Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, December 15, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of introducing the grade 8 experiential learning class from Porter Creek Secondary School, under the direction of their teacher, Linda Lamers, assisted today by Donna Letang. I would like to welcome them to the House.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I have today for tabling the vital statistics - a look at statistics on births, deaths, and marriages in Yukon from 1986 through 1995.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motions?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Economic picture

Mr. Ostashek: It must be getting close to the end of the session.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Economic Development on the state of the Yukon economy.

Every day, Yukoners are getting more and more bad economic news. Yukoners learned on Friday that the Sa Dena Hes mine will not be going back into production as scheduled, and as related by the minister on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, Anvil Range Mining, by the minister's own admission, is on very shaky financial ground, and with no better lead zinc prices in sight.

Can the minister advise this House what he and his government are going to do to keep the Yukon economy from going completely into the tank?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member, to give a bit of a historical context to my answer, that the last time in the last few years we had a similar comparison on month-to-month unemployment statistics was 1993, when the Faro mine was down, and that was under his administration. Actually, then the unemployment rate was higher after a similar length of time of having the mine down.

I expect that we will have some improvement in the economy. Obviously, the Asian markets are having an influence on metal prices. The metals market hasn't recovered from Bre-X yet, particularly the junior mining companies, and thankfully, with companies like Viceroy and BYG, they have some sold-ahead positions on gold to deal with the fact that gold prices have deteriorated to the extent that they have.

It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, when you have an economy that's based so much on mining, to control those external factors. We've been working very hard on trade and export initiatives to try and help diversify the economy. The Minister of Renewable Resources just announced an abattoir that seemed to be extensively criticized by the members opposite but I think it was an initiative to diversify the economy. We are approving community development funding projects which will create some work in the communities through the winter.

Mr. Speaker, we have also had a good fiscal climate, with pay-as-you-go budgets and no tax increases. We do not intend to drive the territory into a deficit position to try and spend our way out of this, nor do we intend to raise obscene taxes like the member opposite did when he was in government.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard that rhetoric since the day that this session started, or it may even go back to when this government took office. But the fact remains that this minister and this government have done absolutely nothing to kickstart the economy - absolutely nothing - and Yukoners are getting very demoralized by this minister's and this government's lack of action on job creation.

Mr. Speaker, the placer mining industry has long been the backbone of the economy of the Yukon, but we know that with the low metal prices, low gold prices, many placer miners are going to have a tough time going back into operation in the spring.

Can this minister tell this House today if he has an estimate of how many placer mining operations will not be at work in the new year compared to what was working this year?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that next I'll be blamed for El Niño.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member opposite that the severe low price in the gold markets is not my doing. The problems of the lead and zinc on the London Metal Exchange and their pricing is not my doing. We are trying to conduct ourselves in a way that creates jobs in this territory without driving this territory into deficit and trying to spend our way, as the member opposite tried, with the biggest tax and spending in Yukon government history, of the Yukon Party, to so-called kickstart the economy. However, what we ended up with was an economy very heavily dependent on government spending.

And when the Shakwak funding and the hospital funding dried up and we lost the Faro mine three weeks after coming into office, we saw just how precarious the economy was that the member opposite presided over, so we've been working to pull ourselves out of that, and I think we've made some very good strides.

Just this session alone, we passed the Oil and Gas Act that the member opposite left on the Order Paper, completely devoid of any chance of ever coming to fruition.

So I think we've been working very hard to create jobs without raising taxes and living within our means and paying as we go.

Mr. Ostashek: I will not the blame the minister opposite for El Niño, but I will say that he's probably adding a few degrees to the temperature with all the hot air that is coming from him and his colleagues.

The minister goes on and on and on about initiatives that government should be doing on a day-to-day basis, that is going to do absolutely nothing to put Yukoners to work this winter. The community development fund has failed miserably in putting Yukoners to work. Oil and gas isn't going to put anybody to work in my riding or in the minister's riding this winter or next spring. It is a long way away.

The minister did not answer my question as to how many placer miners are going to be operating. I don't think he even knows or cares, to be truthful with you. I would like to know when this minister and this government are going to admit that there's a serious economic problem facing Yukoners, and when is this government going to start doing something about it?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised to see a self-professed conservative espousing this socialist dogma on the floor of the Legislature, that the government is all-responsible for the economy and that government spending is the way to go - raw government spending injected into the economy is the only way to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we're living within our means, keeping our commitment to not raise tax rates. We're paying as we go so we don't run deficits. We've passed the Oil and Gas Act. We're creating community work with the community development fund. We're working hard on trade investment to try and improve our ability to attract investment and to create export opportunities for Yukon business to create jobs in this territory. We've invested millions and millions in capital expenditures to help people in the private sector in construction and in road work to keep their jobs.

We're dealing with tough policy questions that have a direct impact on the economy, like the development assessment process, like forestry policy. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we're doing everything we responsibly can without taxing and spending like the Yukon Party.

Question re: Economic picture

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, the member ought to look back and see what they are doing. They're running a large deficit. They're not running a balanced budget by any means. And he expects Yukoners to believe him when he gets up and makes statements like that on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, this minister was very quick to blame the federal government last week in debate for their abandonment of job creation. Well, this government hasn't even started on job creation.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development. As the minister knows, many Yukon businesses are dependent on mining, highway construction, forestry and other industries for their survival. Truck drivers, heavy equipment operators and geologists, lab technicians - a whole different bunch of workers - are all dependent on private industry in the Yukon and they are hard hit when these industries decline.

My question to the minister is this: is this minister aware that there are several local companies that are planning on pulling up stakes and leaving the Yukon? Is the minister aware of that and is he concerned about it?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition is professing and proposing on the floor of this Legislature that the government spend direct capital and direct expenditures in the economy that they don't have to create artificial jobs in this territory, based solely on government expenditure. Perhaps if he were the Minister of Finance, he would again bring in massive tax rate increases, so that he could extract that money from the pockets of Yukoners and so-called inject it back into the economy and put them to work. That's not our strategy.

I will tell the member opposite that, in terms of the current year deficit projected for this year, it is smaller than what the member opposite projected in the election year, in his run-up to defeat in the election of the previous year.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work within our means. We have, as I have listed several times - many, many times - in this legislative session, a number of initiatives that are paying dividends. Unfortunately, we are dealing, in the mining industry, with a situation of Asian markets, the Bre-X fallout and the low gold prices. This is a very difficult environment in every jurisdiction in this country.

But, I will say to the member opposite that we are not leaving it there. We are working on many other diversification initiatives, as I alluded to earlier. We don't intend to tax and spend and try and spend money that we just do not have.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, this minister is doing absolutely nothing. This government is doing absolutely nothing. They are sticking their heads in the sand and not looking at the realities of what's facing Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from this minister and this government what contingency plans they have, if any? Does this minister have any contingency plans in place to meet the Yukon's economic situation, or does he not believe that such a plan is necessary to encourage Yukon companies to remain in the Yukon and not pull up stakes and leave?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what companies the member is talking about. The government cannot spend money that it does not have to artificially create jobs. They can't build roads they don't need or can't pay for to artificially create jobs.

We said we were going to pay as we go. We are paying as we go. We said we weren't going to raise tax rates. We're not raising tax rates.

The member says we're doing nothing on the economy. I just mentioned the oil and gas bill we passed this session and we brought back to life.

I told the member we'd been taking action on trade and investment that has been very well supported by the local business community. We're investing hundreds of thousands and millions in training so we have a good, skilled, educated workforce here for jobs in this territory. We're investing in the community and community development fund.

And, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with tough policy questions like the development assessment process, like forestry in this territory, and we're making good progress.

These are the fundamentals of an economy and, Mr. Speaker, if we work to continue to diversify this economy, if we work to rebound from the downturn - and it will rebound in the metals markets - we will be in good shape, but we will not get there if we raise tax rates like the Yukon Party did and if we run this territory into a deficit position. We will not do that.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister can sit there and spout that political rhetoric all he wants, but what the Yukon Party did was put Yukoners to work, and that's what this minister can't do. He's proven that in the year he's been in office.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that he doesn't know what companies are leaving is because they've given up on this government. They're totally demoralized by this government not creating a climate for investment in the Yukon, and it's time this minister and this government rolled up their sleeves and stabilized the Yukon economy until such time as our mines can get back to work and create jobs.

My question to the minister: is this government, in their new budget preparation, giving a priority to job creation so that jobs for Yukoners are finally in the cards? Is this government going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is a bit of a historical revisionist. The reality is that when the Faro mine was lost in 1993, the unemployment rate under his administration was higher than over a comparative period under our administration. That is 700 jobs in this economy. We took action that the members opposite criticized to help get that mine back into production and stripping, which is actually providing work in this territory now. We also took action to get power rates down, which makes us a more competitive jurisdiction.

So, Mr. Speaker, that 20 percent came off the bills because of the direct action by this government, and those jobs that are in Faro and the spinoffs throughout the entire Yukon - those ore-truck drivers that you see on the road - are as a result of action by this government.

Mr. Speaker, I've listed time and time again in this response to this exchange just a few - just a smidgen - of the initiatives that this government has undertaken, but I want to be clear with the member that, no matter how many times he asks me, we will not drive this territory into a deficit position because he wants us to artificially inject government money, which we don't have, into the economy to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we've also not raised tax rates as he did, because we said that we would not do it. We are not like the tax and spend Yukon Party -

Speaker: Would the minister please conclude his answer?

Hon. Mr. Harding: We are going to do what we can to create jobs.

Speaker: Order please.

Question re: Finlayson Lake caribou herd, management

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Renewable Resources. I had thought about asking the minister about his journey to Kyoto. I noticed that he has briefed the media instead of this House; however, I would like to address my question to the minister regarding the Finlayson Lake caribou herd.

The population of the herd has declined from around 6,000 in 1990 to approximately 4,500 in 1996. In July of this year, correspondence circulated in the Department of Renewable Resources recommended that hunting Finlayson caribou this year is not sustainable. The correspondence also urged the department to consider an immediate hunting closure for the fall of 1997.

Is a hunting ban part of the future management of the Finlayson Lake caribou herd?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: This is an issue that the department has been on and has continued to monitor. We've had fairly good communications with the First Nations, the Ross River Dena Council. And, we are working with them to develop a plan in regard to the Finlayson herd. As it stands right now, they are working on a draft plan, and we're hoping that recommendations do come back to us and to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board.

We have been proactive on this and have given recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Management Board to deal with it in this winter's public consultation - stemming from what will come out of the draft management plan that the committee has put together.

So we are working on this. We understand that it is an issue to the public in regard to the herd itself. We don't believe that the herd is declining to the point of it being critical. The concern that we do have right now is the calf/cow ratio that showed up in numbers this year.

Ms. Duncan: The NDP government made a big promise during the election campaign; they made a number of big promises. They were going to end the wolf kill. A short time after the election, the moratorium was lifted and the fifth year of the wolf kill went ahead as planned.

NDP credibility on this issue is low, to say the least.

The minister just addressed my question regarding the Finlayson caribou herd indicating that there was a management plan in progress. Is a wolf kill part of that management plan for the Finlayson lake caribou herd?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I won't know the results until I get the draft management plan. But, it is not our intention, as government, to have a wolf kill program for the Finlayson herd or any other herd at this time. That was something that was said during our election, and we continue to act in that manner. And, we look more at management of our wildlife and our resources and working with the local people. And, that's the way we continue to work in this department.

Ms. Duncan: As the minister has noted, the Yukon government is not the player involved in this decision-making process. Under the UFA, the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board and local renewable resources councils are the primary instruments of fish and wildlife management. If the recommendation comes back from these groups, in this management plan, as spoken about by the minister, is to undertake some kind of a wolf kill, is the minister prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: We've been working with the First Nations on this and it is a concern to them. What they have indicated to us so far is that they wanted to do things in a different way. They want to have more management, more local control and did not want to see a wolf hunt, or wolf kill, on this herd.

What they've expressed to us is an interest in the trapper training program and the new techniques that we have for snaring wolves. They would like to have more management in regard to trapping and would like to approach it in that manner. They've also looked at restricting themselves from hunting in this herd and looking at other herds that could be used for means of food for their people.

So, I believe that we don't need to be going in to this area at all. There are other ways of doing and managing wolves: kicking in the wolf management plan, for example, which has been around now for a number of years. We would like to work with that as closely as possible, when it comes to the management of wildlife and caribou in areas such as Ross River.

Question re: Contracts, legal services

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Justice on the contract list. I've gone over the contract list, that the government graciously provided to us, to add up all the amounts that were spent on legal services. Now, for the period April 1 to November 26 of this year, all government departments let contracts for legal services for an amount exceeding $700,000. Now, if this keeps up, the government will have spent over $1 million on non-government lawyers by the end of this year.

Could the minister explain why this government feels it is necessary to spend over $1 million on legal services, when it has at least a dozen lawyers on the payroll?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, there's more than one reason why lawyers from outside of the Government of Yukon might be employed. As one example, in the area of contract administration and work in there, the expertise might be outside the Yukon and there might be a contract that's not within the government's legal services branch. As well, if the government is a party to a lawsuit, then the lawyer on the case can't be someone from within the Department of Justice. There may be cases where there would be conflict of interest. Those are some of the reasons why a lawyer from the Department of Justice isn't necessarily working where there is a dispute that the government is involved in.

Mr. Cable: Of the $700,000 worth of contracts, about $492,000 is for non-resident lawyers, over two-thirds of the amount spent on non-government lawyers. Going through the list, it is difficult to believe that a good part of this work, if it's going to be put to non-government counsel, can't be done locally. What, if anything, is being done by the minister's department to see if more of this money can't be spent in the Yukon? Is she working with the local hire commissioner, for example? Is he giving her advice? Just what is she doing?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, the member is asking a good question. As a matter of fact, I have met with the local bar to talk about ways that the Yukon government can ensure that when the legal community within the Yukon is able to provide services to the government, we do, in fact, do that.

The hiring of lawyers from outside the Yukon government and from outside the territory is something that has happened in other years and occurs when there is, for example, a conflict of interest. As well, insurance companies, who are sometimes involved in cases, will make a decision to hire their own lawyers. So, there are different reasons for it, but I certainly support employing as many local law firms as we can. We are attempting to do that.

Mr. Cable: I would think from the government's election platform that local hire would be something she would spend a lot of time on with our local hire commissioner. He's sitting back there and I'm sure he has a lot to say.

Can the minister stand here today and tell us that no one in the Yukon can provide advice to the tune of $40,000 to the Yukon Temporary Medical Council for an inquiry; $20,000 worth of advice on the Total Reporting contract; or $2,000 to the Dental Inquiry Board? I would think that all of those things could've been done locally.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, first of all, I'll respond to the point that the member made in the preamble to his question. While it may seem difficult for him to fathom it, it is possible to have a large caucus and to still talk to all members of that caucus. I can assure the member opposite that I have talked with the local hire commissioner, that we're working within government to do as much as we can to improve local hire.

The member asked some questions in relation to two or three specific contracts and a couple of them were professionals to do with medical and dental inquiries. It is consistent with past practice where there is a complaint against a member of the profession within the territory to have people from outside of the territory to come in and look at that inquiry. I can, however, make the commitment to look at those specific questions when I review Hansard and come back to the member with a written answer to follow up.

Question re: Contract registry, opposition access to

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Last Friday, December 12, after weeks and weeks of delay, the minister finally agreed to provide a complete copy of the interim contract registry to members of the opposition. The minister purposely withheld the registry, breaching a 15-year tradition established by the House to provide the registry upon demand.

The minister's also guilty of breaching the memorandum of understanding signed on February 12, 1996, which governs the number of sitting days of this Legislature for failing to provide detailed financial information as required by the agreement.

I'd like the minister to make the commitment here today that he will provide opposition members with an up-to-date copy of the contract registry one week in advance of the spring sitting of this House. Will the minister make that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. I've gone through this and I don't see any reference to the statement that the member has made there. It's just totally absurd.

As I indicated to the member earlier, we're doing everything we can to try and make this available on a more timely basis and, as I indicated earlier, it's our plan to put this on the web to try and make it accessible - and not only accessible, but also readily updatable.

Since we're talking about what is reasonable, I received a request today at 11 o'clock for 117 contracts. I have some question as to whether that is reasonable.

Mr. Jenkins: As the minister knows, the contract registry was provided last Friday. We had the weekend to peruse the contract registry, that interim contract registry, and I can now understand where the minister is coming from. We requested 117 contracts - 117 of those contracts out of 2,000 - which is a very small percentage, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is caught with his pants down. He's too embarrassed by what he knew the contract registry contained. Virtually all of these are sole-sourced contracts - very expensive consulting contracts for the commissions, and other friends of the NDP government.

Will the minister advise the House how many of these 117 contracts we can expect to receive before the House rises?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I'm always happy to comply with reasonable requests. This is not a reasonable request. You do not turn in a request at 11 o'clock and expect the 117 contracts, all of which - if this member had even a modicum of understanding of how this works, he would realize that Government Services does not have responsibility for all contracts. They have to be requested from individual departments.

So, that's where he falls short in that particular area.

It's very clear that the member also has a rather abysmal understanding of contracts because, in the 20-some odd that he requested - or 19, excuse me, he requested of Health - 18 were for specific individual children attending wilderness camps. Now, if he even had a modicum of understanding, he would understand that, even from a cursory review of the contract list.

So, as I said, we're always happy to respond to reasonable requests, not an unreasonable request.

Mr. Jenkins: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, these are all sole-sourced contracts in the area that the minister is focusing on - this some $200,000 worth of sole-sourced contracts - so it does give rise to an explanation.

The request for these contracts was made six weeks ago. Six weeks ago, we requested the contract registry. The minister postponed giving it and postponed again and procrastinated until the sitting is almost complete.

We recognize that there's going to be a lot of strain on his department, and I think the minister should offer an apology to his department staff in Government Services for unnecessarily putting them in the centre of this feud. Will he give the House that offer of an apology to the staff in his department?

And also the minister hasn't answered the initial question: will he undertake to provide the contract registry one week in advance of the spring sitting of the House?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, if anyone should be conveying an apology, it should be the member opposite for such absurd requests.

With regard to the 117 contracts, he knows perfectly well that those come from individual departments; they do not come from Government Services. Exactly one was requested from Government Services - exactly one. He is requesting 116 from other departments. He knows that that is not possible. He is merely causing mischief. He is merely grandstanding, and I refuse to rise to his bait.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 79, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Harding.

Motion No. 79

Speaker: It is moved by the acting Government Leader

THAT the membership of the Members' Services Board, as established by Motion No. 4 of the First Session of the Twenty-Ninth Legislature, be amended:

1) by rescinding the appointment of Jack Cable, Member for Riverside; and

2) by appointing Pat Duncan, Member for Porter Creek South.

Hon. Mr. Harding: This is a motion that is quite consistent. When there are changes in the membership of the different committees in this House, in between the last time the composition of this committee was struck and now, we've had an election, there's been some change in the personnel. This is not a motion that I expect any concern from the opposition over. I think it's certainly something that is germane to any time that there is a change on either side of the Legislature.

I would say that it is good to have new people involved in new tasks in this Legislature and certainly I would welcome the fresh visions and fresh approach of the new Liberal leader. This motion, I guess, has sat on the Order Paper for some time, so I would say that it should be moved in fairly due course and that we accomplish the task that we've set out to do some time ago, when I put this motion forward at the beginning of the session - I believe on the first day of a 25-day sitting. Today is the last day of the sitting, and I think it's important that we make this move and accomplish this task.

Motion No. 79 agreed to

Motion to sit beyond normal hour of adjournment

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move

THAT Committee of the Whole and the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 9:30 p.m., if necessary, for the purpose of completing consideration of Bill No. 8, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98, in Committee; for permitting the House to consider third reading of Bill No. 8; and for receiving the Commissioner to grant assent to Bill No. 8.

Speaker: It has been moved by the acting government House leader

THAT Committee of the Whole and the Assembly be empowered to sit beyond 9:30 p.m., if necessary, for the purpose of completing consideration of Bill No. 8, entitled Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98, in Committee; for permitting the House to consider third reading of Bill No. 8; and for receiving the Commissioner to grant assent to Bill No. 8.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I intend to speak briefly to this motion before us. Mr. Speaker, I believe that 25 days is a reasonable length for a fall sitting. Indeed, I believe as well that Piers McDonald, John Ostashek and Jack Cable signed the memorandum of understanding, which is appended to our Standing Orders for the Yukon Legislative Assembly because they did agree that 25 days was a reasonable period of time for a fall session.

This agreement also provides that the government House leader or designate may move a motion to sit beyond normal hours to complete the business and that's the motion that's before us.

This morning, I had the impression that House leaders were in agreement that we all - and our caucuses - would strive to be productive today.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is disputing that, but I believe that there was a willingness that we would strive to be productive today. Our ministers continue to be prepared for the debate on their supplementary budgets. We would like to move the motion...

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: A point of order has been called.

Mr. Phillips: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is misrepresenting the facts. When I first spoke to the minister this morning in the House leaders meeting, and she said, "Are we going to extend hours today?", my very words were we would consider it at ten to five today. There was a lot of work to be done, a lot of departments to deal with and, to say that I was in agreement that we would finish today is patently false, and I told the minister that in the initial issue and I've also told the minister that -

Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Phillips: I also told the minister that, Mr. Speaker with respect -

Speaker: Order please. A point of order on this matter. Would the minister please continue her debate.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I would implore the member opposite who raised the point of order to listen to what I actually said and not to jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth. When he reviews the Hansard he will see that...

Speaker: Will the minister get to the debate?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: ...I indicated, as I believe to be the case, that as House leaders, we were prepared to see some productivity today and to work hard at coming to conclusion today.

Today is the twenty-fifth day of the sitting. I would like to support the motion. We are here to do the public's business and I think it's incumbent on all of us to do that with some dignity. I think it's important to move the motion early in the day and provide notice to the Hansard staff that we do intend to sit beyond the normal adjournment hours of 9:30 and to hopefully complete the debate with, in the spirit of the season, some goodwill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite may have moved this motion earlier in the day, but what they've done is wasted the day debating this motion rather than getting down to the business of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this points out the arrogance of this government, the total arrogance. This is a government that has stonewalled this Legislature for 25 days - ministers not doing their job, not prepared to answer questions on their department, not having the information that they should have in this House, the contract registry not being forthcoming like it was supposed to be.

Mr. Speaker, I find it just totally unacceptable that this government is going to use their majority and bring closure to this Legislature, something that has never before been done in the history of this Legislature. This is the first time that closure has been used in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and it's because this government is tired of being on the hot seat and their ministers aren't competent enough to answer the questions that are put to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that there was an agreement. Yes, there was an agreement. There still is an agreement, but that agreement was made after much deliberation among three parties in this Legislature, and an agreement, I must say, that was broken by the members opposite. In the first session of the Legislature after the agreement took place, this Legislature sat for 36 days.

So, for the member opposite to accuse the opposition now of breaking the agreement is utter nonsense. They couldn't even get through the first session of the Legislature when information was given to them in a timely manner. And now they want to bring closure to this Legislature because they can't stand being cross-examined by the opposition in this House.

If the ministers would pay a little more attention to their portfolios and not spend so much time spending taxpayers' dollars travelling all over the world, maybe they would have been prepared for this session of the Legislature and able to answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my caucus would have been able to be done in the 25 days with no problem at all, had the information been forthcoming.

Now we are hearing the arrogance of the Minister of Government Services, who stonewalls this Legislature by not presenting the registry contract list until noon Friday, and then thinks it is an unreasonable request when our caucus wants 117 contracts, after having to spend the entire weekend going through the list because they weren't prepared to present it when they were supposed to present it.

Getting back to the contract that was drawn up among the three political parties, that was after much debate, much back and forth between all three parties, and the contract was premised - a gentlemen's contract, by the way, Mr. Speaker; it is not a legal contract, it is a gentlemen's contract - on the fact that government would provide information in a timely manner, that ministers would be prepared to answer questions for their departments, that the opposition wouldn't have to wait for information that they requested.

A lot of these demands were made by the now-Government Leader, who was leader of the official opposition at the time, who was the one who said that unless we can get this information in a timely manner then we can't have this arrangement.

And, yet we have watched this government refuse information to this House. Ministers sit down and refuse to answer questions in Committee, and they want to be out in 25 days. I think there is a lot of incompetency on the front benches over there.

My suggestion to the members is that they ought to be prepared for the session when they come in here and they ought to be prepared to be scrutinized. That's what this Legislature is all about. We have a job to do here and a role to play and we intend to do it.

If the members opposite want to show there arrogance by bringing in a closure motion because they have a majority in this House, and know that they are going to get their motion passed so that they can escape and not be scrutinized until the spring session, well I guess that is the way it will be, Mr. Speaker, but the Yukon public will know how arrogant this government is and how ill-prepared they were for this session.

Mr. Speaker, we only need to look at the legislation. Most of it is Yukon Party legislation. The minister from Faro is laughing. He doesn't spend enough time in the office even to be fully prepared for the debate. The bill had to go back for many amendments and re-entered. What he calls the keystone of their legislative session, the Oil and Gas Act, was drafted by the Yukon Party government.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this government is not doing a good job of governing. We've pointed out time and time again that the Yukon economy is having serious problems, and this government is doing nothing to deal with it. Now they want to escape the Legislature because they can't stand the heat of the questions.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for Yukoners. This is a sad day for a democratic society, something that the NDP prides themselves on - the fundamental right of people to voice their opinions and fundamental right of them being represented in this Legislature - and now they are bringing in closure for the first time in the history of the Yukon. That is how afraid they are of being cross-examined for their actions.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, the member says "all night." He better be prepared for three or four days.

Mr. Speaker, we were handed a contract registry on Friday of some 2,000 contracts.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking. I'd ask the Member for Faro to await his turn.

Now, they want us to just say, "Okay, it's the 25th day. It's over with. We'll forget about it. We've made our point. We've got the contract registry." Well, Mr. Speaker, we weren't making a point of getting the contract registry. That's information that we were entitled to, and it's our job to examine that contract registry. It's our job to request the contracts that we want to question, and it's the government's responsibility to provide them to us.

Now, if the Minister of Government Services thinks that he has fulfilled his side of the agreement by tabling the contract registry - not even tabling the contract registry, Mr. Speaker, and not even delivering it. We had to go and get it, and he didn't even advise the department that we were entitled to it.

My researcher sat there for an hour and a half, waiting for them to contact the minister to get permission to release the contract registry. Then the minister tries to stand in this House and say he's doing his job. Well, it's a pretty sorry job that he's doing - a pretty sorry job.

Then he sits there in his arrogant manner and gets up and tries to pretend that he's smarter than everyone else. Well, I think the Yukon public can see through that pretty quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a right to ask questions. Those members opposite have a responsibility to try to answer them. I have ever seen such arrogance in any government as what's being demonstration by the members opposite.

Let's look at how much respect they have for this Legislature. I would like one of them to stand up, when they get their turn to speak, and tell us where the Government Leader is who went to a ministerial conference last week that was over on Friday. I don't see him sitting in the Legislature today, Mr. Speaker. Does he have no respect for this Legislature?

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why that government wants to be so arrogant and what they are trying to hide from the Yukon public.

There are 2,987 contracts in the registry. We asked for 117 contracts. The Minister of Government Services said it was an unreasonable request. Well, yes, it's a lot of work for the department.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Departments. He's right. But, he brought this on himself, Mr. Speaker. I wrote a letter to the Government Leader requesting the contract registry before this House came into session, so that we could do our job in a timely manner, so that we could try and live up to the agreement of 25 sitting days in this Legislature. But it wasn't forthcoming.

The government, in their large majority, is very arrogant. The Government Leader himself stood on the floor of this Legislature and said, "No, you're not getting it," without any valid reason as to why we couldn't have it. He just said, "No, you're not getting it, because we don't want you to have it."

And, Mr. Speaker, when we looked at some of the contracts that were issued by the Executive Council Office, we know why he didn't want us to have it before we were debating his department. We know why he didn't want that.

We see a contract to a past president of the NDP for, I believe, $15,000 for national unity consulting fees. We see another contract to the same past president of the NDP for advice to the local hire commission. We see other NDP faithfuls that have consulting contracts here. We see numerous, numerous, numerous consulting contracts to these so-called reasonably priced commissions that are developing policy on behalf of the NDP government.

It's quite clear to us why they didn't want us to have this contract registry before we were debating Executive Council Office - quite clear.

We see in excess of $100,000 in here in contracts for consultants to write job descriptions.

Mr. Speaker, all of these that I'm speaking of are sole-sourced contracts.

We've got 3,000 government employees and we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees writing job descriptions.

What is this government doing? What kind of direction are they giving to the departments? I don't think they're giving any, because it doesn't seem like they're very serious about their jobs as ministers.

They certainly aren't serious about asking questions on what's happening in their department. Either they're not serious about answering or they don't know what's happening in their department and they can't answer the questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just say this is a sorry day for Yukoners when we have a majority government, an NDP government that prides themselves on consultation, prides themselves on letting everybody have their chance to speak, prides themselves on having a democratic society and a democratic system, and then they use their majority to bring closure into this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we hammered out an agreement of 25 days for this fall sitting and we said 35 days for the spring sitting. That was after much debate and we felt that it would be a timely manner in which to expedite the government's business. But again, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that was based on the opposition being able to get the information they needed in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, we even agreed to have departmental briefings so that members could have a lot of the technical questions answered before they came into the House. That was something new that was added in there. But unless we have a timely distribution of the information to the opposition benches, it's impossible for the opposition to fill their role in a responsible manner. We could have expedited the supplementary budget debate, although I don't believe we spent that much time on the supplementary budget debate. That's another issue that we need to discuss right now.

The supplementary budget wasn't tabled until three weeks into the session, and even that was after much emphasis put on by the opposition members that we needed it tabled. They wanted to table it at a later date yet. I think the first date given to us was December 1, then it was November 24, then it kept moving back. Mr. Speaker, that supplementary budget should have been tabled the first couple of days of this fall sitting. That would be like them coming into the spring session of the Legislature, calling the session in on March 1 and not tabling the budget until April 1.

The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes says, "There's an idea." They probably thought of it already. The Member for Faro says it's called the legislative session. He's right, but they didn't have any legislation. They were really prepared for this session. Whether it's a legislative session or not, the government has a responsibility to present a supplementary budget at their first opportunity to this Legislature.

We didn't ask for that budget to start being debated the first day of the fall sitting, but we wanted to have the supplementary budget so that we could analyze it, get our questions lined up and probably expedite the debate in the Legislature by not having to continually ask the ministers for answers that we may have been able to get through technical briefings and by other ways, had they been more forthcoming with their information.

But it certainly would help, Mr. Speaker, if the ministers knew a little more about their departments.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. I think all members should remember that this motion is dealing with sitting tonight after 9:30, so speak to the motion, and you can continue.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling, but I am speaking of why this motion is inappropriate at this time. I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, and about all of the reasons why we cannot support the motion. We cannot support the motion for the reasons that I'm laying out. The fact is that the information hasn't been forthcoming from this government.

Mr. Speaker, you may call me out of order, and I will listen to that, but I believe that I am sticking to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no reason that we had to get to this position where we're at the 25th day of sitting in this Legislature and the government happened to bring in a closure motion because they're not prepared to answer questions. And that's the whole rationale behind this motion. They are not prepared to sit here and answer questions for their departments. They are not prepared to be examined by the opposition.

In fact, they figure that we don't have any right to examine them, because ministers sit in their chairs in Committee debate and don't even get up to answer questions. We saw that in this session of this Legislature, and we'll probably see more of it, too. And these are supposed to be ministers of the Crown that are supposed to be competent in dealing with their departments and knowledgeable in what's happening in their departments.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party caucus will not be supporting this motion, and I want to say for the record once more that this is a sad day for Yukoners. It's the first time in the history of this Legislature that a closure motion has been debated on the floor of this Legislature, and I'm sure that Yukoners will remember it when they go to the polls two and a half years from now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: The issues in this motion before us are as follows: there is an agreement negotiated. It is a memorandum of understanding and it's Addendum No. 2 in our House Rules, that said that there shall be 25 sitting days. The government feels that they've fulfilled that; that they've been in the House long enough.

The commitments described in the memorandum of understanding must be respected and met. There was an understanding and intent to provide information in a timely and appropriate manner. My colleagues to the right are saying that that part of the memorandum of understanding has not been met, and they are quite correct. The government has not been terribly forthcoming with information. Getting the interim contract registry and all references to donkeys aside, has been as scarce as hen's teeth.

The hon. Member for Porter Creek North isn't kidding when he said that our researchers went down Friday afternoon and were kept waiting for hours and hours.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: No, it wasn't 45 minutes. The minister is saying 45 minutes; it wasn't. I'm not going to get into that argument. I'm not going to perpetuate that discussion.

It is appropriate to make a determination on whether or not hours should be extended. It's very appropriate to make a determination like that. And, it's equally appropriate to make the determination early. For example, the banks let us know when they're going to be closed Good Friday. People, who listen enthralled to this debate in their offices, have lives, too. The people who record our work should be extended the courtesy in making a decision early.

That being said, it didn't need to be this early in the day. It could easily have been done at 5:00 p.m., which would have given people plenty of time, or, worst case scenario, it could also have been done at 9:00 p.m. However, the issue was raised with various House leaders this morning. It should be stated clearly for the record that, at no time, were all three House leaders in the same room together.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: Not for lack of trying.

Our caucus commitment was to make best efforts for a constructive debate today.

Ultimately, every one of us must ask ourselves, "What is the best service by the taxpayers of the Yukon? What is the right decision by Yukoners for Yukoners?" And that right decision, I believe firmly, is constructive, thoughtful debate. And that means two things: that means asking constructive, appropriate questions and that means offering thoughtful, deliberative, truthful, complete answers.

What is left to be done on the debate on Bill No. 8, the supplementary estimates? What is left to be done? There are five departments. On some of them we have done the general debate and we are into the line-by-line. Could that have been accomplished on the scheduled five and half hours for today? Probably not. It was clear to everyone that we needed at least a little more time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have just wasted some of it.

I would emplore both sides, all of us, to stop and really think about this. Let's not perpetuate this, "Well, he said, she said" business. Is that really appropriate? Is that what the 1,200 voters in my riding want me to do? I don't think so. I think the 1,200 voters in Porter Creek South are saying, "Get on with it; do some constructive thoughtful debate."

And, whether the Yukon Oil and Gas Act was sloppy, whether they were old bills or new bills, her bills or his bills - well, the ultimate judge in all of that is going to be the Yukon voter. And they will make that choice. They will also ultimately be the judge of whether we have used this time constructively, or not, to ask questions and whether the side opposite has answered those questions appropriately, or not.

I would urge all members to get on with Bill No. 8.

Our caucus will support this motion to extend sitting hours, and I realize that we cannot offer our support conditionally in this House. However, I would remind members - and I don't know how more eloquently I could put it, unless I borrowed the Oxford dictionary there and reminded members, "Read your voters list; stop and ask them; do a phone poll, something." The point is we are here to debate Bill No. 8, we're here to do a good job of it, let's ask the constructive questions and get some good answers on it.

That's the right decision, and I would urge members to get on with the debate on Bill No. 8.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure now who's more eager to get out of the House, whether it's the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party that is more interested in getting involved in the Christmas spirit than doing their job here in the Legislature, as they were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Liberal Party has been anxious for weeks now to extend hours, but I think that the motion we have before us today is a bit premature. As you know, with our rules, Mr. Speaker, the motion is not required before 9 p.m. this evening. It's a motion that we normally debate from time to time the last day of the sitting when there is unanimous agreement amongst the parties. In this case, there isn't unanimous agreement amongst the parties.

At the House leaders meeting this morning, I was asked by the acting government House leader whether or not we wanted to bring this motion forward, and I said we had lots of time today; let's discuss the budget that's on the table in front of us, and before we finish today, in the allotted time that we have for this motion, we can bring it forward, and if there's a sense that we had responses from the ministers to the questions we asked and we were far enough along through the budget, then we could possibly agree.

Now, let's look at the history of this issue. Mr. Speaker, we were called into session at the end of October, and at that time we had already had a request in the books with the Minister of Government Services for copies of the contract registry, and we were already starting to get stonewalled by that minister, who wasn't interested in providing the information that one needs to do one's job here in the Legislature.

So, that's where it kind of started. And then it progressed to the intent of the agreement. The intent of the agreement that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that information be provided in a timely manner. Now, we went from, I think, a record sitting of 76 days where the New Democrats felt they had all kinds of questions to ask, all kinds of things to debate. They used to do their tag-team debating where one would ask a bunch of questions of a minister in a department and then a replacement would stroll into the House and that member that asked questions would get up and stroll out, and then the other member would start asking the very same questions that the previous member had asked.

Mr. Speaker, it went on 76 days. Now that I saw as a bit of a waste of time. This particular government has sort of considered the House as an afterthought or a second thought, and is not really much interested in the House, and it's evident by the number of ministers who are continually travelling when we are in session, which didn't happen much in the past unless there were significant events taking place. There are some individuals on the side opposite who have been absent from the House merely for personal reasons, from time to time, and have not taken their job as seriously as they should.

Mr. Speaker, ministers have spent a great deal of their time travelling outside of the territory. They have spent a great deal of their time camping, fishing and carrying on and taking summer holidays and not paying a lot of attention to their jobs, and it's been reflected in this session.

When we've asked ministers questions with respect to their departments, they're supposed to know. It's been a year now, a year and, I believe, almost three months that these ministers have been in their place and they're supposed to have a reasonable grasp of their department.

I can remember the Member for Faro, the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Justice, berating our ministers on that side three weeks after a Cabinet shuffle - three weeks after a Cabinet shuffle when we were in the House - and telling us that our ministers have been there for three weeks now and they should know their job. That's what they said on the side opposite, that they should know their job. The reason the debate is going to be prolonged is because the ministers didn't know their job and they always had to lean next door to their official and get the answers from their official.

Well, guess what? We've just watched 25 days of these ministers leaning next door to their official and getting virtually every single answer from those officials because they don't know their departments - the simplest of questions, they're not even technical questions; they're policy questions and they don't even know their own policy in many of their departments. Why? Because they're not there long enough to learn them. That's why.

The absentee ministers are probably all sitting there worried that we might sit a day or two longer, and it might mess up their Christmas holidays somewhere in Mexico, or some other warm hot spot. Maybe that's what they're worried about.

The government came in rather ill-prepared for this particular sitting. Right from the beginning, the Member for Faro and the Minister of Community and Transportation Services talked about a light legislative session. In fact, I'll quote from the Member of Community and Transportation Services. He said, "So, let's get together on this. Let's work it through. Let's make an understanding. Simply because we do not have a heavy sitting of the Legislature - we have a light sitting - is that a reason to delay this?"

From the words of their own ministers, "We have a light sitting." Re-hashed legislation, Mr. Speaker; housekeeping legislation. They had a couple of bills that I think are significant, such as the Oil and Gas Act.

The Minister of Economic Development has been consistent when he introduced his bills in the House. I think on the first bill that he introduced he had the wrong title on the title page. It was all messed up and he had to make amendments to it before he brought it into the House. He wasn't paying much attention to what he was doing then. Then he brought in the Oil and Gas Act, which is the most significant piece of legislation that he feels that we've seen in a long time. It was about 85 percent of the same act that was tabled for discussion by the Yukon Party, but he came in with a few changes - I will give the minister credit for the few changes.

Mr. Speaker, they were so rushed - so rushed - in knowing that they had to meet the deadline to get in by a certain date and get out by a certain date for the 25 days, and they said, "We don't have anything. There's nothing with any meat, nothing with any meat here. We just have a legislative session that doesn't really do a lot. They are going to accuse us of sitting on our hands all year and not doing anything." So, he said, "Get me that Oil and Gas Act, and get it quick."

Well, they did do it quick. We had the minister standing up - and it almost became a daily or weekly event - and the minister would stand up in the House and table amendments to it.

Now, usually that happens with the opposition when they bring amendments forward, and it's not a common practice. The minister does hold a record, and it's probably the record for the most number of amendments brought in by a government member with a bill that he introduced. So, I guess that maybe he wanted to put his signature on it, Mr. Speaker. Maybe he wanted to say, "I'm Trevor Harding, and I did this," and so he wanted to get his name on the record half a dozen or a dozen more times, so he brought in amendments every time the bill wandered through this House. But, Mr. Speaker, he didn't impress those of us who know the process those bills go through before they get here. The minister just rushed the bill and put a lot of pressure on his department to rush the bill in the House. And they probably told them that they wouldn't quite be ready, and he said, "I need it. We haven't got anything else. We have to deal with it. Get it ready or else." And so, there it was, and then the minister ends up being a little red-faced because he is two for two. That's two shoddy displays of this minister bringing legislation into this House.

Mr. Speaker, we still have a lot of work to do. I was looking at the work that we have before us here today. We have the Health department, which is the largest overexpenditure of any department in this particular budget, and we're in the middle of debate on that. We have the Department of Tourism, which I'd like to ask the Minister of Tourism some questions about. I've been trying to ask him questions from time to time in this session about tourism, and it's been like - I don't know, Mr. Speaker. Have you ever been to a midway where you put a quarter in the slot, and they give you a little rubber mallet, and these gophers pop up all over the place, and you have to hit the gopher that pops up? Well, asking questions of these ministers is like trying to hit the right gopher, because you ask a question of one minister and another one jumps up who has nothing to do with the department and answers the questions. You ask another minister, and you get the one you wanted the first time jumping up to answer a question, and none of them have given answers, Mr. Speaker, to the questions.

Mr. Speaker, it has been rather frustrating to try to get answers from ministers who have been there well over a year now and should understand what their job and their role is. You know, we had a display here the other night that I don't know if I've witnessed in this House in the 12 and a half years that I've been here. And that's when the Minister of Community and Transportation Services was asked a few questions about his department, and at about 8:45 that evening, the minister decided that he's had enough of this.

And he refused to stand on his feet, Mr. Speaker, and answer the questions.

Mr. Speaker, this minister was responsible for that money in the budget. This was the budget that we were dealing with. But this minister, because he didn't know anything about it, refused to answer questions in the House. We wasted half an hour, almost 45 minutes of time that we could be using to debate the budget, because the minister wouldn't give a simple answer to the question, "What was the rationale for doing it this way?" The minister couldn't answer the question, and he stonewalled this Legislature and refused to answer.

Mr. Speaker, these ministers have not been accountable. The Government Leader does not take this House seriously, although he was the one that ranted and raved about a single session and said, "We're going to go to two sessions a year and we're going to be accountable to the public."

But when it comes to accountability, the place where you are accountable in this House, we can't get any answers from these ministers because they don't know their departments, they don't know what they're talking about, and they make it up - or they refuse to answer.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about 25 days of the sitting. There were a couple of times before they tabled the supplementary, which I'll get to in a few minutes, when these ministers, this government, ran out of things to do in this House. We adjourned early. We went home early. We wasted a couple or three hours because, earlier in the session, we ran completely out of things to do and they said, "Oh, my God, what are we going to do now," and they moved that the House adjourn, because they had no more work on the Order Paper, because they weren't prepared.

They hadn't been in their offices long enough to prepare for the session, and we already know that we're going to go back into the session next February, but we also already know that the Minister of Economic Development is going to probably go to South America on a trade mission.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: He is going. The minister is going. That's probably not a bad idea, but at the same time, this minister wants Yukoners to be able to trade their goods and services to everyone else, they don't want to let anyone trade any services back in the Yukon, and that's inconsistent from that Minister of Economic Development.

And, I must say Mr. Speaker, with respect to that Minister of Economic Development, the economy in the Yukon has suffered more under that Minister of Economic Development than any previous minister in the history of the Yukon Territory.

And, now he can say he's first in one thing: he's first in driving the economy to where it is today. He has done a lousy job in that portfolio.

But hopefully they won't move him too far, because he could mess up a few others real quick if he got the ability to do so. And I know that there are a lot of people in other areas that are pretty concerned that that minister doesn't move into their area.

The agreement was struck among the three parties. And the agreement talks about the government providing information to government members. Regardless of what the members on the side opposite will say, I know that it was their own Government Leader, who was then the leader of the opposition, who was very concerned about information being made available in a limited or shorter session. It was that member that was one of the persons that argued that information be made in a timely manner.

So what happened?

Well, Mr. Speaker, things changed. And now that member, who was then opposition leader, who wanted things in a timely manner, became the new Government Leader and all of a sudden timely information wasn't as important any more. In fact, it wasn't important at all.

When it came time to tabling the supplementary budget in a timely manner, although it was a legislative session, the budget was usually tabled ahead of time so members could have a look at it. We waited two and a half weeks - almost three weeks - before we got the budget tabled.

And you know what, Mr. Speaker, if I, as the Yukon Party House leader, and the Liberal House leader hadn't badgered the Minister of Economic Development, the government House leader, we probably would have got the supplementary budget the same time we got the contract list.

Because they didn't want to give it to us. They aren't interested in relevant information now that they're in government. They'd rather hide all the big bucks they're spending on their defeated NDP candidates and their friends. They'd rather hide it all and not have it come up in debate so they have to answer questions.

I don't have problems with extending hours of our Legislature to deal with legislative business when we get to that point, but we're not there. We're not there yet. We have four departments left to go through in this budget. I'm not going anywhere for Christmas. I'll stay here and do my job. You know, the Liberal leader said she's got 1,200 voters in her riding who want her to get out of the House. Well, I think I have 1,200 voters in my riding and I think they think I should be here doing my job. This is my job. This is my job to be here in this House. This is the only opportunity that I have to question these members. To rush through the last quarter of the budget is irresponsible. It's irresponsible.

The ministers may stand up today and give us answers to questions that we need. I rather doubt it. I don't think after 24 days, there's going to be a major flip-flop with these ministers.

Speaker: The member has two minutes.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I think the government has come into this House with little or no legislation, with little or no plans, with ministers who have been away from their office so much that they don't know what's going on in their departments. They haven't got a clue. Every time you ask them a question, it's somebody else's fault. It's a board's fault or a committee's fault or someone else's fault, but it's never their fault.

They have really short memories. They used to stand up in this House time and time again and say, "You're responsible for your department and you're responsible for the actions of your department and there are no excuses."

They did that for 76 days. Now, it's the gopher game. When you ask this minister a question, that minister pops up. When you ask this minister a question, that one pops up. Mr. Speaker, you never know who's going to answer your question. And, they use, as a defence, that they're possibly ignorant. You know what, Mr. Speaker, they might be accurate, because it's not the right minister - not the relevant minister - that stands up and answers the question.

It's time to be accountable. It's time to spend some time in this House dealing with the business that the people elect us to do. We've got several million dollars left to deal with in this budget. It's not time to think about rushing out and getting on with our Christmas holidays. If we're ready at 9:00 p.m. tonight, we can look at it. We shouldn't be bound. The agreement itself has provision for that, that in no way limits us going any further; that if members -

Speaker: Your time has elapsed.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard from that member opposite. He has attacked a member of our caucus who is from Watson Lake whose mother is gravely ill. For him to stand on the floor of this Legislature and to attack the Member for Watson Lake for being away for personal reasons, I think is an outrage. The member has sunk to all-time lows in debate in this Legislature.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would say that that member -

Speaker: Point of order has been called.

Point of order

Mr. Phillips: The minister should withdraw that. I said nothing about the Member for Watson Lake whatsoever. I appreciate what the Member for Watson Lake is doing for his family and that is not what I was talking about, Mr. Speaker, so the member should withdraw those comments.

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member opposite has no point of order. It's simply a disagreement between members. The member opposite clearly stated and criticized the government caucus for being away for personal reasons. Mr. Speaker, he has spoken to a very serious subject, and it is an outrage.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: There is no point of order, and we will get on with the debate.

Hon. Mr. Harding: As I was saying, before I was interrupted by the member opposite, he has sunk to all-time lows for criticizing the Member for Watson Lake, a member of our caucus, who is with his mother who is gravely ill, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is an outrage. I don't have to say it any more. I just think that it is indicative of the type of debate that the Yukon Party has brought to this House and I will say no more. I will leave it to the opposition House leader, to our government House leader, to explain the reasons for the continuation-of-the-debate motion. It is not a closure motion.

But I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, if I've said one thing in this debate: what the Member for Riverdale North said is an outrage.

Mr. Jenkins: Before us, we're asked to vote on extending the hours of this sitting, Mr. Speaker, and go in to an evening session beyond 9:30 p.m. When one looks at the amount of work that we are left with, I can't envision how long we're expected to sit this evening, or are we going to go into a marathon session for several days? We still have all of the Department of Tourism to deal with, all of the Department of Government Services to deal with, and we're part way through the Department of Health and Community and Transportation Services. We still have the Public Service Commission, which isn't a great amount of time, but the two major areas where we have considerable time to spend are still yet to be brought forward for debate.

Government Services is responsible for the care and control of spending a great deal of the taxpayers' money. When one looks at the department, its overall responsibility is to keep a contract registry and ensure that contracts are let in a timely fashion.

We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a government that campaigned on a platform of open and accountable government. You try and get the least bit of information from this government - just go ahead and try. The media can get more information more readily than we can. We have to sit on the doorsteps of the ministers' departments and virtually ask them to phone the minister, and we have to bring Hansard with us, show them what the Government Leader said - that we're entitled to this, and we should be able to get it - and still, there's a constant stonewalling. One gets very, very upset when one is charged with the responsibility, as we are in opposition, to keep this government accountable. They are not accountable, Mr. Speaker.

I think back to my background in municipal government and the time that I spent - the 14-odd years - virtually as a volunteer for a great deal of that time, and the amount of time that one spends at meetings with government officials, who, by and large, I hold in the highest regard. But when it comes to the overall responsibility for the department, that is vested in the minister, and of all the ministers that I've had dealings with over the past some 20-odd years, I can categorically state, Mr. Speaker, that the ministers that I am dealing with in government today are the least prepared, least knowledgeable, least understanding and the least cooperative of any of the ministers that I've ever had occasion to deal with for some 20-odd years. I don't know what they're hiding. I didn't know what they had to hide until we received a copy of the contract registry.

Of the some-2,987 contracts, one has to just go through them, Mr. Speaker, and identify the sole-sourced contracts - some way in excess of approval procedures - that are sole sourced for some millions of dollars in total. This gives rise to some concern as to who has been paying off whom, and for what reason.

Then one identifies the number of ex-NDP players who are in the consulting business today who are being given contracts by this government for some considerable sums of money. This was supposed to be a light sitting of the Legislature. That's what the government of the day and the ministers of this government said. That is what they said and yet they are probably the most ill-prepared group of ministers that has sat in this Legislature since the evolution of this House into party politics.

Community and Transportation Services - it's very, very interesting that when one looks at the Order Paper, since the minister stonewalled some weeks ago and refused to stand up, refused to answer questions, I'm sure his party put his department at the end of the list hoping that he wouldn't have to deal with it. The Order Paper has clearly identified Community and Transportation Services at the end of the list of what we have to deal with.

Health and Social Services, one of the largest increases of any of the departments of government - their spending is up dramatically and yet, the minister who's also the minister responsible for Government Services of whom I requested copies of contracts, the interim contracts -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister has a very interesting view of reality. One just asks the question about the sole-sourced contracts, which is what I did and what I have asked for -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, I have the floor. I don't know what the heckling is all about over here.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Jenkins: What we have is a minister who is hiding a great deal of information from this House.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Speaker: Point of order has been called.

Point of order

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The member has made an accusation. I would suggest that, in this case, he had better back it up with some evidence. He suggested that, in the contracts that he asked for clarification from us, there were 19 contracts, 18 of which were for individual young people, some of whom are in individual drug and alcohol treatment programs; some are referred by Young Offenders to wilderness camps. Eighteen of 19 of those contracts were reference of children to Young Offenders or alcohol or drug treatment. He knows it. He knows that we cannot reveal the identity of those children. He asked for those contracts.

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: I would like to rule that when you make your remarks, do not tell somebody else that they're hiding or they're lying, and that you use parliamentary language and abstain from that. Please continue.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister has refused to provide the contract registry - the interim contract registry that was requested before this House sat this fall.

It was like pulling hens' teeth to obtain the contract registry, and the minister didn't even provide it. Our research people had to go over and sit and wait on Friday to get a copy.

There are 2,987 contracts listed in the contract registry - there might be more; I don't know - and of those, our caucus requested 117 contracts. That's four percent of the total contracts, and all of these contracts, despite what the minister would lead you to believe, were sole-sourced. That was the reason for picking those 117 contracts out.

The minister's delay in not providing the opposition with this contract registry is one of the major reasons why we are here this late in the sitting, coupled with the minister's inability to answer questions about the respective departments.

The supps were tabled late in the sitting and if we're going to have any degree of cooperation, Mr. Speaker, in this House, it would be appreciated if the memorandum of understanding were adhered to by the government of the day, and that includes a timely conveyance of the information to this side of the House in order that we can do our homework, raise our questions of the ministers and provide for logical and analytical debate on the various areas of the departments that these ministers are responsible for.

This information has not been forthcoming, and has not been forthcoming for quite some time. It gives rise to a lot of concerns, when one looks at the length of sitting days that we have allocated.

Unlike the ministers, we don't mind doing our homework when we have the information here in the opposition. We don't mind spending the time analyzing contracts. We don't mind spending the time reviewing policies and looking for a way to conduct business here that is going to be better all Yukoners.

This government of the day seems to just have one focus, and that focus, Mr. Speaker, is the next election. To pay off their friends, pay off their former colleagues that didn't win elections, to regroup all their former colleagues from British Columbia, repatriate them back to the Yukon, and they are growing in alarming numbers. One just has to look at the sole-sourced contracts to consultants and the number of new business licenses that have been taken out in the Yukon by consultants who have known NDP backgrounds and leanings. When one adds them all up, there is a tidy sum of taxpayers' money heading in this direction.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: As usual, the Member for Faro is in the House just laughing away, laughing away about all of these -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins: Laughing away as the economy of the Yukon is going down and down and down, and the light at the end of the tunnel about what is there for Yukoners down the road as far as a way to earn a living, a way for suitable employment, is growing dimmer and dimmer and dimmer. And, it's not just in spite of the high cost of electricity here in the Yukon, it is because there is no economic plan from this government. There is no forward thought given to anything other than the next election.

I'm sure that, in a couple of years' time, we will certainly be in a catastrophic financial position if the level of expenditures of this government continues at the same pace that it is currently at.

We are living on the largess of the federal government. That's the Liberal Party in Ottawa today that we constantly criticize. I guess we are biting the hand that feeds us, in some respects, but they really don't do everything right all the time.

And they're open to a great deal of constructive criticism, but the north has never ever been forgotten in the budgets of the federal Government of Canada, irrespective of which federal party is in power.

I guess we're fortunate that the federal NDP has never come to power in Canada or that might change. That might've changed considerably, Mr. Speaker.

So, let's just focus on the issue before us. We are here. We are looking at prolonging the sitting of this session for a number of reasons, and all of those reasons directly relate back to this government's inability to do its job.

Number one, they were late tabling the supp. Number two, they've refused to provide the contract registry - the contract registry from which flows a great deal of information - and they've refused requests for further information. And, number three, these ministers who have been in their positions for over a year have no understanding whatsoever of their departments, their responsibilities or a lot of the policies that they are blessed with.

In fact, they spent most of the summer off fishing or travelling, and I don't know what. I don't know too many governments or industry where the person in charge can take a couple of months off in the summer. It's virtually unheard of. It's virtually unheard of, Mr. Speaker. Months, two months of summer holidays is the norm for this government, and yet we get to focus on what we are here for.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Jenkins:

We are here to focus on our responsibility, and that is to ensure that this government here is kept accountable. They are kept accountable, and it's very, very hard to keep accountable a group of individuals who are proving to be as irresponsible as what we have demonstrated clearly before us in the last series of debates by these ministers on various aspects of their departments.

In fact, I'd like to thank the minister from Ross River-Southern Lakes, who has probably added more to the debate in heckling here this afternoon than when he was there standing up to answer for his department. He refused to stand, Mr. Speaker, and answer questions about his department. He went on and on and on just sitting there.

Well, that led us to where we are today in this House looking at extending hours, which I'm sure will eventually end in a closure motion being brought forward by this government to close debate.

Speaker: The member has two minutes.

Mr. Jenkins: It will close debate on all of these issues.

I'd remind the ministers that they have taken an oath of office, and I guess they can stand back and they can look at that oath and they can look at their departments, and the easiest way to keep everything above board is to do nothing - don't answer any questions; don't give out any information; go fishing.

And I guess what flows from that is, do not make any decisions. And what flows from that is the economic plight of the Yukon today. The Yukon is now in very serious economic condition, thanks to the inactivity of this government - the minister of non-development, who is constantly laughing in the House.

So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge this government to table information in a timely manner on the supps and on the contract registry, and, when they're asked a question, to answer the question. Answer the question in a straightforward, sincere and honest manner. I'm not going to add, "to the best of their ability," or we wouldn't get an answer.

Speaker: Time has expired.

Mr. Cable: I'm told, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of public servants that listen to these debates as part of their job. I must say that it's probably cruel and unusual punishment for all of them.

Let me go over what I've heard this afternoon. I've heard that the supplementaries were not tabled on time, and that's right. They weren't tabled on time; they could have been tabled sooner. I've heard that the contract list was not provided in a timely fashion and we've all witnessed that absurd game that went on in the last few weeks. In a sense, the government is the author of their own misfortune. That's what we've heard this afternoon, and that's accurate.

We've also heard that the ink was barely dry on the agreement that was signed during the last mandate, when the NDP was trying to go through mental gymnastics to break it. And that's also true.

We've also heard that it's usual to wait until later in the day to see if an extension is needed, and that's accurate, and that it's more appropriate to wait until later in the day, and that's accurate.

But, having said all of that and having knowledge of all of those things that were brought forward and those arguments that were made, we do have the motion in front of us. We, in the Liberal caucus, don't have the luxury of determining the agenda and we don't have the luxury of determining what questions are asked and whether or not the answers are given, so we are going to make our best efforts to adhere to the agreement. That was what was agreed to and that's what we inherited in this mandate.

Now, it's clear that we're not going to finish by 9:30 p.m. That's clear at this time. There are five departments yet to go. We have to finish Health and Social Services, we have to do Government Services, we have to do the Public Service Commission, we have to do Tourism and we have to finish off Community and Transportation Services. So, it's clear at this time that we are going to need a motion to extend if we are going to live up to the agreement. It's also clear from the way we're going that we're going to have to have breakfast at about 3:30 a.m. in the morning, so it's good for us to get on with the business.

We are going to support the motion, not because we think it's appropriate at this time, but because it's before us and we want to live up to the agreement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should have anticipated the tone of this debate. I think that whether we were having this debate at 2:30 when we started out or whether we would have been having this debate at a quarter to five or at nine o'clock, we probably would have heard very much the same rhetoric and very much the same comments from members opposite.

The Yukon Party is alleging that the government is not doing its job, and they are in opposition and that's what they consider to be their responsibility and they're doing that. But, Mr. Speaker, I want -

Some Hon. Member: (I naudible)

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: But that is not the truth. Mr. Speaker, the ministers of this government are working very hard and the public knows that they are working hard.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the opposition stood up and indicated that this was a closure motion and how tragic that was. This is not a closure motion. We are debating a motion to sit until we conclude on Bill No. 8. We are not limiting debate on the motion, and I would just like to draw the members' attention to some of the statements that they made when this agreement was brought into place.

In the Whitehorse Star, April 15, 1996, Ostashek said in an interview, "He expects the opposition to live up to the agreement." Asked if he would extend it beyond the agreed date, in this case a 25-day sitting agreed date of December 15, that member who is now sitting opposite replied, "Absolutely not. It's the opposition's responsibility to manage their time. They are asking questions not related to policy in Committee. If they don't leave time to debate, that's their fault."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a 25-day sitting and we have a responsibility to debate the business of this Legislature. Let me turn to what the leader of the -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The Liberal member, who is a signatory to this agreement - Mr. Cable said that the agreement was a good start in bringing House business into line. There's nothing wrong to working to a deadline.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the opposition to manage their time. They can determine whether they want to spend two weeks in Community and Transportation Services, leaving only two hours for Tourism or whether they want to spread that time out. It can be a hard thing to do, but the members can do it.

The members also alleged that they have not been receiving information, according to the agreement. Well, I've read this agreement. I read it out earlier on. We have provided the information to the members opposite.

The contract registry is public information. The members opposite have a considerable research budget. If they wanted the contracts, they had to go down to contract registry, take a look through, ask for what they wanted, take that information and do their job - ask questions based on that.

Now, I know that that was working, because for both the Department of Education and for the Department of Justice, the opposition members went to contract registry, they got lists of contracts, they had questions in general debate, they had questions in Question Period, they asked them and I attempted to answer them to the best of my ability.

What we have done in this session, in providing contract registry information to the members opposite, is completely consistent with past practice. And again, consistent with past practice, we will be publishing the annual contracts list through to March 31, 1998, the end of the fiscal year, for the members opposite and the interim information remains available to them.

Members also raised the question about this being a light legislative agenda, according to the government. Well, that's the members opposite's position, but that is not the position of the government and never has been. Mr. Speaker, we put out a press release prior to coming into the Legislature about the issues that we would be debating and about the bills that we would be bringing forward.

We have a Yukon Oil and Gas Act. The Yukon Party claims it's their bill. Well, except their bill never did pass the House, never was debated. The present bill that passed in this session achieved consensus with First Nations, with industry and with government, and there was all-party support on that motion.

The member said that there was nothing with any substance. Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, bringing in penalties for impaired drivers and people driving without insurance or while suspended, are amendments that have been needed for some time and were not brought forward under the previous government.

We're happy to be improving public safety. We're happy to be bringing forward amendments. The Yukon has been lagging behind the rest of the country. We now have legislation dealing with impaired drivers that is responsible and that makes our highways safer, and we're proud of that.

I've also brought forward bills dealing with crime prevention, a victims services trust fund and the Family Violence Prevention Act. Those are important issues that many members of the public care about, Mr. Speaker. This has been a serious legislative agenda, and we have done good work, and I'm proud of the work that we've done.

Now, the members indicated that the supplementary budget was introduced late, and the leader of the official opposition did not write to the Government Leader and request a contract list. He wrote and requested travel information, which he was provided with.

On the supplementary budget, we agreed to delay second reading debate on the request of the opposition. We were ready to debate it as soon as it was introduced on November 12.

So, Mr. Speaker, we've been here. That's perfectly consistent with past practice. We've been willing to debate the supplementary budget before us. Our ministers have been in the House. They've done their work. They're prepared to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end this debate because we are wanting to move forward with the supplementary budget.

I would encourage members opposite - and I would encourage all members of this House - to put this motion behind us. We are going to sit extended hours, which is completely consistent with the past practice. It's completely consistent with the agreement and with the sheaf of media articles that I have showing the position of members opposite in completing the session.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that what we've seen today is further evidence of the need for an agreement. Tensions do tend to rise and to run high at the end of a sitting. That's probably one good reason why we place a limit on the sitting.

I look forward to some constructive debate. I know ministers are prepared to answer the members' questions responsibly, and I would encourage the members opposite to put their questions forward and listen to the responses and proceed with clearing the debate on the supplementary budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Hardy: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Disagree.

Mr. Phillips: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 11 yea, three nay.

Speaker: The ayes have it.

Motion to sit beyond normal hour of adjournment agreed to

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

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

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the wish of the Committee to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a brief 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Bill No. 8 - Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98 - continued

Chair: Committee is dealing with Bill No. 8, Second Appropriation Act, 1997-98, and we are dealing with the O&M expenditures of Health and Social Services, policy planning and administration, reduction of $158,000.

Department of Health and Social Services - continued

On Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

On Policy, Planning and Administration

Hon. Mr. Sloan: This decrease results from two internal transfers. A $199,000 decrease reflects a transfer from the DM's budget of two positions in Health which report directly to the ADM of Health, namely the medical officer of health and the health advisor. The $41,000 increase represents the transfer from other programs to the central budget for their share of the MAN-WAN charges from information services branch based on a proportionate share of the underlying telecom savings that were reinvested by Government Services in the Y-net infrastructure.

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister provide the rationale for the transfer of these positions, please?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Basically, it was just a change to reflect a better continuum, I suppose, of reporting - that the medical officer of health and the health advisor should report to the ADM of Health.

Mr. Cable: I had asked the minister some questions on bankruptcy, and I suppose that the question is best done under policy.

I had asked him two questions. One was what sort of counselling is done for people who are having debt problems? This is before the bankruptcy. And I asked him also what sort of help is given to people who can't afford to go bankrupt because they can't afford the trustee. I gather that it costs quite a few dollars to get the nearest trustee, who I think is located in Prince George.

I was wondering if he has had any chance to take advice on both of those questions.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I do have a legislative return in that regard for the member.

Mr. Cable: Well, I'll have a look at that, and there may be some questions when we get further on down.

I should indicate to the minister that there were extensive questions asked of the Finance minister on funding, and I've taken two or three briefings from the Deputy Minister of Finance. What I'll do is wait until the spring session to discuss that. I think it's more appropriate that the Finance minister be here at the same time as the minister.

Policy, Planning and Administration in the amount of an underexpenditure of $158,000 agreed to

On Family and Children Services

Hon. Mr. Sloan: This increase results in the following changes: $880,000 resulting from increased child care subsidies client volumes, partially offset by a $19,000 decrease in day care operating grants, and $1,000 decrease in forecasted youth allowance payments.

Just for a point of interest, a cap exists on the number of operators eligible for the day care operating grants. The budget is based on continuous operation at capacity, as sometimes occurs. When seats are empty or a change occurs that yields a gap between the funding of the departing operator and the funding of the newly eligible operator, we realize a budget variance, as it was in the case this year.

Mrs. Edelman: I have a series of questions, Mr. Chair. The first one is, has there been any additional cost for increased inspection for day care facilities?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I am advised no.

Mrs. Edelman: It's interesting, Mr. Chair, considering the press that inspections for day care facilities and day home facilities has gotten in the past year.

One of the other issues - and I suppose to go back to that then - what about legal costs? Is that part of the O&M expenditure or is that covered off somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: To date, we haven't incurred any legal costs in that regard. It's all been handled through Justice.

Mrs. Edelman: So, am I to understand, Mr. Chair, that this is being dealt with in house? The minister is saying yes.

Mr. Chair, the direct operating grant and other subsidies - capital and operational facility subsidies - need to have a review every few years. Is there any opportunity for review of the direct operating grant in the next year?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As the member is probably aware, there have been a number of pressures in the whole field of child care facility responsibilities or, rather, child care costs - certainly, child care containment - child care costs is one of the - well, the member looks somewhat speculative. I have to say that if it were not for certain communities where - no, that's unfair.

No, what I have done is I have met with the Child Care Board and I've discussed the whole question of child care, child care cost, the rising costs, the issues around subsidy, the issues around the, I guess for lack of a better term, the DOG grant, and I have asked the chair of the Child Care Board to raise that with her members and to discuss it and to come back to me with some areas of suggestions, some perhaps advice, to give us a measure of what the child care community is feeling in this regard, so that we can make some, I suppose, better informed decisions.

Mrs. Edelman: The last time the NDP were in power they came up with some really interesting legislation and some of the most advanced, probably, in Canada, and it was all to do with child care regulations. The reviews of the direct operating grant and the other regulations to do with child care hav been looked at by the Child Care Association board. It was last year when, in their report, they suggested that there be reviews. Is this going to be a review that you're asking the board to do or are you going to have the department do it?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, I think I have ongoing meetings with the Child Care Board, and certainly I've discussed with them a whole variety of issues around child care. I meet with the chair of that board on a fairly regular basis, as I do with other advisory boards. The whole question of volume increases, subsidies, levels of subsidies - all of those things have come up in the past.

And at our most recent meeting, which I believe was in November, I brought some of these concerns - these very concerns that we are raising here - to her attention, and I said, "I would like you to go back, talk with some of your members, see what you see as the pressures, come back, give me some areas of suggestion that we can go to. Should we be reviewing these? Should we be reviewing other issues surrounding child care?" So, I've asked her to give me some feedback that we can then take a look at and see what we have to do in the way of necessary reviews or necessary considerations.

Mrs. Edelman: So, when you say, "We would review," Mr. Chair, are we talking about the department?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Edelman: Okay.

One of the other issues in child care is, of course, the fact that child care needs are changing. Although the vast majority of the population has regular nine-to-five jobs, there are a number of areas where there are some real shortages in day care spaces. For example, for people who work shiftwork - particularly people who work right around the clock - there doesn't seem to be an awful lot available. I'm wondering what the department is looking at as far as meeting some of those needs.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, that is one of the things that the Child Care Board is looking at - that whole question of whether or not we are delivering the right kind of day care. The member has raised the point that we have a number of people who have nine-to-five jobs, but there are also other variances. And I think, when I was discussing, in general debate, we have a very high percentage of women in the out-of-the-home workforce, and that is higher than, perhaps, other parts of Canada. As well, we have an additional factor in the fact that because so many of our families are transplants from elsewhere, perhaps some of the family supports that a family might have - as well as just a very high proportion of women in the out-of-home workforce - reduces some of the possibilities for informal kinds of child care, the kind of child care that might take place with a relative or a grandmother or even a neighbour, because there are so many individuals out in the workforce.

So, we are looking at a whole variety of things. I've asked the Child Care Board to take a look at some of these.

Mrs. Edelman: Two of the things I'm wondering if the department is at least giving some consideration to are the thought of having in-house child care facilities. For example, how many people work for the government? Having one run by a private operator, perhaps within the building. There are a lot of studies that say that if there are in-house facilities, then you have greater quality workforce. You have people who can spend more time with their children and are therefore more productive when they go to work. I'm wondering if that's one of the things that the government is looking at.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, the member is probably referring to the folks we had taking a look at the Yukon Party offices next door with the idea of expanding them and putting in the jungle gym. Is that what the member means? Since we do have the Liberal Party, who have a higher proportion of younger children, we would have to address their needs first.

No, I'm afraid that I'm not aware of us looking at that, but the Member for Klondike has very generously offered to give up his office, so that's where we'll be moving the Big Toy into.

At this point, no, we haven't taken a look at in house - I presume the member is talking about government facilities. We haven't taken a look at that as yet.

Mrs. Edelman: Sometimes it makes more sense to start in the home. If you are going to have a policy about taking care of children, you need to start looking at yourself first.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mrs. Edelman:

Nothing personal.

The other issue - an issue that's related to day care - is the issue of the tax credit or some other incentive for people who do stay at home and work in the home taking care of their children and sometimes, in other cases, relatives' children. In some ways, if there was a financial incentive for people to stay home, there might not be the tremendous strain that there is on the system now. For many, many people - and I have to include myself in that group - it's a really thin line where it becomes profitable to leave the home. You have to pay for the cost of lunches, clothing, transportation, extra costs for having ready-made food all the time, instead of the stuff you make yourself.

Certainly if there was some sort of incentive for people who wanted to stay home - not everybody does - with their children and take care of them, I think that might relieve some of that pressure on the system and that, in the long run, I think, would benefit all of us. I'm wondering - it's certainly something we did in the past. There was a lot of recognition in our society and credit given to people who stayed home with their children. For some reason, in this generation and the past generation, that's gone. I'm wondering what the department is looking at in that area.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, certainly some of these would probably overlap in federal tax situations. I suppose there would be some opportunity for us to see how that could be accomplished. What I can do - and I have to be frank, it isn't something that I've been giving a great deal of thought to - is I can bring it forward to the Child Care Board and see what their feelings are on it, review it with some other sort of relevant groups and perhaps pass it on to the appropriate people in Finance for some consideration.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, this is not a new idea. This has been around for a number of years, and, certainly, going to the Child Care Board I think would be interesting, although you do speak a bit of a conflict of interest there. So perhaps if you went to some other groups, that might be a better idea.

Anyway, I'm quite interested to hear how the minister is going to follow up on this, and I would hope to be updated on that as it occurs.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It's certainly something that, as I said, I'd have to probably raise with the Finance folks to see how this fits into tax structures and things like that. I'm not as familiar with issues in that regard, but I can also run it by the Health and Social Services Council and see what their feelings are on it.

The member has a point, that sometimes it does, particularly for people who have lower incomes, particularly people who are working at minimum wages, people who are working at - sometimes single parents - it really does reach almost a counterproductive point.

I talked with a woman very recently who had what I thought was a rather good income. She had three children in child care and, when she told me how much she was paying, her only rationale in staying in her job at this point was not economic; it was rather to maintain her qualifications at that level because, if she chose to leave, she would then have to retrain at a higher level.

So, when I asked her and she told me how much money she was spending on child care, I was, quite frankly, surprised. She had a good income so she didn't qualify perhaps for some of the subsidies, but she said it really was very counterproductive when you figure getting the kids into the car, bundling them up and the whole thing.

But it is an issue and it's certainly something that I will bring forward to the Health and Social Services Council.

Mr. Cable: I'd just like to go over the legislative return that the minister provided on the bankruptcy question that had been asked earlier in the House. There is a mention of a contract with Lynn Ogden of Ogden Feledichuk, providing financial budgeting assistance to social assistance clients. Would the minister provide the two opposition parties with a copy of that contract by way of letter? Would he do that?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: By all means, and we'll try to endeavour to get that to the members, as I said, by letter as soon as possible.

Mr. Cable: Now there is a curious comment in the first paragraph of the response, if I could refer the minister to that. It says, "Most social assistance clients do not have a business or assets that will allow them to declare bankruptcy." And of course, the reason you declare bankruptcy is that you have liabilities; you don't have assets. So, I'm just curious as to what that was meant to mean.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, one of the things about individuals on social assistance is that most people who reach the point of social assistance have, in fact, disposed of a lot of those assets that they have and I'm advised that this is not an issue that's really ever come up with social assistance recipients because many of them have disposed of pretty much all of their assets to avoid going into social assistance, so it isn't an issue that has arisen with us.

Mr. Cable: I think the context where a bankruptcy would arise is where there are liabilities that the applicant for social assistance feels that he or she can't handle. The financial strains that you have because you can't handle your debts make for difficulties in personal relationships and they also get carried off over into job performance. So, the inability to handle debts on sort of a chronic basis is much like alcohol addiction, it wears you down in all your life situations.

Could I invite the minister to look at that sort of assistance as an investment or return on investment because I think an investment will come back to assist the department.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I will take that to the department and ask them to take a look into it. We do try to provide individuals who often are on social assistance with assistance in just budgeting. We occasionally, for example, with individuals who come to us with large amounts of debt or who may not be able to get electrical hookups or things of that nature will advance the money for those sorts of things, but we do try to provide counselling. And, I can take a look at this and refer it on to the department to see if there is anything more in this that we can do.

Mr. Cable: There was some back and forth discussion in the House that gave rise to fireworks on one of the social assistance applicant's financing, and whether the Social Assistance Appeal Board properly granted money to pay taxes. I'm sure the minister will remember that interchange.

I think what the minister had said in response, at one time, was that he is going to review the regulations to see if that payment should have been made or should have been properly contemplated by the appeal board. I wonder if I can encourage him also, when he reviews the regulations, to look at those situations where people may need social assistance to declare bankruptcy and sort of get this financial monkey off their back and restore themselves to society.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Certainly, Mr. Chair, we can endeavour to do that. As I said, we're taking a look at the interpretation of section 27. We have some concerns in that regard as to whether the decision that was made was indeed appropriate, and we'll likely be taking action to try and prevent incidents of that kind recurring in the future. But, I can certainly bring forward the member's concerns on the individuals and providing assistance to avoiding bankruptcies.

Mr. Jenkins: Family and social services - the minister indicated that the major increase in that department was the increase in child care costs. When one looks at the statistical review of the Yukon, looks at the size of the workforce, looks at the number of females and males in the category that would benefit access to this program, there is not much change from the last year or the year prior to that.

Now, what is given rise to this increase in this area? Has it been a change in policy for access to this program, or what is the major reason for the change and the increase in the amount that is paid out on to this program?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: It's primarily a volume-driven increase. We have, as I indicated earlier, a high 80-percent labour force participation for women in the Yukon. We've also had an increase in child population. In addition, we've also had an expansion of First Nation child care programs. We've added several First Nation day cares, and that, in turn, means more children in day care, more qualification for subsidy, and so on. So, we're up about $880,000 in that area.

Mr. Jenkins: So, there has been a change in the policy and the way it's delivered. It's been extended to include a lot of First Nations. Is that a separate agreement with the federal government or is this just done by Government of Yukon initiative, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, it wasn't a change in policy. What happened was that federal money became available for First Nations to open day cares - so, in other words, the capital expenses to start these up.

Once they are open, the individuals themselves become eligible for child care subsidies if they're working or going to school, the same way that other individuals are. So, the establishment, because of more available federal money, has, in turn, created a demand for more subsidies.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Chair, but if you look back through the statistical review of Yukon for the population, it includes First Nations and it includes the workforce encompassing First Nations, so all of those individuals have been included in prior periods. So, we've initiated new day care centres, and we must have broadened the scope of the program, because the same number of individuals - actually, there are fewer individuals in a number of categories - working today than a year ago. What has given rise to the increase? I don't think we can necessarily attribute it all to new day care centres.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: There hasn't been a change in policy, but what has happened has been that yes, the labour force may have remained the same, and yes, there may be the same whatever, but what we haven't had is day cares being established in those communities. And when that happens, it becomes, in a sense, an opportunity for - I suppose that I'll characterize it as young mothers taking educational opportunities to take, perhaps, training opportunities to take positions that were not available to them before. So, that is a factor.

And also, just between 1995 and 1997, the school-age population in the territory has increased from 2,700 to 3,200, and so there has also been a corresponding increase in the number of school-aged children, particularly, accessing after-school programs and things of that nature during this period. So, that has been one of the issues.

As well, the previous government brought in some changes to social assistance regarding single parents, and the impact of that change in social assistance policy has added about 150 children to the approved child care subsidy program. So, there has been an impact in that regard as well.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, but there must be something else that's driving these costs up, because we're over $750,000, and when one looks at the normal subsidy of some $400 a month for 12 months of the year, that's in excess of 150 children. I just can't fathom how the ongoing numbers are rising while the workforce is remaining the same and yet decreasing. So, number one, we must have broadened the programs; and number two, could the minister advise us about the monitoring of individuals gaining access to this program, because I'm aware of a number of individuals who have changed employment three or four times? They've actually been unemployed and yet still continue to receive the day care subsidy. How is the ongoing monitoring of an individual undertaken by the department, or is there any after the initial application is made and approved?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: There is monitoring, and with regard to individuals changing jobs, part of our goal with day care is to permit people to be able to work, and in some case subsidies are also provided for people who are involved in job searches and also involved in educational programs. If we do find individuals whose circumstances have changed, those individuals' subsidies would be adjusted accordingly. But, in general, our goal is to provide the opportunities for people to be able to work.

We have had increases, as I said, in certain areas of child care. Some are driven by First Nation day cares. Some are driven as well just by the increase in the child population.

Mr. Jenkins: Could I ask the minister, Mr. Chair, to be specific as to how this monitoring works? Let's assume we have an individual that makes an initial application and, say, after six months they either become unemployed or become a single parent, which is not uncommon here in Yukon. Is there a requirement of that recipient of the subsidy to report back to anyone and advise of the change of status? And, if so, how does this work and how is the monitoring proceeded with from that juncture?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: The individuals are required at the time of receiving the subsidy to sign a legal document indicating that they will report to the respective day care any changes in their own circumstances - and ultimately to the department. Most subsidy approvals are made for a six-month period. The only exceptions to this time frame are the two- to three-month approvals of applications from parents who are looking for work. So, in other words, they would be granted so many hours of day care per week as part of their job search. Now, after a period of about two to three months, we would follow up on that. "You've been receiving this. Are you still involved in active job search? Have you changed your status? What's the deal?"

So, we do follow up on it and, as I said, all subsidies are based on a six-month approval.

Mr. Jenkins: But the minister did indicate that the onus is on the receiver of the benefit program to advise of any change of status. So other than that, is there a routine monitoring other than a cursory overview?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, when the individuals come up to the end of their approval and for a new approval, they're asked if anything has changed in their circumstances and they're asked if their job or educational circumstances have changed. So, essentially an individual who wanted to do that would, I suppose, if they didn't want to be truthful, have to lie at that point.

If we became aware of any changes, then obviously we would take action to either remove that person if they didn't qualify or recover funds that were improperly paid or whatever, but we do try to work with individuals on this. We don't think it should be an onerous kind of thing. There's an element of trust here. We believe that day care is meant to be used and not abused. As a matter of fact, my experience has been that most people who use day care subsidies do so for very, very legitimate reasons and I would be surprised if individuals were using them improperly.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, how much time is spent scrutinizing the applicants and specifically, the wage and benefit program that that individual would receive from the employer? Is there followup done in this area before the approval is granted, or do they rely totally on the applicant?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, there is a fairly elaborate kind of scale that people receive, based upon family income, what the monthly income is, and so on. So, we would follow up with the individuals at the time - what their income is, the number of children in the family, net approximate monthly or yearly gross income, and things of that nature. If we became aware or suspected that an individual was not disclosing, perhaps, either their income or what their circumstances are, we would certainly follow up on that with the employer, to get an idea of how much the individual was actually making, and if, in fact, this was truthful or not.

Just with regard to this, this is not the kind of program that people remain on forever and ever. The median time that families remain on subsidy in 1996-97 was 11 months. The average length of time that families remained on subsidy was 9.3 months