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

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

Tributes.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to this, the 61^st year that people across Canada have celebrated National Volunteer Week. This is a time set aside to recognize and celebrate the people who donate their time and energies to their fellow citizens.

Volunteer week was first declared in 1943 in Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto and Vancouver by the Women’s Voluntary Service, who wanted to draw the public’s attention to the vital contribution women were making to the war effort here at home in Canada. Since then, the focus has been broadened to include all community volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Yukon could not run without its core of volunteers. From the southernmost border with B.C. to our most northerly community of Old Crow, volunteers have stepped forward to help build better communities for their friends, for their neighbours and for people they don’t even know. They serve on boards and committees of agencies and associations. They organize cultural and recreational activities. They help their neighbours. They clean up parks; they coach teams; they fund raise for special projects. They work in our schools; they work in our hospitals and extended care facilities. They work in our libraries. Mr. Speaker, volunteers are everywhere.

Volunteers are indeed a special breed of individual who seem to know what is needed and then just come forward and fill that need. We have seen them before when Yukon hosted the last Arctic Winter Games in 2000, with last weekend’s Western Canadian Gymnastics Championship, and I know we will see the volunteers again step forward to help with the 2007 Canada Winter Games. Think of all the things that would not get done here in the Yukon if it were not for volunteers — no Rotary Music Festival, no Girl Guides, no Boy Scouts, no Frostbite Festival, no bike or road relays. Volunteers help build better communities for all of us, and in doing so they make us and our community much better. It’s the place we have chosen here in the Yukon or we were born here in the Yukon, but volunteers all contribute to our lifestyle and to our enjoyment here.

I’d like to thank all of those volunteers who have stepped forward to serve others here in the Yukon. Thank you very much.

Mr. Cardiff:   I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to National Volunteer Week. Volunteerism impacts every aspect of our lives, whether it’s recreation, health, education, social services or the arts. We are all volunteers, whether it’s for our favourite sport, assisting our church, working on a council, a committee, socializing or in dedication to a cause.

All of our non-governmental organizations need volunteers to help provide services and many of our institutions such as the schools and the hospitals rely on volunteers as well. There are 6.5 million volunteers in Canada and in the Yukon we have a very high number of those volunteers. The work of volunteers is relied on to support our tight economy.

While the number of volunteers needed is more and more, there are fewer available because of our busier lifestyle. We rely on volunteer organizations to be creative and to use their volunteers efficiently to develop innovative ways to recruit new volunteers and to retain and reward volunteers so they stay involved.

Organizations are responding well by offering shorter commitments, group sharing of work, references for career building and providing valuable training. In the forefront of these challenges is our own Yukon Volunteer Bureau. The Volunteer Bureau in the Yukon is the Yukon contact for other national volunteer organizations and support networks. In response to their goal of offering services to all voluntary organizations throughout the Yukon, they list available volunteer opportunities, provide free advertising space for literature and pamphlets and have a library of resources. Quarterly they publish a community calendar of events, published in the local newspaper and on-line.

The Volunteer Bureau has offered 10 or more noon-hour training events that have been very productive in supporting volunteer organizations, covering a range of subjects such as budgeting, liability and evaluation techniques. These have been well-received by local volunteers and we thank them all for their efforts.

This week, the Yukon Volunteer Bureau is sponsoring a contest to recognize volunteers. We are asked to submit names in recognition of volunteers who will be eligible to win gift boxes of gardening tools and gift certificates for seeds, an apt reward recognizing their theme this year, which is "Volunteers grow community".

I am pleased to join with all members of this House in paying tribute to the energy and commitment of all Yukon volunteers.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to extend my thanks and tribute to our Yukon volunteers. Volunteering is giving a most precious gift, your time, to an organization, an individual, your community. In volunteering, you commit not only your time, your energy and your skills, you also commit yourself.

It has been noted in the recent edition of the Yukon Trails, which is the newsletter of the Girl Guide organization, that volunteering is the most fundamental act of citizenship, and volunteers impact on every aspect of society: the environment, the arts, recreation, sports, culture, youth, social services, education and health. Yukoners would be hard pressed to name an event or an organization that is without its volunteers.

This week it’s our opportunity to say thank you and to recognize the contribution that volunteers make to making our Yukon such a wonderful place to live. Merci beaucoup, mahsi’ cho, thank you, volunteers, we do appreciate all that you do.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It gives me great pleasure to rise today to mark the opening day of the 14^th annual Yukon Writers’ Festival — Live Words. This year’s festival, Mr. Speaker, will prove to be one of the liveliest. This successful festival brings Yukon people together with visiting writers to celebrate the joy of Canadian writing and reading.

Maybe it is the awesome beauty or the relaxed pace of life that inspires Yukoners. The fact is this Yukon has a long and rich tradition of producing exceptional authors. Yukon has profoundly influenced poets like Jack London and Robert Service. Other authors, like Laura Beatrice Berton and her son, Pierrre, and many, many others have recounted tales of life in the Yukon that have resonated with readers around the world.

For the next five days Yukoners will exchange ideas, skills and stories with internationally acclaimed Canadian writers.

The public is invited to read, listen and write with six celebrated national fiction and non-fiction writers.

I wish to welcome to our territory authors Frank Clifford, Merilyn Simonds, Wayne Grady, Laisha Rosnau, Greg MacArthur and Booker prize winner Yann Martel.

Wayne Grady is a returning guest, Mr. Speaker. He was a 2002 Yukon writer in residence.

The Yukon public and Yukon writers are welcome to join these skilled and honoured authors for readings, workshops, book-signings and receptions. The Yukon has much literary talent, as I said earlier. It is part of our history and it is events like the Live Words festival that develop and celebrate Yukon’s own to work hard and to pursue national and international literary success.

I’m particularly pleased to say that the 25^th Yukon Young Writers Conference will also take place later this week on April 22 and 23 at F.H. Collins high school.

The conference will include almost 100 students from grades 8 to 12, from all schools in the Yukon and Atlin, B.C. The students will work closely with these same writers to develop their craft through workshops, readings and discussions. For our young writers this will likely be an intense but wonderful opportunity to write and be coached by six of Canada’s experts.

Mr. Speaker, events like these only happen with the support of many community groups and businesses. I would like to thank all our partners and sponsors who have collaborated over the years to ensure the success of this conference and this festival.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give special acknowledgement and thanks to those Yukon sponsors and volunteers. It is their love of the written and spoken word and their hard work that will guarantee that this year’s festival and conference is a great success.

Finally I would like to remind Yukoners that the festival events are free or at a minimal charge. Tonight there are workshops starting at 7:00 p.m. downtown and a public reading at 8:00 p.m. at the Beringia Centre. This year the festival will travel to Haines Junction for an event on Saturday.

Information on the events and times is available through local media on the Yukon government Web page at Yukon Public Libraries.

Thank you, and I invite Yukoners to enjoy the festival.

Mr. Hardy:   Mark Twain once wrote: "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." The writers of the Yukon certainly contributed a world supply of good books, and on behalf of the official opposition, I am pleased to rise in tribute today to the poets, the playwrights and writers of the Yukon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I’m a writer’s best friend. I’m an avid book reader. At the present time, speaking of Yukon books, right now I’m reading a book called Breaking Trail, A Northern Political Journey, which has come out recently, by a former government leader, Tony Penikett. I recommend it to people, whether they are involved in politics or not.

I, like so many other people, read for pleasure and joy, for truth and insight, for knowledge and help, and it is the writers who give that to us. Often unmentioned is how significant the written word has been in shaping our world, enabling the sharing of knowledge and perspectives. The simple written word plays an important role in breaking through the walls of ignorance and stereotyping used to suppress people and cultures. For the writers, I would like to quote Anna Quinlan: "I read and walk for miles at night along the beach, writing bad blank verse and searching endlessly for someone wonderful who would step out of the darkness and change my life. It never crossed my mind that that person could be me."

We in the Yukon are proud of our writers and also pay tribute to the many volunteers who work year after year to encourage aspiring adults and youth to be that person.

We celebrate the 25^th anniversary of the Yukon authors conference, which attracts youth from all over the territory and encourages students and teachers alike. I encourage everyone to participate in the workshops, readings and conferences organized for the 14^th Yukon Writers Festival, April 20-24, and to make today a good day to take a new Yukon book off the shelf.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to join with my colleagues in the Legislature in paying tribute to the Yukon Writers Festival.

The driving force behind the Yukon Writers Festival for over a decade has been well-known teacher, Joyce Sward, and I’d like to thank her for her volunteer efforts, and most especially, her dedication. Ms. Sward’s efforts have ensured that one of the key elements of the Yukon Writers Festival is linking well-known Canadian writers with young Yukon writers.

Another fundamental part of the Yukon Writers Festival is the support of the Yukon private sector individuals, and this year, one of the territory’s political parties, our own.

The Liberal Party has sponsored a discussion at the Beringia Centre on Wednesday evening as part of the Yukon Writers Festival. This sponsorship from throughout our community ensures that all of the Writers Festival events, with the exception of the specific writers workshops, are free to the general public.

I would like to join with my colleagues, who have also thanked the Yukon community for their sponsorship and their participation in the Writers Festival. In paying tribute to the Writers Festival, it also affords us an opportunity in the Legislature to recognize the tremendous wealth we have of Yukon writers. Our print media regularly feature our home-grown talent and there are many, many publications authored by Yukoners, and more to come, as I understand there are several due for release in the near future and some under negotiation currently with publishers. We are truly fortunate to enjoy having so many talented writers in our larger community of the Yukon.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I offer our encouragement and best wishes and, most importantly, I look forward to their books.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I would ask all members to join me as I introduce a member from my constituency of the Klondike, from the City of Dawson, one of the colourful 10 percent that contributes to the fabric, one of the proprietors of Bombay Peggy’s, Wendy Cairns, and she’s accompanied by her father, Alan Cairns. They have joined us in the visitors gallery today.

Speaker:   Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have for tabling the Yukon Lottery Commission annual report for 2002-03.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I have today for tabling the 2002-03 Yukon College annual report and audited financial statements, per Section 16(2) of the Yukon College Act.

As well, today I am also tabling the 2002-03 annual report of the Department of Education public schools branch.

Speaker:   Are there any further tabling of returns or documents?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) economic development initiatives in the Yukon should be assessed primarily in terms of their ability to create meaningful jobs for Yukon people;

(2) the economic development strategies of the current Yukon government are heavily biased in favour of resource extraction activities that will not necessarily provide the maximum number of jobs for Yukon workers;

(3) the current government’s economic development strategies fail to take into account the number of sustainable jobs that can be created in the areas of alternative energy, conservation and environmental protection; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to broaden its economic vision to include a thorough exploration of the territory’s potential to create and sustain employment opportunities in areas related to energy conservation, alternative energy and environmental protection.

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

THAT it is opinion of this House that

(1) economic activities such as mining and oil and gas extraction often result in increased production of greenhouse gases;

(2) the Yukon Party government has indicated its support for increased resource extraction activities in the territory without any corresponding commitments to reduce the volume of greenhouse gases associated with such activity; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government not to allow any resource extraction activity in the territory that would negatively affect Canada’s ability to meet or exceed its greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to examine options to provide tax incentives for Yukon residents to achieve significant and sustainable reductions in the use of fossil fuels in their homes and vehicles.

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

THAT this House condemns the Yukon Party government’s deliberate refusal to honour long-standing commitments to develop and implement a Yukon protected areas strategy that would provide permanent protection for representative areas of each of the Yukon’s unique ecosystems.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Minister of Justice. When did the minister first learn that a man with a serious mental disorder had been confined to a two-metre by three-metre cell with no windows for more than a month and a half?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As this individual is in care of Health and Social Services in the Whitehorse Hospital, I can confirm that this individual is in the Whitehorse Hospital and he is currently being addressed under the Yukon Mental Health Act.

Mrs. Peter:   My question was for the Minister of Justice. This situation is completely intolerable. A gross indignity has been committed to someone who is sick and the minister must account for that. On Friday the Chief Territorial Court Judge found this person not guilty of two criminal charges because of his mental disorder. He also found that keeping this person in what’s called "the hole" violates Canada’s Constitution and may be a breach of international human rights agreements.

Why did the Minister of Justice allow this situation to happen?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This individual’s condition is being addressed under the Yukon Mental Health Act.

Mrs. Peter:   Both the prosecution and the defence lawyers said that the segregation cell was not the right place for this individual. Corrections staff said that’s not the right place for people in that situation. A psychiatric assessment showed that the man’s mental health had gotten worse during his confinement.

Has the Minister of Justice asked for a full review of this outrageous situation and will she make that review public?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What this points out clearly is that the system does work. This individual is being dealt with under the Yukon Mental Health Act.

Now, the case that the member opposite is trying to make is that we need a brand new facility. What this clearly points out is that we need programming to address the needs of people who have to be dealt with by the various stages in our system.

Correctional reform is an initiative the Minister of Justice has underway to address these needs, but as this individual is currently being held under the Mental Health Act, there is a potential for an appeal. This individual is currently in the hospital, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Peter:   I have another question for the Minister of Justice. The judge’s ruling last Friday was very clear. Holding a person with a serious mental problem in the Whitehorse Correctional Centre segregation unit was a breach of his fundamental rights as a Canadian citizen. Does the Minister of Justice agree with that assessment or is she planning to appeal the judge’s ruling?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I said earlier, this matter is being dealt with under the Mental Health Act here in the Yukon. This individual is being reviewed at the Whitehorse General Hospital, and the matter may potentially still be before the courts, so really we cannot comment on it other than to tell you that the Department of Health and Social Services, in conjunction with officials from Justice, are reviewing the options for assessment of this individual.

We’re moving forward. The process does work. It’s clearly identified as being an issue, and all I can confirm for the member opposite is that the system is working, and it’s working as it was intended to work.

Mrs. Peter:   The public is requesting accountability from the Minister of Justice. The minister wouldn’t respond to media questions yesterday, but there are serious policy issues involved, not to mention the questions of basic human dignity.

I would like to give the minister another chance to respond today. Can the minister give an assurance that the segregation unit at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre won’t be used in future for accused criminals who require psychiatric assessments?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I indicated earlier, this individual is being addressed under the Yukon Mental Health Act. He is being reviewed at the Whitehorse Hospital. That’s where the case is currently. There is a potential for an appeal, so no one really can comment on the case. What this clearly shows is that the system does work.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that there have been problems with criminal psychiatric cases. It’s also not the first time a judge has criticized the way this government has handled such cases. In this latest case, the Crown prosecutor asked the judge to direct Justice officials to provide copies of the most recent agreements it has with psychiatric hospitals outside the territory. Has the minister’s department complied with that request, and will the minister provide those agreements to this House by the end of this week?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I indicated to the member earlier, this case is under appeal. The individual in question is being held and being reviewed at the Whitehorse General Hospital under the Yukon Mental Health Act.

The system does work. If the member opposite is advocating a new facility to warehouse people, that’s not the case here. What we need to do is address the root problem. What we need to do is have programs. Some programs we can provide here in the Yukon in these cases. There have been two in the past three years. We do not have the capacity. We have to buy capacity in other jurisdictions, as we do for — if you want to look at another medical condition — heart transplants. We don’t have the capacity here in the Yukon. We have to buy the services in British Columbia and Alberta.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Community Services, in his new role as mayor of Dawson City. Yesterday I asked the Premier if he was going to take any action to ensure the MLA for Klondike and the MLA for Porter Creek Centre pay back the $400,000 they owe taxpayers and to make the terms of that repayment public.

The Premier told the Legislature yesterday he has no intention of making repayments, if there are any, public.

The MLA for Klondike has been content not to pay back the $270,000 he owes taxpayers, and the Premier and the Yukon Party have been content to let that happen. According to a letter written by a former city councillor in Dawson City, the MLA is also content not to pay his debt owed the City of Dawson for cable TV and convention fees.

The Minister of Community Services, as the new mayor of Dawson, is now responsible for these unpaid bills — the receivables. How much money is outstanding by the MLA for Klondike and when will it be repaid?

Speaker:   Before the minister answers the question, I remind the leader of the third party that the minister is the Minister of Community Services. He’s not the mayor of Dawson City; he’s the Minister of Community Services and I would ask that you address him as such.

Please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, although I’m not really the mayor of Dawson City, the trustee is in control of the Dawson City financial situation and I’ll bring it up with him when I next talk to him.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Community Services has a responsibility and has the role of overseeing Dawson City and gives direction to the trustee. He has also tabled the financial statements in this House. I’m asking about the receivables on those financial statements.

Now, the MLA for Klondike and the MLA for Porter Creek Centre owe taxpayers $400,000 in unpaid loans. Now we learn that the MLA for Klondike also owes the City of Dawson money as well — a double debtor, if you will, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister ensure that the MLA for Klondike pays what he owes the City of Dawson or will there be special arrangements made for these receivables?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned earlier, the financial situation is the responsibility of the new trustee for Dawson City, and that is where it will stay.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has responsibility. He provides direction to that trustee. He has been speaking regularly about the financial statements of the City of Dawson. These receivables are part of those financial statements.

Now, for the last six months, the MLA for Klondike has been working with the minister removing the elected mayor and council. The reason is because the city wasn’t managing their money properly. At the same time, the MLA for Klondike is part of the problem because he is on the list of outstanding bills.

What steps is the minister going to take to ensure that the MLA for Klondike, who has a history of not paying these bills, pays what he owes the City of Dawson?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have been in conversation with the new trustee for the City of Dawson. He has requested that a forensic audit be taken of the financial situation and until such time as that is complete, we will forward the draft report of the situation when we have that.

Mr. Fairclough:   We have already heard that a judge has ruled that holding someone with a serious mental disorder in the segregation unit at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre was a breach of that person’s fundamental rights.

The person in question is now being transferred to a secure room, as was said by the minister, in the Whitehorse General Hospital. Since the care of this person falls under the Mental Health Act, my question would go to the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Has the minister given his department any direction about working with Justice officials to determine how to handle this very unfortunate case?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I haven’t had to provide any direction. We have very capable departments here in the various areas. Justice and Health and Social Services are working together on this initiative.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would have thought that the minister would have taken this seriously and really looked into this matter in detail.

There have been problems in the past getting psychiatric referrals for Yukoners facing criminal charges. There have even been charges dropped because a psychiatric assessment could not be done in a timely manner. According to a Justice spokesperson, there is a shortage of resources across Canada for handling cases such as this. So what steps has the minister taken during the past year to overcome this shortage?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There’s a shortage of all health care professionals everywhere in the world, not just Canada, not just here in the Yukon. We recognize and are addressing our responsibilities, but we cannot comment on this specific case as it still potentially could be before the courts. There’s a 30-day appeal period that has not expired. But I can confirm that this individual is being reviewed at the Whitehorse General Hospital under the Mental Health Act here in the Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister avoided the question. I asked him what steps he has taken, and obviously none have been taken so far.

The territory has more money for health care, yet we continue to see really disturbing cases like this coming to light.

Now, this government should be taking its responsibilities seriously before a major tragedy occurs. It keeps dragging its feet on replacing the jail. It keeps dragging its feet on the mental health services. Will the minister agree to work with the Minister of Justice to provide a proper facility for accused criminals who need psychiatric assessment and treatment without any further delay? Will he provide the funds to meet the territory’s obvious need for improved psychiatric services? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, we have provided funding for a tremendous number of initiatives here in the Yukon Territory; among those are some areas of which the member speaks. Mr. Speaker, I can’t understand it. The member opposite and his entire party vote against these funds, and yet they’re asking us to earmark more funds.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Recently, attention has been brought to the need for safe housing for youth. Young people with no place to live are couch surfing and often putting themselves at risk by bunking down with strangers. What is the department’s policy on dealing with young people who cannot live in their own homes but aren’t able to support themselves?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As the member knows full well, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of group homes if they’re below the age of majority that can and do deal with youth. When they achieve the age of majority and they require housing, as is the case with the situation at the Roadhouse, we do fund a number of the residents there through social assistance, as we do across the entire Yukon. There are social assistance people in place who address the needs of those who require social assistance in all the communities, and we accommodate individuals in this category quite well. There is always room for improvement. We’re always striving for improvement. But currently I’m not aware of anyone who is left out or whose needs are not being met.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for the minister to ignore social problems because he doesn’t agree with the solutions that are being suggested to him. Social programs can have a profound effect on young people’s ability to reintegrate into society instead of becoming a lifelong burden to the taxpayer.

We are talking about homeless young people in the territory. Will the minister commit to taking a serious look at addressing the housing needs of Yukon youth?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The department is taking a serious look at not just youth but seniors, the whole area that we’re responsible for in our portfolio. To that end, I know where the member opposite is heading: it’s with respect to the Youth of Today Society, the Blue Feather group that is proposing to acquire the Roadhouse. We’re working with that organization.

To that end, our government has provided them with $110,000 in funding. That’s an annual amount, Mr. Speaker, that addresses some of the needs. They provide some very good programming. They provide a youth centre, they provide some training, they provide opportunities for a measure of counselling, and the training looks as if it’s going to reintegrate some of these youth — and we’re talking about individuals from about 18 to 30 in that category — and they’re looking at being integrated back into the workforce after they’ve acquired some basic skills.

Mrs. Peter:   We are talking about a major problem in the territory. Today’s youth are tomorrow’s adults. Do we want to have even more adults unemployed, addicted, or in jail? This is what living on the street leads to, Mr. Speaker.

When will this minister stop penny-pinching on services to people in need and come up with an effective solution to address the needs of homeless youth in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This government has placed its money where it is well-needed. A million dollars more is going into youth here in the Yukon, this budget cycle. That breaks down to $110,000 for the Blue Feather, the Youth of Today Society. That’s just one example of the areas that we are concentrating on.

Yes, we do have some problems. We have a drug problem. We have an alcohol problem. It’s not indicative of the way things are just here in the Yukon. It’s Canada-wide, and it affects a certain portion of our population. We are developing programs and we have programs that are working to overcome this area and address the needs of youth in our society.

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

On April 8 of this year in Hansard, the Minister of Health says, on nursing recruitment, and I quote: "…there is still a lot of work to be done. There is still a constant recruitment program."

There are seven vacant nursing positions in community nursing, and of those who have been hired, most of them are hired on as auxiliary on-call.

Now, the Public Service Commission is currently advertising for two float positions, which really means auxiliary on-call. Why is the Public Service Commission hiring auxiliary on-call nurses instead of meeting community needs with permanent nursing positions? When will we see a change for hiring permanent positions? This is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   If the member opposite doesn’t know, he should know that we are having trouble recruiting nurses for some of the smaller communities. In the department we have a rotation for the nurses so that they can spend a short time, because it’s a very intense, high-pressure workload that they assume in some our smaller communities. To that end, we allow for a rotation of nurses in and out — we are speaking of nurse practitioners — of some of the communities such as Ross River, Pelly, Teslin and other places. What we require in the department, and what the department has requested of the Public Service Commission, is to fill some of the float positions by way of auxiliary, because we don’t know how long before some of these people burn out or when we’ll be needing them. This is the best way to fulfill our obligations and meet the health care needs of Yukon people in rural Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough:   It’s obvious that this minister is really controlling matters that are policy of the Public Service Commission. I would like to see the minister sometimes get up and answer questions that are put forward to him.

In at least four communities there is only one nurse on call, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for two to three months without relief. If the nurse is called out on a medevac or is working with a patient all night, the nursing station closes. An auxiliary position does not appeal to a nurse practitioner who is looking for work here in the territory. Nurses are not staying in the Yukon, and the turnover is unacceptable. Why is this acceptable to the minister, and when will we see long-term plans to staff nursing stations in rural Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is speaking of is nurse practitioners. They are a very highly qualified nurse. We’re in not just a national competition but an international competition for people qualified to this level. We have one of the best wages and benefit packages, plus a rotation system to avoid the burnout of which the member opposite is speaking.

In the last collective bargaining agreement, the nurses were one of the first groups in the bargaining unit who accepted and endorsed the new arrangements that the department had put in place for them to work under in rural Yukon. So we have recognized this issue. Yes, there are still vacancies in this area, but we’re filling them, and we’re filling them as fast as we possibly can.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister just said he doesn’t have any long-term plans. Dawson City normally needs approximately four to five nurses over the summer months to deal with the influx of the population. In June, just six weeks from now, there will only be one nurse on duty in Dawson to cover 24-hour care, seven days a week. Even if the leave of the two is cancelled — the two who are taking leave — that means that there would only be three nurses available. But there’s only one in Dawson in June. What is the minister doing to correct this unacceptable and potentially dangerous situation?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What the member opposite is failing to recognize and acknowledge is that Dawson has four doctors in place — four. In addition to that, yes, we have nurse practitioners, and there will be float nurse practitioners who will probably be rotated to backfill for the maternity leave that one nurse practitioner is on that I’m aware of.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is again for the Minister of Health and Social Services. What is available to persons seeking addictions treatment after they go through detox?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   A complete range of outpatient services.

Mr. Fairclough:   A complete range of outpatient services.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, residential treatment has been offered at the Sarah Steele Building; later it was accommodated through the bed and breakfast housing and, most recently, the department has had a contract with the committee on abuse in residential schools, or CAIRS, for the residential treatment at a home on Bamboo Crescent. Now that we understand this contract will not be renewed, has alcohol and drug services branch made any residential arrangements for the next program intake, beginning at the end of this month?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’m pleased to advise the House that we’re working on taking the Sarah Steele Building and removing the stovepipe of administration put there by the previous Liberal administration and converting it back to its programming for intake for residential care.

Mr. Fairclough:   It is the minister who has been in power now for a year and a half who needs to make those decisions. The only treatment being offered is a day program. Anyone coming in from communities for treatment will not have housing here in Whitehorse. An addictive person seeking treatment will be on their own for housing overnight, which could be very dangerous for their rehabilitation. Patients will be forced into situations that will not encourage sobriety and will most likely end up staying in cheap hotel rooms.

Why is the minister cutting back on services to those in need with substance abuse, which is one of the greatest health and social problems we face here in the Yukon? Why is he doing that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The opposite is reality. We have improved services; we have expanded services. There are six 28-day, live-in programs offered a year, 12 clients per program. In the Sarah Steele Building, office space is being removed to other locations, and we’re having a 28-day, live-in program placed in that facility. It’s going back to the purpose for which it was originally built and intended, not a stovepipe of administration. I’d encourage the member opposite to know the answers before he asks the questions; that’s usually a good homework lesson for the member opposite.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the items standing in the names of government private members to be called on Wednesday, April 21, 2004. They are Motion No. 254, standing in the name of the Member for Copperbelt and Motion No. 235, standing in the name of the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin.

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

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before Committee this afternoon is Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.

Before we begin, do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Member:   Agree

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

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

Chair:  The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. We will begin general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   A great deal was dealt with in yesterday’s proceedings in the House in regard to this bill through second reading. We had some discussion yesterday about the need within the spirit of constructive debate to be dealing with correct information — information of substance, information of fact. It’s important that we debate on that level. We have seen many examples where that is not the case. The government side is endeavouring to make sure that we are proceeding on a factual basis so that we, in the best interests of the public, are producing something in this House.

When we see examples of information that alludes or implies that the Sarah Steele Building and the closure of Crossroads was the doing of this government, we have another example — when, in fact, the NDP government of 1996 to 2000 closed the Crossroads program. So it’s important that the opposition ensure that we are debating matters of substance.

When it comes to this bill, this is a very straightforward operational amendment. It allows us to extend the mineral exploration tax credit, something that the mining industry — albeit the official opposition does not really support the mining industry. That’s obvious from their motions read into the record today. But it provides an incentive for the mining industry and puts in place an element of competitiveness for the Yukon Territory when we try to attract investment into this particular resource sector. We promote nothing but responsible development, Mr. Chair, and this mechanism is but one approach that this government takes to ensure that we make best efforts to attract that investment.

And we want to commend all the Yukoners who sat at the tax round table who put forth the effort and did all the work necessary to bring forward the recommendation that created the mineral exploration tax credit. We want to extend thanks to the third party, then the Liberal government in place, for increasing the component of the tax credit up to 25 percent. That improved it. And there is a sign of constructive debate and constructive input that this Legislature must always strive to achieve.

So the amendments to the bill are to allow us to extend for another three years. I’m sure there will be some debate around what that will mean in terms of cost. I would say up front to the members that much of how we determine that is based on the uptake. We can project some figures, but the uptake will provide us the actuals.

It will take time after the fact to actually produce the actual cost to government; however, I must add that it is a nice problem to have, to be able, through this incentive and this tax credit, to work closely with the mining industry and have to deal with that on a financial basis, because the investment that we attract far outweighs the cost in the tax incentive. One only has to look at the projected millions of dollars of mining exploration and connect that with all the spinoff business that evolves from that injection of exploration investment in the Yukon to recognize that this incentive is a good investment for the mining industry, but more importantly it’s a good investment for the Yukon, because it provides net benefit.

Mr. Chair, I think we’ve covered many of the issues on the bill, although I’m sure the opposition members may have further questions on it. There are actually two components, as I mentioned: the extension issue, but then there was a small technical detail that had to be addressed and was neglected when the amount for the tax credit was increased to 25 percent. That’s inclusive in this particular amendment to the Income Tax Act, and we feel the opposition may want to make some positive suggestions on this particular legislation as it relates to the mining industry.

With respect to that, maybe the official opposition and/or the third party might view some things in the future that could contribute to or improve on this incentive we are providing the mining industry, considering the fact that I think we all agree it is a good investment for Yukon and does provide net benefit for Yukon, and it gives us that little bit of a competitive advantage that other jurisdictions may not have. That’s important in today’s world.

The forces at play in today’s world in the mining industry are, to the largest degree, external to Yukon. On the world markets there’s a tremendous amount of pressure and competition seeking these investment dollars. One must always be conscious of that.

So when we can provide these types of incentives, we know the Yukon is on the world stage, we know the Yukon is reflected in the industry’s day-to-day operations and deliberations, and we are seeing from the evidence of increased exploration and having major companies like Teck Cominco come back into the territory — we are seeing evidence that this is working and that bodes well for the Yukon, not only today but in the long term, because it connects to the overall economic plan of the government to ensure we stimulate as much as we can in the immediate, keeping our focus always on the interim and the long-term economic development for the territory.

The mining sector is a strategic industry. It always has been, and it will remain one given the tremendous potential and wealth in Yukon’s mineral resources. But I will certainly qualify this position by government, and I want to be clear that government promotes nothing more than responsible development. The government is confident that the legislative regimes and the regulatory mechanisms we have in place in today’s Yukon, along with land use planning and partnerships, can be a very effective tool to ensure that we do not compromise our environment in the long term, to ensure that we mitigate and diminish impacts and to ensure that we proceed with responsible development.

This government will keep a consistent focus on the mining sector as a strategic industry, and we’ll be looking for other incentives and mechanisms to further attract the industry to our territory. What those are may come in many forms. It may come in our contribution, as we have done in this budget to create a training program among our aboriginal people out in rural Yukon to get involved in the mining sector at the exploration phase. That’s another investment that coincides with the tax exploration incentive — the credit — and it’s an example of how we can further involve ourselves as a government to create more competitive advantages.

The industry is always looking for a skilled workforce. That’s something that’s very important to them, especially if it’s local in the region that they want to go work and explore.

The opposition has already signalled clearly that they will be voting against this budget. The official opposition makes that very plain in their day-to-day debate and discussions here in the House, and the third party is already on record that they will not support the budget.

So not only are they not supporting the costs of this incentive — and I’m interested to see how they proceed in debate on this bill, because how can you support the amendment to the legislation if you vote against the cost that would be in the budget cycle to pay for the incentive?

It is unbeknownst to me, but maybe they can explain that to the public.

How can the opposition benches on one hand support the need to train and build capacity in our First Nation communities but then, on the other hand, vote against a budget that contributes a significant investment toward building capacity and training our aboriginal people, especially in rural Yukon, to participate in the mining industry. It’s all about building partnerships and incentives.

Of course, it’s investment in infrastructure that coincides with this amendment, so it’s not in isolation. When we consider what we’ve done in the budget for this coming fiscal year, which again the opposition benches are opposing, there is a lot of investment in infrastructure. Well, infrastructure is important to the mining industry. There is a definite reduced cost in driving product, supplies, material that is required, versus flying it. When we have infrastructure such as highways, even though there are secondary roads that are available to the industry, that is vital to them and provides another competitive advantage. When we have bridges that we can cross rivers on versus waiting for ferries and/or building ice bridges, that’s another definite advantage.

These things are in the budget. These things, along with this amendment to the legislation, are certainly something that challenges the opposition benches to make the decision. Do they support progress and economic development and a better life for Yukoners or are they against it? The challenge is the opposition’s, and the government side leaves it in their hands.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, it’s interesting. I’ll pick up where the Premier left off and the absolute and disgusting rhetoric I just heard. I actually find it really, really insulting that this Premier would stand there and act like he doesn’t know how we on this side can vote against a budget and yet vote for or support this bill when he did it for two years straight, maybe three — I don’t know. It would be two years. The Liberals brought it in every year. He supported it —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Three years. Thank you.

Three budgets. The Liberals brought it in every year. He supported it in every year and he voted against the budget every year. Maybe this Premier should look in the mirror once in awhile and see what his actions are instead of pointing over here.

Now, I can tell him quite clearly why we’re going to vote against this budget. But I’ll save that for the general debate, and I’ll save that for when we talk to the media and talk to people of this territory — why we disagree with this budget. There are a lot of reasons why we disagree with it. I can tell you a lot of it is based around the consultation, based around the secret deals that are being cut, based around people getting extra and other people going without. This is not a perfect budget by any means. That does not mean we vote against every aspect in this budget, but overall we cannot support this government and we cannot support the party that’s in government right now. That’s why we will vote against it — because it’s a confidence vote.

We have a few questions about this, as we always do. We also have a question about rewriting history. Everybody in this territory knows who brought this in, which is contrary to what this Premier is saying about this party not supporting industry, not supporting mining, because all this government has done is copy what the NDP has done. That’s all they have done — all they have done.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Now I’m hearing the kibitzing from the Premier. "Well, vote for the budget; vote for the budget." Well, you know what? Maybe the Premier should grow up once in awhile and take a look at himself.

We are not voting for the budget. We’ve made that very clear. So who brought this bill in? Why can’t he recognize that we, the NDP, did some really good work? He can’t do it. He has to spin it all in different directions, because he’s not big enough to do it, Mr. Chair.

The NDP brought this in: two years at 22 percent. The Liberals worked on that, increased it to 25 percent, and what is the Yukon Party bragging about? They say they’re going to keep it going for three more years, but there hasn’t been an increase; there haven’t been any changes, and they’re proud of that.

Well, thanks, we support that. That’s not a problem, but they haven’t improved it really. This is a big deal. This is one of their great initiatives. It’s not their initiative, no matter how much they want to spin it or lay claim to it.

I really take offence to the comments that we do not support industry. Our record — the NDP record — is very good. Three governments — and we have done more in the industry than this government did in two terms, or ever will.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   This is lovely, Mr. Chair, listening to all the kibitzing from the other side. I wonder, if it were coming from this side, what you would do?

Chair:   Order please. Again, I’ll ask that all members please afford the member who’s speaking the respect he or she deserves, and I’d ask all sides in the Assembly to contain their extraneous comments and their exuberance.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a couple questions. Are there any quantitative surveys being done on this bill?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The only way we can do this is by assessing the uptake from past years and then factoring in what the projections are for exploration in a coming year, but then again we won’t have the actuals, as I pointed out, until the uptake is in, and we know exactly what we will have to reimburse at the 25-percent level.

Mr. Chair, please indulge me for the moment, because I must reflect on the leader of the official opposition’s comment on their record — I’m talking about the NDP’s record — on industry. It is quite a record. It’s a record of the industry leaving the territory as fast as they could. They didn’t even stop to pick up their equipment; they left it here. It is quite a record. It’s a record of building layer after layer of impediment with such initiatives as a very politically motivated Yukon protected areas strategy, when in fact we had a land use planning process that had millions invested in it and was very sufficient in terms of being able to address what would happen on the land base.

We take a balanced approach as a government, and we are proud of it. We certainly will not be bashful about promoting that, but when it comes to record, the record for the official opposition, the New Democrats, in this territory is intact — they do not take a balanced approach. In fact, the pendulum under the NDP was very skewed, and I think the results speak for themselves: the exodus from this territory of industry in many forms.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. You do allow a fair amount of indulgence for the minister to rewrite history and to put his own spin on something, which means, I guess, that we have a lot of room to go any direction we want on a very simple bill.

In regard to the Yukon protected areas strategy, I will stand here and say that I have a different opinion than this Premier across the way in regard to that. I would like to remind the Premier that it was an 18-member committee that worked on that — people all around the Yukon, representative of industry, representative of First Nations, representative of all people of the territory. They came to an agreement, amazingly so. That’s a huge achievement and something that should be recognized. People came together and agreed on it and moved forward on it. This minister, this Premier, continually finds this as a fault. He continually believes that what people can agree upon is a fault because it’s not in his view and it’s not his way.

That’s a shame, because these people spent hundreds of hours working on this and came to a solution, and something that many, many people were very proud of and was recognized around the country. As a matter of fact, it’s being duplicated. We have heard the former Premier of N.W.T. praise it. I guess he is wrong too.

So I would like to see some facts instead of just the rhetoric of the Premier’s hatred of the Yukon protected areas strategy or any kind of protection for the environment anywhere in this territory. I would like to see some facts when he says we drove industry out, because those facts do not exist. They are just an impression that this Premier wants to leave in the minds of people in order to try to get more votes. I don’t think it’s going to work.

Now, I asked the question about the quantitative surveys done. I will ask another question: what is the anticipated take-up cost that the department and the Premier have for, say, the upcoming year?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As I pointed out earlier, we can only go by past uptake, which are actuals, and then factor in the projections for exploration values in the coming year. In doing that I think we can say with the greatest degree of confidence that the cost would be in the range of $3 million to $4 million.

Mr. Hardy:   Has the Premier considered what will happen, or thought about situations where maybe a mining company that has been using the tax credit and finds itself in arrears in paying its employees or in arrears in paying many of the small businesses? Local businesses in the community may find that they’re not making their payments; they’re not keeping up to them and they’re putting a strain on their employees and the small businesses. Has he considered the tax credit being withdrawn from companies that continue to violate the rights of small businesses and employees?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, this is very hypothetical. One can only assume, in trying to deal with this question, that the mining industry is going to come here and not pay their bills or leave something behind, but it is hypothetical.

There are a number of processes in place today, though, when it comes to this situation, which any individual or corporate entities can avail themselves of in order to make sure that they have gone through the due process that gives them the legal linkages to any unpaid liability.

But I can’t speculate. I have constantly said on the floor of the Legislature that the government side will not enter into speculative debate and offer speculative answers to speculative questions. We go forward on the basis that this is an incentive. Should this kind of situation arise, having never really used this mechanism in any other area but providing a tax credit after the fact, based on uptake, we may consider looking at something, but we’d have to do the research necessary to determine whether we even have the regulatory, legislative or legal authority to do something like this.

Mr. Hardy:   I’m assuming that if the territorial government has the authority to withhold licences to what they call deadbeat fathers, I’m sure they probably would be able to be creative enough to come up with an ability to withhold the mineral tax credit for companies or businesses that do not honour their debts or possibly not pay their employees according to what was originally arranged with the employee. I don’t think that’s a big leap.

I’m also not talking hypothetically. We’ve seen many, many cases and many, many industries, and we also have had many cases up here in the mining industry where, through difficulties — whether mining prices or just poor management — some of these businesses have left the territory and left massive debt behind and put a phenomenal strain on small businesses and communities and witnessed many employees who have to feed their families — have put in a day’s work, a month’s work, not received the money and, at the end of the day, maybe 10 cents on the dollar. That is not hypothetical, Mr. Chair; that’s based upon fact and it’s based upon history in the territory, unfortunately. It’s not something any of us likes to see, but it has happened.

When I asked the minister if he had given any thought, that’s what I’m asking. I’m not asking him to speculate; I’m asking for him to engage his grey cells and give it some thought — or has he done it in the past?

So I’ll put it out there again. Is it something the Premier would possibly consider as another lever to ensure that small businesses that deal with the mining industry, that are hoping to benefit from Bill No. 43, or the employees — it’s just one more lever we could possibly put in place to ensure that, if an unfortunate situation like this comes up in the future, at least there’s the possibility to use it as a lever to try to get some monies back to the many businesses that work with the mining industry.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Should individuals or corporate entities come forward with an issue in this particular area, the government would always assist in providing them all the options available and direct them to all the agencies and areas that they can avail themselves of assistance to deal with what may be unpaid accounts receivable. But as far as the tax issue, we don’t even administer our taxes. They’re administered by Canada, so that would be a good question possibly for the member — if he so chooses — to ask in a letter to the Minister of Finance in Canada — if that’s the appropriate area — to ask if Canada has any lever or mechanism in the administration of taxes in this area in this regard.

Mr. Hardy:   I think it would go a lot further if the Minister of Finance would be so inspired to write the letter. I think there would be a lot more weight to it than just an opposition member inquiring about it. I would hope that the Finance minister would actually consider this.

Taking it a little further, if a company is charged for environmental infraction, would this be a consideration as well? I want to put it on record: if there was an environmental infraction, if there were charges against a company — we’re witnessing it all around the world, but here we’ve seen it where there’s tremendous liability when a company leaves often not in the manner we’d like, leaving a site not cleaned up, and of course there is the environmental liability that the Yukon government now will be incurring from that. Is there any way to prevent us giving out a 25-percent tax credit after the fact, knowing full well that we’re going to be inheriting from tens of thousands to millions of dollars of liability in environmental damage? Again I put it on the record. Is that a consideration that the minister would be willing to entertain?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There seems to be somewhat of a disconnect here. This bill is a legislative amendment with respect to a tax credit for exploration. The leader of the official opposition is very much focused on what would be the downstream end in the mining industry, and that would be a production mine. Exploration can come in many forms. It can come as a prospector and a backpack and a rock hammer going out and exploring. It can come from hauling a winkie on your back into a particular site and drilling a tiny little hole — it’s called a winkie drill. It can come from a BQ size diamond drill. It can come from an NQ size diamond drill. It can come from a HQ size diamond drill. All of this is exploratory. All of these things are assessed up front.

But to get to where the member is going, there is a huge amount of environmental assessment required before any licenses would be offered to go into a development and production phase of a mine. Exploration, however, Mr. Chair, is the prerequisite to any of that ever happening.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I don’t necessarily want to get into a debate about how much impact exploration can actually have. They can have environmental impacts that the government would be responsible to ensure are cleaned up. The minister described a small-scale prospector going in with a pan. I’m sure I’d doubt if there would be anything there, but there is also large-scale exploration and that could have an impact.

There is also the fact that, depending on the size of exploration, they do — and hopefully do — buy locally, set up accounts, employ people. That all applies to exactly what I’m asking. If you’re talking about exploration in tens of thousands or you’re talking about it in the hundreds of thousands or possibly in the millions, that is money that is going to be spent here. That is also debt that could be incurred.

I am just looking at another lever that local businesses can use, that the government can use, and that employees, through actions with the government, possibly could use to recoup some of their lost wages or benefits.

So I’m going to leave it at that, and allow the leader of the third party to ask some questions.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d just like to walk through with the Finance minister a few facts surrounding the mineral exploration tax credit. If he could just enlighten the House, this isn’t like a grant program like community development fund or FireSmart where we budget a $500,000 or a $1.5-million expenditure in our budget. What it shows up as is foregone revenue.

In 2002, we had the figures for what was the foregone revenue for 1999. Because it’s a tax credit, it’s filed, and there’s a time delay. So my question is: what’s the time delay? So this is 2004. Do we now have the figures for 2002 just coming in, or could the Finance minister just tell us what the time delay is? My understanding in reading through Hansard and my knowledge of the bill is it’s about two years or so before we know what the foregone revenue amount is definitively. Is that correct? Is it two years?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s approximately two years for the full process to take place, where we get to the foregone revenue or the exact actual amount, but there are projections. In this case, we’re projecting, based on all available information, including a go-forward projection for the amount of exploration somewhere between $3 million to $4 million of foregone revenue.

Ms. Duncan:   We’ll get to the forecast. I just wanted to clearly understand, for the record, it’s about two years. So the Income Tax Act extends the mineral exploration tax credit to 2007, which would mean that it would be 2009 before we know the final figures for what that cost. So the impact is really right through to 2009, because of the extent of this work that we’re doing today. I just wanted to make that clear for the record.

Does the minister wish to address that? He’s nodding in confirmation.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We’ve already estimated an amount that would give us the projected foregone revenue — it’s between $3 million to $4 million. If we’re out, we won’t know. It won’t be the full amount; it’ll be the difference, but we have no way of knowing until the actual uptake happens.

Ms. Duncan:   I understand that. I was just pointing out for the record that the effects of what we’re doing today in the House will live on, if you will, until 2009 in the financial statements of the territory.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Whatever the cost is, whatever the foregone revenue will be there. We’ve already made an estimate, but it may or may not match that. I’m certain, in the public sector accounting board standards, that amount has been booked. I see the Finance minister nodding.

So let’s get to the forecast of what that foregone revenue is. In 1999, which was the first year of the tax credit — and the tax credit was at 22 percent — the foregone revenue in that year was $1.3 million and that was based on low exploration — exploration and metal prices had suffered a downturn in the territory.

It’s $1.3 million based on, if memory serves me correctly, about a $5-million to $7-million exploration year. Now the tax credit has been increased, thanks to the work of the previous Liberal government, and extended by the Yukon Party to 25 percent. Now the cost, as I understand it, for 2000 was estimated to be about $2.1 million, and that’s still based on a low exploration dollar figure.

We’ve heard quite extensively in this Legislature that exploration figures are expected to increase significantly. I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has estimated quite a significant increase, and the mining industry itself has estimated a significant increase and they’re the ones who provide the yearly estimates.

So the minister has said the estimates are three to four. In light of this expected significant increase in the exploration season, isn’t that $3-million to $4-million figure low?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Actually it’s an estimate based on available data of past uptake, projections on a go-forward basis. It has been booked as an estimated amount. It’s a projected figure, but it’s a great problem to have if it’s more, because that means there’s more investment in the Yukon, more spinoff benefit. We look forward to more, because it means there’s more mining activity taking place in the territory. That’s a good thing.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s a great problem to have unless you’re the Finance minister and you’re trying to deal with rising health care costs and decreased revenues and renegotiating the formula.

The mineral exploration tax credit is a very good program and our party and I are very supportive of it. It also does present a difficulty for the Finance minister when there is a significant exploration season.

Now it seems to me that the Yukon Chamber of Mines come out with their figures of what they estimate for an exploration season, and they do that based upon talking to the industry themselves. I know it pains the Finance minister, but I would like him to agree with me for the record that $3 million to $4 million may be an estimate, but if we have as significantly good a season as we anticipate, $3 million to $4 million is low based upon the $1.3 million in foregone revenue and $1.9 million under a 25-percent tax credit with $5 million to $7 million in exploration. $3 million to $4 million is a low estimate. It’s a conservative estimate — a fiscally conservative estimate — and it may in fact be significantly higher. Would he agree with that statement?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, I know where the member’s going, but that would only be logical if the projections by industry on what the amount of exploration would be in the coming year are exact. They’re not; they’re estimates. We’re estimating based on available data, and that would include — there are going to be expenditures that might not qualify. That’s a fact, because there may be conditions or circumstances that preclude or disqualify. So there are all kinds of variables here.

And, as a government, we look forward to more, and we’re certainly capable of adjusting as we go through a fiscal period. But our hope is it’s going to be more. That’s what we’re seeking to do in this territory — attract more industry, and in this particular case, the mining industry. And the more we can attract and the more exploration that takes place for Yukon, the more potential for us to move into the interim and long-term benefits, which would be development and production phases for the mining industry.

Ms. Duncan:   It could be significantly more than what has been estimated. The Finance minister has come that far.

He mentioned what would qualify under the exploration tax credit. Now, my familiarity in the past with the placer industry has been that stripping qualified as an exploration expense under federal CCRA rules. Without going into too much detail, what are the qualifications for this income tax credit? In general terms, what qualifies and constitutes exploration? For the placer industry, is it stripping? For the mining industry, is it camps? Could he be specific as to what qualifies?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Please allow me to relay this to the House. There is a list, and it begins with an expense incurred in that period in the course of: prospecting, tearing out geological, geophysical or geochemical surveys, drilling by rotary, diamond, percussion or other methods, or trenching, digging test pits and preliminary sampling, or an expense described in this paragraph that is renounced by the taxpayer under section 66 of the federal act. And I will not attempt to read the French.

There are some other issues here that are relevant but they are not specific to what qualifies. There’s also a list of ineligible expenses, Mr. Chair, and I could list them: an expense incurred by the taxpayer in drilling or completing an oil well or gas well or in building a temporary access road to or preparing a site in respect of any such well; Canadian development expense of the taxpayer as defined in subsection 66.2(5) of the federal act; an expense incurred by the taxpayer that may reasonably be considered to be related to a mine that has come into production in reasonable commercial quantities or to be related to a potential or actual extension thereof; an expense incurred by the taxpayer that is described in any of the paragraphs (g), (j) and (l) to (o) of the definition "Canadian exploration expense" in subsection 66.1(6) of the federal act.

So there are a number of federal linkages here that are important and also a Canadian exploration and development overhead expense of the taxpayer as defined in Part XII of the federal regulations. We have to work closely with the federal government on this issue.

Ms. Duncan:   We do have a good working relationship with Canada Revenue Agency federally. Would the Finance minister answer the question this way then: how is the Yukon’s mineral exploration tax credit supportive of the placer mining industry in the Yukon? And, if he wishes, the Finance minister can respond to me by legislative return, but I would appreciate receiving an answer before the end of session.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Provided the fact that this is not a production site, there are occasions when drilling takes place for a placer property — exploration drilling. There are also examples of digging test pits — exploration — or trenching — exploration. That was listed, as I mentioned on the floor of the House. But if this were actually a production exercise, then it would not qualify as stated.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate that, but if we’re looking at a new claim or an added claim, then perhaps there might be more that would qualify, but that would be in concert with what I understand they already are eligible for under the federal rules. Is that correct? Would the Finance minister like me to repeat that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, please.

Ms. Duncan:   If this is a new property to a particular company or an adjacent claim to an existing property, then stripping, as an example, might qualify under the federal rules and therefore it would qualify. There are not two credits; it’s just you either qualify under the federal or you qualify under the Yukon. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, this would not be an easy question to answer because stripping, in the normal circumstances on any placer property, is done to remove overburden or waste material. The cost of moving dirt is not conducive to practice or exploration. That’s why the exploration phase would have been done beforehand to determine at what level the pay streak is at. That would dictate any kind of stripping program. Trenching and test pits are significantly different in the exploration phase. But when you start stripping overburden, it’s an exercise that is required to get to the pay streak.

Ms. Duncan:   I understand that, Mr. Chair. But we also worked with Revenue Canada in the mid-1980s to get stripping declared as an exploration expense for placer mining. So I was just trying to double-check to ensure it was still qualified, and —

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   That was my question. I understood it would qualify under the federal guidelines so therefore it qualifies and is considered part of our exploration tax credit. Perhaps the Finance minister will review the Blues and take another look at that and provide me by letter or a legislative return a more detailed answer.

The Finance minister mentioned the tax round table, and as the initiators of the mineral exploration tax credit — and that’s my recollection, as well, that the tax round table certainly was a proponent and made this suggestion. Has the tax round table been reconvened by the Finance minister?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I have already responded in detail, read into the record the conditions, the areas that would qualify or disqualify and, no, the tax round table has not been reconvened or created.

Ms. Duncan:   Does the Finance minister have any intention to reconvene the tax table?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   At this point in time we have a number of initiatives underway with the public when it comes to economic development, and we have not had any real in-depth, detailed discussions with anyone in the public about creating a tax round table at this point in time.

Ms. Duncan:   There’s another tax benefit that is up for discussion in the budget. Is it anticipated that that will also require amendments to the Income Tax Act — the child tax benefits — or will the amendments be brought in in some other way?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The child tax benefit is by regulation.

Ms. Duncan:   Is there any consideration being given to other amendments to the Income Tax Act to allow for tax credits, such as the teacher supply tax credit that I suggested to the Finance minister in January?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   At this point, the Department of Finance and its very busy officials are reviewing taxation in the broader context, and we will in due course determine if there are going to be any other tax measures that we as a government may employ to further advance our economic growth and provide incentive for private sector investment in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   That wasn’t a direct answer to a direct question.

Will the government be bringing in a teacher supply tax credit, for lack of a better term? Will they bring in that amendment or another amendment in the fall sitting?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It was a direct answer to a direct question. It wasn’t a surgical strike, but it certainly provided the answer.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Chair, I will certainly review the Blues, but the answer I heard was: maybe, we are thinking about it and we’ll tell you when we’re good and ready and not a minute before. Unfortunately, that’s hardly open and accountable.

There is one other item I would like the Finance minister to address, and he could address it by legislative return. Could I have an update on the Kassandra file?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, that’s a huge file and I am not about to direct officials to start typing a legislative return on that file. It has been an ongoing file for a number of years and if the member has some questions on that file, we are here in the House to debate; I have an official with me, and I’m sure we can answer those questions.

Ms. Duncan:   All right. I am sure that the Finance officials will bring them when we get to the Finance debate. I will have a couple of questions for the minister on that file and would appreciate the answer. Perhaps he will take the time to acquaint himself with it before he comes back to the Finance debate.

With that, Mr. Chair, I have no further questions on the Act to Amend the Income Tax Act or the extension to the mineral exploration tax credit, save to state, once again, for the record, my appreciation to the public, which brought forward this suggestion in the tax round table convened by the NDP government who brought it in in 1999, and to my colleagues for expanding it in 2000, when we increased it. I look forward to the continuing extension of this and to debating the Finance figures when they finally do arrive for the mineral exploration tax credit forgone revenue for the next couple of years.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? Hearing no further general debate, we’ll proceed line by line.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be reported without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that Bill No. 43, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be reported without amendment.

Chair:   I understand that we are now moving back into Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We are in general debate on the budget for the fiscal year 2004-05 — the largest budget in the history of the Yukon. I think that it behooves us all to get on with the debate, get beyond the needless repetition of questioning that has little substance in regard to the budget. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can ferret out from the opposition benches what exactly their vision and positions are on budgeting when it comes to the Yukon for its needs today and indeed its needs tomorrow. With that, I move that general debate be cleared.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Chair, the Premier went on quite a wild ride of his own at the end of yesterday’s debate, throwing insults to people on this side of the House.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

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

Chair:   There’s no point of order.

Mr. Fairclough:   Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to encourage the Member for Klondike to go back and read Hansard, and he might be amazed at how the Premier presented himself in this House. Basically, it showed the general public that this is the kind of leader he is presenting, and that is the way this Premier will conduct himself, I would say, for the rest of the term.

So, Mr. Chair, I know members, even backbenchers listening to the debate yesterday, certainly were not feeling very much comfort in the way the Premier puts his words together and how he attempts to belittle members on this side of the House and members of the general public. It’s certainly clear in his statements. It also shows his inability to read the public and to really take seriously the issues that we raise here.

Consultation, for example — one word. That’s all I asked yesterday and it threw the minister into a rage in this House. It is such a serious matter. That whole issue on the definition of "consultation" has been taken to court. This minister just dismisses that as if it is not a serious matter to First Nations. As a matter of fact, he accuses us on this side of the House as being anti-First Nations. Well, I would say, if there was ever a statement that is so wrong that has been made in this House, that is one of them. I think the Premier needs to rethink what he has been saying to members on this side of the House and the people we represent.

It appears that the Premier has a view one day, tells it to the public, and then turns around and says something else and has a totally different view the next day. I know the members opposite are now talking about this balanced budget. The Premier says it is a balanced budget and no other budgets that have been presented in this House were ever balanced, but, my goodness, the Yukon Party of today now brings forward a balanced budget. He certainly didn’t explain that with very much explanation.

But, in the past, that Premier felt that other budgets were balanced. He said so in this House. He defended it.

When it comes to the environment, that minister defended previous budgets. I’ll read you a quote, as a matter of fact. It was read out yesterday, too, and it’s from February 22, 2000. I’ll go through it. That is when the Premier was a backbencher on the government side at the time.

He says, "There is a great balance in the budget between the environment and our economy." That was when he was with the New Democrats. The two are married, he said. "Without sustainable environment it is virtually impossible to develop sustainable, viable economies, and that’s why we budget in the manner we do."

That member at the time was part of the budgeting, but now he says there’s no balance; it had no substance. As a matter of fact now he feels he knows best and, at the time, Yukoners were consulted in developing this budget — which was probably the most extensive consultation that ever took place on a budget. We throw a word out there about consultation and it throws this minister off. How does it do that? I think it’s the guilt factor. I brought up a couple of examples to the minister and the minister skirted away from them.

Mr. Chair, the minister knows this is a very serious matter. He knows that consultation is not a word that can be disregarded and put aside. Often in this House, I’ve heard my colleagues ask the members opposite to look up the definition of "consultation". They haven’t done that. We asked them to refer to the Delgamuukw case where it clearly spells out "consultation". We asked them to refer to the Umbrella Final Agreement and First Nation final agreements; still that party did not have the confidence in that definition and how it’s spelled out in final agreements and had to go to the point of putting together other agreements with First Nations.

Now he’s saying we on this side of the House are anti-First Nations. Certainly we will send those statements back to our communities and we will let our constituents look at that carefully and make comments to the members opposite. I asked the member about consultation, and he said that for 30 days they’ve consulted the general public. Thirty days — and then they got elected. That’s where the consultation process took place. Well, he forgot to recognize the fact that we on this side of the House have also been elected and also went through that process and have also had people contact us and basically give us direction. We relay it in this House and this minister, this Premier, belittles that, pushes it aside.

He also says that they are closer relationships than any other government has had in the past. It might be a good statement for him to make, but where was the minister all those years when he was elected in government and on this side of the House? Where was that member, that MLA? Did he not look at the world with open eyes? I think not, making a statement like that.

I have lots. This Hansard is full of them. He also says that when it comes to the captive wildlife issue, the minister responsible has been consulting with First Nations. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Why did the First Nation come forward and say to the members opposite that they want consultation to take place?

So the minister ought to watch his words in this House when it comes to statements like that, because it upsets the public out there. We only expect a lot more from the Premier, that he rise to a higher level instead of the record low that we’ve come to in this House. And that was the other thing with the rant that took place in the House by the Premier: he promised — and the members opposite also — in their platform to improve decorum in this House. Has that happened? I don’t think so.

So I guess we on this side of the House will have to take it from the members on that side of the House — criticism over and over again. I know that we will be belittled by the member opposite. I encourage him to rise above that type of low debate and to bring issues and answers to our questions.

With all of that, Mr. Chair, this Premier didn’t even answer the question about consultation and the whole agreement and how it related to improvements of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Why would he bring an agreement forward that is not an improvement? And why didn’t the government follow it? Why didn’t the government follow those agreements? Well, that is the reason why we on this side of the House have been asking questions.

The minister also said that the government has been bringing forward materials, has been bringing briefing notes to members on this side of the House daily. And we’ve gone to briefings, we’ve asked questions, we’ve asked for information and material. In past practice, there has always been a package of detailed material given to the opposition. Well, this minister and this Premier and the ministers, the Yukon Party, decided not to do that any more. They’re withholding information unless it has been asked directly at the time, rather than speeding up the process and having to ask all kinds of questions that could have been taken care of through those briefing notes. So that’s a new direction. Not being open and accountable is the one choice that this minister and this government would like to take.

The Premier also says that he is breathing life into the final agreements. He is breathing life into the final agreements — and he is doing this by throwing money out. Look at the statements: $1 million here; $1 million there; a few hundred thousand dollars here. That’s what the Premier said: he is breathing life into it by supporting First Nations through revenue streams. That’s what he said. Those were the words that the Premier used. I would think that, if anything, the Premier and his government need to sit down and talk in detail with the First Nations about the final agreements themselves.

There are issues, like every other government has in their communities that could be dealt with, and should be dealt with, and are dealt with by every government. That’s the other thing that I find amazing with this Premier and the Yukon Party government. If we talk about exploration tax credit or any other issues in supporting non-government organizations or communities or whatnot, it almost appears as if the Yukon Party created this, and it’s a new thing; it’s a new direction.

Lo and behold, every time we dig into this matter or have a chance to respond to it, we find, again, and have pointed out to the members opposite, that, in fact, this is an ongoing issue; it’s an ongoing matter and it’s supported by the Yukon Party — except for a few things like the protected areas strategy, for example, which his party supported — the Yukon Party did support it when they were on this side of the House. John Ostashek, I remember — there was a vote on this and they voted for it. Why? Because it was a document that had extensive debate, extensive consultation — probably the one that is closest to that, if not more, was the Education Act.

So the general public is not happy with the way the Premier has made debate in this House and addressed the questions of the opposition. I find that it just brings a whole new low to this Legislature.

I know the Premier is going to get up now, rise above debate and move on, or go on attack of the members opposite, we in the opposition. I would think that’s where the member would go. But not answering a question is only making things worse for the general public.

We on this side of the House are taking issues from the public, from members’ own ridings, from people here in Whitehorse and interest groups, and we’re voicing their concerns here in the Legislature. When we do, what is being said? Well, the Premier said that we have nothing to talk about. Is that all he can on consultation? Well, we have brought up so many issues, I think maybe it’s just too many for the members opposite to even gather together, and now the Premier’s fixated on the word "consultation" and I can see why. I can encourage the Premier to pull up his socks and really tackle the whole issue of consultation in a more serious manner.

Do not let things like changes to the captive wildlife regulations go forward without consultation with First Nations. They had to come forward and make it a big issue with the members opposite — take the Premier aside and talk to him.

And that shouldn’t happen. It should be a normal thing to go forward with consultation. And the members opposite know that.

Making movements that involve and affect the public or organizations — they should only have the courtesy of being consulted with, asked for their opinion. Emergency measures, for example — well, the minister said there was all kinds of consultation on that. But as it turned out, Mr. Chair, there wasn’t. As a matter of fact, there was very little — nothing with the professionals and nothing with the union. It is as if this government is saying to the general public that they know best and we’ve made a decision, and how do you like it so far. That’s the attitude that is being presented out there. And it is one that is upsetting the general public in every riding, Mr. Chair, because we’re hearing it from across the territory and they want a change. They want a change in the attitude that this Premier is presenting to the general public right now. It’s not coming. It’s a year and a half. Another year and a half goes by very quickly, Mr. Chair, and before you know it, we’ll be very much in an election. We want to see some improvements and we’re trying to help them out. We on this side of the House have been asking simple questions.

So we will be asking questions in regard to consultation way down the road on every matter that the members opposite bring forward because they’ve committed to it, and it’s only a commonsense thing when you deal government to government, Mr. Chair. If there is anything that we can say on this side of the House, it’s for the members opposite to try to rise above the level that they have set for themselves in debate in this House, try to make improvements, like they said and promised Yukoners. And I’ll leave it at that and ask my colleagues to ask questions.

Chair:   Order please. Before debate continues — when the member was asking his question, he used the phrase "couldn’t be further from the truth", and I would remind the member that on May 13, 2002, that statement was ruled out of order and, at the time, the member was asked to retract that statement.

I would remind all members to speak within the confines of our Standing Orders, to review the past rulings, and I would ask that member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Fairclough:   It is hard to withdraw a truth, but I will do that.

Chair:   The Chair is very uncomfortable with the preamble and the qualification placed on the retraction of that comment. I would ask for an unqualified withdrawal of the remark, please.

Mr. Fairclough:   I can understand that. I withdraw it.

Chair:   Thank you.

We will continue on with general debate.

Mrs. Peter:   Yesterday, the Premier made some statements in this House in general debate with a few of my colleagues. I take issue with that. It was in regard to issues and questions regarding the land claims process in the Yukon and consultation with First Nations throughout the territory.

During his comments, Mr. Chair, he accused the official opposition of being anti-First Nations. In his many challenges that he made, he also stated that we are trying to pit First Nations one against the other.

We as MLAs in rural ridings are not making inroads in our respective constituencies due to his biggest budget in the history of the Yukon. It has been more than once I’ve heard in the House from the Yukon Party government members — I heard them say how our questions and the list of issues and concerns we bring on behalf of the Yukon public have no substance.

Let me remind the Premier and his colleagues, Mr. Chair, to never underestimate the people of Old Crow, as well as the First Nation communities throughout the Yukon Territory. Statements such as those he made in this House yesterday only reinforce to our people out there the fact that this Yukon Party government knows very little about Vuntut Gwitchin. By suggesting that I as a member of the official opposition am not making any inroads into my riding, the Premier is disrespecting the clear choice my people made in the past two elections at the polls.

May I suggest to the Premier to be very careful in that regard. The people in the riding of Vuntut Gwitchin are very aware of the political scene and what it entails.

They are very respectful. They care about decisions being made here on their behalf. And let me tell you, they are very protective of their leaders, and for a very good reason. At the request of our people, leadership at all levels of my community has maintained professional, respectful and progressive relationships with governments no matter what political stripe the government wears. We are a self-governing First Nation, and our priority is the needs of our people. On a daily basis, I’m in communication with people across this territory from many walks of life, and I feel very fortunate for that. They entrust us with bringing their questions and their issues to this forum so we can ask the government questions on their behalf.

Yesterday I heard the Premier say that our questions and our list of issues that we bring to this forum have no substance. I was absolutely appalled at that statement — to have so much disrespect for the people of the Yukon, and yet I am not surprised. Those kinds of statements say a lot, Mr. Speaker, to the people who listen, to the people whom we communicate with on a daily basis. And it’s a sad day when we have to listen to that kind of rhetoric from the Premier of the Yukon Territory, who represents all of us at the end of the day on many fronts.

I’d like to ask the Premier to tell the people of Old Crow what progress has been made to date on the accord that was signed with VGFN, and what are the priorities that are listed in that accord?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I can assure this House and the people of Old Crow that I and the government have nothing but respect for the MLA for Vuntut Gwitchin and have always had a deep respect for the MLA for Vuntut Gwitchin. I think it’s important that we get on the record the issues as they are. I accept criticism for whatever was relayed for debate in this Legislature.

I have no problem accepting that, but I will also challenge the opposition at every instance when incorrect information is brought to the floor of this Legislature. That is the obligation and responsibility of any elected member of this House. So that challenge will always be there. There can be no doubt about that.

The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin may have taken exception to that, and I can say the government side does not in any way preclude the member from taking that position. That is a position of the member’s choice, but it’s important that we reflect on what we do here and stick to the matters of fact and substance. There are a lot of procedures in this House that certainly get off base on many occasions, especially when we’re trying to deal with matters of fact and substance.

There are motivations for it, but it’s not my place to judge what those exact motivations would be. I’ll leave that up to the members opposite. Let’s provide disclosure to the Yukon public when they so desire.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun went on again at great length about many things. I will ignore that. They’re the same statements as made yesterday. Any reference or inference that the government does not consult with First Nation people is incorrect. Again, we will challenge the members opposite whenever they present that sort of criticism.

Criticism must have substance; criticism must be constructive; otherwise it’s empty criticism that has no value for anyone in this territory.

As far as the protocol with the First Nation government in Old Crow — the Vuntut Gwitchin government — we have advanced that particular agreement. We have invested in those initiatives and those priorities for the people of Old Crow, but I have to say that the members opposite voted against those investments and have all along. There is a definite reckoning that must come with the voting record. There can be no other option. That is a definite position taken. It’s a matter of choice always, but the government also has made a choice, and we have invested in those priorities for the government of Old Crow and its citizens. We do not dictate what those priorities will be. We will work with the First Nation at a government-to-government level, and that’s much of what consultation is all about. There’s no question that we do that on every level and beyond. We’re promoting partnerships with First Nations. That moves us away from the 30 years of the us-and-them attitude of sometimes very acrimonious negotiations on the land claim front. However, there is a great deal of vision and focus in regard to how we can, collectively with First Nations in partnership, build the future of this territory. What we’re doing with the Vuntut Gwitchin and their government is exactly that.

Again it becomes an issue for the members opposite to really, really consider what the facts are, to remove the partisan mirror and look at the budget as it relates to balance throughout the territory in the communities.

There is no question that every effort has been made to invest everywhere we can to meet needs. The community of Old Crow is certainly one of those areas that has received a significant investment in this budget. The question for the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin — and we on the government side will respect the decision. The question is: what decision will the member make in voting for or against that investment for the people of Old Crow? We do not pass judgement. We do not in any way say to the member opposite that the member should vote in a certain manner. We merely have presented the detail, the facts; the choice is the member’s. We will continue to work with the government of the Vuntut Gwitchin people on its priorities. That is why we have entered into that protocol.

And again, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun alluded to the fact or made insinuations that we do not live up to those protocols. Well, what we are doing in Old Crow is testimony, clear evidence, that the government does, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we have reached this stage. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun alluded to the fact that this House has reached an all-time low. The government side agrees; we have reached an all-time low. That all-time low is the level of correct information being brought forward by the opposition benches to this Assembly. It is at a low. All the government is doing is urging them to get back up to the level that Yukoners require that we conduct the business of this House on.

At the end of the day, the judgement will be in the next election. The government side is more than prepared to place its future in the hands of the voting public. Until then, we have a great deal of work to do. We have accomplished a number of things to date. We have seen some positive trends developing. We see a bit more optimism in the territory. We see what was once conflict now moving toward cooperation and collaboration. All these things are good for Yukon, not only now but in its future.

With that, again, I say, general debate could go on and on and on; however, this is a big budget. I’m sure the members have many questions on each department, and that would be a very constructive approach. Dig in; delve in to the departments with the ministers in detail. That’s what debate is all about, not this approach that the members opposite have chosen to bring to this House.

Mrs. Peter:   I don’t mind constructive criticism myself. It helps me in my job. And I’m sure the Premier listened to my comments very carefully, and the question that I ended with was about the progress made on the accord so far that he has signed with VGFN — not what his relationship is with VGFN. We’ve heard about that relationship in this House on many occasions. The priorities that are listed in that accord are very important to the people of Old Crow. I’ll ask the Premier again. The accord that was signed with Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation has a list of priorities. Can the minister tell me what those priorities are and what progress had been made in that area?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is general debate in the budget. I will stick to the budget items. First, Mr. Chair, we have to go back to the supplementary budget, which has a huge bearing on where we’re at with this budget. The road to Old Crow — this winter road — was important to be able to mobilize the necessary supplies and equipment into the community of Old Crow to be able to address a number of the priorities. Those priorities are quite obvious in the budget breakdown. There’s $1.2 million invested in the quarry development site. That’s critical because another priority is to deal with the bank restabilization. There’s also the priority of the Old Crow Airport and runway; however, without granular, there can be no work on the runway. There’s also the issue of the Old Crow Airport terminal building, another priority that we as a government have invested in. We also commend the federal government for recognizing a need in the community, so we’re partnering not only with the Vuntut Gwitchin government but also with the federal government.

I think it’s fair to say, Mr. Chair, that with the priorities the community has brought forward, this budget is addressing some of them. We can’t address them all, but at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, the budget document has a detailed list of a number of the priorities we have met when it comes to the community of Old Crow.

Mrs. Peter:   The Premier took us down another road that eluded the question I asked directly of him, and then we wonder where our debates go.

Anyway, let me enlighten the Premier. Have a little patience with me. I did have a public meeting in the community of Old Crow in February. At that meeting, there was a good variety of people in attendance. The elders were there, there were the middle-aged and a couple of youth. The concerns and the dialogue that took place at that meeting were very interesting. It was one of many I’ve held in the community in the last few years. And, yes, we appreciate the financial assistance we get from this government so that we can make progress with the projects that our people had a vision for in the last 10 years. One was the airport terminal. We have a commitment for that. One was the winter Cat train. The equipment is in Old Crow. There were several other issues that I’m not able to mention today; I’m still waiting for more information.

One of the highest priorities for many of the parents in Old Crow is in regard to the education of their children.

We’ve had a working committee group that came to Old Crow on one occasion that I witnessed. There is a huge concern in the area of justice.

The community that I come from, Mr. Chair, is not allowed any alcohol. We call it a dry community. However, that was a very positive step for my people a few years back, and today we’re seeing some impacts and effects that our community would like to address in conjunction with the courts.

Our elder population, Mr. Chair — the percentage is high. Families in my community are concerned about the care that our elders receive. And I’ve brought that to this forum before. We have programs and services in the areas of dentistry, dental hygienists and optometry that we need in the community on a regular basis. We make do, Mr. Chair, with whatever few resources we have.

We heard a tribute today to volunteers throughout our communities and throughout this territory, at many levels. That’s how most of our communities function.

When I bring up the issue of an ambulance, that is a need that we have in Old Crow. I have told this House before that I can’t picture a screaming siren flying down the main street in Old Crow. We can be creative with those kinds of ideas.

And always at the back of our minds is the issue that we have with the Porcupine caribou herd and its very survival.

Those are just a few of the issues that the community addressed at the public meeting that I held. Those are the kinds of issues I was hoping that the Premier would address in regard to the priorities that he might know about in my community. If any of those issues are being addressed by the Premier in that accord or in his relationship with Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, I would like to hear those from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There are many other areas where issues for the community of Old Crow, and indeed every community of the Yukon, are being addressed.

The education issue, for example. The Minister of Education has a great deal to debate and discuss in this House when it comes to that department’s budget and what the minister is doing, through his leadership, to address especially the issue of education as it relates to our aboriginal people. And the offer from the Yukon government is clear.

When it comes to the Porcupine caribou herd, our commitment is solid and continues to be, but we are taking our direction from the government of the Vuntut Gwitchin, which has said to us, "We will be the lead and, if need be, we will request assistance from you." That’s how we are working with the Vuntut Gwitchin on that priority. And the list goes on.

I think the way this can be dealt with in the appropriate and most constructive manner is to deal with those specific issues as they relate to that specific department. That’s where the members opposite can truly engage in constructive debate. To continue on with the general debate area of this budget serves no real purpose because the same questions are going to have to be asked to the appropriate ministers.

I will not, in any way, shape or form, preclude the Minister of Education and that minister’s obligation and responsibility to provide the members opposite with responses to their questions. I will not preclude the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Highways and Public Works and Community Services, the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the list goes on.

So the way this should unfold in constructive terms and with respect to the position the Member for Mayo-Tatchun has just put on the floor to raise the level of debate — well, that’s the scenario that would certainly do that.

We are meeting commitments and addressing demonstrated needs and priorities for Yukoners. This budget reflects a great deal of those commitments and has a great many examples of meeting those demonstrated needs and priorities. But, you know, in Committee of the Whole there seems to be a constant desire to get things on the record that may not even be relevant to the budget. Again, that’s not for me to judge. We have due processes to deal with that, but I would suggest that we can do a great deal, minister by minister, department by department, to better articulate and disseminate information to the member opposite. This is simply not the vehicle or the mechanism to do it.

So what I am saying, as the minister responsible for the budget in my capacity as Minister of Finance, to the members opposite is that the way to truly address their questions is to move on and deal with the departments where these issues are related. I will not respond to Education in any sort of detail, so what would be the net purpose of continuing the debate. I’m not going to respond in any detail to the Department of Health and Social Services. What would be the purpose? I will not respond in any detail to the Department of Justice or Tourism. There’s a minister responsible for those two departments. I’m not going to respond in any detail with regard to Energy, Mines and Resources, and the list goes on.

In fact, in general debate on the overall budget, the members opposite should know that we will not respond in any great detail when there are specific questions that relate to a department. The purpose of that is to be constructive in debate, and that’s exactly what we’re promoting on the floor of this Legislature, somewhat contrary to what the Member for Mayo-Tatchun believes to be happening.

And that’s unfortunate, because that’s a huge part of constructive debate — how the opposition members conduct themselves.

Mrs. Peter:   I thank the Premier for his lecture and avoiding the question that I’ve asked him.

In regard to general debate, Mr. Chair, this is my one chance, let me say, to address the Premier in his capacity as Premier of the Yukon Territory in regard to questions that I might have about the budget in all areas. These are questions that I bring forward regarding my riding, and they are very important. And these are the kinds of information that I bring home to the people in Old Crow, and they read it and they watch us every night on television so that they know what is being addressed on their behalf. So I don’t need to hear how I’m not making any headway here, because I know I am.

In regard to environment, Mr. Chair, this government with the Department of Environment has a mandate to protect our lands and animals on behalf of the Yukon people. The Premier and some of his colleagues have called the official opposition a no-development party.

When we hear that kind of comment, Mr. Chair, I have to sit here and shake my head. He is talking about the conduct or level of debate that happens here. But making those kinds of comments on the floor of this House — he talked about untrue statements or statements that are being brought forward by opposition members, with him being the Premier of the Yukon government. The list goes on, like he says.

We all have a vision for the Yukon Territory. In that vision, there always has to be a balance.

We know that the Premier cannot answer individual departmental financial questions, but I believe that he’s obligated to answer general questions for departments.

I would like to hear from the Premier what his vision is for the Yukon Territory in regard to parks.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, that is a question that requires much more involvement by the minister responsible for the environment. But I can tell you — I see that the leader of the official opposition finds that quite amusing. Maybe it has been very amusing in that member’s mind over the last decade, but it certainly hasn’t been amusing to Yukoners in this territory.

Yukon found itself at the time of the November 2002 election in a desperate situation. That was unfortunate considering the potential and the opportunity that this territory has. Having said that, one of the important areas of vision is to recognize flawed policy and process. As a government we have done that and we have ceased implementing flawed policy and process. Secondly, when it comes to the finite detail, the Department of Environment will be the area of debate, but the Yukon can stand proud at the amount of parks and protection in place today in this territory, and the Yukon has layer after layer of legislative mechanisms and regulatory regimes to ensure that the environment is not compromised. We need not go to the past practices and the mistakes made by past governments. Why would we? When it comes to vision, vision is not in the rear-view mirror; vision is looking forward. In today’s Yukon and in today’s world, there is a tremendous amount of ability for all jurisdictions to ensure that the environment is not compromised and yet to proceed in a very balanced manner with responsible development.

There is a distinct difference between the vision of this government and the official opposition. The official opposition is on record saying that, before development takes place, all protected areas must be concluded. This government does not agree with that, and that’s something this government is not pursuing.

We will pursue responsible development. We will ensure that assessments are done in a manner so that we mitigate impact and do not compromise our environmental future.

But let’s consider today’s Yukon as it exists — a huge land base with little footprint today, huge potential with little access today, a tremendous amount of opportunity for the people of this territory to grow and buil