Whitehorse, Yukon

Monday, October 30, 2000 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I rise today on behalf of the entire Legislature in recognition of Crime Prevention Week, which runs from October 28 to November 4, 2000.

Crime Prevention Yukon has coordinated this week for many years in an effort to increase Yukoners' knowledge and understanding of crime prevention. This week provides an excellent opportunity to showcase the dedicated work of Yukon people. It is important to recognize that we are doing many positive and exciting things with our children, youth and communities that provide the building blocks for safe communities.

"Crime Prevention, A Community Challenge" is the theme of the week. It speaks to the importance of collective action in making our homes, neighbourhoods and communities safer.

There are many events scheduled for this week. Applications have been received for community assistance grants from Carmacks, Faro, Mayo and Watson Lake to assist with the safe Halloween activities planned by those communities. In Whitehorse, there is a public display at the Qwanlin Mall, a gathering of the Whitehorse Safer City Partners, the safe Halloween program and the Building on Strength conference.

The Yukon government supports Crime Prevention Yukon in their efforts to promote effective crime prevention methods. We believe that Crime Prevention Week 2000 will help to achieve this.

We are committed to working with Yukon people to make our homes and communities safer places to live.

Thank you.

Speaker: If there are no further tributes, we will proceed.

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to ask the Assembly to join us in welcoming the employees of 16 Klondike group home to the Legislature to watch the proceedings today. Please join us.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the public accounts of the Government of the Yukon Territory for the year ending March 31, 2000. And I have for tabling the Government of Yukon projections. These are the financial projections and our supplement to Bill No. 3.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 2, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 2, entitled Fourth Appropriation Act, 1999-2000, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 2 agreed to

Bill No. 3: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 3, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 2000-01, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 3 agreed to

Speaker: Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline would create

(1) hundreds of direct jobs for Yukoners, both during construction and after gas is flowing;

(2) hundreds of more jobs indirectly related to the pipeline;

(3) millions of dollars of spinoff revenue and income for Yukoners in all sectors of the economy;

(4) a higher profile for the Yukon in the eyes of the oil and gas community; and

THAT it is the opinion of this House that statements made in this House by the MLA for Kluane prove the NDP does not support the pipeline; and

THAT this House urges the Member for Kluane and the official opposition to drop their opposition to the government's efforts to secure the Alaska Highway route for the proposed natural gas pipeline.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) Yukon people who want to work and need to work face severe hardships this winter because of the failure of the Liberal government to address the territory's economic situation in a decisive and responsible manner; and

(2) the outward migration of Yukoners to other parts of Canada to seek employment has increased dramatically since this Liberal government took office; and

(3) the Yukon Liberal government has contributed directly to this situation through such ill-advised decisions as postponing the construction of the new Mayo school and failing to take action to solve the crisis in the Yukon forestry sector; and

(4) this government has further aggravated the situation by abandoning programs such as the community development fund, fire smart, the tourism marketing fund, and the trade and investment fund, which were creating jobs in communities throughout the territory; and

(5) the throne speech delivered at the opening of this sitting failed to provide any clear economic leadership or sense of direction to improve the territory's employment and business climate; and

(6) the Auditor General's report will confirm that this government entered the current fiscal year with an accumulated surplus of more than $55 million; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government, as a matter of urgent priority, to convene an all-party committee to examine practical measures it can take to provide jobs for Yukon people this winter.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the current federal Liberal government devolution proposal is a bad deal for Yukon because it transfers the environmental liability for managing land and resources to the territory without transferring the ownership of these resources and it fails to recognize the Yukon's offshore northern boundary in the Beaufort Sea.

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

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to recognize the existence in the "Crown in right of Yukon" and agree to amend the Yukon Act to legally enshrine this recognition; and

THAT, failing this federal recognition, the Government of Yukon seek a reference to the Yukon Court of Appeal under the Constitutional Questions Act, to determine the existence of the "Crown in right of Yukon".

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'd like to provide an update on the status of the transfer of the federal Northern Affairs program to the Government of Yukon.

Devolution is a priority for this government. We have devoted significant resources to concluding a devolution transfer agreement that represents the best deal for Yukon people. It's fair to say that the Yukon and Canada have reached agreement around the critical concepts, if not most of the details.

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work of staff throughout the territorial government who have contributed to the devolution process. This has been a multi-year process involving officials from many departments and demanding, at times, an extraordinary level of dedication. Devolution negotiations began in earnest in 1996 when the first federal proposal was tabled. The framework built since then by succeeding governments is a solid one and one that I look forward to completing in the near future.

You may recall it was the intent of the parties to conclude negotiations by July of this year. The federal legislation needed to enable devolution, as well as amend the Yukon Act, was to have been introduced in the fall session of Parliament, with passage in time to allow for an April 1, 2001 transfer date.

These are complex, multi-party arrangements that we are trying to achieve.

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

Point of order

Speaker: Leader of the third party, on a point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, ministerial statements as listed in Standing Order 11(3): "a minister may make a short factual statement of government policy."

Now I know, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled previously on this, but what we have is a repetition of the same situation. This is not a short rendition of government policy. There's no government policy being reported on. What we have here is a no-progress report and it should be tabled under different sections of the Daily Routine or Orders of the Day.

It is not a ministerial statement, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial statement, as delivered, conforms to the current rules. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If the members opposite were available to attend meetings, this issue could be resolved expeditiously.

Speaker: Official opposition House leader, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, we, in the official opposition, can only concur with the leader of the third party. This ministerial statement is not a statement of policy by the government. If it is the Liberal intention to convince this House that it is, then announcing that devolution is delayed as a government policy is showing some very deficient leadership on that side of the House.

There is absolutely no question that this simply does not conform to the Standing Orders of this Legislature.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: I just need a minute here. I have some documents with me; I just have to decide where I'm going to start.

Previously in this House, we referred to Speaker Bruce's statements in his ruling of November 29, 1999. I believe it was November 29. Sorry, it was November 24, 1999.

In that ruling, Speaker Bruce made suggestions as to the guidelines that might govern the content of ministerial statements. For today, I think it would be appropriate to allow the Premier to conclude the statement, which will allow the opposition members to respond.

Furthermore, I would urge members of this House, through the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, to meet as expeditiously as possible, in order that we may get some guidance for the Chair on these statements. Currently, I do not have that.

With that, I would ask the Premier to continue.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: As I was saying, as members may recall, it was the intent of the parties to conclude negotiations by July of this year. The federal legislation needed to enable devolution, as well as amend the Yukon Act, was to have been introduced in the fall session of Parliament, with passage in time to allow for the April 1, 2001 transfer date.

These are complex, multi-party arrangements that we're trying to achieve, and although negotiators have given it their best, the devolution transfer agreement is not yet concluded. With the federal election being called, it's not possible now for the federal devolution legislation to be brought to Parliament until next spring at the earliest.

It is clear to Cabinet and me that we need to reset the effective date of transfer to April 1, 2002 in order to meet our goal of a seamless transition.

Actually, this new date is helpful to us in several ways. First Nation leaders have advised me they'd prefer more time to conclude outstanding land claims negotiations. I've consulted with officials who see a 2002 target date as a welcome opportunity to better prepare for and implement the administrative work needed to ensure this seamless transition and the priorities negotiating the best deal possible. It's better to take this extra time now to get it right.

A 2002 transfer date does not mean a delay in concluding negotiations on a devolution transfer agreement. The governments of both Yukon and Canada are committed to concluding negotiations as soon as possible. In fact, negotiations will continue for the immediate future, until agreement is secured.

Our goal now is to conclude an agreement in time for consideration by the new federal Cabinet as soon as possible. This will be an agreement our government is willing and prepared to support. We would then see federal enabling legislation introduced into Parliament as early as next spring, with approvals in place by next fall.

As a demonstration to the House of our commitment to the process, I will advise members of this House that copies of the current drafts of the mirror legislation will be tabled with the Clerk for your review. This is the legislation that, had events allowed, we were scheduled to debate this fall. In fact, you'll find it very similar to documents that were tabled with the House last fall, and for very good reason.

The mirror legislation is intended to replicate as nearly as possible the federal laws now in place with respect to resource management in the Yukon. The Waters Act, Territorial Lands (Yukon) Act, Placer Mining Act, Quartz Mining Act and Environmental Assessment (Yukon)Act. They were changed from their federal counterparts only when necessary to ensure the territorial version fits into the context of Yukon laws and governmental institutions.

I asked that the most current drafts be tabled for information so that the House could see that some minor changes have been made since last year in response to both stakeholders' comments as well as some legal issues that were identified during negotiations. Members will see that these changes do not run counter to our commitment to enact mirror legislation and thus ensure this seamless transition, making sure services to the public continue without disruption or confusion.

Our government intends to schedule the mirror legislation for debate and passage in a future session in discussion with the opposition House leaders. We will have a solid legislative framework in place long before the transfer date, ready to receive our new responsibilities and jurisdiction.

Devolution will happen, Mr. Speaker. Our government is committed to concluding an agreement as soon as possible. We have the continuing support of Yukoners. We have worked long and hard for this goal, and we will reach it - and with devolution we will advance the constitutional, political and economic evolution of the Yukon.

Mr. Fairclough:I rise to respond to the ministerial statement on a non-progress report. This is not a ministerial statement; it is a press release. It does not mention anything of new government policies. It could have simply been a press release. The Yukon Liberals are basically making an excuse for the federal Liberals not living up to a commitment. The dates have changed from 2001 to 2002 with no guarantee.

Now, we are going to have a new minister in place, possibly, if the Liberal government wins the election. It could possibly be a minority government, in which a lot more discussions could take place and timelines get bumped back.

The statement does not say anything about what negotiations are left. What are the issues that are on the table? List them out, and what are the timelines for completion?

This statement is just another reminder that there is less certainty out there in the forest industry. Are there interim measures that the Premier will bring forward for things like the timber harvest agreement process? What happens to land claims? Which comes first - devolution or land claims? These are questions that are out there in the minds of Yukoners right now.

Are land claims to be negotiated before devolution takes place? Is that the message that the Liberal government would like to put out to Yukoners? Or is she saying that devolution is shelved; it's put on the shelf? It's supposed to be a top priority of the Liberal government. And why is she throwing in the towel so early, Mr. Speaker? Devolution means, to Yukoners, that we would finally be in control of our destiny. We would be masters of our own destiny, in control of our resources.

This statement brings more uncertainty to the economy. It brings uncertainty to the forest sector. It brings uncertainty to the mining sector and to environmental assessment. And certainly, if the Liberals win the next federal election, it is our understanding - and the public's understanding - that Parliament would reconvene. What the Yukon Liberals are saying is that they want to delay it, even though legislation could be forwarded this fall as scheduled.

Now, devolution is supposed to be a high priority, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier, instead of going to Ottawa, lobbying the federal government to deal with legislation this fall after the election, chose to simply shelve devolution and put Yukoners on hold for another year-and-a-half.

Shelve, postpone, delay - that's the Liberal way.

And that was their update to Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's an outrage. Yukoners deserve better but, under this Liberal government, they are not getting it.

One week ago, the Liberals introduced the throne speech: seven points of priority that they would be graded on. Well, they just bumped two off in one short week. Land claims is no longer a priority. It's mining and oil and gas. And devolution is not a priority. I would say that the Liberal government is failing badly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the recognition.

I wish to respond to what the Liberals call a ministerial statement. It is, in fact, a no-progress report. It contains no new statement of government policy. What it does is just report on how inefficient this government currently is.

Mr. Speaker, the present devolution package is a bad deal for Yukoners. It has been the position of the Liberal Party of Canada, ever since the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, that Yukoners are not entitled to own Yukon's lands and resources. The Liberals were even opposed to electing Yukoners to run their own government. The Liberals wanted to keep Yukon a colony of Canada by ruling the Yukon through commissioners appointed by them and responsible to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The current devolution package is a sellout. Under this Liberal deal, Yukoners will accept environmental liability for lands and resources we do not own. Further, under this Liberal deal, the Yukon will be giving up its claim to jurisdiction in the Beaufort Sea. How can the Premier stand up in the House and propose that Yukoners accept this Liberal deal? She claims that her government is opposed to a pipeline crossing Yukon's northern offshore waters, yet she accepts this federal Liberal package, denying recognition of Yukon's claims to its offshore waters.

Now, who is the Premier serving - Yukoners or Jean Chrétien? Who is going to stand up for the rights of Yukoners? We have a puppet Liberal government in the Yukon whose strings are pulled by the puppet masters from Ottawa.

The only good news in this statement is that devolution has been delayed. I'm sure that the seven Yukon First Nations who have yet to reach a settlement will be pleased, because now the Yukon Liberal Government of Canada can focus its attention on settling land claims, which was supposed to be the top priority of this Liberal government.

The message to the Premier should be clear: use the delay to negotiate a better deal, a deal that grants the Yukon ownership of its lands and resources and recognizes Yukon's offshore northern waters. If you haven't got the wherewithal to do this, say "no thanks" to your Liberal friends in Ottawa.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, the members opposite have responded to the ministerial statement today with their usual "don't do as we do, do as we tell you" attitude.

This report on devolution eminently qualifies as a ministerial statement. The member opposite makes reference to land claims negotiations and that somehow they are not a priority. Again, I would commend page 3 of the throne speech to the member opposite. The negotiation and settlement of seven outstanding land claims are a priority of this government, just as I said in my second sentence: "Devolution is a priority of this government." I have no idea how many times I have to say it before those words will finally sink in.

Providing a ministerial statement on the update on devolution is very appropriate in light of the federal election call and questions that Yukoners have asked that, had the members of the opposition been doing their homework, they would have asked.

Nothing has been shelved; nothing has been postponed. Yukoners deserve the best deal, and that is exactly what they're going to get because Yukoners are trusting this side to work with Canada and negotiate the best deal, and that's what we're doing. And the hard-working public servants, who have put in yeoman service negotiating this deal and working on it, have been doing their best on behalf of the Yukon, and this Cabinet will only accept a devolution deal when it is the best.

A number of factual inaccuracies were stated, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have offered, many times on the floor of this House, a briefing for members opposite by the devolution negotiators. We have offered several times. And I would encourage the members opposite to avail themselves of that opportunity and, in short, do their homework.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Klondike group home, transfer to Health and Social Services

Mr. Keenan: Today I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It's regarding the government's decision to take over operation of the group home at 16 Klondike Road. It has given the importance of stability in children's lives, and especially these children.

I'd like to ask the minister and get him to tell us what steps that the government is taking to ensure that these children have consistency of care and programming during this transition.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: The safety of children and staff is our primary concern as a government. The decision to give notice to a contractor was strictly an operational decision that was made by the department and officials of Health and Social Services.

The services provided by the home will continue without interruption.

Mr. Keenan: Operational - it doesn't sound like there's a human touch in there at all, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, the negative impact of multiple foster placements has been recognized, following the Gove report. It is now a requirement that a case must be reviewed following five placements.

As a result of the Gove inquiry, the Ministry of Social Services has also recognized the importance of regular and consistent care with children's social workers.

What specific steps has this minister taken to ensure that children are not subjected to this kind of continued upheaval in their lives, and are guaranteed some type of consistency of care during their formative years?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I'll thank the member opposite for that question.

Mr. Speaker, the safety of children and staff is our most important issue in this particular case. The decision to give notice to the contractor was strictly, as I said earlier, an operational decision.

The services provided by the home will continue without interruption. We are now in a period of 60 days, within which the department staff will support the contractor's staff. During this time, the staff from the group home will be encouraged to submit their applications to the Public Service Commission. So after the 60-day notice period has passed, the home will be run by Health and Social Services to ensure client safety and care while residing in the home.

Mr. Keenan: Well, thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for that high-handed attitude. If safety is a primary concern for the people in the group home, I would suggest that the members should get the Minister of Education to look at the Mayo school again, because there certainly are issues of safety and health of children there.

The minister, again, has a duty to ensure that the lives of children in our care are disrupted as little as possible. Not surprisingly, children who are shunted from one placement to another often exhibit significant emotional problems. In this case, in the group home alone, we are talking about children between the ages of 13 and 18 who, in some cases, have already had as many as 43 placements - 43. Is the minister concerned about this extraordinary level of placements? If so, is he prepared to commission an independent inquiry into all aspects of how his department handles children who need to be placed outside of their families?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Thank you again for that question. As I said in my previous two responses, the safety of the children and staff is really our number one concern. As I said earlier, the decision to give notice to the contractor was strictly an operational decision and was made by the Department of Health and Social Services. As I said earlier, the services will continue without interruption.

The department has worked with the contractor, Sandra Gibbs, for nine years. During that time, Sandra has shown great dedication to the children and youth that she served. All of the contracts with Ms. Gibbs will remain intact. We hope to work with her to ensure a smooth transition for the young people residing in the home.

I should also tell the House that we have an eight-page summary from Workers' Compensation regarding 16 Klondike. That is another reason why we have to be concerned about the safety of staff and residents of the house.

Mr. Speaker, may I add that, if the previous government did not review the home as they should have when they were in government and did not solve the supervision and the treatment of these problems, it is mainly because they were negligent. I rest with what I have said: that the safety of the clients, of the people living in the home, and that of the staff are the main reason for taking over the operation in 60 days.

Question re: Klondike group home, transfer to Health and Social Services

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I feel like I have just been lectured. Not anywhere did I hear the answer to the question. I asked the minister if he was prepared to commission an independent inquiry into all aspects of how this department handles the children in need.

During the last election campaign, the Member for Riverdale South assured group home workers in the private sector that a Liberal government would ensure that their wages would be the same as those of public employees doing the same work.

Now, with the takeover of 16 Klondike Road, the government will obviously need to spend more on wages for this important work. Can the minister tell us how much more his department will be allocating to wages for group home workers during the current fiscal year, and what other programs this money will come from?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the question, but I guess I must repeat myself over and over again when you don't understand the answer. Over time, it might be understood then.

The reason why the government has taken over the operation of this home in 60 days is for the safety of both the residents and of the staff. The important part of this question is that I have no accounting at this point in time of how much that is going to cost. The issue here is the concern that we have for the safety of the people staying there and working there. That's the reason why we have taken this action, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan: Again, that was another non-answer. It was just a bit of blame and very high-handed rhetoric.

I expected that the minister would stand up and say, like the Minister of Government Services, that it was just purely hypothetical. Hypothetical. The department has set December 19 as the takeover date for this facility - one week before Christmas. That hardly seems fair to the 21 employees of the group home, who have been given their lay-off notices, and it certainly doesn't seem fair to the children involved, especially at that time of the year when many emotional issues come forth. We have a right to expect some type of continuity of care.

Can the minister tell us how a change in staff a week before Christmas is in anyone's best interest in this situation?

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Thank you for the question. Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of what emotional traumas go through many lives in this territory. The member opposite has not got a corner on the market for what happens to people at different times throughout the year. I think it's important to realize that this is not a light issue. It is a very serious issue, and we do not take it lightly. If it could have been done any other way, we would have done it.

This was our main concern: the safety of children and staff. That is the main reason why this had to happen.

Mr. Keenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're continually hearing about any other way. That "any other way" - the Liberal way - seems to me to be awfully high-handed.

The staff at the group home has been invited to apply for the jobs at the group home. Since consistency of care is so important to the emotional well-being of the children, can the minister again explain what steps are being taken to ensure that this staff is given priority in hiring in order to facilitate a smooth transition that will allow the children to maintain relationships with their current caregivers.

Please try and answer the question, so that the next time I stand up, I can say, "Thank you for the answer."

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I will try not to be as dramatic. I suppose I could be if I wished, but I will try to stick to the facts.

We are trying our best, as always, to ensure that there's a smooth transition. The important point is that all employees of the Gibbs' 16 Klondike group home can apply for these jobs. They will go through the same process that all government employees, or prospective government employees, have to go through - through the Public Service Commission. Consideration, again, will be based on their experience and on a number of other factors.

May I remind the House, once again - and I have to say this - when the previous government did the review of this home, they could have solved the problems at the time when they were in charge. I think this shows that we are trying to deal with the issues and respond to the issues, as is needed. That was not an easy decision. We understand about the timing of the year. We didn't ask for this timing. It is based on a lot of evidence and support, making this change necessary. If we had not, there would have been even more difficulties.

Question re: Connect Yukon project

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals adopted the NDP election platform because they had no vision or sense of direction of their own to offer Yukoners. Consequently, we see the Liberal government proceeding to implement many questionable initiatives of the previous NDP government, specifically the $23.5 million Connect Yukon project, and now they have decided to implement the previous NDP government's $27.2 million Mayo-Dawson transmission line project.

Recently, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce expressed alarm about the questionable benefits of this project, calling it a ball and chain for Yukon ratepayers.

Can the Premier explain to the chamber and other Yukoners why she is proceeding with this initiative?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can explain to the member opposite and interested Yukoners why the Mayo-Dawson transmission line extension contract has been discussed. First of all, this project has been on the books for some years, including years under the previous-previous administration associated with the member opposite. The business case is there to show that it makes sense to stop buying diesel engines and fuel and to use the excess capacity in Mayo. We had a very good discussion at the Yukon Chamber of Commerce annual general meeting about this particular project, and I'm looking forward to a very good discussion about this project also when the chair of YDC and YEC attends the House, which we are attempting to schedule as soon as possible.

Mr. Jenkins: Let the record reflect that the minister failed to answer the question. It's just to get off diesel fuel, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's well-known flight to Ottawa, at the spur of the moment, burned almost 10,000 litres of fuel - about the same amount of fuel that Dawson burns in a week. Interesting.

Just prior to the election, the previous NDP minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation and Yukon Energy Corporation announced that there would be a new president of YEC and that the previous president of YDC/YEC would become the new president of YDC.

Once again, the Liberal government has followed through, and I'd like the Premier to explain why she is supporting this very costly duplication of senior staffing.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would invite the member to review Hansard, because I did give an answer to his previous question.

Perhaps it was his effort to compare avgas and diesel, which he was thinking was such a witty line, and he was tripped up and did not hear the answer.

The reason for the appointment of a president to YEC is, first of all, that it is not an order-in-council appointment, and it was a directive issued by the previous minister in a March 7, 2000, letter to the chair of the Yukon Development Corporation.

Mr. Jenkins: For the Premier's information, diesel fuel and jet A and jet B are virtually similar fuels. Avgas is something else.

All these approvals for senior positions have to be ratified by Cabinet, the Premier knows fully well. The Liberals, aside from following the NDP game plan, promised to be open and accountable, so I'd like the Premier to advise what public consultation she has had regarding the Mayo-Dawson transmission line, and the YDC/YEC restructuring. And I'd like to know if she's going to be making a commitment to submit this to the Yukon Utilities Board before the go-ahead decision is granted.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The kibitzing from the former energy commissioner is humorous indeed, Mr. Speaker. It momentarily distracted me from answering the member opposite, who I had forgotten was such an expert on high-flying.

The member opposite may not be aware that there is a business case to support the construction of the Mayo-Dawson transmission line; that, indeed, there was a discussion of it by the Yukon Utilities Board, in 1992; that there has been a separate evaluation of the project by B.C. Hydro; that the project will create jobs in his own riding of Klondike - however, that fact seems to have escaped the member opposite.

Also, it will create jobs in Mayo, and the First Nations - both Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in, and Nacho Nyak Dun - are most supportive and have entered into an agreement with YDC on this. Most importantly, what the member opposite fails to recognize, or appreciate, is that ultimately this will result in lower power bills for Yukoners.

Question re: J.V. Clark School, construction jobs in Mayo

Mr. Fentie: My question is for the Minister of Education. Last week, the Minister of Education promised to repair some of the damage that his ill-advised decision to postpone construction of the new Mayo school has caused. He assured this House that the Liberal government was actively seeking out work for Mayo residents this winter.

Can the minister now tell us what kind of project he has in mind, when will it start, and how much will it cost Yukon taxpayers to make up for his blunder when it comes to the Mayo school decision?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the question and, first of all, having them recognize the fact that it is a postponement of the school construction and not a cancellation. So I am glad they got that one point straight.

I am working with the Minister of Government Services and his DM to identify those jobs that will keep four to six members of the community working, as requested by Chief Hager.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that is a very interesting answer, because 12 people - 12 residents - in Mayo took the level I carpentry course. What about the other six? We hope that the minister has something in the works for those other six people. They are Mayo residents also out of work, trained workers out of work.

Does the minister have plans for similar winter work projects for people who have taken government-sponsored training but who are not able to take that training into the workplace this winter?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, in a government-to-government meeting with Chief Hager, the Premier, Minister Jim and me, he specifically identified four to six individuals who will need assistance by way of this government providing work in that community over the winter months until the startup of school construction, and the Premier committed that we would assist and will find work for those members.

As I already indicated, the Minister of Government Services and I are working on that as we speak.

Mr. Fentie: The former NDP government provided training trust funds for people in the forest sector. Those funds accomplished a feat that has over 100 people working full-time in jobs in saw-milling. Now, the biggest economic boom in the southeast Yukon is the renting of U-Haul trailers as these same people go to jobs in B.C., Alberta and the Northwest Territories. My supplementary question is for the Premier, who is also the Minister of Economic Development. Given the deplorable state of the Yukon's economy, will she introduce a winter work program right away in all Yukon communities, as she is willing to do in Mayo, to fix her government's mistakes?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I have indicated to the member opposite that the Yukon Liberal government is committed to turning the Yukon economy around. And in so doing, what we have delivered on is a second land sale, work in oil and gas in the north this winter, work in southeast Yukon in the oil and gas exploration sector this winter. We have delivered, through the efforts of the Minister of Tourism, an additional 2,200 seats and visitors coming to the Yukon starting early in the spring.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan: If the member opposite is interested in the answer, I'll continue to give it. A number of other areas we have been working on include the MINE program - and I will be delivering an update to the mining community in the check-against-delivery program. And there is additional work going on this winter in that Expatriate Resources and Copper Ridge Exploration Inc. are both doing drilling this winter, which was not planned at the beginning of the fall.

Question re: Job creation

Mr. Fentie: That begs the question then, given the fact that Yukoners, when the Liberal government told them that the Liberals are going to rebuild the economy, weren't told that they were going to dismantle it first. The Premier just stood on her feet and said that there is land sale in Eagle Plains in the north Yukon, there's activity in the southeast Yukon in oil and gas. Could she stand on her feet then and tell us how many Yukoners are working in the oil and gas sector in the southeast Yukon and in north Yukon? How many are working today?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows, because it happened in 1999, that Anderson Exploration committed to spending $20.4 million over a series of years on their exploration permits, and that is $20.4 million spent employing Yukoners. There's a second land sale, which will close early in 2001. There's exploration work going on in southeast Yukon this fall.

If the member wants precise statistical information, does he want to argue again about the unemployment rate under the NDP government, an all-time high of 17 percent, or the unemployment rate under the Liberal government, 9.7 percent? We're all concerned, on the floor of this House - very concerned about rebuilding the Yukon economy and about putting Yukoners to work.

The way we believe in doing that is by rebuilding the Yukon economy, through confidence in the oil and gas sector, through confidence in the mining community.

We also believe in certainty, Mr. Speaker. We believe in certainty. We're negotiating land claims; we're proceeding on devolution. We're doing exactly what we said we'd do.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier, the Minister of Economic Development, how many jobs have been created by this Liberal government now and this winter, when people in this territory desperately need those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, we had 125 families working in the forest sector in Watson Lake. Yukoners are well aware of the federal government's inability to respond to Yukon needs and how they have bungled and stumbled and fumbled forestry and mining in this territory, shutting it down - effectively shutting it down.

After being warned last May that there were options available to this Liberal government, what did the Premier do in lobbying her federal friends in Ottawa to ensure that a shutdown did not take place?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have lobbied the federal government on a number of issues, and with respect to the timber harvest allocation, THA, process, in the short term we're working with the federal government to come up with a THA process that's acceptable to Yukoners. The members opposite, most especially the Member for Watson Lake who prided himself on being the forest commissioner, had four years to work on this issue. In his capacity as forest commissioner, he produced a forestry strategy that was not endorsed by Yukon First Nations, and he spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on trips to New Brunswick.

Earlier this year, the member opposite criticized the government for not getting South Yukon Forest Corporation a long-term timber harvest permit, yet when he was forest commissioner he took a different position.

Mr. Speaker, this government has lobbied the federal government on THAs. In the short term, we are working with them to come up with a THA process that is acceptable to Yukoners. We have also lobbied the federal government on section 87, in an effort to resolve one of the key issues at the land claims table. We have also lobbied the federal government on the outstanding loan issue. We have lobbied them on that. I have lobbied them on formula financing funding arrangement issues, which somehow the members opposite never seem to talk about. We've lobbied them also on issues such as health care. We have delivered an additional $20 million to the territory, but somehow the member doesn't think we're doing enough. What would the member suggest?

Mr. Fentie: I would get new briefing notes, if I were the Premier. I asked about winter works and jobs now.

Mr. Speaker, the THA process was complete. It was timelined for September. This government - the Liberal government - took a hand in delaying that process. That's why bridge financing was asked for.

I just pulled off the net, Mr. Speaker, a little item from the federal government. It's entitled, "Rural Canada: Strong Communities." In this information are literally hundreds of millions of dollars available to rural Canada. How much money did this Premier ask the federal government to provide to keep the forest industry going while they stumbled through the THA process?

We know for a fact that the federal government was willing to put $3 million on the table to keep the forest industry running. This government would not participate as they were asked to by First Nations and the federal government. Why is that?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, I would urge the member opposite to think very carefully about his questions and perhaps do a little more homework than he has done. It is obvious from his questions that he has no faith in his party. It's no wonder he's shopping for options, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have lobbied the federal government on a number of issues. Where have we delivered? There is $20 million in additional health care funding.

Maybe the member opposite doesn't care about health care costs, but all other Canadians, including Yukoners, certainly do.

The member opposite tells me - calls from across the House - that he is asking for jobs. Let's talk about the jobs this government is providing. The mining sector - did we do what we said we would do? Yes, and I will be delivering that in an address to the mining industry on November 6. I encourage the member opposite to look at the mine program.

The oil and gas sector - the members make much of the fact that, according to them, no one is at work. Well, tell that to the people who will be working for Anderson Exploration in the winter; tell that to the people in southeast Yukon who will be working next year.

Let's talk about the people who are working on aggressively promoting the Alaska Highway pipeline. Heaven knows, it is not the members opposite that are working on that particular project; their opposition has been loud and clear. The THA and forestry process has been very ably lobbied for by the minister responsible for Renewable Resources. Let us talk about 2,200 extra charter seats -

Speaker: Order please. I must ask the Premier to conclude her answer. Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Alaska Highway gas pipeline

Mr. McRobb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Renewable Resources.

As the minister is aware, we in official opposition are in support of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. That fact is misrepresented by this Liberal government, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves, putting out press releases and wasting time in this Legislature to argue against that. That does not mean we necessarily agree with how this government is approaching the proposed pipeline in the context of the Yukon's overall economy.

The Premier has taken a position that the Alaska Highway route is preferable, because the necessary permits are in place. Does the minister support the Premier's view on that?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, yes.

Mr. McRobb: The minister must be aware that the Yukon Conservation Society feels those permits are so old that the whole project should be reviewed. So far, the minister hasn't taken a public stance on that matter. Let's see if we can knock this Liberal off the fence, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, how does the minister reconcile the Premier's view that the environmental and regulatory work has been done, with the views of the conservation community that a re-examination is in order?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to that question for the member opposite's information. The pipeline environmental review was completed and the certificate granted in 1982. It has been the consistent position of this government that that environmental permit, which met the standards of the day, would require refreshment. It would not require starting at ground zero, unlike some other projects that are proposed.

For the member opposite's information, our platform said that we would aggressively promote the Alaska Highway pipeline route, and that's what we have been doing. We will continue to do that, in spite of the member opposite.

The member opposite may not be aware that, on August 31, I wrote to the Yukon Conservation Society inviting them to meet with me and my officials to talk about this, and I understand that since that time, although they have not responded to me directly, they have met a number of times with the officials.

The member opposite may also not be aware that the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society have praised the Liberal government for consulting with the public on their efforts in oil and gas.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, that hardly addresses the question, and I would ask that the Minister of Renewable Resources respond to my question, not the Premier or the de facto Premier upstairs.

Now, the Yukon has control of the oil and gas resource. If the Prime Minister stops calling premature elections that are completely unnecessary, we might get control of the rest of our resources and be able to put Yukoners to work. The environment barely rated a mention in this government's throne speech.

Can the minister tell us what role environmental protection will play in any concrete action this government eventually takes to promote economic development in the territory? It seems that everything is under review or is delayed. What concrete action will the environment minister take, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in that de facto bid for the NDP leadership speech that the member opposite just gave, he tried to bootleg in the economic development and the environment. My responsibility is Economic Development. I will advise the minister what role environment has played.

Let's talk about what role environment has played in the development of oil and gas, to date, since this government took office. In terms of aggressively promoting the Alaska Highway route, we have determined, through the work of officials, that indeed the 1982 certificate is entirely appropriate; however, there is refreshment required.

We have also spoken with the Yukon Conservation Society, in writing and in several meetings. As part of the pipeline unit's workplan, they have met, since our taking office, with representatives, including the executive director of the Yukon Conservation Society, CPAWS, and a number of Government of Yukon officials. There is an update of the status and reasoning behind some of the efforts that have been taken by the government.

In terms of oil and gas exploration, there were extensive discussions held, prior to the call for nominations being released. I would remind the member opposite to examine the CBC 7:30 a.m. newscast, August 24, 2000. It quotes a letter from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, praising the Liberal government for consulting with the public before opening up land to oil and gas development.

We have worked very well with environmental groups, including the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society as well as the Yukon Conservation Society. We have worked well with those groups, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Order please. I must ask the Premier to conclude her question.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Thank you.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Some Hon. Member: Point of privilege.

Question of privilege

Speaker: Official opposition House leader, on a question of privilege.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege, as is my right in this Legislature under the Standing Orders. I rise on that question of privilege with grave concern for due process and the procedures in this Legislature.

The Liberal government, in a high-handed manner, is attempting, through an unprecedented act, to debate a motion on the floor of this Legislature, which would change the rules, the procedures, the due process of this Legislative Assembly. As a member of this Assembly and a member of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, I am insulted that they would take this tactic. This is nothing more than a schoolyard bully using the high-handed manner of their majority.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, with the Liberals wanting to change night sittings, the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges is the agency, the committee that instituted night sittings in this Legislature.

Furthermore, in a meeting of the standing committee on September 27 of this year, we discussed night sittings, among other agenda items including the second motion the Liberals have brought forward regarding an all-party committee. We discussed those items and we all agreed, with four members in Liberal benches opposite present, that we would bring those agenda items back to SCREP November 1, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. Instead, the Liberals, in this unprecedented manner and act, have decided to try and ram something through this House without following due process. All that has to take place is that meeting November 1.

You have instructed a number of times in this House that that committee meet. All that has to take place is that committee meet. The recommendations would then be brought forward to this Legislative Assembly. Instead, in a climate in this territory where so many other priorities for Yukoners are front and centre: our health care, our education, our economy; the Liberals choose to waste the time in this House debating a frivolous motion that is redundant because the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privilege would have made these changes anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a travesty. I think this Liberal government is simply going totally over the top with their numbers in majority, and they have not been able to grasp the fact that they committed - committed - to this House and Yukoners that they would do things differently.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they are. They've made this House, and its procedures, much worse than ever in the past, and it's time that we in the opposition - as we intend to do - hold them accountable for their actions.

Thank you.

Speaker: The Member for Whitehorse Centre, on the point of order.

Mr. McLarnon: On the point of order, the Member for Watson Lake made no point of privilege. There was no complaint. The member has just wasted our time in this House, without actually making a formal complaint. He rose on a point of privilege, and made no point of privilege. I would ask the Speaker to remind members what a point of privilege is, since there was no specific complaint against the House there.

Speaker: Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, there was a very, very valid point of privilege raised by the Member for Watson Lake, and that deals with the business of this House, and how it's conducted, and the rules under which we operate.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Liberal government that wants to change those rules. There is a committee struck to deal with those rules, and you yourself, Mr. Speaker, are referred constantly to that group to deal with various issues that have been raised here, right in this sitting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's obviously a problem with the way the Liberals currently perceive the operation of this House, and that is coming through abundantly clear in the heavy-handed manner in which they're wanting to change things.

There's a proper procedure; there's a committee. In that committee, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals currently hold the majority of members. So it is fait accompli; through the democratic process in that committee - if all their members attend - they would have the majority.

What we have instead is a Liberal government that is more concerned with abolishing evening sittings, with spending time on other-than-government business to which they were duly elected. The evening sittings were established so that people who work in the daytime would have the opportunity to come here, come into this Legislature and watch their elected officials and what is happening. What we have is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the current Liberal government and in taking a process away from the committee responsible for it and bringing it forward in the form of a motion here in this House to deal with it. It is a waste of the time of this House when it can be dealt with in the proper forum.

That was the point of privilege raised by the Member for Watson Lake. It is a very valid point of privilege, and I strongly support that position he has taken.

Ms. Tucker: On the point of order, I refer to the Standing Rules on a member being called to order during debate: 19(i) charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehoodor imputing false or unavowed motives to other members.

The members opposite had the opportunity throughout the summer to attend SCREP meetings, which they failed to do. There have been numerous attempts to arrange SCREP meetings with the members opposite. We would be happy to participate in meetings, and we could reach some agreement. The members opposite state that we were wasting government time. Then I am assuming from that that members opposite would be happy to pass the motion, since they have agreed to it in principle.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I would instruct, or at least advise, the government House leader to practice what she preaches. She is imputing false motives on this side of the House. We are taking exception to the method in which this government has circumvented the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges.

That is the issue at hand: due process in this Legislative Assembly.

I'd like to further point out that the Member for Whitehorse Centre, in admonishing me for getting up on a point of privilege, has even made the case that it is not my right to do so. I disagree, Mr. Speaker. It is every member in this Legislative Assembly's right to stand on a question of privilege. Our due process is under attack by this government and it's high time that they changed their attitude.

Speaker: Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the next SCREP meeting is slated to be held on November 1. That's two days away. That's when this matter should rightly be dealt with, as well as a whole series of other issues that we're having difficulties with. You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, are having difficulties with the interpretation.

So, I would respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that this be dealt with under SCREP and be dealt with in the proper forum, at the proper meeting that is slated for November 1, and not be taken point by point with a motion here in the House, wasting the valuable time of the House.

Speaker's ruling on question of privilege

Speaker: If there are no further comments, the Chair is now prepared to give a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the official opposition House leader.

The official opposition House leader met the notice requirement found in Standing Order 7(1)(b) by submitting a written notice to the Office of the Speaker at 10:55 a.m. on today's date. Standing Order 7(4) states that the Speaker must rule on (a) whether there appears, on the face of it, to be a case of breach of privilege, and (b) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The normal practice of this House has been that, to meet the "earliest opportunity" requirement, the question of privilege must be raised at the time that the event occurred or on the next sitting day. In this matter, the Chair finds this event to be taking place during this sitting day, as the government has directed that Motions No. 1 and 2 be called today.

The question for the Chair to decide on, then, is whether the official opposition House leader has raised a question, which, on the face of it, is a possible breach of privilege.

The foundation of the question of privilege raised by the official opposition House leader was that the government has encroached on "the rights and privileges of all MLAs" by calling motions for debate that would result in changes to the Standing Orders. The official opposition House leader notes that doing so compromises the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges.

In reviewing the Standing Orders of this Assembly and the parliamentary authorities, including Beauchesne, the Chair has not found any basis for the matter raised by the official opposition House leader for the finding of a breach of privilege. The main privileges that the House must be concerned with are those guaranteeing freedom of speech and the right of the House to govern its own proceedings. Calling these motions for debate does not infringe on any member's freedom of speech.

In assessing the right of the House to govern its own proceedings, an argument may be made for asserting that the House has the right to debate these motions. Otherwise, the House might find that it cannot deal with issues that have been sent to committee. As an example, the public accounts stand permanently referred to the Public Accounts Committee. The members of this House, however, are not and should not be restricted from raising matters related to the public accounts in here even though they stand referred to a committee for consideration.

The Chair, therefore, must rule that the matter raised by the official opposition House leader does not constitute a breach of privilege.

This concludes the ruling. The House will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Government motions.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Roberts.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Health and Social Services

THAT the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly be amended, effective the next sitting day after this motion is adopted, by:

(1) replacing Standing Orders 2(1), 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4) with the following:

2(1) The time for the meeting of the Assembly is at 1:00 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday unless otherwise ordered.

(2) On each sitting day, at 6:00 p.m., the Speaker shall adjourn the Assembly without question put, and the Assembly then stands adjourned until the next sitting day unless otherwise ordered.

(3) When the Assembly rises on Thursday at 6:00 p.m., it shall stand adjourned until the following Monday unless otherwise ordered.

and

(2) renumbering Standing Orders 2(5), 2(6) and 2(7) as Standing Orders 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6).

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I rise today in support of this motion. Mr. Speaker, I heard the opposition, and I do agree with many of the things that they said. It's just unfortunate that we have to go this route. I firmly believe that the changing of hours of the legislative sitting requires careful consideration by all members. I encourage all members sitting here to listen to what this can mean to you, and to your life.

Yukoners want a quality of life, a quality of work, a quality of environment and a quality representation.

We believe that the new hours promote equality, because they enable the members of this Legislature to operate within regular daytime hours.

We do not expect our constituents to come to us. It is our job to go to them. We are not going to do this at their place of employment. We are not going to do it after 10:00 p.m. These new hours enable us to do our jobs at a reasonable time of the day, reasonable for all Yukoners to be able to contact our constituents when it's convenient for them.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that Yukoners value families and understand the importance of time spent with their families. These new hours will allow for quality family time. Let me explain. I'll give you some examples of how members of the Legislature and government staff can choose to spend more time with their families. They can take time to call their families, write their families or plan family activities. They can increase their participation in community events, participation in sports, general participation in their health, whether that's getting a good sleep or practicing meditation. I can think of many ways to improve the health of Yukoners with reasonable hours available as a result of changing the hours of the legislative sittings. The bottom line is that we are working the same amount of hours as Yukoners, and the opportunity for Yukoners to visit the Legislature is still here.

The proposed hours of 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. are completely open to the public, Mr. Speaker. From 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., those people who work regular day hours can come and watch their government in action. With advanced technology, we are able to reach Yukoners through television and internet. The first hour of the Legislature, which includes Question Period, is aired on TVNC at 9:00 p.m. every Monday through Thursday. And, by the way, a lot of people watch that, Mr. Speaker. That's why the opposition really searches hard to get the last camera time, as the member opposite from Watson Lake did. He really wanted to show the outrage of trying to change something that is practical and has common sense.

Those with VCRs can set to tape the dynamic exchanges between members. The straight-through sitting will allow Hansard staff and Legislative Assembly staff to have reasonable hours at the end of the working day, and they will not have to work a split shift. People generally do not like to work split shifts. Government morale -

Some Hon. Member:Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Order. Official opposition House leader, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, although I would value listening to the words of the member opposite, I cannot forego a point of order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 19(1)(j), a member can be called to order if he uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. By implying that this side of the House does not even have any common sense, I think, spells that out very clearly, and I would ask that member to retract that statement.

Speaker: Member for Whitehorse Centre, on the point of order.

Mr. McLarnon: On the point of order, I did not hear the hon. member say that they had no common sense, and whether or not this would be a disagreement between members - because a lot of people I know also agree that they do not have any common sense.

Speaker: Well, unfortunately, there was so much background noise here, if that was said, I did not hear it either. I am not able to rule on that at this time, not until I review the Blues. With that, I would ask the minister to continue. Mr. Fentie, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Whitehorse Centre just stood on his feet mere seconds ago and reiterated the same statement, that we do not have common sense. I would ask that member to retract that statement. That is very insulting, in maintaining that members on this side of the House do not even have common sense.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: It was my interpretation of the comments that the Member for Whitehorse Centre was repeating what had been said. I find that to be a dispute between members, and I will ask the member to continue.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After being rudely interrupted again, another point is that, with great consideration from the members opposite, this motion provides one extra hour of debate time on private members' day, so that is a real plus.

We have made many attempts over the summer to meet with the opposition to discuss these changes explained within this motion. We also had a meeting scheduled for this morning. Not one opposition member showed up. That was this morning, Mr. Speaker, at the SCREP meeting. This is an indication that the members of the opposition do not want to meet outside the Legislature to make government more efficient. Had the member opposite met with us, we could very well have resolved issues of timing, quite easily, and then saved the debate on time in the House for issues that would be important to our constituents.

Just a note, Hansard costs $968 an hour. This is a valuable service and one to be respected. Are we respecting the service by debating housekeeping issues on the floor of this Legislature? The members opposite certainly support the notion of wasting taxpayers' money, because they could not meet to discuss the issues in the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges.

I have here, in my hands, the SCREP log with points that were called. On August 28, the opposition was called for a SCREP meeting, but they were unavailable. On September 6, they were called again. Of course, they were not available. On September 13, another meeting was to be called, and it was again cancelled. On September 14, there was another attempt to contact the members opposite, but this was unsuccessful because no one was available. On September 18, a letter was sent to all the members of the opposition to ask for a meeting. Again, this was supposed to be a meeting but was cancelled. On September 23, we actually had a meeting, and I actually went to that meeting. It was the only meeting that I know of at which everyone was there.

And then, on October 27, a memo was sent out again, requesting a meeting to discuss night sittings, and, on October 30, as we've just said, Mr. Speaker, they did not show up for SCREP this morning. So there we are. I enter that into Hansard. We have tried many times - eight times - to have a meeting to discuss these issues.

This committee is a place where issues like this are discussed. No discussions have taken place with the members opposite. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are bringing forward this motion in the Legislature. It is a housekeeping detail. We agree -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Roberts: This is housekeeping, and it shouldn't be brought to the House, Mr. Speaker. This should be solved in SCREP. But we have tried - as I have said - eight times, Mr. Speaker. We tried to connect with the members opposite, but they were never available.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, we had to bring it to the House. The only action remaining is to vote in favour of this motion, and I encourage the members to do this for the reasons I have just stated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie: Well, that is a strange way to encourage the opposition to support changing hours in this Legislature.

First, let me point out that this is a frivolous motion. It shouldn't be here - as the minister himself pointed out. This is housekeeping, and it should be left in the hands of the standing committee.

But there's good reason why those members opposite are bringing this forward. They don't want night sittings, Mr. Speaker. They don't want night sittings because people come to this gallery to watch their politicians debate the issues, and this Liberal government has shown, since the day they took office, a propensity to stay in the shadows and hide from public scrutiny.

They have even hired people to answer for them in the public forum.

That is simply unacceptable when it comes to elected people. It's the elected people who must stand on their feet and answer to the Yukon public who put us here. This motion is a bunch of garbage.

The member opposite made statements in reading his log that weren't even correct. He stated that we met on September 23. I'm talking about the standing committee. That's wrong. We met on September 27. He also didn't inform this House that one of the proposed dates for meeting was cancelled because the Liberals couldn't make it. This is complete rubbish and is making a mockery of this Legislative Assembly.

Furthermore, he states that no discussion took place on these items. Well, I refer him to the minutes tabled in this House a number of days ago that clearly outlined that night sittings were on the agenda and were discussed. It was agreed, at the September 27 meeting of SCREP, that we would reconvene on November 1 and deal with night sittings, as well as a number of other agenda items. It is customary. It is due process. It is how this Assembly operates under attack by this Liberal government.

The Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, in meeting on November 1 at 10:30 a.m., simply would have discussed the items on the agenda and made recommendation to this House on any changes to the Standing Orders.

The Liberals have circumvented that process. They have circumvented that process because the underlying issue is that they are running from public scrutiny. They don't want to see people in this gallery watching them debate the issues, because they are an empty, hollow vessel. If government were a dam, the Liberals would be a leak in it. That's how bad this situation is. Throne speeches with no blueprint, no road map, no direction, nothing.

You know, there's an old adage, Mr. Speaker: empty drums make the most noise. We're hearing a lot of noise from that side but there's no content, no substance. That is a travesty to this House and its democratic processes.

Mr. Speaker, there are other motions that the Liberals have brought forward in regard to what the standing committee deals with - all-party committee. They wanted to debate that on the floor of this Legislature, and yet, when they had the opportunity upon taking office to create an all-party committee on appointments, what is the first act? The Liberals start making partisan appointments to appease and take care of their friends first. Then, after the fact, they come and ask the opposition, "Be agreeable, be nice. Come and work with us. We're great people." Give me a break. They have absolutely no scruples when it comes to due process and democracy in this territory.

There is little wonder why the Liberals on that side do not oppose the federal Liberal government. In all likelihood, they are in line, hoping for some partisan appointments down the road, whether it be an ambassadorship or a senatorship. They are all in line at the Liberal trough, hoping for a long-term ability to feed off the public dole.

Mr. Speaker, I am insulted, as a member of this Assembly, to have to stand here and debate such a ridiculous motion that they have brought forward. The Minister of Health has more important things to deal with. We have problems in our health care system. What is the minister doing about those? Nothing. He is standing here, trying to convince this House that we should change night sittings, change the hours of this Legislative Assembly; and then he makes the ridiculous comment that it would add one more hour to private members' business. Well, there is little wonder why, over the years of history of this Assembly, the public has named that day of private members' business on Wednesday "wasted Wednesday". The Liberals have now made Monday "wasted Monday".

A one-hour increase in debating private members' business is not what this Legislative Assembly requires; it's not what's needed. We need a government across the floor to present to this House the road map, the direction and where they're taking us. If they truly want us to cooperate in the best interests of all Yukoners, those are some of the things that should be coming forward from that government.

The members opposite are playing games, Mr. Speaker. Then the minister stands on his feet in debating this motion and makes the claim that we did not show up for the SCREP meeting this morning. Well, that is the most high-handed remark that the Liberals have come out with yet. We are rural MLAs. I walked in to my office this morning at 10 minutes to 9:00 to be informed that I have a SCREP meeting at 9:30. That's not acceptable. I just finished driving 285 miles. Surely these members aren't that shallow and short-sighted that they can't grasp the fact that that was nothing more than political gamesmanship. And to bring it to the floor of this Legislature is pure rubbish.

We the opposition, as duly appointed members of the standing committee, are willing to meet; and we have met. And we have agreed upon an agenda and a subsequent date. And those items on that agenda are meant to deal with the Standing Orders in this Legislative Assembly - not in this manner - this high-handed, schoolyard bullying manner that the Liberals have come forward with. There are many, many issues in this territory that we should be dealing with, not this frivolous motion. Our economy is in crisis. We are in trouble. People are streaming out of this territory. Families are now facing what is supposed to be a happy season, a good time for all where we put aside our political differences. Christmas is a great time. Not now, not in this territory. There are families out there who are now worrying about their ability to even put a simple present for their children under a Christmas tree. Thanks to this government across the floor - this cold-hearted government who have turned their backs on Yukoners, especially in rural Yukon. They're ignoring the situation we're in - the crisis we're in.

Instead of dealing with issues like that, we have a Premier standing on her feet, making the claim that we are developing oil and gas. Well, I have to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. The first time oil and gas development took place in the Yukon Territory was in the late 1950s. It was Dallas Drilling, rig one, that drilled on the B.C./Yukon border. The reason I know that is because it blew up. They hit gas. It was 40 years ago that oil and gas development was started. In the 1960s, Spurry Rainbow drilled just a few miles out of Watson Lake. In 1979, the Alaska Highway route was permitted. It has been with us for a long time. The Liberals did not invent it.

The only reason why the oil and gas pipeline down the Alaska Highway has become an issue is because of market demand and return on investment. The prices are high enough now that a move toward constructing that pipeline is warranted. It has nothing to do with what the Liberals have done, because, quite frankly, all the Premier has done in oil and gas is create briefing notes.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Order. The Member for Whitehorse Centre, on a point of order.

Mr. McLarnon: I rise on a point of order, section 19(1). The member is out of order when he speaks to the question other than the question under discussion, which is ours, with regard to the session. I do not see how oil and gas has anything to do with this.

Speaker: Leader of the third party, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, it is completely relevant. What we have is just another Liberal interruption to the proceedings of this House. It is unnecessary, really unwelcome and not required.

Speaker: The Member for Watson Lake, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Whitehorse Centre is now even trying to restrict the opposition's ability to debate the motion they brought forward. I am merely pointing out why we should not be debating this motion. It is entirely within my right to stand in this Legislature, debate this motion and make my point as to why it should not be here. I believe I am entirely in order.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: I believe the opposition has a right to be heard. Continue please.

Mr. Fentie: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Getting back to my point, Mr. Speaker, our economy is in such a state of crisis that we should, in this Legislature, be actively pursuing initiatives, programs and anything we can do to help Yukoners now and this winter. Oil and gas, pipelines and mining are all futuristic. Those are jobs that benefit the future. It is important to give Yukoners a sense of how we are going to get there. It is important to give Yukoners some hope that, if they stay here, things will be all right. This Liberal government has failed in doing so, and yet we have to stand here and debate a frivolous motion of this nature, when the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges would have dealt with these issues 48 short hours from now.

I cannot believe how the Liberals, in this arrogant manner, very similar to the federal Liberals, are proceeding in this House.

There is much documentation - oodles and oodles of documentation on how the standing committee has operated. It is the standing committee that brought forward night sittings into this Legislature. There is a reason to have that gallery. The gallery is in this House so that the public can come and scrutinize their elected officials. The Liberals are trying to cut that out. The minister made the point that it is on TV. I'm telling the members opposite that there are Yukoners who don't have TV because they can't afford a TV. Or they don't have cablevision because they can't afford cablevision. Many Yukoners - even rural Yukoners - chose, when in Whitehorse, to come here - even supporters of the members opposite - in the evenings, sit in that gallery and scrutinize their elected people at work.

I openly accuse the Liberals of trying to squash that ability of the public to do so. That is a very high-handed approach to the rules and the processes in this Legislature, and it is an attack on democracy.

We are answerable to the public in any forum they so choose to watch us do it in. The Member for McIntyre-Takhini has made a gesture to the gallery. The reason nobody's in that gallery is because we're debating this piece of junk the Liberals have brought forward as an important matter of interest for this House and the public. It's not the case, Mr. Speaker. It's not the case at all.

The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves for their action. They should be ashamed. In fact, the Liberals should seriously consider thinking of resigning as a government, because you're not acting as a government. You're acting like schoolyard bullies - like schoolyard bullies, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Point of order

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

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I would refer again to the rules of debate, 19(1)(j) "uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder;" referring to the terms "junk" in reference to this motion; "garbage", "schoolyard bullies".

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: I have to agree with the government House leader. I've made some notes here, too, regarding "high handedness", "bullies". "Junk" was the word referred to, and I find that it is insulting language to use those comments.

I would ask the Member for Watson Lake to continue, and to try to be cautious. I know our hearts are pounding here, but we must try to be cautious in our speech.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, this act is unprecedented. This act has never taken place in this manner. Changing rules and due process in this Legislative Assembly has never taken this tack. This motion is frivolous. This motion need not be here on the floor of this Legislature. This motion is redundant. Forty-eight hours from now, the standing committee would have made the recommendations to this House in all likelihood to change night sittings, to deal with a standing committee, to deal with the start date of a fall sitting, to deal with regular start and end dates of legislative sessions, to deal, Mr. Speaker, with an item so dear to your heart, ministerial statements. It's on the agenda as agenda item (d), for the November 1 meeting. To deal with laptops in this Legislature, to deal with decorum in the House, leaving before the Speaker adjourns, and language, an item that you just ruled on. All these, including amendments to motions, time limits on debate on private members' business, anticipation guideline in Question Period - all these items for the SCREP meeting for November 1. The whole intention of the standing committee is to take items like this, discuss them in due process, democratically, and bring forward to this Legislative Assembly recommendations for changes, should there be any.

It goes on further to add all-party standing committee on appointments as an agenda item - all-party agreement on legislative sittings, which is the memorandum of agreement in the Standing Orders. These are the items that were slated for the November 1 standing committee meeting, and yet, here we are today, standing in this House, having to debate this motion.

The Liberals did not have to bring this motion forward. They do so out of political gainsmanship. They have absolutely no qualms about putting partisan political gainsmanship ahead of the plight of Yukoners; ahead of the issues of Yukoners; ahead of due process of this Legislative Assembly; ahead of democratic process. They have shown that by bringing this motion to the floor of this Assembly for debate.

I find it extremely, extremely upsetting that we in this Legislature have to go through this, thanks to the members opposite. I hope subsequent speakers from the Liberals can convince us that this was, in fact, a good thing. I hope members opposite can convince us on the opposition benches that there was a need - a need - to bring this motion forward today. I hope that the members opposite can prove to us that there was some validity and merit in what they are attempting to do, given the fact that in 48 hours, the business of this House in relation to its rules would have been dealt with. It is imperative upon them to do so. It is their duty to do so. The previous speaker, the Houdini of health care for the Liberal government, did not do that when he got on his feet to speak.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order please. I find that comment, "Houdini of health care", to be insulting and likely to create disorder. Thank you.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fentie: I retract that. I only meant I would like to see the minister get out of this one.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, further to that, the minister, when opening up debate on this motion, made some statements that there seems to be some discrepancy, given the minutes. I ask the Liberals opposite, when each and every one of them get on their feet to debate this motion, to try and convince this side of the House - this opposition - that what we are doing here is relevant - relevant to this House, relevant to the democratic process and relevant to Yukoners.

It is their duty to do so. It is the Liberals who brought this motion to the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, in good conscience, even if we, on the opposition side, agree totally with the changes, we cannot get beyond the fact that the method in which this is being done is wrong. It's entirely wrong. There is a serious, serious breach of due process. We, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, have a duty - all of us - to ensure that due process and the way the procedures and the proceedings of this Legislative Assembly are conducted are done so in an open and accountable manner.

The Liberals, on the other hand, with bringing this motion forward, leave us with little else but one conclusion: that they're not really an open and accountable government. They're hiding in the shadows, hiding from public scrutiny, doing everything they possibly can to avoid the issues of the day, thinking they'll go away. Well, they're not going to go away and they're getting worse, much worse.

I ask the opposite benches why. I'll ask the Liberal government why aren't we dealing with something of importance? Why aren't we dealing with our economic crisis? Why aren't we dealing with the situation that is developing in our education system, with politicizing the Education Act review and the teachers turning down that partisan backroom deal that the Minister of Education agreed to? Why aren't we dealing with the serious concerns and issues in our health care system? Why? Why today are we not dealing with the fact that, for two months, there has been no home care nurse in the community of Watson Lake? Why aren't we dealing with that?

No respite care in the hospital, no spare ambulance, two doctors now leaving - those are serious issues. That's what should be brought to the floor of this Legislature.

Why aren't we dealing with the fact that many more people are leaving to go to work elsewhere? Trucking companies like Watson Lake Bus Lines, Bee Jay's Services, Al Gioia Trucking, Rudy's Transport - all going to work elsewhere. That's a tremendous amount of cashflow being ripped out of a community that desperately needs to maintain that cashflow.

Those are important issues. Why did the Liberals not bring forward a government motion, as we did today, asking to convene an all-party committee to address the emergency situation, the crisis we're in economically. Instead, they bring forward a motion to change night sittings and the hours that this Legislative Assembly sits. And they call that a priority? The Liberals maintain that that's important to Yukoners? Not.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this change, no matter what takes place here today and beyond, is not a burning issue with the Yukon public. It merely is a burning issue with the Liberal government, in their headlong approach to hiding from public scrutiny because they have no answers. They have no vision. They have no direction. There are deficiencies in leadership. There are problems, problems on that side of the House, and we, on this side of the House, will be exposing those problems. Here, every day in this Legislature, we will be exposing those problems, and we are doing so right now, by debating this frivolous motion.

We are exposing the fact that the Liberal government ignores the issues of the day and brings forward, as the Minister of Health pointed out, a housekeeping motion, for debate on the floor of this Legislature, completely circumventing and compromising a long-standing committee that dealt with the rules, procedures and privileges of this House.

It's heavy-handed, it's arrogant, and it should not be. I beseech the Liberals, the members opposite, to rethink this approach. Come back to this House with something that is of importance. Take this motion off the floor. Let us deal with the real issues in this territory. Let's get on with the job we were elected to do. Nowhere did I see in any political party's platform that we should be changing night sittings or the time that this House sits. That was not in anybody's platform; that was not in any discussion during the campaign. No party committed to do this. Suddenly our friends opposite launch this little item.

Mr. Speaker, we have to get to the bottom of this, and that's why we will debate this motion on the floor of this Legislature, each and every one of us, to ensure that we expose what a unprecedented act this is, what a travesty of the democratic process that this is.

I urge the Liberals also to rethink their second motion that they've called for: an all-party committee on making appointments. How can you be ramming this down the opposition's throat after making the partisan appointments that you've made already? It begs the question, Mr. Speaker, of why, upon taking office, the Liberal government did not convene an all-party committee to deal with appointments.

The same holds true for this motion we're debating today. We discussed it in SCREP. We dealt with it in SCREP. We agreed in SCREP on what the next steps would be. The Liberal government has completely short-circuited that process by bringing this motion to the floor of the Legislative Assembly.

Now, I ask this Legislative Assembly to look at the body of the motion. It says, "The time for meeting of the Assembly" - and this is the change they want to make to Standing Orders 2(1), 2(2), 2(3) and 2(4). And it begins with 2(1) of the Standing Orders of this House: "The time for the meeting of the Assembly is at 1:00 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, unless otherwise ordered." I ask the Liberals, when they committed in the SCREP meeting of September 27, to bring forward their ideas on night sittings and changing of times of this House. Instead, we find out that their idea is to use a heavy-handed hammer, using their majority, to ram it through this Legislative Assembly.

What precipitated the Liberals choosing 1:00 p.m.? Why 1:00 p.m.? Why is that? We didn't hear it from the first speaker, the Minister of Health and Social Services. So, how do we accept this when we don't even know why that time was chosen?

The Minister of Health and Social Services just kibitzed about coming to the meetings. Well, we went to the meeting. We agreed at that meeting when the next one would be. It's not us who have changed anything. The Liberal government, in playing their political games, are the ones who are trying to change things.

Mr. Speaker, where did they come up with 1:00 p.m.? There is such a thing as lunch. We all are busy. Why choose 1:00 p.m.? Why not 2:00 p.m. and sit until 7:00p.m.? Why not that? Why did the original speaker, the mover of the motion, not stand on his feet and explain to this House, if he wanted our cooperation, why he chose 1:00 p.m.? There must be some rationale, though it escapes us at this point in time. In picking that time, what was the rationale?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Now, I just heard the Premier talk about a part-time MLA. That gets my juices going, I will tell you, because when I looked out in the parking lot all summer here, I did happen to notice something: empty parking lot. Yet, I am being scolded by the Minister of Tourism across the floor, because I parked in an empty stall in the parking lot, that it is for ministers' parking. I ask, where were the ministers? Talk about part-time, we have a part-time government who is so lost - just like Moses in the desert. For four years we will be wandering around here, so lost, that they bring this forward. Unfortunately, it might happen that way. That is a scary thought.

Mr. Speaker, we go on to the next one. Here is another one. They want to change Standing Order 2(2): "On each sitting day at 6:00 p.m., the Speaker" - yada, yada, yada. So, you all know what that means. But what they are saying is our sitting hours are now 1:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Why 6:00 p.m.? Why did the mover of the motion not explain that?

Mr. Speaker, indulge me. Again, the Premier is kibitzing about why didn't we show up for meetings. The proof is on paper. The proof is in writing. The opposition showed up on September 27 to deal with this, among many other items, in the standing committee. We, including the four Liberal members, agreed at that September 27 meeting to reconvene November 1, 10:30 a.m., to deal with and bring closure to the items on this agenda. The Premier, in her kibitzing about why didn't we show up for meetings, leaves one wondering who is briefing her on what's taking place in the standing committee.

So, again, I get back to my point. Why didn't the mover of the motion explain to this House what is the reasoning, the rationale, for changing the sitting times from 1:00 to 6:00 p.m. and shutting down night sittings?

He makes the point that there is some obscure reason why they're doing this. We, on this side of the House, have made the point that they're hiding from public scrutiny.

I would ask again, when the next Liberal speaker gets up, that they provide this side of the House with the rationale for 6 p.m. There are reasons why the original timing was put in place. Mr. Speaker, this gets to public scrutiny. When this Assembly adjourns at 5:30 p.m. for a two-hour break pre-night sitting, it is customary for constituents and members of the Yukon public to have an opportunity to discuss the business of this House during the course of that day and what may be coming up in that night's sitting. Public scrutiny. The Liberals, in this unprecedented act, have now removed that capacity for the Yukon public's ability to access their elected representatives.

I can recall time and time and time again, when at a supper, a constituent has brought forward an issue, even when we were in government. I can recall the number of times sitting here at night when, on that side of the House, people in that gallery were watching their government at work, watching their elected officials at work. The Liberals have stopped that. Again I point out and I can only conclude that they are scared, scared to death of public scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, we then go on to other issues, other issues that we're looking at when we deal with the body of this motion. By removing night sittings and concentrating the times that this House sits between Monday and Thursday, it also impacts all through the day when the Yukon public will be able to access their officials to bring forward the issues that are important to them, to be able to deal with their elected officials in the business of government. The Liberals again are removing that ability for the Yukon public to be part of these proceedings. I find it unacceptable, totally unacceptable that we should be debating this motion on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more that we must be looking at. The members opposite seem to think that they've got some kind of a stand to make here by making the claim that the opposition does not attend SCREP meetings. Well, they're a little confused, Mr. Speaker. The opposition does attend those meetings.

The results of those meetings - and given the fact that this is a very new sitting - it's in its infancy - of this Thirtieth Legislature. It was a very short time ago that we met, and in a very short time we'll be meeting again. So, how can the opposite benches make that claim that we refuse to do so? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to justify this unprecedented act. They're trying to justify it in their own minds, because the public is not buying it; the public won't buy this one little bit. They're trying to justify in their own minds that this is the right thing to do and that they'll ram this down the opposition's throat, whether they like it or not. That's not going to work. It's not going to work, Mr. Speaker. This motion does not belong on the floor of this Legislature. There's no reason for it to be here - no reason whatsoever.

And then I want to point out again that, upon arriving at my office this morning at 10 minutes to 9:00 for my first meeting at 9:00, I was handed a letter instructing me to attend a SCREP meeting at 9:30 this very morning. I would ask the members opposite to really think about this and to consider it, consider that letter and what they requested. How does that compute into a kinder and gentler elected body for the members opposite? How does that relate into making this Legislature a kinder and gentler place? How can that possibly entice us on this side to be cooperative? How can that entice us on this side of the House to sit down and debate motions of this kind or discuss issues of this kind and compatibly come out with a decision?

Mr. Speaker, these are points being made to show that the members opposite have taken upon themselves to do something to change the rules of this Legislative Assembly, to ram it down the opposition's throats, no matter what, and completely rewrite years and years and years of how this Legislative Assembly operated.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education/Renewable Resources/Public Service Commission - all of which have major problems for him to deal with - makes the point that they are doing government differently. I will say they are; I will agree with that statement. They are doing government differently. This has never happened. This has never, ever taken place in this manner before in this Legislative Assembly. They are doing government differently. In a very, very arrogant and heavy-handed manner, they are conducting the business of government and this House. Unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the opposition, unacceptable to the Yukon public, unacceptable to anything that we find dear in due process and in democracy.

Mr. Speaker, night sittings, agreed to by the standing committee, were there for a purpose. They were there so the public could come here and observe. It goes back to over 20 years - 20 years of how this House operated. Night sittings were implemented through the standing committee. Why not change it through the standing committee? There is absolutely nothing from the previous speaker, the mover of the motion, to indicate what it is that the Liberal government, the members opposite, are truly trying to achieve.

What is it they're trying to achieve with this? Is it going to fix our economy? Is it going to solve our problems in health care, in recruiting doctors and nurses? Is it going to solve our problems in getting better home care, in order to, as the members opposite have claimed, keep seniors and elders in their homes as long as possible - the quickest way to healthy living for our seniors and elders. By the way, that's no news flash, either, Mr. Speaker. That has been around with governments for a number of years now: that in our health care system our seniors are much better kept in their own homes as long as possible, because they're more comfortable, which then translates into healthier living.

How does this motion today deal with our problems in the education system? I ask the members opposite how is that possible? I cannot - though I've tried, since the Liberal government gave notice of this motion, to figure out what it is they're attempting to do.

I've thought it through over and over and over. And I feel quite disappointed that the members opposite would come up with this feeble excuse that the reason they must bring this motion forward - must debate this motion - is because the opposition will not meet.

Some Hon. Member: A point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Member for Whitehorse Centre, on a point of order.

Mr. McLarnon: I would ask the member opposite to withdraw the words "evil" excuse. Again, it's inflammatory and imparts false impressions upon us. We are certainly not evil.

Speaker: Member for Watson Lake, on the point of order.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fentie: In order to expedite the business of this House, I'll retract "feeble", and replace it with "suspect".

It's a very suspect excuse, making the claim that the opposition will not meet to deal with rules, privileges and procedures of this Legislature.

Because it's simply not the case. We've proven it. We've tabled documents to prove it. The facts are that we do meet and that we will meet.

However, it brings to mind the question of why the Liberals chose to do this. What course do you think the opposition can possibly take now? What is it that the Liberals expect from the opposition benches? Where do we go from here? I, as a member of the standing committee, now must ask the question, "What's the point?" Why do we have a standing committee? What are now the issues that the standing committee should deal with? What is the standing committee going to do now? The Liberal government has taken a new tack of how we deal with the rules and procedures of this Legislative Assembly. The Liberals have decided, because they have nothing else really to talk about, to debate motions on changing the rules and procedures of this House on the floor of the Legislature. So what is the point of having a Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges?

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to put you to sleep. I'm doing my best to be excited.

What is the point of having members? What is the point of having the four members from the Liberals sit on that committee? What is the point of having my esteemed colleague, the Member for Klondike, sitting on that committee? Why would my esteemed colleague from Kluane and I sit on that committee if this is what we are going to do?

Here we go again. If you want to keep me on my feet until the cows come home, the Minister of Government Services is going about it the right way. The minister said, in kibitzing across the floor, to attend meetings. I repeat again that we have shown in documentation, beyond a shadow of a doubt -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but now we have the Minister of Health kibitzing about us attending one. I rest my case, they have just admitted we attend meetings. And we agreed at that meeting to have a subsequent meeting on November 1, 2000 at 10:30 a.m.

I rest my case, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the members opposite are mistaken in their position and in their comments, because we on this side of the House do take it seriously when it comes to the rules and the procedures of this Legislative Assembly. We take it very seriously, and that's why we take such great exception to this approach by the Liberals and the motion they have brought forward here today, with absolutely no thought. I believe the Liberals have decided that the way to snooker the opposition on this one is, "We have 10 members and they only have seven members."

Sorry, for a moment there I forgot that our colleague from Faro has now moved on - my colleague from Faro who has reached a crossroad in his life and made a life decision. I applaud him for that. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, they, as I was pointing out, have 10 members in this Legislative Assembly - a big majority - and they think they can snooker the opposition by making this unprecedented move on the floor of this House. They think that they can get us.

Well, I have got news for the Liberals opposite. We, in the opposition, in representing our constituencies and holding the Liberal government accountable, have many more things at our disposal to ensure that we can do so, and one of them is standing on this floor and debating this frivolous motion to its justified and inevitable end.

Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that at every juncture we ferret out why it is that the Liberals are so desperate and want to so badly change the rules and the procedures of this House. That, Mr. Speaker, is part and parcel of why we will be debating this motion.

It is our job, our duty, as elected representatives of Yukoners, to ferret those things out. Why is it that they want so desperately to do this? We must ferret out why they keep and continue to make the claim around the standing committee and the opposition attendance. Do they not realize that, in calling all these meetings and setting meetings, we in the opposition, who happen to be rural MLAs, must make travel plans and do a number of things so that we can attend the meetings with due notice, as is proven by the September 27 meeting? We all, coming from the far reaches of the Yukon, attended. There is good reason for the Liberals opposite, the government benches, to make due consideration of the fact of where we live and what is involved in us getting packed up, coming to the City of Whitehorse to sit down in a meeting and discuss issues like this.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: My colleague from Kluane just pointed out a very important fact. In the wintertime, we must also drive and travel in adverse conditions. Unlike driving around the streets of Whitehorse here, we must go many miles with nothing in between. These are not easy things to do, and we, on this side of the House, merely say that we will attend meetings, as we have shown we will. But we also need due notice.

I say, as a member of the standing committee and a member of this Legislative Assembly, that I am totally justified in asking the Liberal government, when calling meetings of this nature, that they give the opposition members due notice, given the fact of where we come from and what the logistics are in attending these meetings.

I would also submit that when we do have one and we as members of that committee agree that this is the course of action we will take and these are the next steps, I would also ask - and I'm justified in asking this - that the Liberal government honour those agreements. Otherwise, why would we attend the meeting and make decisions at that meeting to have a subsequent meeting to deal with the issues as they pertain to the Standing Orders of the Legislature. What is the point? Why are we doing this?

It begs the question now that we, the opposition, have proven that we do attend SCREP meetings, that we did agree - based on the minutes - it's in writing - on what the next steps would be. I must ask the Liberals opposite - the government on the opposite benches - what precipitated their ignoring that agreement and ignoring the fact that in 48 hours we are meeting to deal with that very issue - the night sittings and times that this Legislative Assembly sits? What precipitated their doing that? What happened to the agreement?

This is the crux of the problem. What we have here, constantly, is the members opposite trumpeting that they are a government that does what it says it will do. Yet, when we look at this particular situation, we now see a government that, in contradiction to an agreement made a few short weeks ago - on September 27 - has chosen a different course. How can we, in the opposition, and Yukoners believe that this truly is a government that does what it says it will do, when it can break an agreement of the standing committee and its members.

I accuse the Liberal government of breaking that agreement. I accuse the Liberals opposite of ignoring the fact that the standing committee had met on September 27 and set a subsequent date to deal with issues. I accuse them of ignoring that for their own partisan political gamesmanship. And they do so at their peril, and they do so on the backs of Yukoners.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education just asked me whether I believe my previous statement. I would answer by saying that, when I met with the Liberals on September 27, after driving 285 miles to get here, I believed them when they said, "We all agree that on November 1 at 10:30 a.m. we will meet and deal with these agenda items." I believed them. How can I believe them now? How can I believe anything they say now, when they have completely shattered my trust in them? Shattered it, Mr. Speaker. Ripped it right out of my soul. How can I believe what they say from this point forward when they can't even honour commitments they make in the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how is that?

Mr. Speaker, this unprecedented act must not go unchallenged. We, in the opposition, will challenge it with everything at our disposal. We intend to fight this to its inevitable end. We will not allow - allow - this heavy-handed government to just merely run over the opposition and ignore the real issues of Yukoners. We will now allow, without a fight, this course of action that the Liberal government has set us on.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are ulterior motives here. I've pointed out that the Liberals are scared to death of public scrutiny. There has to be more behind this in breaking the trust of the members of the standing committee - in breaking trust with Yukoners when they committed to the Yukon public that they would be a government that does what it says it will do. There has to be more behind this.

We're going to ferret that out in this debate, Mr. Speaker. We're going to ferret out those reasons, if we have to extract them one at a time and debate this motion every day - every day in this sitting - until we find out what it is the Liberals are attempting to do, in taking this unprecedented act.

Mr. Speaker, there's absolutely no need for them to bring this motion forward today; none whatsoever. None whatsoever.

To subsequent speakers from the Liberal side, I believe, if you want to re-establish that trust with members of the opposition who are members of SCREP; if you want to re-establish that trust with the Yukon public that you are a government that does what it says it will do; you will tell this House -

Speaker: Order please. I'd ask the member to direct his comments through the Chair, please.

Mr. Fentie: I retract "you", Mr. Speaker. The Liberals opposite will tell this House what it is they're attempting to accomplish by this motion, in this debate today.

I beseech the Liberals to come clean with Yukoners. There are far too many examples - this motion included, and the breaking of the agreement at SCREP on September 27 - where this government is lacking in its commitment; where this government has not honoured their commitments.

They said they'd rebuild the Yukon economy. They did not tell Yukoners they'd dismantle it first.

Mr. Speaker, they said there would be no cuts in health care, no cuts to services. Why, then, has there been no home care nursing in Watson Lake for the next two months? Is that not a cut? The Liberals have to get on their feet here today - and whatever subsequent days it is that we debate this motion - and explain that to us in this House, to the opposition benches, and explain it to Yukoners, because today, in this unprecedented act, they have broken that trust. They have broken that trust with the members of SCREP; they have broken that trust with the members of the Legislative Assembly, and they have broken that trust with the Yukon public. That is a disgrace; a disgrace to this institution; a disgrace to the democratic process in this territory, and a disgrace to the rules and the privileges of every member of this House. The Liberals should be ashamed, ashamed for this action.

I ask also that the Liberals rethink not only this motion, but the next one that they have on the Order Paper. Pull these frivolous motions off the business of this Legislative Assembly, re-establish that trust with the opposition and the members of the Standing Committee on Rules, Election and Privileges, stop this nonsense, and we, on November 1 at 10:30 - less than 48 hours from now - will deal with each and every one of these issues and bring them to an agreeable conclusion as the standing committee is intended and charged to do. They could re-establish that trust with Yukoners by doing so.

It does not hurt to back up. No one will hold you at fault. In fact, the Liberals opposite may gain in stature by doing the honourable thing, by stopping this ridiculous debate and getting on with issues, dealing with issues that are truly important to Yukoners.

We just received a supplementary budget, Mr. Speaker. We have a number of items of legislation on the Order Paper. Let's get on with that business.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Then why, if the Minister of Renewable Resources says "exactly", did he allow his colleague, the Minister of Health, to sponsor and bring forward this motion? If it's truly the Minister of Education's and the Minister of Renewable Resources' view that we should be dealing with the supplementary budget and those pieces of legislation here on the floor of this Legislature, then why will he not stand on his feet on a point of order and instruct the Speaker that the Liberals are willing to remove this motion from the floor, put these issues back where they belong with the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, and get on to dealing with the supplementary budget and the legislation before us. Will the member do that?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are going to listen to me. I didn't start this. The Liberal government precipitated it.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Well, we've got three of them kibitzing now. We've got the Minister of Health, we've got the Minister of Education and the Premier saying, "Yes, you did. Yes, you did." Are we in a sandbox here, Mr. Speaker? Are we children in a sandbox arguing about whose toy it is?

We have proven the course of events beyond a shadow of a doubt. We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, here today, that there was no need for this motion to be brought forward. We, in the opposition, have done so. Mr. Speaker, how can the Liberals lay claim that it is we who precipitated this? We did not precipitate this, and I'll point out another reason why I say that.

A very short time ago, though I don't have a copy in front of me, the Liberals put out a press release - ah, here it is - before this debate was even called. Here we have a little bit of a press release from the Yukon Liberal caucus, from the word wizards busily at work upstairs.

I want to read a passage, Mr. Speaker: "The Liberal government proposes extending legislative hours." Now, that in itself is one thing, but when you look at this, we come to realize and we come to the conclusion that the Liberals had no intention, none whatsoever, of allowing these issues to be dealt with in the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges - no intention at all. They had every intention to waste the time in this Legislature - to chew up time in this Legislature - so that we in the opposition could not spend those hours, those minutes and that time, dealing with their legislative agenda and their supplementary budget. I might add that, on many occasions, the Premier said this fall, "We will lay out our direction."

Mr. Speaker, this press release also lends credence to the opposition's view and position that the Liberals are intent on circumventing the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges.

The Liberal benches are intent on muzzling the opposition and on compromising the opposition's ability to hold the government accountable. That's what we are elected to do, and the Liberals have taken it upon themselves to ensure that we are limited, and restricted, in that regard.

That's not acceptable, Mr. Speaker. That is why we, in the opposition, will debate this motion, until we extract from the Liberals, until we ferret out from the members opposite what it truly is that they're trying to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker, I find it also insulting, - and they have the right, under our rules, to bring this motion forward, as the Speaker himself pointed out here in his ruling - that they would launch this press release. Why?

As I asked earlier, which political party, what member of the public, wanted to see hours changed, night sittings cancelled? Where did that take place in the election campaign? In fact, where is that in the contract that the Premier claims is a contract with the Yukon public? Where is that?

We want to know. The opposition wants to know where that is in their contract with the Yukon public. This is entirely a Liberal government initiative. They are doing their level best to stay in the shadows, to avoid the scrutiny that is coming; to try to neutralize and compromise and circumvent every possible thing they can.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Government House leader, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker: Under the rules of debate, 19(1)(i) "charges another member with uttering deliberate falsehoods or imputes false or unavowed motives to another member..." He is implying that we have ulterior motives for bringing this motion forward. I would like to clarify that bringing a motion forward on the floor of the Legislature is the ultimate exercise of democratic privilege for the opposition and for government.

Speaker: Opposition House leader, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie: I say "ulterior motives", Mr. Speaker, because the mover of the motion has not, in anything that the member stated previous to my debate of this motion, showed the opposition why it is that we are doing this. So I can only come to one conclusion. That is not contrary to the rules of this Legislature. I am merely pointing out that there has to be a reason why, and I am asking for it.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order. I find that, really, the members of the House on either side should never question the motives of a member bringing an issue forward. I find that the word "ulterior" imputes unavowed motives to another member, and I would ask the member to refrain from using that language. There may be a different rationale, but "ulterior motives" falls into the "imputes false or unavowed motives", as stated in 19(1)(h) of the rules of debate. With that, I would ask the member to continue.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fentie: I, on this side of the House, then do fully retract that statement, unlike the Liberal bench's inability to retract this motion.

In continuing, Mr. Speaker, how can we on this side of the House have faith that what we're doing here is for the good of this Assembly and for Yukoners, whom we are here to serve? How can we have faith in that, given the fact that we are going about this issue in this manner?

Example after example is coming forward of how this government is not a government that does what it says it will do and how this government has erroneously made statements in this House. I point to the fact that they made the claim numerous times in this House that the accumulated surplus was only $15 million. Well, at the beginning of the fiscal year, numbers right out of this budget tabled here today by the Premier show that the accumulated surplus at the beginning of the year 2000-01 is $64 million. How on earth can we have faith on this side of the House to work in a cooperative manner to change how we do business in this Legislature when we see these examples cropping up? How can we do that? How can the members opposite actually ask us to do that? That is why we have to ferret out what the rationale for this is. What is the government's rationale? Why are they changing it? Now, if they wanted to be agreeable and work in a cooperative manner, they could have had in this motion another little item that said we want to change the Standing Orders accordingly, cancel night sittings, go from 1:00 to 6:00. But because we want to make sure that the public has the appropriate time to scrutinize what we are doing, we will extend Question Period to 40 minutes.

I didn't see that in here. Why isn't it in here?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's saying to me to put forward an amendment, do my job. Well, I want to point out to the Premier that I am doing my job in exposing the fact that the Liberal government is avoiding public scrutiny. I am doing my job, in exposing the fact that the Liberals seem not to be able to even understand simple bookkeeping that's on fiscal year-end. I am doing my job, in exposing the fact, Mr. Speaker, and bringing forward documentation that shows that we in the opposition met with the standing committee to deal with these issues, and proceeded to agree on a subsequent meeting, and how we were going to manage and deal with these items. I am exposing the fact that by bringing forward this motion, the Liberals have broken that agreement and broken that trust. The list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Speaker, I have a real concern here. I have a real concern her