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.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today some very special constituents from Destruction Bay and Burwash Landing. Please join me in welcoming Roxienne Prestone and her students, Michael Blahitka and Synclair Naylor, who are in grade 5; Collin Johnson in grade 3; Chishana in grade 2; Angeline Carlick, Riverleigh Pope and Curtis Carlick in grade 1; and Monica Johnson in kindergarten.

Also accompanying the students is Aggie Jeanson from Burwash Landing.

Speaker:  Tributes.

Mr. McRobb:   I’m honoured to rise on behalf of all members in this Legislature in tribute to Roxienne Prestone, who is retiring after 27 years of teaching, 21 of those for the Yukon Department of Education. She has been a teacher at the Kluane Lake School in Destruction Bay for 16 years and became the principal and sole teacher there in 1990.

On April 30, Roxienne achieved a Yukon excellence in education award. She is a dedicated and caring teacher who shows genuine concern for all of her students. She is known for never missing a school committee meeting. Working hard to provide a well-rounded and quality education, she incorporated traditional Southern Tutchone activities into the curriculum. She has assisted in gopher hunting, berry gathering, setting fish nets during the winter, storytelling events with the elders, and beading and drum making with the Kluane First Nation education liaison.

Every year she coordinates a round of highlights for her students. These include a Christmas concert, storytelling days, foster child tea, salmon in the classroom, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing and field trips. To help pay for the extracurricular activities, she organizes bake sales, raffles, recycling and the local garbage dump cleanup.

Kluane Lake School is a kindergarten to grade 8 school. Students graduating to grade 9 apply for distance education course work. Roxienne supervises their coursework voluntarily. As an alternative, she helps parents find suitable accommodation for their students so they can attend school in Haines Junction or Whitehorse.

Roxienne follows the progress of her graduates and assists community members by tutoring and supervising various exams. As an educational leader in her school and as a community leader, she has been a positive role model to her students and their families.

Roxienne has always been active in making her community a better place to live. She serves as a director for three local boards: the Kluane Museum of Natural History, the Burwash Landing Community Library and the Kluane Lake Athletic Association.

Roxienne has contributed to local government through the athletic association. As an unincorporated community, the association is part of Destruction Bay’s local government and helps to sustain the local economy by participating in government programs and exercises.

Roxienne has also been an active member of the Yukon Teachers Association and the Association of Yukon School Administrators.

Her tireless participation in the communities of Burwash and Destruction Bay will be sadly missed. We wish Roxienne and her husband, Joel, well with their future plans. Thank you, Roxienne. Mahsi’ cho. Günilschish.

Hon. Mr. Hart:  On behalf of the House, I rise today to recognize national Road Safety Week, which we are noting here in advance of the official week of May 21 to 27. These dates are chosen to coincide with the first summer long weekend, a time when millions of Canadians take to the road and vehicle crashes are much more frequent. During this week, the Canada Safety Council works to educate the public about safe driving practices with a focus on the bad behaviours that put drivers, passengers and other motorists at risk.

There has been a shift in how we view road safety. At one time in Canada, road injuries and fatalities were widely seen as events largely beyond our control. However, road crashes are now largely viewed as preventable events, which makes the deaths and injuries that result from these crashes profoundly tragic.

Mr. Speaker, road safety has become a truly global problem. Both the European Union and the World Health Organization are taking action with regard to this issue.

Closer to home, in Canada, approximately 3,000 people a year die and 140,000 are injured. In the Yukon from 1989 to 2003, 163 people died in crashes. I’m sure each of us can think of cherished Yukoners who are no longer with us because of automobile accidents.

As in the rest of the world, the main causes of road injuries and deaths in the Yukon are due to people failing to buckle up, speeding or driving too fast for road conditions, and drunk driving.

Statistics show that 78 percent of Yukon vehicle occupants wear seatbelts, compared to the national average of 90 percent. This figure is even lower in rural Yukon where less than half of motorists buckle up.

Why is buckling up so important? On average, half the people who died in Yukon crashes between 1993 and 2002 were not buckled up. In 2002 alone, nine of the 12 people who died on our roads were not wearing seatbelts.

In the Yukon, speeding or driving too fast for road conditions is also high on the list of factors that can lead to crashes. Drinking and driving is one of the top three factors in death and injuries in the Yukon. The transportation and road safety ministers in Canada have endorsed a national strategy called "Road Safety Vision 2010". Our goal for this strategy is to reduce significantly deaths and injuries on Canada’s roads by 2010.

We have come a long way, but as you have heard in the stats today we have much more work to do. Yukoners may contribute to safer roads by buckling up their seatbelts, slowing down, not drinking and driving and, Mr. Speaker, road safety starts with every one of us here today. Please unite with me to recognize Road Safety Week, and let’s do our part to keep Yukon roads safe.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   It’s my privilege today to rise on behalf of the Legislature to formally recognize Emergency Medical Services Week and to take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of our full-time and volunteer emergency medical services attendants.

Now, the theme of this year’s EMS Week is "There When You Need Us", and it focuses on the commitment and the dedication of the EMS personnel who provide this essential community service. In the Yukon we are fortunate to have a strong corps of EMS attendants who work and train very hard to provide emergency services in their respective communities.

Earlier this year our government recognized this dedication of rural volunteer EMS attendants by increasing honorariums and providing uniforms. These men and women respond immediately to the call for assistance and they deserve our gratitude for their commitment to the health of our communities.

This week we all need to think about the services provided by emergency medical services personnel. We never know when we will need their services and it is comforting to know that EMS are standing by ready to respond, and for these reasons we recognize Emergency Medical Services Week and the dedicated personnel who serve so readily.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   I rise on behalf of the official opposition in recognition of Emergency Medical Services Week. We are pleased to be able to pay tribute to the territorial emergency measures services. EMS provides lifesaving care to anyone in need, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Over 40 staff serve the Whitehorse area and 170 volunteer attendants work in rural areas. The volume of calls both in Whitehorse and the communities is increasing annually. In Whitehorse alone there were over 3,000 ground calls and 544 medevacs in 2003.

In a plane crash exercise last week, ambulance crews proved their worth. They rescued, triaged, treated and transported over 20 mock patients efficiently and with compassion. We especially want to point out that many of the ambulance crews in that exercise were volunteers from the outlying communities. These volunteers work in conjunction with 13 health centres and nursing stations. They give of their own time to be on call, to respond to any medical emergency despite minimal recognition and pay. It is truly a calling. We recognize the devotion to care that is required of the men and women of EMS who work under stressful circumstances. This demanding work is becoming more and more technical and requires thorough training and recertification. The psychological and technical skills needed underline the fact that it is vital for the territory to support them to the greatest extent possible. We support any initiative to that end.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Introduction of visitors.

Mrs. Peter:   I would like to ask members of this House to please help me make welcome my husband, Ernie Peter, who is in the gallery with us today.

Speaker:   Under tabling of returns and documents, I have for tabling a report of the Auditor General of Canada, made pursuant to subsection 30(2) of the Yukon Act. This report, which is known as the Report on Other Matters, covers the 1999-2000 to 2002-03 fiscal years.

I also have for tabling the annual report of the ombudsman and information privacy commissioner for the 2002 calendar year.

Are there any other reports or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table the first annual Yukon Minerals Advisory Board report for the year 2004.

Speaker:   Are there any other reports or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes

(1) that the Government of Nova Scotia has recently introduced legislation requiring petroleum companies to give 48 hours’ notice before raising gas prices;

(2) that the Yukon Party government has reneged on a commitment to eliminate territorial gas on gasoline; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to examine the Petroleum Products Pricing Act recently introduced in Nova Scotia.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to immediately increase the budget for fire protection in the territory and produce an informational video on the risk of wildfire for Yukoners and visitors both in VHS and DVD format and to make it freely available through the government’s own Web site.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to initiate and undertake consultation with Yukoners on matters related to the concept of the international railway proposal, regardless of federal funding, with emphasis placed on determining the routing of any such railroad.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to identify items that are required for the territory to become "pipeline-ready" and finance those undertakings instead of spending $50 million on the Dawson bridge.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to resolve the uncertainty within the territory about its highway sign policy by undertaking to work with the stakeholders to finalize its signage policy without further delay.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to order the Yukon Utilities Board to undertake a review of all options to displace the electrical diesel generators in the Town of Watson Lake, with such a review specifically including an assessment of cogeneration and grid expansion.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to improve public access to the proceedings of this Yukon Legislature by:

(1) expanding the availability of local television coverage of the Legislature to all Yukon communities;

(2) expanding live radio coverage of the daily proceedings to all Yukon communities;

(3) providing access to a digital video of the televised proceedings through its Web site, including an archives dating back to the start of the 31^st Legislature;

(4) working with the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network to broadcast the proceedings through its satellite broadcast to the Yukon; and

(5) working with APTN on rescheduling the proceedings to return to starting the one-hour program at 9:00 p.m. instead of 9:30 p.m.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to eliminate the secrecy surrounding the reclamation of Yukon mine sites by making public at the time of any release of securities, the following:

(1) a balance sheet showing the financial history of transactions within the account;

(2) an explanation of the reclamation work done in relation to each release;

(3) an explanation of the remaining reclamation work done along with the estimated costs;

(4) a list of any correspondence or materials related to the securities and reclamation; and

(5) the titles of any existing agreements associated with the mine site reclamation; and

THAT the Government of Yukon undertake to provide any of the above information upon the request of any citizen of the Yukon.

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

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to live up to its obligation under the Umbrella Final Agreement and final agreements with individual Yukon First Nations to provide funding for cultural centres.

Mr. Hassard:   I’d like to ask all members to join me in making welcome to the gallery Mrs. Pearl Keenan.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. McRobb:   My question is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation.

Last November I asked the minister what his plans were with respect to the future of the Energy Solutions Centre. He vowed it would stay. At that time I put on record the concerns of his chief of staff, who called the centre’s activities embarrassing and added that its budget had to be reduced. But the minister denied that there was any such secret agenda and stressed the importance of the centre’s work.

Now we’ve discovered that the minister has curtailed the centre’s spending authority. Can he explain for the record his reasons for such interference?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   The Yukon Energy Solutions Centre is certainly running on a daily basis. I, myself have not done anything with that budget. As Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources — the Yukon Development Corporation is a Crown corporation. They have a board of directors and, of course, the board of directors gives the corporation direction.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister hand-picked a chair for Yukon Development Corporation almost a year ago and gave him a one-year contract for $175,000.

Now, the chair was supposed to develop a governance relationship that would prevent this type of political influence on these independent entities, including the Energy Solutions Centre. But the minister recently told this House that they are not even looking at governance. It’s no wonder, Mr. Speaker, the minister is keeping his hand-picked chair too busy carrying out his unofficial political instructions, such as freezing out the Energy Solutions Centre.

Will the minister now call off his chair from destroying the centre and will he clear the air and tell us if he is planning to extend the chair’s contract beyond one year?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, and thank you to the member opposite — the Yukon Development Corporation runs Yukon Energy Solutions Centre and of course Yukon Energy Solutions Centre is directly responsible to that board of directors. So to answer the member opposite, the board of directors of Yukon Development Corporation runs the daily operation of that corporation. It is a Crown corporation. Myself as a minister — we do not run the daily business of that Crown corporation.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister’s hiding behind the board. The Energy Solutions Centre is jointly funded by its parent corporation, the Yukon Development Corporation, and the federal government. It contributes to our economy and plays an important role in steering the territory toward greater energy efficiency and smarter energy management. In fact, its mandate is to encourage and assist Yukoners to implement projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In his relentless pursuit of carbon resource extraction as Mines minister, why has the minister decided to freeze spending on the excellent work the Solutions Centre is doing on behalf of our environment?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again in answering the member opposite, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Yukon Development Corporation — being that I oversee it, but I do not run it on a daily basis — as far as hiding behind the board of directors, Mr. Speaker, I give the board of directors no direction. That’s why we have a board of directors. The directors run the corporation. Yukon Energy Solutions Centre is certainly funded both by territorial and federal money and certainly does a lot of good work for the Yukon, so as far as the Yukon Energy Solutions Centre is concerned, it is being run by the board of directors of Yukon Development Corporation and I think they do an excellent job.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Premier. In Friday’s newspaper the Government of the Yukon advertised for a Deputy Minister of Justice. Now in that advertisement the salary that was mentioned was $121,622 to $157,967 per year. Now, is this salary range exclusively for the Deputy Minister of Justice or is this a new pay range for all deputy ministers?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   What was advertised in the paper is what the salary range is. This is mainly dealt with through administrative issues.

Mr. Hardy:   I would like the Premier to take some responsibility for this area, and hopefully stand up and answer a question.

Last year the deputy minister salaries ranged from $89,000 to $125,000. The new salary range posted for the Deputy Minister of Justice represents about a 25-percent increase. I’m sure Yukon people will be impressed by this government’s generosity, but it does raise serious questions about this Premier’s spending habits. Can the Premier explain why this position has such a hefty price tag attached? Is it because Yukon judges are now so well-paid or is it because the Premier has raised the bar for government consultants to unbelievable levels?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, let us look at the official opposition’s view of our deputy ministers. We on this side of the House recognize good work and contribution to this territory. We also recognize that we must compete nationally to attract the best possible people to fill the jobs that we have available or open here in the Yukon.

Yes, we have, based on the good works of our deputy ministers and the need to compete on the national stage, increased the range for deputy ministers to bring us in line with other jurisdictions. But that’s a good thing. We certainly respond in a positive way to our officials and our deputy ministers when they are delivering on behalf of the Yukon Territory. That’s the government.

Now let’s look at the contrast with the official opposition. They take exception to rewarding our employees and our deputy ministers. What a difference.

Mr. Hardy:   I can’t believe what the Premier just said there. It doesn’t make sense when you look at the other applications, the other advertisements for deputy ministers. Let’s take a comparison here: Deputy Minister of Health and Social Services, only four months ago, $89,000 starting wage. That’s a $32,000 difference between the two deputy ministers, $20,000 at the upper end. So what is this talk about raising the salary? Is it only for specific deputy ministers? It has been a number of months now since we’ve been in this House listening to the double standards of this government, and it gets awfully tiring.

Now can the Premier explain why there are two clearly different standards at work here, and can he give us an update on the search for the Deputy Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, first, we have to get the official opposition to fast-forward to today. The government has recently made a decision in increasing the range for deputy minister. It certainly has no negative reflection on any deputy minister working in the past — quite the opposite.

Now let’s look at the double standard. The NDP in this House, the official opposition, present themselves as the champions of labour and the public service. Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with their obvious opposition to our increasing our ability to provide our deputy ministers and our employees with the contract that this government tabled with us increasing those areas to reward our employees and our deputy ministers, who is the real champion for the workforce in the Yukon government?

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party government has a father-knows-best attitude when it comes to governing. We’re building a bridge in Dawson City, yet we have no proof that it makes economic sense or that it will increase tourism. Yukoners are supposed to just trust the government.

The minister’s hand-picked chair of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board spent $17,000 on a trip to Vancouver, and the minister responsible won’t show us any receipts. We’re just supposed to trust him.

Now the government is building a new health centre in Dawson and is refusing to provide the feasibility study that says it’s needed. I wrote and asked for it. The minister has refused to give it to me. Will the Minister of Health drop his "just trust me" attitude and make public the feasibility study for the new Dawson health centre?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, not only did I agree to provide the opposition and the third party with the feasibility study and the reviews that have been conducted on Dawson City but also on Watson Lake. And as soon as they have been received in their final form, everyone will have a copy of them, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, Mr. Speaker, we know the government has had the studies for months. The minister is making excuses in refusing to make the information public. On April 8, I asked the minister to provide the studies. He said there are three and he will provide them. Six weeks later, he still has not provided them. It’s the minister-knows-best attitude once again on display for all Yukoners: "We’re building a new health centre in Dawson City. Just trust us. We need it." Well, Yukoners know they can’t trust the word of the government, especially the minister. Yukoners want to assess the information for themselves. Is the minister admitting that the decision to build the new centre in Dawson was made before the feasibility study was even completed, or will he give us the completed studies today?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The process as spelled out is the same for all communities. First of all, a needs assessment is conducted and our government committed to a needs assessment in Watson Lake and Dawson City on this very important issue. That has been undertaken. Since that time, studies have been forwarded and produced and there are already studies in the hopper dealing with this important area.

To that end, as soon as these studies are in the finalized form, the member opposite will receive a copy. They are currently in draft form.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward in this next budget cycle with the feasibility studies in Haines Junction and in Teslin on these very important initiatives.

Ms. Duncan:   This government has spent the entire session withholding information from the public. Last week the minister refused to provide information about a trip to Vancouver that the hand-picked chair of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board went on. Before that it was information about the transfer of ambulance services to the hospital. Before that it was information about the future plans for the Thomson Centre. The list goes on and on, and that’s just the list with that minister.

Will the minister drop the hide-and-seek routine and provide the completed feasibility studies on the new health centre the government has already committed to?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What has happened here is we have done our homework, we’ve analyzed the situation, we’re moving forward on the process and we are in the process at various stages depending on which community one looks at.

The member opposite is very concerned and I share that concern with her because there’s no political mileage to be gained from criticizing a government that’s doing an effective and efficient job of looking after the needs of seniors. As soon as these studies are in their final form, the official opposition and the third party will receive a copy of them.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Acting Minister of Environment about trapline allocations. A number of First Nations have expressed concern about the process this government appears to be using to allocate traplines. In his answers to some earlier questions, the minister has talked at some length about the number of traplines he considers vacant. The number he used on March 4 was 56.

What criteria is the minister using to decide a trapline is vacant?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   In response to the member opposite, I believe that the question that the member opposite really wanted to ask is to do with the Old Crow group trapping concession.

The Old Crow group trapping concession has never been issued to Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. It has always been made out to the Old Crow trapping group in care of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation. This practice will continue.

Mrs. Peter:   If the minister were listening to my question, he would agree that it was to address a trapline issue all across the territory. There is a big difference in understanding between the minister and the First Nations about how to define the use of a trapline. Some First Nation families have occupied a trapline for many generations. The work that they have done to clear the trails and build cabins should be taken into consideration. So should the animals they trap for subsistence or to make clothing and use it for other uses.

Mr. Speaker, why is the minister pushing ahead with a trapline allocation policy that defines the use of a trapline according to the fur market — the dollar value — and ignore the other traditional uses?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   This government has a very good working relationship with First Nations and I am quite certain that if there were a real issue in this area, it would be brought to the government’s attention and it would be dealt with with respect.

Mrs. Peter:   The minister needs to consult with his colleague on this very serious issue. The minister’s answers do not give the people in the territory any security. Section 16.3 of the First Nation’s final agreement says that approximately 70 percent of traplines in the First Nation’s traditional territory should be allocated to First Nation people.

Under the new allocation policy there could be lotteries to allocate so-called vacant traplines in overlapping areas. Many people are concerned that friends of this government are going to line up to get traplines allocated to them if the 70 percent requirement —

Speaker:   Order please.

Would the member ask the question please?

Mrs. Peter:   Will the acting minister tell this House if they will agree to pull this new policy until the renewable resource councils have been properly consulted and the provisions of the final agreements have been fulfilled?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Well, I believe the member opposite’s allegations are incorrect. This has nothing to do with friends and I’m quite confident that this government will respect and meet with the First Nations on these issues. This government is well known for being right up front and working with First Nations, and we intend to continue that practice.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Environment minister, the acting Environment minister, or whichever minister on that side of the House would like to answer this question. This Yukon Party government committed to the public that they will be consulted on matters that affect them. I think this Yukon Party has done a very poor job on that. As a matter of fact, they have made many decisions with absolutely no consultation and Yukoners have taken note. The Yukon Party wants to open up the Yukon for business at any cost. Policies are being developed and the public is the last to know. When will the public be made aware that a big game outfitters land tenure policy is well on its way?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I’ve not been briefed on this issue and I will take that question under advisement.

Mr. Fairclough:   Someone on that side of the House must know, so I’m going to give the ministers an opportunity to answer the question. He can answer the question I just asked and there’s a next one. The policy may give outfitters an advantage over wilderness tourism lodge sites in the Yukon Territory. There are about 50 sites or more in question. The public and the First Nations have not been consulted but that doesn’t seem to bother this Yukon Party government. When did the minister, or when did this Yukon Party government, give direction to the Department of Environment to have this new policy developed and when will the policy come into effect?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Well, I want to remind the member opposite again that this government takes pride in its ability to consult with the stakeholders. To date, I must say that I believe this government has done a very good job on that and we will continue to consult with stakeholders. I can assure you that these consultations do and will take place.

Mr. Cardiff:   My question is for the Minister of Community Services. The minister’s department was conducting an environmental screening of the proposed Whitehorse Copper land development. The deadline for public input was February 19 of this year, and residents were told that a final determination and the screening report document would be available sometime in March. It’s now a month and a half late. It’s not on the Web site; it hasn’t been made available. Why is the minister withholding this information from residents, and when will it be made available to the public?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We have received several issues with regard to that particular development, and we will be submitting that information and making it available shortly.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the minister’s schedule and the deadlines that he imposed on the public for the screening were cast in stone, but he hasn’t been able to live up to the commitments that were made to those who participated in the screening or even give them the courtesy of an update on what’s happening. Now he says that there is information out there, but he’s not providing it to the public, letting them know what’s happening with the environmental screening or what the outcome is going to be. It’s another example of this government withholding information and it’s another example of double standards. Will the minister tell the public now what the pre-determined outcome of the process is going to be?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, I’ve conversed with him on this subject on several occasions. We have consulted with those in question and the results are in. We’ll be going back with the results of that environmental study that we initiated under YEAA, and the members of that particular community will be getting the results of that.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Environment. On Friday, there were some closed-door discussions at the political level with the owners of the Northern Splendor Reindeer Farm. The purpose of these discussions was to find some common ground to proceed with identifying options regarding the future of the reindeer herd. Do the options under consideration include the government buying these animals, as it did in the case of the Yukon Wildlife Preserve?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe the question the member opposite is asking this side of the House is whether or not we really respect animals, and we do. It is my opinion that the discussions have to take place and I cannot comment on the outcome of a discussion that hasn’t taken place yet.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like to remind the Acting Minister of Environment that the question I asked was: what are the options? Is one of the options buying these animals? Obviously there’s a hearing problem on the other side with this minister in this regard because I was very clear about that question.

The Yukon Party’s double standard seems to be alive and well, Mr. Speaker. Some people are bought out and others are shut out. It’s my understanding the government still intends to pursue the option of designating reindeer as game farm animals — we’ve heard this — even though the Wildlife Act and the Yukon First Nation final agreements don’t recognize them as such.

How does the minister plan to consult Yukon people about whether or not they agree with designating reindeer as game farm animals?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe it’s just a difference of opinion when the member opposite alleges there are double standards here. There are no double standards, Mr. Speaker. This is merely a case of one reindeer farmer wanting to talk to the government about their reindeer.

The animals in question have been domesticated for thousands of years. They’re not animals that were native to the Yukon Territory.

So, Mr. Speaker, the discussions that have to take place haven’t taken place, and this government is not going to predict the outcome of any discussions before they take place.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s amazing that this acting minister would say that these discussions are happening and he’s not going to make a statement about it and yet, leading up to this, that’s all he ever did was make all kinds of statements about what reindeer are, what reindeer aren’t and actually never brought anything into the Legislature to prove their point. I had to do it on this side. It was last week that I tabled information demonstrating that reindeer and caribou are essentially the same animal. They belong to the same genus and the same species. Now, if reindeer are designated game farm animals, will caribou be classified the same way? If so, how does the minister plan to resolve the concerns of First Nations and other Yukon people?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To start with, I’m not a biologist and I don’t pretend to be one. I refuse to make any comments on an issue of this sort that needs many years of high school to be able to make these informed decisions. I will continue to state for the record that this government will do its best to ensure that these animals do not get into undue stress.

Speaker:   I would like to apologize to the House. The Independent member was to ask question seven; I inadvertently missed it.

Mr. Arntzen:  I have a question today for the minister responsible for Community Services regarding Hamilton Boulevard. $3.2 million has been identified in this budget for work on Hamilton Boulevard. Can the minister explain what will be done for this money?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are looking at making improvements to Hamilton Boulevard as per our CFA with the City of Whitehorse. We have been in consultation with those in the area as well.

Speaker:   Before the member asks the first supplementary question, I would like to remind all members that the questioner has the floor, then the answerer has the floor. I would appreciate no extraneous comments. Independent member, first supplementary.

Mr. Arntzen:  Can the minister explain the agreements between the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon territorial government on Hamilton Boulevard’s plans?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   This plan has been in effect for some years with the development that goes back to the early 1990s. There have been several amendments to this particular agreement with the City of Whitehorse and we are in the midst of working with the City of Whitehorse on achieving it. We are nearing the completion of this project and we anticipate that will commence next year.

Mr. Arntzen:  Hamilton Boulevard is the only access route to the fastest growing and largest residential area in Whitehorse. So, many of my constituents are concerned with only one access for ambulances and fire trucks and all other emergency response vehicles. Can the minister advise this House when this major issue will be addressed in regard to the construction of a second access route?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned earlier, we have been in consultation with the residents of Hamilton Boulevard and that region, as well as the First Nation, with regard to this particular aspect and we are exploring the options that are available to them in conjunction with the City of Whitehorse.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Acting Minister of Environment. In a May 1, 2003, letter to the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board, the minister said that his government — the Yukon Party government — "does not have an interest" in purchasing animals from the Yukon Museum of Natural History. Less than a year later the minister stated publicly that he was in active discussions to purchase these same animals.

The government has a reputation for saying one thing and doing another, for changing their minds, for double standards.

How much money has been set aside to purchase the animals from the Yukon Museum of Natural History?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to correct the record for the member opposite. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are no double standards here. It is just a difference of opinion. It must sound good from that side, I imagine.

But, again, Mr. Speaker, this game reserve was a very popular item and the member opposite knows that everybody was prepared to save it during the campaign. Now that it has been saved, there appears to be a problem with the member opposite. This government is not ashamed of saving the game preserve.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, in spite of the member’s protesting the opposite, the Yukon Party has had several misadventures with game farms over the past several months.

They purchased the Yukon game farm at taxpayers’ expense, and they pay a half a million dollars per year to operate it at taxpayers’ expense. A third party was called in to do the evaluation. After being shamed into it through questions in this Legislature, the government agreed to engage a third party with respect to the reindeer farm. A very specific question: has a third party been engaged in evaluating the purchase of animals at the Yukon Museum of Natural History?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   For the record, again, I want to put on record that the member opposite also had several issues while in government with the game farm. I specifically remember quite a few of those issues, and I would have called them very hot items. Mr. Speaker, this government did everything in due process, and the game preserve was handled correctly, and it is going to be saved for the benefit of all Yukoners.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has been asked several times this afternoon to listen to the questions. What I have asked several times in this Legislature during this session — and I’ve asked again today — is for information about the government’s intention with respect to the Yukon Museum of Natural History. We’ve heard what they’ve done with the game farm. They’ve been shamed into — in this Legislature — dealing fairly with the reindeer farm. The minister has publicly said he was entering into discussions with the owners of the Yukon Museum of Natural History, yet he has steadfastly refused to answer any questions. Has a third party been engaged, as was the case in the other purchases? How much money has been set aside? Will the Acting Minister of Environment today provide some answers and some information to this Legislature about the expenditure of Yukon taxpayers’ dollars with regard to the Yukon Museum of Natural History?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Well, Mr. Speaker, this government has not been shamed into anything. The member opposite is incorrect — totally incorrect and grasping at straws for something to talk about. Mr. Speaker, this government has worked faithfully with everyone in the territory, as is what took place with the owners of the reindeer farm. This government is very aware and has the utmost respect for animals. And this government will continue to look after the best interests of the animals, and it will continue to do that.

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

Clerk:   Motion No. 289, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Minister of Health and Social Services

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to provide health care to aboriginal Canadian residents both on reserve and off reserve, as recommended by the Auditor General and requested by all three territories and all 10 provinces.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   It’s a very important motion that we have before the House today and I’m urging all parties to support this motion. I’ll be brief and just spell out the concerns that we have.

Under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government’s obligation to aboriginal people is rooted in section 91, part 24, which states that the federal government is responsible for Indians and lands reserved for Indians.

Over the years, the federal government has acted in ways that tend to meld these two obligations into one. Health Canada’s First Nation and Inuit health branch, for example, sees its responsibilities as being primarily for Indians on lands reserved for Indians.

The Yukon has a growing concern about Canada’s apparent reduction of available programs and services to aboriginal people in the north. Where Canada used to refer to on reserve and in the north, this phrase is rarely heard now. In the Yukon, with the transfer of the hospital and of community health services, the Yukon government negotiated with the federal government that it will provide universal health care to all Yukon residents, including all First Nation aboriginal residents, through funding negotiated and received through the formula financing agreement.

The formula financing agreement does explicitly state that any new funding programs offered by the federal government should be available to the Yukon, and the formula has a built-in mechanism to permit the Yukon to take advantage of any new federal initiative or program. Thus, for any new programming intended to enhance insured health services, specifically targeted to aboriginal people, there ought to be an allocation provided to the Yukon government.

Furthermore, for any new federal funding program rolled out for aboriginal people that is targeted to help address a problem that exists among First Nations, there ought to be a federal allocation made for Yukon First Nations.

An example of this would be FASD and diabetes. It does not make program objective sense to limit funding to specific geographic locations if First Nation people living elsewhere equally share the problem that is the target of the program. Such funding may flow, as it usually has in the past, directly through to First Nations for community-based programming in the Yukon rather than to the Yukon government. There must be a financial allocation for Yukon First Nations. The Government of Canada must live up to section 91, part 24 of the Canadian Constitution and address their responsibility for First Nations health care in Canada, more specifically for Yukon aboriginal people.

Ms. Duncan:   I wish to state for the public record that this motion as brought forward by the Health minister need not be called today, that it is the considered view that the motion as presented is nothing more than grandstanding on the eve of a federal election. If the member wants to fight the federal election, I encourage him to run for office in that forum. This forum is currently debating $700 million in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. That’s what we should be focused on today; that’s what we should be discussing. We should be focusing our time and energy on these issues. Motions such as the one presented are generally reserved for motion day and should be discussed at length on those dates. We at that time could discuss the fact that the motion as presented neglects to note that the federal government also has a responsibility for the health care of the military and there are a number of Yukoners, constituents I have assisted, who have had issues with the federal government, no matter what their political stripe, and their management of the health care services for military. A thorough discussion of the motion would include that and would offer an opportunity for amendment.

The other point missing from this particular motion is that there are several significant current concerns around the dental care and issues between the professional sector and First Nations and the federal government. Those two concrete suggestions might be offered to the federal government with respect to those particular issues in a thorough discussion on motion day.

Another point with respect to this particular motion and the member’s — the minister in this case — desire to discuss it on the eve of the federal election, we really should also discuss the fact that one of the other key parties in the federal election — the drug plan, which would cost up to a billion dollars annually — their own candidate, an experienced Health minister, has pointed out that the Conservative drug plan would in fact be six times the estimated cost that their leader is saying.

The federal election campaign will be fought on the doorsteps of this country. It need not be fought this afternoon in this Legislature. This Legislature has a greater responsibility right now to be discussing $700 million of taxpayers’ money, and it’s unfortunate that the Minister of Health and Social Services has chosen to grandstand instead.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, our position remains firm. We are cognizant of the federal government’s responsibilities to health care for First Nation members of Canada.

Now, I can understand why the member opposite is sensitive to asking the federal Liberal government to live up to this commitment but this is an issue that has been led by the Auditor General. It is on the first ministers’ table right across the Canada and all three territories. Mr. Speaker, this is something the federal government is not doing and should be doing. Now, just because they happen to be a Liberal government and the member opposite takes exception to that, so be it. This is a motion that we have to move forward on. We have to demand the federal Liberal government come to the table, and this is an opportune time to do so. Mr. Speaker, we only have two days left in this sitting.

We have to look at the member opposite’s suggestion that they don’t have enough time for debate. The official opposition and the third party have failed to debate any line items in this largest budget ever in the history of the Yukon.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Mr. McRobb on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   The government House leader is grandstanding; he’s diverting away from the subject matter at hand at debate and needs to be reeled back in. There is a rule in the House rules against such practice. If I had a little more time, Mr. Chair, I’d be able to locate it for you.

Speaker:   There is no point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, this motion, as we stated earlier, will ask this Legislature — and I encourage all parties to support this motion. This is a very good motion. If we get into debate on the budget, the official opposition and the third party will be clearing $30 million an hour in departments and they wanted to have this session shortened, not lengthened. It was at our insistence that we had an obligation to the taxpayers of the Yukon to debate this budget.

Part of the debate of this budget is the health care needs of First Nation members in the Yukon, and to that end it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the federal Liberal government live up to their obligations to First Nations for health care — health care not just here in the Yukon but all across Canada. The feds have this wonderful ability to balance the budget of Canada on the back of health care, and it should not be that way. We are not going to have a better opportunity than we have today, coming into a federal election. The member opposite hit the nail right on the head, but unless we take the initiative, we’re not going to be able to get another red cent out of the federal government after the election. Leading into election is one thing; after election is another. But this motion deals with the fiduciary responsibility of the federal Liberal government. I couldn’t be more firm in my beliefs about what should happen.

The state of aboriginal health care in Canada has been reported by the Auditor General’s office and others as being deplorable. Let us do something about it. Let us get together and lobby the federal Liberal government to seize the initiative and move forward.

In the interest of moving forward in debate, I encourage all members to vote for this motion and let’s get back into the budget.

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Agree.

Mr. Rouble:   Agree.

Mr. Hassard:   Agree.

Mr. Cathers:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Disagree.

Mr. Arntzen:  Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 14 yea, one nay.

Speaker:   The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Clerk:   Motion No. 301, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Jenkins.

Speaker:   It is moved by the government House leader

THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as established by Motion No. 21 of the First Session of the 31^st Legislative Assembly, be amended by:

(1) rescinding the appointments of the Hon. Dennis Fentie and the Hon. Peter Jenkins; and

(2) appointing Dean Hassard and Brad Cathers to the Committee.

Speaker:   The Chair wishes to inform the House that Motion No. 185 will now be dropped from the Order Paper, since the object of that motion has been dealt with by Motion No. 301.

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

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

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

The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05. We will continue on with the Department of Justice.

Before we begin, do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a 10-minute recess.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. We will proceed with Bill No. 10, First Appropriation Act, 2004-05, with Vote 8, Department of Justice.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the additional opportunity to talk about the Department of Justice budget.

Within this budget we have a number of items. As members opposite are aware, the Department of Justice contains a number of very important services and programs, which we deliver on a day-to-day basis. One of these services is the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. We have monies allocated within this budget to conduct the consultations with Yukon First Nations. These consultations reflect our government-to-government relationship between the Yukon government and Yukon First Nations. It is a process that reflects the memorandum of understanding that the Government of Yukon signed off with the Kwanlin Dun First Nation in 2003, a commitment that was made to consult with all Yukon First Nations on the future of corrections in the Yukon, as well as to ensure the full involvement of First Nations in the design, delivery and evaluation of correctional services in the Yukon.

And, of course, members opposite know that a critical aspect to this particular initiative is to also ensure that First Nations are involved in the planning, the correctional programming within the facility and outside of the facility in our communities and, of course, in planning the further design of the correctional facility.

Certainly within this budget we have additional resources allocated to the victim services and the family violence prevention unit to provide for additional training in our communities, to provide for additional monies for contract services to provide clinical supervision and certainly to provide those very services that are so very important in our communities, whether that be spousal abuse programs, whether that be victim services programs, the very initiative to provide services either one-on-one or individual counselling or group counselling — to provide those very important services to both our victims and our offenders. When we talk about providing family violence prevention services, it’s something that I in conjunction with the Premier in his capacity as minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate as well as the Minister of Health and Social Services as well as the Premier also in his responsibilities for the Youth Directorate as well — we all work collectively, as well as the Minister of Education, to address this very dire problem that we have in our communities today.

It’s something we take very seriously. We are working to provide the additional services that are needed in our communities today. I believe that, yes, there’s always room for improvement but we are certainly working with our many partners, whether that’s with the various agencies or women’s associations, women’s transitional homes, shelters in our communities, or whether that’s with the RCMP, the judiciary or with the legal professions. We certainly work very closely with them on a day-to-day basis. One particular initiative that has worked in the past and continues to do a very good job of addressing domestic violence in our communities is that of the domestic violence treatment option, which has been very innovative, combining court with treatment. It has proven to significantly reduce the collapse rate of domestic violence cases before the courts.

That in itself and that particular program offer both assistance to the victim, ensuring that the victim is involved in every step along the way, and treatment for the offender, which is a very important component of addressing our root causes in our communities. So initiatives such as these we’re very happy to promote and continue to support.

The Family Violence Prevention Act is yet another very important initiative that was adopted by this Legislature years ago. We are continuing with the review of the act and are incorporating the views of the many participants on the steering committee overseeing the act itself.

So all of these different initiatives certainly help to provide the services and the needs of the citizens we serve on a day-to-day basis here.

Of course, as the members opposite are also aware, $100,000 was made available in the last supplementary budget to the Women’s Directorate, which we continue to work with in the advisory committee. That particular initiative was to address violence against women in the north and in particular aboriginal women as there is unfortunately three times the spousal abuse against aboriginal women than there is anywhere else in the country here in the north.

Working with our aboriginal women’s organizations and committees, we will soon be coming out with a number of community-based initiatives to address the very unfortunate situation we have and have had in the past. Also, together with the Women’s Directorate, the Department of Justice is also exploring the possibility of developing a territory-wide strategy on violence. This is one of our government priorities and has also been identified by the Family Violence Prevention Act review process. A territory-wide strategy would certainly help bring together government, First Nations governments and community organizations to enhance dialogue between our service providers, improve the services for both victims and offenders and provide coordinating mechanisms throughout the territory, as well as providing an overall framework for family violence prevention.

One particular example of an initiative that I was involved in last fall was the Northern Community Conference on Sexual Abuse, which was held last October. I believe we had close to 300 participants from all across the northern territories. They attended to share and learn best practices and ways to assist our victims of abuse and ways to combat domestic violence in our communities. We certainly learned from each other various approaches to this violent act and sexual abuse in our communities.

Again, our government has been expressing by voice as well as our actions, and we believe it is important to continue to do that.

Again, whether it’s remembering women and the violence that has occurred against women on a day such as December 6, Canada’s Day for Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women, or whether that may be the International Women’s Day, for which there was a vigil held on the steps of the Justice building, we are certainly there and, again, our actions speak loudly of our government’s support for women and the need to provide those various initiatives to not only assist our victims but to assist in providing the necessary treatment for offenders as well.

Certainly, through training opportunities, by working closely with our various agencies, by working with communities such as Watson Lake, we continue to provide support, either through facilitating discussions or providing additional services in our communities.

I refer to the community of Watson Lake. Watson Lake is one example of a community that actually requested assistance from our government last fall. Since then, over the last several months, almost a year, that community has very much taken ownership of the problems at hand. They have tackled the issues, hand in hand, collectively, with one another, with the various agencies, with the various governments. And they have been able to effect change, and I believe that is change for the betterment of that community and change for the betterment of the entire territory.

There are initiatives looking at crime prevention, for example: Citizens on Patrol. There are initiatives such as auxiliary police. They’re currently recruiting four auxiliary police in the community of Watson Lake. That particular community is holding regular meetings among the mayor and council, the Liard First Nation chief and council, the RCMP, chamber of commerce, and of course all the various agencies within the community, including our educators, people within our Justice department, and talking about some of the issues and what we can do to address some of the unfortunate circumstances that have found their way in the community. I certainly applaud all our communities for rising and taking action against violence in our communities. It is only through those particular actions that we will be able to effect change in the territory.

In addition, we will continue to provide support to the RCMP. That certainly is reflected within this budget. The RCMP, through the aboriginal community constable program and through our territorial police service agreement, support the Liard First Nation through the tripartite police agreement that has been in place for a number of years, which we have just been able to extend to the year 2008, I understand.

We continue to work with our family violence prevention unit and through them provide education, training sessions to each of our RCMP members on all the various elements incorporated within the Family Violence Prevention Act. These are all very positive initiatives and these are all part of the recommendations so that we aim at improving agency cooperation, public education and awareness of family violence issues in the territory.

There are initiatives such as the DVTO, the domestic violence treatment option, of which I am very pleased to speak. When we talk about the community of Watson Lake as an example, members of the Justice department were actually just speaking recently to members in Watson Lake to see the possibility of arranging a domestic violence treatment option court in the community of Watson Lake. It seems to have been well-received to date and we will certainly support those very initiatives.

Through our Department of Health, of course we work hand in hand providing support to our elders, to our seniors, providing support to our youth. Justice is just one very important department, but we work very closely with other departments in ensuring that services are provided on a timely basis.

So thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to provide an overview of some of the very worthy initiatives that our department continues to undertake. I certainly thank each and every one of our employees within the Department of Justice, and all the various agencies that we do partner with on an ongoing basis to provide services to Yukoners.

Ms. Duncan:   I would like to thank the minister for her lengthy responses to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin. This must be the only government in history that filibusters their own budget. Unfortunately, the scrap at SCREP that has gone on for several sessions of the Legislature is doing the public a disservice.

The amendments have tried to deal with such issues as 12 days of debate on which larvicide the government should choose and now we have ended up with this situation, where a government is filibustering their own budget.

I have three or four very short questions for the Minister of Justice, and then I’m prepared to move on in this particular department. There is an increase in victim services. It’s up eight percent. The minister has addressed that particular issue. She did not, however, indicate whether or not there is any new programming initiative. My direct question is: is this an enhancement of existing program initiatives or are there new programs included in this eight-percent expenditure increase?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I guess I go on at great length, particularly with our departments, because I think we have a lot of good news to bring, and perhaps the opposition members don’t agree. We take the opportunity to inform Yukoners about what our government is doing.

With respect to the member opposite’s question about the eight-percent increase, there are a number of things. I think I touched on some. One reason is that there is an increase to the personnel budget of the victim services, family violence prevention unit. There are also monies incorporated for training in the unit to support community training, as well as money identified within the very same unit for clinical supervision in order to provide primarily professional support for counsellors who work in this area. This is to avoid burnout in this particularly difficult field.

So this enhances existing program initiatives that we have in place in this unit — initiatives that are working and that we support.

Ms. Duncan:   The increased services, I would concur with the minister, are important, and I particularly appreciate that there have been resources dedicated to staff. However, I am concerned that there aren’t any new initiatives with which we could substantiate the progress that has been achieved and to further the progress. The federal government has provided new money under the access to justice program — $270,000. What specific programs does that money cover?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   This is actually $210,614 for each of the three years. That is part of the investment fund that is being administered through the Yukon Legal Aid Society.

Ms. Duncan:   There is also, as I understand it, an additional increase to the Legal Aid budget. Is this additional federal money, over and above the access to justice money? Is Legal Aid accessing additional federal dollars from two envelopes? Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   These additional monies are all incorporated within the access to justice agreement. The member opposite is quite correct, in that there has been an increase to legal aid.

When we talk about the investment fund, this is an actual new fund that has been put in place by the federal government, and this particular year is year 1 of a new three-year agreement.

Ms. Duncan:   How is this investment fund used and accessed, or how is it anticipated that it will be used?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   This particular fund was developed in large part through our department working very closely with the Yukon Legal Aid Society. They put forward a proposed business plan to the federal government. I understand that it has been endorsed and adopted as such.

Ms. Duncan:   So will Yukoners see the benefit of this federal money then by enhanced legal aid services? Is that how the average Yukoner will see the benefit of these monies?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   That is correct. The intent of this fund is to enhance services available to Yukoners. One initiative that comes to mind is the poverty Law Line, for example, so it’s an enhancement of services being provided by Legal Aid. So we certainly look forward to improved access to these particular initiatives.

Ms. Duncan:   There is some monies for the Yukon Utilities Board, but could the minister outline what hearing might be scheduled for the Utilities Board? I believe it’s $100,000. I don’t have the precise budget figure in front of me. Is this anticipated for a hearing, or what is it anticipated for?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Of course, we always anticipate that there may or may not be particular utility hearings, so we budget as such. Certainly there could be more, there could be less, there could be none, but we certainly do put a budget forward. We can reflect increases in the supplementary, but this is just but one figure. I certainly don’t know of any anticipated hearings.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s also generally anticipated that this money is recoverable from the Yukon Development Corporation. The minister has nodded — thank you for stating that for the record.

Under her area of responsibility, the minister also has the legislation for the forthcoming legislative session. There has been talk of some amendments to existing acts. There’s also the necessity of reviewing our existing legislation. One that comes immediately to mind is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which we talked about in this Legislature last week. When a person’s privacy has been violated, there’s no remedy in that legislation — none that I could see. So there are problems in some of our existing legislation.

Does the minister have anything she could or will share with the House today in regard to the forthcoming legislative agenda and/or any legislative review being undertaken by her department?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Until those actual discussions have been finalized among the caucus members in Cabinet, I’m a little leery to put forward that information. We do have a fall sitting coming up, and that will primarily be geared toward addressing legislation. Please be assured there will be legislation coming forward in due time, but we have to finalize that legislative agenda.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I’ve asked the minister in every one of the Justice debates we’ve had to date if I could please have a list of the outstanding court cases against government. We get out of session, and I don’t know what happens to that request, but I have yet to receive a list of outstanding court cases against the government. I’ve asked every session. I’ve never received it. It’s common public information and has been readily provided in the past on the floor of the Legislature. I don’t understand why I don’t get it. Would she please ensure I receive it this time?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As I understand it, that information has not been provided in the past. Perhaps if the member opposite has correspondence of the past, I certainly haven’t been advised of that. I have been made aware, however, though, that that information is readily available to the public through the court registry. So the member opposite is very welcome to access that information through there.

Ms. Duncan:   Well, I’ll go to the former Member for Riverside’s documents and get a copy of the letter that was courteously provided by the Department of Justice in the past. Previous members weren’t told to go down and look at the court registry. It was done as a matter of courtesy in the Legislature. It’s unfortunate that that practice has not continued.

Can the minister advise the House — $463,000 has been set aside to deal with the last fire marshal’s report, some of the ongoing structural issues and the Barr Ryder report in the supplementary budget. There has been $50,000 spent on engineers, and hopefully the remainder is going to be revoted at some time. When is the work going to be concluded, and when will the fire marshal next visit the jail?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As for the next visit of the fire marshal, I certainly couldn’t say on the floor of the Legislature. I’m not completely in tune to the fire marshal’s schedule. But we are working to adhere to each and every one of the recommendations made by the fire marshal. The tender, I understand, will be closing very soon. It was to close last Thursday, if I’m not mistaken, but due to the particular request of several contractors in the Yukon, they were looking for an extension so we agreed to a one-week extension.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the difficulty with the structure is the ability to meet the fire marshal’s requirements and the National Building Code requirements, even after the government does these repairs. So we’ve put professionals in an untenable situation — engineers, electricians, fire marshal — and they’re not meeting national codes, no matter how much money the government throws at repairs.

Is the fire marshal going to be able to sign off when these repairs are done?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   That’s exactly what we are doing as a government. The moment that we issued a notice that we were postponing the redevelopment of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre, we immediately notified the fire marshal. At that time the fire marshal took a tour and has been working with our department ever since, as well as with the Department of Highways and Public Works, to look at what necessary improvements need to be done. Certainly that has been outlined in a report and we are adhering to that.

Ms. Duncan:   All of the work that was done prior to the minister taking office — has it all been sealed in the archives or has she had access to any of that information? I am talking about architectural drawings, consultations with First Nation elders — the significant amount of work that was done.

I recognize that Cabinet submissions would have been sealed, as well as perhaps the documentation leading up to those Cabinet submissions. Has that information been made available to the minister?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   We have had a couple of briefings for our caucus members and certainly myself, as Minister of Justice. We were apprised of all the work that was done by the previous government. I refer to the elders regional working group. Again, I would just refer to my remarks when the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations and I presented the draft consultation plan to the leadership about 10 or so days ago.

We certainly made it a priority that the first order of business will be to review the very work that was completed.

Ms. Duncan:   Have there been any discussions with either the British Columbia, Alberta or Northwest Territories governments or any other governments — and I’m not referring to First Nation governments, but other provincial or territorial governments — with regard to temporary housing of prisoners? I would like to put this in two distinct categories. We have the issue with the not criminally responsible patients, or those awaiting psychiatric evaluation. Have we reached an agreement with other provinces or territories with regard to housing these prisoners in a more effective manner? That’s one question. The second question is: what about our existing prisoners at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre? Have we had discussions about housing them while repairs are being conducted, while the reconstruction is under discussion?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   For those individuals who are waiting perhaps for a psych assessment or perhaps when those individuals who have been declared by the court to be not criminally responsible are ordered to seek treatment at an Outside psychiatric hospital, we have had agreements in place. They’ve been informal agreements in place with Alberta and British Columbia. We have since confirmed those arrangements with each of the hospitals and we even went so far as to talk with Saskatchewan as well, which we just put to use with a particular other matter that came up last week.

We are certainly working to formalize those arrangements we have in place, albeit keeping in mind that in many of these hospitals clear across the country there are resources being stretched with respect to psychiatric patients and services that are required. Within those particular jurisdictions if there are waiting lists of individuals in Alberta, for example, as I understand, Alberta people will come first, and we will be served thereafter. But certainly we have been working to provide more formal arrangements with our hospitals, and we’ve also since talked with Saskatchewan as well.

Ms. Duncan:   That covers off those awaiting psychiatric assessment. Could I ask the minister to then address our existing inmate population? Has she had discussions with other governments with regard to providing not only the housing situation but the programming at other institutions during the time we’re dealing with these repairs and the eventual, we hope, reconstruction of the Whitehorse Correctional Centre?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   We have been working pretty closely as a department, coming up with an interim plan to accommodate the renovations to occur at the facility this summer, and that is exactly what we’ll be doing — working to accommodate those various renovations. We’re hoping for a relatively smooth transition while the renovations do take place.

With respect to other jurisdictions, have I had discussions? No.

Ms. Duncan:   Have the departmental staff, that the minister is aware of?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As I understand it, Whitehorse Correctional Centre can house up to 73 individuals at a time within the facility. Beyond that, in exceptional circumstances, it can accommodate others. If the occupancy load were to exceed that particular number, we would be working very closely with the fire marshal and other officials to ensure that the safety and security of our inmate population, as well as of our staff, is maintained at all times.

So in that particular case, if need be, I suppose you could say that other correctional centres across the country — we would be prepared to handle. We would be prepared to work with other jurisdictions to accommodate if in fact there was an overflow or if in fact there was a problem within our inmate population — that we need additional space. So certainly we always work to meet contingency plans, but to date there hasn’t been any reason to look at that particular option.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, there has been significant discussions over the past number of years since the closure of the jail in Teslin with the Teslin Tlingit Council, and there has been funding, as well, allocated for the drawdown of justice. Could the minister just bring us up to date as to where those negotiations are currently? Is this the final year of the funding and what are the plans with that former correctional facility?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As I understand it, the agreement that has been in place over the last five years is a contribution agreement from the Department of Justice to the Teslin Tlingit Council for $200,000 a year, and we are in the last year of that contribution agreement. There have been no further discussions about what happens after that.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the minister just refreshed my memory. There were significant discussions around the drawdown of justice, like a PSTA negotiation. Did those conclude? I’m not sure how they finished. It has been 16 months and my memory is not serving me that well. So what happened, and what’s the current status of those discussions?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   The member opposite is correct that the Teslin Tlingit Council has been working with the federal government and us toward coming up with an implementation plan for their administration of justice agreement. As I understand it — and I would have to clarify this — a mandate has been received from all parties to proceed with the implementation.

Ms. Duncan:   Perhaps I could just ask the minister if, as more information becomes available over the summer months, she would just keep us updated on that. I would appreciate it.

I would just like to conclude by noting that the minister unfortunately has had the situation where her deputy minister has moved on. On behalf of the Legislature, I certainly wish the former Deputy Minister of Justice well. I also wish the minister and the government the best in recruiting for this particular position. It is an extremely difficult position to fill. The former deputy’s services will be very much missed. I am sure they will be very welcome in Saskatchewan, which is where he has moved on to.

I wish the government well in the recruitment and wish our former deputy minister well and thank him for his services to the Yukon public.

That concludes my questions, Mr. Chair.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? Hearing none, we will proceed line by line.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I would request the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 8, the Department of Justice, cleared or carried as required.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 8, Department of Justice, cleared or carried as required.

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent. That concludes Vote 8, Department of Justice.

Chair:  I understand that we’re moving on now to Vote 2, Executive Council Office.

Chair:   We will continue on with general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I’m happy to introduce the Executive Council Office budget for fiscal year 2004-05. This budget is focused to support the objectives established for the Executive Council Office. These objectives include, but are not limited to, finalizing the outstanding land claim and self-government agreements, ensuring effective implementation of the settled land claims, building strong government-to-government relations with all Yukon First Nations, fostering effective relations with Canada and our neighbouring jurisdictions, providing management audit services to government, enhancing the government’s support for youth by promoting participating in the territorial social, economic, cultural and political activities, ensuring effective communications with the Yukon public, implementing the development assessment process, fostering the growth and revitalization of Yukon aboriginal languages, and providing advice, analysis and other services to Cabinet and its committees.

The operation and maintenance budget request recognizes that the government must continue to use our financial resources wisely and ensure priority initiatives are fully supported.

This Executive Council Office budget forecasts overall spending of $19 million. This is an increase of $1,643,000 for Executive Council Office over the 2003-04 forecast. As noted on page 4-4, the increases are requested in both the other and transfer payment allotments. The increase in the other allotment is due primarily to the following two initiatives: an additional $100,000 under corporate services, policy for the electoral reform contract, which will continue to June 2005, and an additional $605,000 under land claims and implementation secretariat for an increase in land claims implementation projects as additional final and self-government agreements come into effect.

The increase in the transfer payment allotment is due primarily to the following budget adjustments: an additional $836,000 under land claims and implementation secretariat for increases in funding to boards and councils established pursuant to the final agreements, and an additional $150,000 under the Youth Directorate for increases in support to the Youth of Today Society, Bringing Youth Toward Equality and the Whitehorse Youth Centre society organizations.

Members will note on the program detail pages that the personnel allotment shows changes due primarily to the effects of the collective agreement and settlement and to the movement of positions within branches to provide the necessary services for the department. As in previous years, the allocation for land claims activities represents the largest investment, approximately 42 percent of the total Executive Council Office budget.

First Nation relations has been allocated $1,241,000 with the express mandate of building strong government-to-government relations and enhancing business partnerships and opportunities with all Yukon’s First Nations. $1,100,000 of this amount will be recoverable from Canada. Intergovernmental relations allocation is $962,000 to carry out their work of developing positive working relationships with other governments. Some program areas within Executive Council Office have had minor budget reductions, but the corporate and program services Executive Council Office provides to the departments and Cabinet will continue as in the past.

The most significant decrease you will notice is in devolution. That budget was reduced by 30 percent, reflecting the end of the term positions in Executive Council Office, which were supporting the devolution exercise. All the funds requested for this program area will be distributed to the departments across the government for priority transitional activities related to the transferred responsibilities. The decrease in the budget for the development assessment process reflects a partial-year allocation to November 2004, as a responsibility for environmental assessment of projects in the Yukon will be filled by the designated offices of the YESAA board.

On the capital side of the budget, again, the majority of the funds — 81 percent — are requested for responsibilities relating to land claims and implementation. The majority of these funds are designated for land development costs outlined in the Umbrella Final Agreement. The remainder will support specific implementation projects across departments.

With these brief comments, I’d be happy to answer any questions the members may have on the budget for the Executive Council Office, specifically in line-by-line, as that would be the most constructive debate we could carry out in this House. Unfortunately that has not taken place over the last number of months.

Mr. Hardy:   I have very few comments to make in this department. Many of the issues were brought up in general debate of the budget as a whole. In some cases we did get some answers, and in most cases we didn’t. I’m not going to belabour the point. There are many outstanding questions that still need to be asked in many other departments.

I’m very pleased to see an increase in youth services, the spending there. I applaud the government for that. I believe that is going to go to assisting many of the programs of these groups that have been named to implement positive change for youth within the Yukon.

I hope it does get spread out in that regard. I’m very pleased with that. I do have some concerns with regard to decreases of nine percent in the First Nations relations and the decrease in intergovernmental relations of 14 percent, since this government has been very adamant that their intergovernmental relations and all the MOUs and agreements they’ve signed are having a very positive effect. I do have concerns when I see a reduction in the money being spent in that area.

I have one outstanding question. Is the government involved in any way, shape or form at this present time with the issues surrounding the recently failed vote of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation? Have they been asked to come in and assist in any way, shape or form for the future? Have the Premier or his department had any discussions on how to advance the settlement of this claim and readdress the issue the vote has brought about?

If the Premier could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it and, hopefully, that’ll be it.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The discussions to date have evolved around the fact that the Carcross-Tagish First Nation will be holding a general assembly. That will be an assembly whereby they seek a mandate on the next steps in regard to this matter. As stated, the government respects the decision made by the citizens of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, and we will also await and respect the decision that comes out of their general assembly. We will act accordingly once we know what the results of the assembly are and what kind of mandate the leadership has been provided by its citizens.

Ms. Duncan:   Following up on that question, I appreciate the answer with regard to the next steps with the Carcross-Tagish First Nation. I believe it was late last week the Kwanlin Dun First Nation announced they were delaying their ratification vote. There’s a committee in place that deals with such things as hiring the returning officer and ensuring that information is put out to citizens so they’re well aware of the ramifications of the vote. It’s basically a non-partisan committee, if you will — and I’m going to refer to it as the ratification committee.

My understanding is that the ratification committee that is composed of three individuals is funded by Canada. Is my understanding correct?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Yes, Mr. Chair, that is correct. Canada does fund the ratification committee. I would also point out that it is not Canada or Yukon that makes the determination on the timelines for the ratification process. That is solely within the purview of each respective First Nation — in this case, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation.

Ms. Duncan:   I wasn’t suggesting that it was anything, anyone or any government other than the First Nation government that set the time frame for that ratification vote.

Canada and Yukon are represented on the committee, however; and their work is paid for by the Government of Canada — the work of the three. There are three bodies named.

Now, Kwanlin Dun has announced that their ratification vote is delayed. My question is: is Canada going to continue to fund the committee during this time so that the committee can continue their work? As I understand it, they have quite a public process. It takes a long time to outline the complete details of these very comprehensive claims. Will Canada continue to fund that committee during the time period that the vote has been — I don’t want to use the word "delayed" but it has been set aside for a time. Will Canada continue to fund the committee?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   At this point, the First Nation has made the determination that they will exercise their authority to extend the ratification timeline. I would submit that Canada will be responding in the very near future to the First Nation with regard to the funding. I am sure they would respond directly to the First Nation.

Ms. Duncan:   I would hope that Canada would see fit to fund this committee and the Yukon names a member to that committee. So I would hope that Canada would see fit to continue the work of the ratification committee in the interim and an extended work period, if you will. I would hope that the Premier would express that view to the minister responsible.

Would the minister responsible for the Executive Council Office, the Premier, outline the current status with regard to the White River First Nation land claim?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, let me point out that Yukon has expressed to Canada its position of support for the decision that the Kwanlin Dun First Nation has made. In regard to the White River First Nation, we are in the process where we believe in the very near future the ratification process itself will be determined. Beyond that, we know that there is no more mandate to negotiate land claims in the Yukon. Therefore, the only other alternative, once the citizens of First Nations made their decision, is either ratifying a land claim or remaining an Indian Act band.

Ms. Duncan:   What I understand from the minister’s response is that, first of all, Yukon did make their support known for the Kwanlin Dun to extend this ratification period. Will the minister provide opposition parties with a copy of the letter or representations he has made?

With regard to White River, I understand the minister’s response to have been that there has not yet been a decision whether or not to proceed with ratification. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We anticipate in the very near future that that decision will be made. The government has urged the First Nation to proceed with ratification to allow its citizens to make the decision.

Ms. Duncan:   I didn’t get a commitment from the minister to supply opposition parties with copies of the representations made to Canada in support of Kwanlin Dun.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, our support was direct to the First Nation. We voiced that in a meeting with the Kwanlin Dun leadership and the chief himself. It was between Canada and the First Nation, in terms of the First Nation extending to Canada its position that it was going to exercise its authority to extend its ratification process and, as I pointed out, I’m sure Canada will respond to the First Nation in regard to that decision and the funding that goes with it. Our support was voiced to the First Nation in a meeting.

Ms. Duncan:   I would put it to the Yukon public that the Yukon government and the Premier have a greater role to play and should communicate their desire to see Canada continue to fund the ratification process, particularly the public education component of the ratification process, and extend that funding to the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and the ratification committee.

In Calgary the minister announced the work being undertaken on the transboundary claim with the Acho Dene Koe, and that there would be negotiations undertaken with that particular transboundary First Nation. Are there other transboundary claimants, other than the Kaska, that the Yukon government has entered into negotiations, or restarted negotiations, with?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, the Yukon is obligated under the Umbrella Final Agreement to negotiate transboundary settlements as only a third party. The federal government must also be at the table. I think the Umbrella Final Agreement is quite specific. Maybe I should rephrase "third party" — as one of the parties at the table, because it’s specific in the Umbrella Final Agreement that there would be a necessity that other transboundary jurisdictions also be involved in the negotiation.

So, to date, there are no transboundary negotiations between Yukon, Canada, any other jurisdiction and/or a transboundary First Nation.

In fact, we are awaiting Canada’s position and Canada’s lead, considering Canada is the fiduciary agency — the responsible government. They must come forward with their mandate and their willingness to commence transboundary negotiations. We await that.

However, we also recognize that there are, in certain areas of the Yukon, tremendous potential to advance development in such areas as oil and gas. We are not averse to sitting down with other jurisdictions, transboundary First Nations, and Canada, in fact, to develop business arrangements that are based in reciprocal agreements in order to advance development in not only the Yukon, but also northern B.C., southwest N.W.T. — all relevant to net benefit Canada, but, more importantly, arrangements that will ensure the maximum retained benefits for the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and so on.

Ms. Duncan:   I am quite well aware of the Yukon’s obligations under the Umbrella Final Agreement. As a former minister, I didn’t announce negotiations with a transboundary First Nation in a speech in Calgary. The current minister did.

My question is: what other negotiations or preparatory work is being undertaken? There are Yukon First Nations who have transboundary claims south of the border. There are other transboundary claimants in the Yukon, other than the Kaska and the Acho Dene Koe. What work is the land claims secretariat undertaking with regard to these negotiations — or anticipated negotiations — to support our Yukon transboundary claimants? Is there any work being done by the land claims secretariat on these other transboundary claims?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, first, I think it’s important to rebut a statement made on what we are doing in places like Calgary in promoting and ensuring that Yukon is an attractive place for the resource industry to look to and invest in. Unlike the former member when responsible as a minister, the Yukon has broadened its horizons. It does not simply go to the investment community in places like Calgary to announce that the Yukon will support the Alaska Highway pipeline. Everybody knew that at the outset. That’s not what the industry wanted to hear anyway.

The industry wants to know what is land access certainty? How can they work in partnership with Yukon and First Nations to advance land access certainty in the development of resources? They’re very interested in investing in the Yukon. The transboundary issue, again I point out, is a federal obligation and responsibility. The Yukon is one party obligated to conduct, along with Canada and other jurisdictions, and transboundary First Nations, a negotiating process as laid out in the Umbrella Final Agreement. So until Canada comes forward with the appropriate transboundary mandate, there are no tables today, but we are not averse to sitting down to negotiate reciprocal benefit arrangements on a business level to advance the investment in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the significant increase in the deputy minister’s salary is a Management Board decision, and that is chaired by the Premier. The Premier appoints the deputy ministers. I believe the figure is a 25-percent increase in the salary range. Is the same salary range increase anticipated for Cabinet and caucus staff?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, let’s get the correct information into the House. This is not a 25-percent increase in specific salary; it’s a 15-percent increase in salary range from the minimum threshold to the ceiling — a dramatic difference. To date, in the Yukon government’s corporate structure, there are some deputy ministers with this change in range who fall below the minimum threshold, which means they would have to be increased to be brought in within the range. Beyond that, there are no increases for any deputy minister until performance evaluations are concluded, but the one advantage now that the Yukon has is to compete on the national stage for attracting deputy ministers to the Yukon as we are now much closer on average with other jurisdictions in Canada. No, this policy has nothing to do with caucus and Cabinet staff, nor members opposite.

Ms. Duncan:   I know which act our salary falls under, and I know which act the deputy ministers’ salaries fall under, and the government has clearly made a decision where they have increased the salary range. They’ve picked a different range. That’s in keeping with southern Canada. I don’t have a problem with that. I was very pleased to hear the minister responsible commit on the floor of the House to the performance evaluations as well, because that’s an important element of this discussion. The minister has stated on the floor of the House that there is not a similar increase anticipated for the Cabinet and caucus employee staff. The minister has said, "No".

I just have a couple of other questions with regard to the Executive Council Office. The Yukon Party committed to advancing a Crown in right of Yukon case and review. Has there been any work done on that?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First, just so there’s no confusion, Mr. Chair, there will be caucus and Cabinet increase based on merit and other forced increases. I guess that happens on an annual basis. Just so there’s no confusion for the member opposite, who historically sometimes gets confused with the facts.

However, we pass no judgement. I merely state for the record what does take place.

Now, with regard to the other issue — Mr. Chair, in the meantime, while the official gives me some information, the member might want to ask more questions until I get the information.

Mr. Chair, that work is ongoing. What needs to be critiqued in the greatest detail before a decision is made is proceeding to the possibility of legal challenge. I shouldn’t say "legal challenge" — asking a ruling on a legal question. That’s something we’re going to take our time in doing because, when you bring forward the question to challenge the courts to provide a response, I and the government feel it’s important that we do our homework and present the case as it should be.

Ms. Duncan:   Before proceeding, is the minister prepared to share with the Legislative Assembly the background information, or will it just be a Cabinet decision on whether or not to proceed with this Crown in right of Yukon case? Will that be a Cabinet decision or is the minister prepared to share the background information that’s being prepared with the Legislature and allow a vote as to whether or not we proceed with that case?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, I see little purpose in that exercise. The member opposite, when in government, negotiated devolution in the absence of determining and resolving the question of Crown in right. So the member opposite already has a position. It is hardly worthwhile to spend time in this Legislature reaffirming that the member has no desire whatsoever to see the Yukon advance its governance and ability in this territory under a possible Crown in right.

The minister also failed to address the forest fire issue in the devolution agreement. The member also failed to address the offshore issues for Yukon in determining a boundary. The member also negotiated an agreement that had a shortfall on wages. The list goes on and on.

This was a decision that was made very public through the campaign. It’s well known that the Yukon Party government will look into the issue of Crown in right.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, on the offshore boundaries issue, there was a committee established under YOGA, as the member well knows. That committee has been somewhat slow in getting established. I am sure the very hard-working public servants who spent many years and many hours negotiating a very good devolution agreement truly appreciate the current Premier’s comments on that particular agreement. It was very well done. I also recall very vividly the current Premier refusing to attend the briefings on the devolution agreement as it progressed.

It’s now well known that, with the Yukon Party commitment to establishing some kind of a constitutional challenge to the Crown in right, they have discovered that they don’t have a case, have not done their homework, and are not proceeding with it, although it’s contained in this particular budget.

I would just like to return very briefly to the comments on the transboundary negotiations. The minister said — it was part of the discussions on the Kaska bilateral agreement — with regard to the Acho Dene Koe that he had met personally with the Acho Dene Koe and has subsequently instructed the land claims officials to prepare for the negotiation of an interim measures agreement in the short term and a transboundary land claims settlement in southeast Yukon for the long term.

So what is the status of the interim measures agreement? My understanding is that that would certainly be outside the Umbrella Final Agreement.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, here’s that confusion again. The issue that we as a government are looking into on a Crown in right is not a constitutional question, nothing of the sort; it’s a legal question. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. The member opposite is certainly incorrect in her assertion that this is a constitutional question. It is not. It is a simple legal question. Does the Yukon, considering its authority as a jurisdiction with a duly elected government and after achieving devolution and so on and so forth, have under legal terms a Crown in right? This is not about provincehood, which would be a constitutional question. I’m not asking about provincehood; we’re simply asking the legal question on Crown in right.

As far as interim measures, interim measures are something that can be used in a way, in the absence of land claim settlements, to advance such things as development. It’s not outside the Umbrella Final Agreement at all. In fact, the process we are envisioning includes the federal government, which must live up to their obligation on the rights, titles and interests question that they are committed to in this country. Therefore, in our efforts to continue to advance the territory’s development and partnership with First Nations, we’re not going to sit around and wait forever for the federal government to come forward with a land claim mandate, but we certainly would propose to them options on interim measures until they spend the necessary time to develop the appropriate mandate to conclude transboundary negotiations.

Ms. Duncan:   The current budget for the Executive Council Office has $300,000 set aside for First Nation economic accords and agreements. Which accords or agreements are envisioned under this $300,000, and with which First Nations?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s money available for any First Nation in the Yukon that wishes to sit down with the Yukon government and negotiate a framework economic development agreement. Our commitment is full partnership. Our commitment is sharing not only in the decisions that create benefit but sharing in the benefits themselves. This is not something that the third party supports whatsoever. The third party is very much about "them" and "us". This government is not. This government views the Yukon and its future very much within the context of meaningful relationships with First Nations and involving them in the economic development and growth in the future of the territory.

There’s a real good reason for that. It will provide an increased benefit for the territory overall. It will assist First Nations on building capacity. It will obviously provide sources of revenue in the Yukon whereby we share and increase our ability to promote and achieve responsible development in this territory in partnership. It also improves our relationship, our government-to-government operations, and the list goes on and on. It’s much about relationship building, it’s much about envisioning and delivering on the spirit and the intent of what the settlements were to bring the Yukon Territory and its First Nation people and indeed all Yukoners.

Ms. Duncan:   So there’s $300,000 contained in a line vote and we have no framework around the expenditure of these funds? We have no guidelines? There is no anticipated — as the member’s colleague would say — there are no negotiations in the hopper for the expenditure of these funds? It’s just $300,000 in the hope we will negotiate an economic accord? Are there any measures at all anticipated in this expenditure?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Herein lies the problem: the third party’s unbelievable misunderstanding of the Yukon, its traditional territories and its regions. This is not an umbrella accord, because every traditional territory and every region has different economic potential. It’s all based on specific development. This is an investment to advance partnerships, to advance building capacity, and it includes or ensures the participation in the economic environment of the Yukon. It is also investing in language restoration initiatives.

So the member opposite has certainly diminished what First Nations believe to be economic partnerships by lowering the bar to one generic overall and overriding umbrella accord, considering that the First Nations to date who have settled have achieved governance in their traditional territory, have established ownership of lands and resources and are very much involved in what takes place in their traditional territory; therefore, economic agreements would be specific to what development could, may and will, in all likelihood, take place in this territory from now into the future.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the only one in this Legislature diminishing the full weight and significance of the self-government agreements is the member opposite, who just talked himself into a compete circle; he’s so intent on spin. I asked: there is $300,000 set aside for First Nation economic accords/agreements. I asked: what is this money intended for? The minister is using words like "umbrella." Is it intended for those nine First Nations who have self-government agreements? The minister, in his last answer, introduced the element of language, which would explain why this particular line item is in Executive Council Office as opposed to Economic Development. I’ll ask the minister again: what is this $300,000 line item intended for? What is it for?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The pages of Hansard — the written word — will show that the answer was given, but let’s reflect on the difference in positions. This government promotes and will continue to pursue economic partnerships with First Nations. The member opposite, when in government, was approached by First Nation leaders on this very concept, and she said a flat-out "No." I say to you, Mr. Chair, there’s no point debating with the member opposite, unless the member opposite is clear on what the third party’s real position is. It is anti-First Nation economic partnership from A to Z. That’s the third party’s position. The fact that the third party is now asking what this money is for even further reflects on that position and gives credence to what First Nations thought all along, that the third party — now and when in government — were anti-partnership with First Nations. They were totally against it.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister can spin and create Hansard however he wishes. There’s no point in engaging in that kind of nonsense with the minister opposite. A civil question warrants a civil answer. Unfortunately we don’t get them from that particular minister. Does the minister have any plans for decentralization of government now that the devolution agreement has been in place for a year?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   No, we don’t have plans for decentralizing government. We certainly have plans to create better governance in the territory; however, given the performance in debating the biggest budget ever in the history of the Yukon — the largest capital investment ever in the history of the Yukon — the fact that the members opposite tend to stay in general debate and the rhetoric that goes with general debate and refuse to get into line-by-line debate whereby they could contribute in representing their constituents says to the government side that we may want to decentralize the opposition.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate? Hearing none, we will then proceed with line-by-line.

Ms. Duncan:   I would request the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 2, Executive Council Office, cleared or carried as required.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 2, Executive Council Office, cleared or carried as required.

All Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   I believe there is unanimous consent. That concludes Vote 2, Executive Council Office.

Chair:   We will continue with Vote 12, Department of Finance.

Ms. Duncan:   I request the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 12, Department of Finance, cleared or carried as required.

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines in Vote 12, Department of Finance, cleared or carried as required.

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent. That concludes Vote 12, Department of Finance.

Chair:   We will continue with Vote 1, Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Staffen:   The Members’ Services Board is responsible for the budgets of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and its House Officers. This includes the Yukon Legislative Assembly, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Ombudsman/Information and Privacy Commissioner. Funding for the Conflicts Commissioner is included as a program in the budget of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

The Members’ Services Board reviewed Vote 1, estimates for the Yukon Legislative Assembly now before the House at its meeting of January 22, 2004. The board agreed to these estimates and further agreed that they be forwarded to the Minister of Finance for inclusion in the main estimates. The estimates found in Vote 1 are identical to those that re