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.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the Assembly: I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 2 of the First Session of the 31^st Legislative Assembly, as presented by the leader of the official opposition on December 16, 2003.

The members will be aware that Standing Order 66(1) required that this report be delivered to them on the first sitting day of this spring sitting. It is to be hoped that the generosity for which members of this Assembly are renowned will be fully exercised in this regard and that the unfortunate delay of the Clerk in meeting his obligation will be quickly and silently forgotten.

With respect to Petition No. 2, a number of the pages of the petition were photocopies of facsimiles. The majority of the petition, however, does contain original signatures and the photocopies therefore do not render it invalid. Also it should be noted that an argument may be made that the language of the petition strains the bounds of that considered appropriate. For future reference, members and petitioners may wish to keep in mind the expectation set out in annotation 1029(1) of Beauchesne that the language of a petition be respectful and temperate. In this case, however, Petition No. 2 is found to meet the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Speaker:   Petition No. 2 is, accordingly, deemed to be read and received.

Are there any petitions to be presented?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 44, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community Services that Bill No. 44, entitled Act to Amend the Municipal Finance and Community Grants Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 45, entitled Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved that Bill No. 45, entitled Act to Amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that Bill No. 104, entitled Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that Bill No. 104, entitled Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   Are there any further bills for introduction?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to meet its obligations to fund boards and committees established under the Umbrella Final Agreement; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his parliamentary secretary, Yukon's Member of Parliament, to cause interim funding, including any funding shortfalls, to be provided for these boards and committees at the time that the funding for these boards and committees expires on March 31, 2004, and remaining in place until such time as long-term funding can be established.

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

THAT this House recognizes that the decision to move ambulance services under the authority of the Yukon Hospital Corporation was undertaken with insufficient consultation; and

THAT this House recognizes that at least one Yukon Party government minister has publicly supported a two-tier health care system; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to guarantee Yukoners that ambulance fees will not be introduced as a result of this ill-advised move of ambulance services to the Hospital Corporation.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) more than a year after the U.S.-led war against the people of Iraq began, neither the United States administration, nor the Government of Great Britain has provided any compelling evidence to justify the war;

(2) the Government of Canada acted properly as a sovereign nation by refusing to allow itself to be drawn into this unjustified military adventure at the behest of the United States; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to maintain an independent foreign policy that precludes the use of Canadian fighting forces from participating in morally indefensible military actions on foreign soil.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Community Services. Will the minister now admit that his decision to hire a consultant from British Columbia to supervise Dawson City's financial affairs was a mistake and that that has seriously damaged the relationships between the Yukon government and the municipality of Dawson City?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, we are handling Mr. Carrel, he is dealing with the City of Dawson's financial situation and we are confident in his abilities.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister can't stick his head in the sand any longer on this one and pretend that there is nothing going on here.

The other night in Dawson City, there was another angry public meeting. Now, Dawson residents said that they have had enough of the minister's hired gun micromanaging their community. As one person put it at the meeting, this person has essentially been paid $40,000 to take a dump in their back yard.

Speaker:   Order please.

One cannot bring into the House language that is unparliamentary. So I would ask the member not to do that. Please carry on.

Mr. Cardiff:   Sorry, I will withdraw that.

The consultant has interfered in contract decisions by the elected council and has even demanded videotapes of public meetings. He has even been threatening to the council. In short, he continually seems to be pouring gasoline on the fires that he is lighting.

Will the minister confirm that he attempted to replace this outside consultant with someone who was less confrontational and that they even accepted the position, but he was thwarted by his Cabinet colleagues?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will reiterate what I have said in the past on several questions on this issues. Mr. Carrel is doing his job as designed by the Municipal Act. He is performing his duties as per the Municipal Act. He is informing the City of Dawson and its councillors to do what they have agreed to do as per the municipal plan, which they have agreed to follow. And that is what he is following them to do. The issues that he is talking about are the ones that are identified in the financial plan and that have financial aspect to the City of Dawson. That is what he is dealing with.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the minister didn't answer the question, and the question was about whether he had attempted to replace the outside consultant.

The minister has painted himself into a corner on this issue, with the help of his Cabinet colleagues, and I'd like to offer them all a way out. Many people in Dawson, including the mayor, would like to see a full public disclosure of this whole situation. One way of doing that would be through an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, which would be expensive. So here's another option for the minister and his colleagues. If the municipal council of Dawson City decides to refer this matter to the Ombudsman under section 11.5 of the Ombudsman Act, will the minister give his guarantee today in this House that the hired supervisor from British Columbia will not deny Dawson's council the spending authority to do that?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Carrel will be doing the duties as outlined under the Municipal Act, and that is what he will be carrying forward.

Mr. Hardy:   Yesterday, the Minister of Community Services refused to provide details to this House about the new financial arrangement with the City of Whitehorse for the multiplex. Thanks to the media, but not to this government, Mr. Speaker, we finally have at least part of the answer we were looking for.

Now, my question is for the Premier as Minister of Finance. Is the additional $2 million to pay for the increased cost of the multiplex tender covered in the main estimates for 2004-05, or will there be a supplementary budget coming later in the sitting?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, I thank him for his question. I would like to advise him that we didn't provide identification of monies because I didn't want to spoil the issue at last night's council meeting for the City of Whitehorse. We are not having any monies put forth in the 2004-05 budget for this project.

Mr. Hardy:   The question was directed to the Minister of Finance, and I would appreciate it if he would answer a question that is directed toward him.

Now by all accounts, the meeting in the Premier's corner office on Friday afternoon was both rather large and rather stormy. Will the Premier confirm the published report that the government's original position was that the City of Whitehorse should come up with half of the money on its own and borrow the remainder from the Government of Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I would like to advise the member opposite that there were several negotiations taking place on Friday evening, and it took us awhile to come to a solution, but in the end we came to a solution that both parties could agree upon and take forward and make this valuable project for all Yukoners take place in the Yukon. This is a very important aspect for the City of Whitehorse and for the Yukon in general. We are going to have a very busy summer in the City of Whitehorse once the City of Whitehorse awards the contract — to a local contractor, I might add, who has a very big aspect here.

Mr. Hardy:   Basically, the Premier has refused to stand up. The other minister stood up and obviously didn't deny what I asked, so I have to assume that it's correct. Now it seems like only yesterday when this very same Finance minister was insisting that the Government of Yukon was getting out of the loans business. No more loans, period. Now there's a new policy. Loans are okay when the Premier says so, but they are not okay when he says they're not.

We could say the same thing about skyrocketing spending. When the Premier wants to spend, of course it's okay. They'll go for broke. Last year it wasn't okay. If the multiplex project goes over budget during construction — of which there is a great possibility, knowing these kinds of projects and how they work — what amount of tax dollars is the Premier willing to put on the table the next time the city comes and asks for help? Is there a contingency for that?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are working with the City of Whitehorse on this very issue. There is a contingency in the contract for an overage in the process. It is built in to their existing bid. We will be working very closely with them on that particular issue as they come by. Again, the issue here is to get the spade in the ground, get the dirt moving and get our people back to work here in the Yukon, especially for this upcoming summer.

Ms. Duncan:   In a newspaper story yesterday, the minister said that he is considering putting detox patients, mental health patients and seniors receiving physiotherapy all into the Thomson Centre at the same time, once it reopens.

Can the minister tell the House with whom he consulted prior to making this statement? Did he talk to anybody but himself?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The minister never said anything of the sort.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister is quoted in the paper. The Yukon Party's 2002 election platform states: the Yukon Party would "conduct genuine public consultation on matters of importance to Yukoners." Obviously the minister was not consulted when that part of the platform was developed. His idea of consultation reads more like, "Minister knows best and I hope you like what I have decided to do because that is what is going to happen."

Shortly after getting elected, he unilaterally dismantled the alcohol and drug secretariat. Consultation — none. Then he announced he was going to close Macaulay Lodge and move seniors out of their homes in the middle of winter. Consultation — none. Last month he announced the transfer of ambulance attendants to the Hospital Corporation. There was no consultation with ambulance attendants or the hospital board. Before another ministerial dictum comes down from above, will the minister commit to meaningful consultation with affected Yukoners on the future of the Thomson Centre?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The future of the Thomson Centre is very much in doubt because a previous administration failed to consult with the public on how best to address the issue, which was faulty construction. It was well-known that there were over $1-million worth of repairs necessary just for the roof alone.

We're still wrestling with the issue surrounding the construction of the building. We have yet to determine what will be occupying that building after it's back on track, but we're still a long way down the road, Mr. Speaker, before that can occur.

Currently we're at about $1.3 million for the repairs to the roof. We've just had a team of architects, engineers and seismic engineers into the structure and they've determined a great deal of other undertakings that are necessary.

Our budget, which is before the House right now, will identify the need for an additional $2.6 million, I believe it is, for repairs to this structure, which I'm sure the member opposite will vote against, because she does not want to see anything occurring in that structure.

Mr. Speaker, we're identifying with the needs of Yukoners and we're doing our level best to address the ills of the past.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have information for the member opposite. The time for blaming the previous government and the government before that is past. He has nowhere to look for his lack of consultation but in the mirror. He has failed to consult on Macaulay Lodge; he failed to consult on the alcohol and drug secretariat; he failed to consult with ambulance attendants; and he has not yet consulted with the Hospital Corporation, to which he may or may not intend to transfer both the Thomson Centre and the ambulance attendants.

It's a straightforward question. Will the minister answer it? Will he consult with Yukoners about the future use of the Thomson Centre? Will he commit publicly in this House today to actually listen to what Yukoners have to say and hear from them?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This budget is all about Yukoners. This budget is all about restoring investor confidence in the Yukon. This budget is all about consulting with Yukoners as to the future direction of the Yukon. This budget is a tremendous example of the efforts that our government has gone to — will be going to — to consult with all Yukoners to get this economy back on track, to address the issues of our health care system, our educational system, our justice system, the environment, mining — the full gamut.

Mr. McRobb:   Last week, we learned that Warren Buffet had dropped his plans to build the multi-billion dollar Alaska section of the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline. Buffet's company, Berkshire Hathaway, and its subsidiary Mid American Energy Holdings, saw the pipeline as a way to help invest some of the $36 billion of cash it held at year-end. This is a company that packs a lot of spending punch.

Buffet pulled out after Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski apparently didn't live up to their understanding.

Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us what he is doing to help the Yukon's interest with respect to these latest unfortunate developments?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   What we are doing is what we can do inside of the borders of the Yukon Territory. We started the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, which is up and running. It is hopefully going to Ottawa this weekend and raising some awareness of the issues here that are going to be front and centre when a pipeline comes. Our government is committed to doing that and we are going to lead the charge as of this weekend. We are very actively working with the Government of Alaska to address any issues we can address from our jurisdiction. We are certainly working with the producers, keeping abreast of their decisions and also, again, of how we can address some of the issues that they have in our jurisdiction.

As far as the Mid American Energy Holding's deal with the Alaska government, we certainly weren't part of that. Certainly it obviously was a decision made by a corporation that found that the timelines weren't available to them to make the proper decision and they made a corporate decision to back out.

As far as we as a government are concerned, that issue was a corporate decision and was a deal made between them and the Alaska government.

Mr. McRobb:   Soon after Buffet's pullout, Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation, owner of Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., announced that it is interested in building the state's leg of the pipeline. Yukoners will recall that Foothills used to have an office here. Further, whatever happened to establishing an office for the Northern Pipeline Agency? We know this minister spends a lot of taxpayer money on this pipeline. What has he done to bring those offices here?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly Foothills Pipe Lines is getting a higher profile here than they had in the past. They have First Nation representation locally. As far as what we are doing to encourage it, we certainly would encourage any corporation to set up an office in the Yukon but, again, those are corporate decisions. We certainly can encourage. We are working with the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, and you will see an office opening with them very soon. We are doing our homework as far as the pipeline is concerned.

Mr. McRobb:   It does not sound like we are getting a very big bang for our buck. I will be looking forward to following up on these matters with the minister in this sitting.

The Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Group was formed in September to further the interests of Yukon First Nations; however, at the time the Kluane, Carcross-Tagish, and Teslin Tlingit First Nations have not signed on to the group. We could not help but notice how the interests of the Kaska have been looked after. It has an agreement in principle that provides a liaison position, a strategy for training and environmental mitigation, in addition to an equity position on the proposed pipeline.

Can this minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that the interests of other First Nations are protected, as are the territories, in advancing our preparation for the eventual construction of this mega project?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There is a bit of misinformation out there regarding the facts of the Kaska agreement with Foothills. Again, that's another corporate decision made by Foothills Pipe Lines. We of course have been working with all nine First Nations on the route to address the concerns they would have as an aboriginal pipeline group. There are seven on board; there are two observer First Nations on this group. We're working toward a day when all nine will be sitting on the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, making decisions and working with their people to facilitate the building of this pipeline.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. Mr. Speaker, professionals in the field advise that the diesel engines are more reliable than the gasoline engines and, according to them, 4x4 ambulances are not needed, particularly here in Whitehorse. But the minister is buying gasoline 4x4 ambulances and, on top of that, is sole sourcing the purchase.

Yesterday in the House, the minister said this: "In the past, the government has sole sourced ambulances to that same firm." In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the past, according to the company, the government has tendered to them, but this year this minister decided to sole source the contract to them.

Why did the minister give direction to do away with the tendering process used in the past and sole source this contract? Why did he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I don't know where the member opposite is heading on this question. What we have had is virtually the same question three consecutive sitting days. The issue before us is that there were some serious problems with the volunteer and the Whitehorse ambulance service. Our government — the first government in a long time — has addressed the issues. They were the issue of training, the issue of uniforms, and the issue of the reliability of the vehicles; there was the request for four-wheel-drive vehicles.

Now all of these issues have been dealt with by our government, and some of the issues — like the honoraria paid to our volunteers hasn't been indexed since 1972 or 1973. We have done what any good government should have done, and we have done it, and we will continue to do what is the best for all Yukoners, especially in the area of the volunteers, who are so much appreciated for their efforts.

Mr. Fairclough:   For the third day in a row, the minister avoids answering the question directly. We can expect that from this minister in this House. Yesterday, again, Mr. Speaker, the minister said this, and I quote: "You have to go back quite a number of years to find the purchase of a new ambulance here in the Yukon." In fact, Mr. Speaker, at least seven new ambulances have been purchased by various governments since 1996. The minister, when in opposition, voted against every one of them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, by those comments yesterday, the minister misled the House yesterday. So would the minister like to correct —

Speaker:   It's unparliamentary to suggest another member is misleading the House. I would ask you not to do that. Please carry on.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That calls for a full-blown retraction, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   I think the Chair has dealt with it sufficiently. There is no point of order. Member for Mayo-Tatchun, please carry on.

Mr. Fairclough:   Obviously this issue is very touchy for the members opposite, standing up on a point of order when you already ruled. So I'd like to ask the minister if he would like to correct this false impression that he made yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I would construe that as being another point of order. There was nothing false about anything I said, and I would ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   For the Chair to recognize a point of order, one must stand up on a point of order. If the minister has a point of order, please stand up.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Standing Order 19(g), the Member for Mayo-Tatchun is imputing false or unavowed motives to another member of this House.

Mr. Fairclough:   On the point of order, all I asked is that the minister correct the false impression.

Speaker:   The Chair would like to review this, and I will report back to the House tomorrow.

The Member for Mayo-Tatchun, your question. You have about five seconds left.

Mr. Fairclough:   I did not think that your time would be cutting into my question.

I would like to ask the minister —

Speaker:   You have the floor.

Mr. Fairclough:   I have a few minutes, okay.

Neither ambulance fits into the bay used for them. The length of the new ambulances is 24 feet, and the bay is Ross River is 23½ feet. This minister says that it is okay, that the ambulances do fit. Now the cost of extending the ambulance bay in Ross River has been estimated between $40,000 and $80,000; that is the cost of a new ambulance. My question to the minister is: will he confirm his deputy minister's contention that there is no problem with the size of both ambulance bays?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On the issue of the ambulance length, the last time I heard it reported it was six feet longer than the current ones. The ambulances that are on order are 23 feet long. They're just over a foot longer than the present ambulances, Mr. Speaker.

There is the issue of height, and the request from Ross River was for a four-wheel-drive ambulance. The initial look and what was envisioned was converting one of the vans with an after-market four-wheel-drive conversion, which would have led to the height being higher than what a new four-wheel-drive ambulance type 1, with dual rear wheels and the box back, would have.

So we've identified what the sizes of the vehicle bays are and, yes, there's an issue with the heating ductwork in Ross River that has to be relocated, but it would have to be relocated for either size ambulance.

So the member is going to an area and causing needless repetition and debate in this House for nothing.

Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the Minister of Environment. Yukon First Nation chiefs have been making their opposition to the captive wildlife issues very clear. We know that the chiefs were extremely assertive in expressing their desire to be consulted.

First Nations believe that the proposed regulations breach their final agreements. Why has this minister chosen a course that did not meet the government's obligations under the First Nations final agreements?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I would remind the member opposite that the Umbrella Final Agreement obligations require that we consult with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. This was done well before the election and well into the mandate of the previous Liberal government. And I do recognize, of course, that we inherited rather quickly that issue after the shortest lived majority government in the history of Canada. We have concluded those, and we have extended it voluntarily to consult with First Nations chiefs. Perhaps the member opposite has not been reading the papers, but that is what we have been doing in the last number of weeks, and we will continue that good work.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, in spite of many warnings, the minister had simply ignored First Nations' input into the captive wildlife regulations. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier had to rescue the Minister of Environment from the reactions of many Yukon people. People are still confused about the mixed messages coming from this government. Will the minister confirm that the April 1 deadline for the regulations has been extended, and will he tell us what the new deadline is?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, I note with interest the phrase "rescue," and I'm not really sure how that enters into this whole thing. We've done such a terrible job, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Management Board that to date we have accepted all but three of their recommendations, and we hope in the near future that we will continue with the rest. Their primary recommendation was that we purchase the Yukon Wildlife Preserve. When that recommendation was made, the finances weren't there. It was set aside. It was not rejected. That's a phrase that has been invented by only one side of the House. We set it aside, and we are now dealing with those as circumstances allow, and we will continue to meet those recommendations where we can. But I would remind that member opposite that the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the renewable resource councils are completely in an advisory role — very valuable advice, very valuable advice to our government, to First Nations governments, but they never supplant the decisions of our government and the First Nations governments. The deadline has been extended.

Mrs. Peter:   The final agreements require the minister to meet publicly with First Nations leadership and the renewable resource councils. We understand that the minister has finally started holding these meetings with leadership and the renewable resource councils in the communities. Can the minister provide his assurance that these meetings will be public, and will he table a schedule of all public meetings he intends to conduct before he brings in any changes to those regulations?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Yes, the deadline has been extended. It will be extended to when it is necessary to complete these meetings. The meetings are ongoing. They have been ongoing, I would remind the member opposite, for over five years — five years. I think perhaps we have accomplished a great deal in terms of consulting. I ask the member opposite to give some thought to what she considers reasonable consultation. I think five years is reasonable.

Mr. McRobb:   I have another question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will he confirm what is being widely reported by real estate agents and others that we are about to see a major land sale in the territory starting April 1?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   On this side of the House, we would say yes, we would hope so, but I really do not get the question. Why is he asking the question on the land? Do you have a specific piece of land you want?

Mr. McRobb:   I'd like to remind the minister I'm not a member of the Yukon Party, so I don't put my own interests first. I'm not looking for any land.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order, order, order please. Although humorous, it's unparliamentary.

Please carry on.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like from the minister — and I asked him the question because he is the minister. A major land sale right now could have enormous implications down the road. It's easy to see how this could set off a frenzy of land speculation that hasn't been seen in Canada for 100 years.

If this government is thinking of allowing miners to gain title to their claims or outfitters to get title to some or all of their concessions, the potential for abuse is staggering.

Will he make a commitment right now that there will be no wholesale disposal of Crown land until regional land use plans are in place throughout the territory, as required under the First Nation final agreements?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   On this side of the House, we look at land use planning as a very important tool for the Yukon, but also economics enters into it. Economics is part of land use planning. If you don't have an economical plan for the land, how can you come up with a final land plan?

We certainly are proceeding with our dispositions in north Yukon on the oil and gas front. We're certainly looking at forestry in the Yukon. We're certainly looking at the mining community in the Yukon. There is agriculture.

So we are moving ahead as a government in a very positive way with land use planning and economic development.

Mr. McRobb:   I am sure if the minister had more time, he would have said, "And we are prepared to sell off whatever it takes — our children's heritage; whatever — to be able to reach that stage." That's not right, Mr. Speaker. We disagree with that philosophy.

Now, the Yukon has only had control of its lands and resources for a year, and already this government seems ready to sell off our heritage. Can the minister reveal what his plan is? Is this government planning to allow agricultural lease holders to double or even triple their holdings? And why weren't Yukon people consulted on this major change in policy?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think the member opposite — we understand what his side of the scenario is on development. I find it interesting that when the NDP was in government, he — who didn't have any interest in personal things — put a $4.5-million tax on the back of the ratepayers for increased diesel instead of using hydro power from Aishihik. That is no different — that is playing politics at the expense of the ratepayers of the Yukon, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Speaker:   Before we proceed to Orders of the Day the Chair will deliver its ruling on a point of order raised yesterday by the Member for Southern Lakes.

The Member for Southern Lakes argued that the leader of the official opposition had imputed false or unavowed motives to members of the Assembly who are responsible for appointing members of the public to boards and committees.

Standing Order 19(g) says, "A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if that member imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

In reviewing the Blues the Chair finds that the leader of the official opposition did not speculate on the motives of any individual member or members of the House. Rather, his criticism was cast more generally as a criticism of government practice. The Chair therefore rules that there was no point of order in that regard.

However the Chair would caution members, as he did yesterday, to choose their words carefully so as not to damage the reputation of persons who are not members of this House and cannot defend themselves against statements made in this House. The Chair accepts the statement of the leader of the official opposition that he had no intention of maligning anyone; however, members should keep in mind that their words and actions can have unintended consequences.

The Chair would also like to comment on the discussion that arose on the point of order. In responding to the issue the official opposition House leader asserted that there was no point of order. Other members have, in the past, made similar statements. When the Chair recognizes a member to speak to a point of order he is seeking advice about which rules or practices ought to be considered and how those rules or practices ought to be interpreted. Simply advising the Chair that there is, or is not, a point of order does not accomplish this.

Further, during his remarks the official opposition House leader also referred to the Member for Southern Lakes as a "rookie" and "thin skinned." Such remarks are not in order as they are disrespectful and can lead to disorder. Similarly, later in the day the Minister of Environment referred to the leader of the third party as "the leader of the last party." That is also a disparaging remark and is not in order. Members are to refer to one another by their recognized titles in this House.

On another matter both the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party used the phrase "contempt for the legislature" during second reading of Bill No. 9. As the Chair of Committee of the Whole pointed out in a statement on December 9, 2003, contempt for the Legislature is a specific and serious charge. Contempt for the Legislature is a finding that only the Assembly can make after consideration of a substantive motion to that effect. It is not a statement that members are free to interject into debate. The Chair appreciates that members have strongly held views that they wish to express. However, the use of the word ‘contempt’ in that context is not in order.

Mr. McRobb:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the official opposition to be called on Wednesday, March 31, 2004. The items are a bill entitled Act to Amend the Public Service Act, standing in the name of the leader of the opposition, and Motion No. 217, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to identify any items for discussion tomorrow afternoon.

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

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

Speaker leaves the Chair

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

The matter before the Committee today is Bill No. 9, Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05. Before we begin, do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will sit in recess for 15 minutes.

Recess

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 9, Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05.

Chair:  We will begin with general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be able to provide the Committee with some introductory comments on Bill No. 9, the Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05 before we move on to general debate.

This appropriation act is required to allow the public service to continue to make certain expenditures while the main estimates for 2004-05 are being considered by the Legislative Assembly during this spring sitting. The interim funding requested is for the period of April 1, 2004, until the end of June 2004. The total amount for which approval is sought is for $328,149,000 and is made up of capital expenditures amounting to $93,416,000 and O&M expenditures of $234,733,000.

The amounts required for this three-month period have been derived by canvassing all Yukon government departments to determine their minimal expenditure requirements for this three-month period. The amounts are significant, largely owing to the fact that a number of government-funded organizations, such as the hospital, Yukon College and some NGOs, receive the bulk of their grants in the first quarter of the year. In addition, a large percentage of the capital expenditures are made during this period. I look forward to debating this appropriation bill in the Legislature.

Mr. Hardy:   I look forward to asking a few questions around the interim supply bill, and I would also like to thank the Finance minister for finally getting it forward so that we can do that debate. As you know, we have waited a substantial amount of time, basically a month of delays, to get into this Legislature so we can do the public's business, debate a budget and debate finances. Now everybody knows what the interim supply bill is about. As the Finance minister has already articulated, it is basically to ensure that there are operating funds for NGOs, for corporations and for government day-by-day during the three-month period leading up to the end of the budget debate.

Where we have had some problems, of course, around this is just the approach that the Premier and his government have taken with the opposition in trying to do this. I do have some questions in regard to that because I would like to hear from the member opposite directly why he would be putting out a press release in regard to special warrants insinuating that the opposition was not going to work closely in passing the interim supply bill.

So my first question very simply is: why did he initiate this type of move in approaching the Commissioner to get a special warrant for a different sum of money in order to possibly threaten the opposition?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In the context and the spirit of raising the level of debate in the Legislature, I will not respond to comments like "threaten" and those types of things. What I will say is that the government side took the prudent course of action to ensure that the machinery of government had the necessary expenditures available beginning April 1.

I would also like to point out that it would not matter if we had come in to the Legislature on February 29 or when we did; we would still be debating an interim supply bill.

There is one more important factor, and this is very much about the democratic process. The government has taken its time, after extensive consultations with the public on the budgetary process, to go back out to the public to inform them exactly what their government was spending their money on.

Therefore, I submit that we have, in the highest regard for the integrity of this Assembly, better enabled our public to understand and to draw conclusions, now that they are informed, on the debate that transpires in this House.

So everything we've done is simply the prudent course of action and it's certainly lending itself, I believe, to challenging the opposition to be much more constructive in their debate.

Mr. Hardy:   That's very nice, Mr. Chair, that the minister would once again tell us to be more constructive in our debate, especially when it's after the fact that he has taken action that, in many ways, is a slap in the face to the democratic process. I could point it out very easily.

He talks about going out to the public. Did he go out to the public to raise this issue around how the special warrant should be used? Should a special warrant be used as a hammer to force in the interim supply bill? Did he ask the public that? Is that the question he asked the public?

I bet he didn't, but that's the action that was taken by this government. They went to the Commissioner and they got a special warrant signed off to follow the interim supply bill.

He also talks about the democratic process and working together. Did this minister approach the elected members of this House and the opposition and ask them? Did he ask them about the interim supply bill and what we would do with it? Did he approach or ask us about special warrants and if they were appropriate?

So I put it to this Legislature, Mr. Chair — did he do due diligence in that matter, or is he just spouting off a bunch of words?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think the best course of action for the government side to take here is to point out to the members opposite that, if we conclude debate on the interim supply bill and provide its passage, the special warrant is redundant.

So a lot of the points being made here are moot.

What we've done is taken the prudent course. The interim supply bill is before us. It's not an unusual piece of legislation or appropriation bill that we debate in this House. Historically, interim supply bills have been given virtually immediate passage.

I can understand that the opposition may be somewhat miffed that we have taken the time to inform the public because, in many cases, an uninformed public does not add to the democratic process.

I think this shows that this government clearly believes that being open and accountable to its public is of the utmost importance, and that is what we have done in this case. We are now here to give passage to the interim supply bill and look forward to moving on to the debate for the rest of the budget. This budget is an investment in Yukon's future — some $162 million in capital for this territory, creating jobs and benefits for Yukoners, not only with immediate stimulus but with investments that will link to the mid- and long-term economic development of the territory, the economic growth of the territory. The challenge for the opposition is: how do they vote against so many constructive measures in such a balanced budget?

Mr. Hardy:   I find it quite easy to answer that last question. It is basically a vote of confidence and, frankly, we on this side do not have any confidence in the people on that side. It is very easy to make that case. Look at the two budgets. Look at the two reactions to the economy of this territory. We go from extreme slash-and-burn techniques that hurt many people in this society, in the Yukon, and have really hurt many businesses and families. We swing over to a massive amount of spending that the minister himself has freely admitted is not sustainable. How can we support any kind of actions taken by this government when obviously their ability to put together consistent budgets that point to a future does not lend any confidence not just to us but to the public itself — and we have already seen the results of that through polling.

The minister once again says that he went out to the public. Well, the question is, if this is what he wants to keep saying, then tell me where he went out to the public and talked about the interim supply bill — because this is what we are debating here today. Where did he go out to the public and talk about the interim supply bill, and where did he go out to the public and say that it is all right, in 15 or 16 months, to bring in over $250-million worth of special warrants inappropriately? Where did he talk to the public? Do not sit there and say you did it; prove it.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   All right, Mr. Chair. Let me go through the list: Community Services, some $12,643,000 in capital. Much of that came from the public. We did go out to the public on that investment. When it comes to Department of Highways and Public Works, my goodness, Mr. Chair, some $50,821,000 was front-end loaded in the interim supply bill. We've all heard the third party argue continually for the need for a fall capital budget to keep the machinery of government constantly in the budget process.

We, again, taking the prudent course of action, Mr. Chair, have come forward with a way to ensure that our contracting community, such as our highway construction community, can tender, can go to work while we in this House debate what is one of the most significant budgets ever to be brought forward. Those are examples of going out to the public. These are items the public wanted to see. They wanted to see increases for Community Services, which, by the way, means villages like — for the Member for Kluane — Haines Junction, which will be receiving more in their base grant. For the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, the communities of Carmacks and Mayo will be receiving more money in their base grant. For our Member for Pelly-Nisutlin, the community of Teslin will be receiving more money in the base grant. That is talking to the public, Mr. Chair. All these initiatives, such as the base grants, came forward from the Association of Yukon Communities.

Now, let's look at some more facts. The leader of the official opposition has just stood on the floor of the Legislature and made a number of points: "extreme slash and burn" in the last budget. Well, Mr. Chair, that's not the case and everyone knows it. There was a gentle reduction of expenditure until we got our fiscal house in order. Now if the members would choose to look back and compare mains to mains, we would all quickly see what the accumulated surplus was for the last fiscal year.

It was $1 million and change.

Now let's look at the facts as to how we got here today. Let's fast-forward to today. Did we not do the undercount as a government, led by some very diligent and hard-working officials? Did we not as a government do the undercount and experience a $23-million turnaround in the transfer because the undercount showed clearly that the federal government owed us that money? In doing that, that also negated the need for a $15-million census contingency fund.

Let's add the two together — this is for the benefit of the members opposite, Mr. Chair. $23 million plus $15 million — all done in the last 12 months — has created $38 million more in general revenue for the Yukon Territory. So we've gone from a $1-million surplus, add $38 million and we are at $49 million of surplus. Then we go to a very misguided attempt at creating a Yukon permanent fund by the third party when in government. So we reversed that and put that back into general revenue. Now we are going from $49 million to $59 million.

Then, let's add in some other misguided trust funds that were doing absolutely no good for Yukoners; now they are — $162 million in capital investment in this budget. That reversal was some $1.5 million — that reversal. Now we are at $61 million. Then let's factor in the special health care fund of some $20 million. Add it all up. In 12 months, the government side, through its hard-working officials — their dedication and their commitment — and working with our MP and our Senator in Ottawa, by presenting them the case that we made, we have turned the financial situation in this territory around by $70 million. That has given us the ability to expand our expenditures, to deal with more demonstrated needs in this territory. We have addressed needs on the social side of the ledger. We have addressed needs on the development side of the ledger. We have created a balanced budget that is an investment in this territory now and in the future. We are proud of it.

Mr. Hardy:   Oh, wasn't that a sweet little speech from the Premier?

As a matter of fact, it was so sweet I was watching the other side, Mr. Chair, and I saw that the DM was blushing; the praise on him was so great. I don't know if the Premier is looking for another vote or not, but that's beside the point.

What I'd like to point out, though, is the 2002-03 actual of $78,514,000. Now, the Premier just went down and said, where did it all come from and how did he find 2003-04 forecasts of $70 million; 2004-05, $59 million. These are the resources and the surpluses.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Do some of the members on the other side want to speak? I'm quite willing to listen to those comments as well, but the point we have here, and what we're debating and talking about, is the interim supply bill. We will be talking about the budget very shortly and the way this was handled, and the treatment of the opposition and the treatment of the public and the inappropriate use of special warrants when they're not called for — over $250 million of special warrants in a little over a year by this government.

We have to remember that the Premier has stood in this House, time and time again, and challenged — I guess it was the previous Liberal Party — on their use of special warrants and called them to task on them. This Premier also has assured that he would not be doing that, but here we are today with a tremendous amount of money being used on special warrants.

I'd be very comfortable passing this interim supply bill, because I believe it serves a good purpose, but I do have a problem and I'd really like to have an explanation from the Premier — very simply — of why he felt it was necessary to have a special warrant applied to this and this amount.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again I point out that the speedy passage of the interim supply bill will make the special warrant redundant; it will not be needed. We took the prudent course, as I pointed out right at the outset of the debate with the leader of the official opposition, to ensure that all these constructive measures would not be delayed for any reason. We have not accused anyone of doing anything. This is not about treatment of the opposition; this is about a government doing its job. I also add to this the fact that now the public is much more informed, much better able to draw a conclusion on the debate in this House. That, I submit, raises the level of the debate that we all must conduct ourselves with.

Mr. Hardy:   I do not disagree with that comment, but the words here that the Premier has used — the "prudent course". This is the first time I understand that a special warrant has been brought in and used in this manner before an interim supply bill is passed. I would assume that the prudent course was based upon actions in the past or indications that there was going to be a problem with the passage of the interim supply bill; otherwise we would have just gone ahead normally and done as we see fit. So what is the justification? What was the reason? Where does the Premier get the idea that this would be a prudent course when, historically, interim supply bills have always been passed? I can assure the Premier that we would not have a problem, we do not have a problem, passing this bill.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I am glad to hear that. We are all on the same page. We pass the interim supply bill; the special warrant is redundant. So it is not really an item of debate here. I think the important items of debate are where we are going in this territory and how the opposition factors into that. The challenge for the opposition in going through the budget is: how do they vote against a million dollars more in the base grant for the College, how do they vote against $1.5 million in training trust for Yukoners — a half a million of that is for trades training, an obvious target given what is going on in the territory.

How do they vote against tax credits for small business and child benefits? How do they vote against extending the mineral exploration tax credit? And considering the projections for this year, this season, in the mining industry — some $30 million of exploration investment for this territory — how do they vote against a significant increase in our highway reconstruction, putting many Yukoners to work? Given how we are projecting into the future, these Yukoners can be working virtually year-round in this particular area.

How do they vote against multi-level care facilities for Watson Lake and for Dawson City, where a demonstrated need was addressed? How do they vote against increased expenditures at the hospital? How do they vote against increased expenditures for health care for Yukoners? How do they vote against opening up more beds in Copper Ridge and Macaulay Lodge and taking care of our seniors and others who are in need in this territory? And how do they vote against the indicators that are showing clearly that the territory, through the efforts of so many Yukoners, including the government, is heading in a more positive direction? I say that because the GDP has increased; real estate is up; we have an unemployment rate that is down in the single digits; we have projections of increased mining exploration, of increased oil and gas exploration.

We have created a sense of optimism, which was very important, and we are, most certainly, Mr. Chair, by showing our fiscal management and prudence, creating a climate of certainty for the investment community, which is looking more and more to this territory as a place to invest. That's what we were elected to do. That is what we are doing. The challenge for the opposition is: are they with us, are they with Yukoners, or are they against Yukoners?

Mr. Hardy:   I think that's a fairly aggressive final statement. It reminds me of George Bush's comments after he decided that he wanted to go to war. He basically put people in an extremely difficult situation based on philosophical and moral principles.

How do you vote against? Ask the Minister of Health. He never voted for a single budget in all the years that he was in opposition. I think that was close to seven years. How do you vote against? Maybe he needs to stand in front of the mirror — the Premier himself — and ask why he never voted for a single budget when many of these same items have been in other budgets. Very simple — a vote of confidence. We do not have confidence in these people across the way and it hasn't been indicated to us yet that they know what they are doing.

The two budgets and the way they've been brought down already, the negative impacts that they have had on the economy make it very, very difficult for us to support a budget in its whole. That does not mean we will not stand here and recognize and praise some of the initiatives that this government has done. There are some very good ones, but I am not asking the questions around that at the moment. We will be moving into that debate later on.

Now, a very simple question in regard to special warrants, once again: can we expect this to be the norm from now on since the Premier has already indicated that this is a prudent action? Now do we have to assume that for the next couple budgets — possibly the supplementaries as well — we are going to see a special warrant attached to every one of them?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We as a government will continue to take the prudent course of action. We will continue to take a course of action that is in the best interest of Yukoners and their future.

Mr. Hardy:   There's nothing like a non-answer. That's very common in here. How are we supposed to work together when one side refuses to answer the question from the other side?

How are we supposed to? How are we supposed to? It's very simple.

I have a question about the special warrant. The figures on the interim supply — this is a number question and should be easy to answer for the minister opposite. The interim supply is $328 million; a special warrant was $223 million. Could the minister explain the difference, please?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The difference is the difference between a one-month special warrant and three-month interim supply.

Mr. Hardy:   So then the minister assumed the interim supply would have passed within a month?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I would remind the member opposite that taking the prudent course of action is never assuming anything.

Mr. Hardy:   Then I would like to remind the Premier that the prudent course of action would have been to ensure that the special warrant would have covered the three months to ensure the passage of the budget.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I think where the member is going here is that he's signalling we should have brought in a three-month special warrant because they may filibuster the interim supply bill.

Mr. Hardy:   No, I believe I'm just reminding the minister opposite, the Premier, that prudence means you would have covered the whole shebang, just in case.

I'm going to wrap up. Those are most of my questions in regard to this, other than I would like a little more detail on some of the capital if the minister just wants to run down a few things there. I'd be quite happy to see where some of the money is being spent.

I went through the O&M and it looks fairly clear to me. I just need some of that clarification on some of the capital.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In the documentation, there is no finite detail; it is in lump sums. The money that will address block fund transfers to municipalities, funding agreements or contributions to NGOs, capital projects that are being bid on and can commence, is front-end loaded. Those are the types of things. Of course, wages, salaries, those types of things. But if the member would wish more finite detail, I am sure the department can provide some listing, but for now it is merely totals of monies front-end loaded to capture where these expenditures are required on April 1.

Mr. Hardy:   I appreciate the offer. I would like some more detail on these, and I am willing to move on.

Ms. Duncan:   I just have a couple of questions for the Finance minister. Would the Finance minister indicate yes or no: was he advised by his House leader that he had had a discussion with me and that I had committed to pass the interim supply?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have had many discussions. This team provides a great deal of advice for people like me, our ministers and others. However, a decision was made by the government to inform its public in a much more detailed way and to take the prudent course of action, which we have done. This, frankly, has no reflection on what the leader of the third party has done or did not do. It was a decision made by this collective, and that is how we govern.

Ms. Duncan:   I would take it from that answer that the House leader did not inform the Finance minister of that commitment.

Special warrants — for the benefit of the listening audience, I would just like to discuss very briefly with the minister, and I have a very specific question. Essentially, money expenditures, taxpayer money, has to be voted on in this Legislature, has to pass the Legislature before it's spent. The Legislature, in effect, is the signature on the cheque, if we're going to compare it to everyday household terms. And I see the Finance minister nodding.

In the event that the Legislature is not sitting, the government goes to the Commissioner and asks for a special warrant to be passed. That can be done when the Legislature is not sitting, and the circumstances should be very carefully considered by the government before a special warrant is used. We have all agreed on that in this House, and it's stated in the Financial Administration Act. In effect, the special warrant is a signing of a cheque. It's done; the money's gone. The money has been spent. It has been signed off by the Commissioner. The departments have the authority to go ahead and spend it.

How, then, does a special warrant become redundant? Will the minister explain how a special warrant is becoming redundant? Is he going to go to the Commissioner and say, "No, you don't have to sign it; we want that cheque back?" How does it become redundant?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, given the fact that the government side has the highest regard for this Assembly, the passage of the interim supply bill overrides the special warrant. It's as simple as that. We are here right now debating an interim supply bill that will give spending authority to these allocations of funds. But, as I stated earlier, we have taken the prudent course to ensure that municipalities get their money, that government employees get their money, that capital projects are being funded. This is no reflection again on what the opposition may or may not do. It was a decision made by the government, but we see no problem with passing the interim supply bill and ensuring that the special warrant is, in fact, redundant, because it will not be needed.

Ms. Duncan:   The Finance minister missed the point. The money has already been spent. He can't say, "Oh, we didn't mean to spend that $223 million; we are actually going to spend $328 million." It's gone. The money has been spent. The fact is the Premier either wasn't told or refused to listen to the fact that there was a commitment by this side of the House, made in front of witnesses. We were fully prepared to pass the interim supply bill. He refuses to recognize that, in fact, money is spent with the authority of this Legislature and that special warrants should be used in special circumstances, as outlined in the Financial Administration Act. What he is not recognizing is: (a) the authority and responsibility of every member of this Legislature in thoroughly discussing taxpayers' money, and (b) his own arrogance in not recognizing —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I use that term knowing full well that it may incite disorder, in which case I will withdraw it. I would ask that the Chair recognize that that was made because members of this side, certainly speaking for myself, feel a very strong responsibility to fully scrutinize taxpayers' money before it's spent. Before it is cashed, it should be discussed and it should be voted on.

An interim supply is recognized as "Go ahead with these projects; we want to keep government moving." I only wish that the Premier would recognize that all members of this House have a responsibility, including the opposition, and I viewed it, as did others, as a very threatening statement — not prudent but threatening — the use of the special warrant.

I believe that the minister should recognize that that's the way his words issued under his authority were viewed.

He did not show the respect that should be afforded all members of the Legislature, not just the members on that side.

I am concerned about the expenditures. I look forward to their full debate in the Legislature, and they will be fully debated. The interim supply bill should be passed. It will be passed. I committed to doing that. I am also going to put on the record the way the government's actions have been viewed, not solely by members on this bench, on this side of the House, but members in the public as well. It is not about making a special warrant redundant. It is about the fact that the government, content in its majority and with disregard for full and thorough debate, went ahead and spent the money anyway. That is what happened.

Chair:   Members of the Assembly, I would just like a moment here to remind members that in addition to not being able to do something by way of indirect comment that they could not do directly, as was discussed earlier by the Speaker, it is also inappropriate for members to make a statement and then immediately seek the indulgence of the Assembly for knowingly breaking our Standing Orders. We are here to conduct the people's business in a civil and straightforward manner. We have all agreed to the Standing Orders that govern our behaviour in this Assembly, and I would ask all members to pay attention to our Standing Orders, to follow them, and to engage in vigorous, thorough debate and to conduct the people's business in the manner in which they expect us to conduct it.

Thank you for your attention.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I must first begin by saying, personally, I'm quite humbled by the scope of the challenges that are faced by this territory and its citizens. Having said that, I would point out to the leader of the third party that not one nickel has been spent — not five cents has been spent. If the member would please take the time to look at the special warrant, the member would quickly realize that it comes into force and effect April 1 of 2004; therefore I submit, Mr. Chair, nothing has been spent.

We are here this afternoon debating the interim supply bill, and if it is passed we will not need this special warrant. Then on April 1, with the passage of the interim supply bill, fully debated by the members opposite, having been scrutinized by this Assembly, we are going to begin allocating the funds that are contained within the interim supply bill.

So I just want to try to get to the point where the member and I can debate on the basis of what it is we are doing. No money has been spent to date for the fiscal year 2004-05, and the special warrant does not come into effect until April 1, 2004. If we give passage to the interim supply bill here today, the special warrant is redundant.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, in your cautionary comments — which I appreciate — you essentially asked us to conduct ourselves in a manner in which we would wish to be treated: do unto others as you would be done by.

I would appreciate the Premier recognizing that no member on this side of the House needed to have a special warrant held over our heads, as was done; that the minister had a commitment from me, and we've seen that one member does have the ability to deal with business in this House — that he had a commitment made in front of witnesses that we would pass the interim supply. There was absolutely no need to hold this heavy, heavy, heavy hand — which was not prudent — over the opposition parties.

And to do so, it is not raising the level of debate; it's not conducting ourselves in the manner in which we wish to be treated, and I would ask that, at a minimum, he publicly recognize that that's how that action that he deems prudent has been seen not just by members of the opposition but by the public as well. It is not the manner in which to treat a colleague in this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, again, I point out that what the government has done in this particular process is no reflection on what the opposition benches would or would not do or are doing. It is not being held over their heads whatsoever. It does not come into force and effect until April 1, which gave the opposition ample time to discuss, debate and give expeditious passage to the interim supply bill. So I just put that on the record so that the public understands what it is that has taken place. There is not much we on the government side can do about the unwarranted feelings expressed by the member opposite, but we did take the prudent course.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? Hearing none, we'll now proceed with line-by-line debate. At this point, if any member wishes to request unanimous consent to deem all votes read or carried, that might be appropriate.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I would respectfully request that in order to expedite the business of the House, we deem all clauses, schedules and the title of Bill No. 9 read and carried.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of Committee to deem all clauses, schedules and the title of Bill No. 9, Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, read and carried.

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:  Division.

Chair:   There is no division on this. We're asking unanimous consent to deem all lines read and carried. Do we have unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   I believe the ayes have it. Unanimous consent has been granted.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, be reported without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, be now moved out of Committee without amendment.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Mr. Rouble:   The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, and directed me to report it without amendment.

Speaker:   You have heard the report of the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Speaker:   I declare the report carried.

Clerk:   Third 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 third time and do pass.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 9, entitled Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05, be now read a third time and do pass. Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, 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. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 16 yea, nil nay.

Speaker:   I declare that Bill No. 9 has passed this House.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 10, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie. Adjourned debate, the Hon. Mr. Kenyon.

Speaker:   I believe you have 11 minutes left.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I believe that is correct.

Again, it's my pleasure to rise to speak to the budget — a very large budget and a very good one for all Yukoners, for Porter Creek North and for the Department of Environment, Mr. Speaker.

Among some of our initiatives, the Department of Environment has identified $30,000 in new funding for the 2004-05 budget concerning electronic waste management, or e-waste. It was interesting to note yesterday that the leader of the official opposition referred to this as $15,000. In review, I find that the $15,000 was referred to in the small summary handout, but he only read the summary.

Electronic waste includes desktop and portable personal computers, printers, television sets, photocopiers, some types of music equipment, electronic components. Most people don't realize that the average computer monitor or the average small television contains over two and a half pounds of lead and it's important that we deal with this.

One of the problems in the past has been that there have been very few ways to deal with this, but now that we have some very distinct ways to recycle that material, this will be shipped out. We're doing this in conjunction with Highways and Public Works, Raven Recycling, computers for schools, and we're partnering with a larger group of people to get the biggest bang for the buck on that.

Another innovative project in the Department of Environment is taking on the production of a hunter education meat-cutting instructional video. We've identified $15,000 for this. Meat wastage is a contentious issue with our wildlife and the judicious use of our wildlife, and so it's important that we address this. It's estimated every year that many kilograms of meat is wasted, and we have to look at ways of doing this much better.

Another item, which I notice the leader of the third party has identified accurately, is our board game — a Department of Environment oriented board game that can be used in schools, with children and with adults. This is something that has been in the proposals of the Department of Environment for over 12 years, Mr. Speaker. Every government has allowed this to drop off the table. It's important that we develop this and it's important that we finally do this production, so we've allowed for that in the budget.

We're always looking for engaging ways and new ways to try to work with our students and with our youth, and this is certainly a good way to do it.

In the 2004-05 budget year, $5,000 will be used for the initial development and writing, and that will occur again in the next year for the final design, layout and printing.

Our department is taking an integrated resource-management approach, working with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to manage the territory in order to mitigate impacts from development and to allow responsible development to proceed. To simply declare everything as being not permitted is not the way to encourage business to come into this territory, so we will continue to work with this in a very broad manner.

The Yukon protected areas strategy — a very flawed process, with the best of intentions in its beginning — certainly remains dead, but we will approach this whole thing from a biodiversity aspect to preserve the biological diversity of all types within the territory. We have been working very closely with a number of non-governmental organizations, such as the World Wildlife Fund and others, in order to develop this.

One thing that bothers me greatly, though, is that some of the members opposite have been complaining that there is no emphasis on environment, and I would remind them — particularly the leader of the official opposition, if he goes back to the summary sheet, which he obviously read — of the $21,127,000 for Environment, $15,123,000 for Economic Development. This government has put more money in the Department of Environment than it actually did in Economic Development, so if they want to look at it strictly in a dollar-and-cents manner, there are the facts. The reality, of course, is quite different. The reality is that by working creatively, we give a high priority to both. It is interesting to take the facts strangely and not simply look at the short summary sheets coming up with the wrong data and giving the Coles' notes version.

There was a comment the other day, too, that referred to several million dollars from trapping. And I agree, Mr. Speaker, that we have to do what we can to promote the trapping industry. The promotion of Yukon's soft gold has really allowed us a market for many more furs and many more skins than we can produce. This is something that we're actively working on with the First Nations and we're actively working with renewable resource councils to do that. But really, Mr. Speaker, last year, $170,000 was the figure for fur sales in the territory, not several million. I wish it were. I'd love to take credit for that. We're projecting up to $250,000 next year, or a 47-percent increase. Perhaps with a lot of diligent work from all levels and orders of government, we can do much better than that.

What bothers me the most, though, are two comments that come out of the leader of the third party. Our lone Liberal has made the comment that our Liberal Member of Parliament has been responsible for all of this, and I find that very disrespectful to some of the very talented, hard-working officials within the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Statistics, and particularly our director of statistics. They have done a superior job in identifying areas and identifying things that have brought an enormous amount of money into this territory. I'm surprised that our leader of the third party isn't aware of this, but perhaps that's indicative of the fact that they, for one reason or another, didn't really see the reason to tell her that. It bothers me most, however, that she has already stated in this House publicly that she will not vote for the budget — no debate, not going to listen to any of that, not going to take any information. I don't know why we're doing briefings for the third party, because she has already said she's going to vote against it.

I have difficulties with that. The definition of "consultation", the definition of "debate", the definition of "good government" is that we debate things in the House; we discuss them and we question them — or at least we're supposed to. For someone to come out on the very first day and say, "Absolutely not — won't support it," I find that distressing, to put it mildly.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I again commend this budget to the House — the largest budget that has ever been presented in this House and one that will see an excellent rebound of the economy of this territory, and we look forward to the coming years. After we finish with this, we certainly look forward to our second mandate.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I rise today to speak to the budget before us of 2004-05. It is with great pleasure that I am able to say a few words on our government's behalf.

I'd just like to start by saying a great big thank you to all the officials within our departments of Tourism and Culture and Justice for all their hard work and for their diligence, and for bearing with all of us in helping us come through on many of our platform commitments made during the election, and also responding to some of the very dire needs within our communities today and addressing some of the social challenges that face Yukoners at large.

This budget is reflective of who we are as a government. We certainly have exercised fiscal prudence on behalf of all Yukoners over the last year and, as a result, we've been able to come up with the additional funding to make some of these very important commitments come to fruition.

I would like to extend a large thanks to the Department of Finance in particular for their hard work and due diligence in this regard.

Certainly a lot has happened over the almost a year and a half since we were elected. It has been a very busy time indeed, and it has taken a lot of initiative and a lot of work on everyone's behalf, but in general I think there is a sense of optimism in the Yukon today that we are turning a page in Yukon's history, we are approaching a new era of economic prosperity, and certainly optimism, on the social front. I think this budget is very clearly reflected in the sense that we have been able to address some of these very important issues of importance to all Yukoners today.

I would just like to somewhat reiterate what has been said already by some of my colleagues on some of the economic indicators. As you know, we were elected on a platform that primarily had to do with getting the economy going. I am happy to say that over the last year and a half, the population in the Yukon has started to increase. In December 2003, Yukon's population was 30,255; that is an increase of 295 individuals over December 2002. Unemployment has dropped to single digits again. In February of this year, Yukon's unemployment rate was 7.5 percent compared to that of 10.2 percent a year ago. Real estate transactions have increased. During the fourth quarter of 2003 alone, transactions increased by 17 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2002. Mining exploration in the Yukon is expected to exceed $30 million this year.

Of course, exploration in 2003 — a year ago — reached $13 million. Again, it's a very clear indication of where we are heading.

Forestry — thanks to the good efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, we were actually able to release some 80,000 cubic metres of wood in southeast Yukon. That is the first wood released in southeast Yukon since 2001, as I understand.

Of course, that was certainly based on one of the recommendation of the Kaska Forest Resources Stewardship Council to release this timber. This council's mandate, of course, is to develop a regional forest management plan and make recommendations to government on interim wood supply. That was created through a memorandum of understanding signed by Canada, Yukon and the Kaska First Nation. So, it's another good indicator that we are on the move.

Of course, when we talk about the oil and gas sector, Yukon is extremely fortunate to carry significant oil and gas reserves in eight sedimentary basins. The Kotaneelee field in southeast Yukon, for example, remains Yukon's sole producer, with two wells that have been in production for decades — an annual production, I might add, that has been estimated at between $8 million and $10 million.

Devon, as the minister pointed out in his Budget Address, is planning a drilling project that is a new well from an existing location. This project alone is estimated to be worth about $10 million and is expected to create anywhere from 30 to 50 jobs alone for contractors both on and off location.

Tourism is yet another bright, shining light on the economic horizon. It has been shining but it is shining even more these days. The signs are there. I am very optimistic about this upcoming tourism season. As we speak, I should point out that Holland America, for example, is planning to reopen the Klondike Inn this operating season, creating some 45 additional jobs.

And while Westmark hotel bookings are up by 17 percent over last year, their cruise traffic is seeing an even stronger return, in the 20- to 25-percent range.

Mr. Speaker, I share this optimism. In speaking with a number of tour operators over the last couple of months, we certainly are very encouraged that the signs of a good tourism season are there. We are hoping that not too many unexpected, unforeseen circumstances such as what hit our country last year will be here again. Rather, we hope to expand upon our tourism season, grow the tourism industry, and I think that this budget will help do just that.

When we talk about tourism, as I have had many discussions over the last year with our Tourism Industry Association, tourism is not just about marketing what we have; it's about building product, it's about developing our product here in the territory, it's about growing tourism, it's about attracting people, visitors alike and encouraging residents alike to enjoy what we have here.

I think that not just within our Department of Tourism and Culture but throughout this budget, there are a number of exciting initiatives that I'm really proud to be here to expound upon. When we talk about product, we talk about a number of initiatives, from the extension of the waterfront trolley to the Chilkoot Centre this summer — an investment of $425,000 alone — and we talk about the preservation of the roundhouse, a commitment that was made during the election and something that we're pleased to be coming through on.

There are a number of announcements I have made over the last month on tourism, in particular, and I'll just take a little bit of time to go through them again. One was a new tourism cooperative marketing fund in the amount of $500,000. That's reflected here in this budget. This fund is something that the Tourism Industry Association, among other initiatives, had requested back to our office in late 2003. This is an initiative we're very proud to see come through.

The fund is aimed at individual tourism operators and groups to cost share in creative and innovative tourism marketing programs, tactics and campaigns that directly generate awareness and interest in the Yukon as a travel destination.

What's particularly rewarding about this fund is that it will help encourage visitors from all over to stay that extra day. In fact, we want them to stay more than one day; we want them to stay for a week, for weeks on end. This fund will help tour operators and tourism organizations, governments alike, to do just that.

In turn, this fund will help leverage additional funds from other sources of revenue. For every dollar that will be put up by the private industry, we will match that fund. So effectively what we're talking about here is not just a $500,000 fund but a $1-million fund. That will probably have far more reaching effects than just the $1 million.

We're very pleased to partner with industry in this respect and we look forward to working with industry on further defining the terms of reference and how this fund will be rolling out here in the next couple of months.

In addition to this new fund, I am also pleased to announce the increased funding of $100,000, bringing it up to almost $200,000, to product development. That is also reflected here in the 2004-05 budget. As I was just explaining, product development is not simply marketing, but it is placing investments in our existing businesses today to help them build their product, to help market their market, to help build that niche capacity in those markets that we have the ability to focus in on and capitalize on as a destination of choice for all.

Our efforts to increase product development have simply been guided by the product development strategy and an implementation plan, both of which were developed in consultation with the tourism industry through our senior marketing committee. This increased funding will be invested primarily in capacity building, niche product development and educational workshops. So again we will be looking very forward to working with industry toward this end.

This government, when we do see a good product — whether it was an initiative of the previous NDP government or the previous Liberal government — we will take ownership, but we will also pay tribute where tribute is due. The gateway cities initiative was brought in by the previous Liberal government, and it was a very successful initiative. We are continuing with that initiative and building on it with an additional $100,000. It is another marketing tool to enhance and raise awareness about the Yukon and help visitation to our gateway cities of Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver.

Of course, the tourism industry and Air North have both been very instrumental to its success, and we're pleased to continue our partnership with Air North. We're also pleased to welcome Zip into the program for the very first time.

Along with the investment of these new marketing dollars, the government will also be spending over $400,000 on a new visitor exit survey. This survey is something that industry had urged our government to proceed with. Visitor exit surveys have traditionally been held every five years. They serve to provide information to tourism businesses to make sound business decisions to successfully compete in a global marketplace.

This survey will be held throughout the Yukon and will provide approximately 30 different jobs in the Yukon this summer. So again, it is another very integral part of marketing; it helps us complete research-driven marketing and will be a very integral force in helping us redefine and define our marketing programs here in the near future.

I just wanted to refer to some comments from the leader of the third party yesterday. It's truly unfortunate, but she said, "Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed when I looked at this budget about the short shrift given to the Department of Tourism. There's not one new innovative, thoughtful program, not one program that is going to demonstrate for Yukoners a return on investment."

It's very unfortunate that she can't even recognize that one of the programs we are expanding upon was actually one of her own programs. Clearly the leader of the third party — it's not so surprising because she had so much confidence in the Department of Tourism that she shredded that department and put that department into what became the Department of Business, Tourism and Culture.

So she actually effectively removed the Department of Tourism, removed some of those programs, and unfortunately that was not very well received by industry. That is exactly why we made the commitment to reinstate the Department of Tourism and Culture, and I believe that I'm very proud to be a part of the government that recognizes tourism as an economic engine in the territory, a real driver. That was one of the first things that our government did — to reinstate the Department of Tourism and Culture.

It is unfortunate that the leader of the third party does not recognize some of these initiatives that we have announced as a good thing. I'll just relay to the members opposite about — this is actually captured in a news release from the Tourism Industry Association Yukon on March 23, and it says, basically, in December 2003, TIA Yukon submitted a wish list, including cooperative marketing funds, investment into product development, and the necessity of closing the five-year loop with a 2004 visitor exit survey. The TIA Yukon president goes on to say, "We have just seen a reflection of our advocacy efforts in this announcement and thank the Minister of Tourism and Culture for considering industry's needs and working so hard to ensure that industry has had a voice at the table." It pays a lot of attention to our cooperative marketing fund and how it will enable industry to come to the table with their own money and propose and conduct marketing activities in the marketplace. It talks about the importance of the visitor exit survey, how it's vital to the research needed to best understand our visitors, their interests and travel motivators.

So I'm very proud to be able to work with the tourism industry, and I believe that we have been able to foster a very positive relationship over the last year, and it's simply by listening and taking time to understand the needs of industry and by responding to the needs of industry. That's exactly what we have just done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that we have been able to capitalize on. Diversity of our tourism interests in the Yukon includes not only marketing interests, heritage interests, but, of course, also our vibrant arts community. I am very proud to be part of a team that is very supportive of the cultural sector in the Yukon. This is demonstrated not only in our awareness of the distinct needs of the cultural sector as a source of community recreation and professional fine art, but as an economic engine that is alive and growing well in the territory.

Just as our artists and cultural programs are becoming increasingly well-known across our country, so too is our reputation as a region of Canada where the cultural sector is valued.

According to a report that was released back in January of this year by Stats Canada, spending per person by the Yukon government was approximately $421, the highest of any provincial/territorial government in the country. That speaks volumes regarding our commitment to the cultural sector as an economic engine in our territory.

I refer to our decision to support the training in the heritage sector through the creation of a heritage training trust fund. I also refer to our decision to renew the cultural industry training trust fund to help build the capacity of cultural industry entrepreneurs to produce better products and services and to increase their business.

I also refer to initiatives such as $150,000 coming out of the community development fund to support the $500,000 technical upgrade to the Yukon Arts Centre. Thanks to that particular funding, new equipment will not only enable the centre to serve artists, organizations and audiences, but will also create an inventory of decommissioned equipment to various community facilities, including the Guild theatre, the Klondike Institute of Arts and Culture, Porter Creek Secondary School, and the St. Elias Convention Centre.

I am also very proud of our government's contributions to Yukon's sound recording industry. During this fiscal year alone, our government has supported RAIYA alone, through the arts fund, through the cultural industry's training trust fund, and through the community development fund, to the tune of just under $120,000. On top of that are individual applications to these various funds, advanced artists and lotteries. Our department is also pleased to provide RAIYA with some $100,000 toward stay-another-day initiatives, to help sponsor performing artists and events hosted throughout each of our communities, encouraging them to stay that extra day or week, which I would like.

The film industry is very important to the growth of our economy. We recognize the very economic benefits that accrue to the territory from immense film activity here in the Yukon. Whether it may be shooting a commercial for Home Depot in Dawson, filming a documentary on the Blue Fish Caves in Old Crow or producing a major feature film, Yukon continues to draw increased attention as a place to do business, to film and to invest. Film potential in the Yukon is tremendous, to say the least, and the economic spinoffs to hoteliers and suppliers, especially during the winter season, is next to none. Our government recognizes this potential and has demonstrated it with an injection of $675,000 toward film and sound recording development.

Preserving and protecting our museums was a priority identified in our election platform. We have historic resources of enormous significance to the Yukon and the world. As a case in point, we have seen a great deal of local and national media interests in Beringia resources especially, with the international mammoth conference held in Dawson City last summer.

The Alaska anthropological conference will be held in the Yukon this spring; ice-patch research continues to attract worldwide attention, whether it be from CNN or the Smithsonian Institute; and archaeology of the Blue Fish Caves, to name but a few initiatives.

So preserving our resources for both present and future has far-reaching impacts. One of the ways we're working together to preserve and protect our heritage resources in the Yukon is through the development of the Yukon museum strategy. The work of the department has been helped tremendously by a great input from our heritage community, including our museums, our cultural heritage centres, First Nations and, of course, the Yukon Historical and Museums Association — a big thank you to all those various stakeholders for their input.

The government has also made progress in providing significant resources to museums and the heritage community. I'd just like to point out a study that was done in 2002 to assess the economic impact of our heritage institutions. It was found that over $3 million in direct spending was earned, employing some 39 person years — indeed, another economic engine in our territory.

Last year in response to our election platform, our government introduced new flexibility in our funding that better meets the operational requirements of each of our museums. At the same time, we also expanded the eligibility list for museums to include the Binet House in Mayo, the Northern Lights Centre in Watson Lake, the Campbell Regional Interpretive Centre in Faro, and the Miles Canyon Historical Railway Society here in Whitehorse.

I'm also pleased that this budget contains a new funding program that will assist the operational needs of First Nation cultural centres.

Within this particular announcement, we have identified up to $220,000 in operational funding to our existing four cultural centres in the territory. Along with that announcement, we have also made the commitment to initiate or to reinstate a position of First Nations heritage worker in the Department of Tourism and Culture, as a position that will help work with each of the First Nation governments in developing their First Nation products but also in helping develop their cultural centres as certainly a place to visit and also a place to reflect each First Nation's culture.

I am also pleased that the archival advisor program continues to thrive with substantial interest in this service continuing in both First Nation and museum archival programs. Our government is also pleased to participate in the Canadian historic places initiative and the Canadian register of historic places.

We are also working very closely with our museum community in support of education tourism initiatives such as stay-another-day program, the north to knowledge product club and passport program, which help showcase our collective heritage for Yukoners and visitors alike. Walking tour brochures and joint initiative ad campaigns that include the Whitehorse placemat campaign are additional initiatives that our department continues to work with in conjunction with our heritage sector.

Mr. Speaker, whether it may be our museums, art galleries or cultural centres, the cultural industries do have a very important role to play in generating revenue and pursuing their primary mandate of preserving and interpreting our culture. There is a real pride in the fact that we do have a very strong presence of arts and culture here in our communities, of which our government is very pleased to offer recognition and support by way of programs and various initiatives.

Again, reflected in this budget are ongoing commitments to the arts fund worth $500,000; Yukon artists' award, $80,000; Yukon arts planning program, $425,000; our commitment to core funding to KIAC, $250,000; $200,000 for stay-another-day initiatives and arts and culture products, services and events; decade of sport and culture, $200,000 — finding ways to capitalize on the development of our culture in preparation for the Canada Winter Games events leading up to and thereafter.

Of course, yet another exciting initiative is that of the Whitehorse waterfront development. As the Minister of Tourism and Culture, I believe the waterfront is probably the most important development for Whitehorse in this decade and perhaps the next.

Once the waterfront is developed, it will have an enormous impact on residents and visitors alike, and it will influence how current and future generations relate to their city, and it will be a major attraction for visitors.

Like successful projects such as Granville Island in Vancouver, Toronto's Distillery Historic District, or the Winnipeg forts, the inclusion of arts, cultural industries and heritage will only serve to create both economic and social vitality on the waterfront.

So our government recognizes the very importance of the inclusion of cultural industries and looks forward to working with the respective governments and all economic sectors in realizing the great potential and opportunity that we do have here in our Whitehorse waterfront.

I wanted to go on to my other portfolio, the Department of Justice — a very important portfolio and one that I spend a lot of time on and am committed to.

I just refer back to some comments made yesterday by members of the opposition about how the operation and maintenance budget has gone up significantly, how this government has been spending a whole lot more on running government.

You know, you are right. In Justice, O&M has gone up; in fact, it has been increased by 3 percent, representing an increase of just over a million dollars from the 2003-04 forecast. Of this increase, $592,000 more will be spent on policing services in the Yukon from the 2003-04 forecast. So I have to wonder if members opposite are saying that we should not be investing money in our police. Perhaps members opposite are saying that we should not be investing in dollars toward victim services, the family violence prevention unit, on contract services for training, clinical supervision services, or how about money toward legal aid or aboriginal courtworkers. Are members saying that we should not be proceeding with the implementation of the adult protection and decision-making legislation, legislation that was passed by all members of the Legislature last fall?

A total of $3,690,000 will be spent on transfer payments to groups and individuals who deliver programs on behalf of the Justice department. Now, I am not sure but are the members saying that we should not be proceeding with these commitments, working in partnership with the other partners in delivering justice in the territory? I do not think that is what they mean, but hopefully that will give them another opportunity to take a look at what they have been saying.

When we talk about O&M, I refer to a commitment to childcare. Childcare is a very important issue that was raised at the doorstep in the last election.

Since elected, funding to our Yukon childcare centres and family day homes has increased by over $675,000. That's with the input of the Yukon Child Care Board, the Society of Yukon Family Day Homes and the Yukon Childcare Association. These funds have gone toward the wages of childcare workers and operational spaces based on set-up spaces. While there's still much work to do, this additional funding reaffirms our government's commitment to improving access to quality, affordable childcare services in the territory, as we promised in the last election and are delivering on.

To address the longer term needs, a working group on childcare has been established to also develop a four-year plan. I commend the Minister of Health and Social Services for rising to this challenge, and I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues in furthering this very important and worthy initiative.

Our commitment to education is yet another very important initiative that was raised during the election at the doorsteps of Whitehorse West. Over the last year, I couldn't be more happy or pleased with the large investments this government has placed in education: an increase to Yukon College funding by $1 million; increased community training trust funds by $1 million for a total of $1.5 million, of which $500,000 is to be earmarked for trades training.

I should say that was something — the community training trust funds were literally half-dismantled by the previous Liberal government — we are very pleased to reinstate. We have indexed the Yukon student grant and training allowance. We've added 30 new positions to the student training and employment program, a very important initiative and one that will be grasped wholeheartedly this summer with our students coming back home. We've earmarked $1 million to address the short-term needs of Yukon schools.

And we have also expanded our Yukon excellence awards to include math, science and language arts at the grade 10 level. On health care, in addition to the Minister of Health and Social Services and his commitment to childcare, he has also seen that within this budget about $10 million worth more in O&M funding toward meeting the challenges placed on our health care system today. Very worthy initiatives — $3.1-million increase for hospital operation and maintenance costs, including a new cardiac stress testing program; $2.3 million on primary health care; $1.9 million to help open 12 more beds at the Copper Ridge place within my riding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be part of a government that recognizes the economic engines in the territory and that is addressing some of the very social needs within our territory today. I look forward to expanding upon these initiatives that we have announced, and we will continue to re-announce, because they are such good news. Perhaps there's not enough time to digest it all today.

I look forward to hearing constructive debate from my colleagues across the way, and I look forward to carrying on more debate as the budget unfolds.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I have a procedural request. I would request unanimous consent of the House to allow the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin to be able to respond at second reading to the Budget Address.

Speaker:  Do we have unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Some Hon. Member:   Disagree.

Speaker:  We do not have unanimous consent.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On a point of order, I request that you rule on the procedural business of this Assembly. Today the official opposition tabled a bill. That bill was Act to Amend the Public Service Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), when opposition private members' business has proceeded, no later than the time at which the Assembly proceeds to Orders of the Day on the sitting day preceding the call of opposition private members' business, the leader of the official opposition or designate may on behalf of the members of the official opposition identify the order in which the items standing in their names on the Order Paper or on the Notice Paper shall be called.

Subsequent to that, the official opposition identified the bill that they had tabled just today as being the item that they would call for debate tomorrow. Pursuant to Standing Order 54(2), it is proceedings on bills. "Bills, printing and distributing" is the title of that category. Part 2 reads, "No bill shall receive Second Reading until it has been printed and distributed for one clear sitting day." It would appear that the only exemption to this rule is part 3, where an appropriation bill bringing forward the main capital or operating and maintenance budget may receive second reading on the same sitting day on which it has received the first reading.

So I would submit that the request to call the bill that was tabled today — that you rule on it and I see it as being out of order according to the Standing Orders of this Legislature.

Speaker:   On the point of order, Member for Mayo-Tatchun.

Mr. Fairclough:   That was a lengthy point of order to follow the different Standing Orders for this House, and I would like a request to review what the government House Leader is requesting and have some time to review it so we can comment.

Speaker:   The Chair agrees with that point. Later on today or first thing at tomorrow's sitting we will give a ruling.

Mr. Fairclough:   If you are going to bring a ruling forward, Mr. Speaker, I request that we submit a written submission to you.

Speaker:   That is agreeable. The Chair awaits the pleasure of the House.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would like to comment on the Premier's budget speech, and I will be short, hopefully, in my response to the speech. There were many announcements taking place before the House sat about exactly what government was doing and it is reflected in this budget, so there is no use going over that again. Government has made an announcement, they want to do a re-announcement, and again we are hearing the same announcement from the members opposite. So I will not go there. Also, the Premier read a very lengthy budget speech — I think it is the longest we have heard yet — some two hours and 10 minutes. I believe it is double the time normally premiers have for reading a speech. It was not short and to the point. It gave a little bit of a history lesson and, in a lot of cases, going off where I believe the Premier should have been focused on really telling the public exactly what is in the budget.

I think some people found it kind of boring, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, when I looked over and saw the Minister of Environment, within three minutes into the budget speech, he was asleep. That holds the same for the Minister of Health and Social Services, who, not long after the Minister of Environment, fell asleep too.

Speaker:   Order please.

The Chair feels that those are inappropriate comments. Although they may not be unparliamentary, they are simply inappropriate. I don’t believe that we should, as members of this House, be judging each other.

I would ask the member to withdraw it. Please do not comment on it again.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I believe that was past practice and it has been said in this House — about people nodding off or not paying attention and that type of thing. That's what I was getting to, but if it is the wish of the Speaker for me to withdraw that, then I will.

I would like to continue, Mr. Speaker.

I am hoping that that same ruling will be applied as strongly to the government side as it is on our side. I am confident that you will do that, Mr. Speaker.

There are a few things that bother me in the budget that has been brought forward. I would like to talk about my riding, but first of all I would like to talk about promises and so on.

Before the election, the Yukon Party made it clear to Yukoners what they were going to do. They promised not to touch the Taxpayer Protection Act. They also said to the public just last year that there was no money. There was no money in government; there was no surplus. There was very little. We even heard it today, as a matter of fact, from the Premier. He said there was $1 million sitting in the bank.

If that's the kind of message they are giving out to the public and not being backed up by their own documents in this House, then I can see why people are losing confidence in this government. You cannot say one thing and find out that, in fact, it is something else. This government has done it over and over again, and I am surprised to this day that we continue to hear that same message from the Yukon Party government. It's unfortunate, and the public is seeing through that.

There were requests, many of them, last year for small amounts of money, whether it was an increase to SA rates, looking at small projects in the communities, meeting the priorities of First Nations, municipalities and so on. This government said that they have to get tough with spending, they have to get control of government spending, they have to lower the government trajectory — that was the word that has been used. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they felt so strongly about it and probably had all kinds of advice about this that they included it in the budget speech of last year. And it was all about government spending. I have it right here. It's called, "Controlling the Trajectory of Government Spending," and they were going to do that. As a matter of fact, I have a quote in here from the speech. The Premier said that "Curbing a government's trajectory of spending is akin to turning around a supertanker. It will take both time and effort." Well, I would assume that government is going to lower their spending. That hasn't happened. The efforts didn't take place. Last year's budget was pretty big. Certainly the time hasn't been put into that.

Let's look at when this government first got elected. The Liberals are out; the Yukon Party is in. We were all asking that they bring forward a budget that addressed winter works, and we were willing to sit for a few days and talk about how we could get people to work that winter.

Well, it didn't happen. The government brought forward special warrants, and they started spending and that's where the spending started — that's how quick it was, from the election to just a couple of months later — $12 million without debate in this House shows up again as a supplementary budget in the following year. We had to go through that. We on this side of the House at the time were willing to put our thoughts together to address the situation Yukoners were in.

It didn't happen. That government — the Yukon Party government — didn't allow the opposition input into addressing the situation, even though they promised to improve the procedures in this House. Then, Mr. Speaker, we had a budget put together very quickly w