Whitehorse, Yukon

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

Prayers

Speaker: As we commence proceedings today in this Assembly, we ask for divine guidance so that our words and deeds may bring to all people of this great territory hope, prosperity and the vision for the future. May the deliberations in this House be characterized by temperance, understanding and reason to the end that we may better serve those who have made the members of this House guardians of and trustees for all of the citizens of the Yukon. Amen.

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to pay tribute to the year 2000 graduating class of the Yukon native teachers education program. Eight graduates will participate in the graduation ceremony this Saturday, June 10, on the day of the 10^th anniversary of the program.

To date, this program has had 47 graduates, not including the eight who are graduating on Saturday. The names of Saturday's graduates are as follows, in no particular order.

Special congratulations to: Liz Boseley of the Teslin Tlingit Council; Hilda Clarke of the Nacho Nyak Dun; Janet McDonald of the Kaska Tribal Council; Sandra Roberts of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in; Shereen Hill of the Nacho Nyak Dun; and Darlene Scurvey of the Kwanlin Dun, as well as Susan Derksen of the Wet'suwet'en, which is in British Columbia, and special congratulations to Kim Blanchard.

The four-year program that they are completing is done in cooperation with the University of Regina and has been highly successful in meeting the needs of the Yukon communities for qualified First Nations teachers. These graduates are very important to meeting the present and future needs of Yukon schools as a generation of teachers now get ready to retire.

I wish all graduates the best of luck as they begin their new careers. May they have the patience to succeed and wisdom to enjoy their most valuable work.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Isaac Wood, a town councillor from Watson Lake who is visiting us in the gallery.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Jenkins: I have for tabling three documents that prove that the Premier misspoke herself yesterday in Question Period, when she said that the Liberals never used the term "buyout" in relation to the mining claims in the proposed Tombstone Park.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the settlement of Yukon Indian land claims should be the top priority of the Yukon government in order to create certainty with respect to the management, disposition and ownership of Yukon land and resources;

(2) certainty over land tenure and disposition is essential if a positive economic climate is to be created in the territory;

(3) the Yukon government should ensure that devolution of lands and resources from the federal government to the territorial government does not become an impediment to settling the seven remaining outstanding land claims; and

(4) the Yukon government act as a mediator between the First Nations and the federal government and propose solutions in helping to resolve the major issues of taxation exemption and repayment of land claim negotiation loans.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that there would be significant economic benefits for Yukon should a railroad be built connecting Alaska through Yukon to the southern United States;

THAT this House recognizes that the Alaska House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill setting aside land for a railroad right-of-way up to the Yukon border;

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon and Yukon First Nations whose land the railroad would cross, to express their willingness to consider the Alaskan railroad proposal, including the setting aside of lands for a railroad right-of-way through Yukon; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada, with the full participation of the Government of Yukon and Yukon First Nation governments affected, to commence discussions with the Government of the United States and the State of Alaska about establishing a mechanism, such as an international joint commission, to expedite the development of the Alaskan railroad proposal.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Pioneer utility grant should be increased by 25 percent and be indexed against inflation.

Speaker:Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Speaker: The hon. Premier on a point of order.

Point of order

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I arise on a point of order, or it may be better as a point of personal privilege.

Yesterday in Question Period I was asked about compensations for claims staked by Canadian United Minerals and I pointed out that neither I nor the Minister of Renewable Resources have used the term "buyout" with respect to compensation packages. This phrase has been used by the local media and has been attributed to us. We have used the term "purchase". I personally avoid the use of the term "buyout". I have indicated both privately and publicly that we are interested in a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement may or may not include a cash component. The term "buyout" implies only an exchange of money. As a government we are endeavouring to reach a negotiated settlement.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make the distinction.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order.

Speaker: Leader of the official opposition, on the point of order.

Mr. Harding: That was clearly not a point of order. What had happened is, the Premier has been exposed for flip-flopping on the issue of Tombstone for saying that the claims should be bought out, and now, because she doesn't have a position, she's trying to desperately convince Yukoners, using inappropriate legislative tactics - because this is not a point of order with regard to House procedures - to try and convince people that they are doing what they said they would do. Clearly, that is not the case; they are not doing what they said they would do - in this instance and in many others - and we hope to point that out very clearly to Yukoners. This is not a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the documents I tabled clearly indicated that the hon. Dale Eftoda made a presentation spelling out the term "buyout" in a newsletter. The documents that I tabled also clearly indicated by the Liberals that the term "buyout" is the solution. Those three documents - perhaps the Liberals would care to have a review of them before they respond in the manner that they have.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Order. Members will recognize that the Premier has provided a correction of the remarks she has made to this House and that there is no point of order.

We will now proceed with Question Period.

Question re: Legal aid funding

Mr. Keenan: Yesterday in this House the Minister of Justice was asked to explain her priorities for funding legal aid services and she was unable to answer the question. Among other things, she said the matter was under review. Now that the minister has had some time to consult with her colleagues and advisors, can she advise the House today of what her priorities are as a minister for funding the legal aid service?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I said yesterday, the Department of Justice is assisting in an external review of legal aid. It is intended to look at existing service gaps and pressures on the society, as well as operational efficiencies and to more carefully identify the source of current overexpenditures. The review will also encompass a thorough financial review, which is necessary.

Mr. Keenan: A slightly different tone from yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House as to whether there has been any change in the Liberal position on funding for legal aid, since they were sitting on this side of the House, which is completely different from the position she just gave us. Can she explain that to me?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, the department has received an interim report on legal aid, addressing a number of issues. We are expecting the final report by early July.

Mr. Keenan: Yesterday it was said by the minister that we can't add any money to the legal aid budget. Of course, in opposition the Liberal caucus said that if the minister would adequately fund legal aid services instead of passing the blame onto everyone else, there would be a real help for Yukon women and children in need. The Liberals are saying one thing and now, certainly, doing another thing. Does that minister intend to help the Yukon women and children in need of legal aid services by increasing the legal aid supplementary, or are you just going to review and sit on it?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Legal aid has been determined to have an accumulated deficit of in the vicinity of $500,000. That is one of the reasons why the review is necessary. There is no money tree, and the review must be concluded before we can determine what to do.

Question re: Legal aid funding

Mr. Keenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, it was just two years ago that the Member for Riverdale South was demanding more money for legal aid. Show me the money.

Last year, we had the same demand from the same member. Again, show me the money.

In fact, just this spring, again the same member complained that the NDP's increase of $125,000 in legal aid services didn't go far enough. And now that this government has adopted the budget that included that increase, without adding a single penny to it in legal aid in the supplementary budget, there's an inconsistency there. Please explain your inconsistency.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I have said that we are doing a review of legal aid, and we will communicate with the members opposite when the review is done.

Speaker: Order please. Would the member please refer to the ministers by their portfolios, through the Chair, not "you". Proceed with your first supplementary.

Mr. Keenan: Certainly.

Another example of saying one thing in opposition and doing something completely different now that you're in government: Yukon families who need that financial support out there to go to court for child custody or maintenance and support need to know where they stand. Can the minister assure the House that the additional funding in the budget bill now before the House will be used as intended to support families in civil legal cases?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, there is a review underway and we will determine what we will do with legal aid when the review is completed.

Mr. Keenan: At the risk of repeating yourself, if you would answer the question, Mr. Speaker, there would be no repetition in this office.

Speaker: Order please. Address the minister through the Chair, please.

Mr. Keenan: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a document here, from April 25 of this year, that shows there is a surplus of more than $41 million that we left in the bank account for the Liberal government. That's even before the lapses are taken into consideration. When they put the lapses into consideration, there will be $60 million in the bank, but yesterday the minister was suggesting that the new government can't afford anything - not a thing. They have to review everything and look at it. But if you had an extra $250,000 for grants for prospectors - and that was never identified as a Liberal priority anywhere in the campaign or previously - why can't the Minister of Justice identify additional funding for legal aid at this point in time, because we've heard so often, "Show me the money." It's a matter of choice.

In fact, just yesterday I heard the Premier say, "We're going to do what we said we would do." When are you going to live up to that?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, the surplus that the member refers to is not, in fact, $41 million or close to $60 million. With the previous government's deficit budget taken into account; it's more like $14 million.

We will, once the review of legal aid is concluded, determine what we will do.

Question re: Fuel taxes, elimination of

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Premier in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Ontario is sounding the alarm bells in central Canada because gasoline prices are nearing 80 cents a litre and they are proposing to increase it five cents a litre overnight. Prices at the pumps in Ontario have jumped 25 cents per litre since June of 1998 alone. Well, let's welcome Ontario to prices Yukoners have experienced all along, and they're going higher here still.

During the recent election campaign, the only political party prepared to deal with high fuel prices was the Yukon Party. We proposed that the Yukon government eliminate its tax on fuel so that government can become part of the solution rather than continue to be part of the problem. We wrote to the hon. Paul Martin suggesting that the federal government eliminate its tax as well, and he has stated that he is willing to do so if the province eliminates its fuel tax.

Would the Premier advise the House if her government is prepared to adopt the Yukon Party's plan to eliminate fuel tax?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I thank the Member for Klondike for that particular question.

The Yukon Liberal government is very concerned about the price of fuel. It has an impact throughout Yukon, as well as, in particular, on our visitor industry. It is an area of concern. It is not an area of concern simply for our government, as the member has quite rightly pointed out; it is an area of concern for a number of other provincial governments, as well.

The question from the member was whether or not we are prepared to adopt the Yukon Party platform and eliminate the fuel tax. We have had no discussions on such an option.

Mr. Jenkins: So, there has been no consideration in the Liberal Party of a major, major economic factor to our livelihoods here in the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that the main cause of the high fuel prices was a deliberate cutback in production by OPEC nations. In turn, Premier Harris is pleading with Ottawa, which is the primary jurisdiction, to inject competition into the gas markets.

One of the measures Ontario is considering is to introduce price-notification regulations that would prohibit overnight price increases. The previous NDP government published average gas prices to help Yukoners do some comparison shopping through the Yukon. What does this new Liberal government plan to do? Will this Liberal government be planning to review the fuel tax with a view to eliminating it or reducing it? And, are they planning to do some research into this area immediately and advise Yukoners as to what direction they will take?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for not considering the option of eliminating the fuel tax is that the fuel tax imposed by the Yukon is not the lowest, but among the lowest, in the country. They generate approximately $6-million revenue, as the member well knows from the financial documents that have been tabled in this House. Looking at a near $14-million surplus and a number of escalating costs within the Government of Yukon, eliminating the fuel tax is not an option that we have considered at this point in time.

I would also advise the member that, in terms of studies and work that is ongoing, in 1999, under the previous government, the Department of Economic Development and Natural Resources Canada cost-shared surveys of gasoline marketers in Whitehorse to prepare data for a national study on gasoline prices. This study was terminated. However, I would like to advise the member that in December 2000, on behalf of Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada, gasoline markets in Whitehorse and in 12 southern Canadian cities will be analyzed.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, it sounds like, during this honeymoon period that the Liberals are enjoying, they are not going to do anything but study, review and study and review. Yukoners will see no benefit of this change in government. They had all the answers a couple of months ago; nothing now. My final supplementary is to the Premier in her capacity as the minister responsible for the Energy Corporation. In view of these increases in fuel prices, can Yukon electrical consumers expect to see an introduction of a fuel rate rider and an increase in their already too high electrical bills in the near future?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate any such initiative.

Question re: Chilkoot Centre, Argus mall development

Mr. Fentie: I'd like, today, to follow up with the Premier on the Argus issue. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier for the Liberal position on the Argus development. The Premier said very little except, "The position of the Yukon Liberal caucus, the Yukon Liberal government, our party, is and has been, that the Yukon Liberal government will not tear up signed contracts."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: given the open opposition to the Chilkoot Centre by the Member for Whitehorse Centre and other Liberals, will the Premier tell the House clearly, do the Liberals support this project? Yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, there are a number of facets to that question. The issue is not whether or not I, as an individual citizen or as a member of this House, support that particular project or not. The issue is, what role does the Yukon government have to play? Mr. Speaker, the Yukon government's role in the Argus project development agreement is absolutely clear. The Yukon government's job is not to enforce covenants of the agreement, nor is it the Yukon government's job to issue default notice under the agreement. Our role is to uphold the agreement that was previously negotiated by the members opposite.

Mr. Fentie: Let me remind the Premier that she has stated clearly to the Yukon public that the buck stops at her desk. This is very much a question about what the Premier's position is as the leader of the Liberal government in this territory.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals can't have it both ways. The Premier's answers leave Yukon people with only one conclusion. That is that the Liberal government supports the Argus development. However, in the past, the Liberals, including the Premier, have openly criticized the Argus project, especially the Yukon government's contribution to the city for offsite infrastructure - clear evidence that the Liberals do not support the Argus project.

My question now is this: will the Premier set the record straight, once and for all, and tell this House whether or not the Liberals support the $750,000 expenditure booked in their budget, tabled here on Monday - yes or no?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is not a yes or no question. The member prefaced the question by asking what the leader of the government's position was, and what the Government of Yukon's position was and is with respect to a particular development project.

Let me put it in legalese for the members; plain English does not seem to suffice. The Argus project development agreement does not contemplate Government of Yukon's involvement in the enforcement of the covenants by the developer, nor the issuance of a default notice pursuant to subsection 2.6 of the agreement. The agreement clearly contemplates that the decision to issue a default notice is that of the city and the city engineer.

The Government of Yukon's active role is in relation to section 3.1 of the agreement, which speaks to the manner in which the city uses the Government of Yukon's capital contribution - the $750,000 to which the member referred. The Yukon government remains committed to ensuring that the spirit and intent of the agreement are fulfilled.

Mr. Fentie: I'd like to thank the Premier for enlightening me on the legalese of this issue, and let me remind her that the $750,000 is an expenditure booked in the Liberal government's budget tabled in this Legislature. The Liberal government is responsible for that expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Premier of what the former Member for Riverside had to say on this subject: "The money given to Argus would meet the additional needs of the Legal Aid Society for two or three years so that family matters could be dealt with, but instead we have money for the glib and greedy but not the real needy." Now that the city has officially notified Argus that the developer is in default, what will it be? Will the Premier maintain the budgetary commitment to municipal infrastructure, or will she "folk the mall" and provide money toward legal aid?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The member is quite correct that the $750,000 is booked in this budget document. The member is quite correct in that what we are doing here over the next several weeks is seeking the authority to spend that money. The member's comments with respect to the Member for Riverside - yes, we miss him too; however, I'm certain he's enjoying retirement.

The City of Whitehorse has taken steps that are within its authority. The agreement clearly states that the decision to issue a default notice is that of the city and the city engineer. This government respects the rights of other governments to make their own decisions about the interpretations of the agreements that they are party to. As for this government, I have said prior to taking office and I said it again yesterday: we are not in the business of ripping up agreements with Yukoners. We will live up to the spirit and the intent of the agreement.

Question re: Chilkoot Centre, Argus mall development

Mr. Harding: A question for the Premier on the same issue. It is one thing to respect signed agreements, but if there is a default, the Premier has the right to ask the city for the $750,000 back. There is no question about that.

Mr. Speaker, when the now Member for Whitehorse Centre was in the campaign, he said - and I quote - in a letter to the Yukon News of March 17: "Any opponents to the Argus project should ask their NDP candidates to be accountable for their support of this project." Well, the shoe is on the other foot now, and the Premier has a decision to make.

The question is: is she going to "folk the mall" as they campaigned on, or is she going to continue on with the onsite infrastructure commitment of $750,000?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, the Government of Yukon's active role relates to section 3.1 of the agreement. I know that the member opposite knows full well the agreement. He was party to its negotiation. It speaks to the manner in which the city will use the Government of Yukon's capital contribution to the city. We remain committed to ensuring that the spirit and intent of the agreement is fulfilled. We have no intention of breaking agreements or not honouring commitments.

Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, no one is asking her to break the agreement. It is the Argus proponents who have broken the agreement, thus leaving a decision at her feet. Just to refresh the member's memory, the Premier herself said on February 22 in this House, with regard to the budget that the NDP had brought forward, that two examples proved that the agenda of the NDP was balanced and their priorities were questionable. The first example she pointed to was $750,000 for a multi-million dollar company to develop a mall in downtown Whitehorse and $125,000 to help single mothers deal with custody and maintenance issues through the legal aid office. That was the Premier herself on February 22 of this year. Today we hear, well, they have $250,000 for prospectors to increase their grants, but they are not going to increase legal aid.

Mr. Speaker, they could increase legal aid if they would do what they said they were going to do, and take back the $750,000 because there's no agreement any more. The Premier has a decision to make. Is she going to do what she said she was going to do?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points in the member's argument with which I would beg to differ. First of all, the member has stood on his feet and said there is no agreement. There is a signed agreement. I may not like the way that agreement was negotiated. I have criticized the government for the way they negotiated that. That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is, upon taking office as leader of this government, am I prepared to live up to commitments and agreements that were signed by the previous government? Yes. I have said, over and over again, we are prepared to do that. There is an agreement in place.

Again, for the member, it is not up to the Government of the Yukon to enforce the covenants by the developer, nor is it the government's job to issue a default notice under the agreement. It is not our role in this agreement. As the member full well knows, the agreement states that the decision to issue the default notice is between the city and the city engineer. They have chosen to do that. We have stated, over and over again, in this House and elsewhere, that we will live up to the intent of the agreement and the intent of the agreement is to provide money to the City of Whitehorse for infrastructure development. We will live up to the intent of that agreement. We will not be the ones to break it.

Mr. Harding: The Premier's arguing that she's going to live up to the agreement, but the proponents don't have to. The city has already issued that there's default. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has a decision to make. If she chooses to fund the offsite infrastructure still, while there's a default in the commitments that were made to the city and to the territorial government, then she's making that decision and she should declare that openly and honestly before the public. They have got a problem, because the Member for Whitehorse Centre - and many Liberals at the doorstep - campaigned against it. So I'd like to ask the Premier, will she do what she said she was going to do, and will she give some more funding to legal aid to help the single mothers, that she was so concerned about only a couple of months ago, before she became the Premier?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked me if this government is prepared to give more money to legal aid, and the Minister of Justice has already answered that question. We will review it once we have received the analysis of the previous deficit budgets. We will look at that most definitely after we have received spending authority from this House. We have already stated that.

With respect to this particular agreement, which was the initial question, I have stated that it's not this government's job to either enforce the agreement on the part of the developer nor to enforce the agreement on the part of the City of Whitehorse. Our role as a government - and the member's quite correct. We have some tough decisions coming over the next four years. We're not afraid to make them. The agreement states that the decision to issue the default notice rests with the city and the city engineer. It does not rest with us. As a party to that agreement, we respect the rights of other governments, we respect the rights of other parties to the agreement, and we will live up to the spirit and intent of the agreement that the previous member negotiated.

Question re: Kidney dialysis machine

Mr. McRobb: Yesterday, the Minister of Health indicated that he now has the information he needs for Cabinet to make a decision on a kidney dialysis program for Yukon people who need that service. Given his commitment yesterday to do the right thing, can he advise the House when people in need of lifeline medical services, such as my constituent, can expect to have access to this lifesaving service here in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Yes, I agree with what you have said. We have pulled together all the information. We are now in the process, as I shared with him earlier, of pursuing the information through the proper channels. As he well knows, this takes time. It's not something you just do tomorrow. Obviously, we have to look at the consequences of where we go with any kind of development and any kind of procedure in the future, and so this is part of it. So, hopefully, that will be where we'll end up: with something that will be in our best interest for the people of the Yukon.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member didn't answer the question. The minister can run, but he can't hide. He made it clear yesterday that this decision can be made right away: "We are now at the stage where we can do this and complete it." Those are the minister's own words. Now, the Premier can go to Diamond Tooth Gertie's on opening day, lay $250,000 down on the table, and throw the dice. Unfortunately, the Liberal dice came up boxcars for prospectors and snake eyes for dialysis patients. When will the minister be ready to announce plans to order the hemodialysis unit and provide the personnel to run a dialysis program here in the Yukon? When, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: As I have shared earlier, there are a range of options that we have been looking at and, of course, the range of options are not with just one type of dialysis. Currently, we have seven people on dialysis. Two of them are outside on hemodialysis, and we have five on peritoneal dialysis. Now, hemodialysis is not just a simple program. It's a program that has both capital and O&M attached to it. Of course, while the dialysis machine is relatively cheap - I have had people on the street offer to buy the machine - it's not just the machine that costs the money. When you start doing the investigation, it's far more than that. If you're going to operate a program like this from the hospital, it has to be done properly and with all of the steps in place.

So, that's basically where we're at - looking at what alternative we can move toward. No decision has been made at this point. The evidence has been put together. It's now being evaluated and assessed, and hopefully, in the near future, we'll have that as part of our plan for the future.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member still didn't answer the question. Furthermore, I'm a little concerned because the minister seems to be backtracking on this matter. Yesterday, he clearly said that he's at the stage where he can make the decision and complete it. Now, I'm getting a technical report on the financial feasibility of the unit. It looks like the government is starting to backtrack on this matter, too. The minister was aware of this issue. I brought it to his attention. I received the letter from my constituent on April 6, and I would like to know, when will the government make a decision to meet the needs of dialysis patients? They have inherited $60 million. It's all about doing the right thing. It's all about the future, Mr. Speaker. When?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Our preliminary estimates suggest that to be able to offer a program for seven Yukon residents currently on dialysis, both renal and hemo, would cost us approximately $274,000 for start-up, and for the hemodialysis it would be $646,000 to maintain. It could take up to two years to put in place.

One of the real constraints is the difficulty in finding trained health professionals. It's difficult enough to attract nurses right now. It's difficult enough to see the problems that our northern stations are already experiencing. To attract a nurse, fully qualified in this type of area - in operations of hemodialysis and the machines - would be even more difficult. Training is also a lengthy process, but we haven't shut the door. I'm just throwing out some of the facts that we have gathered, and hopefully, with having all these processes in place, we will then look at where we want to go with this in the future.

Question re: Yukon Teachers Association, tentative agreement with

Mr. Fentie: My question is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission. Through the unusual means of a ministerial statement, we now have some insight into the tentative agreement that the Yukon government has reached with the Yukon Teachers Association. Can the minister confirm here today that with the exception of the so-called teacher retention bonus, this agreement is very similar to the offer the previous government had on the table.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Thank you for the question. As I stated in the Legislature yesterday, the agreement with the Yukon Teachers Association is subject to ratification by both parties. The statement that I made in the House yesterday did not contain any information that had not been previously released to the media. The statement was made in an effort to be courteous and forthright with all members of the Legislature.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Pardon me. I apologize to the Member for Watson Lake. My mistake. Carry on with your first supplementary.

Mr. Fentie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we now know that the deal is similar, with the exception of the bonus. We also know for a fact that the teachers have already committed to next year, so calling it a retention bonus is questionable.

So, aside from the Liberals introducing a budget that they vigorously opposed when they were on this side of the House, the Liberal government has also come to realize that the previous government's offer to the teachers was fair and reasonable. Now, the Premier has said the issue in the YTA negotiation was not about money. If that's the case, can the minister explain why the principal difference in the two offers was a $1 million signing bonus for all teachers, administrators and paraprofessionals?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: The whole aspect of inviting the teachers back to the table was a measure that the Liberal Party had indicated during the election and post-election. We would respect the teachers and we would invite them back to the table, face to face, which is what we did. We said that we would, in a respectful manner, consider the options that they put forward, and that's exactly what we did.

Mr. Fentie: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is obviously about the money. Now, given the minister's statement yesterday in this House about new government policy, we can take it that it is the Yukon Liberal government's policy that signing bonuses are now a fact of the collective bargaining process. Is the minister prepared to grant a similar concession to the other hard-working professionals, such as health care workers and to the Yukon Employees Union, when their contracts come up for renewal?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, the condition of the signing bonus, as was indicated yesterday in my note to the House, was for the term of three years. It will be reviewed after that period of time. Another consideration that we also addressed was classroom size. We honoured the request that there be a reduction in classroom size. It was just the whole amiable atmosphere with which this government instructed the Public Service Commission to carry on their negotiation with the teachers.

This government had said that we would deal, face to face, in good faith, that we would listen and be respectful and that we would do government differently. That is why we entered into an agreement with the teachers, and the opposition party, after several months, didn't.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

The hon. Member for Klondike, on a question of privilege.

Question of privilege

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I provided your office with notice as required under the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly that I would be rising on a question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, having reviewed the Blues for Tuesday, June 6, 2000, I would like to raise a question of privilege concerning remarks made about me by the Minister of Education, the hon. Dale Eftoda, in response to the ministerial statement on the Teachers Association memorandum of agreement.

I stated, "As we are all too familiar, teachers also have to contend with a number of learning disabilities, including students with FAS/FAE. In many instances, teachers are simply asked to do too much. They are asked to take over the responsibilities from the parents that have been downloaded to them, and from the whole society. The burden on our teachers today is immense."

Mr. Eftoda, in his closing remarks in his ministerial statement, stated as follows, "With respect to the comments on one small factor as considered by the Member for Klondike that FAS children are burdens, I would like to stand on the record as saying that FAS children are people, not burdens."

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a prima facie case for privilege in that Mr. Eftoda has imputed false or unavowed motives on me, contrary to section 19(1)(h) of the Standing Orders. In my response to the minister, I in no way referred to FAS children as burdens. I found his remarks insulting and a breach of section 19(1)(j) of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully seek your ruling in this matter.

Speaker: Minister of Education, on the question of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, and as this Liberal government has said, when we do make a mistake we will stand up in the House and acknowledge it.

I do apologize to the member and I retract anything that may have been derogatory or interpreted to be derogatory toward your character. I am sorry.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Order please. I believe the Minister of Education, with his remarks, has resolved the problem raised by the Member for Klondike. For future reference, the Chair will provide members with a statement on questions of privilege such as this one.

A review of the Member for Klondike's concern indicates that it is not privilege, in that the essential element of privilege is the right of free speech in the House. The complaint, while serious, more properly should have been raised at the time as a point of order. The Chair is not now able to deal with it as a point of order, as the proper time for raising such a point of order is when the offending words are used.

The Chair would, however, like to ask all members to give careful consideration to the remarks they make both on the record and off the record.

The Chair would ask all members to use language appropriate to the decorum of this House.

We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

Point of order

Speaker: The hon. Member for Watson Lake on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie: I rise today on a point of order with respect to the proceedings of this Legislature. The rule book for this House is this document, the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

It is clearly established in precedent that Wednesday afternoons following Question Period are set aside for private members to raise important matters of public concern for debate on the floor of the Legislature. Section 14 confirms this by outlining the order in which the various parties in the House will have an opportunity to introduce motions for debate. While it may be argued, as the government side appears to be doing, that under section 26, debate on government motions supersedes section 14 when it comes to government business, in this case, Mr. Speaker, our caucus believes that it is not appropriate for the Liberal government to invoke that provision.

The government business called for debate consists of a slim and virtually empty throne speech consisting of less than 400 words. It does not even make any mention of the most pressing issues of concern to Yukon people. Yet the government is using the club of its majority to push private members' debate on a very important issue off the floor of this Assembly. By exercising its option to forego private members' business, the Liberal government is using a very heavy-handed approach that seriously contradicts its self-proclaimed intention of being open and accountable.

Mr. Speaker, the private members' business called for today is the issue of land claims, and it is of the utmost importance to the Yukon. The Premier has on many occasions stated that land claims are the top priority for the Liberal government. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of DIAND has recently dropped a bomb on the land claim process here in the Yukon by refusing to address two issues of huge importance to the First Nations in the land claim process: taxation and the repayment of negotiating loans. The Liberal government has said that land claims is its top priority; however, the throne speech gives no indication -

Speaker: Can the member state the point of order?

Mr. Fentie:Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be right to it - on how the Liberals intend to deal with this issue. Secondly, the federal government's position has created a great deal of uncertainty regarding land claims here in the Yukon. Given the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you for some guidance on this matter.

Speaker: Hon. government House leader, on the point of order.

Ms. Tucker: I rise on a point of order. I will refer you to section 26(1.2). "During debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and on any amendments proposed, the time limit for speakers following the member moving the motion and the member speaking or replying immediately thereafter shall be forty minutes."

If we move forward, "On the first of said days, if a subamendment is under consideration at thirty minutes before the ordinary time of ad,journment..."

And we move on again, "On the second of said days..."

My understanding is that the reply to the throne speech takes precedence over other business and private members' day is moved back.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: The opposition House leader has raised a point of order in which he questions the order of the business today. According to our Standing Orders and practice, the call of the motion for an Address in Reply will take precedence over other business. The government has exercised its right under the rules to do that.

The fact that the private members' business is not called on a day when the Address in Reply is debated was a purposeful decision of the Assembly when it made these rules. It was not felt that it would be fair to private members, including those in the official opposition, if the Address in Reply could take up a good portion of their day. Instead, it was decided to allow the private members to have a full day to debate their motions on the following Wednesday.

Accordingly, there is no point of order, and the House will proceed with the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.

orders of the day

Clerk: Motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, moved by Mr. McLarnon; adjourned debate, Hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: As I have pledged to Yukoners, we are a government that does that we say we will do. We heard from Yukoners that the call of the election caused a great deal of uncertainty. Yukoners asked me, repeatedly throughout this territory, if we would honour the budget that the previous government had tabled but not yet passed, so that they could have certainty. Many contractors, non-government organizations and students were left wondering what they would or would not be doing this summer for employment. I committed, on behalf of myself, my party and all the candidates running in the election for the Liberal Party - and very publicly, I made these commitments throughout the campaign - that we would table the budget that Yukoners were counting on. We are doing what we said. The members opposite have criticized us repeatedly for doing this. They have criticized us for providing Yukoners with this certainty and for doing what we told Yukoners we would do. The criticisms that I am hearing are all about politics. They're all about an old style of politics; they're not about the new government.

I have not heard any of the members opposite say that this isn't a good idea for good government. I was disappointed that in all of the options that the members opposite have put forward, passing this budget and providing certainty to the lives of Yukoners was not one of them. I'm disappointed that the members opposite would not seem to want to have us live up to the commitment we made to Yukoners to table this budget. That's not the way that we do business.

We have told Yukoners that we will provide good, open, honest and accountable government, and that is what we are doing. We have told Yukoners that we would provide a government that they could be proud of, and that's what we're doing. While we did not author this budget, we will absolutely be held accountable for managing it. We are prepared to do that, and we want to do that.

Prior to the Speech from the Throne, the members were calling upon us to do what we had said we would do and get on with tabling the budget. Now they seem surprised. We are just doing what we said we'd do. What is the surprise? I don't understand that surprise because every Yukoner expected this. Every Yukoner we spoke with on the street expected this - throughout Yukon communities.

We're delivering on our promise; delivering on our commitment to Yukoners.

I'd like to tell the members opposite we're getting a lot of feedback from the people of this territory, and that feedback is positive about this step. Yukoners are pleased that we're doing exactly what we said we'd do, and they are pleased that we are not pulling the rug out from under anyone - that we're honouring commitments and providing certainty.

The people of this territory who are relying on many of the projects and much of the funding from this budget are now breathing a sigh of relief. They can get on with business, and that's what we're trying to do: get on with business. That's the business of governing the territory. We committed to Yukoners that we would not rush in and throw money at problems, like so many previous governments have done. As I outlined in the throne speech, we intend to review our spending priorities, so that we can put forward a well-thought-out and responsible supplementary budget in the fall. We have outlined this clearly, we have stated we would do this, and we will do it.

As was stated in the throne speech, we are tabling a piece of legislation to amend the Income Tax Act. This is follow-up on another one of our commitments and will result in a two-percent reduction in territorial income tax for the 2000 taxation year.

I will also be asking members of this Legislature to approve a bill to amend the Assessment and Taxation Act, as well as a supplementary budget that targets some of our immediate priorities - some of the immediate priorities, Mr. Speaker.

We have stated clearly to all members that we will take a good, thorough look at spending initiatives and that we will target our priorities. The priorities in the supplementary budget address issues that we made commitments on and that are important to Yukoners. These priorities are about the economy, education and the youth of our territory. This supplementary budget will address some immediate needs that impact upon our investment community, students who are seeking higher education and our youth at risk. These are important issues to all Yukoners, Mr. Speaker - those in outlying communities and those in Whitehorse - and we are following through on these commitments.

We were the only party that spoke about an increase in financial assistance to students. It's something that has not been dealt with by any previous government. I'm delighted that one of the first actions of the Liberal government was to put that commitment in place, so that students have that financial assistance in place for this coming school year. Students returning to the Yukon, who are working here for the summer and worrying about the tremendous increase in tuition costs, can go back to school knowing that, yes, this government, this Liberal government, supports what they do.

And that, Mr. Speaker - fulfilling commitments - is all about building confidence in government. It's about changing the attitude of government, demonstrating that we are a government that hears and responds. It's about building credibility in elected officials, and we are looking forward to providing good government to the people of the Yukon Territory. And by passing this budget, we're looking forward to providing Yukoners the certainty that they asked for during this busy summer season.

We are also putting forward a well-thought-out and responsible budget in the fall that will address more of our election commitments and the priorities of Yukoners. We believe Yukoners want that and, more importantly, Yukoners deserve that. This government is about fulfilling our commitment to have the settlement of land claims be a top priority. We are about finalizing and working toward devolution. We are about the Yukon economy and restoring confidence in it. We are about the health and well-being of Yukoners, and we as a government are about the future. We start that here, in this Legislature, by getting on with approving the spending authority of this government and by passing this budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to respond to the Liberal government's throne speech.

First let me extend my deepest appreciation to the community and the people of Watson Lake for their overwhelming support for me to be their representative in this House at the seat of government. It is indeed an honour and a task with great responsibility.

It is my hope that I can live up to that responsibility. I would also like to pass on to my opponents my regard for them. Having thrown their hat in the ring is testimony to their consideration of representing the people in their respective ridings. I want to welcome and congratulate all of the members in this House. The task we have been charged with is a great one, and I hope we do it justice, each and every one of us.

Mr. Speaker, just for a moment let me rebut the Premier and her response to the throne speech, because it seemed to me that it was very much about a budget. I think there is some confusion on the Premier's part about what the budget is and what the throne speech is. I would, just for a moment, like to point that out.

This is a matter of choice. The Liberal government had a choice. They did not have to bring in a throne speech, but they chose to do so. Quite frankly, the throne speech does not live up to the intent of that very instrument. A throne speech in this Legislature is an instrument - a window - for the public of this territory to be able to see the path on which the government of the day intends to lead them into the future: the direction, the position and all that goes with it by government. That's what the throne speech is all about.

Well, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the throne speech tabled and read in this House on Monday does absolutely none of that. All of the Liberals, especially the Premier, have repeated over and over that they are a government that will do what they say they will do.

Well, the throne speech was a 24-karat-gold opportunity for the Liberal government to tell Yukoners exactly how they intended to honour that commitment. That is the fundamental basis of the Liberal commitment: to do as a government what they say they will do. Mr. Speaker, the throne speech shed no light on how they intend to do that.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the Liberal platform. The top priority, as stated by the Liberal government, is the settlement of land claims. The throne speech did not inform or even give a hint to Yukoners, to this House, to the First Nations about how the Liberal government here in this territory intends to honour that commitment.

This throne speech that we are now responding to here this afternoon, in a matter of choice, could have been stood down, and we could have debated a motion on the floor of this Legislature that is all about land claims, and the Liberal government would have had another opportunity to inform the public through that debate how they intended to lead this territory through the land claim process to a successful conclusion. They chose, in a matter of choice, Mr. Speaker, not to do so, and to simply hide behind the rhetoric that we are a government that says we will do something and we will deliver on that. The throne speech should have - as it is intended to do - explained that very fact.

Mr. Speaker, they go on in their platform to state that they're going to improve the investment climate in this territory and, quite frankly, there is some question already around that commitment.

At the recent gold show, Mr. Speaker, the Premier again had an opportunity to live up to a commitment, to show Yukoners how it is that they intend to improve the investment climate. Now, we all know that one of the areas where we suffer here in the Yukon when it comes to investment is the mining industry. It's not something that just happened yesterday or the day before. It is an issue that has been with us in this territory for quite some time and it is an issue that the Liberal government has committed to the Yukon public to address and bring to resolution.

At the gold show, Mr. Speaker, the Premier had an opportunity, when it comes to investment and the uncertain climate in this territory in the mining sector, to state clearly to the mining industry and to the Yukon public how they would do that in regard to the Tombstone claims. The Premier did nothing of the sort, and has even added to the uncertainty after many occasions stating publicly and for the record in this House and demanding that the government of the day buy out those claims.

Further, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to certainty, the Liberal government put $250,000 into grants for prospectors, and I, for one, am very hopeful that that $250,000 expenditure for grants for prospectors in this territory will, in the fullness of time, produce a product that all Yukoners can benefit from.

But, by the same token, the Premier stated publicly that the Liberal government does not support mining in parks. So, let me point out that, with the position that the Minister of Renewable Resources stated here yesterday, there will be parks in this territory for future generations. The uncertain factor here is this: what happens to those prospectors who may suddenly find that the deposit and the area where they are prospecting has now become a proposed park? There is uncertainty here because the Liberals have put uncertainty out into the public. The mining industry does not know where this government is leading it. Mr. Speaker, that speaks volumes to what we have in the throne speech. That was the instrument, with regard to improving the investment climate, to tell the potential investors for this territory how the Liberal government intends to improve that investment.

On local hire, Mr. Speaker, an issue that has been at the door of successive governments in this territory for a long, long time - there was not a mention in the throne speech of the Liberal government's position and intention on local hire when it comes to government expenditures. There is over $500 million that the Liberal government has budgeted and is spending. Now, they can claim all they want that "That's an NDP budget and we take no ownership," but the facts are that they are the government and that they, the Liberal government, tabled that budget.

Now, the Premier goes on to say that it's the NDP's fault. Ask the NDP. They called the election before passing the budget. But let's be serious, Mr. Speaker, we were in this Legislature this spring to do exactly that.

We were in this Legislature, not only to pass the budget, but to debate important issues here on the floor of this Legislature that pertained to the Yukon public's needs, desires and futures. It wasn't us, the NDP, who chose not to debate those issues. It wasn't the NDP who walked out of this Legislature when there was an opportunity to stand on the floor of this House and debate the economy of this territory, which, by the way, the Liberals stated clearly over and over again was the number one issue they were going to tackle. They had an opportunity in this Legislature to show Yukoners and to tell Yukoners how they would tackle that problem, but they walked out of this Legislature. Further, it was evident, given the fact that the Liberal opposition spent mere moments on the expenditure of literally millions of dollars in departments, that there was no point continuing on with this sitting.

When you talk about open, accountable government, because of the fact that the opposition was not prepared to debate the budget or the business of the House this spring, an open and accountable NDP government dropped the writ and went back to the public. That is the fact, so let's quit this hiding tactic that this is an NDP budget, because it's not any more. You, the Liberals, had seven weeks to come forward with your spending priorities. You chose not to. It's a matter of choice. You now have tabled a budget of over $500 million that you are responsible for.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech does little to inform the public on how the Liberal government intends to continue with the diversification of our economy.

And there is no argument that says our economy is not turning around, because it is. It is true that the mining sector is down, but we have had tremendous growth in tourism. Our forest sector in this territory has increased its export product over the last year by 400 percent. That is diversification of our economy, and it equates into many, many jobs, and it equates into many, many benefits for the people of this territory. It is a result, Mr. Speaker, of investment in the Yukon. So much for the Liberals on improving the investment climate, as we have just pointed out.

Where, Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech was the Liberals' direction on how they were going to support small business? There is nothing in the throne speech. It was one of their top priorities, or so their platform states. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that this is a government that says they will do what they say they will do. They had a chance to tell us how that was going to be done in a throne speech, and they chose not to.

Another main theme of the Yukon Liberals was restoring confidence in government. Well, with what we have seen here, in the first few days of this sitting - given how the Liberal government has conducted itself, starting with the throne speech, that very important and critical instrument of this Legislature - it is evident that the Yukon Liberal government is doing little to restore confidence.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of labour relations, which we touched on yesterday with a ministerial statement, which obviously provides us with a new government policy when it comes to the collective bargaining process - a ministerial statement is, by definition in this House, a short statement of new government policy.

The only conclusion we can come to, given that statement and the answers we have received in questions around the Yukon teachers agreement, is that now government policy and direction when it comes to the collective bargaining process, is signing bonuses; restoring confidence in government and a government that says they will do what they say they're going to do. Well, the Premier's on record when it comes to the teachers' negotiations that it's not about the money. However, strange as it may seem, we have an agreement with a sweetener of a million dollars and a signing bonus.

Restoring confidence in government? The Liberals have stated categorically, time and time again, their distaste and disagreement with deficit spending and that O&M spending must be put in check. Well, that one simple decision, of throwing a million bucks into a signing bonus through a collective bargaining process, has resulted in a trajectory of O&M spending rising dramatically in this territory. It's a matter of choice. Restoring confidence in government, Mr. Speaker? Questionable, so far.

Advancing partnerships with First Nations and other governments. Well, let's consider the relationship between the Yukon Liberal government and their federal counterparts, the federal Liberal government. I know that, during the election, there was much talk about how, if the Yukon Territory had a Liberal government as a territorial government, that connection with the federal Liberals could very well improve our relationship with Ottawa.

Well, we all have experienced - and I'm sure we all realize - that Ottawa is simply not responsive to the Yukon desires and needs. So what does the Yukon Liberal government do? During transition they brought in a couple of suits from the PMO's office to help them through the transition period. Now, I don't have a quarrel with the Liberals seeking professional assistance in setting them up to become the government of this territory after the election. However, it is evident by the performance to date that that inability to respond to Yukon issues in Ottawa is now part of the Yukon Liberal government's approach to things because their throne speech didn't respond to anything. Is that something that they have taken from the PMO's office?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, is that something the members on the Liberal side have taken for advice from the federal Liberals? One would only wonder, Mr. Speaker.

Protecting our social programs - well, if we wanted to, we could spend weeks in this Legislature reciting the Member for Riverdale South's constant demands for money to social programs. There are piles of it, Mr. Speaker - demand after demand after demand. Now, when the shoe comes to the other foot, when the Liberal government again is given the opportunity to prove to Yukoners that what they say they will do, what happened with the legal aid issue? They brought in a supplementary for the $250,000 to prospectors, which, as I explained, has also created more uncertainty because of the no-mining-in-parks position taken by the Liberals. What happened to their commitment to legal aid? The Member for Riverdale South demanded on many occasions that the government of the day increase the money for legal aid. Why did the Liberals not, in their throne speech, explain to Yukoners how they intend to live up to the position taken by their colleague from Riverdale South?

Again, there is nothing in the throne speech that would reflect who they are, what they are, or if they have any positions. Obviously, from the throne speech, they don't.

Mr. Speaker, we could spend a long, long time going through all of these things, but I feel that, at the end of the day, we have a reprieve because the Liberals did choose to table a budget in this House, which they are now responsible for - a budget that was constructed, to a great degree, by the Yukon public. So, I do take some solace in the fact that, for at least the next fiscal year, some things will happen in this territory. But it certainly isn't based on the leadership of the Yukon Liberal government, because so far, in the throne speech and in other examples, we have not seen any.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding in the southeast Yukon that overwhelmingly supported certain aspects of the Yukon economy, social programs, environmental positions, and so on and so forth. The community of Watson Lake is waiting to see how the Liberals intend to improve the economy. The Liberals call it rebuilding. Well, that's a slap in the face to all of those hard-working people and investors who, when the mining industry went flat in this territory, tried other things. The community of Watson Lake is a prime example of how diversifying an economy can improve the well-being of a community and the people in it. Watson Lake is waiting to see how the Liberal government intends to live up to its commitment.

The throne speech again was an opportunity for the Liberal government to tell Yukoners how they intend to keep the forest industry in this territory going. The forest industry can't wait until next year and the next budget, for the Liberals to finally get it together on who they are and what they are and present a budget that they have constructed. The forest industry needs to know yesterday what's going on. It's a resource-based industry, and it's totally dependent upon government decision and regulation. Where in the throne speech was the Liberal government's position and direction on forestry? Today in this territory, there are millions of dollars of investment and hundreds of jobs at stake.

On devolution, a very important facet of the future of this territory, there is not one indication in the throne speech of what the Liberals intend to do about devolution - nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I think, for all intents and purposes, that we would have been better off, on behalf of the Yukon public debating the land claim motion today and standing down on these responses, because there's nothing really to respond to in the throne speech.

And I'm disappointed that we didn't get into a debate in this Legislature, and it falls right under that statement by the Premier of improving how we operate in this House. I am disappointed that we did not choose to debate the land claims issue. It is the Liberal government's top priority. It is an issue that is wrapped in uncertainty. It is an issue we have a federal government that is unable to respond to the needs of this territory, and they have proven it time and time and time again. That's what we should have done in this Legislature today, Mr. Speaker, in the context of restoring confidence in government.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close by saying that I'm hopeful that the Liberals spend this summer getting their act together because, if they don't - the Premier is right. They have four years to do things but, in most cases, people can't wait four years. This territory can't wait four years. It needs to know now.

And the Premier should be careful with the patting-on-the-back syndrome, about Yukoners having given the Liberals a mandate. There is a very important point here to be made. Rural Yukon represents a vast area, and the people in that vast area in this territory did not, in any way, shape or form support the Yukon Liberals. Whitehorse did. All you have to do is look at the election results. The Liberal leader has to also get a grip on that situation, because there's much more to the Yukon Territory than Whitehorse. I am hopeful that the Liberals do, in the next little while, explain to us and Yukoners how they intend to live up to their many, many, many commitments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. McLarnon: I understand that the opposite side has a difficulty with throne speeches, since, during their entire four-year term that they were in power, they presented one speech, and they haven't lived up to it. But what this throne speech does, Mr. Speaker, is present the Yukon people with immediate stability and immediate certainty. What this throne speech does, Mr. Speaker, is address the fact that we have ended the hostage taking in the everyday life of Yukoners due to political whims. We have now presented the ability for us, as Yukoners, to get on with our lives. I appreciate the fact that the throne speech was small and short, but it stated the fact that we need to address the fact that we have appropriated no money, and we had no operation or authority to spend that money. This was the fault of the opposite party in the fact that they did not pass this, and I would like to commend our government for presenting a short throne speech, presenting the ability to get on with our business.

I move that this debate now be adjourned.

Speaker: Order. It is not proper to move adjournment of debate at this time.

Motion No. 14 agreed to

Motion to engross Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne be engrossed and presented to the Commissioner in her capacity as Lieutenant-Governor.

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader that the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne be engrossed and presented to the Commissioner in her capacity as Lieutenant-Governor.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: Government bills.

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan; adjourned debate, Mr. Harding.

Mr. Harding: I want to congratulate the Liberals on bringing forward the best budget they ever will, but I have to take some issue with the Liberals on the manner in which they brought that budget forward.

It's pretty much the biggest joke on the street right now, when you talk to people - the throne speech and the manner in which the Liberals have handled bringing forward the NDP budget, acting in a very sneaky manner and not being open and honest with the public. That's completely contrary to what they said they would do.

Mr. Speaker, they haven't brought forward their names in the budget. When I asked the Premier, who, only three weeks to a month ago, told the public that the buck stops with her, she said, "Don't blame me. Blame the NDP." But what do we see in reality? We see Liberal ministers out cutting ribbons, handing out CDF money, attending the sod-turning of the continuing care facility and going up to meet the new charter airplanes that the former Minister of Tourism worked to negotiate to bring into this territory - marketing monies that were put in this budget that have helped to bring that forward and make it a reality.

Mr. Speaker, what do they say, though, when asked to defend their budget on any particular point? They say, "Don't blame us. It's the NDP's budget." This is not accountability. This is a complete betrayal to those voters who thought this was a new kind of government. What have we seen in this Legislature from a supposedly open, honest and accountable government? We've seen evasiveness, avoiding the question and not answering the question. Two ministers today read their briefing notes out verbatim - the Minister of Justice on legal aid and the Minister of Health, as if he's a program manager. These people have made commitments to Yukoners. They are the politicians. They are in charge of the finances.

They are accountable, but, Mr. Speaker, they don't seem to realize that. The election results must have taken them by surprise. That's the only explanation, because one could not see such incompetence if they actually expected to be in government.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with them bringing forward the budget, and we have stated that. We think it's a good move. We think it's a heck of a budget. What we have taken issue with is the fact that they refuse to be accountable for it, and secondly, we have taken issue with the fact that they did not do what they said they were going to do to many Yukoners in terms of funding their priorities, and I'm talking about the supplementary to our budget, which said a lot about their priorities when they put $250,000 into more grants for prospectors but nothing into more legal aid. And the Member for Riverdale South had told Yukoners that she really believed legal aid was a crisis. The Liberals said that the money in the budget that the NDP had put forward was not enough. She has demanded that there be an immediate increase to that funding.

Mr. Speaker, it's true - as the Member for Riverdale South laughs about it now - that they had raised false expectations of Yukoners who believed that they fought for and really wanted to increase funding for FAS/FAE services, for alcohol and drug services. People in the Yukon believed them. Certainly they did in Whitehorse. But it's a sad, sad day now that we find out that it was just a joke to get elected. She thinks it's funny.

Mr. Speaker, -

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

Point of order

Speaker: The Member for Riverdale South, on a point of order.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to the Member for Riverdale South laughing at such issues, these issues that I took very seriously when I was in opposition.

Mr. Speaker ...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: ... he is casting aspersions upon my character and I resent that, and I'd like the Speaker to rule on that issue, please.

Speaker: The hon. Member for Faro, on the point of order.

Mr. Harding: I'm just stating the truth with regard to the laughing that was being conducted by the Member for Riverdale South about these important, serious issues, and she's taking offence to the fact that she has been caught.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: At this time it appears to me that there is a dispute between two members and there is nothing that the Chair can do about it, so I would ask the member to continue.

Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the Member for Riverdale South - who, as I was saying, has shown no validity to her heartfelt statements in this Legislature about her concern for these issues - it's obvious, on legal aid, that she's had no clout in Cabinet whatsoever with regard to this issue that she so piously chastised the NDP government for not bringing forward. I think it sad and frankly very wrong how they played on people's emotions in this territory, shedding their crocodile tears on behalf of people out there in bad need of service, saying that they would just do more, more, more.

Mr. Speaker, they weren't just going to stop there. They were building extended care facilities all around rural Yukon, increasing home care; they were going to bring in all kinds of programs for alcohol and drug counselling, but what have we seen in this budget and the supplementary that is attached to it?

Well, Mr. Speaker, you have seen a good balancing act by a previous New Democrat government that was completely chastised by the members opposite who, with a supplementary, had a chance to change that and be truthful to what they said they were going to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that they are not going to do that and that they would say anything to get elected. And, Mr. Speaker, this is a government that absolutely does the opposite to what they said they were going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the finances of the government. I have in my hand a document from April 25, a week after the election from Management Board, that indicates, from Department of Finance officials, a surplus of $41 million. That does not take into account the lapses, which officials told us would probably put the surplus somewhere in the vicinity of $57 million to $60 million. That's lapse funding. That's as of March 31, 2000. What the members opposite don't seem to believe, because they don't want to be accountable, is that when they talk about the $14 million, they are projections not including lapse funding, and it's as of March 31, 2001. They will already have been the government by that time. They're responsible for what happens in this fiscal year. They had $41 million as of April 25, a week after the election, in this fiscal year - the new fiscal year, April 25. The year-end here is March 31. They're the government now, so whatever the surplus is as of next year is their responsibility; they created it.

When they see that there is going to be lapse funding in this fiscal year, even with the new spending they have been doing - and I want to talk about that in a minute - you'll see, and I'll bet that when the Auditor General reports in the fall, we're going to catch them in the misstatements that they have been making. I don't know if they're doing it on purpose, or they're just uneducated on the budget process, or don't know how to read the budgets yet; but, Mr. Speaker, something is amiss here. I'm looking forward to the Auditor General's report in the fall, very much.

This is a government that is not prepared to be accountable for the decisions they make. On one hand, we were lectured incessantly by the new Premier about households and how important it was to manage money and how you couldn't spend more than you took in. Instead, the NDP put the government into a sea of red ink. But yet, Mr. Speaker, what did they do with this budget to reduce the current-year deficit that they said they were concerned about, but they didn't do anything about what they said they were going to do something about?

Mr. Speaker, they said they didn't like red ink, but, in the budget supplementary, did they reduce spending, reduce any red ink? Absolutely not, quite the opposite. I would point out that there's nothing in there to even reflect the half-a-million dollars this year in the signing bonus for the teachers, which is going to happen in this fiscal year. There's more spending in the supplementary budget for last fiscal year: $250,000 in more grants, some money for youth programming, money that has been recycled from previous NDP programs. But the fact is, they haven't done anything to reduce spending, which they said they were going to. They have only increased it. And Mr. Speaker, we already have commitments for a new dialysis machine and the associated O&M from the Minister of Health and Social Services. We have what looks like tacit commitments from the Minister of Justice for more legal aid funding. She has been telling us, "Just you wait, just you wait." Well, we're waiting. We're waiting.

Every day, ministers are in the paper telling us about how they are looking at these issues and how they are going to come forward with spending proposals. Mr. Speaker, some day these reviews are going to have to end. The honeymoon is over, Mr. Speaker.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, when they talk about red ink - and the Premier is on record many times saying she is against spending the surplus - she's going to have some very tough decisions to make. If she wants to do what she said she is going to do - which she likes to say is her mantra and which is rapidly becoming quite a joke out there in the public - she is going to have to make some very tough choices.

Just today in Question Period, we saw an example of just how bad it is and how hard it is for this Liberal government to make a decision. They want a review and a royal commission and to set up some kind of arbitrated process for everything - unless, of course, they want to throw some cold cash on the table and settle the negotiation. As was pointed out in Question Period today, they are not prepared to take responsibility for their actions. It was pathetic to listen to the Premier today trying to say that when a three-way agreement has been violated, she doesn't have the ability to ask the city for $750,000 back - someon, who three weeks ago, said, "The buck stops here"

People aren't going to buy that. Mr. Speaker, they could buy a dialysis machine. They could increase legal aid funding - so said the former Member for Riverside, Mr. Cable. Why aren't they listening? Why aren't they listening to their former Liberal colleagues? Why aren't they listening to the Member for Whitehorse Centre, who campaigned, gave speeches, wrote letters to the editor, calling this "corporate welfare"?

Mr. Speaker, we'll make sure his constituents note the flip-flop of his new Liberal colleagues and this government, because now the decision is in their hands and they have to be accountable for it, just as we were for the decision we made to proceed with the offsite infrastructure. We were accountable for it, Mr. Speaker. We take responsibility for it, and we stand by the decision. However, they now have the decision to make because they are the government, and they have to learn that. It's going to be tough for them and, given the last couple of days' performance, it's clear that it's going to be a tough road for them on their side.

Mr. Speaker, I would also say that, when you look at what's happening with this budget and you look at what has been happening in Question Period with ministers just ignoring all the statements of the past, laughing about issues like FAS/FAE when we bring them up, it's clear that they're not taking seriously the responsibility they have been given by the people of this territory. They think it's all a joke that they put out press releases and that they belittle the previous administration for more funding; $150,000 more for legal aid, even though the Liberals in Ottawa have cut back, is a joke, according to the Member for Riverdale South. It was an insult to single moms.

The Premier had all kinds of spending suggestions when she was the leader of the official opposition, but now, what a difference a few weeks make, Mr. Speaker - what a difference. One thing they said over here in opposition is something else in government. And I don't blame the new colleagues, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and the new member for Riverdale. They weren't here, and they don't know all the things that their colleagues told the people of the Yukon.

But we have an obligation to people to remind them of how they played on people's emotions to try and earn votes. I don't blame the Speaker; I don't blame the Member for Whitehorse Centre, and I don't blame the member from Riverdale, because they didn't know what their colleagues were doing in here. They didn't know how they were prepared to say anything to get elected.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a wealth of financial resources behind it, because we managed the books in a very prudent and fiscally responsible way, and we maintained a bank account - a solid bank account. We look at our neighbours to the east, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and compare the finances of this territory, after three and a half years of our stewardship of them, and our record for the north is unsurpassed. Our record for Canada, in fact, is unsurpassed when we brought in a budget time and time again that maintained a healthy surplus.

Normally, when we factored out the current year deficit at the end of the year with the normal lapses that are received at the end of the year as a result of money that's not spent, at times we ended up with even bigger surpluses than we expected, because we budgeted very conservatively to ensure that we left a good legacy. And we have left that legacy to this Liberal government, which has now decided to spend the money in our budget and must be accountable for it. That means they'll take the good with the bad. And when I say bad, I mean tough decisions. For me, it's just part of being in government. For the Liberals, decisions seem to be bad, because they're not prepared to make any.

It's important that the Liberals recognize the consequences of their actions. The Premier likes to stand up and gloat and remind people that that's why they are on that side and that's why we're on our side. She likes to rub that in everyone's face - ha, ha - the people of Whitehorse put 10 members in here. You guys lost. We won. Ha, ha.

She told people that's not the kind of leader she was going to be. You know, I can remember Glen Clark doing the same thing down in B.C. and look what happened to him after the last election. It's not something we did when we were in government, we didn't gloat in their face, but anyway that's the kind of government that the Liberals have. We were humbled by the responsibility we were given. Mr. Speaker, by nature we are a humble people, the New Democratic Party, but Mr. Speaker, we didn't stand up - I'm surprised the Premier didn't get on her desk the other day as she chided across: That's why we're over here and you're over there. And we were right and you were wrong. And we are good and you are bad. And we are virtuous and you are unvirtuous.

Mr. Speaker, time will tell just how good the members opposite are. Given the last couple of days, there are a lot of conclusions already being made. The chaos on the Liberal side is almost painful to watch, and next week the Premier is gone. Yeah. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we look forward with a lot more vision than the Liberal government as to what will happen in the next three and a half years. And I want to say, it's going to be a pleasure, because the Liberals have already made some commitments that they haven't honoured yet, and they could have honoured. They have made further commitments now to honour them in the fall.

What were we promised? A strong legislative agenda and a good, strong budget and a further supplementary reflecting their priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I have got to say to the members opposite that they are going to have some difficult decisions to make, and so far they have avoided them in perpetuity for the last two months.

But the wolf is going to be at the door, and they will have to make decisions. They can't continue to flip-flop. "We didn't say we'd buy out the claims. Well, we should buy out the claims. Well, they're nuisance claims anyway, but maybe we shouldn't buy them out. Maybe we didn't say that, but some members in the Liberals did, but some didn't say it."

Mr. Speaker, it's a sad state of affairs and it's doing nothing to create any certainty in this territory. They are doing nothing to improve the investment climate.

Look at the debacle we now have on our hands as a result of the bomb dropped by the federal minister after the election. A year ago, he came into town as a new minister. He had his chest all pumped up and went to the CYFN meeting and said, "Well, I'll look at the issues of Section 87 and loan repayment. Absolutely. Let's take a fresh look at this." Of course, that dropped two grenades on the table, and we lost a year of any negotiations as people waited to see what good, old Liberal Bob Nault would do - this tough-talking new minister. Then what happened? He went back to Ottawa, went up to Paul Martin and said, "Listen, we need some more money for that Yukon land claim." Paul Martin fell out of his chair and said, "You're out of you're mind; take a hike. That's all you're getting." Mr. Speaker, he then came up to the gold show and dropped the bomb on the floor.

So, now you have First Nations who are looking at negotiations for years on end. As Bob Nault phrased it, "In the coming years, we're going to have difficult decisions at the land claims negotiating table."

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to pre-empt some really good issues that the Liberals are going to have to face in the next little while, but I want to say that it's not going to cut it - the gloating about the election and the way they have seen fit, in a new legislative session and with a new Premier, to be above accountability, and leaving the Legislature while they are still in their first trial run - her dry run - while they're still in their honeymoon period.

She has decided to leave for the entire week next week. Again.

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

Point of order

Speaker: The hon. Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I am certain that the member is fully aware that it is inappropriate to comment on a member's absence in this Legislature, and I am certain that rule simply slipped his mind, and I am certain he would like to withdraw that.

Mr. Harding: That parliamentary reference is with regard to pointing out when a member in a debate is absent from her chair or his chair at the time of the debate. It is not unparliamentary to state that the member is going to be away from the Legislature next week. That is not unparliamentary.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals campaigned on bringing dignity and decorum to this House, but we have already seen them have to get up and apologize for improper remarks and we have seen two spurious points of order this afternoon from them. Far from dignity, they are dragging down the decorum of this House, gloating from one side to the other about the election results in Question Period, with all watching. Mr. Speaker, you don't know how many comments we have gotten from people on that particular performance by the Premier.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Oh, the Member for Riverdale South says ditto. I saw the colleagues over there. They were all smiling; they thought that was great. I just say keep it up, keep it up. I hope so. Keep it up. We'll see if she does it again. She's gotten all these good comments. I challenge her to keep doing it. I love it. So keep doing it. Keep doing it.

The Premier, in her desire to not be accountable for anything - as I was saying before I was interrupted - doesn't see fit to attend the Legislature. I want to say to her that it's important for her, particularly with a new government, to be a leader, to set some tone for the government, and to show the Yukon people - who are all watching, particularly in rural Yukon and who have a lot of nervousness about this government - that in the first two weeks she will not plan to be away. Granted, I'm sure the business there has some importance.

You have to take that very seriously. You have to weigh that against your ability. The very few times you will be - for the first probably six months of this government, you'll only be in this House a few weeks. To be away should be weighed against the benefits of any particular business trip. And, Mr. Speaker, we will recognize from time to time that there is going to be, and should be, ministers away on business. Absolutely. But it's a questionable move at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, I also say to the member opposite, the Premier, in her desire and zeal to be unaccountable, that the move she made to publish the names of previous ministers on a budget that she brought in a new bill to table was, I thought, a fairly surprising move because I thought that they had a little bit more credibility and integrity on that question than that. But it's clear that, in the act of tabling this budget with the names of previous ministers, it was the desire to take the good of the budget and avoid any decisions or accountability for it, but it won't work.

Mr. Speaker, it's not the kind of government they promised. It's not fair to the former members to have a bill retabled with their names in it. And what did she say on CBC Radio at her interview the other morning when the Member for Klondike and myself were listening to her, awaiting our turn at the microphone with the CBC interviewer? She said, "Well, it's an ego thing." I don't know who gave her that advice. I hope it wasn't the PMO's office. If it was, they have to get rid of those folks. They have to burn that red phone.

Then she said, "Well, it was too expensive." Mr. Speaker, the throne speech they tabled, how much did that cost to print? What price accountability in this territory? What price parliamentary accountability, the principle of governments rising and falling on financial bills, and issues of ministerial responsibility? They seem to have absolved themselves of that already.

There is no sense of who they are, what direction they are taking this territory in, or what policies and procedures guide them - hollow and shallow. Mr. Speaker, if they didn't have the NDP agenda and budget, they might as well hang a "We're closed" or "Gone fishing" sign on the door. They didn't want to do that, so they put up an "Under review" sign on the door, because it looks a little better to the public, in their minds.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk to the member about this budget and the positions that she has taken to kill the tax cuts that the NDP was going to bring in. With the whopping surplus that they have - some $60 million, a week after we left office - for her to take those modest tax cut measures and throw them in the garbage is an affront to Yukoners, I think.

Mr. Speaker, she liked to say that the tax cuts were too modest when we brought them in. Well, I don't think that, when she said the tax cuts were too modest, Yukoners expected her to kill them altogether when she got into government. When she said they're too modest, I thought Yukoners probably thought, "Well, that means Liberals would increase the tax cuts." But no. What it means is that she's going to kill the tax cuts the NDP proposed and brought in in their budget. Again, they do not do what they say they were going to do. They do not act upon the impressions that they left in the minds of Yukoners. They said one thing in opposition, and now they say something else completely different in government.

Mr. Speaker, Yukoners are cottoning-on to that pretty quickly, and I can hardly wait for the next throne speech and the next budget, when they actually have to make some decisions. We're on a honeymoon; they're on a honeymoon; we're not on a honeymoon, Mr. Speaker. We're licking our wounds.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite will be granted some time by the public, and they'll get congratulated by their supporters, and the support was quite extensive in Whitehorse and around the territory. And people will be cheering them on, and they'll hear that, but the reality is that even those people, come a day, will say, "Where's the beef? Where's your ability to govern? Where's your vision and sense of direction?" Mr. Speaker, they may even get lucky. Metal prices might rebound, a mine might open - say Minto - and they'll go to the ribbon cutting and say, "Well, you changed the government so, you know, therefore the investment climate has changed." I can see the press releases now. They'll have their welcome-back-to-the-Yukon night, so cleverly devised by the former president of the Chamber of Mines and the now EA for one of the ministers upstairs, the one that clapped like a trained seal at the mining debate in the front row. He'll know what I'm talking about. It will be clear that you've got to do more than have a welcome-back-to-the-Yukon night. You have got to do more than throw $250,000 more in grants on the table.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will have to deal with the issues around mine permitting in this territory. They are going to have to conclude devolution. They had better not lose devolution because that's very important for this territory. I'm concerned, given the level of competence they have shown thus far and given what Bob Nault has recently said with regard to land claims, that they are going to blow devolution. Mr. Speaker, I hope not. Truly, for all Yukoners, I hope not.

And, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite that they are going to have to do more that just saying that land claims is their top priority and then do nothing about it. We tried to bring in a debate today on land claims because we think it's a preeminent, paramount issue in this territory - much bigger than the reply to the throne speech that they used their legislative majority to take precedence over us on today - by choice. They didn't have to do that. They did it because they used their big majority- because they won and we lost - to have a debate about a throne speech that you could write on a recipe card.

Land claims are second fiddle, according to the Liberals, again. And what have we seen in statements from this Premier since Bob Nault's comments? Well, now she says she's going to be a mediator. Can you imagine if Piers McDonald would have said he was going to be a mediator in the land claims process? We would have heard, "Well, that's just an excuse. You said you were going to settle them. You're not a mediator. You're the Government Leader. You had better settle those land claims. Don't tell us about these niggledy piggledy details about loan repayment and section 87. These aren't big problems. Settle them."

Now the Premier tells us she's going to talk about it; she's going to chat, but, Mr. Speaker, she doesn't even take the time in the budget speech or in the throne speech to mention the issue. Absolutely mind-boggling. What an empty vessel.

Mr. Speaker, what are they going to do about the development assessment process? They said they were going to make that right. They were going to use their special relationship with Ottawa to make it right. Well, not one word about DAP and their vision, how they're going to do it, in the throne speech, nothing in the budget, no funding afforded to it. No more funding for the mineral strategy. No more funding for important projects like the blue book. No more funding for anything other than grants. I guess when you're stuck for something to say, go up to Dawson, throw some money on the table, and see if it helps.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be curious about a whole range of issues that I don't really want to get into now because there are other, more appropriate times to discuss them, but it's pretty clear that the Liberals are all over the map. It's pretty clear that, in terms of their budgetary priorities, they don't really have a sense of what they want to do or how they're going to fund it.

They have made commitments they weren't serious about. To call the legal aid situation a crisis, to say the previous government was ignoring it with the extra budgetary commitment we put in, and then, Mr. Speaker, with $60 million in the bank, with a stroke of the pen, to give $250,000 more in grants to prospectors and ignore those single mothers, is tantamount to, I think - and I'll have to watch myself here because I don't want you to rule me as unparliamentary - a betrayal of the Yukon public.

We had wanted to come into this session and not have to view the government in such a light. Their actions speak louder than any words about doing what they say they're going to do. I mean that's becoming a complete hardy-har-har laugh in the public everyday - doing what they say they're going to do. The Liberal Premier said that these negotiations with the YTA aren't about money, but yet she put another million dollars on the table in money.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Presto, amazing.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Now of course, we have signing bonuses and I'm sure the college employees, and the hospital employees, well-trained professionals, who are all funded by the Premier because the buck stops there, are going to be eyeing this with glee. Of course, the Yukon Employees Union, who didn't know signing bonuses were a new policy announced by the government yesterday, didn't know that they could have gotten a signing bonus. So, I'm sure they'll be wondering if that's in the cards for all those government employees. So, when you start that up, all the comments and commitments and the increased spending and more and more red ink, it's hard to know where this Premier is going to take the finances of this territory. She did signal she's looking to end the tax cuts, and I think we're going to get a bunch of health cuts, which is something that the Liberals are good at; they have done it to every province and they have done it to this territory.

We will see. Time will tell how hard they're going to cut health care. Are they going to increase taxes, maybe? It's a possibility. Given the tone coming from the Premier, they might even increase taxes. Today, we learned that she's eliminating any potential for a fuel-rate rider. I was glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker. That's going to be difficult. She might want to get a briefing on that. She might want to read what the Yukon Utilities Board approved and the rulings.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, she had all of the answers when she was on this side of the House. Day to day to day, we heard the commitments. We were berated by the Liberals. We were accused of not doing enough in so many areas when we tried to come up with a balanced agenda. I mean, she so eloquently pointed out, "Why would you put $750,000 into offsite water and sewer, when companies will be using it that are very wealthy companies? Why wouldn't you give that money to those poor, single mothers in legal aid?" But today, when it was clear she has a decision to make on the $750,000 because tenets of an agreement have not been lived up to by another party, and she can ask for the city to get the money back, and she could apply it to those single mothers she used to care about, she skates around it, over and over, and not very well, I might add, because things will come home to roost.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Only one skate, yeah. Maybe it's one of those long-bladed, old-style ones, and she's tripping over them. I don't know.

Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to the debate next week. There's lots to go over in this legislative session. We didn't think there would be, but the absence of material has given rise to more questions and issues. And the inability to make a decision and the review of everything have raised all kinds of questions. There is no decisiveness in this government. There's no certainty. It doesn't matter whether it's legal aid, the dialysis machine, Argus, or Tombstone - no decisions.

Whether it's how you're going to handle land claims or what you're going to do about mine permitting, there are no decisions. When it comes to putting money in the budget for what you said you cared about when the Liberals were in opposition and could have put in the supplementary with a stroke of the pen, there are no decisions. Mr. Speaker, that will last for awhile, but they are quickly gaining a reputation as being do-nothing and indecisive and, dare I say it, somewhat incompetent.

So, Mr. Speaker, when they decided to kill the tax cuts that the NDP wanted to bring in, when they decided to criticize red ink and overexpenditures but then spend more, when they say they are going to fund the dialysis machine and then they hedge, when they say they believe in legal aid and yet don't do anything about it, when they laugh and chide members on this side of the House when we accuse them of having played on people's emotions on issues like FAS/FAE, they chuckle about it because they're in and we're out. They're the government. The Premier likes to taunt, and I hope she keeps taunting. But she won't, because I'm sure someone has advised her by now that that's probably not a good idea. Maybe she got a call on the red phone from those high-priced advisors.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's also unclear in this budget what is going to happen, what certainty there will be on the issue of tax cuts. Will people know how much money they're going to have in their pockets at the end of the day after the Liberals are done with them? Will Yukoners know how much they are going to have left over for groceries, and will they be able to buy a new washing machine, or will they be able to go out and enjoy a show?

They won't know because again in that area they floated a trial balloon. I was just reading the article in the Yukon News today that the Liberals plan to trim the tax cuts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this level of uncertainty is something they campaigned about ending, and of course they couldn't do it all in the first couple of months since the election, we recognize that. But surely they could have sent some soothing signals. Surely they could have announced in the throne speech a plan as to how they intended to resolve some of these issues. Our motion we tried to propose today before they heavy-handedly kicked us out of our spot in the opposition debate today - the one chance we get as opposition members to put forward our agenda, which today was land claims. All we asked for was that they come forward with a clear action statement on their plan for resolving the issues, given what Mr. Nault has just done here in this territory.

Mr. Speaker, we can't get that from the Liberals. We can't get anything from the Liberals, because they don't have anything. They haven't had one new legitimate idea that the NDP hadn't already started. We haven't had any new economic initiatives. Has anybody seen any new economic initiatives? They are going to take about six months to study it, I guess. During the election campaign they were going to -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Oh, of course, they were going to do everything. They had all the answers, it didn't matter what it was, this was not a problem. There are going to be lots of tea and crumpets, lots of little receptions in the foyer with the Liberals. There are going to be lots of pretty little speaking engagements and photo opps.

Mr. Speaker, are they going to take any shots at the big issues out there? Are they going to deliver on land claims or devolution? Are they even going to advance it? Because there are four claims that were advanced by the previous NDP government to the point where if the back breaks on two outstanding issues, they are going to be concluded.

Mr. Speaker, I'm interested in the budget and how they are going to deal with the Kwanlin Dun land claim. I'm really interested in how they are going to resource that and what decisions they are going to make, because, Mr. Speaker, that's going to be a difficult one for them - very, very difficult.

I'm interested in how they're going to deal with the transboundary claims and the Kaska. There is no sense from them that they have even the foggiest idea about how to deal with those issues. There is no sense from them about economic diversification, no sense how they're going to handle forestry, no sense what they want to do with mine permitting, no sense even this far in, two months since the election, of how they're going to tell Yukoners what they're going to do with their taxes at the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I remember, just from today in Question Period, the former Member for Riverside, Mr. Cable, standing up almost daily sometimes, when the issue was hot in the public, and going after me on gas prices. He had lots of ideas then, but what did we see today when the Member for Klondike questioned the Premier on gas prices? Not one new initiative, no sense that she had anything to do with the issue. It was quite the contrary. She basically skated around it and said that wasn't her problem.

Some would think - I'm sure she's got some more of those high-priced advisors upstairs patting her on the back, saying, "Way to go. Keep not making any decisions. That's what got you elected." But, Mr. Speaker, that's going to come home to roost because she's the Premier now. The buck does stop with her.

Everybody is still on a high over there from the campaign and the numbers coming in that night. I kind of remember something like that once before. It doesn't last long, though. You have that swearing-in ceremony and then it's all work from there, if you want to work, but apparently this government isn't interested in working. Otherwise they would have had some more meat in their throne speech and would have done some more in the supplementary to reflect what they call their priorities in the budget.

It's going to be interesting when last year's year-end comes out from the Auditor General. This is their budget. This is their year.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Harding: Well, they're going to try and spin it. It will be interesting to hear what their new spokesperson upstairs comes up with for that one, but we'll diligently ferret out the reality. You can't argue with the Auditor General. He's going to report on March 31, 2000. There's going to be a good surplus.

Mr. Speaker, any additions to the spending will be theirs. Any tabled in this budget will be theirs, regardless of the names on it, because, as of April 25, a week after the election, there was probably between $40 million and $60 million in the bank. It's probably about $57 million or somewhere around there. $40 million; $60 million - it doesn't matter; it's still an incredibly healthy surplus and is more than anywhere else in the north at this point.

So, it's all about choices. They are going to have to make choices. At this point, they either haven't been willing to do that, they are not prepared to do that, or their strategy is simply to absolve themselves of being responsible for the budgets of this territory. We believe strongly that the people of this territory elected a government because they wanted change. They wanted a fresh approach; they wanted a new vision and they wanted something different. It was all about the future - I think that was the slogan of the Liberals. What are we getting from this government? We are getting indecisiveness. We are getting an inability to establish any vision beyond the New Democrats, in terms of budgetary priorities - any strategy for dealing with the tough issues and policy questions out there, beyond what the New Democrats were doing - whether it's trade investment, trolley cars or Connect Yukon or many of the other things that the NDP were working on and doing.

They seem to be quite happy just to carry on like that and put an "Under review" sign on the Cabinet offices - "We'll come back in the fall, and we'll think about it a bit, and maybe we'll have some new ideas." That certainly wasn't what I think the Yukon electorate voted for. However, they got fooled by the members opposite, who told them that they cared about FAS/FAE. They told them they cared about alcohol and drug services. They told the private day home and group home workers that they were going to increase their salaries. They told them they cared about that. We will see, Mr. Speaker. I think they're going to be much more like the federal Liberals, who, on everything from NAFTA to the GST to national child care to the CBC, have not done what they said they were going to do. They have actually broken all of their promises - broken them all. And it's only by the greater graces of a divided Conservative Party in Canada that they managed to cling to power. They are devoid of vision. They are devoid of credibility. They are devoid of coming through on the promises they made, and I think this government is starting to develop that mantra very quickly - a lot quicker than I thought. I thought they were going to have more of a chance with the Yukon public, and I thought that they would have their act together somewhat more, but it's not to be the case. The chaos on the other side is becoming more and more apparent every day.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that they are so indecisive is opening the door to so many more questions that we didn't even think would be out there for us in this legislative session. I can remember once when I was in this House for a 76-day sitting - straight. Now, we just do 35- and 25-day sittings, broken up by quite a long break. And at that time, Question Period was 40 minutes long, and not the half-hour that we presently use today. The government-of-the-day at that time was going through similar things to what I see is going on with the members opposite.

And it was very easy to go 76 days straight because indecisiveness - one minister saying one thing, one doing another, like we are getting from the Liberals opposite - the Premier contradicting her ministers, then getting up and making it worse, as she did today - when it's clear she's totally at odds with her Renewable Resources minister and the Minister of Tourism, who has gone out on a limb on the Tombstone issue. It's clear that there are going to be lots of questions. There is going to be lots of accountability because, in the absence of decisiveness for the Yukon public, it is up to the opposition to ferret out direction and vision and accountability and honesty from the government - which is so sadly lacking right now.

Let me just say with regard to this budget, it's a heck of a budget. I commend it to this House. I only wish the Liberals would do what they said they were going to do with regard to the supplementary. I only wish the Liberals would take accountability for it, because they're certainly going to try to take the benefit for it and avoid the decisions. But, Mr. Speaker, Yukoners will see through that.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm glad the Liberals have finally seen the wisdom of our ways and are fully endorsing the budget of the Yukon New Democrats, that they believe it's the right direction and the right approach. I'm glad that they feel so strongly that they would come in and retable this budget, that it was the right balancing act for Yukoners, that they were the right choices. The tough choices were made. I'm glad they're so caught up in the ecstasy of their win that they saw through the bitter temptation they must have had not to come forward with the best budget tabled in this territory in many, many, many years. But they did the right thing in that case, but, unfortunately, by absolving themselves of accountability - or trying to, because they won't be able to - and by not reflecting, in the supplementary, their spending priorities and their criticisms of the budget, they failed Yukoners.

So, I urge the government to work harder, to get their act together, to deal with tough policy issues, to think things through, to deliver some certainty to Yukoners, to carry through with the tax-cut agenda that we proposed, and to be more open, accountable and honest with Yukoners about what they intend to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is indeed a very sad day for democracy here in the Yukon. The failure of this newly elected government - its members here - to rise and speak at second reading on the second largest budget ever presented in Yukon's history clearly shows that the Yukon Liberals are attempting to avoid the responsibilities and accountability for tabling that budget. They just want to distance themselves from the reality of the offices they hold. I'm extremely disappointed for all Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, let's just look at the Yukon today. Most jurisdictions in Canada are looked to for their economic viability. When we look at a recent news release that was tabled in the House of Commons by the official opposition, the critic for Indian and Northern Affairs went on to say that the Yukon economy is in ruins, a victim of total mismanagement by Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault. It went on to say, "Consider these facts: Since 1996, the mining industry has declined by an incredible 87 percent. It is currently sitting at a 30-year low and it is expected to drop even further this year. The population has dropped 10 percent and the stagnant economy is imploding. The Yukon is rapidly becoming almost entirely dependent on government transfer payments and a short tourism season that contributes little to a sustainable economy."

Mr. Speaker, what the Yukon needs is a government with vision and plans, one that has a majority position and that has money in the bank. What we have elected here is a government that is lacking in the two most important parts. Yes, it has a majority. Yes, it has money in the bank - lots of money. The paper I recently reviewed showed that the accumulated surplus at the end of the year - the fiscal year - will be quite substantial. Majority government and money have been major reasons why the economies of various jurisdictions in Canada have slid backwards. The lack of those two - majority government and money - has been the main reason in part for jurisdictions sliding back. But the biggest reason that the Yukon won't move ahead is that this newly elected Liberal government has no plan and no vision.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on June 5, I rose in this House on a point of order. In response to the first question that I raised about subsection 6(2) of the Financial Administration Act, and the responsibility of each member of the Executive Council, and how the previous ministers could be held responsible for this budget that this Liberal government tabled, you ruled that the previous members whose names appeared could not be held responsible. You ruled that the ministers of this Liberal government are collectively responsible for answering to the House for the contents of Bill No. 2, the 2000-01 budget.

Mr. Speaker, my second question raised the legal issue involving section 73 of the Financial Administration Act, the section dealing with offences. It states that a public officer, which includes a minister, commits an offence who: (a) in connection with the performance of his duties respecting public money wilfully makes or signs a false entry, certificate, requisition, return or any other document.

Mr. Speaker, you were not able to respond to this legal question, nor did I expect you to. It is my contention that the budget document supporting Bill No. 2 is a false document that the Liberal government wilfully made in order to attempt to distance themselves from the previous NDP budget bill that they adopted during the election campaign. They voted against it in second reading as the official opposition, but now they table it again. It would be interesting to learn if the Liberal government did obtain a legal opinion on this question. I'm sure that if they did, you can rest assured that we will never be told by this supposedly open and accountable government what that legal opinion was.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question that I raised about precedents for the actions and proceedings of other legislatures in Canada, you indicated that you had found a precedent in a review of the proceedings of the Yukon Legislative Assembly in July 1985, when a new government introduced year-end supplementary estimates that included the names of the ministers of a previous government. Mr. Speaker, you pointed out in your ruling, however, that back in 1985, it was a different situation from the one that the House faces today, in that all of the expenditures had already taken place under the previous government. Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that comparing a supplementary bill for money that was previously spent by a previous government is totally different from the main estimates of a previous government being adopted in total by a new government for money that has, in a large part, yet to be spent.

It's like comparing apples to oranges; they are both fruit, but they are different. I guess the fault is mine, Mr. Speaker. I should have stated in my point of order that, if there was any precedent for new governments adopting in total the main estimates of the previous government, I am unaware of any such precedent.

This is a fundamentally important issue because it lies at the very heart of our parliamentary system. The issue is ministerial responsibility and accountability. The action by this government in tabling the identical main estimates of the previous government speaks volumes about the current Liberal administration and their respect for our parliamentary system of government. According to the Premier's principal secretary when asked if the new Liberal government would defend the budget that the Liberals criticized three months before, his response was, "We don't plan to". That's a direct quote. He went further, Mr. Speaker. He stated, "It's not our choice. These aren't our spending priorities, it's their budget."

So much for good government. So much for accountability and doing what they said they were going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to review what the Premier said about the budget in February when she was leader of the official opposition. One of her first criticisms of this budget was that there was a lot of red ink in this NDP budget and in previous NDP budgets. She pointed out that there had been four budgets in total presented by the NDP governments and all with deficits. By implication, therefore, one would presume that a Liberal government would be opposed to any budget that had a deficit, even though the government may have a healthy surplus, as the current Yukon government has.

The Liberal financial plan is to have only balanced budgets. There will be no deficits. That's it, period. Well, why do governments have a savings account? Why do governments have reserves? Those reserves are for those rainy days, and if you want to look at the economy, it can be described as a typhoon. It's not just raining out there on our economy; it's devastated. This is when governments have the opportunity to dip into those reserves, spend that money for the betterment of all Yukoners, to create wealth. It's probably something that both NDP governments and Liberal governments don't understand. Government is a great big horse that has to be fed. It's not a cow that you can continually milk. Wealth has to be created in order for governments to operate. This government has failed to address that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I had a briefing this morning from the Executive Council Office. The most important issue facing Yukon today is the settlement of the seven remaining, outstanding land claims. We all agree that is of paramount importance, and yet, when I asked if the department was considering putting additional resources toward this initiative, no, no, it's fully staffed, there's a slight increase, no change.

The officials are not involved in answering policy questions, but they certainly have to provide the information and advice to the Premier, who is responsible for that department, to get the job done.

Now, if we look at the Liberals and their past election - and I compliment them on their win, but they were elected in part because of that subtle platform that they have a close working relationship with the federal Liberals - a very special relationship - yet we see, with the first visit of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to the Yukon and his attendance at the gold show, the bomb that he dropped on Yukon First Nations that he wasn't even going to consider the two issues that are of paramount importance to the Yukon First Nations for success at the land claims table - those being the taxation issue and loan repayments for negotiating purposes.

When you look at some of the funds that would flow to the First Nations should they be - I guess they'd have to be foolish to conclude the arrangements where they currently are with respect to loan repayments because the amount of money that would flow to them would make the whole process redundant. We'd be moving our First Nations society backwards, if they accepted the amount of money that was left after they repaid the loans to Canada.

That wasn't the whole purpose of the land claims negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

So, I'd like to know why this special relationship between the Yukon Liberals and the