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.

Mr. McRobb:   I’m honoured to rise today in tribute of long-time Yukoner Vern von Finster. Vern passed away on December 18, 2003, in his 91^st year. He was born in Okahandja, Namibia, in 1912 and immigrated to Canada in 1930, where he first settled in Alberta.

Born Werner August von Finster, his name was changed by his sergeant to Vern Finster when he joined the Canadian Army in 1939 on the day Canada declared war. He was among the first troops sent to Britain and served with the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and listened to Elijah Smith speak of the Yukon. Within a year of the war’s end, Vern was living in Whitehorse.

Vern’s bride, Muriel, came to Canada from England in 1948. They raised three sons while living in Fort Nelson, Mayo, Haines Junction and Whitehorse. During that time, Vern worked for the Canadian Army, the Northern Canada Power Commission and Yukon Electrical Company Limited.

In the days when diesel generators were the primary source of power throughout the territory, Vern was responsible for them all. He would travel great distances in bad weather and endure miserable road conditions to ensure the lights stayed on in rural Yukon. Vern took pride in bringing and maintaining light and power to small communities such as Old Crow and Destruction Bay.

After retiring from Yukon Electrical in 1970, he started a new career as a guard with the RCMP, eventually retiring full-time to his quiet Riverdale home. After failing health brought Vern to Copper Ridge Place, the wonderful staff there eased his final days.

I had the pleasure of knowing Vern, as I know you did, Mr. Speaker, and was always impressed with his stories about the Yukon. Vern Von Finster will be remembered for his many contributions to the Yukon. Our condolences to the family.

I would like to invite all members to join me in welcoming today his wife, Muriel, and son Alan.

Applause

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today on behalf of the House to say thank you to the 4,281 Yukoners who have signed organ and tissue donation cards. That is an increase of approximately 100 individuals from last year. This week is National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, so this is a fitting time to again say thank you to those who have already done so and to encourage those who have not yet registered as donors to consider doing so.

Making the decision to become an organ and tissue donor is a very personal one that takes a lot of thought and discussions with family members. We have individuals here in the Yukon who are still alive, because someone somewhere signed a donor card, and our fellow Yukoners were the lucky recipients. They and their families are extremely grateful for the thoughtfulness of donors who have made the decision to give that most precious gift.

Sadly, we have other families who mourn the loss of a loved one, but who can rejoice in the fact that their family member’s passing helped others. I appreciate that this is an uncomfortable situation for some, but we need this discomfort to prod us to make a decision. Remember, 4,281 Yukoners have already made that decision.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise on behalf of the Liberal Party caucus to pay tribute to the hundreds of girls and women throughout the Yukon involved in the Girl Guide organization. Guiding is the largest single organization for girls led by women in the Yukon and in Canada. Their principles of environmental stewardship and awareness are well known to the House.

In particular, the involvement in Swan Haven as a partnership opportunity in the community has brought much to Yukon for all Yukoners.

Guiding began in the Yukon in Dawson City in 1914, so 2004 marks the 90^th anniversary of the contributions offered by this volunteer organization in the territory. We are active throughout the Yukon with about 320 girl and adult members in Dawson City, Haines Junction, Beaver Creek, Teslin, Watson Lake and throughout Whitehorse. Atlin, B.C. is also included in our Yukon membership.

At this time of year, both parents and guiders support the major fundraising activity with the sale of Girl Guide cookies, and I’m sure when you’ve had a chance to taste the cookies this year, you’ll agree with me that they’re better than ever, but we can’t taste them in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, because that would be out of order. So the box for each of my colleagues in the Legislature, in the media gallery and in Hansard will be delivered later this afternoon. Each $4 box supports girls throughout the Yukon. All the money stays here and supports our unit activities.

As Yukoners greet the Sparks, Brownies and Guides at their doors this month, selling fun fuel for girl power, I would encourage all Yukoners to imagine the power of a cookie. Take a moment and ask the girls what they like most about the guiding program. You’ll be amazed at the self-confidence that has developed in these young women as they challenge themselves through a modern, active and exciting program.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Yukoners to greet these Sparks, Brownies and Guides and their adult volunteers with a smile, and I encourage the sale of Girl Guide cookies, because it’s all about the girls.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have for tabling the Town of the City of Dawson’s financial plan for 2004-07, report and addendum of the Government of Yukon recommendations.

I also have for tabling a response to the questions from the opposition regarding Shakwak funding.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House endorses the statement of principles known as the Earth Charter and urges the Government of Yukon to make best efforts to adopt and implement these principles in all areas of policy and practice that lie within its jurisdiction. I have a copy of the Earth Charter for tabling also.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue to take a balanced approach to environmental protection and responsible economic development.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to direct the Department of Community Services to work collaboratively with the Carcross area advisory and planning committee and the Carcross-Tagish First Nation to enhance public safety in Carcross by creating and implementing a pilot dog-control project.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Speaker:   Before we conclude notices of motion, the Chair wishes to inform the House of a change that has been made to the Order Paper. Motion No. 236, standing in the name of the leader of the third party, has been removed from the Order Paper as it is now outdated.

Is there a statement by a minister?

That brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   Sometimes we have to ask very difficult questions in the Legislature, and sometimes we ask questions that allow members to clarify statements made that may have caused great concern for the general public. I think people will understand where it’s coming from and why we’re asking this question.

Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources explain what circumstances, if any, justify the use of violence in any family unit?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that question. In the discussions or the issues about the jail that we had the other day — last Wednesday — I associated society with a family unit and probably would have regretted doing that, involving my own family. We certainly don’t condone violence in any aspect of our society, least of all in our own family, so I have to apologize to the House that I brought that simile in. It should not have been brought to the level of my own personal family, and I certainly will be wiser for it in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s very important that we hear those words being spoken, especially when we, as members — in the position we are in as MLAs, elected members — may misspeak ourselves, but there are still some issues around it.

Members of the House were shocked — many of us were shocked — last week when the minister made these unacceptable comments about using physical or verbal abuse within the family unit. The minister did try to clear up these statements with the media later but, unfortunately, seemed only to make the matter worse.

The minister’s own words in Friday’s newspapers were, "Maybe I was lucky my family unit didn’t need any violence; maybe others do."

What is the Premier doing to make his ministers aware that violence of any kind is not acceptable in any family unit?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would like to take that question from the member opposite. I feel the question has been asked and I’ve addressed the question. So let’s go on with the business of the day and move forward.

Mr. Hardy:   No matter how much we would like to move forward on it, Mr. Speaker, it’s really not the member opposite’s choice. The member opposite was the one who started it and, unfortunately, the member opposite added to it by his comments on Friday and I think we need to deal with that so it doesn’t happen again.

This kind of careless comment by a community leader gives entirely the wrong message to people who may be looking for excuses to justify their own violent behaviour.

Earlier this sitting, the MLA for Old Crow asked the Premier and the Minister of Justice to make it crystal clear that this government does not condone domestic violence in any form — physical, verbal or emotional. I was very disappointed with the lack of response I heard from both ministers when the member from Old Crow asked these questions.

So my question now is: will the Premier make a commitment that any member of his Cabinet or caucus who makes a statement condoning violence within Yukon families will be disciplined and dismissed, if necessary?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:  First, let’s put this into context. There has been nobody on the government side of the House who has made a statement condoning violence in any shape or form in our society. Let’s get that straight.

Second, Mr. Speaker, this government has never been silent when it comes to this terrible scourge in our society. We speak with our actions, and this government has taken on a number of initiatives to try to address this very deeply rooted problem. Led by the Women’s Directorate, for example, this government is trying to address — nationally, in partnership with the federal government, all provinces and territories —what is a terrible situation in our aboriginal communities, where aboriginal women experience up to three times the incidence of violence in the home.

Our Department of Health and Social Services continues to invest in programs and the delivery of those programs to all individuals in Yukon society today to try to address this deeply rooted problem. The challenges are many, but this government will do its best to meet those challenges daily.

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, according to today’s court information, the company that had the waste management contract in Dawson City has now filed a lawsuit for more than $500,000. I’m sure this doesn’t come as a surprise to the Minister of Community Services. Why did the minister, through his hand-picked supervisor, direct the mayor and council of Dawson City to take an action that made this lawsuit virtually inevitable?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As the member opposite indicated this is under court litigation, and I can’t make any further comment.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, I can understand why the minister doesn’t want to comment about it. His fingerprints are all over the situation here. The ongoing saga of how the minister set about to remove Dawson’s duly elected mayor is far from over.

Last fall, the minister appointed a supervisor that has cost the taxpayers more than $50,000 to date and the clock is still ticking on that one, and the bill is yet to be finalized. Now the taxpayers could be on the hook for another half a million dollars as a result of the supervisor’s insistence that the mayor and council rip up a contract that they had just signed. If the legal action is successful, will the government be paying the bill, or is this going to be another burden on Dawson City’s finances?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I think the member opposite will concur, this is just another reason that the trustee has been appointed in Dawson City.

Mr. Cardiff:   Perhaps the minister can get more advice from the Member for Klondike to answer this question. The minister may be more willing to discuss his apparent about-face on the question of a public inquiry in Dawson City. Last week he appeared willing to initiate an inquiry and then he apparently had a change of heart and said that he would only launch an inquiry if the new trustee requested it. I can’t see anything in the Municipal Act that allows the trustee to request an inquiry, but the minister can and should do that. That’s the only way to end all of the speculation and the misunderstanding and the half-truths.

Will the minister do the right thing and use his authority under the Municipal Act to order an independent inquiry into Dawson City’s financial situation, how it developed, as well as the circumstances leading to the minister’s dismissal of the mayor and council?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We have received a request from the trustee to perform a forensic audit on the situation in Dawson City, and we are progressing along that line. That’s the first stage, and that’s to assist the trustee in determining the financial situation in Dawson City, to help him just to recreate what has happened in the town and provide some factual information that the member opposite, I’m sure, would like to see. If in fact I get a recommendation from the trustee that they want to take a further step, we will act on that step.

Ms. Duncan:   Under a new policy announced last December by the Premier, the government intends to sell all outstanding loans to a collection agency. Included in this group of loans are more than $400,000 in unpaid bills belonging to the MLA for Klondike and the MLA for Porter Creek Centre.

The tender package is now being developed for anybody interested in purchasing these loans. Will the Premier today guarantee taxpayers that any settlements that are reached with the collection agency will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have committed to a process in regard to this long-standing unresolved issue for the Yukon government. That process is now well on its way to completion. There was a six-month timeline for all proponents to come forward, except for the two members of this government who do not have the luxury of renegotiating terms and conditions. Once completed and the tenders are out and we’ve reviewed those proponents who come forward with their bids on the tender package, we will make that decision. But there are still a couple of months left in the six-month period that we provided on this issue before we get to that stage.

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier gave a lengthy answer but he didn’t commit to the public that the settlement terms would be made public, that they would know what happened. Ever since the government took office, the benefits to having a Yukon Party card have been obvious. Top advisors have had pay raises, former candidates have received contracts and the main criterion for being appointed to a board has been having a Yukon Party membership card.

Now, both Cabinet ministers entered office with hundreds of thousands of dollars — $400,000 — in unpaid loans. Thanks to the announcement in December, they will leave office owing nothing and we don’t know what will be paid back.

At least one individual has publicly come forward and told the government that they do not intend to pay back their loan because they believe the statute of limitations has expired.

Will the Premier commit that this type of special arrangement, the statute of limitations, will not be provided to either Cabinet minister?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First off, let’s put this question into context, and as usual the third party is standing on the floor of this Legislature presenting an opinion. That opinion is not necessarily correct or even relevant to the facts. The facts are that we’ve brought forward a process to bring closure to a long-standing issue. It’s not a couple of hundred thousand dollars we’re dealing with here; it’s millions of dollars of outstanding loans to the Yukon government, some of that also to the federal government. We the government side are bringing closure to it. We the government side have brought forward a solution. We the government side will stick to that process and see it through to its end.

Ms. Duncan:   Thousands of Yukoners consider this issue relevant and bringing closure to it will include making public the facts. It’s a well-known fact that two MLAs owe Yukon taxpayers more than $400,000 in unpaid loans. I wrote to one of those MLAs, the MLA for Klondike, on January 29 and asked him to make a public commitment that he would pay back all the money he owes. I urged him not to duck out of that responsibility and I urged him not to invoke the statute of limitations. The letter was never answered.

My question is for the Minister of Health: will he commit to paying taxpayers the full amount of the money, the $270,000?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to address this in this manner. The member opposite obviously has zeroed in and is fixated on two members of this government whose companies that they are affiliated with, and somehow involved with, owe money to the government, along with many others, totalling millions of dollars. I would also put on the floor of the Legislature that these same two members are making a contribution to today’s Yukon that is measured in invaluable terms. This is not an easy job. They are committed to it. They are delivering, unlike the member opposite who had an opportunity when in government to deal with this issue. What did we get? Nothing. Suddenly the third party is the champion of the unpaid loans? I think not.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have another question for the Minister of Community Services. Section 336 of the Municipal Act sets out five conditions under which the minister may appoint a municipal trustee and remove the elected council. My question is pretty straightforward. Which of the five conditions, if any, was the minister acting on last Tuesday when he appointed a trustee to conduct the municipal affairs of Dawson City?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Dawson City is broke.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, that’s not in the Municipal Act. I don’t know where he got that one. That’s not in the Municipal Act. The majority of Dawson’s council did not request a trustee. That would be condition 336.1(e). We know that council didn’t lose its quorum, even after one of the councillors resigned in protest. That was 336.1(d). So we could try something else. Maybe council failed to carry out an order or a direction from the minister — 336.1(c); or maybe council failed to carry out a duty or function under the act — that’s 336.1(b). Did the former mayor and council fail to meet one of those conditions and, if so, would the minister please elaborate?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The City of Dawson is considered insolvent. That’s "broke".

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, the minister’s answer isn’t good, and it’s not helping anything. The minister has to follow the Municipal Act. The act is very clear about the five conditions that will allow the minister to sack an elected council, but the minister isn’t being clear about why he did that or the conditions that warranted that action.

Maybe the minister can answer this question: is the minister confident that his action in appointing a trustee would stand up to a court challenge, and on what does he base that confidence?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We have been working with the City of Dawson for some time now, since 2001, on their situation. Their situation is getting much more difficult and it’s getting to the point where the City of Dawson was actually financially broke.

Mr. McRobb:   My question today is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he tell the House what plans this government has to develop an electrical cogeneration plant in Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Certainly we are working with every part of the Yukon to improve the economic future for all parts of the Yukon, and certainly cogeneration in Watson Lake is something that has been brought up — a great potential for southeast Yukon looking at the forest industry and the potential of that. So we don’t shut the door on any economic future for any area of the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:   That’s not much of an answer. Perhaps the Premier hasn’t brought this minister into his loop. At a recent public meeting in Watson Lake, the MLA Premier declared that he would soon bring a cogeneration plant to town and build it around a sawmill. Now, a main concern with this idea is the risk associated with tying a cogeneration plant to the presence of the coexisting source of heat or fuel.

In this case, the risk is clear: sinking millions of dollars into a facility that would be dependent on the continuous operation of one or more sawmills in the Watson Lake area. Since the minister has been brought into the Premier’s loop, let’s have him answer this question: what evidence can the minister provide that would remove this high risk?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, I’d like to remind the House that on this side of the House we are looking very positively at economic development, and certainly there are challenges out there. Unlike the party across from us, the people in opposition, we have a commitment to the Yukon to get the economics up and going. Part of that master plan in southeast Yukon is the forest and how the management of that forest is going to go. As you see, Mr. Speaker, we’re moving toward that in a very productive way. So answering the question for the member opposite, certainly cogeneration has some potential in southeast Yukon. Forestry has some potential in southeast Yukon. We on this side of the House are looking at all aspects of economic development for all of Yukon.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister to indicate what evidence he has that removes the risk of building this plant. He failed to respond to that point. Now, gambling a huge amount of public funds on the continuous operation of Watson Lake sawmills is about as shaky a proposition as playing high-stakes poker in Vegas while blindfolded.

Now, let’s go back to the public meeting. The Premier told Watson Lakers he’s making changes at the Yukon Energy Corporation to pave the way for the cogeneration plant. Can the minister enlighten this House: specifically what changes have been made or are being made to accommodate this commitment?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, we certainly are not going to follow the path of the past NDP government, which spent $26 million on a non-existing sawmill in Watson Lake, which the ratepayers today are still paying off. We certainly are not going to use that as a template for how this government will do business anywhere in the Yukon.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I would just like to invite all members of the Legislature to provide a warm welcome to my mother and also councillor of the Town of Watson Lake, Dianna Raketti.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

The definition of auxiliary employees in the Public Service Act is, in part — and I quote — "has one work assignment on a seasonal basis of more than three but less than 10 consecutive months on an hourly, daily or other periodic basis".

The second ambulance in the Whitehorse station, known as the Bravo car, has been in use for seven days a week for 365 days a year for three years. It has been staffed largely by auxiliary employees. This is not periodic use of auxiliaries.

What is the government’s policy on determining if a position should be considered permanent or auxiliary?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member’s information with respect to the staffing at the Whitehorse ambulance station is incorrect.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, the minister didn’t hear the question, as usual. We are getting that from the government side time and time again. There was no answer to the question.

So I can ask the minister again: why is the Minister of Health standing up to answer questions for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission? He wants to control everything on that side of the House.

So I will ask the minister again in a simple question — it appears that we have to do that, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House: what is the government’s policy on determining if a position should be considered permanent or auxiliary? That is to the Public Service Commission and I ask the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission to answer that question.

Speaker:   Before any member rises on the government side, it is a collegial responsibility of the Cabinet that they will stand up and answer questions at any given time. Any member of the Cabinet can do so, and we all know that. So please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   While all that conversation was going on, I sort of lost track of the question here. I would like the member opposite to repeat it.

Speaker:   I’ll give you another supplementary.

Mr. Fairclough:   My goodness, this is going from bad to worse. I’m asking about the definition of auxiliaries and what this government’s policy is all about. I said that for seven days a week, 365 days a year, the Bravo car has been in use and is largely staffed by auxiliary employees. I will ask the first supplementary: what is the government’s policy on determining if the position should be considered permanent or auxiliary?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I will get that information to the member opposite by legislative return.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’ve been asking this question of the minister almost every day of this sitting, and I’m surprised that ministers are not following up on it. Let me ask the minister this then: in May 2000, the Public Service Commission hired four auxiliaries for ambulance service. In 2003 they hired one more, and they just hired two more auxiliary ambulance attendants. The number of auxiliaries on call in the ambulance service is now greater than the number of the permanent staff, and some of these auxiliaries are earning more than the permanent staff.

In the past year, more than 70,000 hours have been clocked by auxiliaries, enough money to pay for 32 full-time employees. Why is the Public Service Commission not hiring permanent employees for the ambulance service? This is a straightforward question.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, Mr. Speaker, these positions are staffed by the Public Service Commission. I believe that due process is followed in any given position within government and I fail to understand what the real concern of the member opposite is. I mean, if the positions aren’t required to be full-time, they will not be full-time.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Community Services. Last November I asked the minister about his new policy on emergency forest firefighters, and I see in the newspaper that they’re actually advertising to train emergency forest firefighters and offer them jobs.

My concern at the time was that several categories of workers were being asked to put their lives on the line for substandard wages and no benefits. Has the minister done anything to change this situation and give emergency fire personnel the respect they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   At the present time we are paying those particular firefighters comparable wages to the other jurisdictions in Canada.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, that’s not good enough.

Let’s look at the details. The policy, 3.58 in the general administration manual, lays out how much they get paid, so let’s look at it. A kitchen aide who works for the Yukon government at a seniors facility, for example, makes $16.96 an hour, plus benefits; a kitchen aide on the fire line, $8.65 an hour — imagine that — and no benefits. That comes down to less than half what a kitchen aide at a seniors facility would make.

Under this new policy, a camp crew boss, who has to be a certified firefighter, who has the responsibilities of running a fire crew in risky situations, makes a pitiful $14 an hour.

Will the minister now make a commitment to take another look at this penny-pinching policy before the year’s fire season starts? We’re getting awfully close here.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, these rates were provided under the devolution process from the federal government.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, that’s too bad. The minister doesn’t seem to understand that he’s the minister responsible for forest fire management now. It’s not the federal government. Ottawa doesn’t set the pay scale any more. It’s the minister who is going to set the pay scale. So the argument —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Please allow the member to ask his question. Carry on.

Mr. Cardiff:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The argument that Ottawa sets the pay scale carries about as much water as an empty hose. This government has made a big deal about doubling the honoraria for volunteer firefighters, and I congratulate them on that. That’s a good move, but the question is: why does the largest budget in Yukon history, which paves the way for a $50-million bridge to nowhere, not recognize the value of emergency forest fire personnel? Will the minister now change his policy and increase the rates in all four categories under policy 3.58 of the general administration manual to bring their wages more into line with other workers doing similar work?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are working with our fire crews, and we are standing ready for this season. We’ve had a season under our belt. I expect very much that we’ll be prepared for this upcoming season, and we’ll look forward to it.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment has shown that he’s good at spending money on the Yukon Wildlife Preserve, and unfortunately he has also shown he’s not very good at bringing money in. In past years, the preserve has received a good deal of its revenues from Holland America, one of our major tourism partners. In a recent interview, one of his officials admitted that we’ve been approached by Holland America, but we haven’t been able to get together to talk about it. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is no deal in place this summer with Holland America, and there isn’t going to be one. The government is spending $580,000 to run the facility but didn’t have time to talk to its largest source of revenue. Will the minister confirm that there is no agreement in place with Holland America, a customer who traditionally spends $250,000 at the facility and is one of our major Yukon tourism partners?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the Wildlife Preserve once again. This will be a world-class facility and certainly worthy of the tourism, but we remind the member opposite, who should be aware, that tour companies plan their tours, plan their operations, years in advance. This was one of the problems in terms of the facility closing, and without that assurance that it would continue, which caused the problems.

It will take several years for them to see how this develops and to put that back into their brochures. They have to get it on their Web sites, communicate it to their tour operators, set the standards. We have had talks with them so far, and that will be starting. We do have to make arrangements certainly in the interim to get the facility up and running, but that’s certainly in our game plans and we certainly have had discussions with them.

Ms. Duncan:   I would hope that the game plans for the Wildlife Preserve would include full and fair consideration to one of Yukon’s major tourism partners, including having the time to talk about it.

One suggestion that’s making the rounds is that the Department of Environment is looking to generate revenue at the recently purchased game preserve by having Yukon schoolchildren visit it. The admission would be paid by the Department of Education. In other words, one department is going to subsidize the other department. Will the minister guarantee that our schoolchildren can continue to visit the facility without having to pay?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Again, the Wildlife Preserve will be — I believe the date is June 12 that is the official opening, and we certainly do welcome everyone to come out. One of the difficulties, of course, that has happened in the past is that that agreement with Holland America was in fact an exclusive contract, which left us with a situation of many Yukoners not really realizing what the benefits were and what the place had to offer. To my knowledge, I don’t believe there is any arrangement where we’re going to be charging any kind of revenue or gate receipts or anything like that to the Department of Education, nor will we on the first public day to invite people in. I invite the members opposite. We won’t charge them either if they’d like to come out and actually see what they’re complaining about.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has demonstrated that he can spend money. He has demonstrated that he is not very good at bringing money in. He is not content to stop there.

In a March 26 radio interview, the minister was making noises about buying animals from other game facilities in the Yukon, including one in Carcross.

How much money has been set aside for that purchase, and what does the minister plan to do with the animals?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I appreciate the compliments from the member opposite of knowing how to spend money. When a government can spend $12.1 million the day of calling an election, I take that as something coming from an expert.

Again, the game farm will be a world-class facility. One of the ways that we can ensure that animals do not go into the hunt farm stream is by certification with the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. We have already purchased and are in the process of setting up ISIS — the international species identification system. It allows the animals to be microchipped and traced, so that if they do go to another facility, we know exactly where they are and what they are used for.

Also, the revenue streams and benefits that will come from other directions do not involve the sale of large numbers of animals or large numbers of offspring — something that is necessary for any farmer of any sort. Without that necessity, the animals aren’t produced. They are only produced when necessary. They are produced for good purposes, to other licensed and fully accredited facilities.

Again, I thank the member opposite for the chance to say that this is the way to prevent animals from going to hunt farms. This is the way to do it, and it is the only way to do it. This government has done it.

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

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 43, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 43, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 43, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’m pleased to introduce this bill to the House. The bill extends the Yukon mineral exploration tax credit for another three years. Instead of expiring on March 31, 2004, the bill allows the credit to continue through to March 31, 2007. I think it’s a given that this mineral exploration tax credit has provided the Yukon with a bit of a competitive advantage in seeking mineral exploration investment for the Yukon, and it’s also an incentive for the industry that has been well-received.

It’s also important to note that it provides a degree of certainty for the industry in planning future years’ exploration programs, which are a very important part of raising investment to any jurisdiction from the industry itself.

The mining industry has told us many times that this credit is very important to leveraging funds from the investment community and we’re hopeful that those funds, as much as we can solicit, will be invested in the Yukon, and we’re pleased that the projections for this summer are showing approximately $30 million of mining exploration for the Yukon. Considering that two short years ago we were realizing a mere $5 million to $6 million, I think we can all agree that we’re heading in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, this credit is money well invested. It’s money that brings much more to the territory. Mining exploration is a prerequisite to get to the position where any mine may move into development and a production phase.

But it also serves another purpose, which is a minor issue. It corrects an incorrect ratio used in the current Income Tax Act. This ratio, which has been uncovered by our hard-working Finance officials, should have been changed when the mineral exploration tax credit was brought in and changed from a rate of 22 percent to 25 percent on April 1, 2001.

With that, I commend the amendment to the Income Tax Act to the House and look forward to the member opposite’s comments.

Mr. McRobb:   We in the official opposition at this point rise in favour of this amendment to the bill. After all, it was a previous NDP government that introduced the bill and the concept of a Yukon exploration mining tax credit. It’s somewhat reassuring to know that the former NDP member, the now MLA for Watson Lake and Premier, hasn’t lost all of his NDP roots and still will stand behind something, at least something, that a previous government brought into this House.

Just earlier today I had the pleasure of going back and looking through Hansard, doing research for my question in Question Period, about the cogeneration plant in Watson Lake. I had the pleasure of reviewing some of the speeches made by the Member for Watson Lake at that time.

It was rather interesting to read what he had to say about the Yukon protected areas strategy. He married the YPAS to exploration, but we see something quite different now that he’s Premier and a member of the Yukon Party. Obviously that relation has been divorced because YPAS has been axed and pushed off the stovetop altogether; it’s not even on the backburner any more, despite being very prominent in the Yukon Party election platform.

I’ll just remind you that the Yukon Party promised to bring all the parties together and resolve the issues regarding the Yukon protected areas strategy. Well, it didn’t take the government too long to resolve the strategy all right, Mr. Speaker. The strategy was basically axed in the backroom without any public consultation. It was another example of the government fulfilling an agenda and not being very open about it to the voters at the time. So we don’t have a lot to say on the tax credit amendment at this time. We’re looking forward to some debate in Committee on it, and we do have a few questions at that time.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, which extends the mineral exploration tax credit. The Yukon mineral exploration tax credit was introduced at the time as a short-term measure to help the mining industry generate jobs and spending during what was then a downturn in exploration and in metal prices.

The NDP introduced the program in 1999. At that time, it was at 22 percent. The Liberal government not only increased the mineral exploration tax credit to 25 percent, but we also extended it significantly.

It’s a very important program for mineral exploration in the Yukon Territory. This particular tax credit, Mr. Speaker, has a high potential for positive economic benefits, and I’d like to commend the fact that the Income Tax Act has been used in this particular program of assistance to the mining industry, because it applies to everybody equally. It’s not to the best grant writer or to any one particular industry over another. It’s for the mining industry, and it is available to everyone.

It’s very important because the mining exploration companies spend their money locally. They buy their groceries, they rent their vehicles, they charter the local helicopter companies, they hire locals to do the expediting, and they spend money throughout the territory. They spend this money by hiring the services throughout the Yukon.

There is a cost to the Yukon taxpayer in terms of foregone revenue. In 1999, which was when it was first introduced, the estimated revenue — or cost of the program — was about $1.3 million. Now, exploration figures for that year were very low, as were the metal prices. The Premier has not indicated what the foregone revenue might be in a high exploration year, such as is anticipated this year, and I would appreciate that information either in Committee of the Whole debate or in his second reading speech.

I support the mineral exploration tax credit. I believe very strongly in it. It was our government that increased it to 25 percent, and I applaud its continuation.

I would like Yukoners to have the full information. For example, at the time of its increase, it was indicated that BDO Dunwoody has indicated the expenditures made by the mining industry — about 81 percent of them — were spent locally, in support of my comments earlier. So if the Premier has additional information, perhaps he could share it with the House.

Fundamentally, in the interests of full and fair information, we should also be aware of what the anticipated future cost of the program is as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With that I would again indicate my support for Bill No. 43 and look forward to its rapid process through Committee of the Whole.

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

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

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, in looking through the Standing Orders of the Assembly for the particular clause that indicates that it is against the House rules to have props in this Legislature, I would draw your attention to the desk in front of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It appears he has a statue of a squirrel over there. I don’t quite know what it is about, Mr. Speaker — whether there is maybe lots of food for the squirrel or what, but I would remind you that it is against the rules.

Speaker:   Order please.

There is a point of order. We are not allowed to use props in this House. I would ask the member to place the prop — whatever the heck it is — under his desk, please.

Thank you.

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is truly a simple amendment extending what was already an initiative in place, but I feel compelled to respond to some of the comments from the opposite benches.

First let me deal with the third party. Yes, it’s true that the third party took on an inherited initiative of tax credit for the mining industry and increased it from 22 to 25 percent. That is a fact.

However, the third party, when in government, totally diminished and diluted the benefits that would accrue from such an increase for this incentive-driven initiative by stumbling and fumbling around with the Yukon protected areas strategy; therefore, not inviting the industry into the Yukon. In fact, by creating the uncertainty that that very flawed process had brought to our territory, it drove the industry out of the territory.

I think it’s important that that’s put on the record because it speaks volumes to what took place during a time when we were under the leadership of the now third party, then the Liberal government. This government, on the other hand, had the political will to deal with a flawed process and the rest is now history. Not only are we extending the time period for this mineral exploration tax credit, we are doing many other things to provide certainty for the mining industry in this territory. Not only is it through an incentive process, like tax credit, but it’s also important to note our efforts to encourage partnerships with First Nations. A shining example of that, much to the chagrin of the opposition benches, is the partnership with the Kaska Nation and a major mining firm known as Teck Cominco. We now are experiencing today their involvement again in the mining sector in the Yukon, and I think it shows clear testimony that this government’s approach not only with tax incentives but with partnering with First Nations is paying dividends.

I can understand that the member opposite — the members — have a problem with that. Let me just point out the contrast. We the Yukon Party government promote and commit to partnering with First Nations so that they will realize a benefit from economic development. The members opposite are against that: a clear contrast in this House, and all First Nations should be aware of the position of not only the New Democrats but the third party in this Legislature. For days now we’ve watched and witnessed the members opposite try to pit First Nation against First Nation. Not this government: we are firmly committed to ensuring that economic partnerships provide benefits for all Yukoners, including First Nation people.

When it comes to the official opposition and their response to this, it’s always interesting to listen to the Member for Kluane promoting and supporting tax credits on one hand because it’s the thing to do — there is no real other choice — but on the other hand he makes many statements and takes many positions that are anti-development for this territory. The Yukon protected areas strategy initiative is a shining example of what not to do when you want to attract resource investment into the Yukon Territory.

I also want to put on the record that, considering the constant connection with the NDP through my former position with that party, I want to thank the NDP for allowing me that time to practice, because that’s what it was.

To compare myself, the MLA for Watson Lake, or to label me as a social democrat is extremely incorrect. I never was a social democrat. I never will be. I am, without a doubt, a proponent of capital democracy for this territory, and we are implementing many initiatives that speak volumes to that.

Secondly, the NDP recruited me. They obviously needed someone like me to show up their right flank, and for a time I did that. But I have moved on because I have seen the light, Mr. Speaker. It’s also important to note that we, the Yukon Party government, do not ignore good initiatives that will benefit people and citizens of the Yukon — not at all. Yes, we have incorporated the mineral exploration tax credit and improved on it, but I think the Member for Kluane would be better served to stand up and — instead of announcing to the territory through this House that it was the NDP that created this tax incentive — point out that it was Yukoners sitting at the tax round table for many hours, working hard on bringing forward recommendations to the government of the day on how to better improve the economic situation in the Yukon. It was not government; it was Yukoners who brought forward this initiative. We commend them for it, and we are going to continue to incorporate it.

Not only have we adopted this incentive — the mineral exploration tax credit — but we also adopted the community development fund, we’ve also adopted FireSmart, we’ve also adopted the rural roads program. Why? Because this government will not ignore good initiatives that benefit Yukoners, and we will continue to work to improve all the initiatives that we have before us to make the lives of our citizens improved and better.

We, Mr. Speaker, as a government will never shirk our duty to go forward and continue to attract the private sector into this territory, which the NDP simply have an aversion to do.

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. I believe the matter before the Committee this afternoon is Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04.

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.

We will continue with Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04, with general debate on Vote 18, Yukon Housing Corporation.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

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

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, I understand that we’re now dealing with Bill 8, the supplementary budget. That is not the business identified by the government House leader at the House leaders’ meeting this morning. We were advised that we’d be dealing with Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, in second reading. Now that order has been switched up without any explanation.

Chair:   Order please. Thank you for bringing that to the Chair’s attention. Unfortunately the Chair has no control over the business that is called.

Yukon Housing Corporation — continued

Chair:   The matter before the Assembly today is Vote 18, Yukon Housing Corporation.

Mr. Cardiff:   We’ll talk about Bill No. 43 another day, I’m sure.

So, where we left off the other day, I was asking the minister about the pet policy for Yukon Housing. The minister didn’t seem to want to commit at that time to reviewing the pet policy on an overall basis for Yukon Housing.

I think that he has already raised the point that there is a double standard and that it is discriminatory, based on age, that people should be allowed to have pets. It’s also a double standard and it’s discriminatory, based on income, when government employees staying in Yukon Housing units can have pets and people on social assistance are denied the right to have pets.

There are a lot of reasons why people should have pets. There are a lot of good reasons, and even the Member for Klondike and the Minister of Health and Social Services should realize that.

So I’m going to point out a couple of good reasons why it would be good if people in Yukon Housing units were allowed to have pets. Seniors who own pets cope better with stressful life events without entering the health care system. I’m sure the Member for Klondike would applaud something like that. People with borderline hypertension had lowered blood pressure on days they took their dogs to work. And we know that both the Member for Klondike and the Premier love to take their dogs for walks in the parking lot and relieve their hypertension and lower their blood pressure as well, Mr. Chair.

There are lots of examples. Animal-assisted therapy can effectively reduce the loneliness of residents in long-term care facilities. They have fewer minor health problems. Pet owners also have better psychological well-being, and contact with pets develops nurturing behaviour in children, who may grow to be more nurturing adults.

Children exposed to humane education programs display enhanced empathy for humans compared with children not exposed to such programs. Positive self-esteem of children is enhanced by owning a pet; children’s cognitive development can be enhanced by owning a pet; and 70 percent of families surveyed in 1985 reported an increase in family happiness and fun subsequent to pet acquisition. Children exposed to pets during the first year of life also have a lower frequency of allergies and asthma. In many instances, pets fulfill many of the same support functions as humans for adults and children.

So there are lots of good benefits for why seniors and families should have the right to have a pet live in their home with them. The minister needs to look at some of those positive examples before they slam the door on people who live in Yukon Housing social housing and tell them they can’t have pets.

The International Association for Human-Animal Interaction Organizations, which is a partner of the World Health Organization, passed a resolution in 1995 to acknowledge the universal, non-discriminatory right to pet ownership in all places and reasonable circumstances if the pet is properly cared for and does not contravene the rights of non-pet owners.

Now, "all places" would include the home, and I think that it would also be a reasonable circumstance to expect that people could have pets where they live.

So I’m hoping that the minister will have another look at this and ask the Yukon Housing Corporation and the board to take another look at this. I look forward to hearing what the minister’s response is.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I won’t dispute any of the comments he made with regard to the positive aspects about pets. I have a pet myself. The issue in most of these cases is that as many ways that you can look on the positive side, there are negative sides. There are people with allergies. There are people who can’t be near cats and/or dogs, so the issues — there’s the issue of seniors, for example. In detached facilities, that’s fine, but in apartment-type dwelling places, there is the case of noise, again a case of allergies, and there’s also — as far as the Housing Corporation goes — the aspect of after-care when the unit is switched over and it has to be cleaned out and taken care of.

But I will say that the decision to allow pets or not allow pets is up to the social housing unit; it is done at the community housing board level. Some allow pets, some don’t. As I mentioned before, the Yukon Housing Corporation respects each local level’s authority in this matter. I’d like to re-emphasize that particular aspect.

The staff housing policy is a Public Service Commission policy. Yukon Housing administers the policy on behalf of the Public Service Commission. The decision to allow pets in staff housing is related to the recruiting and retaining of employees in the communities.

It is often very difficult for the government to fill key positions in rural communities, and part of the equation in getting professionals to go to these communities usually involves a pet facility.

As I mentioned previously on the pet policy, we are awaiting the Human Rights Commission’s ruling due sometime in late May before looking at our policy again, depending on what that ruling comes out with.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister basically did it again. There is a policy in place. The government has a policy in place around recruitment that allows people to have pets, but if you are on social assistance or they’re in social housing, they are not allowed to have pets.

I don’t disagree with the fact that there are extenuating circumstances, especially in apartment buildings. I mentioned the resolution that was passed, and it says, "…as long as it does not contravene the rights of non-pet owners."

I am sure that if the Housing Corporation looked at it, there would be the possibility of allowing people to have pets as long as there were certain rules in place. I am sure that the government knows all about rules, and they can draft a set of rules — or somebody can draft a set of rules — that tenants would have to live up to in order to have a pet — whether it was about how many times a week they had to vacuum, or whatever it was, or maybe they would have to take their pet outside for certain functions. I mean, that is just a natural, commonsense thing. If they can’t live up to it, then I guess they don’t get to have a pet. What I am saying is that at least there should be a policy in place that allows for pets as long as they can obey the rules.

And I would appreciate it if the minister could look into that.

There was one other issue I raised with the minister in the last week or so, and that was the fact that social housing rent is based on 25 percent of the gross income of all household members. The problem is that the rent that is paid, a lot of the times, is higher than what the market value would be, and then it discourages people from working. In some cases, it splits the family up, where one member of the family who is working moves out so that they don’t lose the house that they’re living in and their kids can stay there and have a roof over their head. It doesn’t encourage tenants in social housing to save for mortgages.

The minister did commit to looking into this about a year ago actually. When I asked him about this, he said that he would ask the board to look into the pet policy for seniors and he said he would also ask for a review of the rent assessment policy. So that was last April, April 30, and I’m just wondering — his excuse on April 5 of this year was that they had assumed this from the federal government. I would just like to know if he has something different to say on the 25 percent and whether or not he would be willing to cap that rate at some point.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   To respond to the member opposite, the issue we were dealing with last year was we did look at the child income rent assessment for the — sorry, the alimony income for them, and that was done. We did bring in a reduction to not include that in the 25-percent income level for their rent, and that was done.

With regard to social housing, one of the key aspects of social housing, of course, is it’s available for people who require it. We have in several areas a demand for that type of housing. It’s difficult to address all of the issues in some rural communities. On the other issue, we do provide, through Yukon Housing, a first ownership program that does allow for individuals to get into the mortgage program, for example, if one or both the individuals are working but don’t have enough money to get the deposit. But we are working on that particular, so there is some assistance in that particular area. But the key aspect is, as the member mentioned, for social assistance for those who are having difficulty getting by on what they earn. That’s one of the criteria for the 25 percent.

As the member mentioned, in some cases it’s more than market rent, but also in that case, if it is at that level, there is the private sector to go out there and that would free up the spot for those who do need the housing for social assistance and/or they can take advantage of our other program for mortgaging.

Mr. Cardiff:   It’s another case of a double standard. I don’t disagree; I mean, I think people need to get out of social housing when they have the opportunity, but the problem is that this doesn’t allow them to, in a lot of ways.

Look at the facts: for a government employee in Yukon Housing staff housing, in a lot of cases their rent is capped at about $600 a month. The minister said there are programs to help people with their first-time home ownership, but if 25 percent of their gross income is going toward the rent, plus they have to feed the family and all the other things — pay the electrical bill and whatever other bills they have — it doesn’t allow them to save for a mortgage.

So I’d like to ask the minister if he would at least have his officials look at some of the situations people are in around this, and he can get back to me on it.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are anticipating the social housing evaluation report to be completed in the next short period of time, and we will look at all the recommendations from that report and report back.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have one more question.

I look forward to seeing that report as well. I understand that it is due in a couple of weeks.

Could the minister maybe tell us what is happening on the affordable housing initiative that I have asked him about on several occasions? The federal government has made available a lot of money and I would like to know if we are planning on buying in to that program.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Currently, Yukon Housing is negotiating with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to allow changes to the agreement that will give Yukon Housing a little more flexibility as to the type of projects that they can use for the funding. For the north, it is substantially different than for the southern jurisdictions, and our friends from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are experiencing the same difficulty with CMHC. However, we are going to seek some direction on program perimeters and we will be ready to go with an expression of interest hopefully this summer, and we will take it from there.

Ms. Duncan:   I just have a couple of questions for the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. I understand that this money is strictly wage and collective agreement increases. There isn’t anything beyond that in the supplementary amount?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   That is correct.

Ms. Duncan:   There are just a couple of questions that have come up that I would just ask the minister to provide me an answer on. I have had several questions from constituents about the rental policy, in particular with regard to Closeleigh and Greenwood, leading into a discussion, of course, also about seniors and what housing we provide.

So, if the minister could just perhaps send me more detail by a legislative return or a letter, but briefly, on the rental policy for those particular places — Closeleigh and Greenwood — is it as he outlined, the 25 percent, et cetera, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It is exactly the same.

Ms. Duncan:   So there are no different rules or extenuating circumstances considered with — perhaps someone may be admitted or may have a place in Closeleigh and be living on a pension, and 25 percent of that pension would go to pay for their rent. What happens then if that individual gets a part-time job? So does their income then have to go entirely — they can’t put anything by to supplement that pension?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned, the same rules apply in that particular case. If they had additional income, if it’s on a temporary basis, then it would be included in their rental. The idea of a seniors housing assistance is for those individuals who just have a pension, and it’s relative to their income, just as a pension. Those who do have more income pay a little higher rate to stay in that facility.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister’s answer, and I’ll follow up with more details with the constituent then.

Just with respect to the seniors, there are some very clear, emerging, well-studied needs of seniors, particularly in the Whitehorse area, in that there is no assisted-living environment. Closeleigh is not an assisted-living environment. You can install Line of Life, but you don’t have, other than home care, someone checking on a tenant in apartment A to say, you know, "Did you take your meds today?" There’s no assisted living.

There is a senior housing management fund, though, that is being put aside in the Yukon Housing Corporation. Is there any thought that perhaps that might be used to develop an assisted living, to work with the Department of Health. The Department of Health is committed in other communities. In Whitehorse the need is bordering on the desperate for many. There is no assisted living. So what is the Housing Corporation going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There’s been no specific direction for the housing fund for the seniors. We will be looking for some direction with regard to the issue the member opposite inquired about.

Ms. Duncan:   So is the direction going to come in terms of the protocol with the minister to the board? It’s going to be, "This is an issue that has been raised. Look at using the seniors housing management fund for development of assisted living in Whitehorse." How is the direction going to come? Is it going to be Cabinet, Management Board to the housing board? Is it going to be a result of the work on the floor of this Legislature, senior citizens, the Golden Age Society? How is that direction going to be arrived at for the seniors housing management fund?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We’re in the process of bringing it forth from the board to Cabinet, and we’ll be seeking a direction from them and going from there.

Ms. Duncan:   What’s the route for the concerns of seniors? Directly to the minister and his Cabinet colleagues then?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I would say the route for the seniors right now is to come to Yukon Housing through the normal channels, and it will get to us.

Ms. Duncan:   Just a suggestion to the minister: I think the seniors would like to talk to him directly and say that and his accountability for having heard from the seniors and then expending these funds would increase substantially. This is a very serious issue, and I understand that the Housing Corporation does have programs to enable seniors, or others who suffer some kind of debilitating illness, to modify their homes. What is the uptake on the program currently? Is it well-utilized? Does the program need modification? Is it being assessed for its effectiveness?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, I’ve met with the seniors at Greenwood as well as the seniors in Closeleigh Manor to discuss their issues directly and I have received some feedback from them on just what’s required. It’s a little different in each spot.

On the issue of the uptake of the program, it has been reasonably average, as it has been over the previous years.

Ms. Duncan:   I would just ask the minister, perhaps when we move into the mains he could give an idea of the effectiveness of that program. Is it working and has it been successfully utilized, or are there some areas we could recommend for policy improvement?

With that, Mr. Chair, I have no further questions.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Hearing none, we’ll proceed to line-by-line.

Ms. Duncan:   I request that all lines in Vote 18, Yukon Housing Corporation, be deemed to be read, cleared and carried as required.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested that all lines in Vote 18, Yukon Housing Corporation, be deemed cleared or carried as required. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent.

Chair:   That concludes the departments.

Clause 3 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move that Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04, be reported without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that Bill No. 8, Third Appropriation Act, 2003-04, be reported without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Duncan:   It is my understanding that we are moving from the supplementary estimates, Bill No. 8, into the mains. May I request a five-minute recess to allow time for the minister and those who close debate to make themselves prepared for the debate?

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested a recess. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a five-minute break.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05.

Chair:  We’ll continue on with general debate.

Mr. Hardy:   Now, we do have a few more days in here, although it’s looking quite beautiful outside.

Let’s start with some basic stats and figures. Maybe we can get some of those. Has this Premier set any targets for employment? I know a lot of governments around the country will try to set targets to achieve, and of course a lot of it is based on the spending, where they’re going to direct the funding and what kind of impact it will have. Has this government set any targets? And you can break it down in specific areas and impacts they have and what you’re trying to achieve.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, there are a number of targets that all governments should focus on in budgeting, because the money spent has to be investment in building the future. So as far as targeting statistics, that’s a little bit of a difficult issue because they’re always a moving target. But in that regard, the areas that produce or are a part of creating the statistics become then what our government believes to be a more important target. Therefore, things like increasing population, more people in the workforce, more spending power, focus on mid- and long-term as we in the immediate increase stimulus are targets that we have employed to change the statistical situation we are in when it comes to the employment factor. But there is much more to the building of an economy than simply the unemployment factor.

Mr. Hardy:   I have to agree with the Premier on that. There’s a lot more to building an economy than just the unemployment factor; however, we have to have some way to measure it, and that’s what is exceptionally important. We have to be able to try to measure the endeavours and direction you’re going in. Maybe the Premier can tell me how they are going about measuring their successes. Especially with a budget of this size with the intention of stimulating the economy, how do they plan to do that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As far as how we measure, again there are many ways: the GDP factor; Yukon is experiencing growth; spending power. There are many measurements that can be used to address that. We’ve always maintained that it’s the cash flow that is one of the most important facets of any economy. It is the fuel that drives any economic engine. We’re seeing a population increase. We know there’s an increase in the workforce. We know there’s a reduction in the unemployment rate. We know other indicators are showing signs of positive trends, whether it be in real estate or those types of things. So that is what we’re doing, but at this stage the members opposite remember how the government has continually said in our plan that we first would get the fiscal house in order for the Yukon government.

Once we established a firm footing for our financial situation, then we set out to deal with the next step of our plan, which was to provide an increased stimulus with a focus in a number of the areas of investment — like infrastructure — to provide benefits for Yukoners in subsequent years. We are, with our economic plan, also linking that to our investments through budgeting by ensuring that we focus on our competitive advantages using mechanisms like tax incentives, removing regulatory problems where we can, and also ensuring that our focus on strategic industries continues. Examples of that in this budget: marketing fund for tourism, a marketing fund for economic development, a regional development focus and the list goes on.

But to try to stand here on the floor of the House and say that we want to specifically focus on the GDP factor as our economic measurement — that would not be a prudent course to take for any government. Government has to focus on all the factors. Those factors will be variables at any given time during any given period when we relate to our economy. I think that experiences in the past also become relevant on what we shouldn’t do in the future.

So we are very aware of the Yukon’s economy, what makes it up and the direction that the territory should go to help improve the economic situation.

Mr. Hardy:   Was there any analysis done to generate how many jobs would be created by the spending of this budget?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I imagine there is some formula that would be, in many cases, a very generic mechanism that could say that if government invested $1 million, it would create X number of jobs. But, because of the variables, as I stated earlier, those formulas don’t hold true in many cases. The variables are things like highway construction versus the service sector, versus government job creation, versus mining, versus tourism, versus small business, versus cottage industry, home-based industry. All things are interrelated. The government’s job is to create the environment for all those things to flourish. That’s what we are trying to do. That’s why this budget has come forward the way it has. It is very much focused on immediate stimulus with sound linkages to the mid- and long-term economic situation of our territory.

Mr. Hardy:   The economists cut their teeth on figures like this, and projections and analyses. This is what they base a lot of their work on. I would hope the Premier would understand that there is such a thing as being able to calculate how many man hours, woman hours or person hours — if you want to put it that way — there are in any type of spending and where you direct your spending. If you didn’t do that, you wouldn’t be doing your work. You would just be going willy-nilly in every which direction, hoping one of them hits and has a good benefit.

A simple question is, when you tender a contract for road construction on a section of road, I would assume the government has an idea how many people it will employ, what kind of impact it will hopefully have in the community that it is being built by, and how many possible jobs will be created. Does the government have those figures?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, in many cases, the private sector does the hiring. They’re the ones creating the jobs, but I think if you look at person hours as another form of measurement, we can then relate millions of dollars to what it creates in terms of person hours of work. An example would be the community development fund. We know that approximately 14,000 hours were created by the projects that CDF invested in to some $3.5 million in total. If you extrapolate that, you may get some sort of figure on how many person hours of work are being created in this territory by this budget, but what we have to recognize is, not only is this budget creating person hours of work within government, it’s laying some of the foundation to create many more person hours of work out of the private sector. The whole purpose of this exercise — the objective — is to ensure that we experience growth in private sector investment in this territory so the private sector is creating those person hours of work, along with government spending, which is then complementary to each other.

Mr. Hardy:   The Premier talks like it’s the first budget ever in the history of the Yukon Territory and it’s the first one that’s ever going to come along and possibly create a job, but we have to take into account how it’s going to stimulate growth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It’s a pretty simple question.

The spending priorities are often developed based upon how much work, how many people can be employed immediately in that neighbourhood, in that community, in that sector, in that trade, in that occupation. This is not brand new. These questions are not brand new. This is pretty simple stuff.

It would be nice to know if the Premier would assure members on this side that he will give us a breakdown on the estimate of some of the spending, say in the capital works — we’ll make it pretty simple — which is probably the easiest way to predict immediate job benefits in a community. If there’s going to be $3 million spent in a community on sewage, then without a doubt when the government sits down and figures out what the cost is so they can budget for it, how they’re doing that is based upon the materials, it’s based upon the hours that are estimated it will take to build the project. Otherwise you cannot do an estimate. You can’t do it. That’s what estimators are for. From my experience and from the years in my trades, that’s what we hire estimators for — to give us a proper figure so that we can put in a price, so we can win the job. I would assume that the government also has estimators to estimate what the cost of the project is going to be based upon reasonable expectations for employment.

So would the Premier be willing to give us a breakdown — and community by community would be quite easy I suspect — of what kind of impact this is going to have for jobs in these communities?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We have given the opposition benches a detailed breakdown of the capital expenditures, community by community. I think the member opposite has pointed out a very important word here — "estimate". We are not here to say to the communities, "You must create this many jobs out of this investment." Again, there are very many variables that will come into play here. There are issues of expertise, tradespeople — you name it; the list is a long one.

What I think the member opposite should recognize is that the territory has changed direction post-November 2002. It has changed direction on this basis: first, the fiscal situation of the Yukon Territory has been improved. It has been improved because we have a firm grip on the finances of the Yukon. Second, we are now seeing indicators that bear that out, that the situation has improved. We are seeing a number of areas with growth that we are encouraged about. We know there are many challenges ahead.

The issue for the members opposite is to reflect on the facts that are presented. They are available to the members opposite. They show clearly that there are more people in the Yukon today than there were under past governments. There are more people in the workforce today than there were under past governments, and there is a low unemployment rate — third in the country. Those are indicators that are showing positive trends.

But we’ve also said clearly that the government does not take all the credit for that. What the government has been trying to do is complement what the private sector does with where we invest our money. So it’s not a question of how much you invest and what you intend to create out of it as much as it is where you invest and how that is compatible with what the private sector is doing.

No economy can be built by government. If the last decade has shown us anything in the Yukon Territory, it’s exactly that, because that’s all there was: the government. Today that’s different. We are seeing a change in the Yukon in terms of the direction this territory is going in, and the government has a role to play in that regard.

Mr. Hardy:   I just want to make sure it’s on record that the Premier is completely wrong. This is not the first budget in the world that has ever been created that takes into account the private sector and the stimulus a territorial government budget and spending has on the private sector. It’s absolutely impossible in the territory to even conceive of that kind of position the Premier is proposing here.

Every single premier, every single Finance minister before this one, also recognized what you have to do to stimulate the economy and recognized the partnerships that have to be built — every single one of them. It doesn’t matter if it’s Liberals, Yukon Party before, or NDP. It’s no good trying to rewrite history to suit your own — Mr. Chair, the Premier’s trying to rewrite history to suit his own particular outlook on past governments that have built this territory and brought us today to this state. Many good things have happened and to all of a sudden to say that only the brilliance of the Premier now is being applied —

It’s sad to say that the Premier wants to take that position because the public hasn’t bought it. It’s ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous, and it’s a shame because I thought we were going to get a different kind of debate in this House. I think that’s what was promised, Mr. Chair. Instead we’ve gone back to the same old lines when a person has come from opposition into government to all of a sudden rewrite history.

However, I believe the figures are available. I do know they have been made available in the past in regard to opposition questions in regard to job creation. I also know that departments do come up with figures on spending and what kind of stimulus they will have in the communities and the jobs that are created from them. If you’re planning to build a liquor store in Watson Lake, for instance — I think a lot of people remember that project. I’m using one of the Yukon Party projects historically. There of course was an estimate on how many person hours would be created.

That has a huge impact. That’s all they want to talk about. That’s all they want to focus on. They don’t want all the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric we’re hearing today. They want to know that if you’re going to spend, for instance — oh, let’s pick a community here. Well, we won’t pick Keno City because it’s only getting $5,000. I don’t think that’s going to create too much activity up in that area. So possibly we’ll look at — well, we won’t talk about Destruction Bay because I only see $60,000 being spent there, and it doesn’t look like there’s going to be much in new employment being created there. So maybe I will try to find something that has a little — Braeburn, $5,000. I’m not sure if that’s going to create any employment there. So I’ll keep looking to see where there’s some money that has been spent realistically here.

So, let’s say the community hall in Ross River. There’s an estimate of $1.3 million that’s planning to be spent. I am sure that when they came up to that figure for the community hall in Ross River, in order to come to that amount of money being spent, they broke it down into the costs of the materials and the amount of hours based upon probably the fair wage schedule, and how many hours of employment it would possibly create.

What we’re asking, very simply, is what those figures are and would the Premier be willing to give us a breakdown on some of these capital work projects and of how much employment it’s going to put into the communities?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, I think it’s important that the official opposition does a little work on its own. They have the budget before them. They have the community capital breakdown. Apply their own formula. The government is confident that we are going to increase jobs available and benefits for Yukoners with this budget.

The government can say with the greatest of confidence that we have changed the spending pattern of government, the focus on investing in other areas. There’s no problem relaying that. We can say with the greatest confidence that the trends show that the territory is now starting to head in the right direction, many challenges ahead. And there is no doubt that this kind of budget and the size that it is — contrary to the member opposite continually alluding that we on this side of the House are saying that it’s the first budget ever created. That’s not what we’re saying, but we can say with the greatest of confidence that it’s the biggest budget ever created, and I’m sure it will create hundreds of jobs for Yukoners.

But here’s where the official opposition, the NDP, really fall down on what an economy is. It’s the spending power that is critical. It’s the multiplication factor on every dollar earned and every dollar spent. It’s cash flow that creates the measurement, so the members opposite can apply whatever formula they want. I hope they don’t use the same formula as they apply for the cost of a bridge in Dawson City. How quickly the NDP picked up the Mackenzie River bridge and extrapolated that into a $50-million bridge to cross the Yukon River in Dawson — and how convenient. They omitted the fact that the bridge on the Mackenzie is over twice as long as the bridge over the Yukon River in Dawson. If we were to use the NDP formula, we’re going to create way more jobs than would be realistic, so I’ll allow the member opposite to apply whatever formula the member would like.

Mr. Hardy:   Isn’t the Premier a wise man? He is assuming that the NDP doesn’t recognize the spending power and all that rhetoric that he just spilled out.

Of course, if we use the same logic that he just applied there, that means that because the bridge in Dawson City is only half the size of the Mackenzie, it will only cost half. What utter nonsense. What absolute and utter nonsense. It doesn’t work that way.

Obviously, he has never been in construction. He has never built a bridge in his life. It doesn’t work that way, I hate to tell him that. But if that is the formula and that is the way he has developed his budget, then we can understand why it’s the biggest in the territory. We can also understand why it probably isn’t going to generate as many jobs as it possibly could, because the spending wasn’t done in the proper way.

He has raised the cost of the bridge. Well, why doesn’t he stand up right now and tell us, since he is all-knowing — why do we not hear the Premier tell us what the cost of this bridge is? You know why? He hasn’t got a clue. He hasn’t got an utter clue what this bridge is going to cost, but they are already starting to spend money on it. They have already made the promises around it. This government has already told us what type of financing and what kind of deal is going to be cut with businesses — but he hasn’t got a darn clue what it’s going to cost.

So, it may cost $25 million; it may cost $30 million; it may cost $50 million. This Premier doesn’t know. One of the problems we have in here is that we can talk about it but he hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about. That is the kind of nonsense that we have to listen to on this side.

Now, he mentioned that we should do our work; we should figure out how many jobs will be created on some of these projects. Well, we are doing our work. I would like to point out the fact that we have asked the Premier for the numbers that the department has come up with that this spending creates in regard to employment in these communities. We are not asking how this will stimulate the private sector at this present time. We are very aware about access to capital. We have talked about it for years and years and years. We applied that same principle when the NDP was in government to try to create other avenues, access to capital, to stimulate the economy, to bring in more money and more activity into the territory, to have training, and to have higher education, which often generates a higher level of pay.

It has all been done before and it will continue to be done. I’m sure it’s being done with this government. I’m sure it was done with the previous Liberal government. It was done with the NDP government, and it will be done with the new NDP government when these ones move out. That’s pretty basic budget design.

We’re doing our work here. Our work is to ask the question to see if the Premier will give us some information that other governments have given opposition in the past. This is nothing new.

How many jobs will be created by the direct spending, such as building a community centre? What’s the estimate of person-hours for that project? That’s all. It’s not too hard. I’m sure the estimates are there.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Obviously the member is trying to extend debate by needlessly going down these roads of: what is the exact number of jobs that will be created on a certain investment? Well, I can tell you that this budget is going to create hundreds of jobs, just by the O&M alone.

Let’s see. We have probably 3,500 employees in government, so along with the hundreds in the private sector, add 3,500 — hundreds more. The member opposite can apply whatever formula he wants. Let’s ask the member opposite what he thinks about $17 million in the Shakwak. How many jobs will that create around the clock? How many people in the culvert crew? How many people in the back slopes? How many people in push Cats? How many people running scrapers? How many people running loaders? How many people running excavators? How many foremen driving around? How many flag people are there? How many cooks in the camp? How many camp attendants? The list goes on and on and on.

Frankly, this debate is needless. We know that this investment will create hundreds of jobs for Yukon, but more importantly it’s going to create not only immediate benefits for Yukoners, it has linkages to the mid and long term to continue those benefits accruing for the Yukon public.

Then I say to the member, simply look at the stats today, the measurements, the measurements that the member brought up. What do they show? They show the trends are heading in the right direction.

Under the former Liberal government, we had an unemployment rate dropping, but that was in conjunction with the population decreasing and the workforce decreasing. Today we see a trend that is much different. We see an increase in population; we see an increase in the number of people in the job market and we see a decrease in unemployment. Those are trends that are very important. We’re going to monitor those trends to ensure the direction the territory goes continues on an upward swing. We want to make sure the private sector becomes much more involved here, and that’s the key.

It begins with our budgeting. It is totally compatible with partnerships with our First Nations, partnerships the members opposite do not agree with. In fact, they would sooner pit First Nation against First Nation.

As I stated earlier in this Legislature today, when it comes to economic partnerships, there will be benefits accruing to First Nation people out of development. Resource development is critical to the Yukon economy. The New Democrats are anti-resource development. They would have this territory stop all resource access and development until their very conceptual plan of protected areas is dealt with, a plan that was so negative to this territory’s future that it had to be disregarded and thrown out. It did not work; it was a faulty, flawed political decision. That’s not the route this government is going to take.

Now, we can stand here for the next 15 days if the member so chooses, but I say to him the stats are available; they show where we’re going. This budget will further increase the positive trends in the territory and this budget will create hundreds of jobs in the private sector and invest in over 3,500 jobs in government. That’s a good thing.

Mr. Hardy:   Isn’t that lovely, to listen to those words? The NDP is anti-development. What nonsense. Ninety percent of the initiatives in this budget were all created by the NDP — all the economic development initiatives. I would like the Premier to stand up and show me their great new initiatives and point out when he does so how many that are just copied from the NDP.

It’s interesting. He brought up the Yukon protected areas strategy. Why did he vote for it? Why did he vote for it when it was brought in? This is the Premier who voted for it; this is the Premier who was quite willing to stand up in this House and defend it. All of a sudden he’s against it. Flip-flop. Mr. Chair, which side of the words can we place any value in, because they seem to flip around.

Right here, in regard to the NDP budget of 2000, he said, "There’s a great balance in the budget between our environment and our economy." There, he actually mentioned the environment, which is so contrary to what he does today. And he goes on to say, "And we do that, Mr. Speaker, because the two are married. Without a sustainable environment, it’s virtually impossible to develop a sustainable, viable economy, and that’s why we budget in the manner we do." This was in praise of an NDP budget. He loved what we were doing there; he loved the balance that we were finding. He loved our investments to stimulate the economy.

Now he stands up and criticizes everything the NDP stood for, criticizes everything that he was part of. How can the Premier flip so fast and rewrite history so easily and still expect to be credible in the eyes of the public? That’s the question. That’s the question that we hear out there all the time. It doesn’t do him any good. We’re asking for simple numbers that other governments have given out. It’s not a big deal. We wonder why he refuses to do it.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Hundreds. Now the Premier yells across, "I just gave them to you — hundreds". He expects us to be satisfied with such a pie-in-the-sky response like that. We wouldn’t be doing our job if we accepted stuff like that.

The Premier should not be so flippant when it comes to people’s lives, employment in the communities. It’s not good enough. How do the businesses in the communities plan for their activities during the summer — construction companies? How do the small ones plan to be able to hire people if they do not know what’s coming, if they do not have some estimate of what’s being spent? We’re saying, "Give us the figures." The Premier has these figures. He has these numbers. He can table them later. He can give us a breakdown, send it over in the next while. I’m not too worried about that. He doesn’t have to stand up in the House if he doesn’t have them at the forefront of his mind, which I’m sure he doesn’t. But he can supply those. All he has to do is promise, "Sure, we’ll give you a breakdown of what estimates we had, community by community, for jobs that will be created."

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Now, the Member for Kluane just mentioned, and it’s very true, that Burwash got none. So Burwash is cut right out, but guess what? With the reasoning of the Premier, we’re going to see this huge influx of private investment in Burwash that will create a lot of jobs because this is a budget that’s designed to do that.

So all we’re asking for, very simply, is: give us some numbers we can work with, give us some numbers so that when my colleagues go back to their communities, they can say, "Guess what, the spending that’s happening here is very good. It’s going to create 10 jobs for three months. Excellent. Let’s go forward. Plan to bid on it and hopefully we’ll get it," and those people in the communities will be employed. What’s so wrong about giving that kind of information out? I’ll give the Premier another chance to tell the communities what he has planned for them.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It indeed is a great pleasure to stand on the floor of the Legislature and repeat again what we have planned for the communities. For example, in Carmacks, we have a capital investment in this budget of some $3.2 million, which includes water and sewer, which includes Tantalus School. In Dawson City, we have some $6.4 million, which includes the planning of a multi-level care facility, which includes the planning for a bridge over the Yukon River, and many other things. Faro, $1.9 million. Mayo, $2.6 million, which includes a new community centre for Mayo. Old Crow, $3.4 million. This is an investment in a community where we, with a First Nation, have partnered in their capital planning for that community, creating many jobs and benefits for the citizens of Old Crow and the Vuntut Gwitchin people. Ross River, $3.1 million. Let’s go on. Territory-wide, where some of the highway work that is in the proximity of communities is captured — $104 million. Teslin, $5 million.

Contrary to the members opposite saying that we only focus on Dawson City and Watson Lake, Watson Lake is only getting $3.9 million, but it’s going to create jobs and benefits for the citizens of Watson Lake. We are also — much to the chagrin of the members opposite — promoting a forest industry in Watson Lake.

Now let’s talk a little bit about the private sector. Upon coming into office, Mr. Chair, we faced a situation in the southeast Yukon — a region in this territory that had the most demand on it by the industry and investment community — with no land claim. We created a bilateral agreement with the Kaska. That has achieved something. That is achieving jobs and benefits for Yukoners.

Look at Teck Cominco — back in the Yukon. Look at the application in for drilling in the Kotaneelee. Look at all the results of what we have been doing when it comes to the increase in mining exploration, because we have provided certainty, and a great deal of that is taking place in the southeast Yukon. And the members opposite say this is not good because the Kaska are getting something and nobody else. Frankly, Mr. Chair, the Kaska Nation is giving up something. The Kaska Nation has no land claim. They are committed to getting back to the table, thanks to the bilateral agreement, and they’re giving up something. They’re allowing access to their traditional lands for the extraction of resources for the benefit of all Yukoners — again, a very important step in creating jobs and growing our economy.

Now, the member opposite goes on and on and on about so-called job numbers. Frankly, the answer has been given. There are thousands of jobs in government being created — over 3,500. There are hundreds of jobs in the private sector and there are soon to be more because this government has got the territory heading in the right direction. But we must be focused on the challenges ahead. We as a government are prepared to meet those challenges, and we begin with this budget laying the groundwork to better enable this territory to meet the challenges ahead. And I think the member opposite recognizes that, and unfortunately the member opposite neglects to recognize that the investment in this budget is providing jobs and benefits for everybody. There are no political boundaries in whom we hire and who goes to work and who bids on a job, none whatsoever. There is in that member’s mind.

Mr. Hardy:   A very simple question: will the Premier give us the figures that the departments came up with on the amount of jobs on the capital works individually? If we’re talking about building a community centre somewhere this year, I’m sure they have the figures. Will he do it or not?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s all estimates. It’s in the hundreds.

Mr. Hardy:   Will he give us the figures that have been estimated by the departments?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s in the hundreds.

Mr. Hardy:   For the record, the Premier refuses to give us any numbers at all. "In the hundreds" doesn’t count. I would actually like to correct him, too. If I ask for a specific project, would I get the same answer of "it’s in the hundreds"? If I say the community centre, say in Mayo or Ross River, or whatever, am I going to get "it’s in the hundreds"? Well, I can assure you that those communities would be ecstatic if this Premier said he was going to create jobs in the hundreds in these communities. However, obviously all we get is the same rhetoric.

I am going to ask one more time and then I will move on. Rest assured, I’m sure I’m going to get the same answer. Will he or will he not give us a breakdown on the estimates that departments made on the capital works, the spending in capital works, that will be spent this year on projects, whether it is money being invested in a road or money being invested in renovations, money being invested in new buildings, et cetera?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As this is general debate on the budget and we’re dealing with estimates, in general terms, this budget will create hundreds of jobs.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, that’s interesting. $162 million being spent on capital works and all we get is hundreds of jobs. I would hope there would be a few more than a hundred. I think the poor Premier doesn’t know his own figures and that’s why he won’t give them. He doesn’t seem to be that interested in ensuring that the people of this territory know what kind of jobs they can expect in their communities. He feels obviously that it’s none of their business and he’s not going to give it out. It’s something that the Premier feels that only he has the right to know. That’s a shame because I thought this was going to be an open, accountable government, and obviously once again I guess there’s going to be another mail-out proving it isn’t.

Now the Premier has talked about unemployment figures going down, and that is always good to see. Can the Premier give us an idea of what the numbers are in social services, in the welfare?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is general debate on the budget. That is a departmental question. I can tell the member this though: in this fiscal year that just ended, our increase in SA was $1.4 million.

Mr. Hardy:   So I’m assuming that if there was an increase in SA, that means there are more people on SA?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I would caution the member not to assume anything until the Department of Health and Social Services — the department where social assistance resides — is up for debate.

Mr. Hardy:   I don’t really need a caution. I can make some assumptions, and if the Premier wants to correct me and he is correct in it, I am willing to accept it. But if the Premier is willing to talk about unemployment figures, does he also agree that those unemployment figures are often very misleading and don’t necessarily reflect the true unemployment numbers in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Unless I missed something here, the member opposite just stated that, in this case, while they are in opposition, the statistics are very misleading and should not be used. However, it’s a well-known fact that when the NDP were in government — and here, again, is an example of my involvement there in knowing this — they were very, very much focused on the statistics. I have to say that I think the member should seriously consider this line of questioning.

The statistics are produced by a number of variables, components, mechanisms and formulas. They are presented to the public. The stats show today that this is the position we are in approximately. I say "approximately" because there are always changes and variables that don’t show up at any given time when the stats are done.

There will be seasonal adjustments. We know from experience on population that doing the undercount showed that the statistics that were produced had some discrepancies. At the end of the day, though, Mr. Chair, in general terms, it provides an insight into where we’re going. It’s not the number; it’s the trend. What the member fails to recognize is that it’s in the trends that government has the most important role to play in changing how those trends are going. Past governments in this territory, over the last decade — nobody has to dispute this fact. The trends were heading downward; today they’re heading upward. That is a distinct difference. We’re not saying it’s a lead-pipe cinch that this is what’s happening in terms of the numbers; we’re saying that, with all the available data, all the formulas and variables we must use, we are showing a positive trend in this territory. That’s why we’re going to continue to work in the direction we are working, to continue to invest the way we’re investing, and to continue to ensure that the private sector becomes much more involved in this territory, and to ensure that the First Nations in this territory become full partners in the economic development of the Yukon.

We are showing many examples of that. The Kaska Nation is an example. As we build a forest industry, if its potential is truly there for the Teslin Tlingit traditional territory, they too will share in resource revenues. So will the Champagne and Aishihik share in resource revenue from a resource. That’s why we are negotiating an economic partnership framework agreement with the Vuntut Gwitchin, the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and the Na Cho Nyäk Dun in north Yukon. That’s why there’s an investment in waterfront development for Kwanlin Dun; that is why we have invested in the capital planning for the community of Old Crow. It’s about partnerships; it’s about building this territory; it’s about the future of this territory.

That’s what the government is focused on. The member opposite continues to drag up the past. Obviously the official opposition is focused on reconstructing the past. That’s not what Yukoners want. They want a future.

Mr. Hardy:   Isn’t that funny. It was the Premier who got up and talked about the past; it wasn’t me. I asked a very simple question. Obviously he didn’t listen to the question. Maybe he doesn’t understand the question. That could be the problem as well. A government and a Premier can get so wrapped up in its own particular lines and rhetoric that it’s impossible for them to hear other opinions and other reflections, other viewpoints. That’s a shame because that’s not the way a person should be governing.

Here’s an open-end question for the Premier. He has talked about access to capital in the past, he has talked about stimulating the private sector — all good. What concrete initiatives and money have been put directly to create more access to capital?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I feel that it’s time to point out the nature of this debate.

Earlier the member opposite has stated on the floor of the Legislature that this budget, the 2004-05 budget, is 90-percent New Democratic initiatives. Now the member states that the government side doesn’t hear anything, we’re not listening. Well, how can the two even actually be related? The member is saying one thing in a question when it’s convenient and saying another when it’s convenient with regard to this budget. I think the point here is that the member is ragging the puck. This is not constructive debate. It’s senseless, and that’s not what Yukoners want. They want to hear from the members opposite what they would do with the Yukon economy. Does the Yukon public want to take the NDP’s position of one job at a time or take the position this government takes that we can create hundreds? There’s a distinct difference.

Does the Yukon public want to follow the official opposition’s anti-First Nation economic partnership position, or do they want to follow what the government side is doing in building those partnerships to provide certainty in this territory, which leads greatly to access to capital. If you have a certain investment climate, capital will come. If you have a government with a solid financial position that invests its money in the right areas, capital will come. Those are areas that are important to any financial institution, to any private sector industry, and to any investment community to come and invest in a specific jurisdiction. We are doing those things today, but there are many challenges ahead.

We must ensure that we continue on in this direction of growth and meeting those challenges to present that investment climate of certainty, to present optimism to the private sector, and to present a Yukon that people will be very interested in coming and investing and living and working in. That’s the task at hand; that is what we are doing.

Now, the member opposite can go on and on and on but, at the end of the day, we’re debating a budget that’s the biggest in the history of the Yukon. We’re debating a budget with some $162 million of capital investment. There’s no doubt that it’s going to create jobs and benefit and stimulus in this territory. It’s a fact. There is no arguing that. Now, the members opposite can either accept the fact that there’s 3,500-plus government employees in this budget, hundreds of private sector jobs that will be created — or not. At the end of the day, that’s the answer.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Chair, what utter nonsense. I asked a very simple question: what initiatives for access to capital — a very simple question. What Yukon Party initiatives are going to allow businesses greater access to capital and individuals greater access to capital? It’s a simple question. What did we get? We got told on this side that we were senseless. A question like that, and we get told we’re senseless.

We get, once again, a rewriting of history. We get told that we are anti-First Nation initiatives. I put it to the Premier opposite that he should be very careful about what he says when he says something like that, because we will stand by our record. We will stand by our record. The First Nation members on this side find it offensive that the Premier is making comments like that, because it is directed at them as well. We will stand by our record as NDPers on our past, quite happily.

It was a very simple question, and we get this kind of response. Does that mean that the Premier has no initiatives whatsoever? Just all rhetoric? Just all words? I am sure there are a couple. I would really like the Premier to stand up and tell us from his perspective, his view of the world and his work, what the Yukon Party has come up with to create greater access to capital for the businesses of this territory? I know they’ve done some. I am giving him a wide open opportunity to talk about what they have done, not about us.

If the Premier can rise up high enough to get out of the political rhetoric and talk about what their budget stands for, what access to capital, I would appreciate it — not about attacking the opposition for even asking a question.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We are creating certainty.

Mr. Hardy:   Whoa, isn’t that deep? Let’s see, we have, for the first time in history, First Nations refusing to ratify a land claim — that creates certainty. This Premier creates certainty by going outside the box on everything. This Premier creates certainty by cancelling projects. This Premier creates certainty by starving the Yukon one year and creating an infusion of cash the next year. That’s supposed to create certainty and long-term planning.

This is what this Premier considers "certainty". There are big questions about certainty out there.

How about tax initiatives? There’s another wide open question. The Premier refuses to talk about what he has done for access to capital, for small businesses, so why not tax initiatives? Now I can’t make it more open for the Premier to get up and speak very positively about the initiatives they have created in their budget. Let’s see if he can answer that one.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I know the official opposition is quite sensitive about many of these things, because they champion and position themselves as the righteous protectors of many people’s issues in this territory, but that remains in question. I think the element of certainty is an important element for access to capital, and we have no problem with looking at other initiatives, but the point is that if I put on the floor the fact that we believe public-private partnerships are a good access to capital, I’m sure the member would oppose that. So in trying to expedite the debate, we will try to engage with the member constructively by saying "creating certainty". That’s what we’re doing.

Secondly, when it comes to tax initiatives, we followed through with some good measures that were brought in in the past and kept them going and extended them. We’re not going to stop a good initiative because there is some partisan connection. That’s not what this government is all about. When it comes to other tax initiatives, what about the corporate tax rate, dropping it from 6 to 4 percent. There’s another initiative. On balance, we brought forward what we’re going to do in the very near future to help those in need by bringing in a child benefit tax credit. So we’re using the taxation system here in many ways and we’re also sharing tax room with First Nations. That in itself is another attempt to put more stimuli into the territory by ensuring we are helping to build capacity and creating a revenue stream for First Nation people in the Yukon.

We are doing many things, Mr. Chair, but we are a humble government. We do not stand on the floor of the Legislature constantly trumpeting our accomplishments. We are very clear that we do not take all the credit. We have been very clear that there is a tremendous amount of challenges ahead of us, and we are being very clear that, to the very best of our mental and physical capacity, we will endeavour to meet those challenges in partnership with First Nations, with labour, with industry, with Yukoners. What else can I say?

Ms. Duncan:   Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

The Premier just made a statement, and to lead off in some general debate on the budget, I would ask the Premier to explain in greater detail. He just stood on the floor and said the Government of Yukon is sharing tax room with First Nations. Would he fully explain to the House precisely what that means?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, we are continuing with the same policy that has been in place. That is, on the PIT level, share that room. That’s what we are doing. It’s a policy; we have not changed that. It was an example of what we are doing. We will continue to look at other ways that p