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?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to initiate a forensic audit to investigate the financial situation of the City of Dawson to determine how taxpayers’ money was managed.

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

THAT this House urges the MLA for Klondike to attend a public meeting tomorrow night in Dawson City to explain his decision to intervene and terminate the democratically elected mayor and council.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to require all new buildings it rents or leases to meet strict energy-efficiency targets.

I also give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to conduct an immediate inventory of all buildings it owns or occupies under long-term lease and, where practicable, retrofit them to current energy-efficiency standards in order to lower ongoing operations and maintenance costs and create jobs for Yukon workers this construction season.

Mrs. Peter:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to establish a job transition fund to provide training opportunities for Yukon workers who want to move away from resource-extraction jobs toward more environmentally friendly "green" jobs.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to adopt a whole systems approach to engineering design, architecture and community planning for all future publicly funded land development or building projects.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

Speaker:   Before proceeding with Question Period, the Chair will deliver a ruling on a point of order raised last Wednesday by the government House leader.

The government House leader argued that the leader of the third party, during the course of posing a question, had violated Standing Order 19(g) by attributing to him a false or unavowed motive. Upon reviewing the Blues, the Chair finds that there is no point of order.

However, the Chair notes that in speaking to the point of order, the leader of the third party defended her choice of words by saying that the words were a direct quote, though the author of the words was not named.

Members are familiar with the principle of order and decorum that, "members may not do indirectly what they may not do directly." In cases such as this, it means that while members are at liberty to quote the words of others in legislative proceedings, they must take responsibility for them. The fact that such words were first uttered by another provides no protection if those words are not parliamentary.

The Chair thanks the members for their attention.

We will now proceed to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   Last year the Premier announced that he was stepping outside the land claims box to reach the agreement with the Kaska Dena Council to fast track economic development in southeast Yukon. There was a lot of concern at that time about the impact this bilateral deal would have on other First Nations, both those with and those without final agreements. Is the Premier now prepared to acknowledge the role his outside-the-box agreement with the Kaska played in last week’s rejection of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation’s final agreement?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We must reflect the facts in this issue. Firstly, when it comes to the southeast Yukon and the Kaska traditional territory, there is no land claim and there was no land claim. The bilateral agreement with the Kaska commits to getting back to the land claim table, putting litigation into abeyance but at the same time — through a 24-month period, which is the term of the bilateral agreement — access to land and resources can take place. This is entirely different from the Carcross-Tagish situation. We have a land claim. We’ve had a ratification process that had a bar set very high — the threshold higher than any other land claim ratification process. I think it’s important to note that the government respects the decision of the citizens of Carcross-Tagish, but more importantly, when you look at the numbers of those eligible to vote — who cast ballots — a majority have approved or agreed with the land claim.

Mr. Hardy:   The Premier doesn’t seem to like it when his chickens come home to roost. No matter how the Premier wants to spin this issue, the fact remains that he is the one who opened this Pandora’s box of bilateral agreements. The decision of Carcross-Tagish First Nation members not to ratify their agreement is a big setback for the land claims process. The certainty that final agreements were supposed to bring is far less certain now. Is the Premier now planning to offer the Carcross-Tagish First Nation the same type of side deals he signed with the Kaska?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, again, it’s a totally different situation. And I ask this question: why would any First Nation ignore the benefits that accrue from a final agreement, which includes self-government, millions of dollars in compensation and ownership of land and resources, to opt out for a 24-month agreement that commits that we conclude a land claim in any respective First Nation’s traditional territory? I think the choice is obvious. The settlement of a land claim benefits far more the First Nation than any other arrangement.

But when it comes to the case of the Kaska, there is no land claim; there is no mandate to negotiate one. There is litigation — dramatically different than the Carcross-Tagish First Nation situation.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to remind the Premier opposite that there’s no land claim agreement in Carcross right now, either.

Now, there are other First Nations without final agreements that do not have economic side deals with the territorial government. There are First Nations that do have final agreements in place but do not have economic development agreements like the ones in southeast Yukon. In the interests of equality, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier now prepared to step outside the box once again and negotiate special economic development deals with First Nations that have signed and ratified their land claims and self-government agreements? Is he willing to do that? He has already done it before.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Firstly, we do have a final agreement with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. It’s now about process, in terms of ratification, the next steps. We will work with the First Nation in that regard, as I’m sure Canada will.

But let me put on the record that when it comes to economic partnerships in this territory, this government will forge meaningful, full economic partnerships with every First Nation, as we are in working with the Vuntut Gwitchin in their capital planning and investing in that community, as we are with the forestry agreement, with the Champagne and Aishihik, as we are with the Kaska, as we are with Na Cho Nyäk Dun when it comes to training in the mining industry. Across the spectrum, economically, Mr. Speaker, this government will partner fully with the First Nations of this territory for mutual benefit.

Mr. Cardiff:   A couple of hours ago, the other shoe dropped in Dawson City when the minister announced he was putting the town’s affairs directly into Yukon government hands. What took place since last week’s Dawson City council meeting that warranted the drastic step the minister took today?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Yes, a trustee is being put in place in Dawson City, as the member opposite has indicated. Last week, the BDO Dunwoody draft audit report was provided to the city and subsequently made available to the supervisor. It shows the city’s cash flow is short even more than what was expected: a cash shortfall of $1.14 million.

This means the financial goalposts have changed. The shortage in cash flow affects the contingency fund that was set aside to pay for the arbitration. This is estimated to be at $975,000 and growing, as the legal fees associated with this arbitration award have not yet been set and are expected to come in the next couple of months.

Everyone is concerned with the situation in Dawson and it’s time to get Dawson City’s finances on track.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the audited financial statements here for members of the Legislature. The date is February 25, 2004 — it’s not recent, like the government’s press release says.

So last week a well-respected city councillor resigned to protest a government direction to break a valid contract. We understand that the mayor was planning to resign this morning in an attempt to break the impasse between the town and YTG.

Many people in Dawson are furious over what they see as unwarranted interference by the territorial government in their municipal affairs, and they also see this as part of an ongoing campaign by the Member for Klondike to discredit the elected mayor and council.

Will the minister confirm that the Mayor of Dawson had been given an ultimatum: unless three councillors resigned, the minister would remove the elected council and put the town under trusteeship?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   What the opposition should be asking is, "Why is there a cash flow shortage?" Realistically, the situation in Dawson has been precarious ever since the municipality passed Bylaw 17, for $4.4 million, to refinance an earlier debt and construct a recreation centre. A supervisor was put in place by the previous government to help Dawson deal with this new debt and their difficult situation. Unfortunately, an error in accounting went undetected until the new supervisor was put in place in October of last year. Dawson thought it had $2 million extra, but in actuality they had already spent this money, and they were only receiving $300,000 of that cash.

The new supervisor had been working with his numbers and they’ve now been finalized. The new numbers are confirmed by the recent draft audit statements, which confirm an even higher cash flow shortage, of $1.14 million, as I stated previously. They had put in a projected $840,000 as a potential loss. To add to this, Mr. Speaker, the long-term debt of $4.4 million and the arbitration contingency that is still growing from its present $975,000 — that’s a lot of debt, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister hasn’t provided a case for building the $50-million bridge in Dawson. He hasn’t provided a good case for taking over municipal government. Things haven’t gotten any better since their hired gun took over the finances of Dawson City, so they have to bear some responsibility for the situation as well, because they’ve been in control for 18 months. I guess the Yukon Party pledge to maintain respectful government-to-government relationships doesn’t extend to municipal governments. Curiously, only Dawson has been required to adopt full accrual accounting retroactively. Other municipalities have a one- or two-year grace period to go to full accrual accounting.

How many other municipalities does the minister expect to take over if full accrual accounting shows them running deficits?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Some people would just say, "Give Dawson more money." They should remember that this has already been done. The town has already exceeded its limits for borrowing under the Municipal Act. This limit has been extended twice, Bylaw No. 99(19), for $1.2 million to install cable TV; Bylaw 17 for $4.46 million to refinance an earlier debt owed to YTG and construct a new recreation centre. $700,000 of this has been held by YTG to be used for the amount owing on the arbitration.

How has YTG helped in the past? It came as a $10.4 million CFA; recreation centre, $5.6 million; sewage treatment project, $4.8 million. The bottom line: the City of Dawson cannot pay all of its bills. The situation is not getting any better. For the sake of those in Dawson and all Yukoners, it’s time to appoint a trustee. The trustee and staff intend to work with the local committee as per the provisions in the act. Together, the trustee will get Dawson’s finances back on track so a new mayor and council can be appointed in a year’s time.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Yukon Party government has made it clear that they believe the Kaska own 100 percent interest in certain natural resources. The minister even went so far as to say that they own 100 percent of the timber in their traditional territory. The minister has also alluded to the fact that this government believes that other First Nations own 100 percent of the natural resources in their traditional territories. Perhaps the minister could spell it out so that no one is left uninformed about this issue.

The minister said on CBC radio on March 18, 2004, "They have come to the table with 100 percent of the resource. Don’t get this thing turned around." Does the minister believe that the Carcross First Nation owns 100 percent of the forest resources in its traditional territory?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’d like to remind the leader of the third party that the Kaska forestry agreement is based on the last government’s memorandum of understanding, which was signed in July 2002 and recognized the fact that the Kaska had a traditional use of their area and that they had to be part of any agreement on harvesting the timber. In other words, it’s a three-year memorandum of understanding signed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that laid out the process on how we were going to go into the forest industry in southeast Yukon. We have built on that memorandum of understanding and come up with a solution for southeast Yukon. We are going into the forest industry in southeast Yukon as partners with the local First Nation, which is the Kaska.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister did not point out the fact that that memorandum of understanding did not say 100 percent of resource royalty revenue went to the Kaska, and the minister did not answer the question, which was: does the minister believe, for example, that the Carcross First Nation owns 100 percent of the forest resources in its traditional territory?

Would the minister answer that direct question, for the record?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   As we fall back on the memorandum of understanding — the memorandum of understanding with the Kaska is very clear. The memorandum of understanding states that the territorial government — it’s an agreement between the federal government, the Kaska First Nation and the territorial government. It makes it very clear that they will be part of the management team of the forest in southeast Yukon and they will profit from that partnership. It’s very clear. All we did as a government to live within that memorandum of understanding was take it one more step and actually put it to work. We have taken that memorandum of understanding and gone into the forest industry in southeast Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, that memorandum of understanding did not state that 100 percent of the resource royalty revenues — the revenues, the stumpage fees from that forestry — would go 100 percent to the Kaska First Nation. The memorandum of understanding did not state that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question. He said specifically that the Yukon Party has made it clear that they believe the Kaska own a 100-percent interest in certain natural resources. The minister said that they own 100 percent of the timber in their traditional territory. Does the minister believe that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation owns 100 percent of the forest resources in their traditional territory? Does the minister believe that? And I’m talking specifically about resource royalty revenue and ownership. Is that what the minister believes?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The Kaska do own 100 percent of their resource in their selected land. They brought that to the table — make that very clear. And as far as a partnership, the stumpage fees that we put into the scenario are not all what the revenue is based on in forest harvesting. You have your stumpage fee; you have your reforestation fee; you have your engineering fee and your administration fee. I think the stumpage — 100 percent of their resource. Their order-in-council would. They own 100 percent of that. It’s taken off the table. It’s protected by the federal government. It is their timber. It is 100 percent their timber. They brought that to the table on the power of the memorandum of understanding. That’s an investment in the future of the forest industry in southeast Yukon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   I understand now why it’s called Question Period and not answer period.

I have a question for the Premier. Earlier today, the Minister of Community Services fired the Mayor and Council of Dawson City, then he turned around and said he wanted three of the former councillors — whom he had just fired — to act as advisors to the new trustee. The fact that he made no mention of the mayor certainly lends credibility to people’s suspicions of a vendetta, Mr. Speaker, by someone who occupied the mayor’s chair several years ago.

Does the Premier agree with the way the minister has handled the Dawson situation and especially the actions he took today?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I’ll try to respond to the member opposite and his question. We are dealing with a very difficult situation in Dawson City and I believe that we’ve taken the appropriate steps to protect the citizens of Dawson, as well as the Yukon taxpayer.

In regard to the committee, this situation was brought up. These individuals indicated they would be prepared to sit on the committee.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, good enough to be on a committee for advice but not good enough to be elected, obviously, in the eyes of this government.

Now, the Premier has managed to avoid any public involvement in the whole messy affair that exists between the Yukon government and Dawson City’s mayor and council. I’m sure he wouldn’t be too happy if he heard what people in Dawson City were saying to me about this government when I was there this week.

Why has the Premier stood off to one side and allowed his predecessor as party leader to pull the strings that have now resulted in the Yukon government firing the elected council and taking over the town’s affairs? This is a question for the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I’ll respond, as I have in the past. This is a very difficult situation for the City of Dawson. We’re taking the appropriate steps as per the Municipal Act, and we believe we’re acting in a satisfactory manner and we’re taking the appropriate action.

Mr. Hardy:   There are huge gaps in logic and public knowledge about this issue, and there are huge gaps in this government’s credibility. The minister now has a very experienced Yukoner in place on the Dawson portfolio. This may lower the temperature, but it may not shed much light or new light on the issue. The minister has mused about an informal inquiry into how Dawson’s financial affairs got to this point; however, it’s obvious that something more than an informal inquiry is needed. Will the Premier agree to commission a formal, independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act with a mandate and timelines that are agreeable to this Assembly so that democracy can be restored in Dawson City as quickly as possible?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Democracy is in place, and we are following that process. A recommendation from the supervisor was to look at the possibility of an inquiry, and we are looking at that particular option. When we get to that stage, we will bring it forth.

Mr. McRobb:   I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Two months ago he issued a government news release that announced seismic surveying would take place in late February along the Whitehorse Trough. In that release, the minister declared there would be no impact on wildlife from the seismic testing. But a different story emerges from information available on ground shocking, particularly with respect to young-of-the-year mammals, fish eggs and hearing-sensitive species of adult fish and wildlife, to name a few. The area surveyed was adjacent to wetlands, stream courses in the salmon-bearing Nordenskiold River. I want to ask the minister, what makes him so sure there is no environmental impact?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are concerned if there is an environmental question about anything we do in the Yukon, so I appreciate the member opposite’s concern.

We’ve been working with the First Nation on this and I just talked with the chief last week and it seems from that local government that they’re quite happy with the seismic and hopefully looking forward to some positive results in the next month or so.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, that’s no answer, Mr. Speaker. The minister stands up and responds to a First Nation that has jurisdiction in only part of the area surveyed. He completely avoids the question. The minister seems confused on two distinctly different issues: exemptions from having to do environmental impact assessment along highway corridors with the determination of any environmental impacts. One of the problems with exempting this type of activity is the block-out of feedback from the relevant agencies and others normally involved in the review process. Not only is this government saying that it knows best, which is an insult to all those who know better, but it leaves experts in the dark. They only learned about it through the media. So in future, will the minister allow the experts an opportunity to provide their feedback in order to help ensure that this emerging industry gets started on the right foot?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I remind the member opposite that this is not new technology. This technology is used across Canada very effectively for the oil and gas industry, Canada-wide. As far as following the environmental rules or overcoming problems that we have at a local level, we certainly address them. But as far as no experts or people who don’t know what they’re doing, the people who were here doing the job do it across Canada. It’s not some local operator who arrives in the middle of the night, Mr. Speaker. These people are very professional. We’re waiting for a very positive return on the science that’s there and looking forward to a report in the next couple of months.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the minister is, once again, failing to respond to the question. Now, I’m getting the impression that he wants to appear as if he is the absolute authority in this field. He has already declared that there is absolutely no environmental impact. Now he knows more than the experts.

Let’s see how much he does know. Research indicates that the environmental impact increases with the loudness and severity of the shockwaves released. How high on the decibel scale did this no-impact seismic testing rate? Can he at least tell us that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, scare tactics. The science is there. The science is appropriate, and it’s being used in an appropriate fashion. The House, hopefully, is looking forward to a report. We have been working with the local First Nation on the technology that is being used and also the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We certainly have some science backing us up.

As far as the misrepresentation from the member opposite on this issue, certainly we could have a great discussion of who is more of an expert: him or me? I have Energy, Mines and Resources behind me. I have the science that we have in our department. I am sure that the man opposite lacks that.

Mr. Fairclough:   That was quite the answer, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question to the same minister. Over the past couple of months, the seismic work has taken place in the Whitehorse Trough and within the traditional territory of the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation.

The Yukon government has contributed approximately $230,000 to this project, with a total cost of nearly $1 million.

It’s the same party that said that getting people job ready and trained is a top priority. So I would like to ask the minister this: what training was provided to the community of Carmacks and Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation to ensure that local people would be trained and job ready for this seismic survey?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, Mr. Speaker, we’ve been working on the seismic thing, which is a Canada-wide research scientific process. We certainly have been working with the First Nation. In fact, last week I talked to the chief and got an update on how this thing has unfolded on a local level. As far as work is concerned, I understand that this is a very sophisticated process with limited manpower. But, of course, our government is talking about training. We put $500,000 toward a mining program that is in the works right now to train all Yukoners to be ready for the mining community when it opens up in the spring.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Speaker, we’ve moved from oil and gas to mining very shortly by this minister. There is a reason why the minister is not answering the question, and it’s because there is no training that was provided, and the minister knows that, and he’s trying to skirt around that whole question. Let’s continue.

Mr. Speaker, when projects like this come to the communities and arrive in the Yukon and the private sector is actually putting up some money, governments should be ready and prepared. Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation welcomes this project. They want to know the results of this scientific survey, and they also wanted jobs and were expecting some eight or nine jobs as a result of this. Now, I’m sure the minister is quite familiar with chapter 22 of that First Nation’s final agreement. So how many seismic jobs went to members of Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, again, for the members opposite, to make it very clear, there certainly were jobs involved with the program. There were flagging jobs and some cutting jobs understanding that, last year, when it was going to go through, there were some questions from the First Nation and, of course, we postponed the program and did it this year in respect for the First Nation so they could work out a few problems they had internally. But I’m very happy to report that the First Nation and the program went very successfully and there were 10 jobs out there. Now, I’m not sure what individuals from Carmacks got the jobs but, again, Yukoners were working on that program. Hopefully, we’ll have a report, and then the First Nation will definitely get a copy of that.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to have the members of this Legislature welcome Chief Mike Smith to the gallery.

Mr. Fairclough:   This minister is skirting around the questions again. The people in the community of Carmacks are watching him and hearing this and are probably amazed about where this minister is going with this whole thing. No training provided — he says 10 jobs, but he doesn’t know how many to that community or to the First Nation. He doesn’t know. He hasn’t read chapter 22 of the final agreement. The Premier ought to give some directions to the minister. Oil and gas could have a huge impact now and in the future in that community, including the social impacts.

Now, this government said it consults, but on the very first major project in the Carmacks area, the Yukon Party failed. There was no hiring process set up and the minister knows this. Why did the minister choose not to work with the First Nation and the contractor to set up a hiring process — a hiring process, and I hope he doesn’t go off of that — that would meet the legal obligations of chapter 22? Why didn’t he do that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly have read chapter 22, and we don’t have to have the member opposite point it out to us. I say to you that the science was there; as the Member for Kluane pointed out, the science was right up there. We had 10 to 12 locals. We had 10 to 12 people working out of the community on jobs they were qualified to do. This was not a long-term contract. This was an in-and-out-of-town contract. They drove in the ditch. They did the seismic work and they left. This was not a long-term contract. We certainly have been working with the First Nation because we had been working the last 16 months to get cooperation from the First Nation so that this job could go ahead.

So for the member opposite to say that we were tardy on not working with the First Nation, again he’s dead wrong. We have been working with the First Nation on a weekly basis to get this seismic work done because it also involves —

Speaker:   Order please. Your time is up.

The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Ms. Duncan:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the third party to be called on Wednesday, April 14, 2004. They are Motion No. 232, standing in the name of the Member for Porter Creek South and Motion No. 109, standing in the name of the Member for Porter Creek South.

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, April 14, 2004. They are Motion No. 229, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre and Motion No. 227, standing in the name of the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin.

Speaker:   We’ll now proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04. I understand we’re going into Economic Development. Before we begin, do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We’ll take a 15-minute recess.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

Chair:  We will continue on with general debate on Vote 7, Department of Economic Development.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have before us for debate today a supplementary budget that covers the special warrant issued in terms of the need to address the collective bargaining agreement and its retroactive cost to government and also the purchase of the game preserve. Also, it includes projects such as the Quartz Road lease for $3.8 million, which had to be booked in accordance with the public sector accounting guidelines. Unfortunately, a past government incorrectly booked this lease agreement and it must be capitalized. That’s what the supplementary budget is all about.

Now, instead of debating this in an expeditious way that reflects what the supplementary budget addresses, we have the Member for Kluane fixated on discussing minutes from meetings with the stakeholders and the development of the Department of Economic Development strategy. I think it’s important that we understand that there is a requirement and obligation by the opposition to be constructive in their debate, to debate the issues before us. This supplementary budget is, I think, self-explanatory. It lays out exactly what the amounts are, where they’re being allocated, in seeking the spending authority. So it’s not overly difficult or complicated, and it lays out a number of things in terms of detail, which the opposition has had in their hands for quite some time. When you look at the operation and maintenance expenditures — for example, corporate services within the Department of Economic Development reflect the wage settlements for January 2003 at two percent, and January 2004 at 2.5 percent.

That is the issue. It’s not a question of what we’re doing with the Department of Economic Development with respect to the 2004-05 main budget. It’s important that we debate the content of this supplementary budget as it relates to the Department of Economic Development. It also goes on in policy, planning and research areas. Again, it’s wage settlements for both 2003 and 2004. The same with investment, trade and business development — again it’s wage settlements for January 2003 and January 2004.

There are also regional economic development wage settlements. So predominantly, the supplementary budget before us is reflecting the need to meet those obligations by the government — the employer — with the retroactivity of the collective bargaining agreement. I think the members opposite realize that, so one can only wonder why the debate has gone down the road it has. But for the Member for Kluane’s benefit, a great deal of work has been done with the stakeholder group and Yukoners in relation to the development of the Yukon Economic Development department’s strategy and plan on a go-forward basis — a new direction and building a sustainable, competitive Yukon economy.

The member knows that. I think the information that’s in the hands of the Member for Kluane to date is sufficient to provide debate in a constructive manner.

The other option for the member, obviously, is to go out and contact the stakeholder groups, have a discussion with the Association of Yukon Communities, have a discussion with the cultural industries that participated, have a discussion with the Taking Action Committee; again, with the tourism association, the chambers of commerce, both Whitehorse and Yukon, the Chamber of Mines, the Contractors Association, and the list goes on and on. That would be good work for the member opposite in relation to addressing the questions he has — by talking directly to the stakeholders.

What the government side contends is that we should quickly wrap up the debate on the supplementary budget, which reflects our need for wages and the retroactive payment of those wages, and addresses some incorrect accounting procedures by the third party, something we had to deal with and account for in accordance with the public sector accounting guidelines.

The government side is more than willing to have that debate. We need not expend a great deal of time on it. I think the purpose for the opposition should be to get to the budget. Let’s have a debate on the biggest budget in the history of the Yukon, some $705 million — well worth discussing.

I am sure that the opposition has — at least they should have; if they don’t today, they should have before this sitting wraps up — some input on what they think. Are they going to support these kinds of investments in the future of the Yukon Territory or are they not going to support them? We have to look at where those investments are going. Are they going to oppose the significant investment in the community of Old Crow, which is going to realize a great deal of benefit for the citizens of that community? Are they going to oppose opening up more beds in Copper Ridge and Macaulay to address the needs of those who require extended care and those seniors who require care? Are they going to oppose multi-level care facilities in communities like Watson Lake and Dawson City, where demonstrated needs are certainly there and the government has acted? Are they going to support or oppose huge investments in reconstructing Yukon highways, creating more jobs and benefits for Yukoners? These are the areas of debate and concern to the Yukon public.

To extend the debate on a very operational-type supplementary budget leaves the government side wondering what the opposition really has to offer. We are urging them to be constructive, to be involved. We all have a role to play in improving the lives of Yukoners. The government side is very focused on building a future. It’s evident by the style of debate and the content of the debate that the opposition side is more focused on reliving and reconstructing the past.

That is full benefit to the Yukon public. We have to focus on what’s ahead of us, and that’s why we should move on, have our quick discussions around the supplementary budget that is operational in nature, and get on with the discussion and the debate for the fiscal year 2004-05. It is a significant investment — the budget, that is — in the Yukon’s future, not only on the social side of the ledger but on the development side of the ledger.

The Yukon government, the government side, is ready, willing and able to have those discussions and that debate with the opposition. In fact, we look forward to it and we welcome it. At the end of the day, though, it requires the opposition to be focused on what’s ahead. I think what we experienced last week in the debate on the supplementary budget is not reflecting that. The government is urging the opposition benches to become more focused on the issues and the concerns important to Yukoners. The fact that we had to pay retroactive salaries to our employees is part of a collective bargaining process that the public is very much informed about. Everybody knows what’s in the collective bargaining agreement, the fact that it’s retroactive and that we, as an employer, are meeting our obligations. With that, I would hope that the member will get up and quickly move through the supplementary budget in an operational manner.

Mr. McRobb:   What a speech that was. I thought maybe we were treated to enough of those kinds of speeches Thursday afternoon, but unfortunately they’re continuing here today.

My first point is that the opposition has been constructive in presenting itself and testing the case of this government. The opposition parties, and I speak for the Liberal Party, the third party, as well as ourselves, have been very constructive both in this sitting and the fall sitting and, in addition, the spring sitting last year.

The Premier should not be so critical of the opposition parties. And at times I get the impression he longs to be back in opposition. Well, maybe he’ll get his wish. If he’s successful in getting re-elected next time, he’ll definitely be over on this side somewhere. We can’t guarantee where. He might be the lone member of the third party. We’re not quite sure. That would be three in a row, should that happen.

But the opposition’s main task is to test the case of government and hold it accountable and try to ensure the decisions and actions made by the Yukon government are best for the people of the territory. Because after all, we’re all in here elected by the people and governing on behalf of the people, and we should never lose sight of that. We should never let power or whatever get in the way and blind us to the need to represent the people. Sometimes, some members do appear to be heading down that slippery slope.

The minister indicated he was hoping for constructive debate. Well, so are we.

The minister seemed confused when he accused me of requesting minutes from meetings. Well, I invite you to check the record of Hansard, and you will discover that at no time during this debate did I request minutes of meetings. My request was for the information promised to us by officials in the briefing for this department. The minister stands up and refuses to give information to the opposition. And you’ve heard me before talk about how a government is only as good as the opposition, how if it is going to avoid passing along information, impede the information flow, try to limit the knowledge of the opposition, then, of course, it follows suit that the government will have to meet a lesser case.

That appears to be where this government is at. It doesn’t want to be held fully responsible, otherwise it would be free with the information. Why is the government withholding information the officials have promised to provide to us?

Mr. Chair, there’s no hidden motive here. This is a very clear and simple question. The minister stands up, points a finger and tries to ridicule members of the opposition and make them feel embarrassed for asking for information that should be provided.

We see it again. The minister seems to be governing with one foot still on the opposition side of this Legislature. I say that because sometimes when we ask a question, he rewords the question as he sees it more proper to be worded by the opposition side, and then he proceeds to answer his own question. Well, Mr. Chair, how inappropriate.

I suggest both he and his ministers should just stick to answering the question we pose and not reword it and then answer their own question.

We ask the questions in here, and they’re the ones who should be providing the answers. The buck stops at the Premier’s desk; that’s the bottom line.

On Thursday afternoon, we heard the minister stand up and take all the credit for what appears to be improved economic statistics in the territory. We laud what appears to be progress but, at the same time, we should not all try to fool anybody in here. There are a number of factors that lead to this improvement, and one of them is that major retail industry has been on the move in Whitehorse in the past year with Superstore and Staples. Both of those stores have hired a lot of people, both in construction and in operation.

Those show up in the statistics, and a relatively small economy is influenced greatly by significant events such as that.

In addition, the price of world metals — base metals in the world market — are improving drastically. The price of gold is remaining stable at or above $400 U.S. per ounce. The price of silver has recovered to a significant degree. Even lead and zinc are on the rebound. So that’s what is driving the resource exploration economy. We should not ever try to take credit ourselves or spin those factors into some kind of credit that the government has done, because they are not fooling too many people.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Mr. Fentie, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In the context of keeping the facts straight, I am compelled to correct the record. Hansard will show that the government side has stated clearly — we want to make it clear: we do not take all the credit, Mr. Chair, for the economic turnaround.

Chair:   Order please. There is no point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   So much for that commercial message brought to us by our Premier, advertising his so-called economic plan. Well, Mr. Chair, we will deal with that a little later.

Now, we also want to discuss at this opportunity, with this supplementary budget, about the very undemocratic way this government used to bring in the special warrants for these expenditures. These special warrants bypassed the legislative process and that is very undemocratic. This government — certainly when in opposition, the Premier and his government House leader were opposed to such practice, but now that they are in government, we are hearing a different story. That is not being open, accountable, or consistent.

We hear the Premier challenge us on how we’re going to vote on the budget, and he asks questions — is the opposition in favour of whatever any particular item might read.

Well, let’s look back at the voting record of the Yukon Party. We can identify, if we wanted to waste the time of this House, hundreds of items of good things that the Yukon Party voted against. I’m not going to waste the time; I’m going to take the high road on this matter and simply point out that anybody’s voting record on a budget bill does not mean that they’re opposed to all expenditures in the budget. There could be principles of spending or there could be a show-stopper or two that are enough to justify a negative vote. The other members — I see them chuckling away — understand what I’m talking about, but will they admit it, especially on camera? Very unlikely. We don’t hear them being forthright with the voters when it —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   We hear the Premier and the government House leader challenging us all the time: are we going to vote for the budget? Every time I hear that, I think of George Bush saying, "Either you’re with us or you’re against us." That type of a threat is wrong. It short-circuits democracy and puts complex matters into simple terms that are misleading for the general public. And I say shame on the government for adopting that type of a practice. Either you’re with us or you’re against us — who needs that type of simplistic rhetoric. We should all rise above that level in here and be debating the issues.

Now, Mr. Chair, what benchmarks is this government using for its economic success? What about the GDP, taxes, jobs? We don’t hear those relevant facts being discussed. All we hear is the sound of back-thumping going on from the government side, without any facts, and that’s wrong.

It’s clear this government is prepared to relinquish all royalties from forest stumpage fees, if necessary, to secure agreements with First Nations outside of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Well, this issue keeps cropping up on almost a daily basis. How far is this government willing to go down that slippery slope, just to get that photo opportunity or news release that might provide it some benefit today but cost all Yukoners, including those First Nations, down the road? How far is it willing to go? Well, we’ll see, and we’ll continue to watch the situation very closely.

So far, the government is unable to present a real study on the economic feasibility of building a bridge in Dawson City. We’ve asked for the business case, and we’re handed a stack of old studies with missing pages and missing logic. That’s certainly no business case. This could be the most expensive government project ever in the history of the Yukon, yet it seems to be what was a political promise made. It even wasn’t warranted from the government’s own election platform.

The government is going to be on the hook for water sewage management in Dawson City and potentially all municipalities are requiring sewage treatment, yet where does it put that priority on the list? It puts its own priorities first. What does that say about a government when it puts its own priorities ahead of the public priorities?

This supplementary budget puts its own priorities ahead of the public interest; it circumvents the democratic process with the use of special warrants. When we get to the main budget — hopefully by Thursday of this week — it will prove to be constructed from the same mould.

This government seems to be unaware of or is ignoring the social cost that communities will face with workers from out of the territory coming into the community for short-term contract work.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to ask the members opposite to keep their voices a little lower. It’s very distracting.

Chair:   Order please. The Chair is also having difficulty hearing the speaker. Mr. McRobb, you have the floor.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government is ignoring or is unaware of the social cost facing communities with workers from out of the territory coming into the community for short-term contract work. I know the town of Carmacks is one such community where there are social problems, and there have been from this type of an example, and we don’t see the government addressing it. Instead, the government’s approach is to gloss it over and come out with a news release on the virtues of whatever it happens to be.

In this case, it might be the seismic testing but, when asked about the impacts of seismic testing, the minister has no answers at all. The government has not allowed for the economic cost associated with these items in their budgeting, and these costs will continue to be borne by Yukoners for many years to come.

These social shortcomings are an embarrassment to this government because they’ve been overlooked in both the supplementary budget and in the mains budget. We’ll be getting to that issue shortly.

What’s this government’s plan to deal with the long-term effects and expenses from that industry? Well, we don’t hear that discussion. We never seem to have an opportunity for that discussion in here. What about the roads to resources? Last spring we heard an announcement out of this government that it wanted to pursue roads to resources, but now it appears they’ve clammed up. We don’t hear too much more about roads to resources. Well, we’ll be checking that issue in the days ahead, and hopefully we’ll get some answers to our questions.

So there are all kinds of issues we’ll be following up on. I want to put the government on notice that we don’t intend to shy away from asking the difficult questions, nor do we accept the government’s version of the questions when the government side decides to reword the questions. We’ll ask the questions and we’ll look forward to receiving the answers.

Now, I want to move away from this needless debate with the minister and get back to some of the questions that I’d like answered. The first on the list is that I would like him to provide us with a list of where all the branches for this department are located. I see ads in the newspapers explaining that one branch is in the building, second floor of Yukon Electrical, another one is somewhere else, and so on and so forth. Can we get the master plan, if you will, of where all these branches that make up this department are located? Is the minister willing to provide us with that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, I think we have to go back to some of the comments that the member opposite has made. It is quite disturbing when the Member for Kluane puts incorrect information on the floor of the Legislature, then in the same breath makes claim that the opposition is constructive in debate. That would be an impossibility, with the incorrect information that the member is providing to the public through this forum.

Terms used such as "misleading the public" simply have no place in this House, because they are not the facts at all. They have nothing to do with what is going on. The member also goes on to point out a matter of opinion in a number of areas — it would be the member’s opinion. Again, opinions are exactly that; they are not necessarily relevant nor are they correct in all cases.

In the Member for Kluane’s case, it holds to be a fact that irrelevance and incorrectness is the rule of thumb. I would also say that when it comes to the social side of the ledger, this government will stack up its deliveries against any past government. All we have to do is get into the budget to be able to deal with that and have that discussion. It is certainly not part of the supplementary budget, considering that we are dealing with the Department of Economic Development, and this is predominantly all wages.

So that’s obviously something that the member opposite is skirting at this point in time. Maybe he has no desire to move along with those discussions and get into the nuts and bolts of the main budget.

Also, it reflects the need to correct the third party’s error when in government and how they booked the capital lease for Quartz Road. Not only was it booked incorrectly, but the evidence clearly shows that the cost to Yukoners is in the neighbourhood of double on the lease agreement versus if we would have just simply paid for a building and built it ourselves. So there was a tremendous cost to the taxpayer of the Yukon, thanks to that misguided initiative. But there are —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan, on a point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, actually, I have two points of order I’d like to raise. One references 19(i). I was looking it up as the minister was speaking. In 19(i), members will be called to order if they use "abusive or insulting language, including sexist or violent language, in a context likely to create disorder." The background to the expression "rule of thumb", where it developed from is in Old English law — that an individual was not to use anything to beat anyone else, particularly their partner, with anything larger than the size of a thumb. It’s an expression that is sexist; it’s violent in its origins. I’m sharing that information with the Premier in the hope that he will cease using it.

He then went on in his speech to suggest that there were errors made by the previous government with reference to a particular building construction and a lease construction. That issue has already been covered by debate, and it has been dealt with and pointed out in this Legislative Assembly that the direction with regard to the leasing of a building was advised by Cabinet — three different buildings, not specifically that one. So to suggest it was only one building is really a reference to 19(g). It’s out of order because it does impute false or unavowed motives to another member — in this case, another government.

Chair:   Mr. McRobb, on the point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, the leader of the third party raises some interesting issues. I could add that I certainly wouldn’t give a thumbs-up to this government at all, Mr. Chair, and I would add that the Premier does rule. He likes to have everybody under this thumb, and —

Chair:   Mr. McRobb.

Mr. McRobb:   — I wouldn’t thumb my nose at the opposition —

Chair:   Order please.

The Chair concurs with Ms. Duncan. While the phrase "rule of thumb" has become part of our vernacular, its origins — of which many of us are aware — are of a violent nature, and I would not encourage any member to continue to use such a comment in the future.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. At any rate, the member has now asked for a breakdown of where the Department of Economic Development is situated. First we have to recognize that the dismantling of the department under the previous government dispersed many of the employees of said department throughout the structure of government. Much of that has been brought back into place; however, there was a need to make sure there were facilities for these people to work in.

Policy and planning branch is in a building at Main and Steele; strategic industries branch, Wood Street above Three Beans — the same with regional economic development; and investment and trade branch is in the Yukon Electrical building.

Having said that, the department is spread out in a number of facilities, but we’re also renting and contributing to the downtown core, as we had committed to doing at the outset, ensuring we did not diminish the presence of government in the downtown core after the move made by the third party to move most of the government out of the downtown core into the one-stop shop on Quartz Road, which was booked incorrectly and which cost the Yukon taxpayer almost double through the misguided lease initiative that the third party — then in government — entered into.

So those are the facilities that the Department of Economic Development is housed in right now.

Mr. McRobb:   Does the minister have any plan in the near term to bring these various branches together to increase the cohesion and the information network in the department, or is he quite willing to have them split up at different locations for the next few years? What are his plans?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Today we’re not going to rush around trying to find one spot for the department. In the day and age of telephone, e-mails, communication and the close proximity, I think we’re going to do just fine in the immediate. All these areas are accessible to the public, so at this stage there’s no plan. Down the road, we may look at it. The purpose here, though, is the department is up and running and focused on the strategic direction that it has developed with so many stakeholders.

Ms. Duncan:   I have a question. This supplementary budget, the minister has indicated, was specifically spent on wages, as I understand it — these additional funds — in part of the collective agreement settlement. The officials’ time has been spent in preparation for the budget, which we’ll debate next, in meeting with organizations to develop the Yukon Party version of the taking action plan. I would respectfully request, as the now Premier used to do when he was on this side of the House, that we have either minutes or meeting notes of the taking action plan notes provided to us.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Same response to the Member for Kluane to the member of the third party — the information has already been handed out. It’s in the booklet that all members of the opposition have. Its title is A New Direction: Building a Sustainable and Competitive Yukon Economy. I would also point out to the member opposite that, when in opposition, this Member for Watson Lake seldom attended briefings. This Member for Watson Lake went out in the public and sat down with the citizens of this territory and talked to them about their concerns. This member was constructive in the approach in dealing with the Yukon public, unlike the members opposite.

The member is again asking a question for information that they already have. This budget, quite simply, is about wages for this department. There is nothing more to debate, other than the retroactivity that is listed here in the pages of the Department of Economic Development’s budget. If the member from the third party wants to further the information she has, then I would suggest that the member go talk to all those stakeholders. That would be a great exercise and may really open the eyes of the member from the third party on what is really going on in the Yukon public.

Chair:   Are there any further questions for general debate?

Hearing none, we will move into line-by-line.

On Corporate Services

Ms. Duncan:   This is funding for positions, in all of the line items that we will be discussing. Are there currently any unfilled positions in the department?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   All positions that are required by the department to get up and running have been filled.

Ms. Duncan:   Could we have a line explanation, please?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is a culmination or a total of the following: $21,000 for a wage settlement in investment, trade and business development, which impacts January 2003 at two percent and January 2004 at 2.5 percent; the contribution to the Technology Innovation Centre has been transferred to strategic industries — that’s a reduction of $75,000; the contribution to the Canadian Information Processing Society transferred to strategic industries. Therefore, when all totalled up, the subtotal start-up cost is minus $69,000.

Chair:   Are there any further questions?

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, in reading his notes, the minister responsible for Economic Development missed an amount, I believe. He said plus $21,000, the wages, minus $75,000 for the transfer of program, and then he said what the other item was, but he didn’t give the amount.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The total start-up cost of transferred resources totalled $69,000.

Chair:   Are there any further questions?

Mr. McRobb:   I’d like to ask the minister what his intentions are to develop plans for the territory in this area?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is in the New Direction. Obviously a regional focus is critical to advancing economic development in the territory, ensuring that in the long term we are diversifying and addressing strategic industries. Rural Yukon is very important for us, and regional development of this particular area of the department is much about that. The regional economic development includes First Nation economic development, economic plans region by region, any projects out in those regions that we can facilitate and, of course, community economic development to help strengthen our rural communities. I hope that assists the member’s question.

Mr. McRobb:   That’s somewhat helpful, but it also occurs to me that there are several regions in the territory, and it would be almost impossible to undertake such plans in every region simultaneously. So if that’s the case, Mr. Chair, could the minister provide us with the priority list of which regions or communities will be developing such plans ahead of the others?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s not a question of priority; it’s a question of focusing on strategic industries, which is another part of the new direction. It could be resources, it could be infrastructure, it could be markets, it could be the business climate, it could be investment, it could be capacity — there are many areas.

What we’re going to do is look at where those strategic industries lie in our regions and focus on those. All in all, I think a strategic approach includes the necessity of recognizing in what regions are the best targets for us to focus on. For example, in the southeast Yukon it’s obvious that resource development is a strategic focus because it has an abundance of resources. In other areas, like Kluane, there may be some differences in that regard. So, too, in the Carcross-Tagish region, there could be differences there. It’s all about what strategic focuses are at this point in time evident in these regions. But if you don’t take a regional plus a strategic approach, then some of these areas that hold potential economic development may be missed, and that’s something we don’t want to do.

Mr. McRobb:   Just as a follow-up to that, in the days ahead I will be interested in finding out more information about which regions or communities have a higher priority in the area of economic planning.

But the minister used the Kluane riding as an example. I just want to ensure that he is aware of the sentiment of a lot of people in the area, the opinion of a lot of people in the area. During the last campaign it was a matter of discussion about regional economic planning, and most people appreciated the idea, depending of course on how it’s set up and who is included, and so on. There was also a certain distaste for entering into another government process if it didn’t lead to anything. And certainly in the Kluane region, for example, there are a number of jurisdictional areas that must be brought together in order for just about any project to proceed. In the area of Haines Junction, for instance, we have Kluane National Park, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations traditional territory, the Village of Haines Junction, the Yukon territorial government and federal government — all have jurisdictions in that immediate vicinity.

It’s usually pretty worthless for any one or only some of those entities to proceed along the path of development without bringing everybody along with them.

So I just want to bring this to the attention of the Premier, along with a factor of urgency to this particular region because of the expected expiration of the Shakwak highway reconstruction project within a few years — that’s if the government is successful in obtaining the rest of the funding from the U.S. government. But in a few years we expect the highway job situation to basically collapse. Right now, it’s one of the major economic drivers in that region. There are literally dozens of families that depend on highway work to put food on their table.

With the completion of this work, it’s in the back of everybody’s mind that eventually the day is going to come when the phone doesn’t ring and that paycheque doesn’t arrive in the mail. What then?

Not everybody can move to Teslin to cash in on the windfall — or Watson Lake or Dawson City. We have to be realistic and provide for certain regions and communities where the people exist.

So certainly in areas like this, we have an expected shortfall of jobs on the calendar a few years from now, and it should be incumbent upon any government and this minister — since he has the reins of Economic Development firmly in his grip — and he should be trotting those horses along the path of looking out for the interests of regions in the territory such as this one.

This was not really a question; it was just a comment to ensure the minister is aware, and I’m glad he has been listening.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Actually, the government side is very pleased that the Member for Kluane has come to the realization that there needs to be economic development, considering the stiff opposition that member has put up against any sort of resource development in the riding. So I think that’s important that we put that on the record also.

So the fact that the member now has come to that realization is a good sign that the New Democrats might be softening their opposition to profitable private sector and resource development. I think that’s a good thing for Yukon.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on regional economic development?

On Corporate Services

Chair:  The next area is Vote 53, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   I’ve had a suggestion of a five-minute recess or continuing on. Which would the members prefer?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   As we need unanimous consent to recess —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, we’ve already established that the minister has a speech he wants to read. It was prepared by his officials. They don’t have to be here to hear it; they wrote it. So why don’t we just proceed?

Chair:   Unanimous consent is required to take a recess. When the Chair asked if there was unanimous consent, we didn’t have it. Therefore, we’ll continue on.

Hon. Mr. Lang:  I thank the member opposite for the short break so my officials could get here.

I am pleased to introduce the Supplementary Estimates No. 2 2003-04 budget for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Energy, Mines and Resources received a total increase of $329,000 in its operation and maintenance budget and $23,000 in its capital budget. These increases largely reflect the new collective agreement increases that are effective January 1, 2003. O&M recoveries decreased $90,000, and capital recoveries did not change. There is also a net increase in revenues of $42,000. While there was a decrease of $600,000 in oil and gas royalties related to a decline in production, there was an increase in lands, forestry and mineral revenues of $642,000 related to devolved programs from Canada.

The major changes in the O&M budget, apart from the collective agreement increases, are: an increase in corporate services of $10,000, 100-percent recoverable for library-related work on behalf of Parks Canada; an increase of $190,000, 100-percent recoverable from Canada in agricultural transitional funds; a reduction of $271,000, Tough funding, which has been moved into 2004-05 main estimates to reflect the actual year in which the expenditures will be made. Under O&M recoveries, there is a decrease of $19,000 from DIAND for the Yukon Placer Committee work as these funds were part of the budget transfer for devolved programs. In the capital supplementary, the major changes are: an increase on equipment, systems and space capital projects of $65,000 to handle the renovations on the third floor of Shoppers for the relocation of the oil and gas management and oil and gas development and pipeline branches; a decrease of $6,000 for land use planning initiatives, as this project was completed under budget.

This concludes the supplementary estimates for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would be pleased to go into general debate.

Mr. McRobb:   We intend to be brief with our questioning, but I would like to ask the minister when he intends to provide us with the information requested in the briefing that took place about a week ago. We asked for a number of items to be provided, and the officials had no problem. That was on the mains budget, but there is a lot of overlap in the questioning. A lot of it pertains to the supplementary budget. I’m not suggesting the minister should provide that today, although he might have some of it available. I’m merely asking when we might expect that information.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate the question from the member opposite. You understand that some of these requests are pretty lengthy. The department is working on them, so for me to give a time would be irresponsible. We certainly will give all the information the members ask for in a timely fashion.

Mr. McRobb:   There we go, Mr. Chair. That’s not very open of the minister to not give us an idea of when we might expect that information. In other words, if I might decipher what we just heard, it’s code for, "Probably on the last day of the sitting, the opposition will get the information it’s looking for; the information that is quick to provide will probably be withheld until everything is assembled, and it will all be provided together."

Mr. Chair, let me just send a signal across to the minister that there’s no need to withhold the information until it’s all available, and we encourage him and invite him to send the information over as it becomes available. He’s probably sitting on some of it now.

I don’t expect to get much more of an answer, so we’ll move on.

I want to ask the minister about the land development in the territory. What’s his vision of releasing public lands for sale?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To go back to the member opposite’s comments, we certainly aren’t in the habit of holding back information on any of the requests. We are working in a very progressive way to answer the questions the member opposite had on the 2004-05 budget; however, we’re in a situation where there’s work to be done on a daily basis. I’m not going to commit to giving information to the member opposite if I’m not capable of doing it.

I’m saying to the member opposite that we will get the information to him in a timely fashion. We will work diligently within the Energy, Mines and Resources department to answer those questions. So, as far as the land is concerned, we certainly would like to debate that in the 2004-05 budget, which hopefully we’ll be in this Thursday — so looking forward to that debate.

Mr. McRobb:   Time will tell.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s interesting that the Member for Porter Creek Centre has taken over the House leader’s duties. I’m glad to know where we’ll be on Thursday’s debate.

I have a couple of questions with respect to the line items in this report and some of the recoveries that have been outlined. Just a technical question around the transfer of the Tough report funding from DIAND: the minister I believe said that this money, $271,000, is going to be forwarded from the 2003-04 to the 2004-05 budget. Did I hear the minister correctly, and is it staying within O&M or is it being transferred to capital?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly it will stay in O&M, but we have transferred it forward to when the money will be expended.

Ms. Duncan:   I suppose there’s an argument about whether it’s a revote or a transfer, but we’ll get into that at another point in time.

There have been significant revenues in terms of resources on the revenue side. I would just like the minister to explain in greater detail. There are additional revenues in land leases significantly above what we had expected. Although he had budgeted to get $150,000 in rental of vacant land, we are not going to see those revenues. Can he explain those items?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Understand through devolution there was a lot of meshing that had to be done, and coordination, so in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, there was some balancing off there. So, certainly it will be clear next year how this thing is going to unfold.

Ms. Duncan:   Let’s try that again. What is the rental of vacant land that we were expecting revenue for and we didn’t get?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, there is some clarification that had to be done due our transfer from DIAND. There are land leases, unearned equity, land-use fees, quarrying royalties and leases and rental of vacancy land. What I am saying to you in a nutshell, Mr. Chair, is that with the meshing with DIAND — the transfer — what we’ve done is, by working with all of that, we have tried to come up with a figure that is realistic at the end of the day.

Ms. Duncan:   A legislative return is fine. What vacant land are we talking about? I can read, as well as the minister, that there are some other categories and that we had to sort this through after devolution. Clearly, the department was expecting — there is some vacant land somewhere that was rented that the feds used to get money for that we are supposed to now. What land are we talking about that we didn’t get the money for?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly will get back to the member. We will come back with a list and clarify what this is about.

Ms. Duncan:   In terms of resource revenue, it’s understandable, with respect to oil and gas revenue, that in putting together the budget it’s best guess and there are fluctuations. I’m curious, though, to see the breakout in terms of mineral management. It’s quite specific and there’s a significant increase in quartz mining fees and in coal leases, permits and royalties. Is this strictly a volume, or was there an increase in fees?

I’ll ask that question and then go on to the next.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There are a lot of these pre-paid quartz mining fees out there, and that money was transferred to us. Some are 20 years, so it’s sort of a blip in the whole thing because, through devolution, we acquired all those resources. It certainly comes in to us as one bulk transfer.

Ms. Duncan:   Just for the benefit of those of us who will go back and look at Hansard to follow the bouncing ball, so to speak, devolution monies weren’t included in the first 2003-04 budget that was tabled because it wasn’t done yet and we were still anticipating revenues. In the first supplementary, there was a best guess — this is how much we’ll get for each of these areas. What this supplementary reflects is that this is what we actually got.

That’s what I understood the minister to say. Is that correct? The best guess tabled in the original supplementary wasn’t quite high enough in some areas.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   So this figure was a negotiated figure between us and the federal government on what was our part of that and what was their part of that. That figure came up, a final figure came out, and that blip is what came over from the federal government as our share of the fees.

Ms. Duncan:   We did better through the process of negotiating final figures than was first anticipated. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   What we’re talking about is that the fees that were divvied up between the federal government and the territorial government — it’s a final figure. We didn’t know what that figure was until we negotiated with the federal government. So at the end of the day, this is the figure that was negotiated, which brought in that amount of revenue on fees. So it was a deal between us and the federal government through devolution. We came up with this figure.

Ms. Duncan:   And for the third time, what the minister is saying is: we had a best guess put forward in the first supplementary, and in this supplementary it’s the actual figure and we did better than anticipated? A simple "Yes, that’s right" would be great.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To answer her again is that we certainly — the supplementary listed what we would average, and the difference, this one-time blip, was negotiated, and that was part of devolution — that we would sit down and negotiate that figure, which would be transferred to us as a territorial government as the manager of our resources. Those fees would come over to us because, now that we have control of them, the fees come to us. So we certainly added in what we would average and then, at the end of the day, the difference was the difference between what we negotiated for long-term fees for quartz, say — money spent in advance but to the federal government was brought over to us at the territorial government as a one-time figure. So that money is in our account, and that money accounts for that difference — a difference in the fees between what the federal government and ourselves came up with. And it’s not a guessing game. It was one of the obligations for us and DIAND to sit down, come up with that figure, and it’s strictly a mathematical figure. It’s not a hard negotiation.

Ms. Duncan:   Are there any volume increases in here?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re not talking volume; we’re talking dollar figures. Some of this money — if you were to look back — would go back eight or 10 years to when the federal government collected these fees in advance for let’s say 20 years. Through devolution, you realize that at the end of the day some of that money came over to our side of the table because of course we took over the management of these resources. So the fees came with the resources.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister’s explanations are about as clear as drilling mud; however, I will, in the interests of expediency, move on. I understand that it is not an increase in number of individuals paying, or companies paying, placer mining fees. That’s what I meant by volume. It’s not an increase in the number of individuals paying these fees; this amount is strictly as a result of the negotiation. What I was looking for from the minister was a "yes" as opposed to the clear-as-mud explanation.

However, I do have a question with the breakout. Is it the minister’s intention to continue to break this out in these specific areas — again, quartz, placer and coal? Is it the intention to continue to break that out in presentation to us?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The last comments the member made about my answers being clear as mud — I say to you we are clear. You couldn’t be clearer on those figures. Are we going to break them out? Certainly we’re going to break them out, because it’s good accounting. We want to know where these revenues come from and our department will be very diligent at making it very clear for the taxpayers of the Yukon so they will be able to read these statements.

Ms. Duncan:   There has been quite a concern — and it has been raised with the minister — about how the department goes about — and they receive revenue for it — selling maps, publications and charts.

Now, is there any discussion about how that might be a future economic generator for the territory and enhance our private sector? The minister responsible for highways has entered into discussions around the privatization agreement. Has the minister entertained any discussion about how the printing of maps and publications might be dealt with by the private sector in this particular area?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Not at this moment. What we are looking at from Energy, Mines and Resources is that the mapping that we create in our department is done in a very timely fashion and it caters to the mining industry, so we work in-house for that. We certainly are very conscious of the other businesses out there and the free enterprise end of the scenario.

For the member opposite, since devolution, our contribution to that industry from Energy, Mines and Resources has gone up by 79 percent. So we are working with as much of the private enterprise as we can, understanding the time frame that we’re under in our department. I think we are being very positive, not only on the free enterprise side, but also that we run an effective mining department that the mining community can come to and get the information they need in a timely fashion so they can do the job that they have to do.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, having spent some time with that particular part of this department, they are very professional and do a very good job. Our maps have been recognized at the Cordilleran as some of the very best and our professional staff work very closely with the mining community. We are talking about the production of the maps and publications.

Now, the minister is saying that since devolution, Energy, Mines and Resources’ contribution to the private sector doing that mapping and those publications has gone up by 70 percent. So there has been an almost 80-percent increase in work to the private sector as a result of devolution through Energy, Mines and Resources? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Out there with those four firms — we have gone up approximately 79 percent, which is a great increase, but understanding our budgets have gone up too — so those figures are out there. I would be a lot more comfortable, given where we’re at today, answering that question for next year, because I will be monitoring what amount of the percentage of the dollars going out that we can direct to the free enterprisers who are out there in the marketplace doing work for us.

We are definitely conscious of those suppliers. We are working toward it. Yes, there is a 79-percent increase, but our budgets have increased. I will be looking at this very actively over the next 12 months to make sure that we are directing the maximum amount of work we can into that free enterprise system out there that handles those kinds of issues.

We are definitely growing; we are conscious of the firms out there that can do some work, understanding that we also have to run Energy, Mines and Resources, understanding we’re running departments in Mayo and Dawson. Mayo alone had the largest winter staking rush, the first one in 15 years, Mr. Chair. But certainly we have to address the whole Yukon when we look at our mapping system and the mining communities that depend on those departments to produce that kind of work.

Again, I compliment the member opposite for mentioning our geoscience and mapping is first-rate in the Yukon, and the mining community appreciates that.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s first-rate — no question about it. There’s also an opportunity in terms of technology, printing, computers and graphics and so on. There is also an opportunity for economic development, and when we talk about economic development, we have to speak of the whole territory.

Will the minister meet one-on-one — perhaps with his deputy minister present — with these firms he has mentioned and look at it from the private sector perspective? Will he meet with them directly?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We definitely work with the whole community and definitely meet with all Yukoners on all issues, so to say we’re not going to meet or going to meet with certain groups, we certainly would do that in the process of being government.

Ms. Duncan:   I will send out the Hansard to individuals and the public comments will reflect that the minister has agreed that, yes, he will meet with them to talk about it. There’s a bigger picture in terms of the whole Yukon and there’s an opportunity there, and I would like the minister to meet one-on-one and talk about it, and I appreciate his commitment to do so.

The previous debate, with respect to the Department of Economic Development, focused on who was where. If one wanted to seek out the FireSmart program, where one finds those individuals. Now Energy, Mines and Resources is housed in a number of different offices. We’ve just heard that there is a substantial financial contribution to renovate the Shoppers Drug Mart Building to deal with, I believe, the oil and gas and pipeline unit. Could the minister just outline publicly where the offices of Energy, Mines and Resources are located?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I want to make something clear regarding the last statement the member of the third party commented on. We meet with all aspects of the Yukon population on many issues. Issues out there are brought to us on a daily basis, so I want to make it very clear that I never agreed to anything. My agreement to the member opposite is to meet with all Yukoners to discuss the management and the issues surrounding Energy, Mines and Resources.

Now as far as where our department is and where the buildings are, we moved from the Main Steele Building to consolidate oil and gas, and we moved them into the Shoppers Drug Mart Building. We’re certainly in the Elijah Smith Building; the professional building where we have the mining across from the Dairy Queen, and Building 918, which is a building for forestry across from Adorna Flowers. It has been forestry for years.

Of course, we have investments in all the communities. So we are trying to consolidate some of our operations to make them user-friendly and moving in that direction. One of the issues of the money that was released to bring the oil and gas management and oil and gas help in the pipeline branch into the Shoppers building is an improvement in that way. So we’re trying to get client-friendly so we have a department that runs smoothly — that people don’t have to go to two or three buildings to get the same answers. So we are, through devolution, working at that. Give us a break. It has only been since last April that we have been in this. So we are working very diligently to consolidate Energy, Mines and Resources.

Ms. Duncan:   Gee, a one-stop shop, one location for people — what a concept. Would the minister tell me where an individual who wants to deal with an agriculture lease or a cottage-lot piece of land goes? Is there one location for an individual who is seeking land from the Government of Yukon outside of a municipality? Is there one location for that individual to go to?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’m glad that the member opposite mentioned the one-stop shop. We certainly are looking at a very consolidated management team and location for Energy, Mines and Resources. If you needed questions answered on land and agriculture, you would go to the third floor of the Elijah Smith Building. But let’s mention to the House again that we did not sign a lease for the one-stop shop for $600,000 a year for 10 years. We are living with the past, but we’re looking toward the future. The future of this government is: consolidate the manpower, the buildings, so the client service is number one. So certainly, agricultural land on the third floor of the Elijah Smith Building; mining would be at the professional building; forestry, oil and gas, all trying to consolidate them in the minimum square footage so that we can maximize the use of those facilities.

Ms. Duncan:   I am sure that the minister will find re-reading Hansard quite enlightening.

Just one more aspect — it’s interesting how the government says, "Oh, no, we can’t possibly engage in a lease such as the government has done for years and years and years with these buildings in every single community. We have leased building for years and we are going to try to consolidate all of the services, but not that way." It doesn’t make sense, if the minister re-reads Hansard.

The long and short of it is that an individual who wants to lease a piece of land or get a piece of land from the Government of Yukon has no one clear location to go to. If they want agricultural land, they go to one place. If they want forestry land, they go somewhere else. If they want to do an oil and gas lease, they go somewhere else. The issue is land.

People may venture into an agricultural lease — if they can get that — as opposed to a cottage lease. It’s not easy for the public. The government has not done that; they have not made it easy for the public. That’s the whole point of devolution — to not only have control over our land and resources but to be able to make land accessible for Yukoners too.

One of the issues that we discussed in the past session and that has not been clearly resolved is around quartz mining fees. There was some discussion some years ago in alleviating the fees for exploration work — fees that were to be levied on specific claims — in light of a downturn in prices, et cetera. We are not encountering that at the moment, but was there any forgiveness of any fees either under this minister since devolution or with the transfer?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To correct the member opposite on the last statement on the issue of how we are making it so inconvenient for people to deal with our departments, land is land. You go to the third floor in the Elijah Smith Building and you talk to them about land. You talk to them about agricultural land; other land issues are handled in that department.

So we are certainly moving toward a one-window opportunity for our clients to get maximum use out of whatever department they go to. If it’s an oil and gas issue, they go to the oil and gas department; if it’s a mining issue, they would go to the professional building. We have maximized the use of our square footage we inherited through devolution to serve the clients better.

As far as the question about the Quartz building, I would have to get back to the member because I don’t know that answer. So I will get back to the — now she is in shock, Mr. Chair, but I don’t have the answer to that.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister being forthright with the House. Would the minister commit to providing me with that answer prior to the end of session, please?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I will certainly work diligently at trying to get that into her possession as quickly as I possibly can.

Mr. McRobb:   I have just a couple of things, Mr. Chair. A moment ago, the minister mentioned the staking that has occurred this winter. I would like to know if the information is available anywhere on the Web site about which companies have done the staking and in which area and perhaps the date. If it’s available on the Web site, could he so indicate if it’s all consolidated in one spot? If not, is it something the minister could provide in writing?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Who staked the claims and what claims are staked in the areas is public information. I don’t want to insinuate that it’s on our Web site, but I could say that it’s available to him if he were to walk into the mining recorder’s office and ask for a map to see who has staked what and how many claims. I think there were 600 claims staked. I’m not sure what the company was. I don’t have that information.

Mr. McRobb:   It was indicated that there was more than one company involved. I know there was staking in the Kluane area for example, and in other regions of the territory. Of course it’s public information, but the problem is that it’s spread out all over the place. So just to be concise, I’m asking the minister if he would provide us with a consolidated list of the information requested. Would he do that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly we like to work with the opposition, but to be fair, a lot of this information is public information and certainly it’s public to everybody in the Yukon. My department has a great load on it at the moment, and I think I would recommend to the member opposite that he go down and do his due diligence and find out what the lay of the land is. When you go, you could ask all the questions about wherever the staking was in the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister should know that my first obligation is to be present here, not be out doing his work for him. The minister has hundreds of employees in this department; he also has political staff. This is a legitimate request. I will even go a step further and say that we don’t need all 600 broken down. If it’s just one company, that’s fine. Just indicate which areas and generally the dates the staking took place. That would be sufficient. One would expect that information would be easy to provide.

The minister did indicate he’s willing to cooperate, so would he be willing to provide us with that information?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly, this government agrees with the member opposite on cooperation. I will commit to him that I will try to get some information to him in a fashion that is proper and in a time schedule that is open and at the end of the trail — what Energy, Mines and Resources can do.

Mr. Chair, it is a very busy time at this time of the year for Energy, Mines and Resources, and I don’t want to use that as an excuse for them to not do their job. I understand the member opposite has an obligation to his constituents to get the answers, and I understand he can ask us the questions and we give the answers. But certainly understand, Mr. Chair, that he has periods of time in his day that he could go down and do that homework himself and probably come up with a very factual picture of the lay of the land in all of the Yukon, whereas I really think that it is unnecessary for our department to go do this work when it’s out there, it’s available to him. And I say that I’ll commit to work at this, but in turn I think the member should go down to the mining office and look at all the books and take a look and, at the end of the day, look at the whole picture instead of just little pieces of it.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, that’s not being very cooperative. Certainly, the member opposite is relatively new in here, and perhaps he’s not familiar with all the workload that is on us as members of the opposition. We not only represent our constituents in here, we have plenty of other job functions as well. Being critic for this particular department, Mr. Chair, I’m representing all Yukoners. The official opposition has been likened to the voice of the people. When the minister hears us talking, he should put it into that context.

The requests we make are requests from the people. He’s on the government side. That’s the side with all the resources. The government side does all the spending and gives the employees their direction. We don’t have any of that at our disposal.

One other matter I wanted to ask about is, the minister said he’s trying to consolidate the operations of his department. I’m wondering how this fits into the overall scheme of things in terms of decentralization, post-devolution. I want to ask the minister if he has any thoughts on decentralizing the operations to the outlying communities. After all, even a job or two in the outlying communities means a lot to the local economies of those communities.

So we finally have the opportunity now, in a post-devolution world, to do some meaningful decentralization. I put that to the minister; what are his plans?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate the member opposite being concerned about local work in these smaller communities in the Yukon, and we in Energy, Mines and Resources, through devolution, acquired probably the giant share of the manpower all through the Yukon, understanding that we have offices in most of the larger communities in the Yukon. We are doing our work in those communities to consolidate and work with the people who are there, to make them run smoother, be more client-friendly and all the other issues we have in Whitehorse.

As far as the consolidation of our departments in Whitehorse, I think what we did through devolution and the year after that was to take it very slowly and practically so that, at the end of the day, we have a tighter organization maximizing the people we have in that department and consolidating client service.

As far as the question of whether we’re looking at farming out issues or expanding on the centres we have in the other communities, we have a profile in those communities, and we’re going to maintain that profile.

Chair:   Is there any further debate?

Hearing none, we will then proceed with line-by-line.

On Corporate Services

Ms. Duncan:   If there are any of these line items, such as sustainable resources, where there is an increase more than the collective agreement — something else — could the minister outline it, please?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Under sustainable resources, we, of course, have the Tough report, which we explained a few moments ago. We’ve had the transfer of the Kaska Tribal Council contribution moved to oil and gas and mineral resources. That $50,000 was money we committed to for the Ross River Dena Council so they could work with Teck Cominco to put a proposal together on their R-block.

Of course, then we transferred through bookkeeping from policy and planning into oil and gas. So those are the three.

Ms. Duncan:   Could I have a copy of the agreement with the Ross River Dena Council with respect to developing the agreement for the R-block with Teck Cominco? It’s a $50,000 contribution agreement, by the sounds of things. Could I have a copy of that agreement?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We will certainly work on that for the member opposite.

Chair:   Are there any further questions regarding sustainable resources?

Ms. Duncan:   In his previous answer, did the minister indicate there was also an agreement with the Kaska in respect to this one? Are there also financial agreements with Kaska Dena Council in that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think that’s just a bookkeeping thing; we just transferred it.

Ms. Duncan:   If there’s more than one agreement, could I have copies of them, please, as I understand there is more than one agreement?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We will work on the agreements that we have in hand.

Chair:   Is there any further debate?

Ms. Duncan:   Are there any vacant positions with regard to these areas by the department?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In our department, with the number of people we have, we always have a few vacancies that roll over as we manage the department.

Ms. Duncan:   Energy, Mines and Resources also received the greatest number of devolved employees as a result of the devolution agreement. How many of the employees chose not to come for one reason or another? Out of 100, did we only get 90 who wanted to work for the Government of Yukon? What was the number of people who didn’t come or who went back?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The number was very low — the ones who made a personal decision not to come over to the territorial government. But to give you that figure would be unfair — to give you an exact figure.

Chair:   Is there any further debate?

Client Services and Inspections in the amount of $80,000 agreed to

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the work being undertaken by the previous government was to streamline the efforts around regulations and the regulatory framework around the pipeline. Has that work been completed? And the study that was undertaken by the previous government, the economic analysis of the Alaska Highway pipeline, has been used extensively by the current government. Is there any initiative to update it, or is it seen as necessary by the department?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are working on the regulations for the pipeline in a very positive fashion. And certainly we’re utilizing the department and what they’ve done in the past. So as far as if we are using everything at our disposal, we certainly are. We’re taking advantage of what was done years ago and also moving forward with the concept of an Alaska Highway pipeline.

Ms. Duncan:   What’s the current status of the regulatory framework? Is it complete? Are we able to say this is the one-window such as Alaska was headed toward?

For the benefit of the minister, at several oil and gas pipeline conferences, Alaska would outline the overlay upon overlay of regulatory hurdles and the regulatory framework within which a pipeline might proceed.

Yukon’s framework was much simpler, but it still required a great deal of work. Has that work been completed, or what is the estimated completion date for that regulatory framework?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We are working on the regulatory regime as we go along. Do we have a date? No, Mr. Chair, we don’t have a date when it’ll be finalized, but we hope to see it done in the near future. We are working on it.

Ms. Duncan:   In the past with respect to this figure that was voted on, we’ve been able to point to — the author of the report escapes me at the moment — the economic impact of the Alaska Highway pipeline. A benefit and analysis was done. It should probably be updated in reflection of some current prices in the marketplace, but we have something we can point to for the expenditure of funds.

What can the minister point to for this expenditure of $654,000? The regulatory framework’s not complete; there isn’t a specific lobbying trip to Washington that can be pointed to; there isn’t a specific report that says, "Yes, here’s the independent analysis and here are the benefits."

What can the minister point to for this expenditure of money?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are working actively with the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, which is in its infancy. We certainly are working in our department to get the regulatory bases together and up front so that we can move ahead with the pipeline if and when it does come. We on this side of the House were elected on the premise that we would get our regulatory bases at home covered and also work within our borders to get ourselves pipeline-ready. We are doing that with those resources. We certainly are working with the producers. We’re working with the pipeline groups, and certainly there are issues out there that we, as a small jurisdiction, aren’t going to make that decision about, i.e. producing the gas in Alaska or moving the gas. All we as a government are doing is getting pipeline-ready between our two borders. Now we’re doing this very aggressively within our borders, and I think at the end of the day we will be very pleased with the outcome of how pipeline-ready we will be.

Ms. Duncan:   How much of the $654,000 that is being voted on in this line item is a transfer to the Aboriginal Pipeline Group?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would like to remind the member opposite that we’re working with the Aboriginal Pipeline Group. The Aboriginal Pipeline Group is independent from the territorial government. It’s just that — an aboriginal pipeline group. We certainly have funded it up to this point to approximately $130,000. We have gone to Ottawa with a workplan, and hopefully the federal government will see the light to work with the local aboriginal groups and fund it, but we in turn are committed to fund it. About 10 percent of the expenditures will be done by the territorial government as a commitment to the Aboriginal Pipeline Group to make sure that they are successful.

Ms. Duncan:   Is the minister saying that, of the $654,000 in this line item, $130,000 was transferred to the Aboriginal Pipeline Group? Is that what the minister is saying, or is he talking about the next budget? Is it $130,000 of this $654,000?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I stand corrected: it’s $120,000.

Ms. Duncan:   So, of the $654,000, $120,000 was transferred to the Aboriginal Pipeline Group. Presumably that is also a contribution agreement and I would like a copy of that as well, please.

So of the balance of the $534,000 — we don’t have a lobbyist in Washington, we don’t have a lobbyist in Ottawa, we have made no major presentations at pipeline conferences, there have been no lobbying trips, so what has the money been spent on?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’m pleased to answer the question of the leader of the third party. We haven’t spent our time in Calgary like the last government did. We have spent the resources within our borders. We have worked with the producers, we have worked with the State of Alaska, we have worked with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and we have worked with the aboriginal communities in the Yukon. We certainly prioritize our money to maximize its return.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources — myself — has gone to Calgary. We have talked to producers; we have talked to the pipeliners — all the people who will eventually be involved in the Alaska Highway pipeline we have talked to.

We haven’t spent millions of dollars on a consultant in Washington, D.C. because our government decided it was misspent resources when we could spend that kind of money in the Yukon to get ourselves pipeline-ready. That was the difference between the last government and our government: it’s the philosophy.

We look at doing our job at home before we move to the Palliser Hotel in Calgary or hire people to go to Washington, D.C. at great cost to fight a battle we can’t win.

We fight the battles we can win. I say to you that when the pipeline arrives, if it does — and understand that we will not make that decision, Mr. Chair — we will be ready for whatever pipeline comes down. Either the Foothills proposal or the Enridge proposal, we will be working with those corporations to make a smooth transition between our borders so the pipeline can go through.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister stood on his feet and said, "We didn’t go to Calgary, like the last government," and then he said, "We did go to Calgary," but we are going to focus on our own borders. And the minister said, "We are going to be pipeline-ready within our borders and build upon the work done by the previous government," but there is nothing to show for that money that has been spent, in terms of pipeline readiness. It hasn’t been done. The minister stood on his feet and said that the job is not finished.

As far as hiring a lobbyist — the lobbyist was based in Washington. Unlike the current government, we did believe in the Yukon and did believe in Yukoners, and as a government, we lobbied in Washington and believed we had a voice in Washington, and we did have a voice in Washington. The only thing that has been lost is a voice and a champion for the pipeline, because this government isn’t one. It’s on their heads when they stand up and go, "Oh, we couldn’t influence it." You bet. You spent $654,000 of Yukon taxpayers’ money. What do we have to show for it in terms of (a) being pipeline ready, or (b) having a champion for the Alaska Highway pipeline? Where is the Yukon’s champion? It’s not the members opposite. That’s the really sad fact of the matter. In terms of the pipeline readiness and a regulatory framework, we have been working for a very long time, and the minister can’t give us a conclusive date as to when that information might be ready. The minister has not accounted for the lobbying efforts, because there hasn’t been any.

What has been done is absolutely minimal. There is no champion. That is unfortunate, because it does represent a near-term economic opportunity, provided there is someone and a government who is prepared to support it and work with Yukoners toward its development. Unfortunately, we don’t have that now. What we do have is $654,000 and no accounting for it, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There was an election held 16 months ago, and the people of the Yukon decided who was going to lead the charge on the Alaska Highway pipeline. So all of the consultation in Washington, at the end of the day, proved a folly to the government of the day.

I would like to remind the member opposite today, under our management, we’re looking at six-percent unemployment — the lowest it has been since they started to take statistics — the largest number of people working in the Yukon today, since 1995 or whatever the figures are. So, Mr. Speaker, we certainly don’t take all the credit for those numbers for Yukoners, but when the member for the third party stands up and talks to me about lobbying Washington and spending our hard-earned resources on ill-begotten investments like lobbying Washington — certainly, as a minister I have been to Calgary. I don’t deny that. I have been working with the producers and the pipeliners. I have been working with the State of Alaska. We have been working with the Northwest Territories. We maximize our benefits of both pipelines.

Mr. Chair, when we took over this government 18 months ago, there was competition between the two pipelines and there was friction between two governments. We’ve done that in a short 16 to 18 months. We’re bringing one of the largest budgets forward, if we can, if the opposition allows us to do it. And at the end of the day, six-percent unemployment — the largest number of people working today in the Yukon since the middle of the 1990s. Mr. Chair, are we not on the right track? We are definitely on the right track.

We are committed to the pipeline. We are committed to investing our money in the Yukon to maximize our benefits from that pipeline. We are not about going on trips to Washington, D.C. Can you imagine, Mr. Chair, we did all of this without one trip to China. We have six-percent unemployment, the largest number of people working in the Yukon since the mid-1990s, and not one of us went to China. How did it happen, Mr. Chair?

Chair:   Is there any further debate on the line, Alaska Highway pipeline analysis?

Chair:   I understand that the next department is Vote 8, Department of Justice. Does the minister wish a recess? No?

Deputy Chair:   We will proceed with general debate.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   It is indeed my pleasure to introduce the supplementary budget for 2003-04. This particular budget represents an increase in operation and maintenance expenditures and recoveries as well as capital expenditures and recoveries.

The increase in operation and maintenance expenditures is $1,195,000, or three percent. Collective agreement personnel cost increases will result in an increase to the Department of Justice in the amount of $417,000. This increase reflects the two-percent increase effective January 1, 2003, and the 2.5 percent increase effective January 1, 2004.

Within this budget, a federal initiative for the RCMP to support recruitment of aboriginal constables and consultation on policing in the north will provide a total of $340,000 in federal funding. This funding is part of the two-year initiative that is 100-percent recoverable from the Solicitor General of Canada.

The access to justice agreement, which covers the legal aid, aboriginal courtworker and Yukon public legal education programs, will also increase by $288,000. These increases are 100-percent recoverable from Justice Canada.

Also reflected within this budget is the capital expenditure in the amount of $25,000 made to the court registry information system to incorporate national data requirements for the integrated criminal court survey, as required by the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics.

This phase is also 100-percent federally funded.

Mrs. Peter:   Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. I missed the beginning of the minister’s comments, and I just wanted to see if I can refer back to the community and correctional services, the number of $204,000?