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

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

Tributes.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to give a tribute to Earth Day 2004, as Yukoners join more than 500 million people worldwide to celebrate the 24^th annual Earth Day, the largest, most celebrated environmental event worldwide.

All individuals and institutions have a mutual responsibility to act as trustees of Earth, seeking the choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, foster peaceful progress, awaken the wonder of life and realize the best potential for the future of human endeavour.

Former U.S. President Gerald Ford, in proclaiming Earth Day, said the Earth will continue to regenerate its life sources only as long as we and all the people of the world do our part to conserve its natural resources.

It is a responsibility every human being shares. Through voluntary action, each of us can join in building a productive land in harmony with nature.

I had the great pleasure of helping a large group of volunteers this morning sweep the streets and sidewalks of Main Street here in Whitehorse. I had a lot of fun this morning. I encourage more people to get involved in that on Earth Day next year.

There are 500 million people in more than 180 countries, including six million Canadians, who are taking part in special events and projects to address and bring attention to local environmental issues. Here in the Yukon, Earth Day celebrations include "Don’t waste your week" — the waste Yukoners produce and disposal options available — and "People didn’t used to die here" — a celebration on rural thinking, minimalism and the awakening of the ecozoic. This public talk is tonight at 7:00 at the Whitehorse Public Library and is followed by the annual general meeting of the Environmental Education Association of the Yukon.

April 17 saw the kickoff of the Celebration of Swans, Yukon’s premier bird festival, and I would like to invite residents and visitors alike to partake in some of the activities scheduled for this week at Swan Haven. These include area birding tours, bird identification workshops, family activity weekend, guest speakers and peaceful swan-watching opportunities. It’s a good excuse to get outside and enjoy our beautiful Earth and some of its wildlife.

Environmental issues surround us and we need to be fully aware of how very fragile our environments are. We need to take steps to protect our Earth.

It would be easy to say that individually we can’t accomplish anything, and it is probably just as easy to say that we are only a small group, so what can we do? Well, I can tell you. As Earth Day has grown in international scope and recognition, this global event has been able to bring pressure on heads of state to participate in the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to address such issues as climate change and worldwide loss of species.

Earlier this week, representatives of my department spoke publicly of the recovery project for the Chisana caribou herd, and this is something that we are doing actively to protect against the loss of a species.

We can, as individuals and as small communities and as government, make a difference if we concern ourselves with things like preventing the destruction of the environment, climate change, the handling of disposal of special wastes so they don’t impact our water or other living things, recycling, and all the steps, big and small, which are well within our capability.

We must keep Earth Day every day as we go about our lives and our jobs. We are, Mr. Speaker, the custodians of our environment, and we have a very big job to do.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to International Earth Day. Today more than ever, we have an opportunity to renew the sacred balance with all inhabitants of the Earth. We can do our part to join the millions of Canadians and people in over 140 nations in taking action today and every day.

A few days ago, I tabled a motion asking this House to endorse principles of the Earth Charter here in the Yukon. It is our responsibility to speak out, to protect our lands and forests, our water and air for future generations and for those who can’t speak for themselves. The Gwitchin people have much experience in this area with our plight and trying to protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We join and express our gratitude to the many workers and volunteers who give their time and their effort, such as the people of the Yukon Conservation Society, the Raven Recycling, the Energy Solutions Centre and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, who help make us aware of the consequences of our daily actions and give us practical ideas on lifestyle choices that respect our environment, and, more especially, the elders of our communities who took care of our traditional lands so that we may live in a good way today.

Today we ask Yukoners to consider taking actions to limit their consumption, to consider ways to protect the most vulnerable and sensitive areas in the territory, and to support the people, organizations and events honouring Earth Day. Let’s make a commitment to be responsive to the reality of what humans are doing to our planet. Let’s make a commitment to restore the sacred balance.

Mahsi’ cho.

Ms. Duncan:   One of the Earth Day Web sites opens with a picture of the wilderness and a Kashmiri proverb that states: "We have not inherited the world from our forefathers; we have borrowed it from our children." Our children learn from the examples that are set for them and the teaching of their elders, and as they learn so do we. I would like on this Earth Day to especially thank our teachers and administrators of the green schools throughout the territory. These green schools, such as Jack Hulland, recycle in their classrooms and throughout the schools. Parents are encouraged to send garbage-free lunches and continue their reduce, reuse and recycle efforts at home. Environments and environmental awareness are part of school life from kindergarten to grade 7 in our elementary schools, and into our high schools.

In keeping with the cleanliness aspect of our respect for Earth, I would also like to encourage the government to continue with the recycling club, which is normally announced in this Legislature in the spring. It fosters an awareness of recycling throughout the Yukon.

Finally, I would like to close my Earth Day tribute on behalf of the Liberal caucus with a quote from the music of a great Canadian: "Respect Mother Earth and her giving ways or trade away our children’s days".

Thank you.

Speaker:   Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have for tabling the Yukon Liquor Corporation’s 26^th annual report for the year ending March 31, 2003.

Speaker:   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 this House urges the Government of Yukon to demonstrate its willingness to begin taking a balanced approach to environmental protection and responsible development by immediately convening an environmental round table to develop a new direction for the Yukon Party government that recognizes the need for future economic activity to be both socially acceptable and environmentally sustainable.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to adopt a comprehensive energy policy for the Yukon by implementing the recommendations of the Cabinet Commission on Energy under the previous NDP government, which included a variety of practices to promote energy conservation and alternative energy production and use.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work with the governments of Canada and the United States to make the cleanup of abandoned military sites throughout the Yukon Territory an urgent intergovernmental priority.

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 policy question for the Minister of Justice, and I hope we won’t have to have a repeat performance of the Minister of Health and Social Services rising to her rescue today. She is the minister, and she is accountable for her department. The Department of Justice ignored a Supreme Court finding that the Whitehorse Correctional Centre is not an appropriate therapeutic environment for people with serious mental disorders.

My question to the Minister of Justice: why did the department ignore this issue?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This is just another attempt by the opposition to link our government into the debate to build a new Whitehorse Correctional Centre. The issue before us is one of an individual who was charged. The courts ordered him into remand at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. He has subsequently been found to be not criminally responsible. It is no longer a criminal justice matter; this situation is a health matter. There is the aggrieved party who was assaulted, and there’s the individual who committed the assault, who was found not criminally responsible. Let’s allow these individuals to go through the healing process, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Peter:   A person was wronged in this matter. The government House leader, Mr. Speaker, is not the Minister of Justice. As far as I know, he’s not the Acting Minister of Justice. I’m also not aware that the Minister of Justice has any conflict of interest that would prevent her from doing her job and answering to the Yukon —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Order please. Minister of Environment, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, a point of order on this.

On October 22, 2001, the Chair ruled the questions are addressed to the government or to the Cabinet as a whole. They may be addressed to individual ministers; however, the ministers of the Cabinet may make their own decisions. I ask the Speaker to bring this ruling to the member opposite’s attention.

Mr. Fairclough:   There’s no violation of the Standing Orders here, Mr. Speaker. The question was directed to the minister. It is the government side’s own choice as to who answers the question.

Speaker:   There is no point of order. However, the Cabinet is a collegial body, and any member of the Cabinet can stand up and answer a question.

Mrs. Peter:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was to the Minister of Justice. However, whoever would like to answer the question, one more time, Mr. Speaker: why was the minister’s department using a punishment cell at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre to house remand prisoners with serious mental disorders four years after the Supreme Court said it was wrong to do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, regrettably the situation occurred. The individual has been found not criminally responsible. It’s now a health matter; it’s no longer a criminal justice matter. As to who gets sentenced to remand or who gets dealt with, that’s the justice arm of the Department of Justice. It’s due process. What this clearly points out is the process worked, and at the end of the period of time, after a psychiatric evaluation of this individual, he was found to be not criminally responsible. Let’s not re-victimize everyone involved in this situation. Let’s let the healing process move forward. This individual is currently in the Whitehorse Hospital. He’s undergoing the medical attention that he requires, and there is a very strong likelihood, Mr. Speaker, that this individual will be reintegrated into society and prove to be a contributing member of society.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, we need some accountability to the questions on behalf of the public. Since this story broke, we have heard every kind of buck-passing imaginable. Everybody wants to protect the Minister of Justice. The Cabinet spin doctor says it is an operational issue, so the minister is muzzled. Departmental officials are now passing the buck to the doctors, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Health dishes out nonsense about proving that the system works — all this to protect the Minister of Justice.

I challenge the minister to do her job and tell the Yukon people right now why her department ignored a clear message from the Supreme Court four years ago that the jail should not be used as a mental health unit. Why did this happen?

Speaker:   Prior to the minister answering, the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin made the statement that the replies were nonsense. That in itself is unparliamentary, and I would ask the member to not use that term.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As the member opposite knows full well, there are three facilities in the Yukon that the courts could have sent this individual to. The courts chose to send this individual to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. We have to abide by the court rulings, but this matter is no longer a criminal matter as this individual was found not to be criminally responsible. The health care system is now charged with the responsibility of addressing this individual’s needs, and in all likelihood there’s a very good chance that this individual will respond well to treatment and will be reintegrated into society. Let’s not revictimize the individual who was assaulted; let’s not revictimize the individual who has a mental health condition. Let’s let the healing process work.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the members opposite to address their responsibilities in this area.

Mr. Fairclough:   The Minister of Health and Social Services has taken on an additional responsibility as the spokesperson for the Department of Justice, so I have a question for that minister. Will the minister be asking the Department of Justice to provide a report on why it has ignored the Supreme Court’s finding regarding the use of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre as a mental health facility for the past four years? Will he be asking for that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am aware that there is an order-in-council designating three facilities in Whitehorse for this purpose. It’s up to the courts to assign individuals to any one of these three facilities. Instead of putting this person into remand at Whitehorse Correctional Centre, the courts could have put this individual into the Whitehorse Hospital. That was a choice. That was their option.

We don’t call the shots as a government. We’re in the service-end delivery. This matter is no longer before the courts. This individual was found not criminally responsible. Although there is an appeal period of 30 days from the date of sentence, this individual hopefully will respond well to treatment at the Whitehorse Hospital.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister ought to take his job seriously and ask for a report on this matter because the public is very concerned.

This minister has quite a track record of trying to shut down questioning that’s coming from this side of the House. He’s used things like: it’s in the courts now; it’s out of the courts. He said that the opposition is trying to revictimize this person. He says that this proves the system works, and on and on it goes. What we aren’t hearing is the appropriate minister taking responsibility for their departments. Has the corrections branch now been directed to stop using the Whitehorse Correctional Centre as a therapeutic unit for people with serious mental disorders? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The courts determine which facility someone is going to be placed in. There are three choices in Whitehorse. That said, this individual is now no longer in the criminal justice system, save and except for the 30-day appeal period. This individual was found not to be criminally responsible. It is no longer a criminal justice matter, Mr. Speaker. It’s a health matter.

Mr. Fairclough:   Then the minister ought to take this issue seriously, as the Health minister. This situation might not have existed at all if this government had done the right thing and replaced the decrepit Whitehorse Correctional Centre. Maybe in that process they would have addressed the need for a proper mental health facility for people facing criminal charges. But we’re all waiting for the Premier to share his personal vision of correctional reform.

In the meantime, it’s business as usual for a government that puts bridges ahead of people’s needs. The minister knows the limitations of the Whitehorse General Hospital as a mental health facility. He knows the Yukon has big gaps in terms of mental health services, so will the minister make a commitment to establish a secure, humane, therapeutic facility for prisoners with serious mental health problems so the Whitehorse Correctional Centre will not be used for that purpose again?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That’s an interesting conclusion the member opposite came to. I can see clearly now this is a veiled attempt to coerce, persuade and embarrass the government into building a new jail. That’s the issue that’s before this House today: build a new facility, a new warehouse for inmates.

What we are concentrating on is correctional reform. On the issues of mental health and medical detox, our government is examining those. Hopefully, when the Thomson Centre is open again, it will have a wing that contains a mental health unit and a medical detox centre at a greater capacity than currently.

As to the sentencing of this individual to Whitehorse Correctional Centre, it’s the courts that make that determination. The judge makes the determination as to which one of the facilities this individual is to be placed in. It has nothing to do with the government. We are the service provider. As this matter is no longer before the courts, Mr. Speaker, this individual was found not to be criminally responsible. It is now a health care issue.

We will do our level best in the health care field to provide this individual with the care he needs in order to —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member conclude?

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Environment. Yesterday I asked the minister several questions about the government’s double standard when it comes to purchasing game farms. If you’re in the Yukon Party line, you get the game farm purchased. If you’re not in that line, you don’t get bought out. The minister refused to answer the questions. The reason that was given, outside of this Legislature, was that it would be a conflict of interest for the minister to answer. The minister has several conflicts with the department, and we’d like to keep them all straight.

What is the nature of the conflict of interest, and most especially important, why won’t the minister explain how the double standard is going to be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I guess yesterday I started out by explaining a bit of the history of reindeer, and today I’ll elaborate a little bit on that.

Now we all know Rudolph was very important in history. We also know that Dancer and Prancer and a number of other reindeer were very important, so we need to handle this very delicately.

On a more serious note, there has been a long association between the man and reindeer population — probably for about 15,000 years. This relationship and livelihood with reindeer developed cultures of a nomadic people dependent upon herding and breeding of reindeer, up to 4,000 years ago. Later, reindeer herding was adopted as a production strategy by aboriginal people in northern Russia. Over the centuries the reindeer industry in Russia and Scandinavia has maintained the status of herding businesses. Tame pastures are planted for reindeer consumption. Velvet antlers are harvested or animals are slaughtered.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister clearly has conflicts of interest throughout the Department of Environment and should be replaced. Ethics is at the bottom of the list of the priorities of the government as is apparently taking concerns of Yukoner constituents seriously.

This Yukon Party government found $2 million to purchase the Yukon game preserve. It has found another $2 million to operate the facility for four years. At the same time, the minister is choosing to ignore a request from the Northern Splendor Reindeer Farm to purchase their animals. The Yukon Party double standard is alive and well. The Yukon Party created that double standard and now there is an obligation clearly to fix it. How is the government going to fix this double standard they created?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The Yukon territorial government is responding to the recommendations of the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Board on proposed regulations for the keeping of wildlife in captivity and specifically the letter sent to the Yukon territorial government on January 31, 2003, in which the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board recommended that the two existing facilities operating as private captive wildlife facilities be bought by government and only one facility should be operated and run by a non-profit organization. The single reindeer facility was never mentioned.

Ms. Duncan:   The Fish and Wildlife Management Board has yet to address this issue. The fact is the Yukon Party government created a double standard when they purchased the game farm, and they have an obligation to fix it. They are refusing to tell the public how they intend to do that. This government wrote the book on double standards and backroom deals. Government has a double standard throughout its operating history of two years. The Minister of Environment created this. We buy some game farms; we don’t buy others.

In a March 26 radio interview, the Minister of Environment said he was buying animals from other game facilities in the Yukon, including one in Carcross. How much money was set aside for that purchase? How did the facility in Carcross get on the Yukon Party list of game animals to be purchased and the reindeer farm is being ignored and being told no? How is the government going to fix the double standard they created?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to start by correcting the member opposite. It appears that in my opinion the member opposite may be saying that the Fish and Wildlife Management Board has double standards and not this government. I also want to say that —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order please. On a point of order, leader of the third party.

Ms. Duncan:   On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister in his response is implying motive on the part of the questioner, and that is outside our rules of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   There’s no point of order. There’s no Standing Order cited as being breached, Mr. Speaker. This is just a dispute between members.

Speaker:   The Chair did not hear a violation of 19(g), and I would ask the minister to carry on.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, I also want to put on record that there was a request by probably thousands of Yukon citizens to look at the game preserve and to keep it in the Yukon Territory. So again, Mr. Speaker, if this government is guilty of anything, we’re guilty of listening to the citizens of the Yukon Territory.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. For days now, we have watched the Minister of Health and Social Services try to protect the Minister of Justice from answering for her department. At the last sitting, we watched the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission try to protect the Premier from answering questions about his own actions. When the Premier selected the members of his Cabinet, did he explain to them that they are responsible to the Yukon people for their actions and for the actions of their departments?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure why the member would even be asking this question. The situation that the Cabinet members are in is based on an oath. We all understand that there is due process with the collectivity of Cabinet, and that’s exactly what takes place. There is nothing sinister here. The Minister of Health is answering on matters that are related to that department. The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission responded to questions related to that department. And based on your ruling, Mr. Speaker, any Cabinet minister can stand and answer and respond to any question coming from the other side. So maybe the member has a different question of more substance and a question that has more reflection of the issues and concerns of Yukoners.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to remind the Premier opposite that this is a question that has come from the people of the Yukon. He shouldn’t belittle it. The Minister of Justice won’t do her job. The Minister of Health has tried to sweep this whole disgraceful situation under the carpet.

Perhaps the Premier will do the right thing since it was his decision to not replace the antiquated Whitehorse Correctional Centre in the first place. Will the Premier, who is also the Minister of Finance, make funding available to provide badly needed mental health facilities so that the Justice department will not continue ignoring court rulings about the inappropriate use of Whitehorse Correctional Centre for that purpose?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I indicated earlier to this House, on quite a number of occasions, the department is examining and will be proceeding in due course with taking the Thomson Centre and placing a wing in there that includes medical detox and mental health. Currently there are three facilities that the courts sentence people to in the Yukon, and it’s the court’s choice, but what we see here is a display by the opposition parties of trying to bring forward a new warehouse to warehouse inmates here in the Yukon when the issue is the treatment, the programs and correctional reform, whether it be a matter that has currently been dealt with by the justice system, which is now a health matter, as this individual has been found to be not criminally responsible. This attempt is just very, very hard to fathom, Mr. Speaker, when we have to look after the people and not just build a big warehouse, as the members opposite are suggesting.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. This week the minister made public comments concerning the young woman who is living in a downtown youth shelter with her baby. This is some of what the minister said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "That young lady is a member of KDFN and they’ve also offered her housing, so there’s an issue there. It’s one of lifestyle choices, but KDFN has provided SA to this individual and they’re offering to provide housing also."

Did the minister have written permission from this person to reveal very personal information of this kind?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   That’s exactly what this young lady said on the radio.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister is wrong on that matter. It was after the fact. The minister said that the situation the young woman found herself in was a lifestyle choice. Because the minister was revealing her private information, the young woman was put in a situation of having to publicly explain why she does not want to live with her baby in an unsafe situation.

Can the minister explain what he means by saying the young mother’s refusal to live in an unsafe situation is a lifestyle choice?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’ll endeavour to get a transcript of her conversation, which I’m sure was recorded on CBC the other morning, and send it over to the member opposite. Maybe he can grasp a better understanding of what she actually said during the course of her interview on CBC.

Mr. Fairclough:   How typical of the Yukon Party. These ministers skirt around the questions and don’t answer them. The member knows it was because of his remarks that she had to come out publicly and explain things.

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the Ontario Minister of Health inadvertently disclosed the name of an individual during Question Period. That minister was forced to resign her post as minister and the matter was referred to the Ontario Provincial Police.

Now, the Yukon minister did not use the young mother’s name; however, this is a very small jurisdiction and he did give out private information about the woman’s situation that should not have been revealed.

Would the minister take this opportunity to apologize to this young mother, or is he exempt from the rules of confidentiality that every other Health minister in Canada must obey?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   If any one is amplifying the situation surrounding this individual, it’s the official opposition member who is raising this question once again. This individual was reported on in the papers and has been interviewed on the radio. I’m going to endeavour to do my best to get a transcript of that interview and send it over to the member opposite so that he can understand exactly what this individual said.

This is a situation that we are prepared as a government to address — the issue of homelessness — and we have. We have done our level best through another whole series of organizations in the Yukon, but the issue of the purchase of the Roadhouse is not one that we are entertaining. There isn’t a solid business case to make the situation here in the Yukon to purchase the Roadhouse as a youth centre. It’s a hotel that is looking to be purchased for people from the age of majority to 30 which, I understand, is the age of most of the individuals housed there. To that end, we will do our level best to deal with any identified needs in society, and we will do so.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Premier who also happens to be the Minister of Economic Development. During the year and a half since the last election, we have heard a great deal from the Premier about the need to get the Yukon brand into the national and international marketplace. It’s certainly true that the Yukon has developed a high profile under this Premier. We’ve hit the national news over and over and over — the kind of publicity money can’t buy. Is the Premier satisfied with how brand Yukon is being seen across Canada?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The government side is very satisfied with how we have gone out to promote the Yukon Territory, attract investment and present to other citizens of this country and, indeed, the world, what a wonderful place we have. Unfortunately, the opposition promotes the Yukon in a very negative light. I would challenge the member opposite to explain to the Yukon public and, indeed, the rest of Canada and the world, why that is, considering the facts of the matter when it comes to the Yukon: its great opportunity, its great potential, the magic, the mystery, the history and the culture.

We are very positive about this territory; we promote it that way. The official opposition and the third party promote it in a very negative light.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, let’s look at what Canada has learned about the Yukon under this Premier’s watch. It’s okay for a Cabinet minister to stiff the taxpayers for unpaid loans. A phone call to the right minister can get your tow truck released. The whole elected government will remain silent while their employees are put through a demoralizing witch hunt: the computer use investigation. One minister will help another minister settle old political scores by firing an entire municipal government. It’s okay to ignore Supreme Court rulings and it’s okay to use punishment cells as mental hospitals. Ministers are not responsible for the policies of their own departments, as we’ve seen today and we have seen time and time again.

This is how Canada sees the madness and misery of a Yukon Party Yukon.

Now, what steps does the Premier have in mind to take the tarnish off the Yukon brand in the second half of his mandate?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The members opposite can remain mired in negativity trying to reconstruct the past. But let’s look at some of the indicators that have resulted from the approach this government is taking in promoting the Yukon: 1,000 more people in the workforce than at this time last year; more people in the population; third lowest unemployment rate in the country; projection of $30 million in mining exploration; applications in for drilling oil and gas; a film being shot — a big picture being shot in the Yukon; tourism projections are up.

We will continue to promote the Yukon positively. The official opposition can continue to promote the Yukon negatively. Let the Yukon public pass judgement.

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

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

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee this afternoon is Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05. Before we begin, do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

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

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will continue with Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05, in general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is with a great concern that the government side must express to the public that the fact the official opposition is portraying the Yukon in its negative light as a place of "madness and misery" is really unfortunate. In the face of all the evidence, it’s obvious that through the course of this debate on the budget, the official opposition is fixated on reconstructing the past. I can say unequivocally with the greatest of confidence to the Yukon public that the government side is focused on building a future. This budget is a tool that we will use to build a much brighter and better future for the Yukon public.

There is ample evidence that shows the territory is moving in a different direction, a direction that is creating somewhat of a positive trend. We agree that there are many challenges ahead, but given the fact that the government side approached those challenges with a positive outlook, with a vision and a plan, it’s by far the better choice than having the official opposition trying to do something about the territory’s circumstances mired in negativity, fixated on reconstructing the past. With that, I would urge the opposition to delve into constructive debate on the budget.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Chair, we’re starting up where we left off on Tuesday, unfortunately. The Premier is saying that we’re casting the Yukon in a negative light. I’d like to point out to the Premier that we’re not responsible for the issues that were brought up in Question Period, and we’re not here to discuss Question Period. We’re here to discuss the budget.

What did the Premier say about the discussion that was happening on Tuesday? On page 2252 of the Blues, about two-thirds the way down, he says that it’s needless debate. Well, it’s not needless debate. We want information, and the government doesn’t want to provide information. He also said that he wanted to take us by the hand and lead us to the promised land of information that is already in our domain. Well, it’s not the information that’s in our domain that we’ve been asking for; it’s the information that they refuse to provide.

I asked several questions last Tuesday about things that are of the utmost importance to Yukoners and to my constituents. They’re the questions that my constituents and the people who have been talking to me on the street have asked me to ask, and they want to hear what the Premier has to say about post-secondary education.

They want —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:   The Premier says to read Hansard on Tuesday. Well, I did read Hansard on Tuesday. It’s right in front of me, Mr. Chair. But he didn’t answer the question. He read the budget speech again. Now, are we going to have to listen to the Premier read the budget speech over and over again? We had to listen to it for two hours the first day, and on Tuesday he went right back to the script, dragged it up, brought it out and there we were again, listening to the same budget speech.

Now, those are all matters of importance I raised. What is the Premier’s opinion of doing a study of the benefits of expanding the role of Yukon College? He didn’t want to answer that question. Just like you can’t get an answer in Question Period, you can’t even get an answer from the Premier here today or on Tuesday about issues that are important to Yukoners.

I asked the Premier about his commitment in the budget to clean drinking water. We’ll see what the Premier said about clean drinking water.

Clean water is a fundamental service. The Premier talked about the fact that there is a process in place where they are looking at a source-to-tap-water study that the Health and Social Services minister has undertaken, but the information that was mailed out to all the public in no way, shape or form addressed the issue of affordability. A key to it being a fundamental service is that it has to be affordable, in my mind, but the Premier didn’t address that issue.

The well-drilling program that the minister briefly mentioned also doesn’t necessarily address the issue of affordability. Again, the Premier failed to provide answers to this House about issues that are really important to my constituents and to other constituents in the Whitehorse area. The well-drilling program, for starters, won’t address the needs of people within the municipality of Whitehorse. That’s a fact.

The well-drilling program is only going to be available where the Yukon government is the authority for taxing. In the City of Whitehorse, that isn’t the case; in some other municipalities, I suspect that’s also the case.

But what does it do for people who already have wells drilled that are dry or substandard? Will it address those needs?

It’s the Premier’s words that we’re taking from the budget speech on Tuesday, and he repeated them on Tuesday, about water being a fundamental service. This is truly an important thing and the Premier needs to take it seriously.

I believe that water is not only a fundamental service but it should be a fundamental human right that you have access to water. People cannot live without access to water. There are certain things you need: you need to be able to breathe clean air, you need access to clean water, and you have to have food, clothing and shelter. It’s pretty straightforward.

While I applaud the efforts to initiate a well-drilling program, nothing is in place. It’s strictly an enabling piece of legislation that still needs the development of a program and regulations to go with it. There won’t be a well drilled under this program until probably the fall.

So how does that help constituents in my riding or constituents in the greater Whitehorse area or in the north end of town in the Member for Lake Laberge’s riding? I know water is also an issue out that way, and the price people are paying for water delivery. A well-drilling program may be a start to addressing some of those issues, but it’s not going to solve the problem.

The Premier and the government need to take a look at what else they can do. I don’t see in the budget what they’re going to do to address the issue of affordability of water that people need to survive. We’re not just talking about a few people; we’re talking about 600 customers of water delivery companies here in Whitehorse and on the outskirts of Whitehorse out to Marsh Lake in the Chair’s riding as well. The price of water has greatly increased, and people have had their water bills double, basically going anywhere from $60 to $120 to $150 a month. Some of these people are on fixed incomes. They’re senior citizens on pensions. They’re single mothers. They don’t have the ability to deal with those kinds of increases in living expenses when it’s a basic necessity of life.

As a government, I think they need to look at what’s fair for all Yukoners. Some communities pay a lot less for water delivery. In some communities, you can get three or four loads of water a week for $11 a month. Yet just down the road it’s $150 a month. Where is the fairness in that, and where in this budget has the Premier tried to address those inequalities?

My constituents want to know, constituents in Lake Laberge want to know — people in the Member for Lake Laberge’s riding have asked that this question — and constituents in Southern Lakes have also asked me this question. I’d like to know what the Premier plans to do about it.

A $700,000 well-drilling program that isn’t even going to see a well drilled until September isn’t going to solve the problem. It’s going to address some of the issues, but it’s not going to be the be-all and end-all that will alleviate the problem for people.

I’ll give the Premier an example of some of the reasons. In some areas — and I’m sure the Premier knows this too — wells aren’t always successful. I have a couple of examples, and these are from constituents who live in Mount Lorne — a 500-foot well, half a gallon a minute. That’s a lot of money invested for very little water and water of poor quality — and not enough.

When it was drilled, 225 feet cost them $7,500 and it was dry. I wonder if, under the well-drilling program, you get the loan and you drill a well and it’s dry, do you have a well or do you not have a well? Maybe they won’t have to pay the loan back, like the Member for Klondike. Maybe the Premier would allow that under that program. Three hundred feet into bedrock and it’s dry.

Now, they’re going to lend people money to drill dry wells. Are they going to make them repay the loan? This is the Premier’s response to my question about how they are going to make water affordable. It’s a $700,000 well-drilling program, and that’s pretty much his answer.

Water is a fundamental service. I believe it’s a fundamental human right and people deserve to have access to affordable water. But there is not a level playing field out there. People were willing to pay the price, but when the price becomes unaffordable for people because of their economic circumstances, the government needs to do something. I’ve had constituents who are on water delivery call me, send me e-mails and say, "You know, my water bills have doubled. I’m paying $120 a month. I can afford it, but what about the people who live down the road who can’t afford it?"

I hope that the Premier will take this issue seriously and not say that this is needless debate. I know he’s going to get up and say, "Well, the Minister of Community Services has all the answers". Well, the Minister of Community Services is part of the team, and we talked about the team the other day. The Minister of Health and Social Services doesn’t have the answer. I’ve talked to him. The Premier is the leader of the team; he’s the coach. What my constituents want is an answer from the Premier about what he’s going to do to make water more affordable. I look forward to his answer, and my constituents look forward to his answer. I will guarantee that it will be a mail-out.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I hope the member does mail it out, because the Premier — I, as leader of the government side, as the member pointed — has laid out in the Budget Address the direction on a number of issues, and this one in particular: safe, affordable drinking water. There are two departments involved. The Department of Health and Social Services is undertaking a major public process that will guide us toward the realization of safe, affordable drinking water. The Department of Community Services is undertaking a program to assist Yukoners. It’s a step forward that’s further than we’ve been in a long time. So in the spirit of constructive debate, the member opposite will get much more detail out of getting into department line-by-line items.

There’s no point in delving into a specific issue in great detail in general debate. We have ministers who are ready, willing and able to do exactly that, and it moves debate along and creates a very constructive environment with which the member opposite can contribute and will certainly be the recipient of the necessary answers as far as the government side has.

With that, the direction has been laid out in the Budget Address. We’ve now gone through a number of days of general debate on the budget. It is the biggest budget on record in the history of the Yukon. There are many departments to go through, many lines to go through, and that’s where the detailed debate will come. It certainly won’t come in general debate.

Mr. Cathers:   I’d like all members of the House to join with me in welcoming two of my constituents, Alastair and Julie Cook, to the visitors gallery.

Mr. Cardiff:   The Premier again falls back on what was said, which is a $700,000 well-drilling program. The literature the Minister of Health and Social Services provided does not address the issue of affordability. The letter he sent to some people had the word "affordable" in it once. I can probably actually even provide that letter to the Premier, if he wants. I probably have it here.

This is an issue that’s not going to go away. Water is an important necessity for all life, and I think the government needs to take a look at it. I encourage the Minister of Community Services and the Minister of Highways and Public Works to work toward a solution to the real problem.

Mr. Chair, the Premier doesn’t want to talk about water. He just wants to re-read the budget speech when it comes to asking questions about the large picture dealing with education. So we’ll try to move on to something else that is in the Premier’s domain, and that’s the devolution transfer agreement.

Perhaps the Premier could help me out on this because I may not be totally clear on how this works. We enacted, last spring, the Yukon Waters Act — and the Premier is also responsible for the Water Board. There was a court action and a decision delivered when it was in the federal purview, I believe, about sewage treatment in Dawson. So there is a decision. And I am wondering if the Premier could tell me whether or not it’s in the territorial government’s purview now or if it is still in the federal government’s purview.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There has been a water licence issued for Dawson City. I don’t have on the top of my head the exact date that that took place, but it has been issued.

It obviously comes from recommendations from the Water Board. If it’s a class A licence, it will be dealt with in the Executive Council Office and the Premier’s office has to sign it off.

But again, there are a number of questions of detail on specific issues from the members opposite. This is general debate. Every minister, department by department, line by line, is prepared to enter into detailed critique of their respective departments and their budgets, and in the context and the spirit of constructive debate on behalf of the public and in their interests, I urge the member to move along and we can get into departments. And if the member is fixated on safe, affordable drinking water, he has two ministers, the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Community Services, whom he can deal with at great length and detail. That’s what department debate is all about; that’s what line-by-line debate is all about. That is not what general debate is all about. General debate, from our perspective on the government side, has been concluded for days now.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the Premier just doesn’t want to deal with the issues. He doesn’t want to be in here. The view from his side is a lot better. He at least can look out and see what the weather is doing. Over here, we get to look at the members opposite and the wall with some plants. The Premier is just aching to get outside where the weather is better than it is in here; I know the air is fresher, that’s for sure.

My question around the Water Board has to do with the devolution transfer agreement. My understanding is that Canada remains responsible for enforcement actions commenced by Canada and that YTG is given authority on a case-by-case basis to lay or prosecute charges on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. What I’m wondering is — we’re hearing different stories. This is, again, a case of not getting good information out of the government about what the actual status of the water licence in Dawson is.

Is the water licence going to be challenged? Is the government asking the municipality of Dawson, or the trustee, to challenge the water licence decision handed down by the federal government? Does the Premier know that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think the member is correct in his dissertation that there is incorrect information being made available to the official opposition. We witness that on a daily basis. I would endeavour to help the member opposite with trying to correct the record for him, but again the member is somewhat confused on what the federal government is dictating to the City of Dawson.

There is obviously a minister who is responsible in this area. There is a trustee appointed in Dawson because of insolvency. The government cannot work outside of the law. The Municipal Act is clear, and in the case for Dawson a trustee has been appointed. The trustee will do their work to determine next steps. The government, on a priority basis, will be dealing with the issue of effluent from the City of Dawson. To date, the City of Dawson has spent some $10 million plus on a sewage treatment plant and the likes of an arena. To date, we do not have a useable arena in Dawson City — that’s taxpayers’ money, I would remind the member — nor do we have a sewage treatment plant in Dawson city — again, taxpayers’ money. So the issue before us, when it comes to Dawson City, is determining what has happened on behalf of the taxpayer and in the public interest.

When he gets into detail of what the federal government order is for Dawson City, the Minister of Community Services is responsible and will respond. When we get into the departmental debate for the Executive Council Office, we can delve in great detail into the water licence issue, but in general debate there is no point. Because if the member wants to go into the water licence, class A type, then let’s go to the Executive Council Office debate, and we will move along. If the member wants to deal with the sewage issue, the effluent issue, and the federal government’s position, then let’s get into the Department of Community Services and debate that issue — not in general debate.

The government is going to ensure that the opposition benches, in the context of managing the public’s business in this House, do so in a constructive way. So we are not going to sit here in endless circular discourse in general debate, filling the pages of Hansard with nothingness. That’s not the government’s position. The government is here to present to the public the information that is requested by the opposition. We do it on a daily basis, and if the member wants that practice to continue, the member must get into department debate and line-by-line debate for detail.

Mr. Cardiff:   We went around and talked about information availability the other day. If the Premier wants to go there again, we can go there again.

I asked about the information that used to be provided back in 2001, which isn’t available any more — the budget handouts. He keeps telling us that the information is flowing. The information isn’t flowing on a daily basis. There is definitely information flowing, but it is not always correct.

An example: the Premier said $10.4 million and we are working up to the right figure, I guess. Yesterday, the Minister of Environment said $10.4 million. His exact words, I believe, were that this government had spent $10.4 million on sewage treatment in Dawson, and what did we get?

Today the Premier just said that we spent $10.4 million on something that resembles an arena and sewage treatment and totally ignored the fact that there was a swimming pool built and included in that money. It was included in the funding agreement.

So the Premier has a problem with providing the correct information and the Minister of Environment does. It’s no wonder the Premier thinks we’re confused because the information provided isn’t always correct.

I want to ask one more question about the devolution transfer agreement and whether or not the government has any plans to proceed with an appeal of the water licence decision. I asked the Premier that and I’d like an answer.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The Minister of Community Services will have the detail here. To the best of my knowledge, the City of Dawson has already appealed the federal order. I don’t necessarily relate that to a water licence issue. It was a federal order. The City of Dawson itself has already appealed it.

Mr. Cardiff:   What I want to know is what this government is going to do to address the situation of sewage discharge in Dawson, and they don’t seem to want to answer the question.

I have a couple more questions in one other area and then I’ll let my colleagues ask some questions.

The Premier is also responsible in his capacity for land claims. I’d like to know whether or not there are currently any discussions going on around programs and services transfer agreements with First Nations in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, there have been tables set up for quite some time now. I’ll give examples: the PSTA, programs and services transfer agreement negotiations; there’s education, obviously; there is justice; there are other tables that have been ongoing. But the federal government is the primary agency government responsible for the implementation of the land claim when it comes to resources necessary, and we’re also in the nine-year review. But again, this detail should be fleshed out in the Executive Council Office debate.

And if the member wants to get into this detail, what I’m saying to him is let’s move into department by department, line by line, and do the job we are obligated to do on behalf of the public. I don’t think the public wants to hear this endless discourse.

There is little substance that we’re dealing with here. The detail is in each department. That’s why they’re structured the way they are. That’s why the budget has line items. And that’s where the debate must occur. If the member wants to talk about this for the next 10 days, that’s the member’s choice. But the response will continually be that, if the member wants detail on a specific issue from a specific department, we must get to that department and debate it line by line.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the Premier keeps looking outside. We know he wants to get outside and play, or maybe there’s a hockey game on that he’s itching to watch.

So maybe I’ll ask the minister this. The Government of Yukon is at the table when these PSTAs are being negotiated or discussed. There’s a territorial interest in a lot of them. So what I’m going to ask him to do, and maybe he can provide the list of the tables or the discussions that are going on and the areas that these programs and services transfer agreements are being negotiated. So if he could send a list, I’m sure that it’s available and it’s something that has recently come to my attention that I’m interested in. So if he could provide that information, then I would have the information and maybe I would be ready to discuss it with him when we get to the Executive Council Office.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Has the member had a briefing on the Executive Council Office yet with the budget? That’s number one. That’s where those questions can be asked. That’s why we put technical people into briefings with opposition members to provide them finite detail. That’s what they’re there for. The member opposite can ask the questions. Hopefully the member has an understanding of the PSTA issue. The land claims have been going on in the Yukon for 30 some years. This is not a new initiative, so let’s get on with some debate here in regard to the budget instead of this, as I say, circular discourse.

This is a costly venture in this place. It’s a costly venture, and the costs are borne by the taxpayer. I highly suspect that the taxpayer is not all that thrilled with this kind of discussion. That’s why I’m urging the member, with the greatest intentions from the government’s side, to move on to department debate and line-by-line debate.

I’m sure the member will find a tremendous amount of information here to the member’s liking. I suspect the opposition is going to have a difficult time voting against this budget. As they have stated, the budget is 99 percent NDP initiatives. That’s why I would like to hear the members in detailed debate, department by department, line by line. The government side is interested to hear those 99 percent initiatives and what they are. Then the government is very interested, as I’m sure the public is, to see if the official opposition is going to oppose, vote against, their own 99 percent of the initiatives in the budget.

Mr. Cardiff:   It was hard to get answers and information when we were in supplementary budget debate. I asked the Premier a simple question. I asked him if he could provide information, and I couldn’t get a commitment. Instead he stood up and talked about wasting time. But he can’t even provide the information.

For the Premier’s information, I wasn’t at the ECO briefing. Okay? I’m not the critic responsible, and this just came to my attention within the last couple of days — the question around PSTAs.

I would like the Premier to provide some information I don’t have and which I don’t have access to. The Premier didn’t have to stand up and talk for three or four minutes and tell us we’re wasting time and that this is expensive, because we know that. What I’m asking him to do is to provide the list. We know it’s available. Just yes or no, will he provide the list?

That’s all I want.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, we’ll provide all the information when we get to the department known as the Executive Council Office. The land claim initiative is housed in that department, and I’ll be more than willing, in the context of constructive debate, department by department, line by line, to provide information. That’s how this system works.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, there is a question here of what we are doing when it comes to the cost borne by the taxpayer. Anybody who reads Hansard will obviously draw their own conclusions, but I suspect it won’t be a very favourable one.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the Premier is telling us that we need to take the information we have and ask the questions. When I ask for more information, the information isn’t forthcoming. Where do you go from here?

The Premier is saying we have to get into the departments to get the information. What I’m requesting is to have the information in advance of going into the departments so I can ask the questions. I would like a little bit more information so I can understand it a little bit better and formulate some questions.

I don’t want the minister in Executive Council Office to say, "Yes, we’ll get you that information," and an hour later or two hours later we are into another department, and the information comes over and I then can’t ask the question because we are not going to be in that department.

I am asking for the information in advance of debating Executive Council Office. The Premier doesn’t want to provide it. That is not open and accountable government. That is not working cooperatively with members on this side.

Now, if the Premier doesn’t want to do that, then so be it. He can stand up and he can agree to provide the information or he cannot. So be it.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I will have somebody send the member opposite a copy of the Umbrella Final Agreement. I guess the member doesn’t have one, but I will send the member a copy of the Umbrella Final Agreement. It’s all there.

Secondly, maybe the member should have asked whoever on the NDP benches attended the Executive Council Office briefing. All I am saying here is that, in the spirit of constructive debate and being cost-effective on behalf of the taxpayer, we can move into department debate. General debate has long since been over. This is becoming somewhat of a useless exercise. Let’s get on with the departments and the line-by-line. That’s where the detail is fleshed out. That’s what the process is about.

Mr. Cardiff:   The Premier is not being helpful at all. I didn’t ask for a copy of the Umbrella Final Agreement. I would beg him, in the interest of the environment, to not go out and order another copy for us because we don’t need it. We don’t need to kill more trees to print more copies of the Umbrella Final Agreement. There are plenty of them out there and I don’t need another one.

I asked him for a listing of the table that he referred to, or the list of programs and services transfer agreement negotiations that are going on, that the government is participating in with the federal government and First Nations in the Yukon.

I think I just heard the Premier say… My hearing is getting better actually. I thought I just heard him say that he’d be more than happy to do that. So I’m assuming that I can expect to get that any time. Maybe the Premier can stand up and acknowledge that.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   You know, there’s a thing about hearing, and that’s the ability to listen at the same time. The Premier will respond when we get to the Executive Council Office debate.

Mr. Cardiff:   It’s the same minister. It’s the Premier. It’s the minister responsible for the Executive Council Office. It’s the Minister of Finance. It’s the Minister of Economic Development. It’s the minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate. And he is the leader. There is a matter that has been brought to my attention recently that concerns programs and services transfer agreements, and all I’m asking is for him to provide that information to me, but he doesn’t want to do it. Now I’m not sure how long I’ve been asking this question. It’s a pretty straightforward question. What I’m asking for I’m sure is sitting on his desk, or on somebody’s desk, and all he has to do is run it down to the photocopier and send it over. But I can’t get the information.

He wants to provide it in Executive Council Office, so that way that’s going to work is that I’ll get up, I’ll ask the question, he’ll provide the document and by the time I get it —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:  The Premier says I want the Umbrella Final Agreement. That’s not what I’m asking for. I’m asking currently —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Order please. Mr. Cardiff, you have the floor.

Mr. Cardiff:   What I am asking the Premier for is what is ongoing now? What are the negotiations? What are the discussions now around programs and services transfer agreements? What issues are being discussed? What is the status? And if he can’t provide that information, it’s going to be a long day. We’re in general debate. I’m asking for a simple piece of information. I’m sure that it’s not going to be huge. I didn’t ask for a copy of the Umbrella Final Agreement. He mentioned a table; he mentioned education, justice and other things. All I’m asking him to do is to provide a document that I’m sure that he already has, so would he please do that?

He said he would be more than willing to do it, but he wants to wait to provide the information. Basically, what it will amount to is the Premier wants to provide the information to me after the fact, after we’re done. "Here’s the information; ask the question next fall or next spring." By then, maybe it won’t be an issue any more. What is the Premier trying to hide? This is supposed to be public knowledge. The Premier and his officials — and in the Executive Council Office — are doing the public’s business. This should be pretty straightforward stuff, and I don’t understand why the Premier won’t commit to providing — I’m not asking him to go up and do it right now; I’m not asking him to — I don’t want to harangue the minister until 4:30 when we take a break and then maybe he’ll go upstairs and find the photocopier and do it.

I’m asking him to commit to getting it for me within the next few days. This isn’t something I want in the next five minutes. If I wanted it in five minutes, I’d be late getting it already.

So if the Premier could just commit to providing that one simple piece of information, I could sit down and let my colleagues carry on.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s a pleasure to engage and re-engage with the Finance minister, the Premier, in general debate on the budget he brought forward.

I’d like to begin my questions this afternoon by following up on some of the general debate statements the Premier has already made. The Premier has indicated that — on April 19 which was Monday, I believe — in the budget there is an investment in Kwanlin Dun of over a million dollars in waterfront development right here in Whitehorse. He goes on to say, "To that end, we advanced monies to the Kwanlin Dun First Nation for design work. This is a significant project … for the Kwanlin Dun First Nation …." It’s on page 2224 of the Blues from April 19.

Would the Finance minister explain that statement in terms of what precise amounts and where we might find that information in the budget and when those funds were advanced and how much it is?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s part of a land claim. Actually, that member initialled off the agreement. It’s part of a land claim for the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. That particular area happens to be in the Executive Council Office — a great place to have this debate.

Ms. Duncan:   The Finance minister and Premier might be in a big hurry to get into lines of the departments, but we quite enjoy having him here in the Legislature debating with us so we’re going to carry on for awhile. Now, he brought this up in general debate. I’m responding to comments he made in general debate and I would like an explanation. Yes, I’m quite well aware of the fact that it was the Liberal government that initialled the Kwanlin Dun First Nation land claim agreement and what monies were in there. Is this in fact a revote of those monies or is it something different? The Finance minister, the Premier, the MLA for Watson Lake, made the comments in general debate. I would like a full, more complete explanation in general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s part of the Kwanlin Dun land claim. It’s a commitment by past Yukon governments and it’s a commitment that this government will honour.

Ms. Duncan:   Is this the specific land parcel that the million dollars is referring to? Is it a commitment toward a cultural centre that is several years old? The Finance minister went on to say that there were monies advanced. How much money and specifically what contribution agreement? This is, in effect, pre-implementation of a land claim agreement, so how much of the funds have been advanced?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Is the member saying that when signing this agreement the member did not know how much this investment was on behalf of the Yukon government, where it was going, what it looked like, what it was for? I would hope not. I would hope the member knows in detail, in great detail, what this investment on behalf of the Yukon public, and indeed what entering into an agreement with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation, was all about. It’s needless debate here. If the member wants to delve into this agreement in detail, we can have discussions in the Executive Council Office, and away we go. But if the member wants to stand here all day long on this one issue, I can guarantee the member this: the answer will be the same. It is a component of the land claim agreed to by Canada, the Yukon and the Kwanlin Dun First Nation.

Ms. Duncan:   I don’t understand the Finance minister and the Premier’s reluctance to answer questions today — I really don’t. He has gone on at great length in this Legislature about the wonderful budget that he and his Cabinet colleagues have produced. Now it’s incumbent upon that Finance minister to answer these detailed questions.

He may find them needless on the part of the opposition. He may find them repetitive. However, the fact is that that’s what the opposition does: we get to ask the questions. It’s the Finance minister’s responsibility to answer them in the Legislature.

We can continue this if he wishes to berate individuals for their questions; then that’s the way the public record will stand. The fact is that the Finance minister stood and took credit for an investment in Kwanlin Dun of over $1 million, he said. He said "to that end, we advanced monies."

I am well aware, as is the public, of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation agreement. What I am asking for is the detail in this budget. What precisely is the money that the Premier referenced in those remarks in Hansard. He said that monies had been advanced. How much money of that million dollars had been advanced and precisely what million dollars is he talking about?

It is the Premier’s responsibility to answer the questions, and I would appreciate an open and accountable answer, just as he promised the Yukon public.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Forthcoming in the debate for the ECO. Clear.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, it’s this side that clears, not that side. And it’s really unfortunate that the Finance minister is already ready to give up the job; he doesn’t want to answer the questions — amazing. The fact is he made the statement in the House, and I and Yukoners would like to know. It’s his budget and his Management Board that advanced monies. How much money was advanced? Will he answer that question, please?

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the Finance minister’s unwillingness to answer questions will be made clear to the public, and his reluctance and lack of desire to do the job will also be abundantly clear to the public. In general debate on the budget, the Finance minister also talked about revenue-sharing agreements from the development of the forest industry with the Teslin Tlingit First Nation and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. Would the Finance minister outline this resource royalty revenue-sharing agreement for the public?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, we’re on record consistently forming full economic partnerships with First Nations in areas of First Nation traditional territory. Where a resource such as forestry may be viable toward developing a forest industry, a full economic partnership means to this government that we will share in the benefits. One of the mechanisms to do that is looking at stumpage, for example, and partnering with First Nations on that particular mechanism.

This government will enter into those relationships with any First Nation in this territory. That’s a guarantee; that’s a commitment; that’s certainly not the position the member opposite takes though.

The member opposite is against an economic partnership with First Nations. The member opposite espouses the "them" and "us" attitude: it’s "them", the First Nations, and "us", the white guys.

That’s not this government’s position. It’s "us", and we are going to continue to forge those partnerships with First Nations for the benefit of not only First Nation people in this territory, but for net benefit Yukon. I can’t help it if the member does not support, in any way, shape or form, partnerships with First Nations. That’s something the government side cannot address. There’s no answer in this House that can solve that problem for the member opposite. That’s the member’s own bed; the member must sleep in it.

This government will continue to forge those partnerships everywhere they are possible to the benefit of the Yukon Territory, and we are advancing those relationships today and are working on a partnership arrangement and a joint process with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.

That member opposite, when in government, signed an agreement with the Kaska First Nation in Canada that dictates that, before any interim wood supply can be made available, there must be a forest economic benefit agreement with the First Nation. The member’s own minister signed that agreement, Mr. Chair.

So I guess the member is here to rag the puck and waste time in general debate when we could move into department debate and really extract and ferret out from that member how much that member opposes the First Nations of this territory.

Ms. Duncan:   Fascinating that when the members ask a pointed question to provide information that his continued response in this Legislature is to attack the opposition. I will stack my signature on the Ta’an Kwach’an land claim, four signed memorandums of understanding, and my minister’s signed agreement with…

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Does the member wish to speak? I’ll gladly wait for an answer.

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   I gather there’s none forthcoming.

As I said, the attack on the opposition continues. The belittling of Yukoners and their concerns and the suggestion of casting motives, the suggestion characterizing our government: that is — as the member opposite well knows — completely incorrect. I will stack the record of myself and my government in successful working partnerships with the First Nations of the territory, with all Yukoners, against his any day of the week. Any day.

The Teslin Tlingit will receive a revenue share from the development of a forest industry in their traditional territory. Those are the Finance minister’s words. The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations will receive a share of royalties of revenue from resource development in their traditional territory. The minister is making reference, I believe — although he is completely unclear as usual — the quotes were from page 2225 of Hansard, general debate on the budget, resource revenue sharing — revenues are part of the budget.

Would the Finance minister, who has responsibility not only as Premier but as minister responsible for the Executive Council Office and Finance, provide either an indication of the time frame of those negotiations or precisely what has happened? Is this just another statement by the minister — grandiose statement — or has there been some actual work done in this regard?

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   The Premier is unable to state what work has been done. I would assume then, as would most listeners, that there has been absolutely none.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, again the third party is exposing its position when it comes to First Nations. The member says that she would stack her government’s record with First Nations against our government’s any day. I urge the member to do that. In fact, I would coordinate, should the member wish, a meeting to allow the member to do that — a venue, a forum, for the member to do that. I’ll stack up the previous Liberal government’s record when it comes to First Nations in this territory alongside this government’s.

Again, it is needless debate for this Assembly, and the member is showing the "them" and "us" attitude is alive and well in the third party, although the government side is clearly demonstrating through evidence and its actions that we believe this territory and its future must and will be built in collaboration with our First Nation people in partnership, formalizing our government relationship, developing full economic partnerships. One of the mechanisms to do that with First Nations is to ensure they get a share of revenues and benefits from resource development.

Considering current events, the Yukon is ahead of the curve on this matter. We have a Prime Minister now standing in front of the aboriginal leaders of the country, demonstrating the exact same position: that it’s time in this country — not only in the territory — that aboriginal people benefit from the development of resources in their traditional territories. The Yukon government started that some 16 months ago. We are very encouraged and pleased to see our national government seize that initiative and proceed in the fashion that we are in the Yukon.

The Yukon is ahead of the curve. The Yukon has shown leadership, demonstrated leadership, in partnering with First Nations to ensure that benefits accrue to them also when we realize resource development in our territory. We stand behind that solidly. The member opposite, the third party, no matter what question is asked in this House, can never demonstrate through evidence that the third party in this territory supports in any way, shape or form this type of initiative and certainly does not support full economic partnership with First Nations. The member has voiced that time and time again. The member has attacked the Kaska Nation. The member has demonstrated over and over the true position, the real position of the third party when it comes to economic partnering with First Nations. I would encourage the member not to go down this road any further. The damage being created for the member is quite severe.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, just a friendly reminder to the Finance minister that belittling the opposition and suggesting motives is not healthy, constructive debate. And I hate to remind them of the number of times he has broken that so-called New Year’s resolution of constructive debate and working with opposition parties.

And I just would remind the Finance minister that the forest economic benefits agreement he referred to earlier is between Canada and the Kaska, not YTG.

Mr. Chair, I find it quite interesting that when the Finance minister finds himself in trouble and unable to answer questions that he has to reassure the back bench of his abilities and show his complete disregard and disrespect for the members opposite and their questions — who, whether he appreciates it or not, also represent the Yukon public and are asking their questions, the questions that they ask.

The minister has not answered the question I addressed to him. His words state that, in essence, the Government of Yukon, the Yukon Party, is working on one-off agreements, and he names two First Nations — forest agreement and resource revenue sharing. Would he state for the record the status of those negotiations? Is there an agreement signed? Is there a negotiation process going on? Precisely what is the status of those forestry resource revenue-sharing agreements with the Teslin-Tlingit First Nation and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again the member has demonstrated the third party’s opposition to economic partnerships with First Nations. She just called them — when it comes to the development of this territory and its future — a one-off agreement. Mr. Chair, that is diminishing the achievement of First Nations in this territory, not only through the land claim process but through self-government, through their investments to date in trying to build capacity and revenue streams for their people. This is a terrible day for Yukon and its democratic principles, and it’s being demonstrated by the third party. The third party opposes economic partnerships with First Nations, has demonstrated clearly again in building this territory’s economy and future with First Nations in partnership as a one-off agreement. I am very concerned about where the member is going.

Ms. Duncan:   Perhaps in his deep, heartfelt concern the Finance minister could answer the question. What is the status of these agreements? The Finance minister has stated that they will be — he used the words "piece of the action when it comes to development". He used the words "single agreements". Now I’m asking the question: what is the status of those agreements? Are they being negotiated individually, as the Finance minister’s own words would suggest, or are they being negotiated in a collective manner? This is specific to the revenue share from the development of forest industry in traditional territories.

How is that being negotiated? We have a signed final land claim agreement with both the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and the Teslin Tlingit First Nation. How are we negotiating the forestry resource revenue-sharing agreements, and what is the status of those discussions? Would he please answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I know that we’re not allowed to have props in the Legislative Assembly; however, I feel that given this situation the member has dug herself into, maybe we should bring in a screen and a projector, and we can put up in quite a sizeable fashion, in big print, a full economic partnership. We’ll start there.

The member does not support an economic partnership with any First Nation is this territory. She demonstrates it here on the floor of the Legislature, and she certainly demonstrated it when in government. I don’t know how else to put this to the member. Full economic partnerships are definitely happening in this territory with our First Nation people. We are going to develop the Yukon economy and its future in partnership with First Nation people. We as a government will ensure that they share in the benefits of economic development in the territory. Yukon is ahead of the curve on this. We have now the federal government heading down the same road when it comes to resource development and traditional territories of the aboriginal people of this country.

If the member wants to continue this questioning, I think it’s best that the government side stay moot, and we will just send out the clips of Hansard so we can demonstrate to all the public the member’s real position when it comes to the First Nation people of the Yukon and their desire to be involved in the development of our economy and its future.

Ms. Duncan:   The Finance minister and Premier has repeatedly stood on his feet and suggested, "Well, we’ll portray the third party; we’ll just send this out to everybody and we’re going to say it how it really is."

Well, those are the Finance minister’s words; they are not mine. I am asking the Finance minister a very clear question based on his own words. His own words in this Legislature were, "Full economic partnership includes resource revenue sharing for First Nations. It is in the agreements we have entered into." I am asking about those agreements.

Have they been concluded? Are they under discussion? Are they being negotiated singly with each First Nation? What is the status, specifically, of the forest resource revenue-sharing agreement the Premier has mentioned? The Premier has already decided the answer I’m getting, so perhaps he could share it.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The land claims are an agreement that ensures that we share oil and gas revenues. It’s in the Umbrella Final Agreement; there’s another agreement. We have a forestry agreement with the Kaska. First, the memorandum of understanding is signed. That was the framework on how we proceed. That memorandum of understanding dictated that, before any interim wood supply can be made available, there has to be a forest economic benefit agreement with the Kaska. Well, that’s done.

Champagne and Aishihik First Nations has the potential for a revenue stream out of the development of the forest resource there. We are working with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.

The beetle kill is a huge issue. That also includes working with the federal government on the issue — another area that has potential. And I would remind the member that not all regions in the Yukon have the potential to support a forest industry. Some areas have the potential merely to provide a level of subsistence use. Other areas like the southeast Yukon have a huge potential for the development of a forest industry. So when we look at the southwest Yukon, the Teslin Tlingits, they are interested in the forest industry and moving ahead with a forest management plan. They have a corporation that is involved in the primary breakdown facility, and we the government will ensure that any go-forward plan to extract forest resource in the Teslin Tlingit traditional territory as we forge economic partnerships will include benefits for the First Nation. That’s what the economic partnership is all about — at least in one component of it. We are going to share benefits, and the federal government is now doing the exact same thing: a commitment from the Prime Minister, the highest office in the country, that on a go-forward plan, any development of resources in the traditional territories of aboriginal people in the country must create a benefit for those First Nation people.

That’s the answer. And it clearly shows a contrast between the government side and the third party in our respective positions. The government side is supportive and actually building and forging economic partnerships with First Nations. The third party is opposed to economic partnerships with First Nations and opposed to sharing of benefits. Let the public decide.

Ms. Duncan:   The public will decide. The Liberal Party has a very strong tradition of support for the Umbrella Final Agreement and its passage and its full and complete implementation: the spirit and the intent of the Umbrella Final Agreement. Our support and work within the Umbrella Final Agreement was also clearly reflected in signatures on land claims and in reaching four memorandums of understanding with Yukon First Nations. It’s clearly reflected.

What has not been clear to the public this afternoon is that the Finance minister, the Premier, has said that there are full economic partnerships, that there will be resource revenue sharing. Let’s speak specifically about the forest revenue sharing that the Finance minister talked about with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and the Teslin Tlingit First Nation. How does the Premier intend to reach this forestry resource revenue sharing with those two First Nations? Is it going to be an agreement negotiated with each of them? Are those negotiations underway? "How" is the question that has not been answered. And the Premier’s answer is his accountability to the Yukon public. How does he intend to do that?

We have a final agreement with those two First Nations. Chapter 17 addresses forestry resources. Chapter 23 addresses resource royalty revenue sharing. Those chapters do not address the issues of forestry resource revenue sharing. That particular issue is not addressed in the land claim agreement. Now how does the Premier intend to address the issue? Will he reach agreements with each of those First Nations, or is the template the agreement with the Kaska? Would he answer that question? Without the full economic partnership and trying to portray the Liberal Party’s position and that belittling rhetoric, could he answer the question of how?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The Yukon government will negotiate partnerships with self-governing First Nations, as any government should, with mutual respect and understanding, trust and ensuring that mutual benefit is the objective. That’s how we will do that.

The member is again demonstrating, by quoting the Umbrella Final Agreement and what it does or does not do — the third party’s opposition to ensuring that First Nations benefit from resource development in their traditional territories. The government side is not going to, in any way, shape or form, promote the member in any other light. The third party opposes it. First Nations know it. They knew that back when the member was in government, and they brought forward proposals on how to move forward with economic development in the territory and received an emphatic, "No, not under this government’s watch."

Well, that was then; this is now. This government is committed to it. Mutual benefit will be the objective as we forge these partnerships. The mechanisms necessary — whatever they may be — will have to vary; each region in the territory has differences. There is no way to compare the southeast Yukon and its forest resources to any other region in the territory. They are dramatically different in volume, in land base, in stand profile.

The member’s questions are not connected to realities. The member should just move on, and, when we get into departments like Energy, Mines and Resources, the minister responsible can expand on some of the processes to date, whether it be with Champagne and Aishihik or the Kaska or other areas. There is training in mining. There is a huge partnership being worked on right now in terms of a framework with other First Nations in north Yukon. We are committed to investment in a capital plan for the community of Old Crow, and we demonstrated that here in the budget. And the list goes on and on and on.

We are building a future with the First Nations in the territory. The past government did not take that approach. Well, we cannot do anything about the past. We are focused on the future, the road ahead. The member opposite is much more concerned about what the third party, when in government, failed to do.

Ms. Duncan:   The member can try to portray all he wants and misrepresent the position taken by our government. The facts are — one example that immediately comes to mind is the Mount Sima development. It happened under our watch — an economic partnership with a Yukon First Nation, the largest First Nation in the Yukon — and the ability to reach within the Umbrella Final Agreement, living up to its spirit and intent — four MOUs.

Just a suggestion for the Premier that, if he doesn’t want to answer the questions, I’m sure there are willing members ready to step forward because he’s so obviously tired of the job. It’s unfortunate he won’t be open and accountable with the Yukon public about agreements that have been entered into and won’t share them with the public, or how he intends to reach the agreements.

The Umbrella Final Agreement is very clear. We even have an understanding — the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement, a straightforward, simple guidebook for those who can’t take the time to read the larger edition and understand the spirit with which it was negotiated and signed.

Every Yukon Premier, save the current one, has understood and lived up to those principles of economic partnership, of resource royalty revenue sharing with all First Nations, regardless of what was in their traditional territory, and that’s what is spelled out.

However, the Premier wants to negotiate this deal in the backroom and tell Yukoners about it later, as he has done with others — unfortunately not the openness and accountability that Yukoners have asked for and continue to seek.

The part of the forest development and forest redevelopment, growth and expansion of our forestry is — and I would just like to quote from the Premier’s party — well, his current party — platform. It says, "…ensure stumpage fees support the continued growth and expansion of lumber mills".

How is the Premier’s forestry resource revenue sharing going to accomplish this? In the Kaska agreement, the stumpage fees — how are they going to accomplish this absolute commitment to the Yukon people?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Seeing as how the member is such a supporter of the Umbrella Final Agreement, I think we’re going to have to go through some circumstances here to get the member to understand exactly what has taken place.

There is no mandate to negotiate a land claim in the southeast Yukon. However, all selected lands have an order-in-council setting them aside. They are removed, withdrawn.

Under the agreement, that supports our commitment to ensure that we can establish a viable forest industry in the southeast Yukon. The Kaska have placed all of their selected wood as part of the allowable annual cut. That’s a huge investment. That investment will certainly lend itself to the growth of a viable forest industry in the southeast Yukon. And it goes on to state that the Kaska, in negotiations with British Columbia, will make best efforts to ensure that wood will flow from B.C. into the Yukon, another very important investment by the Kaska Nation on behalf of benefits accruing to the territory.

This is an investment — an investment that will allow us to grow and build a viable forest industry in the southeast Yukon that will benefit all Yukoners. That is in keeping with our commitment to the Yukon public without a doubt.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the sensitivity of the Premier to the questions can be assessed by his tone of voice. Screaming it into Hansard isn’t going to change the answer and isn’t going to provide a clearer answer. The rhetoric has become quite tiresome. I would like a very straightforward answer. How does the Kaska agreement ensure that stumpage fees support the continued growth and expansion of lumber mills, as per the Premier’s party commitment?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   You know, Mr. Chair, I’m embarrassed for the member opposite. The member opposite doesn’t recognize that there are reforestation fees, that there are upset fees, that there are fees that can be generated to build infrastructure, and the list goes on and on and on. The member has no understanding of what a forest industry is. And when the member said again, "I asked the Premier to respond to the question," I did by pointing out that there is a huge investment here collectively, but that gets us back to that economic partnership that the member opposite opposes. We are partnering with First Nations to build our economy and our future in this territory. That’s exactly what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has done in entering into an AIP with the Kaska on forestry in the southeast Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, there is a quote about the game of life being a game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later with astounding accuracy. The Premier said, "But the Yukon’s lacking in its knowledge about forest ecosystems, and that knowledge base must be better developed." He also said, "It’s a lot easier to identify the areas we want to protect up front before development occurs than it is to create protected areas after industry has made investments and settled in.

The Premier’s flip-flops are quite legendary. What is his current position on raw-log exports?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is becoming quite amusing. Let’s go into this.

As I see it, at least, reality would dictate that I, the Member for Watson Lake, joined the Yukon Party, and here we sit today.

Now, there is a reason why that happened. I saw the error of my ways. I am more than willing to stand up publicly and state that fact. I saw the error of my ways — without a doubt.

But let’s look at knowledge of ecosystem. For 10 long years, the forestry question in southeast Yukon has been consulted on, has been discussed, has had science added to it, has had more science added to it, has had experts — duelling experts involved in it. There is no need for further discussion. This government is now moving into the action phase. We are advancing our ability to build a forest industry in the southeast Yukon. Why? Because it’s a strategic industry, as we’ve laid out in the plan. Why? Because it will provide net benefit for Yukon. Why? Because it will attract private sector investment into the territory.

There is a list of other things we can do; let’s look into them. We have the potential of reducing the output of fossil fuel exhaust into the air, by using waste from a forest industry — a hugely efficient system known as "cogeneration". We have the ability to start looking into producing our own seed because of that. We have a tremendous ability to advance silviculture. There is no question that all the components that would develop the forest industry, not only from primary breakdown through to secondary manufacturing but beyond, are available in the southeast Yukon.

This is a solid investment, Mr. Chair.

Now, the member in speaking about how words can come back to bite you; on occasion I agree with that statement. What you say can, at some point in the future, reflect upon you, but only if you are not of the level of integrity where you can admit mistakes.

It was a mistake for me to allow the New Democrats in this territory to recruit me — no question about it. The leader of the official opposition even made mention of that. It was not a good fit for me. There was no question about it. I made the decision to move on, and that’s exactly what I did. I moved on.

I guess we would have to say to the member opposite, considering the fact the member was one time a staunch supporter of the Progressive Conservatives in the Yukon, at one time a card-carrying member of the Independent Alliance and now — by the way, Mr. Chair, in the election of 1996, she was in the offices of the Yukon Party demanding a certain riding and she would run for them and, when they said no, she went and joined the Liberals and ran for them. Speak about the word coming back to haunt you, Mr. Chair — there’s a prime example.

Ms. Duncan:   The member can try to reinvent history all he likes. The facts and the member opposite are strange bedfellows when it comes to my own political history. He does not appreciate or understand that there is a very large difference between the federal Progressive Conservative Party and the Yukon Party.

Absolutely, I was a supporter of the federal Progressive Conservative Party. The Yukon Party demonstrated then, as they demonstrate now, that there’s no room for women in that party. That’s why I’m not there.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The Member for Whitehorse West is of the female gender.

Chair:   Order please. There is no point of order, but once again I would encourage members not to make personal comments. I would also remind members that abusive, insulting language, including sexist language, is out of order in our Assembly.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I agree with you and I support and appreciate your ruling. Thank you very much. I would suggest that the member opposite’s version of events and my political history differ significantly. The facts are that I appreciate what an honour it is for me to serve not only the Liberal Party as the leader, but also my constituents in Porter Creek South who elected me in 1996 over the member’s current party/Independence Alliance and who have continued to do so. And I appreciate that I am here on their behalf to ask a series of questions to the Finance minister and the Premier. Perhaps he could focus on the issue at hand as opposed to his version of political events, which is the resource royalty-sharing agreements with First Nations — he has not answered that question — and the stumpage fees commitment made in the platform has not been answered, and the Premier’s position on raw-log exports, the current position. Does he support raw-log exports? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, we would certainly support raw-log exports coming out of British Columbia, Mr. Chair. However, the member opposite is the one who signed an agreement with the Kaska Nation, for example. Did the member have any position with the Kaska Nation in that regard? Because there has been a degree of raw-log export in the Yukon, and it certainly, certainly was an issue on many occasions. Raw-log export in the past has been used as a vehicle to create employment and a revenue stream.

The government’s position is to build an industry here in the Yukon. Therefore, raw-log exports would compromise to a degree our ability to do that. So we are advancing forestry in the southeast Yukon today in order to build a forest industry there on the ground in the Yukon. So we have to look at things in context. And let me point out to the member that if we take the forest district known as YO1 on the far southeast of the Yukon Territory, economically it’s very difficult to haul wood from there all the way back up to Watson Lake on a viable basis but, at Mile 317, there happens to be a road off the Alaska Highway, 17 miles out of Fort Nelson. There is a large forest industry on the ground in Fort Nelson. The way the government would approach this — and that’s again an important element of the partnership with First Nations such as the Kaska — is we would look to a reciprocal arrangement with British Columbia so that wood flow went both ways. The agreement with the Kaska speaks to that. The position is to ensure no net loss of log volume for the Yukon.

The member opposite, in asking a yes-or-no question on raw-log export again demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of what a forest industry is, how the forest itself relates to the building and development of that industry and what the long-term demands on any industry are to be able to maintain a viable and sustainable operation.

What else can I say, Mr. Chair? Our position is no net loss of log volume for Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   I would just remind the Premier that he can qualify his answer without belittling the questioner or the question. That would lead to constructive debate in the Legislature.

The Kaska Forest Resources Stewardship Council made a recommendation that it does not support timber being exported and processed outside of the Yukon. That seems to me consistent with what the Premier has just said. Have I heard him correctly?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I can’t repeat verbatim what I just stated to the member opposite, but the question was answered in great detail on how this would unfold. The Kaska Forest Resources Stewardship Council, which was another component of the agreement the member opposite entered into with Canada and the Kaska, is a body that will help steer the evolution of forest management and the development of an industry in the Yukon. They have a position on raw-log export.

I have stated it in terms of no net raw-log volume loss to the Yukon. I’ve also provided the member opposite a clear understanding of the geographical impacts on economic viability.

So, Mr. Chair, when we put it all together, the Kaska agreement is an investment. The go-forward plan now is to put together the necessary management plan on allowable annual cut to attract the investment to create our ability to utilize and create a revenue stream out of residual waste, to create a primary breakdown process, to create a secondary manufacturing component of the industry, to develop markets, to create a strong silviculture component of the industry, and to look toward investment in infrastructure that we can derive out of developing the industry, and to look at our seed and the genetics of the forest, given the fact that we, in reforestation in today’s Yukon, send our seed out.

With the advent of an energy source and using residual fibre, we have an opportunity to get into the growth of our own seed, the development of our own seed, to look into research and development. There are huge investment dollars available at the federal level when it comes to research and development. At a minimum, there are tax issues that provide an incentive to industry to go down these roads.

We have a clear vision and a plan here. But, on the issue of export of raw logs, our position is clear: no net log volume loss for Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   So the Kaska Forest Resources Stewardship Council says that it doesn’t support timber being exported and processed outside of the Yukon. The Premier’s position is that raw-log exports are okay, provided B.C. ships some back to us and they are processed, and there is no net loss to the Yukon. That is what the Premier has just stated for the record.

I would like to talk about the Elijah Smith forest renewal program and the funding under it. YTG is responsible for collecting. This fund was transferred to us and YTG is responsible for collecting —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Ms. Duncan, you have the floor.

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The fact is that the Government of Yukon, after devolution, became responsible for what is called the "Elijah Smith forest renewal program". YTG is responsible for collecting the revenues and coordinating them with Yukon First Nations and representatives of the Yukon forest industry.

The Premier has gone on at great length about these different agreements and resource royalty revenue sharing with forestry. First of all, would he outline where in the budget documents the Elijah Smith forest renewal program funding is located? Would he also — as he has responsibility for negotiations with First Nations — indicate where the discussions are with respect to the collection of revenues and the expenditures of those revenues and what percentage is being put into that fund under these agreements?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This is Energy, Mines and Resources specific. Percentage? There’s a direct fee. We’ve inherited or adopted the framework that the federal government had in place on stumpage and reforestation. Those amounts are housed in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. This is a specific question of detail to a specific department. It is in no way a general debate item.

Ms. Duncan:   So the funds in the Elijah Smith forest renewal, fundamental to our forest health, is all in Energy, Mines and Resources, but the Premier, who has responsibility for everything, is off negotiating these forestry revenue agreements with First Nations. So forestry revenue agreements have nothing to do with forest renewal. Is that what he’s saying? Make it clear to the public who is negotiating, how they’re being negotiated, where the funds are going and where this fund fits in with it.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member is really embarrassing the third party in this House. The member is not even coming to the realization that stumpage has nothing to do with reforestation; it’s a separate fee. Reforestation charges are a separate item specific to one thing, and that is reforestation. That’s not stumpage, not at all. Stumpage is a fee that the Crown would charge, which is similar to a fee for a concession that a proponent would pay to have the right to go and harvest X number of cubic metres of forest.

But the proponent would also have to pay another separate fee, which would be reforestation. It has nothing to do with stumpage. But again, Mr. Chair, this is specific, detailed questioning that relates to a specific department. It is not general debate; therefore, I move that we go into department-by-department debate, line-by-line debate.

Chair:   There is no such motion. As long as there is general debate, and there appears to be, we will continue on.

Ms. Duncan:   So what has been made embarrassingly clear to the public is that the Premier is out negotiating backroom deals because he won’t make them public, won’t discuss them on the floor of this House, won’t discuss the terms, won’t discuss even how they’re being negotiated, under what framework, what template. He belittles the opposition for asking the question — daring to ask the all-knowing Premier the question, and then when there is a specific question related to our forest, related to forestry renewal, related to the very resource that the Premier is discussing, he says, "Oh, it’s a different department." Talk about making a deal and leaving other ministers to try to clean it up and cope with it. It completely ignores the framework of public policy. It’s the whole public, the entire agreement and the individual agreements that have to be considered. It is all of the Yukon that has to be considered when these individual deals are being struck.

The Premier finds it quite difficult to answer questions in general debate, that he started the debate on, as has been evidenced by Hansard. I’d like to move on to another specific issue. The internal audit function was re-established under the Liberal Party government. It was formerly the Bureau of Management Improvement. What is the Premier’s philosophy and position with respect to internal audit, management improvement and, dare I suggest, accountability to the public?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member has just stood on her feet and put on the public record that the Premier negotiated a forestry agreement with the Kaska and then has left the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources responsible for it. Well, I’m compelled to correct the record. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, led by the minister responsible, negotiated an agreement with the Kaska First Nation. The reforestation fees, stumpage fees, any other royalties that we may deem, as we go forward in developing a forest industry, to be necessary to be charged to industry will be housed in that department, not the Premier’s office. So the member again is incorrect and showing clearly a serious lack of understanding not only of this issue but most of the issues she brings to the floor of the House. And when it comes to the internal audit initiative, that is housed in the Executive Council Office. That is a specific detail question to a specific department; it is not general debate.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I don’t have it at my immediate fingertips, but I believe you’ve made a ruling in the past that general debate affords all members an opportunity to ask questions of a general nature. The question I asked was indeed of a general nature. As I said I don’t have your ruling at hand. It’s certainly my understanding that that is what general debate is all about. I would suggest that the Finance minister, Premier, put it on the record — as we’re in general debate on the budget, the finances of the territory — how he views that overall internal audit and management of those finances. What is his particular philosophy and perspective? Does he bring the NDP philosophy of a bureau of management improvement or an internal, more refined, defined internal audit function?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Of course the government side supports the internal audit function but I disagree with the member opposite. This is a specific question of detail in regard to that function. That function is housed in the Executive Council Office; therefore, the member will receive much more detail in response when we debate the Executive Council Office.

The member can continue to try to make the representation that the government side is not answering, but the government side is, and the answer is, when we get into specific questions of detail or a specific department, we should be going to debate that department. Therefore, given the questions coming from the opposition benches, we deem that general debate is now over.

Ms. Duncan:   Much as he might like to, the Premier doesn’t get to make the decision that general debate is over, and he may find it tiresome to answer pointed questions from the opposition. However, welcome to the task: that’s his job and, as I said, if he doesn’t want to do it, I’m sure there are ready and willing members in his caucus who would be quite willing to do so.

I was pleased to hear the current government supports the internal audit function. I’m looking forward to asking the Premier more detailed questions.

Another one of the Yukon Party platform commitments was that they, being the saviours of all things, were going to wean us as a territory off of federal revenues and ensure that we, the strong and proud territory that we are, would stand on our own and hold our own within the confederation known as Canada.

Understanding as I have it from the former method of accounting and the budget documents, federal funding accounted for about 64 percent of our revenues.

The amount of our current federal funding is not listed as a percentage; it’s listed as numbers in the main documents — in the mains. Would the Premier care to — I know that he doesn’t like to answer, so would the Finance minister and Premier indicate what the current percentage is of the dependency on Ottawa, or federal funding. Also, would he indicate for the public record how he intends to fulfill this Yukon Party commitment of weaning us off the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Let’s look at it based on the facts.

The member has the information in the document provided. But, because the member obviously doesn’t know how to find it in the document — the grant from Canada is 66 percent of the overall total. It’s all there for the member. I guess the member didn’t have the time to go over that document in preparing for debate, which speaks volumes about the kind of debate the member is providing in this Legislature.

Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of more private sector involvement in the Yukon economy, we have a good start, Mr. Chair. The indicators show positively that with more people in the workforce, more industry getting interested in the Yukon, more own-source revenues will develop for the Yukon Territory. That’s exactly how we reduce our dependence on the federal government and the southern taxpayer.

This is not going to be a one-year project. Our dependency has been built over many years. We are now turning the corner. We are now heading in the right direction. The indicators prove that, the evidence is there, but we still have a lot of challenges ahead. We’ve said that also time and time again. But it’s done by creating own-source revenues. Obviously income tax is an own-source revenue. The more jobs we create in the Yukon — especially from the private sector — the more the own-source revenues will increase.

I think the member has all the information available. The stats are available to the member. The Budget Address and the budget documents are available to the member. So the issue is, for the percentage, 66 percent, and I think it’s falling. It has gone down marginally already, another indicator.

Ms. Duncan:   The grant from Canada, the formula, may be 66, but the subtotal transfer from Canada is closer to 72 — 71.3 to be precise. That’s not weaning ourselves off a dependency on Ottawa as promised door to door by some members.

The Premier indicated in his budget speech — and we’ll leave the inability of the Yukon Party and Premier to live up to those commitments he made to the Yukon public for the time being and focus instead on the consultation surrounding the budget. There has been a request by the official opposition for the precise job-creation figures of the budget, and it’s the first budget I can recall, or budget speech, where I don’t recall — and it was a very long speech so I may have missed it — the Finance minister, Premier, saying, "This job will create almost 700 jobs" — as did a previous budget speech. So what are the job creation figures? The departments have them. They have been asked for; they haven’t been provided.

Secondly, the budget consultations — that information has always been asked and requested of the Premier, and there were public meetings held. Members have made reference to them. There are specific requests made by communities. Where are the notes from the meetings and when will those two pieces of information be provided?