they have been in power now about 16 or 17 months, I should say. But in 16 or 17 months they have managed to separate Yukon into "us" and "them". I have not seen debate like this in a long time, but I see it returning again. Unfortunately, it is the reality of the privileged that has once again entered our politics. We have seen it now closeted in the Yukon Party back rooms and they are not connected with the real concerns of the citizens. Decisions are being made that do not connect with the needs or the concerns of the citizens of this territory.

I regret — and I really do regret — to say that unfortunately this is a government that has divided our communities.

It has divided them into insiders and outsiders — the few who have the ear of the government and the many in this territory who do not. Some are the chosen few who get to bend the ear, to get their concerns, their wishes, brought forward. Frankly, the rest are the invisible ones.

We are seeing a return to that type of politics. A reflection of that is the way the boards and committees are being stacked, once again. People who have very, very good qualifications, excellent reputations, working on these boards and committees and contributing a lot are being removed from them, and party faithful — Yukon Party people — are being put in place. It’s only being done for one reason. It is definitely not ensuring that the best, the brightest and the most dedicated people are being put on these committees. That doesn’t seem to be the criteria.

I think that the criteria we are seeing now are not only just that but, "Are you a Yukon Party supporter?"

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Hon. Mr. Jenkins, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having difficulty with the member opposite’s connection with the boards and committee as being inappropriate members of our community and society. That’s a slight on them, and they are unable to defend themselves here in this Legislature.

We know exactly who these people are. That is unfair and those statements should be withdrawn by the member opposite.

Speaker:   Mr. Hardy, on the point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order; it’s just a difference of opinion.

Speaker:   It’s the Chair’s opinion that there is no point of order; however, one should be careful when addressing the Chamber that one ensures that one is not maligning members of boards and committees who, as was pointed out, are not here to defend themselves.

However, there is no point of order. Please carry on.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure you I’m not maligning anyone. I have already — if the member opposite would have listened very closely, I included all people as having skills and qualifications. But, as is public knowledge, as has already been in the public, as has already been stated, including by some people who have been put on the boards — they are on there because of their party affiliation. That has already been said publicly. I am only saying what has been said publicly by some people who are on these boards and committees.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Member for Southern Lakes, on a point of order.

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 19(g), I’m very concerned about the member opposite’s comments, in that I feel he is imputing false or unavowed motives to members of our Assembly. What others might have said outside of the Assembly has no bearing on what our hon. members have said. The line that the hon. member opposite is going down — it is very distasteful and offensive to me as a member of the Assembly to suggest that there are ulterior or hidden or unscrupulous motives that were used to nominate people to these boards. I find that his continuing on in this vein is putting forward, again, false and unavowed motives to the hon. members who put these people on these boards and committees.

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

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I would submit there is no point of order. The rookie MLA is obviously just too thin-skinned.

I would also like to draw to your attention that it is against the Rules of the House to suggest, as the member did — regarding the contempt for the Legislature. So, in effect, in his own point of order he broke the House rules.

Speaker:   I will take this point of order under advisement.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I do find it rather humorous that the House leader of the official opposition is referring to and assaulting the word "contempt" when his own leader of his party used it in his opening address. I agree with the Member for Southern Lakes. It is offensive. It should not be placed in this House. It has no place in this House. I suggest that I think this horse is finally dead.

Speaker:   As the Chair said already, we will rule on this point of order. I believe that this point of order that the Minister of Environment is making sprung from the last one. I will give you my ruling tomorrow.

Please carry on, leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Hardy:   There are very serious concerns about boards and committees — very serious concerns about how people are being put on those. This is a view shared by the opposition members. It has been brought forward in Question Period. It was brought forward last year. Part of that concern is because the people who were supposed to be involved in the selection of appointments to boards and committees have not met probably over the course of the last year. Concerns we have on this side of the House are very legitimate, and it is a debate that is out in the public. It is a debate, if it is out in the public, that has a right to be in the Legislature. We are seeing in this budget once again a type of spending that has never been seen in the territory.

But it is reflective, if you go back in history, of 1996 when it was this very same party that went on a spending spree. It’s the same philosophy being applied. Then it was an election year and there was an attempt, of course, to persuade people to vote in a certain direction based upon the type of spending initiatives that were being presented. At that time and period, it was a very large — well, massive. It was the largest budget ever presented, and we all know what happened: the government lost because the damage had been done over the course of a couple of years and people did not necessarily agree with the type of spending and the way it was being handled.

We’re saying the same thing already.

Now, the Premier calls this the flagship, and he indicates that this is a spending spree and they’re spending beyond their means and it’s not going to happen again. So what kind of messaging is that that we’re dealing with here?

This year we’re allowed to have a spending spree. Next year, what are we going to have? I think a lot of people really need to know. Is this budget sustainable? Absolutely not. Is this type of spending sustainable? Absolutely not. There are people on the other side who are from businesses. Would they operate a business in this manner? Absolutely not.

But they’re elected to the government and it’s not their money. It’s the taxpayers’ money. Why not go for it? It’s somebody else’s money.

I’ve already indicated that this is a boom-bust type of behaviour of this government. We had a bust first, we have a boom this time. Next year we don’t know yet because it’s really hard to get a reading on what direction this government is going in, especially when they say they have to contain spending, they have to have fiscal restraint and then go out a year later, bring in the biggest budget in history and have a massive amount of spending.

We hear talk, of course, of the bridge, which has the potential of being — figures out there are anywhere from $30 million. Knowing how these projects go, we could quite easily see $35 million or $40 million. It’s not uncommon to see that.

I have had discussions with the Minister of Health about spending, about some of these projects that have gone on in the past. He has pointed out to me, from his perspective, that often what you pay for, you pay a substantial amount more by the time you finish paying for it. There are examples out there.

The bridge is another example. Has there been any cost analysis on it? What kind of impact will this bridge have? Are there studies we could sink our teeth into — some kind of analysis that we will understand? Will this really have an impact on the tourist market? It’s questionable because there is no indication it will. What type of financing is being planned around this project? It’s $1.5 million that is identified in the budget. What studies have been done?

I know that the Premier has stood up and said that there have been studies done in the past. Are they applicable now? Are they current? Do they indicate costs? Do they indicate impacts — whether they are environmental, community, whether it’s long term, the impact that the future has on the territory government’s financial picture? No, of course they are not; they are quite old.

They were feasibility studies. They were looking at the project. What has been done since then? It has been quite a few years.

As I said, what kind of financing? Are we talking about P3s? I’ve already heard from the Yukon Party that this is going to be a P3 project. If that’s the case and that’s the direction that this government is going in, then tell us who they’ve been talking to. What kind of P3s are they talking about? What work has already been done to justify the direction they are going in on this project? What kind of impact will an expenditure on the bridge have on all the other very important and necessary projects throughout the territory, if any?

These are the questions we’re asking. We would like to get some answers on this and have informed debate on both sides. Because we’re not getting it from that side. All we’re getting is P3, build a bridge, and the sun will come up the next day and everybody will be happy. Problems within the community — they are split about the bridge. There is some very vigorous debate. What has been done to go down and have that debate in the town of Dawson City? Has the MLA hosted a public meeting? I would expect any MLA with a project of this size going into their riding to host a public meeting to have that informed discussion to get the perspectives. Has that happened in Dawson City?

What about the loans? We still have outstanding problems around that. The public is not accepting the final solution of the Premier. They’re not accepting it. They’re angry over it.

On Thursday, I asked the Premier to pull back, let’s take a look at this again. Your solution, what you feel would meet the requirements of resolving these outstanding loans — and there are not many of them left. Some of them are federal loans; some of them are territorial. It’s my understanding that the feds do not want theirs going to any collection agencies. They will deal with it themselves. So how many loans does that actually leave left? Out of the 1,500 — I don’t have the figure in front of me. I know there were something like 68 loans. But remove the federal component out of it, and it might be 60, 50 — I don’t know, a very small amount. But the solution that was brought forward could put some small, struggling businesses into bankruptcy.

That is not what we on the opposition side want, so we ask: pull back, let us find a solution to this, one that is acceptable to the people of this territory. It is their taxpayer dollar; let us make sure that the people of this territory agree with it. Of course, now there is the problem, the difficulty of having two Cabinet ministers who owe a substantial amount — $400,000. That is also a very sore point, and that is finances. I believe there is a solution that would be able to address the concerns of the Cabinet ministers as people who borrowed that money, as well as indicate to the public that this is a good solution. What we are seeing is a wrong direction to go in, and of course it is an issue that will not go away. It will not go away because if you walk down the street, if you go into the communities, if you talk to small businesses, if you talk to individuals, if you talk to single mothers, if you talk to people who are struggling on welfare, and you talk to other people who owe money to banks, trying to make their payments, this is the one they bring up. Everywhere you go, this is the one that they are judging this government on. It is the loans, and the failure to address them properly.

The environment — this is a budget that has indicated that the environment has a very low ranking on issues of concern, and that is why this is a budget with a very short vision, extremely short. In this day and age and with what is happening to our water around the world and within Canada, with our air around the world and within Canada, with our land, with our wildlife, with the illnesses and the increase and the problems in agriculture, with SARS, with all those things happening, you cannot pretend that the environment is not a major part of every single thing you do.

But this is a budget that does. This is a government that does.

I know they brag about their to-do list. I believe there are two to-do lists that the Yukon Party government has and I would suspect one of them is to get rid of any issues around the environment — to crush them.

You could talk to many industries and they will tell you that they want stability. The budget doesn’t give us that because it’s a flip-flop type. But they also want to know that the environment is being protected in a manner that they can work with. All I see is a government that has walked away from their responsibilities.

Now this government — time and time again the Premier goes to many, many economic forums and speaks at them and has many champagne parties for the development industry, but I don’t see any when it comes to the environment. Frankly, there is no work of substance on the toughest policy on the table today — and has been for many, many years — and that is mediating the differences between a development industry and the environmental community. It is finding the common values and goals of each and bringing them forward together, not taking one and removing them completely from the table and allowing another one free access. That’s not long term. That’s not planning for our children and grandchildren — some of us already have grandchildren and it’s quite a shock when you get to that age — or great-grandchildren, the ones to come. That’s not planning for them. That is planning for the immediate. It’s short-sighted, negative and dangerous because somebody will have to be responsible.

If you think about it, we are dealing with major contamination sites. We are dealing with mines that historically left huge messes without the ability to clean them up or the financial resources to clean them up. That was an old way of thinking and we are paying the price today.

I’ve heard estimates of over $200 million for the Faro mine to try to clean that up.

And that was because there were not the proper checks and balances and accountability and the awareness about the impact that mining was having on the environment and what was going to be left and put in place: some type of savings account or some kind of plan — either ongoing or after — that would allow people to continue working, but doing something to clean up after the extractions — lessen the impact, walk away, leave a site that has the potential to support the natural environment.

That was what happened to us. We are dealing with those right now. What we are seeing is the same type of shift that caused those messes in the past. We are seeing them return again. What does that mean? It means 10, 20 years down the road, we are going to have a three or four times worse situation. Who is going to be responsible for it? How much is it going to cost them because we don’t plan for the future now?

We are allowing the degradation of our environment if we continue in this manner, which is going to cause serious consequences for future generations. It will have an impact on our water. It will have an impact on our air. It will have an impact on the land. It will have an impact on people who live off the land. Of course it is going to have an impact on the First Nations. We are already finding major contaminants within the fish we eat, the animals you hunt. They can be traced very clearly to many of the events and actions of previous generations. And what are we doing? We are going to adopt that whole model again. I, for one, could not sleep at night if I were doing that. All for what — a quick fix on the economic front? There is no crystal ball. There is no magic button you are going to push that is going to make the economy turn around overnight. I know the Premier said that. I stand to be corrected, but I think he alluded to a super tanker model. That is totally correct. I totally agree with him. It is a tremendous amount of hard work, diligent work, but that does not mean you abandon the environment, that you abandon long-range vision and planning that will have a negative impact on people after us.

And in many cases, it could impact people in here who are younger, if they stay here, as I heard from the member opposite. That is kind of a frightening picture, to think that some actions of the Yukon Party government today would drive people away because of contaminations down the road.

Now what about First Nations relationships, all the agreements that are being signed? I’ve always believed that agreements are not worth the paper they’re written on if the follow-through isn’t there. And in the budget address of March 25, 2004, the Premier admitted to the growing list of agreements, protocols, accords and initiatives that exist that they have been signing with the First Nations: an intergovernmental relations accord with the Vuntut Gwitchin government; a memorandum of understanding with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation for the corrections system, including the future replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre; the Kaska bilateral agreement on management and development of resources in southeast Yukon; a protocol on consultation with self-governing First Nations; a Kaska Nation and Yukon forest agreement in principle; an agreement with Champagne and Aishihik First Nations on the beetle-killed areas in Kluane, and possibly there are even more that we’re not aware of because, in the Premier’s short address, he might not have wanted to list them all because he might have talked for another two hours. That is fine. Signing agreements is great. That’s actually not the hard part. As the First Nations are finding, once they have signed their self-government agreements, they may have taken a long time, it may have been a struggle, but they are also finding that the struggle continues, and if anything it gets even harder to try to implement them.

My concern is: what has been done? Signing agreements — some of them I don’t have a problem with, but I would like to see what the follow-up has been. I would like to hear the Premier tell me what resources, what direction, where the follow-up is, what about the agreement in here, a memorandum of understanding with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation for the corrections system, including the future replacement of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre? What discussions have happened since that agreement was signed? What work has been done?

That was one of the first ones that was signed, I believe, so we’re talking many months. What kind of dialogue has been ongoing? All these other agreements — are they worth the paper they’re written on? I doubt it, right now. What resources are being put toward this? What movement has happened on this?

There’s a lot of comparison when you look at this budget. There’s a lot of trying to sort through the messaging that has been put out. I found it quite curious that in almost every budget address you look at, within the first three or four pages, there’s a really strong reference toward the settlement of land claims, honouring the relations around land claims, and moving forward.

With this one, you get up to page 28 before you even start to address that — pardon me, page 27 is, I believe, the first real mention of it, which is quite a contrast to the positions of every other government that has been in here, where they put it right up front and recognize that land claims need to be settled, the certainty needs to be in place, following through with implementation has to happen and the respect shown to all First Nations and all First Nation governments must be equal and abiding.

Looking at the budget, I see cuts in the First Nation relations and I see cuts in aboriginal language service, and I see cuts in intergovernmental relations. That does not indicate a strong commitment to me. I have to ask if this is just a bunch of words — is that all this is? I would like to see the action, the real action, in this regard: equal and valuable action.

What about equal distribution for the communities? Many of my colleagues are from the communities and they have some concerns and they are going to be talking about those. We do find some communities that are not seeing much benefit where others are seeing a huge investment. We have to wonder what those reasons are. In comparison, there is $5.8 million for government computer equipment — how much for a serious crisis that this territory has faced for a long time and needs a very committed commitment, and that is violence against families, against women and children? $5.8 million for government computers but $100,000 for that. That’s where your priorities stand with this budget.

Looking at it another way: $5.8 million for government computer equipment; $15,000 to deal with computer solid waste. $15,000: you’re talking about a massive influx of new equipment and you only allocated $15,000 to deal with the very serious problem that has been growing around the world of computer solid waste. That is the same thing you can use in comparing education and jobs.

I’ve heard a lot of talk about economic activity that is going to take off. Of course, with the Canada Winter Games, the projects happening there, the investment from all levels of government, First Nations, municipalities, the territory and federal governments all contributing substantial amounts of money for projects all over this territory, how much money is being put for training or retraining? It doesn’t match. It doesn’t even come anywhere near. So what does that mean? Workers will have to come in from Outside to do these projects because we do not have enough training in place, we do not have programs up and running, we are not preparing the youth of today or other people who need to be retrained in other areas so they can work?

It doesn’t match. It doesn’t match at all. You can be talking $150 million or $160 million, minimum, that is going to be spent over the next couple of years, and you’re talking about $500,000 for training. That doesn’t match. That’s not planning. That’s not anticipating the needs. That’s not looking at a budget in a whole manner. It’s looking at it in pieces.

The Dawson City bridge and a sewage lagoon — it’s $30 million plus for a bridge but we still don’t know how it is going to be financed or what is happening, and in this budget, $1.5 million is being spent this year. But we still have a problem with the sewage treatment up there that has to be addressed.

Tax cuts for business — the Premier makes a big deal out of taking the small business tax base down from six to four, I believe, and matching it with Nunavut, Alberta — I’m not sure if it includes Northwest Territories — probably three or four they are matching it with.

There is no increase to social assistance — zero, absolutely zero. I do not see and I have never heard a single announcement of an increase to the rates being paid to social assistance recipients — many of whom are struggling and trying to get a foot up and be able to feed their children. Many of them are working poor who need that small amount of assistance just to make it month by month. Now, I have heard the Premier across the way mumbling some figures but I didn’t see any increase in the rates.

We have a problem with the jail. There’s still nothing happening there. I’ve already talked about all these agreements that the Premier loves to wave around and have little press conferences about. What has happened? Where are we at with the jail? Where are we at with the programming? What kind of negotiations are happening with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation as well as with the others that would be involved? There has been no announcement about that, no follow-up on that. It has been practically a year since those announcements were made. What has happened? Instead, the Premier runs off and signs some more accords, protocols, understandings, whatever he can find to get another press release. But where is the follow-up on all these? And the jail is a serious concern. It is not a safe working environment, and it is not safe for the inmates who are up there. When is that going to be addressed?

This is the big, spending-spree budget that won’t happen again. The Premier said that very clearly. He has made a conscious decision to spend a massive amount of money this year, but it’s not going to happen again. So where is the jail going to fit into this? Where is the Minister of Justice? Is she not fighting for it? Is the bridge more important than the jail? Weak. In my own riding, we have very strong concerns about what is happening.

There are concerns about the waterfront development. I was looking at some of the plans, and it’s very exciting. It looks like there is going to be a lot of activity, but people do have some concerns. They want to be involved; they want to know what’s happening, clear away. They want to know what kind of progress is going to happen and how it’s going to be developed, what role the territorial government has in that, what impact will it have on Main Street and the Main Street area, as they continue to try to survive? And they are struggling, there’s no question about it. They’re putting up a strong front. I think they’re working really hard, but there are some serious concerns in my riding about what’s going to happen in the downtown core, and I believe they need help.

I am hoping that the territorial government keeps an open-door policy to them and tries to work with them to find ways to increase activity in the downtown area — not so much down in the new development area but in the old downtown Whitehorse. If that means ensuring that the government keeps their workers in that area and invests in this core area, that would help.

We have serious problems with crime and we need assistance in that area. I know that many of my constituents talk about that. And they are concerned about the schools and the future of the two schools that exist in the downtown area. There has been a lot of talk — I know that the Liberals tried to close one of them and make changes to another, and the people spoke. They spoke very strongly, so they had to back off on that.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Education what the plans are for the future of these schools, because they are old. They are quite unique in what they are presenting right now — both of them. Are there any plans down the road to expand some of the programs, to maybe look at some alternatives in that area? I know they’ve talked about the alternative school idea. Is that even planned to be integrated in the two buildings and some of the activities that already happen down there? If not, I would like to know — and I know that some people in the downtown area would like to know.

What about the F.H. Collins replacement? That’s a serious problem that gets talked about year after year. At some point that has to be dealt with.

This is the spending budget. I would expect to see some monies put there for studies or progress reports on that. It has been on the list for a long, long time and it has to be addressed.

There are a lot of concerns. I hear a new economic direction… I am going to wrap up here. I had to chuckle to myself reading —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Do not worry on the other side. I have no intention of speaking for two hours and 10 minutes.

I did get quite a chuckle in reading the new economic direction and yet all around that it is "re-establish", "re-invent", "re-, re-, re-". Many of these initiatives and ideas are all coming from previous governments, most particularly the NDP. If this is what they think is a new direction, re-establishing many of the very good initiatives or strengthening the great ideas of the NDP, so be it. I know the Liberals did not like it, and they removed some of them. In some areas, I applaud this government for recognizing a good idea with regard to the NDP’s initiatives from before and re-establishing them.

I also want to thank the government. I very much support their movement on the funding for the daycares. That is an excellent initiative, as well as the million dollars being given to the College, which is long overdue and definitely needed. Both of those are for the future. They are for our children; they are for education and are very positive. There are some good things in this budget, but along with those, there really are some questionable expenditures, and I think I have touched on them. My colleagues will be talking about them as well. I look forward to Committee debate where we can really get in-depth with the line-by-line items and the spending and have that debate there. As I said earlier, it is really my hope that this government will consider more carefully the debate and our perspective on this side and not just put up the wall and say that we have nothing to offer, only them. That is not the way I believe the parliamentary system was ever supposed to operate and it definitely does not serve all people.

As I said earlier, territorial governments in the past have altered their budgets based upon some of the proposals and suggestions brought forward by the opposition. I’m hoping this group here has the openness to be willing to do that as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rouble:   It is indeed my honour and pleasure to respond today to the Premier’s budget speech and to recommend that all members of our Legislative Assembly support this budget.

Mr. Speaker, this is a budget for Yukoners by Yukoners. This budget started with the Yukon Party’s platform priorities and philosophies. These were positively endorsed by the electorate. We put forward a vision and a plan, and I’ve stated that vision and plan countless times in this Assembly.

This budget was created with the input of all Yukoners. There were countless meetings in communities all across the territory. In the beautiful Southern Lakes, the Premier came out to meetings in Carcross, Marsh Lake and Tagish, where people contributed many ideas and concerns. Mr. Speaker, we listened.

There were ideas and criticisms put forward by the opposition and other critics. We listened and considered their positions. Mr. Speaker, we have been criticized and accused of stealing their good ideas. Well, as a government we have said, "If you have a good idea, we’ll listen to it." The Members of the Legislative Assembly who sit on the other side of the House have presented good ideas on behalf of their constituents, and we have listened. If the biggest criticism that we have as a government is implementing some of their ideas, well, I guess that’s just something we’ll have to learn to live with.

We’ve also, as a government, worked on the revenue side of our financial statements.

That certainly had a significant change. There was a change caused by the census undercount. The trajectory of transfer payments changed. There was an increase in health care funding. There was the dissolution of a couple of funds, so our revenue side has changed. This isn’t information that we had over a year ago when preparing the last budget.

We looked at all this information and crunched the numbers. Our extremely talented public service examined the situation and came up with options and initiatives. We, again, listened and analyzed the information. We recognize that not everything can be done at once and that there has to be a balance.

Mr. Speaker, we put forward a vision, listened openly to input, considered and analyzed information, and now we are putting forward a budget that responds to the needs and abilities of the territory. It’s an excellent, solid budget. It’s a budget that recognizes our financial limitations and one that responds to the needs of the territory and invests in the long-term fabric of our community.

We have put forward a budget that will build a sustainable economy, improve the health of Yukon communities and achieve a better quality of life for all Yukoners. We are doing what we committed to do.

In the Premier’s budget speech, he detailed some of the budget highlights that will have the effect of putting our fiscal house in order and setting the future agenda, building a sustainable and competitive Yukon economy, focusing on strategic industries and projects, building healthy communities and implementing our social agenda, and formalizing a government-to-government relationship with First Nations and building partnerships.

The ministers will be very busy detailing all the programs and initiatives in these areas.

These are the needs of the territory, and we are responding — and we are responding with the political will.

Additionally, we have heard over and over again: do what you can to get the economy on track. This is a tremendous priority for Yukoners and this budget significantly responds to these Yukoners’ concerns. We are definitely taking action and this budget will get the economy rolling.

As we all know, there are tremendous constraints when going through a budgeting process, and this budget balances many of these constraints. This budget considers immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-range needs. There are short-term stimuli and there are significant long-term investments. There is certainly a balance.

There are several highlights in the budget that address many of the needs and concerns of the people from the beautiful Southern Lakes, and I would like to bring them to your attention.

Premier Fentie announced that both the Whitehorse waterfront and the Carcross waterfront projects would qualify under the federal strategic infrastructure program. Now, these are both excellent community development programs, programs designed to revitalize the downtown core. They will have a tremendous impact on the tourist appeal and on the quality of life in living in these communities. Everyone wants to live in a beautiful place. We certainly have the natural beauty around us, now it is time to clean up our yard, so to speak. These projects will certainly have short-term stimuli, short-term employment and long-term increases in the quality of life and a long-term increase in the attractiveness of our communities.

There have been discussions with Governor Murkowski of Alaska that have indicated a desire to see the White Pass and Yukon Route railroad return to Whitehorse, and our government will facilitate discussions with the State of Alaska and White Pass to determine the possibility of how this can be expedited. Again, another program with short-term, medium-term employment and investment in our community with a long-term increase in our infrastructure, infrastructure that our community needs, infrastructure that we can build on to build our economy and build our communities.

The Premier announced major work that would be done this summer on the Tagish Road to bring the road up to standards — $1.5 million will be spent in 2004, 2005, and additional funds in the next year. Again, short-term investment into economic stimuli and a long-term investment into our infrastructure.

$140,000 has been designated for the planning and design of a community centre in Marsh Lake. Mr. Speaker, Marsh Lake as a community is arguably one of the four largest communities in the territory, and it’s a community that has gone largely ignored by past governments. Again, here we are, a situation where we’ll have some short-term stimulus, get the economy going, a building project that’s significant for the area, and a long-term investment in the social fabric of the community.

Clean water, which the member opposite was discussing — it’s a fundamental service, and there are a number of initiatives announced in this regard as well as programs designed to ensure that Yukoners have access to safe, affordable, clean drinking water. We’ll also have the well drilling program.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget, it reinstates the community development fund and FireSmart to the original funding levels of $3.5 million for community development fund and $1.5 million for FireSmart — again, protecting our communities from wildfire and building and investing in the social fabric of our community. Funding of $300,000 is being provided in 2004-05 for the development of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation heritage cultural centre to showcase their heritage — I’m sorry if I sound like a broken record, Mr. Speaker, but, again, short-term stimuli, long-term investment in an infrastructure, additional infrastructure in the social fabric of our communities as well as living up to an obligation under the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Our government is also going to upgrade the hourly rate for volunteer firefighters, recognizing the significant contribution that they make to our communities and demonstrating our respect for all of their hand work, efforts and, indeed, their sacrifices. Specifically, for the Marsh Lake, Tagish, Carcross and Mount Lorne area, funds are being made available to pay volunteer firefighters to be on-site during extreme fire warning days this summer.

A further $65,000 will be made available to increase the contributions available to communities under the winter activities programs. The communities of Tagish, Marsh Lake and Mount Lorne will now be supported throughout the summer activities programs, investing in youth, investing in our education and investing in our communities.

We recognize that this budget will do a lot of good and we recognize that there are still items on our to-do list. We are working toward them. I think that all members will agree that everything can’t be done in one budget but that this budget sets the stage for future action.

There are many other good things that I could say about this budget but there are pressing issues in this Assembly — for example, there is an interim supply bill that needs to be debated and passed — but I would like to share a few closing comments.

Our economy needs to prosper and our communities need to grow and develop but we can’t do it at all costs. We will continue to ensure the protection of the land that we all love. I am sure that the Minister of Environment will have more detail on that.

There are many demands on government and we have to respond to them within our fiscal restraints. We must always be conscious that we are using taxpayers’ dollars to build a better place to live. We also have to remember that the Premier said to not expect a budget like this next year because, with our current revenues, we simply can’t sustain this level of spending.

We recognize there will be criticisms of this budget, criticisms that we did