077 Hansard
Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, March 31, 2008 -- 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Withdrawal of motions
Speaker: The Chair wishes to inform the House of a change that has been made to the Order Paper. Motion No. 251, standing in the name of the Minister of Health and Social Services, has been removed from the Order Paper at the minister's request.
We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of the Girl Guides of Canada
Hon. Mr. Hart: I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to Girl Guides of Canada, particularly the Yukon chapter as they launch cookie week across Canada in our Yukon communities. This organization has inspired thousands if not millions of young women the world over.
The Girl Guide movement began in 1909 in response to work that Lord Baden-Powell was undertaking in creating scouting for boys. During a scouting rally in London that 11,000 boys had gathered to participate in, a large but uncounted number of girls also showed up and demanded entry into the rally as well. Lord Baden-Powell was so impressed with their desire to participate that he asked his sister Agnes to create a similar program just for girls. So was born the Girl Guide movement, which has grown significantly since that fateful day.
The Girl Guide movement grew rapidly, thanks in part to Agnes and later, to Baden-Powell's wife, Olive, Lady Baden-Powell, who toured the United Kingdom tirelessly promoting Girl Guides wherever she went. Today, Girl Guides are active in 144 countries and boast a membership numbering in the millions.
Girl Guides began in Canada in 1910 with chapters formed in every region of the nation. While many will associate Girl Guides with the selling of their famous and delicious cookies, as an annual fundraiser for their organization, Girl Guides have provided a number of important services during their history. Girl Guide leaders have always tried to prepare girls to meet the challenges that they face in their lives head on -- whether it was Agnes Baden-Powell teaching girls to bandage wounds during World War I, or today's focus on teaching girls to think critically about beauty magazines and self-image and their individual happiness. Guiding has always been dedicated to helping girls be confident in themselves and to contribute to their community.
There are a number of prominent women who can say their lives were influenced by their association with Girl Guides, from the Queen Mother to Roberta Bondar, Canada's first female astronaut, who was also a doctor and a scientist before her space adventures began. Ask a woman who has been a Girl Guide about the meaning and the value it has played in their lives and they will undoubtedly share with you some very profound and valued memories of how their lives were influenced by this highly respected organization and the camaraderie of their fellow Guides.
I am honoured to acknowledge the excellent work and guidance of the Girl Guide movement that is provided to women of all ages around the world.
I urge Yukoners to support the organization during cookie week, and I know that I speak for all in this House when I say we will wish them continued success. May the international Girl Guide organization continue to make such a positive difference in so many lives.
Being as it is a tradition to provide a box of Girl Guide cookies, I will undertake to ensure that every member of the Legislature gets a box of cookies on behalf of Girl Guides of Canada.
In recognition of National Aboriginal Languages Day
Mr. Edzerza: I rise on behalf of the Legislative Assembly to pay tribute to this day, March 31, as National Aboriginal Languages Day, which was established by a special Chiefs Assembly on Education.
The history in Canada around aboriginal languages has not always been a positive one. One of the most destructive acts of those in charge of residential schools was to forbid the use of aboriginal languages. Children were punished if found using their first language. In many cases, the aboriginal language was the only one some children knew.
It may have been done with the objective in mind of supporting First Nations to have English language skills, which was essential in the dominant society, but the results have been devastating.
Language is culture. A person's thinking patterns, values and actions are the culture. Culture is expressed most clearly in the process of language use. Daily use of the language means that the culture is strong and is passed on.
First Nations' traditional culture has been gravely affected by the imposition of mainstream languages such as English and French. In the Yukon, there is a strong voice from our people. We are anxious to preserve our language and heritage. The territory has responded. First Nation languages are part of the curriculum of our schools. For decades, the Yukon Native Language Centre trained community language instructors, developed dictionaries and advocated preservation of the Athabaskan and Tlingit languages. Many of our elders continue to use aboriginal languages and encourage children to learn them. Aboriginal languages are used in many First Nation administrations of government, but there is still a serious concern about the threat of extinction of these languages.
Several languages across Canada have been declared extinct or are used only in ceremonies. More can and must be done here by all governments and First Nation speakers.
We can all be instrumental in actively using these essential tools of our culture.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those First Nation people who was never taught my Tahltan language. I could not communicate with my grandmother because she only spoke Tahltan, no English. Mr. Speaker, the sense of loss is indescribable in words.
Thank you.
Speaker: Are there any further tributes?
Introduction of visitors.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I would ask all members to join me in extending a warm welcome to the Austria Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Dr. Otto Ditz, and Ms. Maureen Ditz, who is also accompanied by Ms. Trudy Duller, Acting Consul General of the Consulate General of the Republic of Austria. Also joining with us is Pamela Bangart, our protocol officer.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any further introductions of visitors?
Are there returns or documents for tabling?
Are there reports of committees?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Nordick: I rise today to give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to undertake a review and assessment of all community solid waste facilities across the Yukon, and to develop a strategy to implement best practices for Yukon solid waste facilities appropriate for each community.
Mr. Mitchell: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Deputy Premier to explain to Yukoners why she said in this Legislature there would not be a loss on the $36.5 million in investments made by the Government of Yukon when in fact there has been.
Mr. Edzerza: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to create more supportive housing units for Yukoners afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder so that no one suffering from FASD ends up homeless and on the street.
Mr. Cardiff: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that
(1) under previous federal Liberal governments, a huge surplus was accumulated from unemployment insurance premiums paid by workers and employers;
(2) the Conservative government has recently announced the creation of an independent Crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board, the CEIFB;
(3) the CEIFB will begin with a cash reserve of $2 billion, which is significantly less than the accumulated EI fund surplus of $54 billion, as of the end of 2006-07; and
THAT this House urges the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation to use his meeting with the federal Minister of Human Resources and Social Development to ask that minister to increase the cash reserve of the CEIFB, and to explain to Canadian workers what has happened to the $54-billion surplus from the EI fund.
Mr. Hardy: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges to adopt clear rules that will allow members of the Yukon public who will be directly affected by any significant new legislation that is being proposed to appear as witnesses before Committee of the Whole when that legislation is being considered; and
THAT this House urges the Government House Leader to make appropriate arrangements with the opposition House leaders to facilitate the appearance of witnesses during Committee of the Whole debates on such legislation.
I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Minister of Economic Development not to pursue any further trade talks with Chinese officials or companies until there is a clear demonstration of willingness by the leadership of the People's Republic of China to negotiate a peaceful reconciliation of the current conflict with the people of Tibet and to make steps toward recognizing the sovereignty of Tibet as a distinct culture and political entity.
Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?
Is there a statement by a minister?
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Liquor Act amendments
Mr. Inverarity: Last Thursday, the minister in charge of the Yukon Liquor Corporation admitted that Cabinet ministers who had interests in hotels were part of the Liquor Act review. He said, "For the record, there were two ministers who owned hotels. I spoke at length with both of them…"
I believe the public is very interested to hear more about these conversations. This minister spoke at length about his Cabinet colleagues, about legislative changes that would affect a private business interest. Why should we believe these private discussions were serving the best interests of Yukoners?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: The question asked last week by the Member for Porter Creek South clearly stated his time frame of October 2002 and referred to our election campaign. He also referred to the two members as ministers. The discussions did occur in that time frame and during the consultations done by the government of the day in 2001.
I would remind the member that we were not elected at that time. We weren't members of this House; we weren't ministers. The discussions occurred during the development of our platform, and actually only occurred because I had a personal interest in the Liquor Act. It has been a matter of great interest to my constituents in Porter Creek North.
The matter was not given a priority because we had much work to do in substance abuse strategies. Once elected and taking government, no minister or member who is in a conflict of interest has participated in any discussions on that matter.
Mr. Inverarity: I'm not convinced and neither is the public, Mr. Speaker.
During the 2002 election campaign, the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association wrote a letter to the Premier asking about changes to the Liquor Act. In its letter, the association opposed making changes. In particular, they had serious concerns about the dilution of revenue streams by the introduction of neighbourhood pubs. Neighbourhood pubs would mean less money for people who already own hotels. The two ministers who were involved in discussions about the changes to the Liquor Act would be affected by the proposed changes to the act.
Are we to believe that the six-year delay in bringing forward these changes to the Liquor Act had nothing to do with the backroom conversations that this minister had with his political colleagues?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: The delays in addressing the Liquor Act all centred on the ability to deal with the recommendations and regulations rather than in legislation. For our listeners, this would mean that the corporation and the Cabinet could simply make changes without having to completely redraft the act. This turned out to be not the case.
This work was going on while we promoted our substance abuse action plan, and we developed an excellent strategy, through the Department of Health and Social Services, to deal with alcohol-related problems. It was time to modernize the act and to bring it into the 20th century at that point.
At no time did any minister in a conflict of interest, participate in discussions or be present at any meetings related to this. All discussions, as the Member for Porter Creek South asked, were prior to the 2002 election. If he doesn't like the answer, then maybe he should ask better questions, but the substance abuse action plan had to come first. That was the priority.
Mr. Inverarity: Poppycock. Last week the minister admitted that when the government looked at changes to the Liquor Act, the two ministers who owned hotels at the time were part of those discussions. He also told a local radio station he had discussions with another hotel owner who happened to be the Yukon Party campaign manager. In a meeting this week department officials confirmed that this government did no public consultations on changes to the Liquor Act. How can we believe that this government is acting in the best interests of Yukoners when they consult with their political insiders about making changes to the liquor law, but they won't consult with the public?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: For the member opposite, I do have concerns over a conflict of interest in this matter. The Member for Copperbelt, the Leader of the Liberal Party and chair of the Public Accounts Committee, has also filed a declaration with the Legislative Assembly that indicates he owns two hotels and holds two liquor licences. Yet this morning, on CHON FM --
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Order please. The Member for Copperbelt, on a point of order.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, that's not what the declaration shows. It shows a very, very minute interest and no decision-making capability. I think it's being misrepresented here and should be clarified. When the member speaks, he speaks of an opposition member who is a very, very small shareholder, not of anybody who is a decision maker.
Speaker: On the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the documents do show that he is a shareholder of Northern Visions, which does hold two liquor licences and owns two hotels. We're not talking about percentages here; we're talking about being honest with the Yukon public.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: From the Chair's perspective, there is no point of order. Obviously the Chair does not have the documents in front of him to be able to make those decisions in what happens outside of this Legislative Assembly. So, based on the information I have received here, there is no point of order.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: This is a clear mixing, as the member opposite put it, of public interest and private interests. Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the leader is under extreme pressure from his party. At this point, I would like to table the transcript of the documents this morning that I am referring to.
I do realize that no knives are as sharp as Liberal knives, since being elected leader and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with such a clear violation of conflict-of-interest rules might well suggest that this member should resign.
Actually, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker --
Speaker's statement
Speaker: You're done. Thank you.
Order please.
I had these discussions with my staff earlier, just in case the issue of conflict of interest came up. One member cannot accuse another member of being in conflict of interest. You can ask questions about that conflict, but you cannot accuse one member of being in conflict of interest. I'm loathe to interrupt debate here today, members; however, if this carries on, I will most certainly do that.
Question re: Liquor Act amendments
Mr. Mitchell: I have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; let's see what he has to say about all of this. Last Thursday, the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation spilled the beans -- or should I say, "the beer."
He admitted that he discussed the proposed changes to the act with his Cabinet colleagues who owned hotels at the time, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He stated "two ministers," Mr. Speaker, not "two candidates for election". One of the changes being considered was getting rid of the room requirement for hotels to hold liquor licences. This change would allow neighbourhood pubs to open. This change would put a dent in the bottom line of existing hotel owners, such as the minister. His colleague has admitted on the floor of this House that these conversations took place.
My question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: will he admit that he discussed amendments to the Liquor Act with the minister responsible while he owned a hotel and was a minister?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: I would remind the member opposite to review Hansard, where this member's question was, "… in October of 2002, the Yukon Party declared as part of its election campaign…". He then goes on later, "At that time, two government ministers owned hotels."
For the member opposite, during that time, it was a Liberal government, however short lived -- and a lot of people like to forget that. It was a Liberal government and no ministers owned hotels. The discussions came in the presentation and preparation of documents for the party platform; they did not occur in government; no ministers were involved in those discussions, nor have they been since.
Mr. Mitchell: I think we're getting a revisionist history lesson here, because the minister responsible for the Liquor Corporation actually acknowledged the question and said that for the member's information, there were two ministers.
Yukoners want an explanation from the minister himself, so I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who owns several hotels, could answer. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association was strongly against allowing neighbourhood pubs in Yukon. They said it would hurt existing hotel owners, such as the minister. Now we learn that the minister discussed the possible changes with his colleague, who is responsible for the Liquor Corporation.
Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources ever consult with the Conflicts Commissioner about meetings and, if not, why not?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: There were discussions with colleagues -- other candidates in the general election of 2002. None of us were elected; none of us were in government; none of us had any power to do anything; and none of us were in conflicts of interest at that point.
We had discussions about the issue; we decided the substance abuse policies needed to be addressed first, and we as a party continued to have those discussions without any of the now ministers, who are in a conflict of interest. They did not participate in any discussions at any time and have not been present for any of the meetings relating to this.
Mr. Mitchell: I think the record will show that it was this minister who made reference to them as ministers. I want to point out that he is the only one who is using the term, "conflict of interest".
What we want to know is -- in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has a lot of explaining to do. He apparently took part in discussions about the new Liquor Act while he owned a hotel. This admission raises some questions that need to be answered. Why was the minister in backroom discussions about potential changes to the Liquor Act when he owned a hotel and knew the changes could have an impact on his business interests?
There was insider information on the table that could have a serious financial impact on private business interests, so I'll ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources again: has he brought this information to the attention of the Conflicts Commissioner, and if he hasn't, will he agree to do so today?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: Again, I would remind him to read Hansard. It was his own Member for Porter Creek South who referred to government ministers owning hotels, and it's very easy to continue that terminology. In fact, these people were not ministers at the time of the discussions.
For the member opposite, who claims that no one has ever mentioned conflict of interest, it appears to me to be fairly clear that that was the implication this morning in his radio interview. I do wish that the member opposite would try to stick with facts, and I do point out that as the only member in government at this point who owns a hotel, is he getting nervous about the Liberal Party platform in the past?
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: On a point of order, the Member for Copperbelt.
Mr. Mitchell: As much as I appreciate the compliment, I will remind the minister that I'm not in government and there is a big difference between being in government and being in opposition. But I thank the minister --
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: Order please. Order please.
The purpose of a point of order is to advise the Speaker on how the rules have been breached. Honourable member, there was no point of order there. Obviously we will carry on now.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: I do agree with one thing from the member opposite: he is not in government, and people across the Yukon are very thankful for that.
Question re: Child advocate
Mr. Edzerza: We have heard from various groups involved in the care of children and from some First Nations about the government's response to recommendations they made during five years of consultations. There was great concern expressed about the need for a child advocate position.
We recognize that the new act has a section that will eventually facilitate the establishment of this service.
The child advocate is more than just a lawyer standing for the child in court. The position is one that should involve policy development and public education. But, more than that, it is a sensitive position that develops trust by children, parents and extended family under the care of the Child and Family Services Act.
Will the minister outline his view of the location, role and responsibilities of the proposed child advocate?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I appreciate the member's comments.
As the member will know from the briefing provided to him by staff of the Department of Health and Social Services, and in response to some of the comments heard in the final stages of consultation, we are pleased to make this change to the act, which commits to establishing a child advocate position, but we will be working with stakeholders on the development of that position and the location of that position.
I would also remind the member -- in response to his comments -- that he referred to "consultation". This was not a "consultation" process. I have to remind him that the Yukon government embarked upon a process that had never occurred before in the Yukon and that was jointly working with First Nations in going out, jointly hearing from the public, jointly developing the policy around the new Child and Family Services Act, and, finally, jointly informing the legal drafters.
So, again, I would urge the member not to diminish that involvement.
Mr. Edzerza: The government did consult people in the territory, so what is that if it isn't consultation? There are sections in the bill that deal with the possible establishment of First Nation service authorities. These authorities can be put in place by agreements with the minister, and powers in the act can be delegated in the agreements. The negotiation of these powers is allowed under First Nation final agreements. What concrete steps is the minister taking to support First Nations with training, mentoring and financial assistance so that they can draw down child welfare responsibilities if they choose to?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member has the situation a little bit mixed up. He doesn't quite understand what this bill does. This bill, once passed into law, does not diminish First Nations who have settled self-government agreements, drawing down their authority in this area; however, it provides the ability for First Nations outside a program and service transfer agreement process and the formal negotiation thereof. It provides an ability for them to contract with the Government of Yukon under our legislation to provide services to their citizens. So that is a very different and distinct process from the PSTA process.
Mr. Edzerza: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that the new act allows for a more inclusive process for First Nations and others in situations where children are in need of protection. The act says that First Nation service agreements can be withdrawn by a letter from the director of family and children services. If the service is withdrawn, the minister can appoint an administrator to manage the First Nation service authority. This is not the case for any other service providers that the department is involved in, including residential facilities, adoption agencies and other groups. Why is this distinction being made, and how does the minister reconcile these sweeping powers in the hand of the director and the minister with the claim of a more inclusive process for First Nations?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Because it is a more inclusive process. The member is again simply confusing the facts around this matter. In reference to residential facilities and the powers of the director, the member should be aware that, in fact, for four facilities the Yukon government contracts to provide services, such as group homes, and those powers already exist. It is not something unique to First Nation service authorities, if such are developed.
The new act does not diminish the ability of self-governing First Nations to draw down powers through a formal negotiation under their final agreement. This is an ability within Yukon legislation for them to participate within the Yukon system and deliver those services.
As I've reminded the member before in the House, I would urge the member to actually pick up a copy of the current Children's Act, read it, and then read the new Child and Family Services Act. The member will understand that in fact the new act places less sweeping powers in the hands of the director and individual workers and provides far more ability for involvement of First Nation governments and, very importantly, far more involvement for the family of any person or individuals involved in child protection matters.
This is a good act and I would urge the member to review both, side by side, and he'll see that.
Question re: China-Yukon government relations
Mr. Hardy: There's a rally in downtown Whitehorse scheduled for 4:00 p.m. in support of the Global Day of Action on Tibet. Like many other Yukoners, our caucus has been watching recent events in Tibet with a great deal of alarm.
On the first day of this sitting, I tabled a motion calling on our federal government to convey the deep desire of Canadians to see a peaceful reconciliation between the people of Tibet and the People's Republic of China.
The Yukon's Minister of Economic Development has been actively pursuing economic links with China. In fact, at a departmental budget briefing last week, we learned the minister is planning another trip to China this fall.
In his meetings with Chinese officials, has the minister made any attempt to express concern that Yukoners have about China's appalling record of human rights abuses or its involvement in conflicts in areas like Burma, Darfur and Tibet?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: We value the work being done today to encourage offshore investment here in the territory; it's all part of growing and diversifying our private sector economy, and this government, under the leadership of the Minister of Economic Development, will continue to do that.
The Leader of the Third Party well knows that this particular issue is of -- what I would say -- an international priority for many countries, including Canada with the support of provinces and territories who have constantly through our national government voiced our concern about the human rights issue in China. It's an ongoing challenge in the global community, and I'm sure our national government will continue to impress upon their counterparts in the Chinese government the need to address some of these very serious, serious circumstances.
Mr. Hardy: Frankly, I find that an extremely hollow argument, and it's passing the buck. There are people dying today, standing up for their values, for their rights, and to say our national government is good enough to convey the message that Canadians are concerned about this is not good enough, because we can make a statement in the Yukon and add our voice for people and their rights and democracy around this country. It's a shame to hear this kind of argument.
Now, let's not beat around the bush here. China wants many of the resources that Yukon has in abundance. They want our resources -- the Yukon people's resources. Chinese companies are all looking for opportunities to invest in the Yukon.
Is the minister willing to do business with China at any cost, or is he prepared that we need to see a marked improvement in China's human rights record before we go much further in terms of encouraging trade deals?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I actually take exception, as I'm sure past national governments and the current government of today in Ottawa would take exception to a comment like that about their role in international affairs as "passing the buck". Their role is critical in international affairs and, as I just said, all provinces and territories are supportive of our national government on an international stage to make sure that Canada is a leader in ensuring human rights across the global community are being addressed. That is exactly what is transpiring today.
The correlation of the Leader of the Third Party to some Chinese companies expressing interest in resources available in Yukon and expressing the possible desire of investing in Yukon is not something that we turn our backs on. Of course, we'll listen to those proposals, and we are out there encouraging and soliciting investment from the global community. This government has taken the Yukon Territory from a situation that was once a migration of our workforce out of the territory, of our private sector out of the territory, of investment out of the territory, and turned that around to where all of that has changed in today's Yukon, and it has improved the quality of life of Yukoners.
Mr. Hardy: Well, this Premier can take all of the exceptions he wants on the comments that I make, but I stand by them. I am disgusted, Mr. Speaker, that we as Yukon people and our government are willing to cut any trade deal just for profit, over the values and rights and lives of other countries and the people in those countries. Tibet is a country too and so are Darfur, Thailand and Burma; they are all countries and they are all being oppressed. They are all being oppressed by their governments there, and we have the ability to have a say here, Mr. Speaker, because we're cutting trade deals.
Given the destructive role of China in providing arms in Darfur and other conflicts, has the minister had any second thoughts about this arrangement that he announced a few weeks ago, or is it all just business as usual, which it seems to be with this Premier?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: I understand the emotional connection to this issue for the Leader of the Third Party, but when it comes to government and leadership, there are always many more elements we must address and deal with.
This government does not in any way -- because we might have some business interests in this territory between the corporate community of Yukon and the corporate community of China -- support any contravention of human rights as we understand them to be in this territory and in this country.
Our national government, with support of all jurisdictions, through the leadership of our national government, is certainly making that well-known in the global community -- to ensure that human rights are not being contravened across the global community. In many cases, they are, and it's an unfortunate situation the world finds itself in, but we must continue to work on it in every way possible, but not to take out of context the efforts of some who are looking to build Yukon's future and try to somehow extrapolate that into an issue of human rights. That's not good leadership; it's not good government. You must take a broader and much focused approach.
Question re: Asset-backed commercial paper investments
Mr. Inverarity: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Yukon government's $36-million investment violated the Yukon Territory's Financial Administration Act. This should be of concern to the minister. These investments were not guaranteed by a bank, did not have the required two ratings and no legal opinion was sought before making the investments.
The Auditor General and the Justice department confirm this to be true. Our tax dollars are in limbo.
The Minister of Justice has been content to do nothing to get to the bottom of this particular matter. Will the Justice minister explain to us why there is no serious investigation going on into this matter?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: This is an interesting angle that the Official Opposition has now come up with, but I have to correct the record once again. The member is suggesting that there were no liquidity agreements in place. That is incorrect. It's time the Official Opposition got on with dealing with the facts.
The Auditor General also said that governments have been making this investment and regardless of whether the government investment in commercial paper was set up by domestic banks or trusts, they were both in contravention of the Financial Administration Act. That takes us back some 200 investments, some $1.7-billion worth of investments, back to 1990.
So the member's point is not relevant to the facts. We as a government are working with the collective, with Ontario, with Quebec, with Air Canada, with the oversight body for the federal government superannuation fund, to ensure that the restructuring of these investments are done appropriately. I may point out today that they are under protection under the CCAA -- Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Mr. Inverarity: My question was directed to the Minister of Justice. I'm quite alarmed by this trend that's going on. The Finance minister and Deputy Premier have stated --
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Order please. On a point of order, Member for Porter Creek North.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled last week that in a collegial body, any member can answer a question. Perhaps we could remind the member opposite that his shock and horror is inappropriate.
Speaker: On the point of order, Member for Kluane.
Mr. McRobb: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. The member is merely making a statement as part of his question and that's perfectly allowed in this Assembly.
Speaker's ruling
Speaker: From the Chair's perspective, for the Minister of Economic Development's information, the ruling or the interruption -- or however I might phrase it -- last week on behalf of the Chair, was to remind the Official Opposition that Cabinet is a collegial body and any member could stand up and answer for another member. So, it wasn't directly a ruling on a point of order; therefore, there is no point of order.
Mr. Inverarity: Both the Finance minister and the Deputy Premier have stated, on several occasions in this House, that the Yukon government is meeting the letter of the law.
The Finance minister and the Deputy Premier have both stated that the Financial Administration Act was followed. The Auditor General disagreed. She stated that the Financial Administration Act was in fact not followed.
Yukoners want to know what is happening to their money. Are we to believe that the Minister of Justice is serious about resolving this issue when her only contribution is to block public hearings into this matter?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: The suggestion that the Minister of Justice has blocked public hearings is ludicrous. It has no place in this institution. It's worse than the member's view of investments by the leader of U.S. Fed, for example, in the United States of America, who is the architect of the subprime mortgage fiasco.
No one in the Yukon government knew about this issue until the Auditor General actually brought it forward herself, a few short months ago.
Two hundred investments were made, as the Auditor General pointed out, in good faith. In good faith, governments and officials were making these investments.
That could only lead us to one conclusion: that, in the past, there wasn't clarity on the definition of certain clauses in the Financial Administration Act. This is the only government that has acted in that regard by implementing a policy to ensure that officials are never ever again encumbered with this kind of confusion around the definition of a clause in an act, and this policy ensures no further investments can take place.
Mr. Inverarity: All I see are lost principal, lost interest and lost faith.
Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the minister to do her job. The Auditor General concluded these investments were not in accordance with the law. The minister's own staff, the Department of Justice, concluded that these investments were not in accordance with the law; yet, the Finance minister and Deputy Premier insist otherwise.
It can't be both at the same time. We want to know what the Minister of Justice is doing about this. How can there be justice in the Yukon when the minister ignores a breach of the Financial Administration Act?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: The only thing lost here is the lost cause of the Official Opposition on this matter. Furthermore, how does the member explain the position the Liberals in this Assembly took a few weeks ago, when they publicly announced the Premier was under investigation? This is another misrepresentation of an ongoing collective of misrepresentations by the Official Opposition.
All the factual information the government has tabled in this House has been completely ignored. The Minister of Justice, frankly, has done her job and will continue to do her job, as every other minister on this side of the House -- unlike the Official Opposition who are failing Yukoners, have quit on Yukoners, given it up and are a lost cause.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 11: Second Reading -- adjourned debate
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 11, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Fentie; adjourned debate, Mr. Cathers.
Speaker: Minister of Health and Social Services, you have about 37 minutes left.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be using all those minutes. As members have likely noticed, I'm a little croaky today from a cold, so I will be rather brief in my remarks, just touching on some of the high points and saving further remarks and more detail for later debate.
In beginning debate, I began my remarks last week by mentioning a few issues related to my constituency, the riding of Lake Laberge, so I would like to continue with comments related to my portfolios, those being, of course, Health and Social Services and Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. As members will notice from acts that were tabled, the department staff and staff of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board administration have been very busy working on this legislation and that has required a significant amount of my time, involving both the Workers' Compensation Act and the pieces of legislation that were tabled by the Department of Health and Social Services.
The new Child and Family Services Act, as members are aware, is the result of a very major initiative and joint public consultation done by the Government of Yukon and by Council of Yukon First Nations. I would like to thank staff for their work in the joint development of policy and for jointly performing the legal drafting.
Other areas that department staff and I have been working on include the social assistance reform that was conducted last year, following the most major review of the Yukon's system ever conducted. We reviewed the structure of the system, not simply rates, as members have often engaged in debate. The recommendation from the review was to raise the rates, in particular raising the assistance for food to reflect the market-basket calculation. Our key focus was to help the nearly 70 percent who have been on and off the social assistance system by identifying what was forcing them to re-enter the system, seeing as they had demonstrated a willingness to work and an ability to be hired but were ending up relying on social assistance for one reason or another.
As members will recall, what was identified was that, for those nearly 70 percent of the people on the total caseload, typically they encountered a large expense, such as a car breaking down or need to replace a furnace or need to buy some appliance or other things around the house and, without having significant personal resources, in most cases having virtually no personal savings, their only option was to return to social assistance. Because of the structure of the system, they were put into a place where, for the first three months of re-entering the social assistance system, every dollar they earned on the workforce was clawed back. Due to the miscellaneous expenses we all face in going to work, such as transportation, those people would mostly be worse off by working during that three-month period while taking that social assistance than if they had simply returned to social assistance and tried again at a later date.
The most important change within social assistance reform is changing the earned-income exemption to eliminate that three-month waiting period, as well as to increase the earned-income exemption from 25 percent to 50 percent for a maximum period of three years. That means that, rather than the previous structure, which allowed them to keep one dollar out of every four earned, they would be able to keep one dollar out of every two earned, thus allowing them to develop those personal savings.
However, that enhanced period being deliberately designed to assist them to re-enter the system is time limited at three years, so it prevents misuse and reflects the fact that, typically if someone is off social assistance for two years free and clear, the system never sees them return in the future.
As well, the other three areas within social assistance reform include the new program, the disabled persons' assistance program, which provides both the ability to allow more flexible support and enhanced services to those people to pay for things such as minor household modifications and some of the equipment that disabled people may need, as well as providing a little more dignity to those individuals who are long-term disabled and have no ability to work.
Secondly, on that program, those people -- who again are in the long-term disabled category -- rather than having the previous requirement that they come in for evaluation every month and prove that they are not able to work, they would require review by a doctor on yearly basis, to demonstrate indeed if they are long-term disabled and unable to work, that there be some requirement for follow-up that would be far less onerous for those individuals and for the system as well.
Two other areas that were accomplished outside the program as a result of social assistance reform include the increase to the Yukon child benefit, which benefits parents with children, whether or not they're in child care. Secondly, of course, is the significant increase to the childcare subsidy for those on low income, allowing them to enter the workforce and to remain there.
For your information, Mr. Speaker, and for members who may have some questions about the timeline for implementation of social assistance reform, we have completed the required consultation with First Nations and with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada on the policy matter of the proposed social assistance reform. The response was positive; therefore, we can say with confidence that will be the structure that is implemented. Right now we are simply awaiting implementation from the First Nations and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada side in terms of changing their programs -- which, as members ought to be aware, require significant changes. Because this is a fundamental change to the structure of the system and how it operates, it requires everything from the computer system, to the forms, to how people are evaluated to be changed, by each and every government that administers this program.
The indication we've had from our partners is that they expect to be up and running around the end of April. The Department of Health and Social Services, of course, has been ready to go on this area for months.
Other areas that were major election commitments that the Department of Health and Social Services have moved forward on in this past year -- in this case, one will begin formal service of the new program tomorrow -- include services to children with disabilities, which is a creation of a new program in a new unit within the Department of Health and Social Services, to coordinate, expand and enhance services and therapies provided to children with disabilities and their families, to assist them in fulfilling their potential, to provide coordinated access to services and early interventions, support for integration into community life, expanded behavioural therapies and increased staff and professional training, and most importantly, to help parents to take care of their children and to involve them in choosing a therapy that best meets their child's needs.
This, of course, as you may be aware, is based on best practices from across the country, particularly borrowing from the Government of Alberta's program that provide these services.
Our fundamental intent is to ensure that those flexible supports are provided and to prevent parents from being faced with either not being able to care for their children, or facing a large financial cost to do so or, thirdly, to have to put their children into care of the system or into a continuing care facility.
This system is based on best practices and sound programs from across the country that have been successful. I am very pleased that we were able to implement this major election commitment beginning tomorrow.
Another major election commitment, of course, that we acted on significantly is the investment in childcare, both in terms of the increase to the childcare subsidy that I previously indicated, and the increased funding to assist in paying for the wages of childcare workers. This year, there will be increased funding and training. This, of course, is part of the significant investment plan that we announced last year.
More details, beyond what has been announced, will be forthcoming as we move forward in the annual increase in funding previously announced.
Other areas where the Department of Health and Social Services has been active include continuing our investment in the health human resources strategy. As you know, this government is the first one to develop a strategy and provide funding to assist Yukoners accessing health professions. Previously there was one program in place to assist people to access nursing education; however, in that area, we doubled the amount of assistance and made available twice the number of positions that were previously available. We created a whole range of new programs and supports aimed at attracting health professionals to the Yukon and at assisting Yukoners to gain education in those areas.
The family physician incentive program was designed to attract new graduates from a Canadian medical school by providing a $50,000 incentive over a five-year period. That is complemented by the medical education bursary, which we provide to Yukon students attending medical school. That provides them with up to $10,000 a year in financial assistance for each and every year they're in medical school, as well as a $15,000 per year assistance if they take their period of medical residency in a Yukon family practice -- meaning, if they come here to the territory and work with an existing physician, to begin to provide services to Yukon citizens.
As well, the health profession education bursary is a program that assists a wide range of other health professions and assists Yukoners in accessing training in those areas. These programs are complemented by the new nurse mentoring program. At this point, 16 Yukon nurses have been mentored under this program.
Another area is the funding that we have provided to assist Yukon doctors to expand an existing practice, which must result in the creation of space for at least one new doctor. These steps, as well as steps and initiatives taken by members of our local medical community, have resulted in an increase in the last few years of the number of general practitioners who are offering services to Yukon citizens, from a previous level of 56 doctors to a new level of 63.
I would like to thank Health and Social Services staff and Education staff who assisted in moving the licensed practical nurse program at Yukon College forward, as well as to thank the college for their work in bringing this program forward and offering it. This course will commence in September of this year and will assist in training LPNs to serve in the Yukon system, which will assist us in coping with our challenges of recruitment and retention.
As members are aware, and have likely noticed from national news reports, the challenge coast-to-coast in the number of health care professionals is increasing. Fortunately, in Yukon, although we have had some challenges, we have not had them to the same level as areas such as Saskatchewan, which has seen emergency rooms and maternity wards close down due to a lack of staff, and even Alberta, with their significant enhanced funding for services, has seen a shutdown of beds recently in some of their health authorities, due to a challenge in accessing staff.
In addition to the programs that I indicated above, which again I thank Health and Social Services staff for their work on, we have this year enhanced the incentive package provided to attract LPNs and registered nurses into our continuing care facilities. As members are aware, we have had some staffing challenges there and we have therefore taken another step to raise the bar to address those challenges and to face our requirements to become ever more competitive nationally in addressing this challenge in access to health care professionals, as we see baby-boomers retire and the growing national shortage in many areas.
Another step that has been taken this year to provide more direct access in all Yukon communities and cost-effective, flexible and timely access to medical health services, was the expansion of the telehealth network to all Yukon nursing stations, making Yukon the second Canadian jurisdiction to have access in every community, in all health facilities, to this type of service.
We will also be moving forward -- in partnership with British Columbia -- to access B.C.'s nurse line, which will allow all Yukon citizens to dial 811 to talk to a nurse and receive medical advice in their home, including advice on whether they should access treatment from their local health facility. This will not replace the existing services; it will simply be another service, another means of bringing directly to individuals in their home greater access to care and greater flexibility -- noting of course that, for many people, such as my constituents and for many others, it's not uncommon to be a half-hour or 45 minutes or even hours away from the nearest health care professional. Being able to access that service in your home is a great step and a great comfort to Yukoners.
Other areas that we will be funding in this fiscal year include improved support for mental health, including early identification of mental health concerns and expansion of our chronic disease collaborative management program.
With that, I believe I will wrap up my comments and save further comments and discussion for my speech during Committee of the Whole debate on the budget. I thank members for their attention and look forward to continuing the debate.
Mr. McRobb: I'd like to welcome all members back to the Assembly for the spring sitting and thank all members for their comments about the budget and so on. I found many of them enlightening. Some others I would find a bit challenging, but there simply isn't sufficient time provided to me this afternoon to respond to each and every one of those comments I would take issue with.
I would like to continue in a similar way to last year, when I mentioned I had attended opening day of the Alberta legislative sitting and Parliament in Ottawa, thanks to our MP, Larry Bagnell. Earlier this year, I attended opening day of the B.C. Legislature's spring sitting, where the throne speech was read. I would also like to thank Burquitlam MLA Harry Bloy for inviting me to attend that and the reception afterward.
It was a privilege to meet many of the MLAs from our neighbouring jurisdiction and discuss with them certain issues, especially those related to the future of our territory.
I had a chance to speak briefly with Premier Campbell, as well as several others. I met Mr. Bloy at the Mineral Exploration Roundup in Vancouver in early February. For the record, I travelled to Victoria at my own expense, just as I travelled to Edmonton and Ottawa last year at my own expense, so when the MLA for Porter Creek Centre stands up and calls my travels "a junket", he should be better informed. If he uses that word so freely, perhaps it's time to take a closer look at what the government members claim on their travels which, by the way, are paid for by Yukon taxpayers.
This was the first roundup I had attended, but hopefully not the last. It was great to meet and discuss mining issues with several people, including Yukoners, and take in many interesting presentations.
With the exception of having to endure our Energy, Mines and Resources minister's speech, the highlight was probably Yukon night. It is a good thing that there was lots of free booze served to help lessen the pain of it on the general audience. Four out of five of our caucus members attended the roundup this year. I saw just as many from the government side but no one from the third party, the NDP.
Let us turn now to the Premier's budget speech, which went on for more than two hours. It really contained very little in the way of new initiatives and was basically business as usual. This is worrisome. Spending money like there is no tomorrow, in light of today's global financial crisis, is akin to fiddling while Rome burns, or perhaps more recently, like Bear Stearns, one of American's top five lending institutions, believing that all would be well. We know what happened there. Given our dependence on one single source of revenue, the federal government, one has to wonder what might happen here. How would the Yukon fare without the federal largesse? What if there were substantial cuts to our transfer payments? How would we as a territory survive with very little in the way of self-produced revenue to fill the government's coffers?
Our dependence on Ottawa is simply too great. The Yukon Party has repeatedly promised to reduce that dependence, but has failed to achieve anything significant in terms of diversifying our economy. What if the federal government were faced with budget cuts and decided to wean back Yukon's handout? Just as likely is the possibility of cuts resulting from ideologies present in the federal Conservative caucus. We all know that the power people within that party are off shoots of the former Reform Party of Canada.
Does anybody remember the Byfield doctrine? It went something like this: why should Alberta have to pay for all the have-not provinces and territories in Canada? Indeed, this remains a threat that we should all be concerned about.
Let's hope Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister, and his gang are never given majority status in Parliament.
Getting back to the Yukon Party's business-as-usual approach of singing merrily along the path while ignoring the financial earthquakes out there, the fact is the U.S. is now officially in a state of recession. This is largely due to the subprime mortgage meltdown and their involvement in Iraq. The worst may very well be yet to come. What a lot of financial experts are --
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Quorum count
Speaker: Mr. Cathers, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Pursuant to Standing Order 3(1), there does not appear to be a quorum present.
Speaker: Order please. According to Standing Order 3(2), "If, at any time during the sitting of the Assembly, the Speaker's attention is drawn to the fact that there does not appear to be a quorum, the Speaker shall cause the bells to ring for four minutes and then do a count."
Bells
Speaker: I have shut off the bells. I will now do a count. There are 12 members present; quorum is present.
We shall now continue with debate. Member for Kluane, you have the floor.
Mr. McRobb: I was referring to the state of recession that currently lies within the United States and was relating that to how Yukoners and the Yukon government should be quite concerned. Yet this budget seems to take a business-as-usual approach and is more reliant than ever on federal largesse.
I was saying the worst may very well be yet to come. That is what a lot of the financial experts are warning. The impact on our territory could be severe and this government should be doing more to diversify our economy. The impact has already been felt by many Yukoners who have suffered losses in their investments or have been affected by the credit crunch resulting from the meltdown.
One example of this is the delay to construction of the Ruby Creek molybdenum mine just south of our border and east of Atlin. Adanac has been forced to put its near-billion-dollar investment on hold because of the difficulty obtaining financial investors to loan the funds required to build the mine and associated infrastructure. I know for a fact this has negatively impacted our labour force and local business community, as well as diminishing our non-government economy.
For the record, I do wish Adanac Molybedenum Corp. all the best in its efforts to find a financier. Our caucus met with one of the company's principals in early February at the roundup. Given today's moly prices, there is about $20 billion in the ground at Ruby Creek that we know of already and that number is sure to grow with the release of further drilling results. It's interesting to note that Adanac's proposed payback period for a capital loan was only two years. Where was the Minister of Economic Development in trying to negotiate a deal on this one? We all heard him on the radio telling Yukoners how he was instrumental in pulling together the Mactung deal with the Chinese. Where is he when he's needed on this one?
I know; he is probably busy spilling the beans again.
I guess the point on this example is, given the quick payback period for this mining project just south of the border, it's rather amazing to see that the mine is still having difficulty trying to obtain financing, given that it can repay the $640 million or so within a two-year period. That's quite incredible. That's a sign that the world's markets have really dried up in terms of liquidity and loaning money.
The Yukon Party certainly isn't shy when it comes to taking credit.
How many times have we heard the rhetoric about how it has, single-handedly, wrestled down the spending trajectory and turned around the Yukon's economy?
I was beginning to worry that -- had I heard it one more time -- I might actually start believing it.
But the truth is, it was not the Yukon Party's doing at all. It was simply due to a global turnaround in commodity prices, especially mineral prices.
Of course, the boom in the oil and gas sector contributed generously -- and still does -- to provincial coffers in western Canada; however, there has been very little activity in that sector within our territory.
In fact, with the winding down of the Kotaneelee gas fields in southeast Yukon, revenues to government from this sector have decreased substantially under this Yukon Party's watch. It looks like another lost opportunity to diversify our economy.
Ask yourself if the Minto mine would have proceeded without having justifiable copper prices. Ask yourself if there'd be expansions to our electrical grid without these high metal prices. Ask yourself whether there'd be record spending on exploration without high metal prices. The answer to all of these questions is clear; it's no.
Yet somehow the Yukon Party wants the voters to believe it was responsible. Well, we all know that's a stretch, and hopefully Yukoners are too smart to fall for that one again.
Let's switch gears and address the issue that several previous members have spoken of, and that is the production of our standing committees. These committees are supposed to be non-partisan. Each member is supposed to act in the best interests of Yukoners and not simply toe the party line. What we've found with the Yukon Party government members is that they'll come to these meetings with predetermined positions. This is wrong. That's not representing what Yukoners stand for. It's not listening to the representatives of other Yukoners at these meetings; it's simply toeing the party line.
We're supposed to be non-partisan. We're supposed to act in the best interests of Yukoners while sitting on those committees and trying to do the work. That faith is destroyed when the majority of members hold predetermined positions to block certain investigations, for instance.
Recently, members wanted to investigate the bad investment scandal, but the Yukon government members blocked it. This caused two members to resign on principle, and I applaud that action. Why should they take part in what is basically a charade? It's all because the Yukon Party members came to the meeting with a predetermined position to block this investigation.
If the government was truly open, accountable and transparent, as we've heard far too often from the government side, then why didn't it allow the investigation to proceed? What's it hiding?
Why wasn't the committee allowed to question officials in the Finance department and, perhaps, others as well? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good question because I would expect that, if a government were open, accountable and transparent, then it would have nothing to hide and it would allow these committees to do their work and not try to block any investigations. We saw something quite different and we all know how the Yukon Party explained its perspective on the events by wanting Yukoners to believe that the Leader of the Official Opposition was somehow not doing his job.
As a matter of fact, we even heard it earlier this afternoon from the Premier. The term that he used was that the Leader of the Official Opposition "quit on Yukoners". Well, what he is alluding to is how the Leader of the Official Opposition stood up on principle for what he believed in and, through his actions, highlighted a particular area of government that really needs some public focus and some reform measures. That is what we should be focusing on: how to make these committees work and not trying to spin some party line to make others look bad. Let's look at what actually happened. There are lots of examples to add to this.
Another area that I am even more familiar with is the committee entitled SCREP -- that's the acronym for the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges. Again, we've had Yukon Party members enter the meeting with predetermined positions to block progress on certain matters and that is wrong. One of the certain matters that I'm referring to is legislative reform. We've had considerable discussion on the virtues of legislative reform, previously. If one read the record, they would see that all the parties were essentially in favour of reforming how this Legislature conducts itself.
I recall the Yukon Party amended an opposition motion to steer it to legislative reform when, in fact, the original motion dealt with electoral reform. At the time, the Yukon Party was willing to take a position of legislative reform while avoiding electoral reform.
So, what happened? Well, after the election in 2006, members will recall that we had a shortened sitting -- I believe it was 12 days -- and a deal was struck between the opposition parties and the government to have a reduced number of sitting days in 2006. It was based on a position I brought forward on behalf of our party, which was to have the membership of SCREP equalized between opposition members and government-side members. I thanked the government for conceding their majority, both at the time in the media and subsequently in this House. The promise was to proceed expeditiously with legislative reform.
Let's look at what has happened since early in 2007. The committee has had about two meetings and nothing substantial has been discussed. That's a shame. There's practically one and a half years wasted, and that's a delay of one and a half years to any reform in the way this Legislature conducts itself. I say that's wrong.
There are lots of good ideas out there to improve the way we do the business on behalf of the public, and it's the public's business. One suggestion came from the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, when he suggested the Standing Orders should be amended to allow witnesses present when debating bills that are of import to the public. I think that's a very interesting suggestion, certainly worthy of discussion by the committee, and it's part of the whole legislative reform package.
But so are several other issues of -- I'll say -- equal importance to the public and to the legislators within this Assembly. There are lots of improvements we can make to how we perform the public's business, but they're being stalled -- and that's a shame. I'm speaking to this now because there are lots of precedents in this Assembly allowing us to use our time during budget reply speeches to talk about any issue from A to Zee -- and that should be "zed". Even though I was referring to the American economy earlier, I will use the Canadian pronunciation. Otherwise, there is virtually no opportunity to bring this issue to the attention to the public. I think it's an issue that should concern the public and it should concern every member of this Assembly, both members present now and in future.
I recall some radio talkback shows, going back about three or four years, where the overwhelming desire of the public was to change the way this Assembly did its business. That's probably what prompted the mood in this House at the time to make good attempts to try to achieve something in the way of reforming the Legislature. As it happened -- no. Any progress has been simply abysmal -- simply abysmal. That's sad when you look at the members of this Assembly. The vast majority of us in here were re-elected. That means that the mean experience level is greater than what it otherwise would be. This means we have a duty to use our experience to try to improve this Assembly for others in the future.
That sense of duty seems to have given way to some members on the government side to shift their allegiance to the party that they belong to rather than to Yukoners, and that is wrong. That is done by entering these meetings with a predetermined opinion.
Mr. Speaker, I put my comments on the record about these committees, as other members have. I would like now to spend a few minutes talking about how this budget affects the Kluane riding. I must start off with a recurring point, and that is, once again, under Yukon Party rule, no community breakdown information was provided at the budget lock-up meeting.
For anybody who missed it in my past few years of budget reply speeches, this was another regressive step taken by the Yukon Party to withhold information from opposition members. That is despite its promises in election campaigns to work more cooperatively and collaboratively -- blah, blah, blah -- with the opposition parties on behalf of Yukoners. It was a regressive step.
As indicated last spring, I did stay behind and inquire to the officials about certain expenditures in communities in my riding and I did receive some information. In reviewing that information, it is very clear that the spending in the Kluane region from the 2008-09 mains budget is either routine maintenance or it re-spends money that was previously allocated or is paid for by Uncle Sam.
Uncle Sam pays all the funds spent by the Yukon government on what is known as the Shakwak highway reconstruction Project. This project has been ongoing in the territory for most of the past two decades, and it will soon wrap up.
In fact, there are only two bridges remaining to be reconstructed: the Duke River bridge, which has already started, followed by the Slims River bridge.
There is some paving on the Haines Road. Officials, earlier, remarked that paving would not occur on the north Alaska Highway until the permafrost problems got worked out.
So essentially we have some bridge work and some paving on the Haines Road and, after that, probably nothing. This is going to mean a sharp fall-off in terms of employment in the Kluane riding. This has been brought to the attention of the government for several years now -- probably 10 years that I am aware of, because I have been bringing it to their attention.
We need a plan to fill in when the Shakwak expires. Where is that plan?
Several people in the Haines Junction community and in the Kluane region got together, more than a year ago, and put together an economic development plan. So far, the government has not taken any steps toward fulfilling the recommendations contained within that plan.
It coughed up a few dollars to help create the plan, but where has it been in terms of implementing the recommendations? Nowhere.
There are a number of projects that I am aware of that aren't being funded in the Kluane riding. The Premier is aware of them because he attends his tour, which takes place in late summer or early fall, when he asks Yukoners what they would like to see in the coming budget. I know he holds meetings in Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, Destruction Bay and Haines Junction, as well as meeting with local First Nations -- those who will meet with him; not all will -- and the local municipal government in Haines Junction.
Each year, he collects their suggestions and goes off to the back room where the budget is crafted and, each spring, when we see the final results of the budget and review it, virtually every one of those suggestions is ignored. There's the odd one that's in there, but I would call the odd one just window dressing. There's nothing substantial.
Recently I met with the Chief and Council of White River First Nation in Beaver Creek and I heard their recollection of projects they recommended to the Premier, which included a new community hall. We know about the new fire hall project that is needed in that community as well. There is nothing in this budget to meet those requests.
The requests for these projects are not new. I've been hearing the need to replace those two facilities for about five years now. Each time, they're ignored.
Speaking about Beaver Creek and the budget, I recall a year ago that the Justice minister talked in her speech about how they increased policing in Beaver Creek, had added another constable, and this would help the existing two constables fulfill their duties and provide for them taking proper breaks, and so on.
I was rather dismayed, both last summer and recently, to discover that there never was a third constable allocated to Beaver Creek, yet that is what we heard from the Justice minister. So what's up? Why do the ministers stand up and say things that don't happen?
Another example is the Minister of Highways and Public Works, the Member for Porter Creek Centre. He put on the record a year ago how the intersection in Haines Junction would be reconstructed, and there was a bunch of money in the budget for that, and he actually used it to throw back at me when I asked him what was in the budget. He used it as an example of how the Yukon Party is spending money in Haines Junction. I felt admonished, not only by what he had to say but the tone in which he said it. Well, Mr. Speaker, those improvements still have not been made. There is another example of a Yukon Party minister saying one thing and the results indicating another.
What about the elders complex in Burwash Landing? I can see that there is an appropriation in this budget. This is the third year in a row now that this project has been announced in the budget. Those with a long memory can recall about three years ago when the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, as Education minister, first announced that there would be a new school in the community of Burwash Landing. That caused a lot of distress among the members opposite and it was quickly re-announced as an elders and youth facility in Burwash Landing. We knew at that point that the member wasn't very happy over there and that explains why he sits on the opposition side today.
That facility, again, was reannounced and reallocated in a following budget. It was reannounced and reallocated in last year's budget and now here it is again. How many times are we going to spend this money and how many times are we going to announce this project before the money is actually spent and the project actually built?
Good question.
It's reannouncements of reannouncements that never seem to happen. It's about time this government started to do what it promised to do. On some projects in the riding there has been some concern.
Another one paid for by Uncle Sam was the street lights on the Alaska Highway, heading west from Haines Junction. There was concern by local residents that they weren't consulted on the placement of those lights, and that's another shortcoming in how the Yukon Party government does business in rural Yukon. It just figures people will be happy there is money being spent; let some people complain -- so what? That seems to be the attitude over there. But, Mr. Speaker, there should be a process to listen to Yukoners and rethink capital projects such as that one in order to try to alleviate those concerns at a local level. Did that happen? Clearly not.
There are lots of other projects in the region that I could go on and talk about. You know, the government likes to pride itself on what it's doing for climate change, but in reality we see how it has been spending more on furniture in one department than it is on the climate change action plan. We know there are shortcomings in terms of any progress being made on climate change. We know the government is focusing on adaptation rather than CO2 reductions. There are concerns about that as well. It seems the Premier made that decision himself, and that's the position of the Yukon government and that is where our territory is going. Was the question ever put to Yukoners? No -- another backroom decision. Just like the decision to spend $5 million of our climate change money from the federal government on the third turbine at the Aishihik hydroelectric facility.
There was no consultation on that. This point has been made previously and no doubt it will continue to be made in future. There are all kinds of other options that could have been developed to help Yukoners address the threats of climate change, but those were ignored in favour of one single project that the utility companies have stated several times on the record they would be pursuing anyway.
Let's just make that clear for the record: the Yukon Energy Corporation has stated several times on record it would eventually proceed with the Aishihik third turbine regardless of any climate change money being put toward it from the Yukon government.
All this does is possibly speed it up by a couple of years -- so what? Think of all the other good things that could have been done.
Someone mentioned that to me the other day: what about some kind of government support to help people purchase bicycles, to encourage them to leave their vehicles at home and ride to work? There is an idea that could have been explored with the climate change money, but no -- it all had to go in a mad rush to a project that would have happened anyway.
I'm sure the federal government has better things to do than monitor how our small territory is spending its bit of climate change money. It probably doesn't care very much how we do it. I know it was the minister who selected the project but, let's face it: how does it really work?
Here's how it really works: the minister asked the Yukon government how it would like to see the money spent. The suggestion is made; the federal minister checks it out and agrees to it. That's how it's done.
So Yukoners are missing out. We could have had expanded programs to help retrofit houses. We could have had various new programs to help address CO2 emissions in our transportation sector. We could have had ways to help people help themselves reduce and so on. But the Premier decided, nope, it's all going to a third turbine, a project that was going to happen anyway.
Mr. Speaker, I say, "Shame on the government." The government should know better than to just assume that its ideas are better than anybody else's. I have yet to meet any person whose ideas are better than everybody else's. In reality, that simply doesn't happen, but that is the approach of the Yukon Party. Their ideas are best. They don't need to talk to the public, and if you don't agree then that is too bad. To the Premier, it is his way or the highway.
Mr. Speaker, I can see that my time is nearly up; I have about a minute left. I would like to close by saying that I have reviewed the budgets for my critic responsibilities, and I do have a lot of questions. The portfolio includes the Department of Highways and Public Works and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as well as the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation. We had officials from the two corporations in this House in December, near the end of the fall sitting and we asked some questions. I'm looking forward to an opportunity to follow up on some of those questions with the minister responsible. Hopefully we can get some answers.
I don't know why I'm hoping for answers from the minister, because I think I have yet to get one answer from him to all the questions asked in both this session and the previous term. I won't let that discourage me. I fully realize that it is my job to stand here and ask questions on behalf of the Yukon public. We are the voice of the public and our main responsibility is to hold the government side accountable and that is what we'll do, regardless of how many times the government points its fingers and turns the attack back on us. It will just give my colleagues and me more fortitude to ask the next question and continue, because we know we're fighting the good fight on behalf of all Yukoners, and this government is in sore need of accountability.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: What a shock. The opposition takes a dim view of the budget. That's too bad.
It's unfortunate, because there's much in this budget that is a continuance of investment and a continuance of the plan that has brought the Yukon to a place that is so much more positive than it was a few short years ago under a Liberal government.
I think it's important to make the point, once again, that it was the shortest lived majority government in the history of the Commonwealth of Nations and, undoubtedly, the worst government in the history of the Yukon.
I am going to stand down on the rebuttal portion of my speech, because the criticisms levied are not something that the government side needs to rebut, save and except one point that demonstrates, again, the shallow and the void approach of the Official Opposition on the position of what they would do for this territory with the available resources that we have to build Yukon's future.
Their view is that it's simply just federal largesse. We could get into that in great detail and demonstrate how far out of touch the Official Opposition really is but, again, it's a pointless discussion and debate to have.
It's really unfortunate the Official Opposition had the Member for Kluane do the wrap-up response to the budget, because I think they could have done much better. The member has just put on the record issues around investments and climate change.
I want to briefly go over that. The Member for Kluane said -- I can't quote verbatim -- that there's more money by this government being invested in furniture for one department than we're investing in climate change measures.
When you consider the climate change strategy that's in place, the action plan that is being built with Yukoners, First Nations and experts, and the $15 million being invested in hydro projects to reduce thousands of tonnes of carbon emission in this territory, and the member suggests that there's more money in furniture for one single department. Well, I challenge the Member for Kluane and his colleagues to present to the public the evidence, the facts, that would substantiate such a ridiculous statement.
I'll move on now with respect to the 2008-09 budget -- the sixth budget of this, our second majority government, our second mandate. If we look back in recent history, we will see the progression of investment and growth of our fiscal capacity under this government's financial management for the territory. I want to just point to the fact that a few short years ago -- six short budgets ago -- the Yukon government had some $500 million plus in fiscal capacity and had a net financial position of just over $1 million. Six budgets later, the Yukon government has a fiscal capacity of almost $900 million, with a net financial position -- retained earnings, if you will -- of over $100 million.
No one can dispute or argue the fact that the Yukon is in a much better financial position, and because of that the Yukon has a much better quality of life, has a growing and diversifying economy, has investment in infrastructure, has investment in education, investment in health care, investment in our social safety net, investment in practising good government. Across this territory, the examples of our financial management and our growth in fiscal capacity are now delivering the realities of our plan and our vision for the Yukon.
It's no secret and no surprise why a better quality of life is the flagship pillar in this budget. It's also important to note that the emphasis in building a quality of life begins with education and the tremendous investment this government is making in education. Contrary to what Liberal operatives are saying out there -- that there's a reduction in education -- that is not the case. In fact, there is a significant increase in education across the board to meet our education reform approach and the new strategy, to build an education system to meet the needs of Yukoners, whether it be student financial assistance grants; developing a program so we can produce licensed nurses here in the Yukon, in conjunction with Bow Valley College and Yukon College; pre-employment at Yukon College; or other measures of training and apprenticeship to meet our shortfalls in the labour market area of trades and skilled labour, as well as entry-level jobs. The list goes on and on.
Secondly, there's a tremendous emphasis on health care, and we will continue to make those investments, because education and health care are two major cornerstones of ensuring a better quality of life in any jurisdiction.
So too are initiatives that deal with children, people with disabilities, ensuring our seniors and elders are being taken care of in an appropriate manner, in dealing with youth at risk -- like the Journey Far carver program -- and in our correctional reform process and initiative, which is resulting in a significant change in how we deal with those in our justice system. That will include the beginning of a new correctional facility here in Whitehorse.
On that note, I want to point out that the Official Opposition is saying to the public, unfortunately, that this is the same thing they had on the table, when they were in government, to build a new warehouse or jail. Nothing could be further from the facts. We've taken a number of years to develop correctional reform, and the building itself is completely different and disconnected from anything the former Liberal government intended to proceed with.
But also, addressing what statistics shows is the most demanding need out there for -- housing -- and it has to do with single parents with children. Under the leadership of the minister responsible for the Women's Directorate, we are doing exactly that. We are proceeding with a 30-unit affordable, single-parent family housing complex, and this will include women and children who are dealing with domestic violence in their own homes.
The list goes on, Mr. Speaker, with infrastructure investment and cultural and arts investment, whether it be through the film or sound industries, the IT sector -- all things are receiving investment as we build a better quality of life for Yukoners.
To suggest that we have ignored our environment and the protection of our pristine environment, once again is a fallacy. There is a tremendous amount of priority being placed on our environment, and all you have to do is look through the pages of the budget and you will quickly come to that determination. Unlike the Member for Kluane's recent assertions, the budget itself is evidence enough of the incorrect position that the Member for Kluane has just put on the public record.
Our economy has so dramatically changed. The third pillar of our vision and plan is continuing to build, grow and diversify a private sector economy. At this juncture I think that it is important that we recognize what has transpired in that regard. The members opposite, especially the Official Opposition, continue to promote the fallacy that our dependence on the national government is growing. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, and I will just briefly go over some factual statistics.
If we go back to the last budget of the former Liberal government, our total revenues, including a grant from Canada, stood at $503 million. To break that down, own-source revenues, measured by seven representative tax systems, were at $55.6 million. The total grant from Canada back then in that last Liberal budget -- thank God and thank the Yukon voter that it was the Liberal budget -- the federal grant was $348.6 million
That meant that 69 percent of our total fiscal capacity of $503 million came from Canada. Now, let's fast-forward to this budget. In 2008-09, our projected revenues from taxation -- those representative tax systems -- is $77.9 million. Our total fiscal capacity -- net fiscal capacity -- is $874 million. Our total transfer or grant from Canada is $564 million. That translates into only 65 percent of our fiscal capacity coming from Canada.
So, under our approach, we have realized a four-percentage point decrease in our dependence on Canada and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of confidence, that reduction shall continue, given the new negotiated territorial funding formula. Much of that is because of the work we've done to diversify and to grow our private sector economy and because many of the investments being made in today's Yukon are coming from the private sector, not solely from government.
I think it's important that we recognize the growth of the mining industry. Under the leadership of both the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that is happening in today's Yukon. Far beyond exploration, we are in development and production phases of properties across this territory and we are now garnering offshore investment to grow our resource sector.
Tourism is another major engine for our territory and our Minister of Tourism and Culture has been leading the charge in ensuring that tourism continues to contribute to our private sector growth and diversification. We've added to that some infrastructure investment, whether it be the Robert Campbell Highway or the new air terminal at the Whitehorse Airport, and the list goes on -- the Tombstone visitor reception centre.
We could spend days and days in this House simply articulating the good of this budget. Unfortunately, we will have to delegate much time to the opposition benches so that, as they say, they can hold the government accountable. A lot of that depends on how the opposition conducts itself.
Good governance is the ultimate in ensuring that the plan and vision will be realized. Our good-governance approach is all about collaboration and working with partners, whether it be the Government of Canada, with the provinces in our role in the Council of the Federation, with our pan-northern partners, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, First Nation governments in the Yukon, municipal governments that are receiving more in their base grant annually to assist them -- the list goes on and on.
There's another major part of good governance that this side of the House continues to forge ahead with, and that is the implementation of the treaties here in the Yukon Territory. To that end, once again, millions more are being invested, along with our federal partner, in the land claims process, and that is continuing to build self-government and self-reliance for First Nations here in the Yukon.
All in all, the budget is obviously another step forward in building Yukon's quality of life. I want to delve into some very important parts of this that are a result of the fiscal management we provide. It wasn't that long ago that our fiscal position was in dire straits. We've made every effort to ensure we're living within our means.
I heard from the opposition benches that this is status quo, and we're not keeping a watchful eye on what's happening around us, nationally and internationally. I challenge the members opposite to then explain how we have year-end surpluses as opposed to year-end deficits, and how we continue to grow our net financial position -- in other words, retaining earnings and retaining fiscal capacity for tomorrow.
I think the theme is very clear. The principle is very clear: this Yukon Party government will not, through needless spending of today, mortgage Yukon's future. It is here; the evidence of that is here in the 2008-09 budget.
This budget, as I demonstrated in my opening remarks when I delivered the budget speech, is a big one. It's another large budget for the Yukon.
It continues to invest in those four pillars: building a quality of life, diversifying and growing our private sector economy, protecting our pristine environment and, indeed, practising good governance.
It's unfortunate that we can't engage in a constructive debate with the opposition on budgets, as they are fixated on other matters -- other matters, by the way, that have no real relevance to the facts.
We will continue to work on all issues, as we should, because one of those pillars I spoke of is practising good government.
I commend this budget to the House. I look forward to the coming days of debate. I will be keenly interested in hearing from the opposition any alternatives that they may come forward with, versus just empty criticism. All in all, the 2008-09 budget sets the stage, once again, for what's coming in building Yukon's future. It is the precursor to our next budget of 2009-10, which would be our seventh budget as a government.
I am very proud of our team. I am very proud of the fact that Yukoners recognized our plan and vision was the right one for Yukon of today in building Yukon's future. We are demonstrating that with our budgeting, our fiscal management, our practising good governance and our building a better quality of life for Yukoners. That's what it's about; that's what we are doing, and we are very proud to be doing exactly that.
Thank you.
Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?
Some Hon. Members: Division.
Division
Speaker: Division has been called.
Bells
Speaker: Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Agree.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Agree.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Agree.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: Agree.
Hon. Mr. Rouble: Agree.
Hon. Mr. Lang: Agree.
Hon. Ms. Horne: Agree.
Hon. Mr. Hart: Agree.
Mr. Nordick: Agree.
Mr. Mitchell: Disagree.
Mr. McRobb: Disagree.
Mr. Inverarity: Disagree.
Mr. Cardiff: Disagree.
Mr. Edzerza: Disagree.
Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, five nay.
Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 11 agreed to
Speaker: We will continue with government bills.
Bill No. 9: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 9, standing in the name