001a

        Whitehorse, Yukon

        Tuesday, December 7, 2004 — 1:00 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

 Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, I’d like to have the House help me to welcome the grade 5 students from Selkirk Elementary.  Welcome.

Applause

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome Ms. Kristen Innes-Taylor and the grade 5 class from Selkirk Elementary.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there other introductions of visitors?

Are there returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

002a

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon provide advance notice to the opposition parties setting out the details and rationale for ministerial travel when such travel results in the absence of ministers from this House during a legislative sitting.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that older women in the territory are being abused; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to honour its election platform to support families by funding the Outreach liaison for older women program so that it can continue its valuable work with abused older women.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

003a

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:    Childcare workers, wage increases for

 Mr. McRobb:   This Health minister has some explaining to do with respect to verifying his promise to increase wages for childcare workers in the territory. I’ve requested him to provide the validating information on three occasions in the past week. Let’s recount them, Mr. Speaker.

On December 2, he said that the information was contained in the mains budget for this fiscal year. He repeated that claim when asked for the information the next day, on December 3. When it was pointed out to him yesterday that his assertions were wrong, he then indicated the information could be found within an annual report that he had just tabled that we hadn’t yet seen.

I am troubled to report to this House that once again the Minister of Health is wrong. This minister needs to demonstrate some principles. I’m not talking about the Peter Principle. When will this minister provide us with the necessary information to verify his promise?

004a

Point of order

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, my name associated with the Peter Principle is a derogatory remark, and I would ask the Speaker to rule on its implications and the context it was used in here today.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   I will review the Blues, and we will discuss it at a later date.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government’s commitment to childcare here in the Yukon has been very specific and very direct. Shortly after coming into office, this area was identified by our government as a very high priority. We convened a meeting of the day home and daycare operators, and we put together a working team. That working team developed a four-year plan. The initial amount of money increase was done through a supplementary budget two fiscal periods ago. The last amount budgeted was debated very briefly by the opposition and the third party in this House because of the lack of budgeting of their time. It is contained in the main estimates that were tabled this spring. Our commitment to childcare in the Yukon was very specific, and we’re moving forward on the implementation of our four-year plan.

005a

Mr. McRobb:   The minister didn’t answer the question; instead he gave us his version of events. Now, we’re still waiting for the information to validate his promise. Obviously, his government was eager to take credit for its announcement, but it’s not so willing to withstand the test of scrutiny. This minister’s announcement was merely a sham, intended to create a good-news announcement out of nothing. Furthermore, we’ve learned from other sources something else about the promise he made so proudly. They weren’t new funds. That was old money already spent. The funds provided nothing to workers in terms of wage increases. Can he tell us this: when will he finally be getting around to increasing the wages for childcare workers in this territory?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite is categorically wrong. The money for childcare was contained in the main estimates for the fiscal period that we are currently in.

006a

Mr. Speaker, when more money flows from the federal Liberal government under the newly announced programs, it is our government’s intention to reconvene this working group and flow that money into childcare. Mr. Speaker, currently the Yukon has the second best funded childcare system in Canada, after the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, and that bodes well for the tremendous effort that our government put into this initiative.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the minister is confusing the issue. He still has not answered the question. Now, the minister mentioned the possibility of federal funds coming next year, but childcare operators and workers fear this minister is only stalling and finger-pointing instead of assuming his own responsibility. The federal deal will apparently be apportioned on a per capita basis, leaving the territory with a paltry $20,000 or so. Clearly, that is not much to look forward to. The federal government has contributed millions of extra health care dollars to the territory this year alone. Will the minister now assume his responsibility as Health minister and live up to his promise to the childcare workers and providers by putting real money toward wages and training? Will he do that?

007a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our commitment to childcare is $5.65 million. Our government put the money where the money was needed before there was any federal government announcement, before there were any initiatives on the part of the federal government, save and except a small amount that flowed to the Yukon. Our government worked very hard with the working group on the four-year plan. Next year we’ll be into the next phase of the implementation, and that will call for more money. And I’m sure when the budget next spring is tabled, the member opposite will vote against it, as he did this last cycle. That bodes well for how the opposition members view childcare.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, I believe it’s against the Standing Orders of this Assembly, according to part 19(e), that a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if that member reflects upon any vote of the Assembly unless it is that member’s intention to move that it be rescinded. Now if that were the case, the Minister of Health is trying to rescind his own government’s mains budget for this fiscal year.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Although eloquent, the Chair feels that this is a dispute among members; however, I’m going to reserve the right to review this because the member may have a point. New question, Member for Kluane.

Question re:  Emergency medical services transfer

 Mr. McRobb:   Well, I’m hoping for an answer this time. About nine months ago, the Health minister announced he was negotiating a transfer of emergency medical services to the Yukon Hospital Corporation. In typical fashion, the minister acted alone without consulting the Public Service Alliance, the affected workers or the public. There’s a lot at stake here. There’s taxpayers’ money, there’s the rights of valued employees, and there’s the future of emergency medical services across the territory. We deserve more from this minister. Can he now provide us with a progress report on changes to emergency medical services?

008a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’d be happy to provide the member opposite in the House a progress report on where we are at with emergency medical services.

Our government is the first government since the 1970s that has increased honoraria for the volunteer EMS workers. Over $200,000 was earmarked and budgeted for that area. In addition to that, on the capital side, Mr. Speaker, a quarter of a million dollars was invested in two new ambulances. In addition to that, there has been about a $200,000 increase in additional clothing and training. There is a full-time training officer who is now in place. He is revolving around the outlying communities and providing that training.

This government — our government — has done more for emergency medical services in the Yukon than the previous four or five governments combined, as far as improving the quality of service, improving the overall level of morale and improving training. We have done our level best to provide the highest consistent level of care from emergency medical services that Yukoners deserve. We are doing just that.

Mr. McRobb:   Why is the minister avoiding the question? What is he hiding, Mr. Speaker? Earlier this year, he promised this House that management of emergency medical services in the territory would be taken over by the Yukon Hospital Corporation. Now we’ve heard something completely different from concerned parties. Apparently the minister has proceeded on his own to accommodate the government takeover of Yukon emergency services.

Can he tell us more about what he is doing with respect to this transfer or takeover?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We are improving emergency medical services and the service delivery. It’s our commitment as a government to provide the highest consistent level of service in this area that we possibly can. We have demonstrated that with more money in that budget envelope than ever before, and we will continue to look at innovative ways to deliver services to Yukoners in the best possible manner that we ever can.

009a

Mr. McRobb:  Well, the minister continues to avoid answering the question. What is he hiding? Is the question too complicated? Maybe we should narrow it down to a very simple level, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us who he has been consulting with on this proposed transfer?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our government is committed to providing the highest possible level of service to Yukoners through emergency medical services and, to that end, we increased the budget envelope significantly. We increased the honoraria to our volunteers — the first time it has been done since the early 1970s, I believe. In addition to that, there has been $200,000 earmarked for that category. Another approximately $200,000 has been put into the envelope for clothing allowances and training and discretionary funds for the various volunteer organizations around the Yukon. In addition to that, on the capital side, we have invested in two new ambulances for about $125,000. Hopefully, in the next budget cycle, we will again be purchasing new ambulances. And I am sure, once again, the members opposite will once again determine that it’s not in the public interest to go along with this side and the tremendous job we’re doing in this area and will vote against it.

Question re:  Oil and gas land sale in southeast Yukon

 Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This is the minister who is responsible for collecting revenues from oil and gas and land sales in the Yukon, and this year that amount is about $4 million from these sales. In his speech last week in Texas, the Premier revealed that the Yukon Party government met with the Kaska and the Acho Dene Koe and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to — and I quote: “put together a business deal that would see a transboundary oil and gas disposition, including southeast Yukon and the N.W.T.”

 It sounds like the Yukon Party is going ahead with the land sale in southeast Yukon — typical, however, of the Yukon Party and the Premier to announce a major initiative like this outside of the Yukon.

010a

When is this secret land sale going ahead?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’d like to remind the member opposite that through the YOGA agreement — the legislation that’s put in place to manage oil and gas in the Yukon — we can’t put out dispositions in unsettled land claim areas that have some traditional claim to them without the consent of the affected First Nation.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m quite well aware of that. This past summer, the former leader of the Yukon Party said that this government doesn’t understand the Umbrella Final Agreement or the land claim agreements. He also said the government has set land claims back by making side deals with First Nations, and that’s going to come back to haunt us. Unfortunately, the former leader is absolutely right. Under this Yukon Party government, the Kaska are getting all the benefits of a land claim and none of the responsibilities. That’s a great deal. The Premier is having secret negotiations on another side deal with the Kaska. He wants an oil and gas land sale in southeast Yukon. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources commit unequivocally that resource royalties from the land sale will go to Yukoners, not to the B.C. First Nations? It’s a yes-or-no question.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would like to remind the member opposite that the Kaska haven’t benefited from any oil revenue from their traditional territory to date. The money that has been garnered from the existing well has gone to settled First Nations and the territorial government, so the Kaska have not garnered any money from the disposition over the last 20 years.

Ms. Duncan:   Unfortunately, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is categorically wrong. Liard First Nation and Ross River First Nation did receive their benefits in the Kotaneelee fund under the former NDP government when the current Premier was a member of that party. Yukoners quite rightly want to know what’s on the table in these negotiations. The Premier can tell an audience in Texas that he’s putting together a deal in order to have an oil and gas land sale in southeast Yukon — why can’t he tell Yukoners? Why can’t the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has responsibility in this area, tell Yukoners what’s on the table? I would like a very clear and unequivocal answer from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources today. Are resource royalty revenues — the money — from the oil and gas land sale flowing to Yukoners, or are they going to B.C. First Nations? Which is it? Are they on the table?

011a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’d like to remind the member opposite that the Kaska have not garnered any royalty from their traditional territory to date. I would like to say to the member opposite that certainly we’re looking at all avenues for economic development in the Yukon and certainly the southeast Yukon is very rich in resources. We are living within a memorandum of understanding that was signed by her government on how we’re managing the forests in southeast Yukon — very successfully, by the way. So oil and gas are on the table. Oil and gas are part of the resources that the Kaska have in their traditional territory, and of course ADK has an overlapping claim, so that claim has to be addressed. The Kaska don’t have a signed final agreement with the federal government, and we certainly are working in partnership with the Kaska. But as far as a deal on a disposition in southeast Yukon is concerned at the moment, it’s only conversation at this point. When and if we go ahead with the disposition in southeast Yukon, it will certainly benefit all Yukoners.

Question re:  Violence against women, prevention of

 Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. We continue to hear that family violence is increasing in the territory. Christmas is the time of year when family violence doubles. Transition homes have no vacancies. Crisis calls about violence to one transition home are up 300 percent. The numbers tell the reality. Frontline workers are telling us that the number of women suffering from violence is alarming. This minister can’t hide behind the Yukon Party’s claim of a help line in B.C. and awareness campaigns. It is his responsibility to provide safety to the women of the territory. What is the minister doing about this crisis in the Yukon today?

012a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the delivery of services to women in need across the Yukon is delivered in a multitude of ways: the Help and Hope in Watson Lake, the Dawson women’s shelter, and Kaushee’s and Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre in Whitehorse.

Let me just cite an example. Kaushee’s is a very excellent service delivery NGO, as the rest of them also are, but let’s just use that as an example. When our government came to power, $480,000 was the level of funding provided to Kaushee’s. The 2004-05 budget is currently $675,121, and members opposite opposed that increase for Kaushee’s. We went forward. I have recently met with officials from Kaushee’s, and we are looking at enhancing further and meeting the demands head-on. As we committed to, a demonstrated need that is identified to our government will be dealt with.

Mrs. Peter:   Abused women over 50 are reluctant to use services that they see as being for younger women with children, but violence against women can come to any women, any age, any time. Many abused older women are isolated. They can be abused not only by their spouses but also by their adult children. They are usually financially dependent on the person abusing them. Kaushee’s Place has an Outreach liaison worker for older women. They report a 500-percent increase in contacts with older women over the last four months. This program is ending if they can’t find funding soon. Will the minister commit to funding this program?

013a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What the member opposite did not identify on the floor of this House is that this funding that is provided to Kaushee’s and these other initiatives is federal money. This expires at the end of March next year.

Now, the question should be, “Has the member opposite or her caucus and colleagues written to our Member of Parliament and to the federal minister responsible for this area,” as we on this side have?

Question re:  Social housing

Mr. Cardiff:   In 2002, the Yukon signed the Canada-Yukon affordable housing agreement with the federal government. This agreement was for $5.5 million over five years, to be matched by the Yukon. It was to create or upgrade 400 affordable housing units. Could the minister tell us how much of the $5.5 million has been accessed and used to provide affordable housing for Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The $5.5 million is still outstanding within Yukon; however, we are planning to utilize the services of that money in the upcoming year.

Mr. Cardiff:   Shame — $5.5 million, 2 years, and they’ve done absolutely nothing for affordable housing.

Affordable social housing is proven to be an effective way to reduce cost pressures on the health care system, social services and the criminal justice system. This government has shown a complete lack of commitment.

There is only $98,000 in the supplementary budget. They haven’t put their money where their mouth is. They have just recently signed a new framework guide to housing initiatives that lets them off the hook to cost share the initiatives with the federal government. So in light of the inaction over the last two years, what guarantee do Yukoners have that this new agreement is going to translate into real, new, affordable housing?

014a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Speaker, it’s not like we have been sitting back on our hands on these particular monies from the federal government, as he indicates. In fact, the criteria for this money is so restricting it has been impossible for us to utilize this money from the federal government other than for such things as senior housing, which is a possibility that we may be able to use in the upcoming year, and I anticipate we will be getting into that particular venue.

Affordable housing has a structure on it and a limit, which is good for southern communities but not for the north. It has been very difficult for us to obtain this money and utilize it under the criteria that the federal government has put forth. However, we have negotiated with the federal government on a couple of issues, and Yukon Housing is now in a position where they’ll be able to submit a recommendation to the federal government and bring forth an application that we have accepted under this formula.

Mr. Cardiff:   Shame again. All they’ve negotiated is the fact that they don’t have to put their money where their mouth is. They’re off the hook for having to cost share on affordable housing. And he just said that they’re not even going to do affordable housing. They’re talking about something completely different.

Currently there are 30 families on the social housing waitlist. Transition homes, as my colleague was saying earlier, are stretched to the maximum. Women leaving abusive relationships have only a few options when their time at a transition home ends. They have the free-market housing that they usually can’t afford, they can go out on the street, they can return to the abusive relationship, or they can go into social housing that currently doesn’t exist. Will the minister consider establishing a separate waitlist that gives priority to women leaving abusive relationships?

015a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Yukon Housing is currently looking at just that exact situation under their affordable housing program and assessing the availability of this type of housing within all areas of the Yukon.

Question re:  AIDS and hepatitis C funding

Mr. McRobb:   Funding for AIDS and hepatitis C has long been a matter of dispute in the Yukon. Throughout 2001, AIDS Yukon Alliance and the hepatitis C support group, Positive Lives, had issues with the $139,000 the government gave to the alliance. Funding came through the federal government for hepatitis C support. The Liberal government wanted the alliance to take on the hepatitis C problem and their hundreds of clients. The hepatitis C group wanted their own organization. The Minister of Health in the federal government at the time threw up his hands and recommended mediation for the two groups so he wouldn’t have to decide.

Can the Health minister update us on the present situation for hepatitis C with the new organization called Blood Ties Four Directions?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Again, these are all federal initiatives in which our government’s role is to ensure that Yukoners are treated fairly and as well as they possibly can be. To that end, I was advised during a recent meeting with the federal Minister of Health that there is a tremendous surplus in this fund and they are looking at ways of determining who else could receive money that contracted this dreaded blood-borne disease during that time.

So there’s a window of opportunity at the insistence of the federal government. The member opposite once again, and the official opposition, should be directing a lot of these questions to the federal government, whose clear responsibility exists in this area.

 016a

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the Health minister shouldn’t be too quick to absolve his own responsibility in this area. Now the Liberal minister promised more funding for the extra 300 or 400 hepatitis C clients, but that minister was fired before any additional funding was secured. The new Liberal minister refused to increase funding and the alliance was told to take on the hepatitis C clients. Blood Ties Four Directions operates with only a slightly larger budget than the alliance. They provide support to hepatitis C clients, as well as programs for AIDS and HIV-affected persons. How much of the present funding arrangement for Blood Ties is earmarked for the support of hepatitis C clients, or is the minister waiting for the federal government to come along and pick up the tab for our own patients?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As to how this NGO distributes its funding, I don’t have the details of that. Perhaps the member opposite could get a hold of this NGO and ask them directly. Our government’s commitment is firm, definitive and succinct. We will assist Yukoners where there’s an assistance requirement. Also, the area that the member is exploring is clearly a federal purview and the federal government made the determination as to who was to receive funding under this initiative. That has since been broadened at the insistence of the new federal Minister of Health, and as to how it will finally flow through I am not aware of the details. I know it is work in progress, and I’d encourage the members opposite to get a hold of the federal government, our Member of Parliament, and ask him the specific questions, and ask those ministers.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, he is the minister and he should know. Now Blood Ties has cut back on its services due to a lack of funding. It isn’t able to get out into the communities where we heard yesterday First Nation HIV infection is a very serious matter. Blood Ties has lost most of the nursing support it had for testing. For instance, the Outreach van, which they helped sponsor, no longer has financial help and is operating only two days a week, not on weekends when it’s needed most.

What does this minister plan to do about the HIV and AIDS epidemic and about providing proper funds to Blood Ties so it can help support hepatitis C clients?

017a

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, what I wish to make abundantly clear to this member opposite and to this House is that our government’s commitment in this area for funding has not decreased. It has actually, in fact, increased. The program initiatives that the member opposite is referring to are federal programs that are timed, and they will expire at the end of March this year, unless there are new initiatives and new programs brought forward and new funding from the federal government. So like me and like my department, I would encourage the members opposite to write to our Member of Parliament, to write to the respective minister, and encourage them to put the restorative funding to a lot of these programs that are well-meaning and well-deserved and required here in the Yukon. But at the end of the day, that is the only way we are going to be able to maintain the funding in these areas — by ensuring that the federal government steps up to the plate and continues funding these initiatives that they began.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of government private members’ business

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 14.2(7), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of government private members to be called on Wednesday, December 8, 2004: Motion No. 391, standing in the name of the Member for Lake Laberge, and Motion No. 322, standing in the name of the Member for Lake Laberge.

Speaker:   We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

The matter before the Committee this afternoon is Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act.

Before we begin, do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

018a

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

Bill No. 54 — Act to Amend the Income Tax Act

Chair:  The Committee will now examine Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, in general debate.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:    We’ve already gone through this bill in some detail during second reading, and I will now continue with some remarks here in Committee.

The bill does provide businesses in the Yukon with tax incentives to promote economic growth. We made this commitment to Yukoners that we as a government would provide tax incentives to our business community to help promote economic growth and put more money back in the pockets of Yukoners. We all know that our tax regime must be both competitive and attractive to businesses in order to have a vibrant economy. This legislation will go some way to achieving that very goal.

The bill reduces the corporate small business tax rate from six percent to four percent effective January 1, 2005. Since its inception in 1983, this is the first time that the small business tax rate has been reduced.

019a

The two-point rate change represents a 33-percent reduction in the small business tax rate. What this means in practical terms is that many corporations in the Yukon will see a reduction of their Yukon taxes by at least one third. This is something to be proud of, Mr. Chair, as a government. It is another example of our attention to and focus on our business community to get them much more involved in the building of Yukon’s economic future.

This bill also increases the small business tax deduction limit to $400,000 effective January 1, 2007. The small business tax deduction limit represents the amount of business income that is eligible for the reduced small business tax rate. The current limit of $250,000 is slated to increase by $25,000 a year until it reaches $300,000 on January 1, 2006. This bill also increases the limit a further $100,000 to the $400,000 level effective January 1, 2007.

020a

Mr. Chair, as I stated in second reading, these two initiatives will reduce taxes for many of the corporations operating in the Yukon. Lower taxes are a necessary ingredient, required to stimulate growth in the Yukon Territory.

Mr. Chair, that is what we are delivering on as a government. When both these tax reduction measures are fully implemented, some $885,000 will go back into the pockets of Yukoners through their small businesses. In a similar vein, this is the reduction in the government’s revenues that we will see each year. However, it’s an affordable reduction, considering that those monies are now back in Yukoners’ hands. This is an investment that all Yukoners will indeed benefit from. These tax changes are a reflection of our commitment to economic growth and partnering with our private sector, which will lead to a much more prosperous Yukon future. I expect all members of the House to support the goal encompassed by this bill and look forward to the debate.

I also will answer any questions that may be coming from the other side of the House on this matter, but I also want to point out that it is a well-known fact, after due diligence, that the reduction in small business tax rates is clearly one of the best vehicles to increase investment in any economy in any jurisdiction.

021a

It works because small businesses tend to take that extra money and reinvest it into the region or jurisdiction they’re in, thereby creating jobs and benefits for the citizens in that particular area.

This is something the Department of Finance has put together in very short order. This is not the end of what the department will be doing in researching and looking at our tax regimes to further develop and grow our economy in partnership with our business and private sectors. We know that across the country respective governments are looking at their tax regimes, including the federal government. Our purpose here is to try to engage with the small business community in a way that they become more involved and are able to invest more in the future growth of our economy.

Mr. Chair, I think this is a measure that all members in this House can support. There’s great merit and value in what these amendments will do for Yukoners. Our small business community is one of the most important pieces of our economic fabric. They are here; they are our mainstay through thick and thin, through whatever cycle we are in. Our small business community’s diversity, dedication and commitment to the Yukon economy is constant and absolute, and we as a government are looking in every area possible to assist our small business community — be it tax measures, be it training Yukoners so they have the skill sets to work within our small business community or looking at areas of investment by government spending that will also assist our small business community and its future growth.

022a

With that, I will turn it over to the members opposite.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, it’s no surprise that the Yukon Party government has moved in this direction in regard to tax cuts, and obviously it’s no surprise also that the Yukon Party government has decided to target this one area. We already have some of the lowest taxes in the country, and I have heard the Finance minister say previously that this is putting it in line with some of the other jurisdictions across Canada; however, I have a few issues around this. Part of those issues, of course, is that it seems that this government does not know what one hand is doing. When one hand is doing an action on this side, what’s the other hand doing? I’ll tell you why this arises. It’s called the Taxpayer Protection Act.

When we looked at this, Mr. Chair, we found that by lowering this tax, under the Taxpayer Protection Act there’s a very good possibility that no way in the world could this government or any other government down the road be able to make that adjustment back up — up to five percent, or six percent or whatever — without going back to the polls or making substantial changes to the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Now I’m quite willing to have the minister on the other side try to explain this to me, because he seems to avoid this issue or to address this concern that we’ve raised in the past. There’s a very serious concern about this, of course. Number one, if the government were finding it difficult to meet its obligations — the social obligations, the economic obligations, the expectations of the people of this territory — it may have to make a slight adjustment to some taxes. In this case they would not be able to do this unless they addressed the concerns under the Taxpayer Protection Act.

023a

That’s a serious concern. That’s tying the hands of future governments. That’s also tying their own hands in that regard. What is more distressing about that issue is the fact that the minister has not flagged that; he has not raised that point. He has not addressed it, yet he has been aware of it. He has been aware of it because I addressed it earlier on, Mr. Chair. He stands up today and once again totally avoids it, when he could have addressed it immediately, if there was something that we were missing here. He could have said, in response to some of the concerns that were raised by the official opposition, this is what would happen, no need to worry, future governments can raise taxes or lower taxes as they see fit, as is their legislative right. In this case, I don’t have that assurance and the Finance minister did not address it. I find that a shame.

The minister also talked about evidence of benefits in making these adjustments. Well, there has been nothing put on the table to prove that these adjustments would flow into the hands of the working people, nor would be a benefit throughout the Yukon. No evidence has been brought forward; it is just words. Has the minister indicated if there is going to be any kind of tracking to see how that money flows, if this benefit, this adjustment downward, does trickle through the system and goes into the hands of working people?

I know that the minister on that side avoids those words, “working people”, because I never heard him mention it once in his address. All I heard was, “business benefits,” “business benefits,” “business benefits.” We do not oppose that on this side. We support that and we recognize that small business is the backbone of the economy, but small business is made up of working people as well, and they have to be part and parcel of any address, in my perspective. They go hand in hand: business and working people. They’re not separate.

If you’re going to give tax breaks, are you also going to apply those tax breaks to other groups, to other people? Is it going to be across the board? Or is it just singling out individual organizations or businesses that will get this tax break? We are only talking about small business here — are we going to go broader?

The Finance minister has indicated that maybe there is going to be more tax breaks coming. I would like to see the Finance minister put that out to the public and out to us so that we can know where this government is going in regard to tax breaks.

024a

But once again, it’s left in the void. We really don’t know what they’re doing or where they’re going. We have no idea what the vision is around taxes. Now, I’m very concerned about that. There are many people in our society who are struggling, and there are a lot of statistics out there. But I want to tell you about statistics.

Yesterday, I heard very clearly where statistics do not prove the reality. That was around the social aspect — it’s around abuse and the crisis line and the front-line workers. Statistics show that there has been a drop in charges of abuse within the territory. But the front-line workers gave us figures of a 300-percent increase, a 57-percent increase, a 500-percent increase. They’re the front-line workers. That’s what they see on their doorstep. So statistics are a concern if they’re not fine-tuned enough and if they do not connect with the reality on the streets and in the departments and in the NGOs and in our communities.

I am very concerned that there is no proof that this tax reduction is going to have the benefits that we want in stimulating the economy and being spread throughout our society, and I would be much happier if there were some concrete evidence. If the minister wishes to table studies done in other jurisdictions, because I don’t think there has been one done in the Yukon — I could be wrong, but I can’t remember one being done — but in other provinces in which they have studied tax reductions and the benefits of how it has impacted economies, if he is willing to table those or direct me even where to look for those, I am quite happy to look at that and see it but, at face value, I have to question it.

025a

We have indicated that we do not oppose this reduction from six percent to four percent, but we have raised concerns, and I think they’re very legitimate concerns, and they need to be answered. A government has to have the ability to not only lower taxes but to also raise taxes, to do either one of those or to hold steady where taxes presently are. We may have huge economic activity happening in the Yukon in the future. It could be the pipeline, and it looks more and more like it will be the pipeline; it could be the railroad. That may be a while off still. They will have a tremendous impact on our culture and our societies up here.

There may be a desire by this government to tax that economic activity to ensure more money stays within the Yukon that can be spread out through all the communities. It may be a tax to address some of the social concerns that will arise from pipeline activity. It may be a tax for training. The government may make that choice. The government has to have the authority to do that for the betterment of our society and the betterment of the Yukon when you see a major activity like a pipeline coming through.

We all know the building of a pipeline is not a long project. It’s not 10 or 15 years long, or 20 years long. It’s not like a mine. Historically, a mine would open up and, 30 years later, they’re still running and still employing people. The building of the pipeline will happen; it will be extremely fast; it will surprise people how quickly it goes through the regions; it will be quite astounding. The impact will be very fast; the flow of money will be huge; the opportunities for the Yukon to benefit from that must be realized. One area where it may be realized is in some type of tax to ensure — whether it’s training or money directed to social issues, or possibly a green tax for environmental concerns, in order to recoup, restore and create more employment after the pipeline has gone through and to re-establish certain areas that may have been affected. The government has to have that authority.

026a

When we make changes around taxes, we have to be aware of that. If economic benefit is going to be coming into the Yukon, if our economy is improving, then we have to have a way to ensure that as much money as possible stays in the Yukon.

Now the minister mentioned that the tendency of small businesses is to spend the money within their area, within where their business is actually set up, and I agree with him. That is the general tendency, and that’s one of the reasons we support the reduction from six to four percent; however, studies have to be done, or there are studies that have been done in the past. There’s proof that has to be laid before us that is essential, and we do have committees and boards that we should utilize in looking at these changes. An example would be the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment. They haven’t been that active in the last while. This is exactly the kind of area that we could have directed them to take a look at, and they would have embraced it and I’m sure brought forward a report that would have been quite beneficial for this kind of debate.

We had a tax round table. The NDP put together a tax round table. That was to get input from businesses, from labour, from communities in regard to the future direction of the taxation system — what is good, what isn’t, what we should be looking at. Now that was quite a few years ago. Who has this government consulted with in this regard?

027a

How broad is their basis of consultation? When they made this decision, was it only to reflect what some of the other provinces are doing, to get in line with what their tax base is, or did they go out and consult small business? Did they consult the chambers? Did they consult other organizations around this? We don’t know. It hasn’t been said to us yet. So we have serious concerns about that as well.

So as members on the other side like to say in regard to us, the official opposition, and the bills we bring forward, there are a lot of holes in this. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

Once again, Mr. Chair, the minister did not address what we asked for earlier on. So I look forward to hearing his responses to this. I look forward to the debate in regard to this Bill No. 54. I also look forward to the minister explaining who he consulted in this regard and where it came from. I look forward to his explaining how this works with the Taxpayer Protection Act, what effect it has, and if we are able to adjust the taxes back up without having to go to a referendum or an election or a massive change with the Taxpayer Protection Act? Is that affected? What are the other proposals? He alluded to some other changes to taxes. Maybe the minister on the floor today can explain what those changes are going to be. I’m very curious. What direction are we going in, in regard to taxes? I know many lower income people would love to see an adjustment, and maybe those who are in that tax bracket need to see an adjustment as well. Is that a consideration? I know other organizations and groups would love to see some tax forgiveness, as well — and individuals.

028a

There are a lot of forms of taxes out there. Workers’ compensation — what about that, Mr. Chair? On one hand this is a tax reduction, but it seems that we are witnessing a tax increase in workers’ compensation. The taxes are being reduced in the small business area, but if you look at workers’ compensation, which every business that has employees is supposed to be paying into, you are seeing an increase being applied. Is that going to stimulate the economy? Is that going to help?

The argument from the Yukon Party government, from the minister, is not making sense. If tax reduction stimulates the economy, why would you increase workers’ compensation on this other side? Maybe the minister can explain how one stimulates the economy by lowering the amounts, but on the other side it is not affecting the economy by raising the amounts. That needs to be answered as well. If you are going to make the argument, apply it to what else is happening within government, within the corporations.

Again, it comes down to one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. Those are serious considerations that the official opposition has. Again, in the end, a lot of it comes right back down to it being not really that well thought out. It’s similar to, “Let’s do this. We’ll win some favour out there, and hopefully it will distract from the other stuff that we’re doing, such as the concerns around workers’ compensation.” I’ve heard a lot of businesses’ concern around that. I’ve had a lot phone calls about what is happening in that area.

I look forward to the responses on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

029a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I did hear faintly coming from the leader of the official opposition that they might support this bill and the tax measures in it for our small business community, but what came out loud and clear is the official opposition’s — the NDP’s — real position when it comes to taxation in the Yukon. It’s obvious, based on the member’s response, that the NDP — the official opposition in this territory — is more interested in increasing taxes than in providing incentive to our business community by decreasing taxes.

So, on that note, I would like to just point out for the Yukon public that the government side of the House is interested in looking at our taxation regime to find ways to provide incentive to our business community through lowering taxes. The official opposition has clearly stated their position in this House: that they are more interested in raising taxes, and that’s very important, Yukoners, that you all understand those two very contrasting positions.

Furthermore, there is clear evidence within the bill itself of how this will benefit Yukoners, and it begins by the fact that this puts $885,000 back into the pockets of Yukoners through small businesses. Let’s also make the point — and again this is something the member should know if the member is interested in what our small business community is all about — that this reduction in taxes in the small business tax rate for the Yukon will affect 98 percent of the corporations in the Yukon Territory. In other words, 98 percent of our corporate community has an annual gross revenue of $400,000 or less. Therefore, the tax amendment and the measures we’ve brought forward will benefit 98 percent of our small business community.

030a

That’s something that the member opposite should have known already. So the comments that the members opposite won’t know if this affects a few businesses or just a couple of businesses are of extremely concern, because the member should know the fabric of our business community and the role it plays in the Yukon economy. Furthermore, Mr. Chair, I have to point out that the member opposite has actually criticized our Finance officials who worked on this measure, who researched it, who did the calculations, who looked into all facets of this and brought it forward.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Point of order

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

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to put it on record that we in official opposition did not criticize any officials. And if we were critical, it’s about the policy of this Yukon government, and we should not be characterized as a party attacking members of the public service.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   Order please. There is no point of order here. There is a dispute between members.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have to recognize that beginning with what was a very extensive consultation with Yukoners — the election — we clearly committed to provide tax incentives to businesses in order to promote economic growth.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The member is calling out “WCB”. Again, it’s a concern. The leader of the official opposition does not understand that the workers’ compensation rates and the issues that go with it are dealt with by a board, not by the government — a board. And furthermore, the correlation the member is making doesn’t even make sense. In fact, I fail to see the relevance of arguing that Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board has some connection to reduction in small business tax, because it simply doesn’t. Our consultation began with the election and our commitment. Since then, the Department of Finance and its officials have been working diligently on this matter.

031a

It’s also a known fact, through research — which the member opposite could have or should have done in preparation for this debate — that there is a direct link between corporate tax reduction and personal tax reduction. Here is the net value to the increase of economic output. If you reduce personal taxes you get a net increase in economic output of 56 cents. If you decrease corporate taxes you get a net economic increase in output of $1.55. That is information that is available to any member in this House.

Furthermore, there has been other work done. The Mintz report, for example, states that economic growth and job creation are influenced greatly by the business tax structure, even more so than by changes in the personal tax system.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:   Ms. Duncan, on a point of order.

Ms. Duncan:   On a point of order, it’s customary in the House that, if the minister is reading from a document or quoting from a document — I heard him reference the Mintz report — copies of that information be provided. So I would respectfully request that the Premier would provide that information he is reading from to the opposition parties, please. Thank you.

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It is customary from time to time to quote passages from Hansard and other documentation in this House. It happens all the time. I have further information to relay to the members opposite. They asked.

032a

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   Order please.

If this is a document that currently exists in the public domain, there is no requirement that it be tabled; however, if this is a private document, then it would be appropriate — if it’s going to be quoted from extensively — to table the document and to provide it to all members.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s a very public document available on the Internet across the country, probably worldwide. The CD Howe Institute points out that Canada cannot wait several years to review business taxation. “Although it is important and politically popular to reduce personal taxes, it is the business tax system that creates the greatest leverage in improving productivity and the growth of incomes in Canada as other countries, such as Ireland, have found out.” That is just another example. The member asked for examples; I’m providing examples.

Again, this kind of information is available on the Internet. By turning on a computer, you can dial in on taxation and find all kinds of information. The point is that the government has come forward with an initiative to reduce the small business tax rate in the Yukon Territory. This reduction will affect 98 percent of our corporate community. The members opposite have found a way to show, once again, their adversity to our private sector and our business community, and I’m going to make sure that our business community knows what the official opposition’s real agenda is, and that is to raise taxes.

Now no one can dispute the benefits that would accrue from putting back into the Yukon economy through our small businesses another $885,000 annually. That’s what this means — $885,000 back into Yukoners’ pockets to be used, to reinvest in small business terms that may even mean creating more jobs for Yukoners. I think if we look at what the members opposite don’t like to look at — the statistics — the stimulus and the investment in the Yukon Territory is showing trends that the territory is changing its direction, and those are very important trends. The members opposite may not like them; the members may take exception and dispute those numbers, but the facts are that the Yukon’s unemployment rate is now one of the lowest in the country while we are experiencing a growth in our population.

033a

The member also brought up the fact that governments need to raise taxes. Well, that could be true in some cases. Our government, though, is more interested in reducing taxes, as I have said. But we have found other ways to address issues like the social fabric. Does the member not recognize or is the member not willing to recognize the $20-million northern health accord? That’s extra money — new money for the Yukon. The Yukon’s share of the new $150-million territorial health access fund — is the member not willing to recognize that? The Yukon’s share, that’s new money. Is the member not willing to recognize our share, the Yukon’s share, of $30 million of the northern economic development fund — $30 million of new money? Adding this up, it’s getting quite significant.

There are other ways to ensure that Yukoners are getting a standard and quality of life that all Canadians enjoy. What about the millions of dollars in infrastructure monies that are coming to this territory? By the way, Mr. Chair, what about the renegotiated increases in our territorial funding grant — this year, $47 million; next year, $51 million. What we’re talking about here is a government that, on one hand — and the member states the government doesn’t know what one hand is doing in relation to the other. Mr. Chair, the government, on one hand, is reducing taxes to 98 percent of our business community, providing an extra $885,000 of additional monies for that business community to reinvest back in the Yukon. And on the other hand, we are increasing the overall fiscal position of the Yukon Territory in all the areas that I have just listed.

I say to you, Mr. Chair, that not only do both hands know what they are doing, they are in lockstep.

Now, I did hear the members say they are going to support this bill. So given that fact, and the information I have relayed that shows clearly that the business community is very much involved in this — it goes all the way back to the election and we have all kinds of research that can be pulled off the Internet. The members opposite all have computers. I’ve pointed out this is 98 percent of our business community. The difference between personal reduction in taxes and corporate is economic increased output on the personal side only 56 cents; on the corporate side, it’s $1.55. I’m not sure what else we can do for the members’ benefit, other than to just close by saying, if the members support this bill, then maybe the members should talk further about what they think our small business community can do with the extra $885,000 they will receive annually.

034a

Ms. Duncan:   There was a question that was asked of the Finance minister that was not answered in the last few minutes of remarks, and that is: when was the last time the tax round table was convened, and has the Finance minister met with individuals from the financial community? I’m thinking of BDO Dunwoody, and McKay and Partners. There are a number of small accounting firms that are represented and enjoyed meetings with previous Finance ministers on a regular basis. So when was the last time the Finance minister had a meeting of this round table or of a similar group?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   The tax round table was created by a former NDP government in the 1990s. As far as I understand, at the election of 2000, the NDP government was voted out of office and I don’t think the round table has met since then.

Therefore, I would respond to the member opposite by saying that the minister has had constant discussions with our business community. We promote to the greatest degree possible the involvement of our business community, specifically our small business community, in the economy of the Yukon. The other tax measures that we’ve dealt with are the increase and the extension of the mining exploration tax credit. Well, one can certainly argue that we are starting to experience some benefit from that, and we are sure, based on knowing and understanding intimately the fabric of our small business community in the territory, that $885,000 more in their hands will do good for Yukon and its people.

So we have ongoing discussions with our business community, with the members opposite in this House, with the media on what we’re doing, and of course we intend to keep informing the public on a daily basis. When I say that there are other measures, the point was that the Department of Finance is merely looking at our tax regime to see where there are some possibilities. This is one that certainly appears to be a tremendous initiative that the officials of our Finance department have brought forward, and what this means is not lost on Yukon small business.

035a

I think that what Yukon small business is clearly hearing — and I’m not sure about the third party’s position because the question is technical in nature, but we know that the NDP and the official opposition are more interested in raising taxes. The discussions are ongoing and always will be by this government. We are without a doubt a government that recognizes and fully supports our small business community. This reduction in the small business corporate tax rate is just an example of that very commitment.

Ms. Duncan:   The bill that is before us and is under general debate is word for word from the Liberal Party platform and the member opposite well knows it. It’s a clear commitment, and I would be happy to send him over the platform page so he can re-read it for himself.

I would join with him in agreeing that the Department of Finance officials have done very good work for Yukon governments — they have done and they continue to do so. This is an initiative that is a good initiative. It’s one that we committed to, one that was well-prepared. It just took the former member of the NDP and the current government two years to bring it forward.

With respect to the tax round table, which is what I referred to, the fact is that I had a member of the small business community who works in this area indicate that they certainly missed the opportunity of speaking with the Finance minister on a regular basis, so that is why I raised the issue.

The Finance minister has brought forward this initiative, which was part of the Liberal Party platform that I supported. I support it now, as I said I did on November 4, 2004, and as I said to Yukon voters in November 2002.

I would like to ask if the minister is giving any consideration to another suggestion that has been brought forward that is again a minimal cost to the government in net revenues, and that is a teacher supply tax credit. It’s in place in Prince Edward Island. It is one that I brought forward as a motion and discussed. The Member for Klondike has repeatedly laughed and referred to it as “bunk”; however, a significant number of teachers in the teaching community in the Yukon have asked me if I will continue to lobby for it. I had several conversations with the current president of the Canadian Teachers Federation about this when I brought it forward. It is a good initiative. It would be of tremendous benefit to teachers and recognize a very strong professional group: the educators in our territory. I am interested to know whether or not the Finance minister has given or will be giving any consideration to that suggestion.

036a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, we are dealing with a taxation measure that has to do with our small business community. That said, I understand that in relation to supplies for our schools, the Yukon government buys them. And we do have a collective bargaining agreement with our teachers. We have not given consideration to the teacher supply tax credit. I know the member opposite has brought it forward in the past, and that’s the position the member opposite obviously can take. But the government of the day, under our watch — we have not given consideration to this area. To date, the measures that we brought forward in this particular amendment are specific to our small business community.

Mr. Chair, I thank the leader of the third party. It’s obvious that the third party shares some of the views of the government of today in how we deal with our business community and our economy. There are some commonalities, I think it’s fair to say, and we are going to increase our efforts when it comes to economic growth in the Yukon, and I look forward to the third party’s continued support of the government side in our efforts to turn the Yukon economy around. And I think it’s fair to say that the member opposite, from time to time, alludes to a point of missed opportunity in the past. Today though, the government of the day, under our watch, is not missing the opportunities. We are delivering on them.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the minister did answer the question. He said they have not to date given consideration to the teacher supply tax credit. I’m asking if they will give consideration to this initiative. There are two years left in their mandate. Granted, I fully understand the Department of Education receives an allotment, and we do spend a significant sum on schools and supplying schools; however, individual teachers spend a significant amount of money in buying supplies for their classrooms. It’s the extras. A small business — an electrical business for example — can deduct certain entertainment expenses, certain education journals, certain magazines, et cetera. There is nothing for a teacher who buys books for her or his classroom, who puts different things up on the wall, or when they have projects such as a castle-building exercise or some of the other initiatives that teachers do to assist students and to ensure that a concept is learned. For example, to develop math concepts, many teachers will have the students doing different dice games. Quilting is another way that math concepts have been reinforced. All the supplies involved in that are bought by the teacher.

037a

There is no way at present under our Yukon tax system to recognize that kind of professional expense, so will the Finance minister, in the spirit of the consensus-building and collaboration he promised Yukoners, ask his officials to give consideration to this idea? I realize they haven’t done it to date; I’m asking if they will consider doing that.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I’m not aware of any significant expenses incurred by teachers, and if there are I really commend those teachers for taking the initiative themselves. If they are expending their own money out of pocket to buy supplies in schools, I’m sure the minister would like to find out about that because the government is committing to ensure that our schools have the supplies necessary for our teachers to teach our children. That being said, our focus with the tax measures that we’re looking at is economic specific, and that’s a full stop. To date we have not reviewed this issue and the chances are in the rest of this mandate we will probably not review this issue. But if there are situations that we can address through the department and the minister, we will do that. I’m sure that the teachers who have experienced this will find the minister very understanding and accommodating.

So the member opposite has an issue that the member wants to support. I find value in that and I urge the member to continue supporting that particular position. We do have what I call an acceptable collective bargaining agreement with our teachers, and we continue to strive to improve our relationship, not only with teachers but all employees. That responsibility rests with the government to some degree. So, that being said, I go back to the bill itself. It is specific to our small business community. It is providing benefit to our small business community, thereby providing benefit to all Yukoners.

038a

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I can just put on record a couple things that the minister has alluded to and misrepresented.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Sorry, sorry.

Unparliamentary language

Chair:   Would the member like an opportunity to rephrase that?

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Hardy:   Absolutely. Actually, I’m sorry. That was just a lapse there. I didn’t mean to say that.

He gave his opinion of what the NDP stands for and what the NDP believes in. I can tell you right now that that minister has the least amount of knowledge of what the NDP stands for and definitely does not exemplify anything that we have stood for.

If you look at the history of Yukon and political parties, the NDP has been the most progressive in tax changes, has offered the most tax incentives and tax benefits for businesses, small businesses, mining, oil and gas. It has always been a leader in this area. Tourism. Our record speaks for itself, and it is very easily proven. Whether it’s the film industry, I’ve already said tourism, mining incentives that have been brought forward — almost all of it has been brought forward by the NDP. That is on record. It’s not just rhetoric. It’s not just an opinion. It’s actually on record; however, that’s not what we’re debating today. We are actually talking about another initiative that’s being brought forward that will stimulate small business to a tune of $885,000, as the minister has indicated. As I said, I always view changes like this with a small amount of scepticism. I believe that’s healthy. But hopefully that will flow out into our communities, into the hands of workers as well as benefit the small businesses to expand their operations — maybe even be able to employ more people. So we’re willing to give that an opportunity, and that’s why we will be supporting this.

I did raise some concerns, and one of the more predominant ones, of course, was the one around the Taxpayer Protection Act, and I had looked forward to an explanation of that from the minister, but that doesn’t seem to be coming forward.

039a

Another one was consultation. I had mentioned the tax round table that was implemented by the former NDP government, and that was to look at more progressive changes to the tax regime. Obviously that has fallen off the table; it doesn’t exist any more. That’s a shame, because it was a consultative process that allowed businesses to be involved, as well as others, in this area where they are so deeply affected. So consultation, of course, seems to be something that’s on the back burner as well in this regard.

Now there are other groups that are looking for tax changes. If the minister is so willing — and he doesn’t have to, of course, if he doesn’t want to — maybe he can indicate what other areas they would consider for tax reform within the Income Tax Act. The leader of the third party of course mentioned the situation around the teachers, and we as the official opposition feel it’s well merited and something to be considered. We’re a little disappointed to hear that minister suggest that it’s not going to be in this mandate, but I’d like to thank him for his candour, because by saying that, hopefully it’s put to rest for this period. We know it’s not part of the mandate and part of the wishes of this government, and we can move forward from there and look at other stuff. If the minister is so willing to give us some insight on some of the other areas, we’d appreciate that, and that will probably conclude my remarks.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   As I pointed out earlier, the work that is being done is based on our commitment to provide business — I repeat — to provide business with tax incentives to promote economic growth. That’s what the department is focused on. I find with interest, though, how both parties on the opposite benches are now clamouring to take credit for these tax measures. You know, the government side has consistently pointed out where credit is due and have offered that credit.

 040a

I will say that the New Democrats did create the tax round table and discuss taxation issues and came forward with a suggestion on mining taxation, which the third party, when in government, kept going and which we are keeping going. However, this gets back to the one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

Here we have the two parties opposite, when in government, promoting taxation measures to attract investment in industry, like the mining industry but, by the same token, chasing the mining industry out of the territory with the much-flawed Yukon protected areas strategy. So here we have a government now that not only promotes tax incentives for economic growth, but also the cessation of a very flawed process that chased the mining industry out of the territory.

The long and the short of this, Mr. Chair, is that not only did we implement the tax measures, extend them and increase them, but we also got rid of an impediment. I think the evidence will bear out the comments being made. We have gone from under the third party’s last year in office of $7.6 million in investment and exploration for mining to $22 million this year and, by the way, we are drilling for natural gas in the southeast Yukon, we have application for a drilling program now in the Eagle Plains area, tourism is increasing, population is increasing, unemployment rate is falling, and investment in the territory is certainly starting to improve. Our relationship with the business community in that area is important because we want the private sector to complement government spending or government investment, thereby increasing economic growth.

So all the indicators are starting to show the Yukon changing direction. I think the members opposite should recognize that there is another way to approach this, and that is to do as the government side does: where credit is due, we provide that credit; we acknowledge it. We aren’t just a government that will busily go on its way criticizing for no reason other than to criticize. We will point out the facts and the members opposite could do great justice to this territory and its future if their criticism addressed what their real position is, like taxation and the increase of taxes that the NDP have pointed out quite consistently.

041a

And it’s not unusual for the New Democrats to promote tax increases because they are essentially a political entity that likes to tax the populace right to the max, and then spend it right to the max. That’s certainly not what is happening in today’s Yukon. This is a strange way to support a tax bill and a measure of reducing small business tax credit for this territory. The government has tabled a bill, the amendments are clear, the benefits are there. I did sense though, from both parties, that they would be supporting the bill, and we thank them for that.

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

Ms. Duncan:   I would request the unanimous consent of the House to deem all clauses and the title of Bill No. 54, Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, read and agreed to.

Unanimous consent re deeming clauses and the title of Bill No. 54 read and agreed to

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all clauses and the title of Bill No. 54, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, as read and agreed to. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

 Chair:   I believe the ayes have it. There is unanimous consent.

Clauses 1 to 6 deemed to have been read and agreed to

On Title

Title agreed to

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 54, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be reported without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that Bill No. 54, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be reported without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Ms. Duncan:   I request that we have a five-minute recess while we switch departments, or is that required by the minister?

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

Some Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:  Disagreed.

Chair:   We require unanimous consent to take a recess.

042a

Committee of the Whole will now continue with Bill No. 12, Second Appropriation Act, 2004-05, Vote 53, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and general debate.

Bill No. 12 — Second Appropriation Act, 2004-05 — continued

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources — continued

Mr. McRobb:   When we left off yesterday, I was spelling out some of the pros and cons of the Alaska Highway pipeline that is presumed to be coming to the territory within the next few years, possibly even sooner. There is no denying the benefits to the territory in terms of economic development and short-term jobs and possibly long-term jobs. However, I did outline several negative impacts that this government doesn’t seem to be addressing to the level that would satisfy many Yukoners, and one of the impacts was the fallout to the business community with labour shortage. I presume the minister, given his background as a businessman employing several dozen people in a rather transient industry, would be totally familiar with what I’m talking about.

043a

Of course, one of the other issues is the prevalence of abuse and of alcohol and drug use in the territory and, simply put, there’s not enough being done ahead of time to prepare for that. There are a number of other social consequences as well. So, Mr. Chair, yesterday the minister indicated that he has an action plan. He identified five steps. None of those steps address this area of social concern so I want to ask him what he, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is doing to help address those concerns. This could be an area that requires a substantial answer. If the minister wants to get back to us on it with some written information, that’s fine.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Going on with the conversation from yesterday and this afternoon from the member opposite, I’d like to remind the member opposite that in Energy, Mines and Resources we certainly are working with the components on the Alaska Highway pipeline and we’re working with it on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. As we all know in this room, the pipeline is coming to our area probably sooner than later. This of course will be driven by decisions made by the producers and we will work with those producers as the pipeline unfolds.

As far as the social problems and the labour problems with the pipeline, as the member’s colleague reminded us today, the pipeline will come through our jurisdiction probably very fast. We are a government that has compassion and certainly we’re going to work with the social issues as they arise. I remind the member opposite that as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I have to work with the minister in the government to make sure that we cover our bases as this pipeline goes through our jurisdiction.

As far as the opportunities to work on the pipeline and the training programs, we certainly have put resources toward that and we will be moving ahead in that region as the pipeline becomes a reality.

044a

As far as opportunities for Yukon, I look forward to some of the people who are working in minimum-paying jobs to have the opportunity to get out there, earn a living, learn a trade and move on with their lives so that the economics of the pipeline benefit the whole family. So I think for the member opposite to say that we’re not doing our job on the social end is incorrect. We certainly are working with the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition — all nine First Nations that are going to be affected directly in their traditional territories as the pipeline moves through their jurisdiction. We are moving ahead with funding that. We are working with the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition to make sure that the federal government comes to the mark and puts their money in place so that we have as many of our citizens as possible ready for the pipeline when it comes.

The social issue is going to be an impact of the pipeline, so we as a government are going to minimize the social impact on the whole community. As you see this thing unfold, Mr. Chair, looking back on it, I think we will be able to say we did our homework before the pipeline came; we put all the checkers in place; we came up with a minimum impact on the general public, maximized the benefits from the pipeline; and in the end, we have a group of people in the Yukon who are prepared to go to work and also training programs in place to make sure they’re competent to go to work, and in the long run we’ll benefit from a pipeline if and when it comes through our jurisdiction.

Mr. McRobb:   In that speech, I didn’t really hear an answer to the question about what precisely he’s doing to ameliorate the social consequences of the pipeline. We heard some general statements, and all that is fine and dandy, but when it comes to the crunch, there is really nothing in those general statements to provide relief and support in the areas of need in terms of social fallout from what would be a major project in the Yukon.

045a

I want to go back to my request for some information for the minister. Can he possibly return with a written document — after he has had time to reflect on the issues at hand — that clearly delineates the actions his department is taking and considering with respect to this matter?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly try to get the information out to the general public on issues that are going to pertain to the Alaska Highway pipeline, when and if it comes out. I appreciate the member opposite’s concern. I certainly agree with him that some work has to be done on the social impacts of any large project like this. You have to understand, Mr. Chair, that this is a $20-billion project. The $20 billion is not totally spent in our jurisdiction, but it is spent in the overall project from Prudhoe Bay to Chicago if that decision is made.

As far as our government not being prepared for the pipeline, I think all the departments in this territorial government are very aware of the impact on every level of our society when and if it comes through our jurisdiction. Whether it’s the Department of Education, Health and Social Services, whether it’s Energy, Mines and Resources, Highways, transportation branch, Justice — all these departments have this on their radar screen, so at the end of the day we can say to the member opposite that we’re going to do our homework; we’re going to move ahead with this pipeline if and when it comes through our jurisdiction, and we will be prepared to cover the bases as they need to be covered.

046a

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the minister says that he’s doing his best to inform the public and make them aware of the issues. Well, I beg to disagree. We have heard from the public and the public is concerned. There has been a noticeable lack of information and awareness campaign from this government with respect to the fallout on the social issues from any such megaproject. Furthermore, we agree with the public — there has been an absence — and that is why we in the official opposition are currently requesting this information from the minister. And the minister seems to be ignoring our right in this Legislature to ask for information, so once again I will ask him if he will provide us with that information.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We certainly will make public all information as it unfolds pertaining to any aspect of the potential Alaska Highway pipeline. We’re not in the habit of creating paperwork for the sake of creating paperwork. Certainly the pipeline is on our radar screen. The pipeline is closer than it has ever been, but remember that it was announced in 1977-78, so this pipeline has been on the radar screen of all the territorial governments from the late ‘70s to now, 2004. As soon as we know and as we move ahead into a pipeline situation where we actually know that a pipeline is going to materialize, then certainly a lot of these things will unfold. At that time we certainly will inform the general population and the members of the opposition on what process is taking place to make sure that we minimize the social end and, for all Yukoners, to make sure that we maximize our benefits from any pipeline that comes through our jurisdiction so that, at the end of the day, we have this pipeline in our jurisdiction and we benefit in the future. So there is a social issue out there and our government has to address that if we are in this situation when the pipeline is announced — and that’s a factor in this.

We’re moving along. We are working with the producers. We’re working with the State of Alaska. We’re working with the Government of British Columbia and the Government of Alberta. We took the step two years ago: the Yukon territorial government was in a race at that point with Northwest Territories, which created the animosity we had between our two jurisdictions. We solved that by going into partnership with them, realizing that at the end of the day there are going to be two pipelines and that Yukoners can benefit from both pipelines, whether it’s working in the Northwest Territories or in the Yukon. Plus our businesses can work in the Northwest Territories to move ahead so we can have a training program there. In essence, we can take our workforce and, when the pipeline in the Yukon is announced and up and running, at that point we’ll have a workforce or skeleton crew here that can go to work.

047a

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we’re doing our job on this side of the House pertaining to the Alaska Highway pipeline. We’re working toward the pipeline. We’re waiting for the producers to make their minds up. We’ve got to go with Alaska and work with them, so there are many issues to cover before we get into a pipeline mode that builds up expectations that we can’t deliver as a government.

The last government in the Yukon two years ago had this pipeline hysteria going on, and at the end of the day they didn’t deliver a pipeline. We’re not going to put ourselves into a position where we’re creating any kind of hype on something that might not happen, so we’re doing our homework. We’re working very positively on the pipeline. We’re moving forward with it, in conjunction with other jurisdictions, the producers and the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, but at the end of the day, until such a time as we know, in fact, that the trigger has been pulled on the Alaska Highway pipeline, we’re going to move along in a very constructive way to make sure at that point we can escalate the oil and gas division of the territorial government into a position to answer some of those questions the members opposite have on the social end, the economic benefits and all the things that will arrive when the pipeline arrives.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, the minister has been given two opportunities now to accommodate the requests of the official opposition with respect to the information, and he has denied both requests. This is a disturbing matter, because this Legislature cannot function if there is a roadblock of information from the government side. After all, our job on this side of the House is to test the case of the government, hold it accountable and so on. That’s what makes democracy work. There is no requirement, however. There is no mechanism for us in the opposition to force the government to provide the information — and maybe there should be — because in cases where that request for information is abused, such as in this case, when the minister refuses to provide simple information, then it threatens democracy as a whole and casts into doubt the whole purpose of this Yukon Legislature.

048a

Mr. Chair, this is really troubling. I want to ask the minister what he thinks gives him the right to deny requests specifically made by the official opposition?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate the member opposite, and I think having good opposition makes the democratic system work. I appreciate the questions the member opposite puts to us as government, and they keep us on the mark. That’s why we have this form of government.

As far as us holding back information, we certainly are not holding back information. We’re working very positively with the opposition and giving all the information we have on hand to make sure they can make informed decisions and can also get involved in asking the questions that have to be asked.

What I say to the member opposite pertaining to the social end of the pipeline is that we’re as concerned as he is. The social impact on the Yukon, when and if the pipeline comes, will be a very large thing and will have to be handled in a way that’s appropriate to make sure we maximize the benefits we get from a pipeline and minimize the social impact that will come with the pipeline.

As far as the paperwork that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has done on the social impact of the pipeline, we on this side of the House, as I said to all the members here —  the social impact will impact every department in this government. It’s not just going to be Energy, Mines and Resources. We have Environment; we have Education, Justice, Highways and Public Works — all those issues will be taxed if and when this pipeline comes through our jurisdiction.

For the member opposite to say that we’re not addressing the social end of it — we certainly recognize the impact the pipeline will have on society. This will be the largest contract ever let in the history of the world. This is a large, large contract. As a small community and as a small jurisdiction in Canada, I don’t think we realize the impact this pipeline will have on our economics and on the society in our communities.

049a

We certainly are very concerned about that and that’s why we’re working with the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. That’s why we’re working with all the departments to make sure — if and when the pipeline is triggered and the decisions are made — that, at the end of the day, we can minimize the impacts on Yukon from a social point of view, maximize the economic opportunities for Yukoners when the pipeline comes through, so at the end of the day we have a contract or a project — a large project — coming through our jurisdiction that is beneficial to all Yukoners.

So for the member opposite to insinuate that we’re not doing our homework and we’re not worried about the social aspect — he’s wrong on that issue. We are working very positively ahead. We don’t have lists of issues we can give out to the member opposite, a checkpoint of ticks and tacks of how we’re going to do this. We’re conscious of this. That’s why we’re doing our homework before the pipeline is triggered. That’s why Energy, Mines and Resources is working with other departments trying to minimize this social impact.

But don’t get me wrong: there is going to be an impact, and this impact is a large impact, whether it’s economic, social or education. As far as the workforce is concerned, the member opposite was concerned about our workforce, about people moving away and getting higher paid jobs in the Yukon so that people working in lower paid jobs would have to come from somewhere else. I say to you that the general population, if they and their families can benefit work-wise and training-wise from this contract or project and go on with their lives in a higher paid job, I say more power to them.

I say to you that at the end of the day you’re going to see an influx of people come into the Yukon and you’re going to see tradesmen. You’re also going to see a lot of our general population who have been in minimum-wage jobs up until now getting higher paying jobs on the pipeline contract. I say to you that I look forward to the day when I can see these people working in the trades and living in the Yukon with their families, and being trained to do a job and make a higher wage.

So I think, on one side of the table, we have social impacts that will happen, but I say to you that, on the other side, we have economic opportunities and economic pluses, so hopefully at the end of the day, if and when this pipeline is announced and if and when this pipeline is finished, Yukon can look back and say we minimized our social impacts and maximized our economic opportunities for Yukon.

So I look forward to seeing those people out in the trades working, going to our universities, working in our colleges, minimizing our problems in the Justice department, putting trained people to work, and that’s what our government is all about — getting people to work in the Yukon.

 050a

Mr. McRobb:   Well, it’s quite clear that this minister is willing to say anything. He’s in a state of denial. He’s not passing any information to us in the opposition, as he claims he is. Let the record speak for itself.

I do want to move on. I want to ask the minister how much he is spending in the area of promoting the oil and gas industry. I want the number in total.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I could give that to him. I haven’t got it off the top of my head, because I’ll have to consolidate a few figures, so I could commit to give him a figure. Whenever it’s convenient and the department has time to do it, we’ll give him a breakdown.

Mr. McRobb:   When you receive the breakdown, I’d appreciate it if you’d pass it on to us in the opposition parties.

Can the minister provide that number in terms of a breakdown as well — for instance, so much in terms of consulting, so much in terms of staff resources, in terms of expenses and promotion — all the components that make up this government’s spending on the oil and gas industry — that would even include regulations and so on? I’m very interested to know what that figure is. So would the minister oblige us by providing it in a breakdown form when he does get around to it, and when might we expect to receive that information?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   That’s why we have a main budget. Those figures — no, Mr. Chair. Don’t make light of the budget. That’s why we have a budget — I’m talking to the member opposite — so we can debate this, and we do this on a yearly basis. This is a supplementary. If you look back at your mains, there was a point where we could have debated all these figures with that breakdown. I think that it’s redundant to make my department go through these things and bring up figures that we have already brought to this House and were passed by this House. We look forward to a new main budget in March, so we’re only three or four months away from a whole new year. And at that point, we will be debating exactly what these figures are and a breakdown of where that money is going to go, because we on this side of the House as government have to answer to all Yukoners on the economics of the territory. This department, Energy, Mines and Resources, will be debated, and it will be in the main estimates, and I look forward to the member opposite standing up and budgeting his time so that at the end of those days we can have a debate about Energy, Mines and Resources. I look forward to it, Mr. Chair.

051a

Mr. McRobb:   Well, this is rather unbelievable. For the minister responsible for this department to stand up and shun his responsibilities and blockade the information flow to those who test his case is rather unbelievable. The information I am requesting is something the minister’s office should willingly and readily provide. Somehow the minister has it in his mind that it creates additional work for the department. This is something previous ministers have provided off the top of their head. This is not something that will cause his department to endeavour on for an extended period of time. I think what we are seeing here is really disturbing to the bigger picture of democracy, Mr. Chair.

Obviously this minister is not prepared to be held to account when he cannot satisfy simple information requests such as the one I have just made. The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin behind me agrees emphatically with what I’m saying, Mr. Chair, and for good reason. There are plenty of Yukoners who want to know what this government is spending in this area.

I have a feeling, from looking at some of the contracts that we will be getting to shortly, that this is no small amount, and we need to examine the millions of dollars this government is spending to promote this industry. We need to have a sober moment to take stock of what might be out-of-control spending. This minister laughs at that. Well, it’s not funny.

Unless this minister can satisfy this session of accountability on this matter, he has no right to laugh about it. If he is willing to provide the information requested and if it meets our requirement and level of satisfaction, he can laugh then.

052a

But he should not laugh at us whose job it is to examine his spending. Now I’m not going to let this one drop. We need to have a breakdown of the total he is spending on oil and gas. That information is not contained in the mains budget, as he would like us to believe. This is similar to what the Health minister said about childcare spending. We have proven that to be false as well. The money is all over the place in all kinds of different financial vehicles, and the breakdown is not located anywhere. We want the minister to give us the information. He’s welcome to come back to us at a later date, possibly in a month’s time even, with some written information that provides this breakdown. Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I find it amazing that he would say that the Auditor General’s report on Energy, Mines and Resources — our budgets, our forecasts — are incorrect. This government is not running amok with money. This government is accountable to the Auditor General of Canada who goes over our books on a yearly basis. Now if the member opposite can’t read the mains, then I will commit to do this: when we have time — I’m not going to be committed to a timeline — I will get Energy, Mines and Resources for the sake of the member opposite — because he didn’t budget his time, he didn’t go through the mains when they were available and when we had this discussion last year — somewhere in the near future to put together a breakdown for the member opposite so that he can read the mains again, and we can repeat what he should have done in the last sitting.

053a

Let’s move on with the supplementary here; let’s move on with the future of the Yukon; let’s not look back.

It amazes me that we would have to regenerate the mains from last spring for the member opposite — who didn’t take the time nor effort to bear down on the subject and ask the pertinent questions at that time — and redo this thing at this time. This is work that is redundant.

I will say to the member opposite in a very partnership way that I will get my department to break this down, and he can relive what he should have done last spring.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, what you just heard was an argument that is completely nonsensical. We on this side of the House did examine the mains budget at length last spring. That’s where this minister is wrong. We spent dozens and dozens of hours to that end. The records will prove what I’m saying.

Besides, Mr. Chair, this is an argument that only the government House leader has repeated. He apparently likes to write the mantra, also vociferated by this minister. We have heard it repeated by this minister on several occasions — the same mantra — and there’s no point. What’s the point he’s making with the mains budget? It doesn’t make any sense.

We’re on the supplementary budget, not the “sub”, as the minister said. I wish he would at least get on the same page. I’m not asking the department to compile this information; this is something the minister’s office — upstairs in the Yukon Party office — should have at hand.

Anyway, I’m glad he has finally come around to agreeing to provide us with the information, which is not provided in the mains budget.

I would also like him to provide the other side of the ledger, which spells out in the same level of detail, with a breakdown, the benefits from our investment in oil and gas.

054a

I’m looking specifically at revenues from oil and gas, Mr. Chair. Can you spell out what the benefits are? For example, how much was accrued to the territory from oil and gas leases last year and anything else? Now, I’m well aware that in the southeast Yukon there has been revenue accruing for years. Well, that, I believe, should be excluded from the figures, because even if this government or any government for that matter spent money toward oil and gas promotion, it wouldn’t affect the situation in the southeast Yukon — the royalties being produced.

So I think it’s high time that the Government of Yukon be put to the test on the true value of the millions of dollars it spends on oil and gas promotion in the territory. And the information he provides should allow us to analyze that issue. So I would like to ask the minister if he is willing to provide us with the other side of the ledger.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   It’s amazing from the member opposite — his statements. But to eliminate the $25 million that is being spent in southeast Yukon this year on the oil and gas side of the ledger would be a big jump in reality. There is $25 million being spent in southeast Yukon. There is $5 million being spent in north Yukon. All of this will create revenues for Yukoners.

As far as income, we’ve been very lucky with the southeast Yukon — the Kotaneelee gas fields. They’ve been the most productive wells in North America. This $20 million that is being spent there today will enhance that revenue for all Yukoners.

So when the member opposite talks about eliminating the Kotaneelee gas fields to make his books look good, it shows you what he knows about bookkeeping. We have to put all the revenue in to get a figure at the end of the day. We certainly are investing in the oil and gas in the Yukon. That’s our responsibility in Energy, Mines and Resources. We are doing it in a very positive way, and the $20 million that is being spent in southeast Yukon will enhance that figure for all Yukoners. So we are not doing anything else that any other government wouldn’t do with Energy, Mines and Resources, except we’re a little bit more aggressive, Mr. Speaker.

055a

We use our imagination, we move forward, we work with corporations; we don’t shut down oil and gas in the Yukon — we open it up.

So, in two years, we have taken this oil and gas file to the point where we have a $25-million investment in southeast Yukon. That is a fact. They are drilling there today and 40 percent of the crew are Yukoners. The rig is a quarter owned by the Kaska First Nation and a quarter owned by ADK. It’s a very, very profitable partnership between the First Nations of that area, working today to find gas reserves in southeast Yukon that didn’t exist there with the revenue we have. 

We have taken that same corporation to north Yukon. They’ve made an economic partnership with the Gwich’in people. They are looking at the Eagle Plains operation and will employ northern Yukoners to benefit them in the oil and gas industry. That gas field will enhance our opportunity at the end of the day to get access to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline because, at the end of the day, you have to have a product to put in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline before you can access it.

We are working in that way. We are looking at other dispositions. We are working with CAPP in southeast Yukon to see what future there is in the oil and gas industry in that area. We are working with ADK, Kaska and the Northwest Territories, forming partnerships. We are not a divide-and-rule government. We are looking at Northwest Territories as a partner — ADK, Kaska, the Yukon territorial government — so at the end of the day we have a cohesive partnership that can look at the southeast Yukon as an economic tool to benefit all Yukoners.

As far as the member opposite talking about oil and gas and the pros and cons of it, talk to this government about oil and gas. This government has moved out in front in the oil and gas industry. We are not pushing the cart, we are pulling it.

As far as the data for the member opposite, it will unfold as it unfolds, and it has been very positive up until now. So, let’s list what we did, Mr. Chair. We got the southeast Yukon, Kaska and ADK, with Akita Drilling, drilling for natural gas in southeast Yukon — $25 million. Forty percent of the people working on that rig are Yukoners. Yukoners are going to work in the oil and gas business.

Devon has put their application in north Yukon — an economic partnership with the Gwich’in. They are going to drill this January. Again, it’s another economic tool in the Yukon, training Yukoners for the oil and gas industry.

056a

So, are we asleep at the switch? No. Are we moving forward in the oil and gas industry? Yes, and we will proceed to move forward in the oil and gas industry.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, from the accounts I got, what you just heard is basically a repeat of the minister’s keynote address at the conference or symposium — whatever the correct name was — held in Vancouver about a week or two ago. You just heard a repeat of the minister’s speech.

And what do we think about it, now that we’ve heard it live? Well, I say it’s rather embarrassing. It’s rather embarrassing to know it’s the minister responsible for Energy, Mines and Resources who gave the speech we just heard. There are other words to describe it too, but I’m going to restrain myself for fear of being ruled out of order.

Now, the Kotaneelee is — my apologies if I didn’t pronounce it correctly — an area of the Yukon that has been producing revenues for the government for a number of years, totally independent of any promotion done by the Yukon government. That is the reason why I asked for that generator to be spliced out of the numbers. Now, if the minister is upset by that request, then fine — he can include it in the numbers, as long as it’s specifically identified so that we can subtract it to really determine a true analysis of the benefit from this government’s promotion of this industry.

057a

There should be no need for the government to hide. We merely want to examine the books. Obviously the minister is hiding something and doesn’t want us to see what it is.

Now I do have some contracts I want to ask him specifically about, but first I want to shift topics to the area of power generation for new mines. Now the minister yesterday identified several major mining projects that could be on the near-term horizon in the territory. I’ll just list them: we have Western Silver, Expatriate, Tagish Gold, Minto, United Keno Hill, to name a few. Some of those possibilities are located in areas beyond the electrical grid that is currently in place. Furthermore, some of those prospects would require an amount of energy currently in excess of what is available on the Yukon grid. So I would like to ask the minister what his plans are with respect to supplying power to those mines.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think probably you’d talk to Yukon Energy or Yukon Development Corporation at that level, but as far as the government’s concern about the mining thing, there are certainly a couple of those mines that could be serviced by I guess the hydro, which would be of benefit to us as hydro producers. The hydro right now isn’t maxed out, but of course those decisions on the economics would have to be made by the Yukon Development Corporation. We certainly work with all mining companies to look at avenues of how they can make their corporations more viable, and we certainly would entertain ideas from industry on how we could work with them, but at this point Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation I imagine would be better able to answer the question about some of the mines that would be in the radius that they could service. As far as the other mines are concerned, we haven’t been approached to address that issue, but we certainly are open to discussion when the time arises.

058a

Mr. McRobb:  Well, Mr. Chair, I think once again the minister is really absolving himself of the responsibility that he holds. He is the minister responsible for the energy branch within the Yukon government. The energy branch in the Yukon government sets the energy policy for the territory. The minister is also the minister responsible for the corporation he is trying to refer me to. So we have a situation where I think he can contribute more to this discussion today than what we have heard. He is also quite vague in his answer in terms of identifying which mines are located where. My question was specific to the mines that are located away from the Yukon grid and which could require new transmission lines. Secondly, the question pertained also to mines that might require new sources of power. Mr. Chair, surely the minister is up to speed on this issue. Can’t he tell us about these mines that he likes to rattle off? Can’t he tell us what their needs are and how those needs will be met?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are working with the corporations to address a lot of issues that the industry has coming back into the Yukon, and power is one of them. Certainly, I haven’t been broached as the minister on any requests for power up until now. It certainly would take a feasibility study, whatever corporation came forward, to make sure that we were doing the right thing for Yukoners. As far as Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation, I oversee that as the minister; I certainly don’t run it. I know governments in the past have run it. We have left it independent, and they will make decisions on their own with the expertise they have at hand as a Crown corporation.

We believe that the corporation is mature enough to make decisions, and I’m sure they will be the right decisions at the end of the day. So any issues pertaining to the Yukon Development Corporation or Yukon Energy Corporation, I would go to the chair and address those issues and work with them to make sure that they answer the questions that have to be answered, and they can do that in-house. We certainly will work with the corporations as these decisions come forward, hopefully in a positive way.

059a

Mr. McRobb:   I am willing to accept that answer on one proviso: that the minister clarify that all such issues are clearly out of his hands and in the hands of the Yukon Development Corporation, either by formal directive such as an OIC or verbal communication, written correspondence, e-mail, what have you. If the minister is telling us that this is completely a corporate decision then I am willing to accept it and move on. Otherwise, I would like him to explain what any exceptions really are.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I certainly appreciate the member opposite’s thing on the Yukon Development Corporation and we certainly work with them positively. But understand that I am the minister overseeing the Crown corporation and I cannot say to the member opposite that I am going to retreat from any of my responsibilities. My responsibilities are, as government, to work with the Yukon Energy Corporation/Yukon Development Corporation to make sure that it is run smoothly and profitably for Yukoners.

As far as not being involved in Yukon Energy Corporation/Yukon Development Corporation, I can’t tell you that. When issues come up, issues are addressed. I will not back down from my responsibilities as the minister who oversees that Crown corporation. I can’t do that. I am elected to do that. I swore an oath that I would oversee the Yukon Energy Corporation/Yukon Development Corporation and I will do just that. But they are run independently of me. They work with us as government and at the end of the day we are responsible for making sure the corporation is run in a profitable and manageable way.

Mr. McRobb:   Now the minister is arguing with himself. Compare what you just heard to his previous statement. The minister cannot have it both ways: either he has some control on these issues or he doesn’t.

I asked him questions about the supply of power to new mines. He directed my questions to the Yukon Development Corporation. He absolved himself of that responsibility. When I put it to him in terms accepting that premise, the minister skated back to my point that he is the minister and he can’t avoid responsibilities in that area.

060a

Mr. Chair, this is a ridiculous display from this minister — totally ridiculous. My question was rather specific. It wasn’t general. It didn’t somehow isolate him from his responsibilities as minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation. The question pertained to his responsibilities with respect to the provision of the supply of power to new mining prospects. I want to ask him one more time and give him an opportunity to clarify: will he at any time have any say on how power is supplied to new mines in the territory and how such power is generated? Will he have the right to direct the board — the corporation — in any way, or won’t he?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To remind the member opposite, it will be the corporation that makes the decision on how the power will be generated on-site. We will work site-specific with all the mines. We will also work with the Energy Corporation to see if they can complement these decisions, but at the end of the day the corporation is going to make the decision on how they generate power or how they buy power. So I think we’re putting the cart before the horse, and those are issues that we have to address as we move on. So I’ll not only be working with the corporations that will be making these decisions, I will be working with the Energy Corporation to make sure we move forward in lockstep so that these mines become a reality in the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister avoided the question, and he is also not completely right in what he said. I’d like to correct him. The corporation doesn’t exclusively make such decisions and only does if it’s not interested in recovering its capital investment, because capital investment must be given regulatory approval before the costs can be recovered from the electrical customers.

061a

Now, I want to go back to the issue at hand and the minister’s ability to provide direction, because that part of the question was avoided. I could speculate why, but it’s the same old story. It’s the culture of secrecy from this Yukon Party government and its desire to avoid accountability in this Legislature. That’s no secret. Now, the part —

Some Hon. Member:  Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. Cathers:   The Member for Kluane just made an accusation that this government and ministers are trying to avoid accountability. That is contrary to Standing Order 19(g), by imputing false or unavowed motives to another member.

Chair’s ruling

Chair:   Order please. There is no point of order here, but I would caution the member to be careful and cognizant about imputing or implying motives to others who have not expressly stated them on the floor of our Assembly.

Mr. McRobb:   As everybody in here knows, I am very cognizant of what the rules are and make a tremendous effort to stay on the good side of the line.

Mr. Chair, we are not getting very far with this minister on this issue. This is a really important issue to Yukoners because it could result in major decisions being made in the territory, and the minister needs to be accountable. I want to ask the minister whether he will or will not provide any direction to the corporation when it comes to how the corporation handles issues like the supply of power to new mining developments. I would like to know the minister’s answer to that.

062a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Going on again with how we deal with mining companies as they come forward, we certainly will work with the mining company, because the mining company will make the final decision on how they’re going to generate power. Yukon Development Corporation is certainly an option for some of these operations, and I will work with them. Yukon Development Corporation has a board of directors, they have a chair, they have competent people in place, and I will work with them to move forward on any opportunity Yukon Development Corporation sees for Yukoners to generate power to sell power to mine sites. So as far as my not working with Yukon Development Corporation — I was elected to do that. So at the end of the day, I will be working with the corporation. I will remind the member opposite that they will be making the final decision. I’ll work with Yukon Development Corporation — if, in fact, they’re involved — to make sure that, at the end of the day, we have a successful mine in the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, we don’t know what to make of that.

I would like to follow up on another statement he made yesterday. He said his department is intervening in the hearings in regard to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and we’ll be making specific representation on tolls and tariff models affecting the north Yukon. I would like to ask him to provide the submissions and arguments made at those hearings. Can they do that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would have to get back to him, if I was even allowed to do that. There is a lot of legal stuff involved in that, and I would have to get back to the member opposite on whether, in fact, we could bring that out. So we would have to wait for a future date for that.

063a

Mr. McRobb:   All right, I will assume the minister’s intentions are good and he will forward anything that is available, followed by anything else within the scope of the request as it becomes available. I would just like to ask for the minister’s confirmation on that.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   As we determine what information we can give out, we will work with the member opposite, but at this point I can’t say categorically that we could give any information to him because of the legality and what is happening in the hearings. So, I would take that under advisement.

Mr. McRobb:   Okay, Mr. Chair. Under advisement — what kind of a commitment is that? We would like that information within the next month for sure in order to analyze it before the start of the spring sitting of this Legislature, so we can once again make the best case in analyzing the government’s mains budget.

I would like to ask the minister about some of the consulting contracts that he has sole sourced in his department — and there are several, ranging up to almost a third of a million dollars — and these contracts are unexplained. I will give the minister a choice: either we can go through them one by one and he will have the opportunity to give us some detail and explanation on what each one is about, or I can send him over a list of what they are and he can undertake to get back to us in the near future, providing us some detail on the contracts. Which way would the minister prefer to have it?

064a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’d rather him not send me documentation. I will send him documentation from this side of the House — the government side. It’s public information, and it’s available.

Mr. McRobb:   What’s public information? How does the minister know which contracts I’m referring to? His department let what might be more than a hundred contracts. I have a list that I have personally selected of about nine or 10 contracts. How does he know?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I misunderstood his question. Certainly if he sends over his list of nine contracts, we’ll answer the nine contracts, but if he wants a list of all the sole-source contracts, in Energy, Mines and Resources, we have that available too.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister’s latter offer is readily available and as a matter of fact it is that list of the total contracts that I have reviewed in order to filter out the ones I’ve identified, so what I’ll do is e-mail him a list of the contracts I’d like further information on, because there is very little information on the Web site. Just for example, I’ll read what is publicly available on the Web site, but I won’t identify who the contractor is. I’ll just say that on the government Web site we have the department identified, which we know what it is; we have the type of contract, in which case the example I have in my hand says “general consulting contract”. The third item is the contractor. It has the name of a company. In some cases it’s a numbered company. We have a description. The descriptions are always vague. This one says: “Yukon oil and gas consulting services.” That’s pretty vague. We have a contract number that really provides us with nothing. And we have a contract date and a completion date. Usually those dates are within the fiscal year. We have a tender type, and most of them are sole-source contracts, which means they are totally the minister’s responsibility. We have the total contract value, and then we have the contracting authority, and quite often the minister is the contracting authority.

065a

So if you review what I’ve just put on the record, it’s easy to determine that very little in the way of a description of the contract is provided. What we would like is some detailed breakdown — for instance, a description of what the contract is for, what it achieved. In cases where the identification of the contractor is rather obscure, we would appreciate some detail about that. That’s all we’re asking.

I just want to wrap this, Mr. Chair, by asking the minister for his confirmation that he will provide information that is suitable to us, as I have described.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To clarify it a bit from the government side — Energy, Mines and Resources — I’d like the member opposite, in his correspondence, to give us the contract number — that’s very important — and also specific questions and information that he requests. And also we have to make sure that it’s not protected information. So we need the contract number, we need the specific information that he’s requesting, and we can proceed with that information as long as it’s not protected information. So I want to make that very clear on the floor.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to follow up, actually, on a contract issue with the minister opposite. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has issued a contract. It is contract number GN0453310300162. It’s a sole-source contract for women’s program coordination and facilitation issued by Energy, Mines and Resources. Now we have in the supplementary budget significantly increased programming and operation and maintenance money in the Women’s Directorate. What is the explanation for why Energy, Mines and Resources is issuing a sole-source contract for women’s program coordination and facilitation?

066a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think what we’re looking at is probably some kind of training program, but what I’d like to do is — I don’t have those off the top of my head, so I could answer that at a future date — on the contract.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate that this involves some work, and I appreciate the effort on the part of the officials. If I could get an explanation of the details of that contract, I would appreciate it. The minister, were he sitting on this side of the House — and he may be one day — would appreciate that it seems odd to see an increase in funding in the Women’s Directorate and have his department doing programming as well. So, what is the explanation for that particular contract?

There is another contract I’d like to ask about, and that is for facilitation/conflict investigation. Again, it is a sole-source contract. It’s not a large amount. I’m curious as to what was being resolved. The contract number is GN0453302400041 — if the minister could advise what that is about. And given that it’s facilitation and conflict investigation, it may be that this was a mediation or alternative dispute resolution process around — could be one of the issues in the department. But perhaps the minister has a greater explanation for me.

067a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Can you give that number back and we can give you that information? We didn’t quite catch the number of the contract.

Ms. Duncan:   The number will be in the Blues, but I would be happy to send that information over to the officials by e-mail, as well as the two contracts I’m interested in. I would like the detailed information as soon as it’s possibly available.

I just have a few questions in the departmental budget. Over the summer there was an intergovernmental agreement with British Columbia and that agreement was on raw logs — basically — being shipped to British Columbia. I had a discussion with other members about the availability of timber that’s technically in B.C. but is available to come north. So when will raw logs come north?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re talking about the B.C.-Yukon border, and of course we’re working with the authorization board in southeast Yukon to move forward with a logging plan for that area. We certainly hope that logs from the southeast Yukon with a mix of the B.C. logs could make a sawmill very beneficial to the Watson Lake area. The forest department is working on that light. B.C. logs are not going to be flowing this season. Hopefully next season they’ll be flowing. As far as the logs that are available to B.C. from the Yukon, those logs are not flowing at the moment either. So until we get our plans together, and a policy, it’s sort of an agreement that we’ve signed, we’re working on, moving forward with, and how we manage it in the future will depend on the authorization group in Watson Lake and of course working with the B.C. government.

068a

Ms. Duncan:   If I understand what the minister said, the agreement that was signed — and I think it was late this summer — is basically an agreement to talk to one another and if the opportunity arises, our raw logs will go south to British Columbia and the raw timber that is just over the border in some cases in the Yukon would be available to be milled in the Yukon. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

Could the minister just explain in geographic terms where we are talking about here? For example, the Alaska Highway dips into B.C. around Swift River — is he talking about that area or where are we talking about the B.C. logs coming from?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To answer that question: certainly Teslin would be involved because of their location. The Atlin area would be affected by the Yukon. You have Teslin; you have Watson Lake, which is going to be involved, and, of course, Lower Post down there. So as far as the communities that are going to be affected by this accord, probably it will be Atlin, Teslin and the Watson Lake area.

This is a commitment by us — the territorial government and the B.C. government — to work on this exchange in a positive way. It’s more than just an agreement to talk about something. We have actually signed the accord, and we are moving ahead with planning on how this thing is going to unfold with us and the B.C. government. So it’s more than just a handshake and “we are going to discuss it”; we’ve actually gone to work. The next step is to put the policies together to have an understanding on how much wood is coming from each area.

Certainly, from the Yukon you have your southeast Yukon wood, which would be a natural to flow down to the production end of things in Fort Nelson, and of course you have everything south of the Yukon border — French Creek and Blue River — all those areas would be flowing to us in Watson Lake.

 069a

So it’s a partnership. It’s an understanding of how we’re going to manage the forest in northern B.C. and the Yukon, and it’s a very positive thing for the forest industry in southeast Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Did the minister simply forget to mention Carcross, or is it not included?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I’m sorry. Carcross will be involved because of their location too.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister’s eagerness to answer the questions. The Carcross-Tagish First Nation would presumably be involved in discussions as well. The minister did say that there have been discussions and some work has begun. When will we actually see timber permits issued and wood cut? When will that happen? Does the minister have an approximate date?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We have timber in southeast Yukon, and there is hopefully going to be some production this season, so we are moving ahead with forest disposition or wood disposition in the southeast Yukon, in the Kaska traditional territory, and also we’re working on a disposition in the Frances Lake area where we’ve had the forest fire to harvest that wood before it dies. So we are working, and hopefully there will be some production in southeast Yukon this year.

Ms. Duncan:   Does the minister anticipate wood actually being cut, or are we talking about shipping those raw logs south, or are we looking at production? It’s the minister’s use of the word “production” that I’m following up on. What does he mean by that? Does he mean timber being harvested, or does he mean a producing sawmill, or are these logs being shipped south?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly have the interim logs available and certainly are looking forward to production. I can’t say in the House here today that in this winter season we will have the production we would like to see in the Watson Lake area. They are working toward that. Certainly, the commission is working toward getting their house in order in southeast Yukon to roll out how we’re going to manage the forest there. We have timber out, and hopefully with any luck there will be some production in southeast Yukon.

I don’t think from a minister’s point of view that you’re going to see a lot of export of raw logs out of southeast Yukon now, because we would like to see more of that production in a finished product. But on the other side of the ledger, because of the pine beetle kill, the timber situation in B.C. is sort of flooding the market, and statistically they say that situation is going to be for five years, because they are doing such a massive harvest in the B.C. area with the beetle kill.

070a

Because of the beetle kill, that market is absolutely saturated with wood. So, what we’re looking at — if we’re looking at a production end, we’re looking at the Yukon and Alaska end of things, a smaller operation. But they are working toward that, so I say to the member opposite that we’ll probably do some production this year, but we’ll definitely be doing some production next season.

Ms. Duncan:   I’m just seeking clarification from the minister — production next season. So, “next season” being next winter season? I appreciate his frank answer in terms of the situation with the British Columbia market. What is the department contributing financially to any production initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   What are we doing from a monetary point of view for production in southeast Yukon? All we’re doing is putting timber out, not money out.

Ms. Duncan:   So, in other words, there is no financial commitment by that minister’s department to any production facilities in southeast Yukon. What about the rest of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We do engineering in the costs of putting the wood out. That is a cost to government, but that is recoverable when we sell the wood. To say that we’re not putting money out would be wrong, but it’s in the sense that we just do the engineering and the overview of the actual disposition and we collect that money back.

071a

Ms. Duncan:   Let me be crystal clear: is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or any other government department putting any money into any sawmills in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   At the moment, there’s no money out there for any sawmill that I know of as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Ms. Duncan:   The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is focusing their energies on getting the wood out and the wood permits out, and the minister has nodded in response to that. Could I have a letter from the minister that outlines the current status of the Elijah Smith fund? It’s the forestry fees and the stumpage fees that were set aside. It’s federal in part and it was transferred in devolution. So could I just have a note from the minister as to what the current status is of that fund, and also the status of stumpage fees in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In devolution, we acquired approximately $30,000 through the transfer on the Elijah Smith fund. I think that was a silviculture reforestation fund. It was between $29,000 and $30,000, in that ballpark. It wasn’t much.

Ms. Duncan:   In the year since we’ve had devolution, has there been any money put into that fund, or have there been any expenditures made from it?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We haven’t put any money in because we really haven’t had any harvesting at this point because it has only been 18 months. Certainly the money is available.

072a

Ms. Duncan:   Could I have an indication from the minister of when we might see forestry legislation before the House?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think we’re committed to late 2005 for that, as we move ahead — by the latest, early 2006.

Ms. Duncan:   Is there currently work being undertaken on that in terms of consultation work and development work for that legislation?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To answer the member opposite, the policy is finished, so that sets out the framework. And we have the committee for the successor legislation. So we are working toward getting it, and it is required under the devolution transfer agreement.

Ms. Duncan:   The policy work that has been done and the minister has indicated is completed, is that public information, and I wonder if it could be sent over?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   All that information, I think, is on the Internet, so it’s available to the general public.

Ms. Duncan:   I don’t spend all my time surfing the Government of Yukon Web site, so I just wanted to verify — I really don’t — so I wanted to verify that that information was out there.

I had omitted a couple of contracts. They were consulting contracts, and they name an individual, so I’ll just send those over to the minister and ask him if I can have explanations on them.

073a

The contract to the Kaska First Nation was originally sole sourced for $24,000 for the Faro mine closure. However, that has now increased to $185,000, and it is sole sourced. Exactly what has been completed for this contract?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Considering the time, what I will do is give a breakdown to the member opposite on that $185,000.

Ms. Duncan:   If he has it with him, I could just listen attentively to the minister — if he has that information with him. It has gone from $24,000 to $185,000, so what has been done for that work? It’s a sole-source contract as well, so I’d like to know what has been accomplished for that funding.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Again, I don’t have the information at my fingertips, so I will agree to get it to the member opposite as soon as possible.

074a

Ms. Duncan:   Thank you very much. I look forward to receiving that information.

The Kaska First Nation — there is also the economic round table that has been traditionally funded under this department. There is this particular sole-source contract. Is the minister contemplating any funding arrangements with the Kaska for their participation in the purchase of North American Tungsten?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Energy, Mines and Resources has no intention of funding the Kaska for acquiring assets like that. No.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister’s frank response. When he sends me the information as to how the $185,000 sole-source contract breaks down, could he send a detailed listing of the different funding arrangements with the Kaska? There’s the economic round table, there’s this sole-source contract — there is a variety of different initiatives that are funded with the Kaska. Could I have a listing of those, please?

075a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   That’s all public information and I’ll send that across.

Ms. Duncan:   I look forward to receiving that information from the minister.

With respect to the North American tungsten mining industry in general, has the minister received yet the estimates for this season’s mineral exploration? They’re usually a bit delayed coming out. Could I have the date when the minister expects them and what the early numbers are? Given mineral prices as well as the continuation of the tax credit, I anticipate that the season was very good, but does the minister have the actual figures yet?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are looking forward to those figures, understanding that the fire season in the Dawson area had some impacts on those figures. As soon as I receive those figures, they’ll become public information but, at the moment, I don’t have the exact figure.

076a

Ms. Duncan:   I wonder if the minister could provide two pieces of information. It’s fairly standard when we get this information finalized. I’ve just forgotten the ballpark date. And it’s a preliminary estimate. Does he have a ballpark figure that we’re looking at?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re looking at probably anywhere between $25 million and $30 million for exploration this year, understanding that the forest fire did have an impact on it. We also have exploration going on right now, so it’s a continual thing and the figure keeps moving up.

Ms. Duncan:   And when would the minister anticipate the figure would be finalized?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would have to take that under advisement with my staff and I would have to get that date back to the member opposite.

077a

Ms. Duncan:   That’s fine. Thank you. I hope we are not unduly burdening the officials. We don’t require a letter for each specific answer but one that just outlines all of these would be very useful. I am sure that the information is readily available.

I would like to speak briefly about the oil and gas industry in the Yukon. Can the minister update the House as to the current status of the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition? What is our funding arrangement with them and what is a sort of outline of their current activities?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   In answering the question opposite, the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition was put together to incorporate the nine First Nations that will be directly affected by the pipeline, if and when it comes through our jurisdiction.

As far as the funding is concerned, we are working with the federal government now. They have put budgets together, and we are working with the federal government to get some resources to make sure that the group can do the job that they need to do over the next couple of years, in expectation of the pipeline. We funded it last year; I think the figure was $130,000, and I think we budgeted over $200,000 this year.

So, the territorial government will be in partnership with the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition and the federal government to move this organization ahead so that they can answer some of the questions they have pertaining to the pipeline with the aboriginal people of the Yukon.

078a

So as far as the funding is concerned, we’re moving ahead. They’ve hired a coordinator, an individual who is going to be the lead hand for the coalition, and they’re working to make sure that the aboriginal people benefit from any pipeline that comes through our jurisdiction. So the organization is just starting, and it’s moving ahead. Optimistically, we’re looking at the federal government coming to the mark with their resources, because, as we all know in the Yukon, they did fund the Northwest Territories Aboriginal Pipeline Group, and we’re looking for the same kind of support.

079a

Ms. Duncan:   And the minister is optimistic that they’ll receive it, by the sound of his response.

The group has hired a coordinator. Does the minister have an outline? After all, the government is making a contribution of $200,000. Do they have a sense of the workplan that the group is undertaking? What is the workplan? What is their intention? Is it specific lobbying activities? Is it building the coalition? What is the workplan?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Thank you to the member opposite. The Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition is independent of the territorial government. Certainly, we are there to work with them. The coordinator was hired by the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, and they are working with that coordinator to define what their job is and what the go-forward plan is.

It isn’t a Yukon territorial government thing so much as an aboriginal group that has gotten together to form a coalition to answer the questions the aboriginal community will have on the pipeline and how they will get involved. The member opposite was talking about the social end of things; I think they have a lot of work ahead of them. I look forward to working with them, but I want to make it very clear that this is an aboriginal group, addressing aboriginal issues pertaining to a pipeline.

080a

Ms. Duncan:   I’m well aware of that; however, I would also remind the minister that there is a contribution being made of $200,000, and there’s a responsibility of the minister for accountability for the expenditure in this session. My question is this: does he have any greater sense of the workplan of the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I think we want to maximize the Yukon coordination and efficiency of operations for the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. We certainly are contributing some resources to it, and that shows our government’s commitment to make sure that the aboriginal groups in the Yukon are involved 100 percent with any pipeline that comes through our jurisdiction.

081a

And the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition was set up to do just that, to coordinate that issue when and if it arrives in our jurisdiction. So as far as me, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, dictating to the coalition on how this is going to unfold, we certainly are going to keep abreast of what’s happening. We will give them whatever help they desire from our government, but I think we are going to leave managing the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition in the hands of the people who are involved.

Chair:   Order please. We have reached our normal time for a recess. Do members wish a recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Mr. McRobb:   No, not yet. There is another matter I would like the minister to clarify first. About two weeks ago, I sent him a letter regarding the Haines Junction ski loops — the forestry ski loops, they’re called. I asked the minister for an urgent reply. Mr. Chair, there are dozens of people in the Haines Junction area who were quite concerned about the prospects of their ski loops being harvested by equipment that is parked at the site. I’d like the minister to provide us with an explanation of what’s going on and, furthermore, is he prepared to assure us that no harvesting will take place prior to some full public involvement?

082a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Pertaining to the Haines Junction situation, I appreciate the letter from the member opposite. There was an application for a small volume, 1,000 cubic metres, timber permit in the area described. This area had been identified for fuel abatement, fire risk reduction in the Haines Junction area, one development plan. There has been no permit issued on this request. Understanding that we all in this House, and certainly the member opposite, have to be very conscious of the fire threat in the Haines Junction area, we have to work with the citizens of the area, so what we’ve done as a government — now that the member opposite has brought this forward — is ask our office in Haines Junction to delay issuing this permit until consultation occurs with the Village of Haines Junction and the First Nation.

083a

We’ve answered that question; we are moving forward with it. We understand the member opposite being the MLA for the area and also having to answer to issues like this, but I remind everybody in this House that we as a government have a responsibility to look at the whole picture. The whole picture is the fire abatement in the Haines Junction area. To answer that question, no permit has been issued. We have asked our office in Haines Junction to move ahead with some consultation to make sure the Village of Haines Junction and the First Nation are involved with this issue.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you to the minister for that reply. There is just one missing ingredient that I would like him to clarify. He said the consultation would involve the two local orders of government. Will the consultation also provide an opportunity for public input such as from the members of the ski society?

084a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I don’t want to commit to that. I don’t want to commit to the Haines Junction and First Nation governments and how they are going to handle this consultation. I recommend to the member opposite that the people who have issues with this should certainly get hold of their government — whether it’s a First Nation government or the town council, to make sure their voice is heard in any consultation we have with Haines Junction and the First Nation pertaining to this permit.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s my belief we can probably clear the lines relatively quickly. I would suggest that we proceed to do so, and look at a short break after we clear the lines, if that’s acceptable.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Some Hon. Members:   (Inaudible)  

Chair:   Order please. General debate is still continuing. I will ask again: do members wish a recess now?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

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

Recess

085a

Chair:   Order please. We will now continue on with Bill No. 12, Second Appropriation Act, 2004-05, Vote 53, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and general debate.

Ms. Duncan:   I’d like to follow up — and I appreciate the opportunity to have a short break. I’d like to follow up with the minister on a couple of questions. We were talking about the Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, and I note from the minister’s remarks at the Resource Expo that the minister said in his address this group is comprised of eight First Nations from the Yukon and British Columbia. So when the minister was responding to me, I was certain he had said nine, so I’m sure there has been an additional group join. Could he outline what that was? And presumably the British Columbia First Nations are the Kaska First Nations. Is the British Columbia government giving any money toward this initiative?

086a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To be very clear, what I said in my remarks is that there were nine First Nations whose traditional territory will encompass the pipeline as it goes through this jurisdiction. As far as northern B.C. — of course, the Kaska have an overlapping claim in British Columbia, and the B.C. government is not funding any part of the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition. I think there are six First Nations that have signed on and there are three observing First Nations. I couldn’t tell you which ones they are, but there are six or seven that are actually members of it, and part of the coordinator’s job is to get all the First Nations that will be involved in the corridor, and then of course it has to expand on how it’s going to involve all the First Nations in the Yukon.

So, there is a lot of work to be done. Of course, I look forward to that work getting done in a very speedy process, because I think it’s very necessary, if and when this pipeline is announced, that we have something in place to move forward.

087a

Ms. Duncan:   There are substantial benefits to British Columbia, should the pipeline proceed down the Alaska Highway, and there is substantial benefit to the British Columbia government of the work of the Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, and members of B.C. First Nations are part of this. The B.C. government is not making any financial contribution, although the Yukon government is. Have we even asked the British Columbia government?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’ve been working with the Government of British Columbia and they’re certainly moving forward with some concept on how their aboriginal groups will be involved. That’s not to say that, in the future, they might not fund the Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, but at this moment they’re not, but they are aware of what we’re doing. We’re keeping them abreast of it and they are working internally on how they’re going to address their First Nation issue in northern B.C.

088a

Ms. Duncan:   Given that there are B.C. First Nations participating, perhaps they will consider funding it.

I asked the minister prior to the break whether or not the Government of Yukon was funding Kaksa participation in the purchase of the North American Tungsten property and the minister had said, “No”. However, in his speech at the Resource Expo, he said this: “Officials from two Yukon government departments are working cooperatively to identify options that may assist North American Tungsten to reach a decision to reopen the mine, including proposals to secure federal aboriginal funding for mine training and a scoping study for development of Tungsten properties at Cantung and Mactung.”

So, what exactly is the government’s Department of Energy, Mines and Resources funding? What is the extent of the scoping study? Who are they funding in this scoping study? This is a new initiative in terms of the mining industry. We don’t fund scoping studies for any other properties that I am aware of.

Our job as government is to build the roads to the mines, to supply the power and to make sure the infrastructure is there; it’s not to scope out the profitability of the mine. What exactly is the minister’s department doing?

089a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To make it very clear, we are not funding the Kaska on any investments that they have in the Canadian Tungsten mine. As far as internally working with the Kaska to see if there is federal funding available, we certainly will facilitate those kinds of things. But we’re not specifically funding anybody independent to do that job.

As far as scoping the mine sites out, like Mac Pass and that, we’re just scoping it out on a potential, because if, in fact, Mac Pass can be mined on the Yukon side, that would be a benefit to the Yukon government and that is part of the scoping. But as far as our government, again, the member opposite is correct. We are here to build roads to get access to it and, with the Cantung mine, we understand that the Cantung mine is in the Northwest Territories.

So there is only a minimum of things we can do to help that facility, understanding that 90 percent of all the supplies come in through the Yukon, and that probably 50 to 60 percent of the people who work there will come from the Yukon. So we do have some responsibility to the employee but, as far as investing in a mine in the Northwest Territories, our government is not prepared to do that. As far as our department working with the Kaska to see what money is available out there and give them some capacity within our departments to make those requests, that’s just working with the Kaska, government to government, and helping where we can to make sure, at the end of the day, that the Kaska are involved in economic development in their traditional territory.

Ms. Duncan:   Could the minister tell us exactly what the scoping study is doing, who’s doing it, and how much it will cost?

090a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   What I’m prepared to do for the member opposite is to provide her an oversight of the scoping in writing, and you’ll know exactly what we’re doing.

Ms. Duncan:   And presumably that answer will tell us who’s doing it, if it’s being done internally, and at what cost. I’ll look for that information from the minister.

Also, just to follow up on a few other key points on oil and gas — we had this discussion, in part, today in Question Period. We’ve heard and read the speech by the Premier in Texas, and the speech by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Vancouver. Both speeches would lead one to surmise that the Government of Yukon had reached an agreement with the Acho Dene Koe, the Kaska Tribal Council, and CAPP with regard to expediting the opening up of economic opportunities in the Liard area of southeast Yukon with respect to a land sale.

The way the speeches are written, it sounds like an agreement has been reached, but the answer I got today in Question Period sounded like it was just conversations. So, which is it?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Work in progress.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate that the minister is very eager to answer the question and would like to move this along quite quickly; however, I’d like a little more detail. A work in progress — so there has been one meeting? Two meetings? We anticipate a land sale in southeast Yukon in six months? One month? Four months? What exactly has happened?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We, the Yukon territorial government, have been working with ADK, the Kaska First Nation and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We all understand in the House the overlapping claims that ADK has that we have to recognize, and also the Kaska traditional territory. We also understand in this House, under YOGA, that we as a government cannot put a disposition out in any traditional territory that hasn’t been settled.

So, at the end of the day, in the Kaska traditional territory, we have to get their consent. So, what we’re working with is their consent. ADK has an overlapping claim that hasn’t been settled. Also, in the Northwest Territories and here, the ADK has a claim in the southwest corner of the Northwest Territories. Now we’re going to work between the four governments and then go to the federal government and work with them.

As far as when the dispositions would be put out, that is, at this point, just conversation. We haven’t got every government around the table to agree with how we’re going to proceed.

091a

So again I say it’s work in progress. I’m very optimistic that we can come to some kind of arrangement with the federal government and the four levels of government we’re working with, but we all understand government and things can change as we move along, so again, to be fair to the question, we’ve had discussions, we’ve had meetings, we have talked to the parties involved, we have some agreement, but again, it’s work in progress and we certainly will keep Yukoners involved in how it proceeds. At this point it’s just that. Again, this government doesn’t want to build up expectations that we can’t meet, but certainly as we get closer to a finale for these dispositions, it would serve us well to keep the opposition informed and also Yukoners and I certainly look forward to a positive resolution to this work in progress.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate the minister’s answer and I understand under the Yukon Oil and Gas Act that the land sale cannot proceed in an unsettled First Nations area without consent. I understand full well the provisions of the Yukon Oil and Gas Act. I understand that this is a work in progress and they’re just meeting at the table. There’s no optimistic time frame of six months or a year from now when there would be a land sale. The minister has said “a work in progress” and I can accept that.

In these discussions around a land disposition, is the topic of resource royalty revenue sharing on the table?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re a long way from those discussions. Again, it’s work in progress and we just go one step at a time. As far as what’s on the table, there’s nothing on the table at the moment except discussion.

092a

Ms. Duncan:   And that issue has not been raised, resource royalty revenue sharing? Has it been raised by any party at the table? It’s a straightforward yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    At this point, no. It will be an issue that we’re going to have to address down the road, but at this moment all we’re doing is getting the governments together, moving ahead on a plan. As far as those other issues, I imagine they’ll be addressed as we move on.

Ms. Duncan:   It’s not those other issues; it’s this issue, and it’s a very, very, very significant issue. What is the minister’s position on it? Should the resource royalty revenue from a land disposition in southeast Yukon be shared with those from outside the Yukon — non-Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   To correct the member opposite, the Kaska First Nation is involved in Ross River, Upper Liard, and they are a Yukon First Nation. Certainly some of their membership is in northern B.C. Acho Dene Koe is a Northwest Territories First Nation. It has an overlapping claim that has been recognized, and we’re going to have to recognize their claim.

As far as my position on it, it’s a little premature to ask for any positions on it. As we move ahead, it will be our responsibility to keep the general public aware of where we’re moving with these dispositions, and if we are moving, we’re a long way from making that decision. It’s work in progress, as I have said, and we are taking very, very small steps at the moment, and hopefully there will be a positive outcome — understanding that both First Nations have no settled land claim, either in Yukon or in Northwest Territories. So we’re working with them government to government; we’re working with them in partnerships in the forest industry in southeast Yukon, and certainly I look forward to working with them when they have a settled land claim and move forward with them in lockstep as we manage southeast Yukon and all the resources.

093a

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I appreciate the minister delving into other areas, but this is not too early to have this discussion with the member opposite. I want to know the minister’s position on it. I am well aware that Acho Dene Koe is a Northwest Territories First Nation. I am well aware that Liard and Ross River are Yukon First Nations and are also part of the Kaska Tribal Council. I am very well aware of that.

I am specifically asking what the minister’s position is on this subject. Is it the minister’s view that royalties from Yukon resources should be shared with non-Yukoners? That is my question. What is his position on that?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   At this point, no royalties are shared with non-Yukon First Nations. In fact, in our term in office, which is the last two years, the Kaska people have not benefited from their share of the royalties coming from southeast Yukon, which is their traditional territory. Because of the unsettled land claim, at no point in the YOGA agreement — which sets out how we are going to manage oil and gas in the Yukon — is there any sharing with non-Yukon First Nations.

As far as ADK is concerned, we have to move ahead with them; they have a claim; it has been registered; it has been recognized, and that is an issue that, I guess, at the end of the day, the federal government will have to resolve. Of course we will be part of that, but it is up to the federal government to go back to work on both those land claims, whether it’s a Kaska land claim or the ADK land claim. They both have issues with the federal government that will have to be resolved.

094a

And when they’re resolved, we’re going to have to work with whatever agreement our three governments come up with, to make sure that all people of the Yukon will benefit from the resources in southeast Yukon. At this moment, it’s very clear in YOGA how it works. If you don’t have a settled land claim, you don’t benefit from the gas resources in southeast Yukon. The Kaska hasn’t during our term in office. I understand that, during the NDP’s term in office, they gave the Kaska their share of the resources. That was a decision made by that government of the day. I’m not going to debate that decision because that decision was made three or four years ago, and that was their decision. But we have not varied from YOGA. YOGA is very clear on how the resources are shared in the Yukon. I don’t think this government sees that we’re going to vary much from YOGA.

So remember: this is an unsettled land claim area, and we have to get consent from the First Nation, which is the Kaska, and we have to work with ADK. They are both unsettled land claims. They have registered claims in that area, and we’re working with them to try to move ahead on some economic opportunities for all Yukoners in southeast Yukon.

So, as far as giving anything away, we haven’t given anything away. On my side of the table, we’re not contemplating giving anything away. We’re entering into this thing in a government-to-government relationship. At the end of the day, we hope to have some dispositions in southeast Yukon. At that time, and before that time, the public will be very aware of any deals this government makes that will impact them as citizens of the Yukon.

095a

Ms. Duncan:   Just for the benefit of the minister, I fully understand, as does everyone, how the Yukon Oil and
Gas Act works and the fact that we’re dealing with unsettled First Nations. This issue of resource royalty revenues is very, very important. It is not one to be taken lightly, and it is not something to be used in a manner that isn’t of benefit to all Yukoners. That’s the whole principle: that the Kotaneelee fund is shared between all Yukoners. Tetlit Gwitch’in have a settled claim. We have to talk to them about oil and gas dispositions in mid-Yukon, and we do, but they don’t get royalties from any development in that area. And that’s an important point, because it’s the Yukon First Nation governments and the Yukon government who, with those resource royalties, are going to be paying for education, paying for new ambulances, dealing with health care and building the future. Those royalty revenues are incredibly important. So the minister reassuring me that they are not on the table in these discussions is incredibly important, and I appreciate that reassurance this afternoon.

When is the next oil and gas land disposition contemplated? What time frame? Where are we in the consultation process and where is it?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We’re just in the beginning stages of the next disposition. We’ve just gotten over the last one, so we’re putting our work together to put out another disposition.

Ms. Duncan:   There were no bids on the last parcel, unfortunately, as I understand it. Just a last couple of questions of the minister: I would like to clear up the issues around land and the Fish Lake Road in particular, as well as some of the other land areas around the periphery of Whitehorse. Land outside of municipalities is dealt with by this minister, and that includes Fish Lake and Vista Road and a couple of other areas around Whitehorse.

096a

I understand that the applications are to be reviewed by LARC and to be reviewed in a group sometime this month or to be put off for some time. The problem that I — and many Yukoners who have called my office and with whom I’ve spoken to about this — have with this is that there’s a perception of unfairness in the process. It’s a perception, and in politics perception is reality. There is a perception of unfairness. Not everybody knew about the availability of land. So how is the minister dealing with that issue with his department?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Talking about the land around Whitehorse, which this ministry certainly is in charge of, we took over the policies of the federal government, and those policies covered how this land was to be managed outside the City of Whitehorse. In the period of time that the policy was in place, from 1984 to 2003, there were over 60 parcels of land put out completely against the policy of the department. They went through the process, and some were titled, I guess, and some weren’t, but the issue of fairness and perception was that these 62 people got preferential treatment inside the federal government’s policy. We in the land office realized that it was going on anyway on the 30 kilometre issue and of course with the Fish Lake issue and the number of lots that was requested, we certainly had an issue of how we were going to handle it instead of having an individual application like these 62 other applications were. Fish Lake alone had five applications over the last period of time that were brought through the system.

097a

So the system was there, I guess, but the system was not enforced. So these lots now will go through LARC. The community will have access to LARC to make sure that any kind of questions will be addressed at those meetings. There has to be a whole environmental study because we all understand where those lots are. The necessity of water drainage for the City of Whitehorse — all of those questions have to be answered. There is also a question of game and other animals that live in that area that has to be addressed.

So I think, at the end of the day, as the process unfolds, you’ll find that the lands office will cover all its bases and will move forward with these applications and, in due time, it will either be a process where they will be turned down or they will be accepted. But we will certainly involve the whole community with the LARC program. It is set up for exactly that. It’s set up so First Nations, if they have issues, are involved, and of course all the groups out there that are either proponents for these applications or against them will have time — they will have their day in court.

But I think what we are doing now is the right thing. We are letting the system work. I think the first LARC meeting is sometime this month. I know that there is no LARC meeting in January. The next LARC meeting will be in February, so if it is postponed, the soonest they will get in front of LARC will be in February.

Ms. Duncan:   There are a couple of problems with it. The minister said that we will just let the process work. The problem is that the process is not working. The process is not working for everyone.

Last spring in this debate I raised this issue with the minister. I had specific complaints at that time from constituents of the Member for Lake Laberge. Then we had this Fish Lake Road issue, and the minister said outside the Legislature, “Well, we tweaked the policy a bit, and there was a change made to the policy.”

098a

So, whether it was working or not for the previous number of years, since the minister has had control, and since a post-devolution world, we have, as residents of this territory, a problem on our hands. It’s not fair to the people who applied in good faith, and it’s not fair to the people who have had applications outstanding for years, who have been told, “Well, just wait because we’re getting the process in land sorted out,” and they have recreational property. And it’s not fair to those who would have applied, had they known it was going to go to LARC.

The minister just sent this off to LARC and said, “Well, they’ll do the right thing.” No, the right thing hasn’t happened from day one. The public hasn’t been advised, there isn’t a clear, consistent policy in place that can be applied, and it’s unfair to those involved on all sides of this issue, including the people who sit on LARC.

Now, in the spring I suggested to the minister that these land issues were going to keep coming to his plate and desk. At that time I asked if he would consider putting almost like an ombudsman-type person in place — an independent alternative dispute resolution — an independent person who could look at these issues. The minister said that was a good idea, and that he would look at it. Did the minister pursue that constructive suggestion? Is there a person in place who could work with the communities, the City of Whitehorse, the land applicants, and the land process from an independent perspective and resolve some of these issues?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   As far as LARC not working, that is an opinion that the member from the third party has. The member understands that we inherited the land policy from the last government, and certainly through devolution we’ve been working very solidly trying to get land out to Yukoners and trying to make it more user-friendly. These are challenges that this government took on, and these challenges will be addressed as they move on.

099a

I certainly appreciate the member opposite’s willingness to give advice and certainly consider the advice important. But I as the minister have to make decisions at the end of the day, and it’s easier to give advice than it is to take that advice and put it to work.

In a perfect world, we would like to have another ombudsman on land, who would address all these issues. We have site-specific problems that we do hire individuals to oversee and mediate and try to resolve. As you can see in the budget, from some of the questions you’ve asked in our budget, these people have been hired to do specific jobs. I say to you that LARC does work. And I say to you as a minister I have my full trust in LARC, and I am going to let LARC work.

As far as the Fish Lake land is concerned, it’s not a land grab; it’s some people who went to work. They did nothing illegal by staking that land. That land was available. I give them full marks for doing their homework, going into the land office, doing their research and coming out with the prospect of owning land in the Yukon.

Now, the City of Whitehorse certainly is involved in LARC. The First Nation is and, of course, all the other individuals who have problems. So I say LARC does work, and LARC will work on this process, but we have to give it time. We can’t overreact and have a knee-jerk operation where the challenge is there; we don’t trust LARC, so we eliminate LARC, so we eliminate LARC by saying no, as the minister, that this is not available to you. I say to you the 30 people who staked land up on the Fish Lake Road — talk to them about it. Ask them if they don’t want to go in front of LARC. That would be a good question. Instead of asking the minister here about it, ask the 30 people who actually staked the land and have an optimistic outlook that they might have land available. I say to them they’re pioneers in the Yukon. That’s how the Yukon was built — land accessibility. And they’re willing to go to an area, stake the land and take their chances with LARC. I give them full marks.

That’s how the process works. I’m going to leave it alone. LARC will do their job. I have full confidence in that process. At the end of the day, they will come up with whether these people will get their land or not get their land.  But they will decide it. That’s what LARC is in place to do. It’s not up to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to pick and choose who gets land in the Yukon. My job is to make land available in the Yukon for all Yukoners so that, at the end of the day, land is available.

100a

We have a huge territory here, a huge territory. All we have is land. Have you flown across this great country of ours? It’s full of land. I’m sure that the people who stake the land on the Fish Lake Road, 30 individuals who put their name on the line and are now putting themselves in front of LARC, will hopefully at the end of the day be rewarded with land. I say the more land we get in the hands of Yukoners, the better off the Yukon will be.

Now the member opposite doesn’t want Yukoners to have land. She doesn’t want Yukoners to have land. They don’t want Yukoners to have a mining industry. We can go through a list of things that we can’t do in the Yukon. This government was elected to face the challenges of the day. One of the challenges is land and we are addressing that challenge and we’re moving ahead with it.

Chair’s statement

Chair:   Before debate continues, the Chair would just like to remind members that it is out of order to impute false or unavowed motives to others.

Ms. Duncan:   I would ask the member, with all due respect, to just listen with both ears for two minutes to the pleas of Yukoners and the constituents who have been in my office on this issue. No one, no one in this great territory would hesitate if they knew they could apply for land and get land. All of us have wanted land forever. That’s what the Yukon is all about. The 1978 Yukon Party slogan was “Land for all Yukoners”. Our government did the devolution deal precisely so we could do this. The problem is the minister opposite is not going about it in a fair manner. That’s the problem and he won’t accept that.

What about the constituent who has a recreational lot on Fish Lake Road, which they’ve had in their family for 40 years and they were told “Wait to apply”? And now there are 30 people who have staked residential land because they happened to hear about it. It’s not fair.

101a

I’m not blaming the people who went out and staked it — absolutely not. The issue is that it has to be publicly available — public notice. That’s the problem. The minister took an oath, and that oath included fairness to Yukoners and consideration of their views.

There was no consultation with the City of Whitehorse, and Fish Lake Road is not the only situation. There is Vista Road as well. Some of those land applicants have received hate mail from Yukoners.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   Yes, nasty letters sent to them. Nasty letters, saying, “How dare you apply for that land?” It’s not their fault. They’re just like every other Yukoner. They want land, but it has to be fair. The minister is saying, “Well, we’ll let LARC deal with it.” He’s not doing his job. That’s the problem.

And the Minister of Education, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, finds this very funny. The Kwanlin Dun First Nation was not consulted about this. They have land selections in this specific area. That is not a respectful government-to-government relationship, no matter how the member opposite tries to portray it. This is a visceral issue with Yukoners. And it’s not the fault of the people who applied for it, and it’s not the fault of the people who are trying to administer a policy. The buck stops on the minister’s desk. He has to make sure the policy is fair, he has to make sure that it’s public, and that there is public notice given.

The minister has been here as long as I have and can recall the line-ups — people camped on the doorsteps here to get lots in what is his riding now. Yukoners want land, but they want it available fairly, and this was not a fair process.

102a

That’s the point I’m trying to make to the minister. The minister can’t just say that we will let LARC deal with it. He has a duty and an obligation to ensure that if the government is going to do their work and make land available, that it is fair and open in a public process and that there is consultation with other governments, respectful consultation with First Nation governments and with hamlets and with the City of Whitehorse. That was not done in this case, and it’s not the fault of the people who applied. It’s the minister’s fault, and the minister has to take responsibility. Is the minister going to do that? 

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I guess that in answering to the third party’s directions on how this minister should run the lands office, I think the people in the Yukon made it very clear two years ago when they voted our government in. I guess the way we run the government will be judged again when we go to the people.

I say, as the minister responsible for lands in the Yukon, the process is working. When this thing is done and when our term in office is done and we go before the people, they will make that judgement.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Let’s not second-guess what will happen in an election. We are moving ahead with managing the resources of the Yukon. We are moving ahead with putting people to work. The unemployment is the lowest it has been in the history of unemployment in the Yukon. There are more people working today in the Yukon with real jobs than in the last five years. Mr. Chair, we are on the right track.

But as far as micromanaging the land department from the minister’s office, that is not going to happen under my watch. The system does work and it will work. It will involve the City of Whitehorse; it will involve the First Nation governments. Let it work.

I am not, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, going to micromanage the land office to address the member opposite’s questions. Certainly, in her term in office, I guess that was the norm. The norm of this government is to let the government do the job it does best. The land office is moving ahead with these applications. All the concerns will be addressed, and at the end of the day they will either have the land or the land application will be turned down.

We are moving ahead in the land department, but I am not micromanaging it.

103a

LARC does work.

Ms. Duncan:   So the minister is content to do absolutely nothing and to perpetuate an unfairness? That’s exactly what he just stood up and said. He will perpetuate the unfairness of this specific situation that happened, in spite of the fact that last May I asked him, and he stood on the floor of the House and said that’s a good idea, we’ll look into it. Unfortunately, now the minister won’t. I’m not going to belabour this point with the minister. He quite clearly has stood on the floor and said he does not — will neither accept nor pay credence to any of the points that I’m raising on behalf of my constituents. The minister is simply not going to do his job in this respect and take responsibility for it, and that’s a shame, Mr. Chair.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Hearing none, then, we will proceed with line-by-line.

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Corporate Services

Corporate Services underexpenditure of $52,000 cleared

On Sustainable Resources

Mr. McRobb:   Can we get a breakdown on that, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Sustainable resources: the forestry agreement in principle signed with the Kaska Tribal Council on March 17, 2004, is 100-percent recoverable under the Tough funding, $193,000; the Kaska forest plan, forest economic benefit agreement, signed on January 22, 2004, is 100-percent recoverable under the Tough funding, $30,000; agricultural industry transition program agreement signed with Agriculture Canada to flow funds to the Yukon Agricultural Association of farmers, 100-percent recoverable, $190,000; total revotes, $413,000; the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers conference, NRCan funding, 100-percent recoverable, $40,000; transferred funds to oil and gas and mineral resources, $80,000; for the total of $373,000.

104empty

105a

Mr. McRobb:   Have all of those reports and agreements been provided before? If they have, that’s fine. If they haven’t, can the minister undertake to send them over?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Those are all public — yes.

Sustainable Resources in the amount of $373,000 agreed to

On Energy and Corporate Policy

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Energy and corporate policy revotes for the Kaska Tribal Council bilateral agreement for resource management: the commitment is part of a bilateral agreement with the Kaska Tribal Council. Contribution of $150,000 lapsed in full. Transfer of funds to the oil and gas and mineral resources, $40,000; for a total of $110,000.

Energy and Corporate Policy in the amount of $110,000 agreed to

On Oil and Gas and Mineral Resources

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Mr. McRobb, if you wish to be recognized, please rise in your place, and the Chair shall recognize you.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Chair, I don’t wish to be recognized. I think it’s common practice if we just make an indication to the minister. Then the proceedings are expedited. The minister knows the routine. I’m simply conveying a message to the Chair. I don’t wish to stand up and be recognized and put on the record each and every time I make the simple request of “Can we get a breakdown?” I’m merely just conveying a simple request for a breakdown to the minister and it helps to speed up debate.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Oil and gas and mineral resources: the mine training fund, an agreement was signed with the Yukon Chamber of Mines on March 29, 2004, to coordinate the training and recruiting of Yukoners to work in the mining resource sector; that was $500,000; mine training fund balance, relegated to the 2005-06 fiscal year, $400,000; northern geo-science agreement, 100-percent recoverable, $179,000; assessment and abandoned mine type II mine sites, increased agreement with DIAND, 100-percent recoverable, $1,288,000; placer authorization, regime development, $100,000; major project management for Western Silver, Wolverine, and others, $350,000; transfer funds from other program areas, $422,000; the total is $2,439,000.

105.5a

Oil and Gas and Mineral Resources in the amount of $2,439,000 agreed to

On Client Services and Inspections

Client Services and Inspections underexpenditure of $250,000 cleared

Total Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in the amount of $2,620,000 agreed to

On Recoveries

Recoveries cleared

On Revenue

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Oil and gas resource revenue royalties is an estimate increase in the production for the new well of $2,025,000.

Revenue cleared

On Capital Expenditures

On Sustainable Resources

On Forestry

On Forest Inventory

Forest Inventory underexpenditure of $147,000 cleared

On Forest Renewal

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Not all contracts or agreements were fully completed by year-end due to the late start of this project. Funds required to complete work being done to initiate forest renewal in southwest Yukon beetle-kill area, $130,000.

Forest Renewal in the amount of $130,000 agreed to

On Oil and Gas and Mineral Resources

On Oil and Gas Development and Pipeline

On Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Approved a revote to continue support of the Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition, $155,000.

Alaska Highway Aboriginal Pipeline Coalition in the amount of $155,000 agreed to

On Minerals Development

On Geological Surveys

Geological Surveys in the amount of $70,000 agreed to

On Yukon Mining Incentives Program (YMIP)

Yukon Mining Incentives Program underexpenditure of $16,000 cleared

On Resource Assessments – Minerals

Resource Assessment – Minerals in the amount of $16,000 agreed to

106a

Total of Other Capital Expenditures in the amount of nil agreed to

Total Capital Expenditures in the amount of $208,000 agreed to

On Capital Recoveries

Capital Recoveries cleared

Chair:   That concludes the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Vote 53.

Department of Energy, Mines and Resources agreed to

Department of Tourism and Culture

Chair:   I understand that we’re proceeding with Vote 54, Department of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    Mr. Chair, it is indeed my pleasure to introduce the supplementary estimates for the Department of Tourism and Culture. It is hard to believe that we’re back here in the Legislature talking about yet another budget. How time flies when we’re doing good things.

Mr. Chair, it certainly has been a very interesting summer over the last few months, and, of course, now that we’re well into winter, many of our operators are gearing up for the winter season. I would have to say that, by and large, over the last several months our operators have done an outstanding job again providing our visitors with the great experiences and providing many products.

107a

That makes us one of the most reputable places to visit on the face of the earth.

Despite the forest fires that we experienced here in the Yukon, I believe that our Department of Tourism and Culture and industry — not to mention all the emergency fire crews, the wildland fire management and all those associated with managing the fires — did an exceptional job of continuing to provide information on a routine basis, up to date and accurate. I think that statistics really show what in fact happened over the last summer. Despite all these challenges, as well as that of the Parks Canada strike, we were still able to see a rise in our visitation this year — about six percent from May through to the end of September, which are very good numbers indeed.

With respect to this supplementary that we are here to debate, our Department of Tourism and Culture is requesting an increase of $221,000 to its operation and maintenance budget and $988,000 for its capital budget.

The operation and maintenance supplementary budget supports the cultural, economic and social values of the Klondike Institute of Art and Culture. As members opposite are fully aware, the overall vision of KIAC is credited post-secondary art education for Yukon and visiting students. They have approached government for long-term investment, and we are examining their business plan as we speak, and government’s role with respect to $75,000, as is identified in this budget.

Other requested project funding under operation and maintenance includes: $27,000 for the Canadian heritage properties incentive fund; the department’s historic sites coordinator and the historic sites technician have received training to assess heritage buildings under the federal program. This funding item is for staff time and travel to assist in the pre-accreditation of two heritage buildings in Vancouver.  This item is 100-percent recoverable from Canadian Heritage.

108a

There is $33,000 in transfers from the Department of Community Services for one-half of an FTE for the native reference assistant’s position. This position was divided between the Department of Tourism and Culture and Community Services under the renewal initiative. So transferring the half-position to the Department of Tourism and Culture will allow the Yukon Archives, which is also administered under our department, the ability to administer an outreach program to communities to help administer the Yukon Archives mandate in respect to First Nation archival materials under the Umbrella Final Agreement.

The Department of Tourism and Culture also requests that several projects be revoted, due to a number of factors that prevented the projects from moving forward. The revotes include $31,000 for a devolution support position in Archives. The department had been unsuccessful in filling this position until just recently this year.

There is $35,000 for the Sourdough Rendezvous; the funds for this event were intended for the 2003-04 festival, but because the planning was already underway, the organization requested that the funds be used for the 2005 festival.

There is $20,000 to design and develop a database to improve the capacity to access and analyze requests from potential visitors for tourist information. A tender was issued, but technical requirements of the project caused a delay. The tender has now been awarded and the work is underway.

The capital expenditures in this supplementary budget indeed meet the priorities of government and the mandate of this department. To begin with, I am pleased to announce $350,000 in capital funding toward a marketing program designed to attract additional rubber-tire visitors to the Yukon.

109a

 This fiscal year we will be concentrating on the Alaska Highway scenic drive. As I have mentioned earlier on other occasions, the scenic drives initiative will enhance existing programming and will also provide a long-range plan of action for developing Yukon’s transportation and cultural corridors. The government will be taking immediate steps to stimulate market interests in both long-haul North American and fly-drive European vacations during the slower shoulder seasons of May and September. In future years, we hope to highlight other scenic drives in the Yukon beyond the Alaska Highway.

Mr. Chair, we have also identified $20,000 among capital expenditures to provide equipment to the new First Nations heritage officer position, who is assisting First Nations cultural centres as well as two First Nation training positions in our cultural services branch. The majority of the funding is transferred from the Department of Highways and Public Works for computers and other office equipment.

Another new project is very exciting, and that is Libraries and Archives Canada has approved funding of $26,000 for a new virtual exhibit based on the photographic collection of Claude and Mary Tidd. RCMP Sergeant Tidd and his wife, Mary, lived and worked in various communities throughout the Yukon from 1915 to 1947. His photographic collection contains valuable images of home life, RCMP activities in the communities of Fortymile, Dawson, Old Crow and Ross River. Making this collection accessible is certainly important for school projects, communities, researchers and historians.

110a

It will be very interesting to see how life has changed in our communities and our homes over the years. The collection contains one-of-a-kind images of people, places and industrial development in Yukon. We are very proud to make these images available. This project is fully recoverable from the federal government. There has also been a slight change to the agreement with the federal government regarding funding to the historic places initiative. The 2004-05 budget for this program is now $390,000, up from $338,000, and this project is also fully recoverable from the federal government. The historic places initiative, as I have elaborated to members opposite over the last couple of years, aims to foster a greater appreciation of historic places in our country. It also provides financial incentives that will make conservation more viable. This initiative was fully endorsed by all ministers of culture at a recent meeting in Halifax to urge the federal government to continue this funding.

The capital supplementary budget for Tourism and Culture also includes a number of revotes from projects. These include $135,000 for heritage attraction site support for funding for landscaping and paving at the Transportation Museum. The project was delayed due to the time required for federal mitigation of contaminated soils on the property. Paving is underway and will be finished soon. Landscaping will also be completed next season.

111a

The department requests a revote of $30,000 for the telegraph office in Dawson. The project was delayed due to fire damages. The funds will be used to complete work on the interior for occupancy. The intent is to eventually provide the heritage building as a residence for staff of the Dawson City Museum. This building is significant because it is one of three buildings in Dawson, along with the post office and the Old Territorial Administration Building, that were designed by federal architect, T.W. Fuller. Completed in 1900, it is an important illustration of our communications history.

Also, under heritage attraction site support, the department is lapsing $485,000 for the development of the Hootalinqua heritage site. The department is committed under land claims to this project and we certainly will bring this item back at a future time when both parties are prepared to move forward on this initiative.

The department requests a revote of $9,000 for heritage trails. This funding is for trail identification and development in cooperation with the Kluane First Nation. The First Nation is now prepared to move this forward in this fiscal year, and we are pleased to assist in this regard.

112a

The department is requesting $22,000 for walking trails, benches, and other landscaping between the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre and the Yukon Transportation Museum. This project was also postponed this season due to soil contamination delays, as I outlined earlier.

Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre and the Transportation Museum are important to the tourism and heritage community in Whitehorse. They are the first attractions a visitor sees when arriving in the Yukon from the south, due to their location on the Alaska Highway. They are an important first impression and a showcase for the rich heritage and culture of the territory.

A revote of $14,000 will also complete a craft display at the Old Crow Airport, in which the Vuntut Gwitchin are key participants. This is also part of our crafts strategy.

The department requests $52,000 to complete the architectural and design plans for the Kluane Museum of Natural History. As well, funds will be used to complete the final stages of the museum strategy.

113a

The department also wishes to revote $132,000 allocated to the decade of sport and culture program. The department has asked the Yukon Arts Centre to deliver this program under the name “Culture Quest”. The Culture Quest program is in anticipation of the Canada Winter Games coming up in 2007, and our government wants to ensure that the cultural community has every opportunity to contribute to the games. Through this initiative we are investing in Yukon youth, artists and communities right across the territory.

There is also a revote of $60,000 for the Carcross-Tagish First Nation cultural centre; a revote of $32,000 for the North American potentials traveller study in the United States; and there is also a revote of $99,000 for the Yukon arts fund. This concludes my comments on the supplementary budget, and I certainly welcome any questions.

114a

Mrs. Peter:   It’s my pleasure to speak to the supplementary budget for Tourism and Culture. For me this is a very interesting department. When I think about tourism and culture, I think about the richness that we have in this area in the Yukon, and especially in my community of Old Crow. We have several heritage sites in the surrounding area and one of them is at Rampart House, which is a couple of hours down the river by boat in the summertime. This village was created before Old Crow became a village on its own. There’s a lot of history in that area. Our ancestors lived in that area for many years, and the way that they chose these areas to live is because they can harvest their food supplies in different seasons. Rampart House was definitely an area where there was some great fishing and there was also the caribou that migrated through the area. Many of our relatives traveled from Alaska to Rampart House, as we call it.

115a

So there is a lot of history in that area, and I am grateful that that area became a heritage site for our people. Another area that was designated as a heritage site was Johnsons Village. That village was created again for its plentiful animals.

116a

That was their only source of income. Along with these heritage sites, today we recognize these places on the maps within our traditional territories. What is very, very important to us in our First Nation communities is having the place names in our language. That is being done, and that will help the younger generation in the future to identify with these areas and to identify where their families came from. It will help within our education programs in our communities. We’ll be able to teach the young people of our communities about these specific areas.

People used to travel to Johnsons Village in the wintertime. It was a great place for trapping and a lot of our grandparents lived in that area for that reason.

117a

We are definitely in support of that.

Another area of tourism that’s important is in the area of arts and crafts. I was happy to hear the minister refer to some of the funding that will be allocated to address the area that was chosen within the airport terminal. In Old Crow we have Air North that flies to our community six times a week, and during the summer season, in the height of the tourist season, we have many people from all over the world who stop at the airport. Many times when we are at the terminal, we answer questions for the tourists passing through and they’re very much interested in the history of Old Crow and about the community and its people. So we’re very grateful for that financial assistance in that regard.

118a

Tourism is one of the highest economic drivers in the Yukon, the summer being the most popular months to travel throughout the Yukon. We know that we had to deal with the fires this past summer. Unfortunately, the number of tours that travelled through the Yukon this past summer were down. Hopefully, this coming season will be a lot better for those operators out there who had to take a loss.

Given the time, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we report progress.

Chair:   Mrs. Peter has moved that we report progress.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:  It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

119a

Speaker resumes the Chair

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Chair’s report

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 12, Second Appropriation Act, 2004-05, and has directed me to report progress on it. Also, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 54,  Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, and has directed me to report it without amendment.

Speaker:   You’ve heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Speaker:   I declare the report carried.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the government House leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:   The House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.