MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CBD8DB.D32759C0" This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/office/webarchive.htm ------=_NextPart_01CBD8DB.D32759C0 Content-Location: file:///C:/B1334EF8/268.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Speaker: I will now call the House t=
o order.
We will proceed at this time with prayers.
<= o:p>
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this tim=
e with
the Order Paper.
T=
ributes.
Introduction of visitors.
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
Mr. Nordick:&= #8195; Mr. Speaker, I rise today to = give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the United States Department of
Transportation and the State of Alaska to support the applications by the
Municipality of Skagway to fund its Yukon gateway port project that will
encourage the development of the most efficient modes of transportation by
gathering freight at coastal seaports, providing barge service to Skagway a=
nd
truck service northward to the Yukon from Skagway, as well as reactivation =
of
freight rail service into the Yukon.
<= o:p>
Mr. Elias: =
I give notice of the follow=
ing
motion:
T=
HAT this
House urges the Government of Yukon to table a progress report on what targ=
ets
have actually been met from the February 2009 Yukon Climate Change Action
Plan.
<= o:p>
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> I give notice of the follow=
ing
motion:
T=
HAT this
House urges the Government of Yukon to undertake a review of the
government’s secondary school student travel subsidy.
<= o:p>
Speaker: Are there any further notic=
es of
motion?
H=
earing
none, is there a statement by a minister?
T=
hat brings
us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Medical
travel
Mr. Mitchell:
In 2006, the Minister of Heal=
th and
Social Services’ predecessor, who now sits on this side of the House,=
put
a program in place to increase subsidies to Yukoners travelling outside of =
the
territory for medical purposes. He did this with time-limited federal fundi=
ng
that he knew would expire. He did this on behalf of this Yukon Party govern=
ment
with no long-term plan in mind. This program costs $10 million a year to
maintain and now that the federal funding is about to stop flowing, this go=
vernment
is scrambling to find a way to deal with the situation, paying over $300,00=
0 to
consultants to find solutions to a problem that it created for itself.
I=
n 2007, the
former Health minister described the medical travel subsidies as being cost
effective. Does the current Health minister agree with his colleague, or fo=
rmer
colleague, that this is still the case?
Hon. Mr. Hart: With regard to medical care, as wel=
l as
medevacs being handled throughout the
Mr. Mitchell:
Yesterday the Health minister=
was
quoted as saying, “We don’t anticipate any change to patient
benefits but we expect we may be able to realize savings in how we do our
business." With federal funding about to run out, this statement seems=
a
little unrealistic. After all, if the money isn’t there to support the
program, how can the minister say this won’t affect patient benefits?=
T=
his is
more than just a pothole in the road. Why did this government create this
program and raise public expectations without creating a long-term plan to
ensure that it could continue when the federal funding ran out?
Hon. Mr. Hart: We have provided funding, and it ha=
s been
extended until 2012 from the federal government. We are working very closely
with our other sister territories on extending that funding to go into 2014=
, so
that we can ensure that medical travel will continue in all northern areas =
of
Mr. Mitchell:
Yukoners have come to rely on=
these
subsidies for medical travel because this Yukon Party government decided to
start a program that it had no idea how to continue. Yukoners trusted this
government to look out for them and this Yukon Party government is once aga=
in
letting them down. This is just one more example of this government’s
poor planning — short-sighted visions for long-term challenges and st=
rong
on promises but weak on delivery. This government’s “pathway to
prosperity” seems to be full of potholes, and when the federal funding
runs out, the path seems to lead right off a cliff. How does this government
intend to make up this shortfall, short of asking the federal government to
keep the funding going?
Hon. Mr. Hart: With regard to medical travel, that=
has
been a requirement and a provision that has been provided to all Yukoners f=
or
many years in providing services to Yukoners. We were very successful in
getting funding from the federal government to contribute to this process. =
T=
his
process, I might add, is the same in all territories. The provision is the =
same
in all territories for providing health care and providing services similar=
to
those that are available to all other southern jurisdictions with regard to
health care. For the member opposite, the potholes are not being put into p=
lace,
as he is looking at. We are looking at smoothing the road to ensure that, w=
ith
the continuance of working with our other two jurisdictions to extend our h=
ealth
care to 2014, we will be able to provide this most valuable service to all
northerners and not just Yukoners.
Question re: Medical =
travel
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Let’s summarize the
situation. A previous Yukon Party Health minister used a temporary federal =
program
to increase the amount of money Yukoners receive for medical travel. That
federal money is now running out. The former minister quit on this Premier =
and
the current minister is left trying to figure out how to pay for this progr=
am.
The minister has now hired some expensive consultants from
A=
2008
health care review recommended this government charge a $250 fee to residen=
ts
who have to travel outside
Hon. Mr. Hart: With regard to medical travel, we a=
re
looking at having these consultants provide us with an actual makeup of what
our program consists of, where we can provide some efficiencies, and gain s=
ome
value where it is possible. As stated, we do not intend to inhibit the serv=
ice
that is provided to Yukoners who do travel abroad.
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> A few years ago, the Premie=
r made
some bad investments. $36 million of Yukoners’ money is still tied up=
in
those investments and we can’t use it. It would sure come in handy no=
w to
pay for some of the rising health care costs. The Minister of Health and So=
cial
Services is now paying Outside consultants to try and get a handle on the
expenses. The medical travel program is under review and the minister said
yesterday, and I quote: “We don’t anticipate any changes to pat=
ient
benefits.” That is no comfort to the people of the
W=
ill the
minister give Yukoners the assurance that this government will not be cutti=
ng
patient benefits?
Hon. Mr. Hart: As I stated previously on a related
question to this factor, the Government of Canada, through the Health Canada
branch, has indicated that we must do an assessment and review of our medic=
al
travel — not just the Yukon but all three territories — to ensu=
re
that we are maximizing the benefit that is being provided under this program
from the federal government, and we are doing as requested.
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Mr. Speaker, this Yukon Par=
ty government
got some extra money from
T=
he
previous Yukon Party Health minister was happy to make announcements about
improvements to the program, but there was no long-term plan put in place to
pay for it. The current minister has hired some consultants to look at the
program, so will the minister commit that Yukoners will not end up paying m=
ore
for health care or having their benefits cut? Will he do that? Yes or no?
Hon. Mr. Hart: As I stated, we are doing a review =
of our
medical travel system, which has been a requirement of Health
Question re: Social h=
ousing
Ms. Hanson: During the first few weeks of the s=
itting
of this Legislature, the minister responsible for housing has made repeated
assertions that the previous NDP governments did nothing — nada ̵=
2;
to address social housing needs in the Yukon. I know the minister is a keen
history student, so I’d like to remind him that, in reality, the soci=
al
housing stock in
T=
he NDP
introduced home-ownership and home-repair programs. NDP mandate saw a housi=
ng
strategy and a mobile-home strategy that were innovative and far-sighted and
met the housing needs of seniors and lower income Yukoners. These reports a=
re
readily available to the minister. Will the minister admit now that he miss=
poke
the actual history of the NDP and the Yukon Housing Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon:
The member opposite is right on a couple of points there. I would imagine t=
he
NDP government did want to desperately try to deal with the situation at the
time, but still, the reality is that no units were built — not one
— and it was under the NDP government that the Yukon government accep=
ted
devolution of the responsibility for social housing from the federal govern=
ment
back to the Yukon government with a constantly decreasing percentage which
eventually — and in an alarmingly short period of time — devolv=
ed,
so to speak, to zero, giving us the entire responsibility.
B=
eing
concerned about it is a very good thing, but they still didn’t build
anything and they didn’t really address the problem. The mobile-home
solution that the member opposite refers to unfortunately remained vacant; I
live close to that and it remained vacant for many, many years.
Ms.
Hanson: The minister may want to look on the wate=
rfront
and look at Closeleigh Manor — in fact, an NDP social housing unit.
Let’s look at what this government professes are its housing policies=
and
what is actually done. Late into its current mandate, the Yukon Party chose=
a
siloed approach to housing. No one argues that seniors and single-parent
families require adequate housing. Backed by huge stimulus funding grants f=
rom
the federal government, it has provided some relief. However, it has taken =
and
redefined affordable housing to call it “social housing” to pro=
ve
its statistics. It has ignored the needs of women who have been abused by n=
ot
proceeding with the women’s transition homes second-stage housing uni=
t.
I=
t has
fumbled
W=
hen will
this government respond to the serious needs for housing the homeless and t=
he
hard to house?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon:
The member opposite kind of ignores in there the athletes village project,
which was before the major stimulus funding. She also ignores the increase =
of
housing for students at
S=
o we think
we’re doing fairly well — a 40-percent increase, over 101 units
added over the last few years and over $200 million invested. Compared to w=
hat
the NDP did in their years and what the Liberals did in their months, IR=
17;d
say we’re doing pretty well.
Ms. Hanson: I remind the minister that social r=
esearch
does tell us that housing first is the foundation for social inclusion.
It’s impossible for someone with no fixed address and who doesn’=
;t
know where he or she will sleep that night to look for work or to support a
family. The
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: Certainly, an accusation of looking away from the problem I find absolutely offensive and very, very inappropriate and it completely ignores the facts = of the matter. This government has provided a 40-percent increase. It has inve= sted over $200 million in the last five years, I believe, in terms of housing. <= o:p>
W=
e are
continuing to do everything — when you compare that to the NDP
governments, again, who built absolutely nothing. Now, again, it was during=
an
NDP government that the
Question re: Climate change
Mr. Elias: =
I have been asking for days=
and the
Environment minister can’t identify any progress whatsoever in implem=
enting
the dozens of targets committed to in the
W=
ill the
minister table a progress report and explain to Yukoners what this governme=
nt
has actually accomplished to combat climate change?
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: I think it is maybe time to give the
opposition a lesson on what climate change really is. Climate change is a
change in the average weather that a given region experiences. Climate chan=
ge
on a global scale includes changes to temperatures, shifts in wind patterns=
and
changes in precipitation.
Between
1950 and 2000, winter temperatures in
The
influences of these symptoms of climate change are, in part, responsible for
some of the negative impacts the
Mr. Elias: Mr. Speaker, tha= t was a pretty poor progress report, and that response was probably the best imitation of Charlie Brown’s teacher I’ve ever heard.
Speaker’s statement = span>
Speaker: Order please. The honourabl=
e member
knew this was coming, I think. We have ruled cartoon references out of orde=
r in
the past, so just respect that. The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin has the floo=
r.
<= o:p>
Mr. Elias: =
Mr. Speaker, subregional
governments must be leaders in combating climate change, and being
“somewhat leaders”, which is how the Environment minister descr=
ibed
his government’s progress yesterday, is not good enough.
T=
he Premier
himself said of the climate change action plan, “It is number one on =
the
priority list,” and he went on to say, “We in the
I=
will
direct the minister’s attention to page 5 of the Climate Change Ac=
tion
Plan; it has the former Environment minister and the Premier’s
signature on it. Responding to climate change is the minister’s
responsibility, and it’s time he delivered on his responsibilities. T=
he
Environment minister said he was a “somewhat leader” yesterday.=
Can
he give a single example of how he has gotten somewhat close to achieving t=
hese
targets?
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: I’ll refrain from stooping to
levels that aren’t acceptable in this Legislative Assembly, but 70 pe=
rcent
of the overall budget is dedicated to environmental sustainability. The =
Climate
Change Action Plan for February 2009 commits the Government of Yukon to
reduce government greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2015; to become
carbon-neutral by 2020.
Y=
ukon
Housing Corporation is building over 120 housing units built to SuperGreen
standards, thus reducing energy use and release of greenhouse gases, while
addressing the housing needs of Yukoners. All government-funded constructio=
n is
to show leadership in energy and be environmentally design certified.
T=
he Yukon
Solid Waste Action Plan enhances recycling, waste reduction and
diversion programs. The Yukon Housing Corporation and Energy Solutions Cent=
re
offer programs to help homeowners to become more energy efficient. Our terr=
itory
is now over 90 percent powered by clean, renewable energy.
Mr. Elias: =
Three days and we’re =
finally
slowly getting somewhere. It seems the Environment minister is taking his c=
ues
from the federal Conservative colleagues. At the 2008 United Nations Climate
Change Conference of the Parties, or COP14, in
Hon. Mr. Edze=
rza:
I’ll repeat what I ment=
ioned
before on the floor of this Legislative Assembly. I think the opposition is having a hard t=
ime to
really find fault with this Yukon Party government when it comes to working
with climate change. When you look back in history, I think it’ll spe=
ak
for itself. The opposition did absolutely nothing.
T=
he
development of an energy strategy for
T=
he
Question re: Energy p=
olicy
Mr. McRobb: I have questions for the En=
ergy,
Mines and Resources minister on the draft net metering policy released toda=
y.
While it’s good to see the Yukon Party finally getting around to doing
something on one aspect of the Liberals vision for the territory, it’s
disappointing to now see this government’s version of our net metering
initiative. It’s simply too little, too late for many Yukoners. Our b=
ill
was introduced in the fall of 2007, about three and a half years ago, in the
form of legislation. Now, after a long wait, all the Yukon Party has been a=
ble
to produce is a draft policy that at best won’t be finalized until ab=
out
four years later. So is this Energy, Mines and Resources minister satisfied
with his government’s approach to make Yukoners wait four years for t=
his?
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Well, the Liberal Party has certain=
ly
demonstrated how they value legislation in this territory. They did put for=
ward
a piece of legislation regarding net metering that was very similar to the
piece of legislation that they tabled recently, the Disclosure Protection
Act. We just heard from the members opposite yesterday that the Disc=
losure
Protection Act is an incomplete piece of legislation that didn’t =
have
public consultation, that had questions in it, and the same was true of the
piece of legislation that was developed and tabled by the member opposite
previously.
W=
e have
taken the issue of energy in the territory very seriously. We have responded
with an energy strategy. We have gone to work with our stakeholders and
partners on this issue and have put forward a draft policy that has been wo=
rked
on in conjunction with the energy companies in the territory. We didn’=
;t
come forward with half-done, half-baked or half-developed legislation. Inst=
ead,
we went to work with Yukoners. We put together a draft of the policy; we ha=
ve
taken it back out to Yukoners now so that we can get their feedback, so we =
can
get on with the business of managing the territory’s electrical
infrastructure in a responsible and reliable way.
Mr. McRobb: The government’s policy
version looks surprisingly similar to our net metering bill, which refutes =
any
logical explanation to the Yukon Party’s decision to stall progress on
this initiative for four years. However, there is one distinct difference
between the two: the Liberals’ bill would have accommodated up to 500
kilowatts of capacity for any eligible generator; whereas, the Yukon
Party’s draft policy limits that ability to only 25 kilowatts. While =
that
might accommodate most residential customers, it rules out larger solar pro=
jects
from retail customers such as big box stores and government buildings, and
likely renders biomass generation economically unfeasible.
O=
bviously,
the government isn’t too serious about encouraging the ability of
customers to feed electricity back into the grid for any sizable project.
W=
hy is this
Energy minister willing to settle for so little?
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
One only has to take a look at the =
Energy
Strategy for Yukon that was tabled in this Assembly. The energy strategy
was done and demonstrates a long, forward-looking vision and recognizes the=
re
are tools we can use in the territory to support and encourage responsible
renewable energy production.
T=
he tools
we have for that aspect are the net metering type of policy, where an
individual homeowner or business would produce energy primarily for their o=
wn
use and then supply their surplus back to the grid. The other part of that
strategy is the independent power production part of it. That will come for=
ward
in another policy at a later date.
We
recognize there are opportunities for both here in the territory. We certai=
nly
want to see an encouragement of renewable, responsible, reliable energy her=
e in
the territory and we’ll work with all Yukoners in order to achieve th=
ese
goals.
Mr. McRobb: It’s now obvious the
four-year wait for this government’s five-percent solution is simply =
too
little, too late. All members of this Assembly had the opportunity back in =
the
fall of 2007 to do the right thing and pass the bill that was presented bef=
ore
this House then and on two subsequent occasions. But the bill was filibuste=
red
each time we brought it forward, preventing progress — a lost
opportunity. Four lost years, and only a five-percent solution.
H=
ow many
homes have been built in these past four lost years that could have been
designed with green energy generation? Or how many large retail, commercial,
small industrial and government buildings could have incorporated that desi=
gn?
What does this loss translate to in terms of diesel generation today? Does =
the
Energy minister even know?
Hon.
Mr. Rouble: Well, let’s dus=
t out
that old piece of legislation again and take another look at it and see if =
the
member opposite has any answers to the questions that were posed during the
debate on that — because there were issues. The legislation that he
proposed wasn’t well-thought-out, had areas of concern, required
additional consultation and needed to be looked at in the aspects of how it
could be realistically incorporated into today’s energy infrastructur=
e.
It’s not an easy matter, as the members opposite seem to demonstrate =
on a
daily basis, of simply tabling legislation and hoping that it will work and
hoping that it will meet the needs — or tossing out legislation saying
this is a starting point.
W=
hen legislation
comes to the floor of the Assembly, it is expected to be complete. It is
expected that we can vote on something and turn it into a law. Unfortunatel=
y,
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has a history, growing ever longer each day,=
of
tabling legislation that is incomplete.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
You know, Mr. Speaker, the constant
comments coming from the Member for
—
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
I rest my case, Mr. Speaker=
.
Question re: Economic
development and the environment
Ms. Hanson: A news release came across my desk =
with
the headline “Little Salmon Carmacks and Selkirk First Nations succes=
sful
in collaborative bid to ensure sustainable development in the
I=
would
take it from that, to the First Nations any economic prosperity they might =
have
received from the mining project was offset by what they viewed as a
significant risk to the environment. I would be interested in knowing the P=
remier’s
views on how best to reconcile the often divergent challenges of economic
prosperity and environmental conservation.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I think the Leader of the T=
hird
Party’s question is evidence of how that is unfolding in today’=
s
Ms. Hanson: Yukoners tell me they wonder whethe=
r the
boom times we find ourselves in are being managed with a view to sustainable
development. They see increased mining activity and a government that wants=
to
see the industry succeed at all costs, but unwilling to engage in thoughtful
discussion of the public benefits for today and for when the resources are
depleted. They hear announcements about short-term temporary workers to fill
the labour gap, but no discussion about measures to protect them. They hear=
we
are in a crisis to meet future energy demands; with a growing population lu=
red
here by promise of jobs, there’s a housing crisis and strains in the
social safety net. More and more demands are piled on the already strained
public service. Meanwhile, land use planning proceeds at a snail’s pa=
ce
and the Department of Environment is marginalized.
B=
eyond the
platitudes, can this government tell us what the principles of sustainable
development are that guide this government’s management of the current
boom?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Here we have the NDP once a=
gain
making reference to individuals who choose to come to the
W=
e, the
Yukon Party government, believe in development, believe in investment, beli=
eve
in industry and believe we can do it, on balance, to protect our environment
and be sustainable at the same time. We are demonstrating it. That’s =
why
we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country.
Ms. Hanson: Yes, and unfortunately the governme=
nt
will not tell us what those sustainability principles are. Under the NDP, t=
he
Yukon was the first jurisdiction in Canada to create a sustainable developm=
ent
round table that would bring together citizens of diverse backgrounds to
research, review and recommend courses of action that fit within the framew=
ork
of sustainable development.
O=
ver the
years, the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment was tasked by
successive governments of differing political stripes to review legislation
within the lens of sustainable development, to study issues and report back
with recommendations — for example, how to use tax credits to create
economic diversification.
S=
uch a body
would be useful today as our small part of the world attempts to manage the
boom correctly and bring economic prosperity with equity and without
environmental and social ruin. The Yukon Party effectively killed the counc=
il
early in its mandate. It didn’t want any oversight from citizens on i=
ts
development priorities.
W=
hy did the
Yukon Party kill the council? Was it just ideology or —
Speaker: Thank you. Minister respons=
ible,
please.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: = Pretty harsh words — “killing the council”. I think it’s more about the times we’re in versus the times the NDP lived in. Let’s look at the NDP’s approach to sustainable development: double-digit unemployment;= an exodus of our population — and what was worse than that, it was our y= oung people and our skilled people leaving this territory to go find a job becau= se the NDP sustainable development didn’t produce one job; investment of= our dollars dedicated to energy development, investments and failed enterprises like saw mills and oil companies, Mr. Speaker, and the list goes on, and, in fact, sustainable development by the NDP still shows up on our power bill.<= o:p>
T=
hat’s
not the approach the Yukon Party government has taken. We have taken an
approach that has resulted in the lowest unemployment rate; one of the lead=
ers
in the country when it comes to fiscal position; one of the leaders in the
world, out of 51 jurisdictions, when it comes to mining investment. Mr.
Speaker, look at the diversification: tourism, IT, arts and culture, small
business, and the list goes on — many economic engines running in the
Yukon Party’s sustainable development initiative. That’s the
pathway to prosperity, not the ditch the NDP had us in.
<= o:p>
Speaker: The time for Question Perio=
d has
now elapsed.
Notice of opposition private
members’ business
Ms. Hanson: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3),=
I
would like to identify the item standing in the name of the Third Party to =
be
called on
Mr.
McRobb: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), I would lik=
e to
identify the item standing in the name of the Official Opposition to be cal=
led
on
Hon. Ms. Taylor: =
I move that the Speaker do now leav=
e the
Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Go=
vernment
House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve =
into
Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?
Motion ag=
reed to
Speaker l=
eaves
the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE=
Chair (Mr. Nordick): Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 24, First Appropriation Act, 2011-12. &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;
Do members wish a brief recess?
All Hon. Memb= ers: Agreed.
Chair: = Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair: =
Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bill No. 24: First Appropriat=
ion Act,
2011-12
Chair: =
The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 24, First Appropriation Act,
2011-12.
W=
e will now
proceed with general debate.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: = I am indeed pleased to rise= in Committee to present the introductory remarks for Bill No. 24, First Appropriation Act, 2011-12, more commonly referred to as the 2011-12 main estimates.<= o:p>
I=
n short
order, I will take this opportunity to review some of the expenditure
highlights of this budget. However, before I move on to those expenditure
highlights, I wish to provide a few summary observations regarding <=
st1:State>
S=
upported
by revenues of some $1.105 billion, the expenditures identified in this bud=
get,
the main estimates for 2011-12, total $1.089 billion, of which $237.7 milli=
on
represents our government’s 2011-12 investment in capital —
that’s strategic investment in such things as infrastructure — =
and
$851.8 million is being dedicated to operation and maintenance. That is an
investment in programs and service delivery to the T=
his is the
third consecutive year that the Government of Yukon’s expenditures ha=
ve
topped the $1-billion mark. T=
he $1-billion
threshold as an expenditure level is not significant in and of itself. Rath=
er,
Mr. Chair, our commitment to Yukoners and to fiscal responsibility while
maintaining this level of investment on behalf of Yukoners is the salient
point. Understandably, some will turn their attention to and focus on the
statement of annual surplus as the primary indicator of the government̵=
7;s
financial performance. Well, certainly, that statement provides one financi=
al
indicator by which year-over-year results can be measured, but certainly is
only one small part of an actual financial or fiscal position. S=
o with all
things known today and all decisions to date considered, our 2011-12 budget
forecasts an annual surplus of $38.456 million. This means revenues for the
Government of Yukon are greater than expenses for the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Further, to explain this another way, not only is our government maintaining
our net asset base, we are improving it. One of the objectives for the adop=
tion
of full accrual accounting was to improve reporting and understanding of the
government’s financial health — in other words, more clarity, m=
ore
openness and accountability. T=
his meant
a shift from the historical focus on net financial position in isolation to=
the
current focus on multiple financial indicators, including net financial pos=
ition,
annual surplus and accumulated surplus. So despite the move to full accrual=
accounting,
the statement of accumulated surplus has not been consistently considered a=
s a
primary measure of any government or our government’s financial healt=
h.
At some level, the reason for this appears clear. An
accumulated surplus includes all tangible capital assets. That is, accumula=
ted
surplus includes the value of capital assets that cannot be used to pay off
liabilities. That’s an important point when you consider all indicato=
rs.
However, an accumulated surplus is an important factor of financial health.=
It
represents the government’s net economic resources. The accumulated
surplus measures our government’s net resources, both financial and
physical, that can be used to provide future services. So our 2011-12 budget
forecast has an accumulated surplus for O=
ur
government made the shift to full accrual accounting for the 2004-05 fiscal
year. An accumulated surplus for that year, as at
O=
nce again,
our government is projecting a positive net financial position at year-end.
Most other Canadian jurisdictions are reporting net debt. This fact alone is
significant, but let me phrase this in a different way: net debt provides an
indication of future revenue requirements for government. That is, net debt
provides a measure of the future revenues required to pay for the past. The=
significance
of this is really quite obvious. As one of the only jurisdictions in
=
As
I have said, a net financial resource position is an important indicator of=
our
government’s fiscal health and this indicator speaks to the future. T=
he
2011-12 main estimates forecast our net financial resource position to be a
very healthy $43.1 million.
I=
have
touched upon three important indicators. They are positive net financial
resource position, annual surplus and accumulated surplus, all pointing to =
=
The
adopted reporting framework means that individual financial indicators shou=
ld
not be considered in isolation. Let me emphasize: should not be considered =
in
isolation. When speaking of the government’s financial health, it is
important to consider the complete picture. That is sound fiscal management=
.
W=
e only
need to consider that our government has accumulated surplus, that our
government projects an annual surplus and that our government forecasts a
positive net financial position in order to see that the
O=
ne final
comment on our financial health: the budget is an annual exercise and,
understandably, the primary focus is on the fiscal year for which the budge=
t is
tabled. The reality is that our government is striving to manage the
O=
ur
government saves when it is prudent to do so; our government makes expendit=
ures
and investments when it is necessary. We do this on behalf of Yukoners. As
legislators, we need to look beyond the short term and consider the long te=
rm.
Our government has done this to the benefit of all Yukoners. We have done t=
his
without mortgaging the future. As I have said, our financial health is
extremely strong. Our history of significant investments continues with our
government’s 2011-12 budget, as our strong fiscal framework provides =
us
the flexibility to be responsive to emerging priorities and opportunities a=
nd
needs as they are presented to
I=
will move
on and provide the Committee with highlights of some of the expenditure
initiatives that are reflected in this budget. I noted in my earlier commen=
ts
that this budget reflects total expenditures of $1.089 billion, of which al=
most
$238 million is directed toward capital investments in a strategic manner, =
and
$851 million is allocated for operation and maintenance. Our commitment to
fiscal responsibility remains strong while we continue to invest strategica=
lly
in the
A=
llow me to
highlight some of the more significant investments that we are making. The
demand for land development is really quite obvious in today’s
T=
he availability
of developed land is of concern to Yukoners. With the existing demand and t=
he
anticipated increased demand, our government will continue to ensure timely
availability of developed land as
N=
ow, I
anticipate criticism that our land development investments are targeted sol=
ely
for
M=
anagement
of the
O=
ur fiscal
framework provides the flexibility to further increase direct
M=
oving on
to municipal infrastructure, the projects and initiatives identified in our
2011-12 budget are significant, totalling approximately $67 million, of whi=
ch
just over $50 million has been or will be initiated under our partnership w=
ith
the federal government through the Building Canada fund.
P=
rojects
approved by
T=
urning to
building construction, or vertical construction — on the major
development or major works side, this budget provides $25.754 million to
advance and complete a number of projects of importance to Yukoners. These
include:
W=
ith
approximately $7.5 million, this budget reflects the extension by
I=
know
I’m running out of time, and I still have a considerable amount of
material to present to the House, so let me just stop at this point and just
quickly recap what has been presented. Firstly, what has been presented is =
that
our financial planning, this government’s financial planning, is all
inclusive. We do not fixate on just one indicator. That’s very danger=
ous.
Secondly, we have multi-year plans, both fiscally and investment wise, whic=
h is
important to ensure that we maintain a clear and dedicated focus to the fut=
ure.
Of course, that is also traveling on the pathway to prosperity. We are
maintaining a savings account. We can say unequivocally that we are paying =
as
we go.
T=
he
Mr. Mitchell:
Once again, in starting gener=
al
debate on the main estimates for 2011-12, I would just like to thank the of=
ficials
for their hard work in preparing the 2011-12 Yukon government budget, as we=
ll
as for the briefings that were provided. We do appreciate the effort the
officials make in briefing us on the budget, as well as in the Department of
Finance.
T=
his budget
lays out expectations for government expenses, revenues and how these
ultimately will affect the
I=
t must
also be considered in light of how accurate and inaccurate the Premier has =
been
— how he has been proven to be when it comes to past budgets. This bu=
dget
must certainly be recognized for its timing. This is the last budget, the l=
ast
main estimates that the Premier will deliver before going to the polls to f=
ight
for his job. That does make this an election budget. So, my questions for t=
he
Premier about this budget will be based on this context.
H=
ow has he
managed Yukoners’ money in the past? How accurate have his budgets be=
en,
and what is he trying to convince Yukoners of with this budget?
N=
ow the
Premier in his opening remarks had quite a lot to say. Of course he laid out
the numbers — a budget of $1.089 billion, $851.86 million in O&M =
and
$237.7 million in capital expenditures. The Premier also stated today that a
statement of annual surplus and deficit is not the be-all and end-all ̵=
2;
to summarize what he was saying. He suggested that we should focus more on =
the
accumulated surplus position. He referred to a $125-million increase in
accumulated surplus projected at year-end. It leads to some interesting
thoughts. For example, was the
T=
he answer,
of course, is that when the Premier took office, Yukon would have been in an
accumulated surplus position, if we were going to look at all the assets of
Yukon, all the buildings, which were not at that point stated in that same =
manner.
I=
think we
should point out that it’s the Premier himself who hung his hat so fi=
rmly
on the hook of running annual surpluses. It’s this Premier who, every
year in his budget speech, has said, “Once again, we are tabling a
surplus budget.” It wasn’t the opposition that said you had to =
do
so; it was the Premier who said this is the seventh annual, this is the eig=
hth
annual, this is the ninth annual surplus budget.
N=
ow
he’s saying — now that he has failed to deliver those surpluses=
for
two years in succession — “Don’t look over there.”
It’s like a magician — “Don’t look at what the left
hand is doing. Look over here.” Now what matters is the accumulated
surplus. That’s what’s really important, now that he has run two
successive annual deficits.
T=
his is a
Premier who, when he was in opposition, cried out to anyone who would listen
about the unsustainability of the spending trajectory — those were
favourite words of his — of the government of the day.
N=
ow he says
we have doubled the fiscal capacity. Well, what has happened certainly is a
combination — because of devolution, which gave us responsibility for
additional areas and additional personnel, and also as a result of increasi=
ng
federal transfers and as a result of one-time stimulus funding. Yes, we hav=
e a
lot more revenue. If you look at the own-source revenue — the taxes a=
nd
general revenues in these main estimates — it totals $123.1 million.
That’s our own-source revenue out of this billion-dollar budget. Out =
of
$1.1 billion in total revenue, it’s $123 million — or about 11
percent — that is actually a result of taxes and general revenues fro=
m
S=
o, the
lion’s share of what’s happening here is still coming from
elsewhere and the Premier is no doubt going to stand on his feet and say,
“Well, the Liberals say we don’t deserve this funding.” T=
hat
is not what we are saying at all. What we are saying is that, yes, there is=
a
large increase, but much of it is coming from Canada<=
/st1:country-region> or in the form of the Shakw=
ak
program from the
T=
his budget
promises many things. For one thing, it promises it will cost less to run t=
he
government than it did last year. When I say that, I’m referring to t=
hese
main estimates of O&M at $851.9 million. That totals $10 million less t=
han
what we’ve spent to date this year when you include the supplementary
budgets, and we’ve had two of them. Now, this estimate also stands in=
the
face of every other year under the Yukon Party in which O&M has gone up
throughout the year again and again in the supplementary budgets. This elec=
tion
budget, if the Premier wants us to believe that this is the full expenditur=
es
for the year — of course both the Premier and I know that’s not=
the
case, but he says it will cost less to run the government this year than wh=
at
it has cost to date last year. According to this budget, if we look at what=
has
been spent to date this year, including the supplementary budgets, the main=
estimates
are to spend less in Community Services, Economic Development, Energy, Mines
and Resources, Environment, Justice, Tourism and Culture, Executive Council
Office and the Women’s Directorate than we have already spent this ye=
ar,
including supplementary budgets.
S=
o does the
Premier expect that we will spend less in these departments, or is he in fa=
ct
expecting that there will be significant additional spending during the cou=
rse
of this year via supplementary budgets?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
First, I’m going to t=
ake a
moment to get my head wrapped around this. This Leader of the Liberal Party=
has
just stated that operation and maintenance is going down. I don’t know
how he gets that. The budget document clearly shows that from 2010-11 throu=
gh
to 2014-15, the net operation and maintenance expenditures continue to
escalate. In fact, we have, in our fiscal planning, built in an escalator on
operation and maintenance. The only way that I can figure this out is that =
the
Liberal leader believes we should continue to pay for one-time expenditures=
. In
other words, buy the pickup in one year and keep paying for it in the next
year, and the next year, and the next year, or continue to pay one-time
expenses such as collective bargaining agreement obligations.
B=
y the way,
all from the point in time that the collective bargaining agreement was rea=
ched
is built into the fiscal framework. So this is not a scenario of strong fis=
cal
management by the Liberal leader because he doesn’t even understand w=
hat
it is he’s talking about. Fact of the matter is there is an escalator
built into the operation and maintenance investments for
T=
he Liberal
leader takes issue with the percentage of grant versus own-source revenues.
Well, let’s just for a moment look back to the last Liberal budget,
2001-02. The total revenue grant and all-inclusive was $503 million —=
69
percent of $503 million was federal grant. Now let’s fast forward to
today’s
T=
hat is
clear evidence, by anybody’s application of arithmetic, that the
T=
he member
also comments on such things as surplus, deficit, and on and on. Let me go =
from
2003 — the first Yukon Party budget — to 2010. All inclusive, t=
he
Yukon Party government has invested $129.427 million less than the revenues
taken in. What in the world is the Liberal leader talking about? That’=
;s
why we have such a healthy financial position. We have invested $129.427
million less than we have taken in through the nine budgets the Yukon Party
government has constructed and tabled — so much for that argument.
L=
et me
continue on with the factual elements of the fiscal position of
I=
n moving
on, these investments are strategic, as I noted. The Department of Highways=
and
Public Works and Property Management division continue to work with all
departments to identify maintenance priorities and immediate deliverables to
ensure budgeted work will be completed work. Individual ministers will be m=
ore
than pleased to address specific issues during general debate and, of cours=
e,
department line-by-line debate.
F=
ollowing
the 2010-11 and 2009-10 capital budgets of $263.5 million and $240.6 million
respectively, our capital budget for 2011-12 provides $237.7 million of cap=
ital
investment. Now, critics may observe that our capital budget is decreasing.
Well, certainly, the government’s direct capital investment is less, =
no
doubt about it — is less for 2011-12 than for the two years prior. Th=
is
demonstrates the whole point. In managing
I=
recall
how the Liberal leader berated the Yukon Party government for doing nothing
during that time. Well, there goes that argument also, considering the
evidence. Our government did respond. We stepped up to significantly increa=
se
our capital investment over those two years. We increased our investment in=
the
W= e are no less proud of what we’ve accomplished on delivering programs and serv= ices to Yukoners by way of our investments. Critics have suggested that we have achieved our projected annual surplus and our positive net financial positi= on through cuts. I think that’s what the Liberal leader was disguising in his comments, that there were cuts. Let me assure you, Mr. Chair, that outs= ide and beyond all the speculation and all the rhetoric, this is not the case.<= o:p>
I=
n fact, on
a mains-to-mains basis, comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges a=
nd,
in this case, 2010-11 mains to 2011-12 mains, over $50 million of O&M h=
as
been invested in support of ongoing programs and services. $50 million is
significant.
T=
his $50
million is clear representation and evidence that show there are not cuts. I
think we have to get a lot more serious in our debate, especially if the
opposition, who are soon to head to the polls, is going to be able to have
anything of substance to offer to the O=
ur
investment in the Department of Health and Social Services is just one exam=
ple.
The 2011-12 budget represents a mains-to-mains increase of almost 14 percen=
t,
and, of course, the Liberal leader is implying cuts. There has been an incr=
ease
to health care alone — one department — of 14 percent. We see
significant budget increases for social assistance, physician and hospital
claims, just to highlight our response to recent trends in a few of the are=
as
related to the provision of essential health care and social services. O=
ur critics
will look to the 2010-11 forecast or Supplementary Estimates No. 2, 2011=
-12,
and compare the 2011-12 mains, and claim there must be cuts. The 2011-12 ma=
ins
are lower than the 2010-11 overall projections, supplementaries included. I=
can
hear it now; how can the Yukon Party spend less in 2011-12 than the forecas=
ts
for 2010-11 without cuts? W=
hile most
do understand project specific, one-time or the time limited nature of capi=
tal
expenditures, I’m inclined to believe that it is not understood that =
this
can and does apply to operation and maintenance as well. Individual ministe=
rs
will be pleased to discuss this in detail during general debate, but allow =
me
to at least provide some examples. W=
ork
related to type 2 mine sites — annually this estimate is provided bas=
ed
on the workplan recommended by Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Hon. Mr. Fentie: I just heard the Member for=
Vuntut
Gwitchin suggest, “Yeah.” Well, just for the Member for Vuntut
Gwitchin’s information and to help the Liberals along, type 2 mine si=
tes
are a responsibility of the federal government, not the I=
spoke at
some length regarding our government’s approach to budgeting, estimat=
ing
and recording environmental liabilities in second reading of Bill No. 23, <=
i>Third
Appropriation Act, 2010-11. Consistent with the described approach, env=
ironmental
liabilities is budgeted as $1 for 2011-12 while for 2010-11, $5.116 million=
is
booked, or expensed — to estimate the estimate — to estimate our
known liabilities. The 2011-12 mains represents an obvious change of $5.116
million from the 2010-11 forecast. Surely, the opposition members of this H=
ouse
are not suggesting that an as-yet-unknown liability be expensed through the
2011-12 budget. Or are they suggesting that we should rebook, once again,
$5.116 million of known liabilities from the prior year, compounding the
liabilities or the cost of liabilities on Yukoners shoulders? That’s
called “Liberal fiscal management”. Good luck explaining that to
the Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
“All in good time,=
221; the
Member for Vuntut Gwitchin says. Yes, in a few short months, you’ll h=
ave
that golden opportunity to explain it all to the public. P=
ension
solvency for A=
re the
Liberals suggesting that there are cuts, because we should have compounded =
this
liability or investment also? That’s what they call “fiscal
management”? Good luck explaining that to the T=
hese are
just three examples where one-time funding or one-time limited funding prov=
ided
in 2010-11 expires and does not carry through to 2011-12. Therefore, Yukon
Party fiscal management — we do not compound the expenses to Yukoners=
, encumbering
or burdening the N=
ow, there
are numerous additional examples. Unfortunately, critics have made sweeping
statements about imaginary cuts. As I have indicated previously on a
mains-to-mains basis, the 2011-12 budget provides more than $50 million in
support of ongoing programs and services. These are not cuts nor are they
reductions. Critics will also argue that the swings in the annual surplus c=
alculation
for 2009-10, 2010-11 indicate that our budget is unreliable. Well, it’=
;s
quite the opposite. It should come as no surprise that we don’t agree
with the Liberals or the NDP on fiscal management. The Yukon Party governme=
nt
is entirely reliable and is making the appropriate and required choices on
behalf of the T=
he budget
represents our forecast at a point in time based on all information availab=
le.
As we are all aware, new priorities do emerge; in some cases, emergencies n=
eed
to be addressed, and market and economic conditions do change. Luckily, Yuk=
on
Party government fiscal management has created the fiscal strength and savi=
ngs
for us to be able to address these variances and changes. Government is not
static; it will respond as required to meet these challenges. In doing so, =
it
is likely that there will be variances or an alteration of the fiscal frame=
work.
That is called “budgeting”. A=
s I have
said, our government has a healthy fiscal framework that allows us to be
responsive and flexible in addressing the various challenges that Yukoners
face. Changes in the financial indicators reported from budget to year-end
actuals reflect the impact of our decisions and/or choices. This does not m=
ean
that budget forecasts are unreliable. The difference between budget and
year-end actuals reflects the choices that are required throughout the year.
The Yukon Party government has made choices; it has made decisions. =
W=
e would
certainly like to hear from the opposition what choices and decisions they =
will
make — or would have made. G=
oing on
— to not make these choices or decisions would be to not fulfill our
obligations to Yukoners, as we are required to, being the government of this
territory. So the Yukon Party government is very conscious of fulfilling our
obligations. O=
bviously,
the Liberals and the NDP place obligations secondary when it comes to the <=
/span> T=
his is the
fiscal framework, with more to come yet, I’m sure, during general deb=
ate
of the Mr. Mitchell:
We’ll ignore all the
exaggerated incredulity and the condescending tone that the Premier brings =
to
debate in this House, and we’ll just try to deal with some of the iss=
ues,
because Yukoners are really tired of it. So good luck to the Premier in exp=
laining
that to Yukoners and why he persists in that attitude in this House. Runnin=
g up
the debt through Crown corporations — good luck explaining that, Mr.
Premier — as to why the government not only spends more money than it
takes in, but then it borrows yet more again through the Crown corporations=
. It
was interesting when the Premier was making comparisons of the percentage of
own-source revenue in his budget versus what comes from H=
e likes to
explain it two different ways. When talking about the expenditures in O&=
;M
and in capital, he says that we are spending $851.8 million on O&M and =
we
are spending $230 million and some odd in capital, and we are spending $1.0=
89
billion. Then he says only $745 million is coming in transfers from =
A=
s far as
the Premier’s comments about increasing spending during hard times,
asking us whether we were aware of a worldwide global downturn, they are ki=
nd
of ironic. At the beginning, when we asked the Premier questions three years
ago about that downturn, he said it wasn’t going to affect us here. N=
ow
he says we had to spend all of that money and that’s why we used the =
savings
account during hard times. W=
ell, that
would make sense if it wasn’t for a couple of things. One is that we
actually received record funding from T=
he
ultimate irony is that the Premier is talking about how we had to spend all
that money and spend down the savings account — and in a few years we
spent it down from $165 million to $18.1 million projected at the end of the
current year — the year that ends on the 31st of this mont=
h.
Yet this is during the time when the private sector was already investing
millions and millions of additional money in the mining sector, to which the
Premier refers on a very frequent basis. The Premier was trying to stimulate
the economy while it was actually being stimulated by the private sector. Y=
ou
know, silver hit a 40 year or so high today. I think it was $32 an ounce. T=
he
Member for Vuntut Gwitchin is saying there’s going to be a silver rush
— he says in B=
ut gold is
at record prices, silver is at record prices, base metals are at record pri=
ces,
and yet the Premier said we had to spend down the savings account to stimul=
ate
the economy. While he was doing that, was his government planning for the
needed infrastructure in terms of housing which has become unaffordable =
212;
not just for homeless people? We understand that homeless people and people=
who
are without jobs, or people who are having to live supported by social
assistance, are going to have a very difficult time with housing, but people
with jobs are finding it very difficult to afford housing — be it ren=
tal
or purchasing housing — because the government hasn’t planned f=
or
the upturn with the right hand that they were busy describing with the left=
. So
it’s interesting that the Premier leaves out one portion of the equat=
ion
when he describes things, and focuses always on something else. A=
nd, yes,
under this Premier, we do question the estimates because O&M always exc=
eeds
the increased estimates. Last year in his main estimates, he told Yukoners =
it
would cost $812 million to run the government, but it wound up costing $861
million. It was $50 million more than was originally budgeted for. The Prem=
ier
says these are simply decisions made during the course of the year. Well,
we’re suggesting he’ll have to make a lot more of those decisio=
ns
— at least up until the election — in the course of the current
year. It’s interesting how the Premier has changed his=
tone.
Here are some comments the Premier made on W=
ell, he
said, “On the other hand, the Yukon Party would have us back in the D=
ark
Ages, focused on one sector of our economy — mining — and spend=
ing
all the capital dollars in road building, when there are so many other face=
ts
of our economy that are contributing to the turnaround that we are experien=
cing
today.” My
goodness, the Premier was bashing the mining industry when he sat in the
backbenches of the former government. I’ll bet he doesn’t bring
those words down to the Roundup in W=
ell,
there’s one thing that was consistent: even as a backbencher, he was
chiding the opposition parties for voting against expenditures, but mind you
the Premier didn’t spend a lot of time in opposition. He was very ade=
pt
at hopping back and forth. N=
ow, what
else did the Premier say? Oh, this is something he said about the Yukon Par=
ty.
He said, quote: “The Yukon Party government’s approach was that=
there
was nothing they could do and it was a federal problem — absolutely
nothing. Under their watch there was a moratorium, a loss of jobs and a
complete closure of the industry.” W=
hat
industry was the Premier talking about? He was talking about the forestry
industry. He said that under the Yukon Party it wasn’t doing anything.
What has the forestry industry done? What has he accomplished for that indu=
stry
in nine years as Leader of the Yukon Party? That’s an interesting
question. I=
could go
on, but I think the Premier gets the point. He did talk about tax increases
too. He said I should go on, and I want to be obliging. He said that “=
;the
Leader of the Yukon Party, the former leader of the Official Opposition and
former leader of the government, makes much about budgeting. Let’s lo=
ok
at one of the Yukon Party budgets, 1993-94, and one of the Yukon Party̵=
7;s
approaches to raising revenues in this territory for the purpose of
expenditures through budgeting. That had the most obscene tax increases ever
witnessed in this territory — increase in income taxes, increase in
general corporate rate, increase in small business corporate rate, increase=
in
fuel oil tax, tobacco, increase across the board, on and on. The Yukon
Party’s approach to budgeting was to take money out of Yukoners’
pockets and spend that.” W=
ell,
it’s interesting, Mr. Chair: I only quote the Premier because he like=
s to
quote governments that have been almost a decade out of office, of which no
members who are sitting on the floor of the House today were part. I though=
t I
would remind him of the previous Yukon Party government, since he enjoys th=
ose
history lessons. Y=
es, we do
have some questions about the Premier’s budget. Yes, we understand the
Premier only wants to look at the main estimates to the main estimates, but=
the
fact is that even looking main estimates to main estimates — I think =
in
Health, it’s a $5-million increase over what was spent in all of last
year’s budgets, and yet last year in the O&M, we know how much it=
went
up in that department alone. T=
he O&M
estimates in this budget say three things: that it will cost less to run the
government this year coming than it has cost in the past year with all the
money that has been spent — we can’t ignore those supplementary
budgets because, as the Premier said, those are expenditures that the
government makes when they discover the need; that, for the first time, gov=
ernment
expenses will go down instead of up, year to year; and that we shouldn̵=
7;t
worry about the Premier’s habit of exceeding his estimates. That̵=
7;s
just not believable. There’s another promise in this budget. Once aga=
in,
for the third year in succession, it promises a surplus. T=
his budget
says that after the Premier spends less running the government this coming =
year
than he has had to spend this past year, he’ll deliver a surplus.
It’s certainly not the first time the Premier has promised a surplus =
on
questionable grounds. For the year that’s now drawing to a close, he
promised a slim $2.9-million surplus. The opposition, both opposition parti=
es,
questioned that at the time that he delivered the budget. A surplus of
one-third of one percent of the budget isn’t much of a margin.
That’s what we pointed out to the Premier. The Premier replied, quote=
: “The
actual position of the government, if you calculate and take all factors, s=
hows
— and this is one component of what you must calculate — shows =
at
year-end, noted by, in brackets, ‘a’, $2,907,000 surplus. Then =
you
also notice that, going forward, as you continue on with the budget —=
and
this is to ensure that we’re inclusive on all matters that must be ac=
counted
for, we show a net financial resource position at end of year of over $40
million.” S=
o the
Premier predicted last year, in the spring, that we would have a net financ=
ial
resource position at the end of this month, T=
hat’s
why it’s so hard for us on this side of the House, and indeed for
Yukoners in general, to believe the Premier will deliver a surplus this tim=
e,
because he keeps failing to do so. When it comes to that savings account to
which the Premier refers, it has declined dangerously under his financial m=
anagement,
but he says this year will be different. Now he’s promising there wil=
l be
$43 million in the bank by the end of the coming fiscal year — the bu=
dget
we’re now debating. We’ve already seen how, in the supplementary
budget, just in a few short months, how many millions of dollars that savin=
gs account
has changed from last fall to now. B=
ut he says
to Yukoners, “Don’t worry, be happy.” It will all change =
next
year. But what we’ve seen over the last three years is that just like=
the
operating expenses keep going up under the Yukon Party, the savings account
keeps going down. In March 2008, we had $165 million in net financial resou=
rces.
When this fiscal year ends, he says it will be $18 million, but maybe it wi=
ll
be even less than that. He spent almost 90 percent of the savings over those
three years. That’s not a pattern that Yukoners can afford for much
longer. B=
ut, as the
Premier says, we have to look at all matters. We have to include everything
when we look at it. We also should look at the $100 million that has been
borrowed through the Yukon Energy Corporation — a little over half for
which the Yukon government has provided a comfort letter, as it has been
described by the Chair — excuse me, by the president of the Yukon Ene=
rgy
Corporation — a letter of comfort that was written in 2009, that the
Yukon government will be responsible for providing the principal and intere=
st
payments on $52.5 million out of that $100 million, the balance being the
responsibility of the ratepayers. Y=
et we don’t
see any more than $1, perhaps, that has been indicated in this year’s
budget for the current year’s liability on that matter. We don’t
see anything, but the letter says that principal and interest will be paid
yearly. For the current year, what do we see — a dollar? We are not
seeing an amount. That’s why we are having such a hard time with this
Premier’s estimates. I=
’ll
ask the Premier: can he tell us whether he still expects, with the most
up-to-date figures, the net financial resources to be $18.1 million at the =
end
of this month? Does he still expect the annual deficit to hold at just $20.=
19
million at year-end, Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I think what is quite obvio=
us is
that we have a failure to communicate here. Yes, I agree that the Liberal
leader is having a hard time with the estimates because the Liberal leader
doesn’t understand what they even are, or what makes them up, or what=
is
the purpose of main estimates or one-time expenditures. I hope the member
doesn’t want me to go back to the glossary because therein lies steps
one, two, three — you know, how things are put together to create the=
estimates.
But let me just try to alleviate the member’s hard time with the main
estimates. Y=
ou know,
if you take the actual percentage of variance throughout the course of any
fiscal year while the Yukon Party government has been in office, that small
percentage of variance would be good on anybody’s books — and
isn’t that the point? Solid, strong fiscal management results in these
types of small percentages of variance. But at the same time we’re
meeting the needs of Yukoners without cuts or raising taxes. In fact, we=
217;re
reducing taxes and building our savings account. N=
ow, the
Liberal leader mentioned the global situation that we found ourselves in. I=
’ll
ignore the remarks, but let me just once again help the member, who is havi=
ng a
hard time with that. The facts of the matter are the premiers and the Prime
Minister of this country gathered to plan Canada’s — CanadaR=
17;s
— approach to dealing with a global financial and economic meltdown. =
At
that time, it was defined as something as difficult as or even worse than t=
he
Depression and the meltdown of the stock market in the late 1920s and 1930s=
. =
The
premiers and the Prime Minister of this country provided input into the
creation of O=
nce again,
the Liberal leader has stated we spend more than we take in. How can the me=
mber
justify that statement? How can the Liberal leader justify that statement?<=
o:p> T=
he facts
are that we have taken in by way of revenue, all inclusive, $129 million pl=
us
more than we have spent. Does the Liberal leader not even grasp that simple
element of the fiscal position of Y=
ou know
what Yukoners can’t afford? Yukoners cannot afford Liberal fiscal
management, because the evidence of Liberal fiscal management is certainly =
being
presented by the Liberal leader in his dissertations and what he perceives =
to
be the fiscal framework of the Yukon. That’s what Yukoners can’t
afford. That’s very dangerous. That’s why we get into such thin=
gs
under Liberal governments as “renewal”, which actually was R=
20;removal”,
because it did cut jobs and place hardships on Yukoners. That’s Liber=
al
financial management. Y=
ou know,
the other point that’s really quite interesting is how today the Libe=
ral
leader continues to fixate on spending down the savings account. The Liberal
leader is fond of quoting passages from Hansard, from the pas=
t.
Well, here’s one: “The Yukon Party government has $85 million in
the bank — more than enough to build a $5.2-million health centre. Wi=
ll
the minister commit to spending some of this money that is growing mouldy in
his pocket to getting Now, you know what’s important about this? At th=
at
time, when this was said, this happened to be the Liberal leader — the
same Liberal leader of today — who was actually encouraging the
government to spend down the savings account on a health facility in Dawson
City. However, let’s look at what the Liberal position is now, more
recently, about that health facility and spending down the savings account.=
The
Liberal leader is now saying that it’s bad to spend down the savings
account — that bad Yukon Party government went and spent down that
savings account, the account he said was there with money growing mouldy in=
our
pockets, and also had referenced that this should be spent on a health faci=
lity
in Dawson, but recently this same Liberal leader has said publicly that the Liberals would nev=
er
build that health facility in Dawson. H=
ere’s
the problem, Mr. Chair: a failure to communicate. I think it comes down to
factual understanding of anything. By the way, this institution and what we=
do
here by way of debate and all that goes with it is not about filling the pa=
ges
of Hansard with useless information. There is no credibility coming =
from
the Liberals on any of these matters and, on the financial position of the =
B=
ack to a
more constructive approach: as I have highlighted just a small number of
specific expenditure initiatives, individual ministers — and this is =
what
it’s all about, actually, having individual ministers stand and prese=
nt
the detail of their budgets, so hopefully the Liberals will get a better
understanding of what the budget actually is — will be pleased to pro=
vide
additional detail on these and other initiatives, as we proceed to
department-by-department review of their appropriation requests. T=
hrough
that discussion, you never know, the Liberals might decide to support this
budget and claim it as their own. That would be a smart move for the Libera=
ls
to head to the polls with. Just like the last Liberal Party, in running in =
a general
election, said to the N=
ow before
I conclude, allow me a final observation regarding the Government of
Yukon’s finances. These are factual, not Liberal fantasy. Thanks to t=
he
sound financial management of the Yukon Party government, we have a positive
net financial resource. This speaks to our future — and that indeed is
what it’s all about — and highlights that we are not relying on
future revenues to fund past and current expenditures. Does the Liberal lea=
der
not understand that element? We are not relying on future revenues to fund =
past
and current expenditures. We have an accumulated surplus. This speaks to our
future and highlights our economic resources, both financial and physical. =
T=
hese are
resources available for the provision of future programs and services. We h=
ave
an annual surplus, and this highlights that revenues exceed expenditures,
allowing us to build the bank and save. As it has in recent years, our savi=
ngs
account will allow us the flexibility to be responsive on behalf of Yukoners
when it is needed most. The Yukon Party government is extremely proud of the
efforts of our government to provide significant capital infrastructure
investments and deliver effective services and programs to Yukoners while m=
aintaining
this very healthy long-term fiscal position. Looking to our multi-year fore=
cast
tabled with this budget, future years remain extremely positive with revenu=
es
projected to exceed expenses for each of the next four years. In addition, =
over
this very same period, our net financial resource position is expected to
increase. This provides a strong indication that we are living within our
means, pay as you go and so on. This forward-looking healthy fiscal framewo=
rk
is what Yukoners can take great comfort in, and indeed I’m sure they =
do. C=
ontinuing
on, there has been quite a lengthy presentation of the acutal financial
position of W=
e are in a
very good position — one of the best financial positions in the count=
ry.
We did not get there by magic or by fudging the books or by creating estima=
tes
that have nothing to do with reality. We got there because we had a plan, we
had the ability to manage the finances and to build them, we had strategic
plans for investing in T=
hat is the
difference between the Yukon Party government and the opposition. We have <=
/span> N=
ow, if the
Liberal leader wants to sit here for the next 20 days berating the governme=
nt
side and accusing the Minister of Finance of fudging the books, the Liberal
leader can continue to do that, but at the end of the day it won’t ch=
ange
this fact: the Yukon Party government has not only delivered over the last =
nine
years — we have built this territory. We have put it in a position th=
at
is the envy of many. We are being talked about across the country and we are
now solidly placed as a member of the global community. Our quality of life=
has
improved dramatically. Our young people are moving home. They are getting
gainful employment here. Our infrastructure is being built that will provide
benefit to Yukoners not just today, but long into the future. We have creat=
ed
great partnerships with other governments and First Nations. We are the fir=
st
government, by the way, to ever create a land use plan in this territory. We
have accomplished a lot, but we have a lot more to do. Yukon Party governme=
nt
has a plan to do it. We have something of substance to offer the T=
he
Liberals have nothing to offer and the NDP — we all know what
they’ll offer — anti-industry, anti-profit, and the list goes o=
n.
They want to create a council; the Yukon Party has created an economy. I
don’t think it’s going to be very difficult for Yukoners to mak=
e a
determination on what the differences are in this House and who has the best
interests of the Mr. Mitchell:
Well, you know, let’s t=
alk
about a failure to communicate. First of all, when the Premier says he̵=
7;s
not interested in hearing something someone said 10 or 11 years ago, we sho=
uld
be clear that it’s something he said 10 or 11 years ago. It was this
Member for W=
e did urge
the Premier to get started on building the long-promised $5.2-million
multi-level health care facility for W=
e told the
Premier, “Yes, it’s time to replace an aging facility,” a=
nd
the Premier’s government had estimated spending $5.2 million to do it.
Then they turned around and turned it into a $28-million hospital. So
that’s where there is a failure to communicate. We tell the Premier,
“Go ahead and spend $5 million,” and he says, “How about =
$28
million?” We said, “Go ahead and build a multi-level health care
facility,” which the then Member for N=
ow, as far
as the Premier taking credit for writing and delivering the first ever land=
use
plan in T=
he Premier
didn’t write the North Yukon Regional Land Use Plan. He takes
credit for it like his government just did it. They sat down in the back ro=
om
and wrote the plan. That’s not what happened at all. I know that when=
he
enters into debate, the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin will have a lot to say a=
bout
that — Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
Oh, and the Member for Whiteh=
orse
West apparently wants to comment on it, as well. She’ll get her chanc=
e.
Let’s — Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I’=
;m not
sure what the Premier has said. Not with what? Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
She won’t get a chance.=
Well,
if the Premier shares his time in an equitable and gender-neutral manner,
I’m sure that he’ll provide that time, even if he says he’=
;s
not going to. Now, how much money — Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
I hear a lot of kibitzing fro=
m that
side, so it’s difficult. I don’t have as hard a time concentrat=
ing
as the Minister of Environment does when people whisper things on this side,
but if he’s going to just throw remarks over, he might as well read t=
hem
into the record because he is doing a lot of chirping. Do I have the floor?=
Chair’s statement <=
/p>
Chair: Order please. When members =
are
speaking, it’s common courtesy and part of the rules of our Assembly =
to
let the member speak. B=
oth sides
throw comments back and forth, off microphone, and all members know that th=
ey
are supposed to rise to speak. If members have something to say, say it aft=
er
you have been recognized by the Chair, not back and forth off microphone. T=
hat
doesn’t provide productive debate in this Assembly, and both sides are
guilty of this. M=
r.
Mitchell, you have the floor. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
Thank you for that ruling, Mr.
Chair. Chair’s statement=
p>
Chair: Order please. The statement=
that
the Chair just made was about all members. It wasn’t a ruling that th=
e member
opposite should be thanking the Chair for. All members are guilty of this, =
off-microphone
comments have been occurring for the last couple of days, and the Chair is =
just
reminding members that it is up to members themselves to keep order and dec=
orum
in the House. I would encourage members to keep with the oath that they took
when they took office and keep the level to a more respectful level. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
The Premier was talking about
health care for rural members. He was talking about the need to spend money=
on
health care. So yes, we do have questions about health care and when we loo=
k at
the health budget, we see that the 2009-10 actuals for total health service=
s in
O&M were $105.68 million. T=
hat’s
just under health services. Then the 2010-11 estimate was $82.4 million =
212;
over $23 million less than it had been the previous year. What actually
happened in 2010-11? Now they are forecast to be $100 million, and yes, they
are forecast to be $100 million again in the coming year’s budget. We=
do
question whether this government is considering all factors when they make
these estimates. T=
he
statistics are interesting. When we look at health services, the statistics=
in
the budget say, for example, under outpatient mental health services, direct
and indirect clinical hours — 2009-10 actual was 10,944 hours; 2010-11
estimate was 10,000 hours; 2010-11 forecast was 10,000 hours; 2011-12 estim=
ate
was 7,000 hours. W=
hy would
the government estimate that they’re going to spend 3,000 to 4,000 fe=
wer
hours dealing with direct and indirect clinical hours for outpatient mental
health services in the coming year than they did in the present year and the
year prior? But there’s a footnote, Mr. Chair: footnote 2, in 2009-10=
and
2010-11 there was an increase in program delivery due to additional resourc=
es
made available by time-limited funding. Aha, the THAF and the THSSI funding
— hard to say that, Mr. Chair. So what happened? W=
ell, when
Yukoners found out that the government had no plan to continue these servic=
es
— they had actually issued notices of potential layoff to employees; =
they
had told people that the services were going to be terminated — there=
was
a public outcry. not just from the opposition, a public outcry. This govern=
ment
rushed back in and put in a news release saying, “We changed our mind.
We’re not going to cancel those services after all. We’ll find =
the
money.” W=
ell
that’s good — it’s good that they do so — but then =
you
keep looking, and in area after area we see a projected flat line or downtu=
rns
of services. T=
hen the government,
when people noticed them, they came back to say, “Oh, we won’t =
do
that. We won’t expect there to be less hospital services, less mental
health care services, less travel Outside. We’ll fix that. We’ll
fix that.” So, yes, we do question whether this government has adequa=
tely
estimated for the health care. We question when we see that the forecast for
2010-11 for the Yukon Hospital Corporation was $46 million, and it’s
being estimated again as $46 million for the coming year, despite the fact =
that
they have taken on responsibility for W=
e see,
among other things, that this government keeps promising Yukoners that
they’re going to deal with the need that was identified in the report=
on
severely intoxicated persons at risk — a medical need — not jus=
t a
need for people who were being detained — for a sobering centre and a
medical detox and a shelter to be located in downtown Whitehorse. T=
he
government says, “We’re working on that. We’re looking in=
to
how we’re going to do that.” But there is no money in the five-=
year
plan. There is no money in the long-term capital plan. Where is the governm=
ent
going to get that money? That’s going to affect the surplus deficit
position; that’s going to affect the accumulated surplus of the gover=
nment
— not just the annual, but the accumulated. So why does the government
expect us to have confidence in this budget, when they continue to not incl=
ude
things that they announce or when they do things like take the F.H. Collins
school replacement, which was identified in the long-term plan — the
year’s budget we’re debating now, 2011-12 — as being some=
$24
million a year ago and push it forward another 12 months. How can we be
confident in these estimates when the government changes them in such a
cavalier fashion? What happened to that promise that the school would be bu=
ilt
this year? I believe it was to be opened in 2012. W=
hat
happens? The government just pushes it away and says, “Not now.”
How did they make that decision? T=
hey said
the contractors asked them to. They said that they were going to delay that=
a
year because the contracting community didn’t want to be building it =
in
the current budget cycle. That’s how they made the decision on the ed=
ucation
for kids who are going to that aging facility, one that we all agree needs =
to
be replaced and updated. No, we don’t have confidence. W=
e don’t
know when the election will be. Maybe it’ll be this spring; maybe
it’ll be a month from now or two months from now; maybe it will be in=
the
fall. We know it has to occur in the next seven months or so. Will the Prem=
ier
commit to providing updates in the coming months on the fiscal position of =
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I guess the bottom line is
it’s up to the Liberal leader to be confident or not be confident in =
the
budget documents before him, but let me just point out a couple of things.
Instead of the stuff the Liberal leader is writing on pieces of paper, why
don’t we look at the actual budget document. I mean, it does have some
very important information in the pages of this document. T=
he Liberal
leader said there are reductions in operation and maintenance expenditures =
for
health care. I’m really trying to understand how the Liberal leader c=
omes
to that conclusion. In the document, page S-12, the 2009-10 actual shows
$252.497 million. So, let’s just round it off. The 2009-10 actual =
212;
that means that’s public accounts done, duly audited and presented
— is $252 million. The 2010-11 forecast — that’s
all-inclusive for operation and maintenance in health care — $257 mil=
lion.
It’s actually $257.738 million, rounded off, $257 million. Then let us
look at the estimate for 2011-12. The estimate for 2011-12 for O&M for
Health and Social Services is $262.611 million, rounded off, $262 million. =
H=
ow in the
world can Yukoners have confidence in the Liberal leader’s presentati=
on
of the fiscal position of Health and Social Services when it comes to O&=
;M,
operation and maintenance, when the budget documents themselves clearly
demonstrate there has been an increase from 2009-10 through to 2010-11 and =
on
to 2011-12? T=
he
fruitless, pointless approach in all of this is what is going to ensure that
Yukoners have no confidence whatsoever in the Liberals and the Liberal lead=
er
in any facet of leadership. Once again, the Liberal leader has put on the
public record a statement that is in complete contradiction of the budget d=
ocument
tabled, which includes a duly audited factor for the year the member refere=
nced
of 2009-10. The estimates and projections clearly show increases. In fact, =
the
2011-12 main estimates show approximately a 14-percent increase in t=
he
budget for Health and Social Services. I=
think
what the Liberal leader is saying is that he doesn’t agree with those
expenditures. Maybe that is the issue here. The Liberal leader and the Libe=
rals
do not agree with those expenditures. They don’t agree with the fact =
that
the Yukon Party government went ahead and actually increased in these years=
the
allocation for the Department of Health and Social Services — meeting=
the
health care needs of Yukoners. This is actually quite astonishing that a pa=
rty
leader and a party would take that kind of position — that they
don’t agree with, nor do they support or even believe in these kinds =
of
expenditures — meeting the health care needs of Yukoners? B=
y the way,
during the course of this coming fiscal year, if the need arises that Yukon=
ers
need more access to doctors and to hospitals and for operations and for
medevacs and whatever the case may be — when it comes to the clearly
defined obligations of government for delivering health care to Yukoners an=
d to
Canadians because there are a number of laws that govern this whole area of
obligation and responsibility by government. T=
he Yukon
Party government will, regardless of the estimates as tabled, meet those ne=
eds.
And the reason we will is because we can. And we can meet those needs becau=
se
of the fiscal management the Yukon Party government has provided this terri=
tory
since taking office in 2002. T=
he Liberal
leader can go on and on and on. The bottom line is — and this is where
the rubber hits the road — the Liberal leader says there has been a
reduction in O&M for health care when all evidence, regardless of how y=
ou
look at it, demonstrates clearly that the Liberal leader is in fact wrong, =
has
put information on the public record that is not factual, and this is a
fruitless discussion and should be put in that filing cabinet labelled
“useless information”. Mr. Mitchell:
What is fruitless is expectin=
g this
Premier to ever answer a question with a genuine response. What is fruitles=
s is
to expect this Premier to ever actually properly state what has been asked =
of
him or stated by members opposite, instead of using a partial quote or an
incorrect quote or simply coming up with his own opinion as to what the quo=
te
must have been. We
didn’t say that there has been a cut mains-to-mains in the budget for
Health and Social Services. We said, “If you look at what’s
forecast for what has been spent, including two supplementary budgets, the
amount that’s estimated for next year is barely more than what has be=
en
spent, and why would we expect it to be so?” L=
et’s
look at page S-12 that the Premier refers to in the O&M budget. What do=
es
it say on page S-12 for Vote 15, Health and Social Services? 2009-10 actual,
$252,497,000 — or, as the Premier says, if we round it off, $252.5
million. What did the Premier, as Minister of Finance, estimate a year late=
r,
after seeing these actuals of $252.5 million in 2009-10? He estimated we wo=
uld
spend $27 million less — $230,794,000. T=
he Premier
said, having looked at what we just spent — $252.5 million —
let’s estimate we’re going to spend $27 million less in the next
year. W=
hat did
happen in the next year according to the forecast on page S-12? We’ve
spent $257,738,000, so the Premier missed by $27 million between his estima=
tes
for 2010-11 and what’s forecast, because he missed by $22 million in =
his
estimates, so what’s he saying now for next year? That we’re on=
ly
going to spend $5 million more — that’s what he has put in the
estimates, $262.6 million for health — than what he’s forecasti=
ng
for the year that’s just about to end, and we don’t know if the=
se
are the final figures for the year. There will be a final supplementary bud=
get
sometime later this year — that’s what we said. T=
he Premier
just simply restates the position and then says, look at that, it makes no
sense. Well, it makes no sense because he constantly restates it and change=
s it
in doing so. Let’s try another question, another area; let’s ta=
lk
about the borrowings of the government. N=
ow, we
know that we’ve run deficits this year and last; we know that the
government is projecting that there will only be $18 million left in net
financial resources at year-end — the so-called savings account. How =
much
is being borrowed by this government? We know about the $100 million through
the Energy Corporation. We know the borrowing limit is $300 million and we =
know
that some money has been borrowed against the $70 million that is authorized
through the Department of Health and Social Services to build the visiting
medical specialist and nurses residence and health offices across the river=
. We
know that there is going to be $28 million for a hospital in Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
First off, the I=
think we
can connect some of this legacy debt that we’ve been paying down to p=
ast
governments, if the member wants to go there, and I think we all remember w=
hat
that is — failed enterprises; money used out of the Development
Corporation for failed enterprises. I see the Liberal leader pointing to his
left. That would be toward the NDP. Let me just caution the member that the
Liberals are rapidly moving to the left in this territory, somewhat of a
problem for the Liberals; great news for the Yukon Party government. T=
his issue
that the member is pointing out is in fact an overall position that we must
build infrastructure to meet the needs of Yukoners, not only of today, but =
long
into the future. F=
undamentally,
the Yukon Party government’s approach to this is to not encumb=
er
the taxpaying public of today for the cost of something that will be to the
benefit of and accessible by W=
ith that,
the member will not find, for example, an expenditure in the estimates for =
the
Development Corporation in terms of what it may be paying on any annual bas=
is
to extinguish liabilities on any annual basis. What we have provided is a
commitment of support for the Development Corporation in the conduct of its
operations overall. But what that support will be based on is year-end work,
which is what we, the shareholder, are requiring of our corporation. I think
that’s pretty logical that we do year-ends and determine what our Cro=
wn
corporation’s fiscal position is before we start leaping to exposing
Yukoners to liabilities that they need not be exposed to. I=
’m
not sure what the member is trying to achieve, but the bottom line is that =
we
have, all-inclusive, an authorized borrowing limit. This is federal, by the=
way
— there’s an order-in-council that creates this authorized
borrowing limit. We don’t create it. It’s an order-in-council by
the federal government of W=
e have
long-term plus short-term obligations that total about $162 million, which
means we have room of about $137 million, $138 million within that authoriz=
ed
by way of federal order-in-council borrowing limit. If you want to do a com=
parison
to our sister territories, we’re in pretty good shape compared to whe=
re
they’re at. S=
o overall,
we have made decisions in supporting our corporations that are going to res=
ult
in infrastructure put on the ground to meet the needs of Yukoners to the
benefit of Yukoners today and long into the future. What a wise business de=
cision
our corporations have made and we readily jump to their support, because of
those wise business decisions our corporations made. Thank you, thank you to
those hardworking, dedicated Yukoners who sit on the boards of the Yukon De=
velopment
Corporation and the Yukon Hospital Corporation, and we say to them: a job w=
ell
done. Mr. Mitchell:
Well, the Premier actually did
answer a question, which is an improvement. He said that the long-term and
short-term obligations total $162 million, so their last accounting was more
money to be spent as borrowed money in the authorization of the Hospital
Corporation to complete the residence across the river on Hospital Road, pl=
us
the two hospitals — Watson Lake and Dawson — which so far have =
been
projected to cost $50 million, all of which is being borrowed — is th=
at
not correct? W=
e’ll
ask the Premier to answer whether or not all of that $50 million is to be
borrowed, and then the Premier can provide us with an estimate of what the
borrowings will total after the construction of those two buildings, since =
we
do have an estimated cost via the Hospital Corporation from them. Is it the
intention via the Hospital Corporation to borrow $50 million to build those=
two
facilities? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
We do have ministers who be=
ar great
responsibility in their areas of obligation vis-à-vis the departments
that they manage. This is certainly a very worthy discussion and debate to
have, in this case with the Minister of Health and Social Services, because=
the
Minister of Health and Social Services has provided an instrument for the Y=
ukon
Hospital Corporation that meets the requirements for the board and its memb=
ers,
as we saw fit as a government. That instrument is in writing, by the way, a=
nd I
don’t know what more I can say about that. I=
guess the
member opposite is going to be extremely excited and waiting in great
anticipation to get to the Department of Health and Social Services to have
that discussion. It is certainly an instrument that demonstrates our support
for the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board and the individuals who sit on that
board. Again, they have made a great decision to ensure we meet the immedia=
te
and long-term health care needs of Yukoners, and we say once again we are m=
ore
than willing to support their efforts — and once again reiterate to t=
hem:
a job well done. Mr. Mitchell:
Well, we could ask that quest=
ion of
the Health minister and no doubt we will, but in past years we have sometim=
es
asked questions of ministers only to be told that you have to ask that ques=
tion
of the Minister of Finance because he controls the purse strings. S=
ince
it’s the Minister of Finance who’s here today, then surely the
Minister of Health and Social Services would not be issuing commitment lett=
ers
to any Crown corporation without the authorization of the Minister of Finan=
ce.
That’s why we ask it of the Minister of Finance — because, at t=
he
end of the day, as he says, the buck, or all $50 million bucks, stops there=
. A=
gain,
I’ll add a question to it. The Minister of Finance has said that the
long-term and short-term obligations of government are $162 million. There
needs to be some $50 million or $60 million more to complete the building
across the way plus the two hospitals, so another $50 million or $60 million
added on to that. We think that the Health minister should be able to answer
that, but we’d rather hear it from the Finance minister, because
he’s the top minister when it comes to the spending decisions. A=
gain, has
the Finance minister made any commitment to the Health minister regarding t=
he
Hospital Corporation’s request for improvements to their campuses =
212;
it has been recently referred to — of some $50 million that is needed=
by
the Yukon Hospital Corporation to provide adequate services in terms of the
emergency room, the operating theatres and intensive care units of that
hospital, which we hear about on a daily basis from the hardworking doctors=
and
nurses who work in that environment? Has there been any commitment made to =
date
and has there been a commitment asked for of the Finance minister? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Actually, these decisions a=
re made
by Management Board when it comes to monetary decisions of government, so on
the matter that relates to any commitments to corporations, such as the
Hospital Corporation, it certainly would have been a decision made by
Management Board. S=
econdly,
I’m sure the Liberal leader is aware of the fact that there has recen=
tly
been an announcement that the Yukon Hospital Corporation and government in =
the
related areas are and have embarked on a planning process for future needs =
that
may arise for the Whitehorse General Hospital — once again, demonstra=
tion
that we have a plan going forward into the future of further meeting the he=
alth
care needs of Yukoners. That announcement, I believe, came out a few weeks =
ago,
or a couple of weeks ago. I just don’t have a firm date on the top of=
my
head, but that has certainly been done and that has commenced. Mr. Mitchell:
Regarding another prior commi=
tment
and long-term plan, and that is the previously committed $24 million that j=
ust
last fall was being talked about as being in the upcoming year to build the
F.H. Collins replacement, who made the decision to cut that from this budge=
t?
Was that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education? Either one c=
an
answer. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Here we have another exampl=
e, Mr.
Chair: on one day the Liberal leader will suggest that we expend or book mo=
ney
without planning. Then on another day, depending, I guess, who the Liberal
leader has talked to recently, when we are in the process of planning for
expenditures, the Liberal leader determines that these are cuts. Well, if t=
he
Liberal leader looked at the budget, he would clearly see what the fiscal f=
low
is for a project called the F.H. Collins replacement. The point of the matt=
er
is, nobody made a decision to cut anything. T=
he
planning process will dictate how much, in any given fiscal year, will be d=
edicated
to a project — similar to what we’ve been working on all along =
as a
government actually, always enhancing and improving the planning processes,
which is part of what a multi-year capital plan is all about, to ensure more
effective fiscal management. I go back to an earlier point: that is why, wh=
en
you take our total budget of $1 billion plus and the variances that occur
during any fiscal year from estimates to the public accounts actuals, the
percentage of variance is extremely small and would certainly look good in
anybody’s books. Mr. Mitchell:
That’s an interesting point that the Premier has attempted to make. F=
irst
of all, the concerns about F.H. Collins are not a question of who the Liber=
al
leader is talking to. They are a concern of those people whom the Liberal
leader is listening to, and those are the parents of kids who attend F.H.
Collins. That’s who we’re hearing from who are extremely
disappointed, extremely disappointed — extremely disappointed. T=
he chair
of the council was shocked to learn about it in the newspapers, as opposed =
to
from the minister or the department. As far as us — again, is the Pre=
mier
just manufacturing things he wished he had heard? For the Premier to suggest
that this is because we would want the government to embark on this budget
without planning is ridiculous. It’s absurd. Of course, it should be
planned. Was not the government working on this plan all of last year when =
they
were projecting that $24 million would be spent next year? That was the poi=
nt
where we thought the planning was being done because the government must ha=
ve
been pretty confident that they would have achieved the planning and conclu=
ded
the planning when they said in their long-term plan that there would be $24
million expended in 2011-12. Is the Premier just saying that neither he nor=
his
minister could get the planning done? Who made the decision to push this
project forward yet another year to the year beyond the election? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Actually, the project hasn&=
#8217;t
been pushed forward. T=
hrough the
planning exercise, and all that goes with planning exercises — and we
leave that to the professionals involved, which includes engineers and othe=
rs,
project managers, so on and so forth, committees that provide input. The li=
st
is quite extensive. Through those exercises there are occasions when what w=
as
estimated in years out may be changed. Isn’t that the whole point? Wh=
at
the government has stood up and said — the Liberal leader says this i=
s a
cut. It’s not a cut. It’s an exercise that is ongoing, and we
actually commend all of those people for pointing out through the planning
processes that they have embarked on, and are well underway with, that we
should do certain things as a government. I think that is indicative of goo=
d,
sound planning and management of such things as capital projects, and
that’s the point. B=
y the way,
I think we have to refer back to some of the other criticisms that the Libe=
ral
leader leaps to his feet on when he gets a report from the Auditor General.=
In
part, what the Yukon Party government is doing is continuing to follow what=
has
been pointed out by the audits that we&nbs=
p;
— on other matters that we, the Yukon Party government, ensure
take place and want to take place because we want to improve and enhance al=
ways
our ability to provide good government to Yukoners. In this particular inst=
ance,
it certainly has some linkages to some of the areas that the Auditor General
pointed out in reporting on Other Matters. T=
he multi-year
plan is actually quite extensive and certainly has been received quite well=
by
Yukoners. They see into the future a lot of areas of investment that is
something that they too can plan for. Not only is the government conducting
planning exercises to ensure that we are doing the best possible job we can=
, we
have created, through our budgeting instruments, ways for the A=
ll I can
say is, Mr. Chair, a great deal of credit goes to those individuals in
departments like Highways and Public Works and others who contribute to
creating such plans. I’m sure that the minister responsible for Highw=
ays
and Public Works and other ministers are at the ready to provide the opposi=
tion
with great detail on why we have taken the steps we’ve taken in our
budgeting exercises and our planning exercises and what it all means —
always the fundamental underpinning of it all is that we are acting in the =
best
interests of the Yukon public and will continue to do so. Chair: Order please. Committee of =
the
Whole will recess for 15 minutes. <=
o:p> Recess Chair: Order please. Committee of =
the
Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 2=
4, First
Appropriation Act, 2011-12. We will now continue with general debate. Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
The Premier says clear, but
it’s not yet clear. W=
e were
just having a discussion on the F.H. Collins school, which is heading into =
the
future. Based on this capital budget, F.H. Collins school now shows a large
expenditure in 2012-13 of $29.4 million; $16.2 million in 2013-14; $2.8 mil=
lion
in 2014-15. For the edification of the parents and the students attending, =
can
the Premier tell us — since, as the Minister of Finance, he would have
oversight over this long-term, multi-year planning process — what year
students could expect to start attending the new facility? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Once again, I’m sure =
the
Minister of Education, accompanied by Education department officials, can
provide great detail to this matter and many others in the Department of
Education. L=
et me
remind the Liberal leader once again that Management Board makes the moneta=
ry
decisions in government, not one individual and again, we are dealing with
projections here. The parents — considering that the revisions were t=
he
result of the planning process that is underway and has been underway ̵=
2;
can expect, based on all available information that we have to date through=
the
course of the planning exercise, a completion date by August 2013. I=
just want
to make one cautionary comment: the undertaking here is also to maintain an
existing school and its functions during the course of construction, which =
for
any engineer is probably quite a difficult challenge as to how they will st=
ructure
this particular facility in and around the active operation of a school suc=
h as
the existing F.H. Collins. With all the available information through the
course of the ongoing planning exercise, there is an expectation of an
estimated completion date of August 2013. Mr. Mitchell:
I thank the Minister of Finan=
ce for
that response, since he sits on the Management Board and is certainly part =
of
the process. He should be informed of what the date is and now we have all =
been
informed. G=
oing back
to the frequently discussed need for a sobering centre and a shelter in
downtown Whitehorse, and since the Health minister has indicated that the
government has committed to doing this, can the Minister of Finance —
because there are no dollars in the multi-year capital plan for these proje=
cts
— give us any indication as to when those would be constructed? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Look, I think it’s pr=
etty
clear that not that long ago — this afternoon — what was presen=
ted
by way of the summary of the 2011-12 mains was an investment for the secure
assessment centre of some $3.5 million. So it is already in the overall fis=
cal
framework as it exists today, all inclusive — closing out fiscal year
2010-11 and also going forward with 2011-12. So here we have the budget
document once again. I=
know
there are difficulties with the Liberal leader accepting what is put on the
pages of a budget document. But I want to reference that in the multi-year
capital plan project listing, page 5, it clearly shows under Justice, secure
assessment centre — $3.580 million. Maybe the member calls it a sober=
ing
centre, but it is a secure assessment centre. That is the investment being
made. N=
ow, there
are two reports that have been put together by a number of individuals,
including the RCMP, Department of Justice, First Nations, medical professio=
nals
and so on. The first report, of course, is the police review that has a lis=
t of
a number of recommendations. The secure assessment centre, by the way, is an
initiative that is actually in partnership with the RCMP. The second report=
is
the report on acutely intoxicated persons, and there are a number of recomm=
endations
there. We are, as a government, having recently been in receipt of these
reports, working through the process that we must, in terms of the
recommendations and an overall implementation plan in regard to these two
reports. S=
o the only
thing that’s in the fiscal framework right now is to deal with the
immediate issue, so that the era of the drunk tank has ended in this territ=
ory.
The secure assessment centre is an initiative that is a very marked departu=
re
from the historical, normal practice of dealing with individuals who are
acutely intoxicated and in public. This secure assessment centre will provi=
de
security for individuals, both those who are acutely intoxicated and others,
including staff. There will be medical professionals there and available for
assessment, and determinations from that point will be made. It also reduces
the pressure, once in operation, of the Mr. Mitchell:
The Premier must be tiring;
he’s having an apples-and-oranges conversation with himself now. I
didn’t ask the Premier about the secure assessment centre to be built
onto the new Whitehorse Correctional Centre, which was announced back in
January. I asked him about a sobering centre, a medical detox and a shelter=
to
be built in downtown T=
he Health
minister has said that, beyond the secure assessment centre up at the
Whitehorse Correctional Centre — to end, as the Premier says, the day=
s of
the drunk tank, which will deal with people certainly if they’ve been
apprehended for a criminal matter — there is a need for a centre for
people that may simply be brought in by a family member or friend, associat=
e,
or a member of an non-government organization because they need help. They
haven’t necessarily committed any criminal offence. A=
re these
people then to be taking them up to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre? Is =
that
what the Premier is now suggesting, because that is not what the Health
minister was saying in this House over the past several weeks? It’s a=
lso
not what the Deputy Minister of Health said publicly at the news conference
that was held to announce the two reports to which the Premier refers, as w=
ell
as the simultaneous announcement of the secure assessment centre to be buil=
t at
the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. Members of the media asked at that meet=
ing:
“Does this mean that this health approach is being abandoned, despite=
the
report that has been tabled here today, for a justice approach at the
Whitehorse Correctional Centre?” The deputy minister said: “No,=
we
are working on that as well.” The Health minister has confirmed that =
in
this House. S=
o, I would
like clarification from the Premier. Is it now just to be the one centre up=
at
the Whitehorse Correctional Centre or is there an additional commitment? If=
so,
where is the funding coming from? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Let me just repeat what was=
said.
Yes, there is a secure assessment centre for obvious reasons. That is not
strictly a Justice initiative. T=
hat’s
why I clearly articulated for the benefit of the Liberal leader that medical
staff is involved here. Furthermore, we do have a detoxification centre in
operation now. It’s the one that we, the Yukon Party government, got =
back
up and running after it was closed in the past. T=
his is
exactly what was just said on the floor of the House. We are working on the
recommendations of the two reports. I don’t find any reason why the
member opposite thinks there’s some kind of issue here. That’s
exactly what has been said all along. Mr. Mitchell:
For the benefit of the Premie=
r,
when the Member for Mount Lorne and I visited the Sarah Steele centre this =
past
fall, the officials working there — and this was also corroborated by=
the
deputy, who attended that tour — stated that that facility needed to =
be
replaced with an updated facility. That’s why we’re asking whet=
her
there’s a plan to have an updated facility that takes a health
perspective for its people who need detoxification, along with a sobering
centre and an actual living shelter, so there’s a continuum of care f=
or
people who are trying to break the bonds of addiction. The report to which =
the
Premier has referred suggests that that should be downtown. It
doesn’t appear that commitment still exists. We’re surprised at
that because certainly statements have been made to many reporters, and
statements made in this House, that indicated government was working on thi=
s.
It sounds like government is working just on something up the hill. Maybe t=
hat
will be the repurposing of the old jail — who knows. Maybe the Premier
should just tell us if he intends to run in the next election, or if
we’re wasting our time asking him these questions. Is the Premier goi=
ng
to lead his party into the 2011 general election? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Well, as my learned and est=
eemed
colleague has just said, maybe the Liberal leader is seeking a membership in
the Yukon Party — I don’t know. But at the end of the day, Mr.
Chair, I cannot believe what I just heard the Liberal leader say. The Liber=
al
leader actually just said that maybe the option for the existing old WCC is=
the
one that will be used for a sobering centre or a detoxification centre or w=
hatever. I=
mean,
this is actually infantile to even have on the floor of the Legislature. Wh=
at
has been said is exactly what has been presented in all venues, including t=
his
institution — that there is an investment in a secure assessment cent=
re,
so that the end of the drunk tank era is now a reality for S=
econdly,
there are two reports, as presented by the work of many, with a number of
recommendations in them that are being worked on — all-inclusive. T=
hirdly,
yes, there is a detoxification centre that is in operation right now. The
member has some confused view of how Justice and Health and Social Services
interact. The fact of the matter is there are many examples of where Justice
and Health and Social Services interact. That includes the fact that the RC=
MP
themselves have actually been taking people to Whitehorse General Hospital =
and
that facilities in rural Yukon have historically, in many instances, provid=
ed a
place for medical professionals to provide some form of detoxification for =
individuals
who are acutely intoxicated, because there is a medical issue with that =
212;
a very serious one. I=
’m
not sure what the Liberal leader is even talking about. The future is what =
the
future will be. We’re not here to discuss who’s doing what in a
coming election; we’re here to present to Yukoners our budget, which
includes a plan fiscally and beyond for the future. The Liberals and the NDP
have firmly committed in the public that they would use this sitting to pre=
sent
their plan to the Mr. Mitchell:
We seem to have hit a sore po=
int
there. Yes, the Premier can’t believe what he heard. That’s bec=
ause
we couldn’t believe on this side of the House what we had just heard =
from
the Premier. That’s why I asked rhetorically whether those were their
plans for repurposing the jail, since the Premier has now told us that this=
is
going to be a combined justice and health initiative. T=
his is
directly attached to the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. This sounds like
it’s going to be the one and only sobering centre, which is also the
secure assessment facility, so aside from members of the RCMP, who may be
transporting people there instead of to the drunk tank — and we can a=
ll
agree that is an improvement — apparently when brothers, sisters, par=
ents
or children of people who are suffering from severe intoxication need to ta=
ke
them somewhere, they’re going to have to take them up to the Whitehor=
se
Correctional Centre and go through the security. These are people who have =
not
committed any criminal offence. They may be sitting in their own living room
and they’ve been convinced by a family member that they need help, and
this is the solution that the government — a one size fits all soluti=
on
— that the government is proposing. Or I suppose people will continue=
to
take inebriated and intoxicated individuals when they’re at risk to t=
he
emergency room and then be told, no, take them up to the Whitehorse
Correctional Centre. Well, that’s very illuminating. W=
ell, if
the member opposite, the Premier, wants to hear of a plan, here’s a p=
lan:
yes, we will build a shelter. I’m glad the Premier is taking notes. Y=
es,
there will be a replacement for the Sarah Steele centre that can combine the
needs of both medical detoxification and a sobering centre. Yes, we will de=
al
with homeless people. Yes, we will deal with the issues of affordable housi=
ng,
because this government hasn’t created housing, not just for homeless
people, but for all kinds of people who can’t afford it, and t=
hey
are hard-working Yukoners. They can’t afford either a rental or a hou=
sing
purchase in the I=
’ll
ask one more question. Is the Premier prepared to commit to a fall sitting =
of
the Legislative Assembly? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Well, we have some semblanc=
e now of
a Liberal plan. Let’s review. T=
he
Liberals will build a sobering centre and a detoxification centre and a home
for everyone. The problem here is the Liberal leader says the budget before=
us
is not correct. Maybe the Liberal leader can enlighten us and Yukoners on w=
here
the Liberals would get the money from if the budget before us is not correc=
t?
Do we or do we not have the finances available that are presented in the bu=
dget
document — the main estimates — for 2011-12? This is not some s=
ort
of game. This Liberal leader has just said this is what they would do.
They’d build all these things, yet, by the same token, the Liberal le=
ader
says the budget before us is incorrect. Well, let’s hear from the Lib=
eral
leader on where the Liberals intend to get the funds to build the stuff that
the Liberal leader has just committed to and explain to Ms. Hanson: Prior to sitting in this Legislatur=
e, I
watched the procedure of this House from the visitors gallery. I was shocked
then to see the colossal waste of taxpayers’ money and faith in the
political process by the repetitious, partisan process and by the non-produ=
ctive
activity that apparently is called budget debate. We have 15 working days of
this Legislature left. We have 20 departments and agencies that, as the Pre=
mier
has indicated this afternoon, we should be spending focused time and effort=
on.
From my observation in that visitors gallery, it was very clear that the in=
tent
of the government then was that oversight — the holding of government
members to account that members of the opposition are elected to do on beha=
lf
of all Yukoners — was not a shared objective of the government. My
observation now is that that will be very difficult, but I will be working
diligently to ensure my constituents that that is my objective. T=
he Premier
delivered his Budget Address on February 3. He has delivered most, if not a=
ll,
of that address on numerous occasions in this Legislature subsequent to that
date. Those who choose to read Hansard will see that many, many of t=
he
statements that were contained in that Budget Address have been repeated and
repeated. A=
s Leader
of the Yukon New Democratic Party, I did provide my response to the address,
indicating the areas of both convergence and where the NDP does differ with
respect to the current economic situation in the Yukon and the long term, a=
nd
the issues that we think need to be addressed — broad, strategic issu=
es,
as well as those that are affecting Yukoners on a day-to-day basis. D=
espite the
demonstrated change of view or political affiliation over time by the curre=
nt
Premier, I can say with certainty that, when we talk about fiscal managemen=
t,
what does not change is the NDP belief in the principles of probity and
prudence in both budgeting and managing of expenditures. S=
o what is
really not at question here? It’s not the credibility of the Yukon New
Democratic Party; it’s the very credibility of this Yukon Party
government and what they need to demonstrate to all Yukoners through a thor=
ough
analysis and a thorough give-and-take and discussion across this legislative
floor on what they have set forward in terms of what their plans are, in te=
rms
of expenditures — that they do link — that there is some link
between the proposed expenditures and the stated government objectives, the=
ir
strategies and their plans. We will be looking, and we will want to talk wi=
th
the ministers and with the Premier about how those objectives will be achie=
ved
and how they will link and do link to those plans. I=
hear
often and very clearly over the last six or eight months as I was talking w=
ith
people — in particular, in Whitehorse Centre. When you’re in the
midst of an election campaign, as the Premier will find himself again soon
enough, people say things to you. One of the things that was said to me over
and over again about their concerns about the current government was that p=
eople
are really tired of being told where things are at. T=
hey are
tired of being told by the Premier about things. It is the sense that, if y=
ou
say it often enough, that is the way it is. What they told me is: don’=
;t
tell us, show us. I think that what we are going to be looking for as we wo=
rk
through this budget is “show me” and then we can make the
assessment based on that as to whether or not there is a link between the g=
overnment’s
stated purpose and intent and what they actually are putting forward to all
Yukoners in terms of this budget. I=
have to
make the observation that there are some heroic efforts made at times, but =
it
reminds me of Sisyphus, you know: there is an attempt to push that rock up =
the
hill. It’s a very steep hill and you think you are getting right up to
top and you might get an answer but, ultimately, you are pushed back down.<=
o:p> I=
am
hopeful that we can change that dynamic around, that in fact we will get an
answer and it won’t be a Sisyphean kind of futility that we feel at t=
he
end of this session on March 28. R=
eally, the
budget is the sum of its parts. I would like to suggest that we move to an
analysis and a really thorough and collegial discussion of those parts. With
that, I move to clear. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
That’s quite refreshi=
ng, and
I’m sure the government side will certainly accommodate such a presen=
tation
and request that we do so. That’s why the ministers are standing at t=
he
ready to have that collegial discussion and debate on the budget. T=
he member’s
point about the budget being the sum of its parts is, in some respects, exa=
ctly
what it’s about, but it is also the result of a tremendous amount of =
work
by a tremendous number of people across the government and the corporate
structure. Since the Leader of the NDP skyrocketed to political prominence =
in a
by-election in Whitehorse Centre, I have to ponder a little bit in this
statement about the credibility of the NDP and how that reflects on what the
NDP’s plan is. T=
he
nervousness of the A=
t least
the NDP, unlike the Liberals, have some concept of what the main estimates =
are
all about and where the investments are going, because the NDP leader has j=
ust
requested that we demonstrate some linkages, so let me just try in very gen=
eral
terms, because this is general debate. B=
eginning
in 2002, upon being elected to office, it was at a time when the T=
he Yukon
Party was elected to a majority government. We began at that time to implem=
ent
that plan and vision for the T=
here’s
no question, and no denial and no dispute, that part of that plan was to
increase the fiscal capacity of the I=
n that
regard, if the NDP leader wanted to, we could certainly present a long list=
of
deliverables that are clearly linked to the plan or the platform, as presen=
ted
to the C=
orrectional
reform was a significant step in addressing a long-standing problem for gov=
ernment.
Correctional reform, again, was the product of many and it was a partnership
with First Nations. It took approximately five years to go through that pro=
cess
and the resulting product that came out of that process is something that e=
ven
the federal government’s Department of Justice recognizes demonstrates
leadership in the country. That’s another linkage to the Yukon Party
plan: correctional reform. E=
ducational
reform is another example. Strengthening of the social safety net — y=
ou
know, it’s the Yukon Party government that is the first government in=
a
long, long time — years and years and years in this territory —
that actually increased social assistance. It’s this Yukon Party
government that actually started making real investments in providing housi=
ng
for Yukoners. I think the minister responsible for the Housing Corporation =
can
certainly give a lot more detail to it, but it’s a dramatic increase =
in
making available housing for Yukoners who need it. Here are some examples: =
did
we place a priority for housing for seniors? Yes. S=
urely the
members opposite can agree with the fact that our seniors and elders in this
territory, in the past, dedicated themselves and committed themselves to
providing input into this territory at the time and for its future, a futur=
e we
are living in today. We do have a debt to our seniors and elders that, in p=
art,
helping them with affordable housing is addressing. D=
id we
place a priority on second-stage housing? Yes, the first example of that is
what we’ve done in D=
id we sit
down with First Nations and share a significant investment in affordable
housing? Yes, we did. Out of a $50-million affordable housing investment in=
itiative,
over $30 million was directly allocated to First Nations in the T=
hese are
clear examples of linkages to the governance plan that the Yukon Party brou=
ght
to office on being elected. You know, when you consider what has transpired=
in
the Yukon for some 17 years before this time — in 2006, the Yukon Par=
ty
was the first government to be re-elected to office in those 17 years. Well,
there is a clear example of what the L=
et me move
back to the economics of it all because, frankly, one cornerstone of qualit=
y of
life — regardless if it’s for those who need assistance for
affordable housing or social assistance or whatever the case may be
— one of the cornerston=
es in
all of that in delivering programs to any citizenry, in any jurisdiction, by
any government, is to create an economy — to create the wealth and the
cash flow and the tax base that assists in creating capacity to provide oth=
er
programs and services to citizens. We do have a very good economy these day=
s in
the W=
ell, the
fact is that — not by what we’re saying but by all statistics t=
hat
are gathered by the appropriate agencies — the F=
urthermore,
when you look at what agencies, such as the Fraser Institute, are pointing =
to,
there is a reason why the F=
urthermore,
let’s look at another measurement, GDP. The W=
here
others were shrinking, the I=
could go
on at great length, but given the spirit and the intent of the Leader of the
Third Party’s approach, I could not concur more. A=
s I said
at the outset, I’m sure that our ministers are standing at the ready =
to
continue with providing the detailed information that will come out of
line-by-line, department-by-department debate. That’s what it’s=
all
about and I couldn’t thank the Leader of the NDP more for the approac=
h as
taken. It is indeed quite refreshing. Chair: Any further general debate?=
Seeing
none, Committee of the Whole will proceed to general debate in Vote 3, Depa=
rtment
of Education. Do members wish a brief recess? All Hon. Memb=
ers:
Agreed. Chair: Committee of the Whole will=
recess
for 10 minutes. <=
o:p> Recess <=
o:p> Chair: Order please. Committee of =
the
Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 2=
4, First
Appropriation Act, 2011-12. We will now start with general debate in
Department of Education. <=
o:p> Department
of Education Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
I rise in the House today to presen=
t the
2011-12 budget for the Department of Education. I have quite a few pages of
detailed notes that I would like to go through at the beginning in anticipa=
tion
of being able to answer members’ questions before they’re asked=
in
an effort to expedite the debate for our Assembly. I=
’m
pleased to say that with this budget — the fourth budget in our second
mandate — we are continuing our good work and creating a better quali=
ty
of life for Yukoners by educating tomorrow’s citizens so that they can
contribute to the community and to its economy. To that end, we aim to crea=
te a
more responsive education system that enables all learners to succeed, enha=
nce
transitions between different levels of education, training and the world of
work, and further develop and maintain meaningful relationships with all
partners in education and training. W=
e are very
pleased this year to have a very comprehensive strategic plan that outlines=
the
goals and priorities that have been identified through the education reform
process, New Horizons, and that respond to the requirements of the Auditor
General’s report in January 2009. Members will recall receiving a dra=
ft
of this strategic plan that has been widely distributed among Yukoners.
We’ve been very pleased to incorporate their comments and concerns in=
our
plan. T=
he total
budget for the Department of Education this year is $145,388,000. Before I
speak to the numbers behind the 2011-12 budget, I’d like to thank all
Yukoners for their continuing commitment to education. The Department of Ed=
ucation’s
main objective is to deliver accessible and quality education so learners of
all ages can become productive, responsible and self-reliant members of our
society. O=
ur vision
is for all Y=
ou will
see this vision reflected in the Department of Education’s programs a=
nd
in the budget. Education plays a vital role in building I=
would
like to speak directly to the department’s plan in the terms of the
2011-12 capital and O&M budget for the Department of Education. First,
I’d like to begin by addressing the capital portion of this year̵=
7;s
budget. The capital budget for 2011-12 is $9,377,000. The capital budget
reflects a decrease from our 2010-11 capital main estimates. This change is
mainly due to the completion of some important projects during 2010-11. B=
oth the T=
he
completion of both T=
he single
largest component of this budget is the $2.7 million for the T=
he
Department of Education is also seeking funding for other capital projects =
to
help maintain other public school facilities. $952,000 is being requested f=
or
roof repairs at various schools. For general site improvement, recreation
development and soccer field repairs throughout F=
or ongoing
routine projects such as school-initiated renovations, various school
facilities’ renovations, indoor air-quality improvements and capital
maintenance repairs, the department is requesting $2,408,000. Also under our
capital budget, the Department of Education is requesting funds to support =
our
instructional programs. $898,000 is requested to support the school-based i=
nformation
technology program. This funding will be used to purchase computer hardware,
software, network infrastructure upgrades and associated curriculum software
upgrades for a variety of V=
ideo
conferencing access is available in schools in all communities. The importa=
nce
of information to communication technologies in education is increasing and
video conferencing ensures equity of access for all our communities. The go=
vernment
is also committed to continuing its support for labour-market development in
the territory. That support is expressed in the capital expenditures for an=
information
system required to administer the Canada-Yukon labour market agreement. Und=
er
the Canada-Yukon labour market development agreement, Government of Yukon is
now overseeing assistance programs that will help prepare employment insura=
nce
clients for new jobs. By assuming responsibility for these programs, Govern=
ment
of Yukon is now better positioned to work with our stakeholders and match o=
ur
skills development programs with our economic agenda and prepare Yukoners f=
or A=
s part of
that agreement, I=
t will
also allow T=
he 2011-12
operation and maintenance budget will see continuing support for several
initiatives, as well as support for labour market activities in T=
he
$136,011,000 is dedicated to the Department of Education under this
year’s operation and maintenance level. Before I go into the operation
and maintenance budget in any detail, I’d like to give members opposi=
te
an opportunity if they have any other questions regarding the overall missi=
on,
vision, goals, purpose or some of the capital expenditures in the budget, a=
nd
also to hopefully to clear my throat a bit. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> I do have questions for the
minister in regard to the Education budget. I would like to thank the offic=
ials
for providing information during the budget briefing in Department of Educa=
tion
and also to thank them for being here, assisting the minister, and ensuring
that we do have all the proper information coming forward. W=
e have had
many questions during the briefing. I’ve asked the minister in Questi=
on
Period about I=
was fully
recognized in the education reform project and consultation that took place=
. I
asked the minister to ensure that the consultation on the whole issue of
governance was to be fully part of the education reform project. Before the
minister could even defend that, the Premier got up and said that no,
it’s not part of that; that discussion is not going to be a part of t=
he
education reform project at all — overruling the minister, the whole
process, frustrating parents and the general public. I’m sure that th=
e minister
felt it tremendously. The whole issue came from whether or not this governm=
ent
was going to do a review of the Education Act at all, since by law t=
hey
were supposed to do it. This minister and that government have failed to do=
it
in the last nine and a half years. They’ve never provided one to the
House. The previous Education minister is puzzled by that, but I’m su=
re
we’ve asked him many questions in regard to this and he failed to ans=
wer. T=
he fact of
the matter is that the Premier controlled this process. It’s one I he=
ar
the Yukon Party talk about a lot over the past years — following due
process — but in this case they did not. When it came to the issue of
governance, which was a big issue particularly with First Nations, the Prem=
ier
kicked it off the discussion when it came to education reform. I=
’m
sure the Minister of Education was not happy about it; I’m sure there=
was
a lot of a discussion within caucus with his team on this matter. We went f=
rom
needing and having to do the Education Act review to going into the
education reform process. Years have gone by, a lot of money has been spent=
on
this process, and now the minister is bringing forward New Horizons. I̵=
7;m
sure he has another name for something else beyond the horizon of New Horiz=
ons.
I’m sure that, if the minister had the opportunity, we would be seeing
another document by the minister, but it’s not going to happen, becau=
se
he’ll be voted out of office by that time. H=
e can be
asking questions from the opposition side. The general public has been frus=
trated;
a bottom-up approach is what they wanted to see. A prime example was when t=
here
was a demonstration outside of this House, with the previous Education
minister, about the involvement of grassroots people, community people; tha=
t minister
did not allow it to happen fully, and those were pretty descriptive signs. I
think the ministers could all recall outside of this House — it was in
the papers — and that was the approach that the Yukon Party government
took with the general public and communities and it hasn’t changed. T=
hat
whole approach has not changed with the Yukon Party government, and to this=
day
it still takes place. They make a decision and say, “How do you like =
us
now?” That’s the approach of the Yukon Party government and the=
y on
that side of the House are all proud of that process. But do you know, they=
do
not say that in the House here. It’s always pointing fingers at other=
s to
blame for what took place. H=
ere, the
minister promised the public, the students, parents and teachers that there
will be a $24.4-million line item in the budget that we’re debating t=
oday
for replacement of F.H. Collins school. Well, it didn’t happen. The
minister could use all the excuses he wants. He says he wants to take this
slow. Of course he’s going to take this slow. The thing is, it’s
not going to happen under this minister. That school will not be built under
this minister and a tender for the contract will not happen under the Yukon
Party government. It’s funny how that line item — or that
commitment — that was taken off was over $20 million. It’s just=
the
amount that the Yukon Party needed to balance their budget. W=
hat
happened in Management Board? What happened at the Cabinet table? Where was=
the
minister for the parents, the teachers and the commitment he made just seve=
ral
months ago in this House? What happened then? Now we’ve seen a drastic
reduction in the commitment to the replacement of T=
hey are
still in the design and architectural phase of this project and the ministe=
r is
singing a different tune now than he was four months ago. It is very much
recognized when the school council is not even informed. The minister’=
;s
own partners in education were not even informed of this delay. Well, they =
are
informed now and, from what I recall, they were informed through the media.=
The
minister should have taken that initiative and at least talked with his par=
tners
in education and ensured that they at least had the information provided to
them. It was interesting to read the comments in the local paper about this
minister’s partners in education not being informed about this. W=
hat we
have now is what I would say is a major capital project here in W=
e would
see parents and teachers involved in this project, as we see them involved =
in
the design. We even had students who wanted to be able to graduate from the
F.H. Collins newly built school. The minister put it off. That’s not
surprising, seeing as how the Yukon Party takes its time in building capital
projects in this territory. The Carmacks school is a prime example. We̵=
7;re
still not finished it. How many years do we have to ask questions of the
minister before we see the completion of this school, which includes the sc=
hool
grounds? T=
he
minister is going to say, “We’re going to take our time and plan
this project right.” That’s what he’s going to say, but h=
ow
does he explain the health care centres in W=
hen
we’re talking about a budget that’s on the floor of this House
right now, the Premier talked a lot about how — <=
o:p> Chair: Order please. Seeing the ti=
me, the
Chair will rise and report progress. <=
o:p> Speaker
resumes the Chair Speaker: I will now call the House t=
o order.
May the House have a report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole? Chair’s report Mr. Nordick: Committee of the Whole has consider=
ed
Bill No. 24, First Appropriation Act, 2011-12, and directed me to re=
port
progress. Speaker: You’ve heard the repo=
rt from
the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed? Some Hon. Members: =
b> Agreed. Speaker: I declare the report carrie=
d. T=
he time
being <=
o:p> The
House adjourned at Yukon=
st1:State> public.Whitehorse General<=
/st1:PlaceName>
7654 |
&nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; HANSARD &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;
7653 |