Whitehorse, Yukon

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Speaker:      I would ask the members to join me in welcoming Rudy Couture, who is seated behind the Speaker's gallery. Mr. Couture is going to be our new Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. He is a long-time resident of the Yukon as he has lived here for 47 years. He has lived in Watson Lake, Faro and Whitehorse, and I know that he is well-known by many members. Again, on behalf of the members of this Assembly, I welcome Mr. Couture to our service.

Applause

Hon. Ms. Buckway:     I would like to introduce three visitors in the gallery: Glen Everitt, the Mayor of Dawson City; Scott Coulson, the chief administrative officer; and Dale Courtice, the treasurer.

Applause

Speaker:      Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

PETITIONS

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I wish to thank the people of Carcross and surrounding area for the petition they delivered last May through their MLA. The people requested the support of this government in the construction of a new community and curling complex in Carcross.

Mr. Speaker, it's good to see such an interest in improving the quality of life and well-being of their community.

As you know, an active lifestyle promotes health and wellness and plays an important role in preventing illness and injury. Our government has committed $60,000 in the 2002-03 budget toward conceptual planning for the Carcross community and curling complex. I trust we will have the support of the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes on this item during budget debate.

Speaker:      Are there any further petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the Yukon Liberal Party made a commitment to Yukoners that, if elected, a Liberal government would replace the Grey Mountain Primary School;

(2) the leader of the official opposition has brought forward a motion encouraging the Yukon Liberal government to replace the Grey Mountain Primary School;

(3) while all three political parties in the Yukon have made the commitment to replace the Grey Mountain Primary School, the Yukon Liberal government is the only government to have followed through on this commitment; and

THAT this House commends the Yukon Liberal government for having the courage to do what they said they would do by allocating appropriate resources in the 2002-03 capital budget this fall to begin the necessary planning and design work for this school replacement project.

Speaker:      Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fairclough:      My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier consider the turnout at last night's open house an indication of a strong demand by Yukon people for government restructuring?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. The member opposite is aware that the renewal initiative is in response to two key elements of the business of doing government: one is preparing ourselves for devolution, and the other is improving service to Yukoners.

The member opposite has not, in his preamble to his question, acknowledged the fact that we have heard quite detailed responses from over 700 Government of Yukon employees. We value their opinions, and we strongly encourage that type of consultation. We've also heard from the public whom we serve.

Mr. Fairclough:      I would think that many of the employees were there to voice themselves on keeping their jobs and to show that they are serious and do not want to lose their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, just for information for the member opposite, the amount of people there, compared to the population of Whitehorse - it was something like .028 percent of the Whitehorse population that showed up for this meeting. According to this morning's radio news, the Premier believes people who aren't paying attention to the restructuring process might have problems figuring out where to go to renew things, like licences. Why would the Premier chastise people for not attending the meetings and then threaten to punish them by hiding the licence bureau on them? Is this what she means by improving services to the public?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, pardon me; that was a very humorous error on the part of the member opposite. The member opposite is quite wrong in his assumption.

This government is not hiding anything from anyone. "Punishment" is too strong a word, Mr. Speaker. It's not a word that we, for any reason, would even use.

The fact is renewal is about achieving devolution; it's about preparing for devolution. The fact is that the particular reporter in question also pointed out to me that she, having recently located to Whitehorse, had found dealing with government extremely difficult. She had no idea where to go to do things like get a driver's licence, to apply for a health care card - that sort of information. And the fact is that frontline people in the Yukon government are providing excellent service; they want to provide better service to Yukoners. That is what renewal is all about; it's about service to Yukoners.

I would strongly encourage the member opposite to perhaps actually visit some of the renewal documents or the Web site to find out some of this information.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Premier should be careful in her words. On the radio, for example, when she did say that in the future people should take notice when they have problems. So what she's saying really is that there will be problems in the future with this restructuring, and she's talking about licences. If this whole exercise is about making it easier to get licences, building permits and so on, this is a pretty extravagant exercise, I would think.

And before the Premier again tells me that I am wrong, perhaps she will educate me by answering the question that I asked yesterday: how much has been spent to date on this so-called renewal process, and what will the final bill look like?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I noted in reviewing the Blues yesterday that I was so excited about responding to the member on renewal and so excited about the member asking me a question about this and correcting the member when he was wrong that I neglected to mention that, on page S-2, I believe, of the supplementary budget, there's a line item there, "renewal initiative". It's budgeted in the supplementary at $895,000. The member would be well-advised, before he criticizes that figure, to examine the cost of such other initiatives in government that had far less impact on the public, like the Cabinet commissions and their costs and other such government initiatives that have had less benefit to the public.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that renewal is about achieving not only the preparation of this government for devolution and improving service to Yukoners, it's also about maintaining a skilled workforce, because we, as a government, value and respect our employees. We consult with them; we listen to them; we work with them in providing good service to Yukoners. It's also about making government simpler and more effective.

I had one of the member's own constituents ask me this summer, when I was visiting in Carmacks, "Oh, does this mean we'll be able to get this permit or this service from the government here in Carmacks?" To which I responded, "Yes."

And we look forward, Mr. Speaker, to serving all the constituents in the territory even better post-renewal.

Question re:   School busing contract

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has said that the Liberal caucus members were instructed to go out and spread the word that government was looking for efficiencies and lower costs, not from inside, but from outside. Now, before the Premier accuses me of being wrong, I would like the Premier to clear up a matter for the Assembly. Who issued those instructions, and was the Member for Whitehorse West present at a caucus meeting when those instructions were given to the government members?

I would like the Premier to clear up the matter for the Assembly. Who issued those instructions, and was the Member for Whitehorse West present in a caucus meeting when those instructions were given to the government members?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, as I've repeated time and time again to this question, the whole of caucus was looking for efficiencies. We want to be able to provide the best that we can to the public so all of caucus agreed that this would be a very worthwhile exercise to do. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we've done that quite competently, confidently, and we'll continue to do that because we're very good at listening to what Yukoners have to say.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, the Minister of Education did not answer who issued those instructions, and it's important, Mr. Speaker. It's very important for the proceedings of this Assembly and how government must be managed.

We have a problem here, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Whitehorse West was acting on political direction when he met with employees of Diversified Transport - not just once and not just at Timmy's, as the Minister of Education has pointed out. At least according to a senior official, this meeting took place when this official was present. Apparently at least one of these meetings took place in February, Mr. Speaker, the same month the Legislative Assembly started the spring sitting.

Now, my question is to the Premier who is in charge. How does the Premier reconcile the member being given political direction on this matter when his role as Speaker requires him to be seen as a non-partisan officer of the Assembly?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, as I have said many, many times and will say again, the Member for Whitehorse West was just doing his job, as he was elected to do. We, as a caucus, had collectively decided that this would be a good exercise to conduct in the early part of this year. He was out in the community, looking for efficiencies and listening to ideas from friends and constituents. The Member for Whitehorse West used to have coffee with his former colleagues quite often - long before the opposition tried to make this an issue - but he did not attend any meetings or meet with any of these people after the tender was called. The member did not speak to me, as Minister of Education; he did not speak to the Minister of Government Services. He was simply out there in the community doing his job, listening to people, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the tender was called in March, while we were sitting in the House, and during that time the Member for Whitehorse West does not normally attend caucus meetings, and he is not a member of Cabinet or Management Board.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not this side of the House that's making an issue of this. It's the members opposite -

Some Hon. Members:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      I believe I have the floor, and it's courtesy that the members listen because they certainly seem to have a lack of ability to listen. It's the members opposite, through their evasive answers, who have created this situation. What are they trying to hide? Furthermore, there is a level of conduct that must be adhered to by the Speaker of this Assembly.

Now, not only did this Member for Whitehorse West attend the meeting by instruction from the government side, the same member attended at least one budget consultation meeting outside his riding on behalf of the government. He was also present at one of the Premier's news conferences to provide partisan support.

My question is to the Premier, if she cares to answer: what steps will the Premier take to ensure that there is no further confusion between a member's role as an MLA for a specific riding and his role as Speaker of this Assembly? Will the Premier answer that question?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:    The member is wrong. I know they don't like to hear that, but he is wrong, wrong, wrong. In fact, as I had mentioned in my previous answer, the Member for Whitehorse West did had coffee and shared time with his colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the member was also a bus driver working with those people for two and a half years before he decided to run in his riding - successfully, I might add, of course.

What the member opposite was alluding to was that he got instruction. I did answer the question when I said that, prior to the House sitting, we all sat in caucus and we all came up with strategies on how we communicate, how we listen to Yukoners. We were all charged with enthusiasm and collective agreement that we all would go out and talk to as many people as possible.

When we did go into the House - the Member for Whitehorse West does not normally attend caucus meetings so he didn't get any further direction, as the member so wrongly suggested. He is not a member of Cabinet or Management Board so he is not privy to those discussions either. So I have answered the question.

Question re:  Government renewal process

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Premier.

Now, the Yukon economy has been thrashed: mining has been replaced by park creation; forestry has been shut down; there is no money in the budget for winter works; and the Premier's sole hope for economic recovery - the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline - could be decades away. Faced with this dire economic situation, the Premier and her Liberal colleagues have taken action, not to renew the economy but to instead restructure the government.

All of the top deputy ministers and senior levels of management in government have been devoted to this exercise. Land claims, devolution and the pipeline are all playing second fiddle to this one major Liberal government initiative. The general public and many government employees are wondering why.

With so much concern in the private sector about people losing their jobs, can the Premier advise the House why she has chosen this time to make Yukon government employees concerned about a layoff? How is creating fear in government going to help improve the Yukon's shattered economy?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member opposite, the only individual creating fear about this particular initiative is the member opposite, and the member is wrong, completely wrong. He has joined his new-found friends on the left, and he is completely wrong in his suggestion that we, as a government, are not focusing all our energies on a number of issues.

We, on this side, are completely capable of delivering for Yukoners solid, constructive, good management and good government. Part of that good government means taking a look at how we deliver services to the public and preparing for devolution, which is what renewal is all about. Renewal is about making government better, simpler and more effective, about maintaining a skilled workforce and about opportunity.

Many public servants, including some who attended last night's open house, have pointed out that renewal presents for them an opportunity that has been missing for a long time from this government.

Mr. Jenkins:      That's what it's all about: renewal and confidence in government, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier assure government workers that there will be no loss of jobs as a consequence of government renewal? Will the Premier give that guarantee?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      No, Mr. Speaker, I will not, and I said that at the very initial outset in announcing renewal.

We are examining government for the first time in - some say it's as many as 20 years since this government has been examined. We are looking at it. We are working with our employees. Employees believe that opportunity should exist within this workforce. We are working with that. We are working with them to create and renew the Yukon government, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a good thing and, as we mentioned yesterday in the motion, we would invite the members opposite to drop their partisanship and examine this for the strong, much-needed initiative that it is.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, from the public standpoint, Mr. Speaker, all we hear is that if we are not paying attention we will not know where to go to get a licence. That sounds great. Now, let me tell the Premier - in case she has failed to memorize what rural Yukon looks like - that in rural Yukon we have it pretty good in some respects. If you want a licence plate, a driver's licence, a health care coverage card, a marriage licence or a bottle of whiskey, you go to the same store and it's all there. Why is the Premier wasting all this time, effort and money on a project that is hurting the economy? It is instilling a lot of confusion in the public sector. They are concerned about their jobs in the public sector. There is no guarantee that those jobs will be there. We don't even know if government is going to be there in its present form. Why is the government wasting all this time, effort and money on a project that is hurting the economy and is not of public interest or concern?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, a selling feature of the presence in this Legislature, I suppose, is that everybody is entitled to their opinion. Unfortunately, in this case I must vehemently disagree with the member opposite.

This renewal initiative will create the opportunity for employees to reach their potential. It will also lead to a more satisfying career for many in the public service. This renewal is a long-overdue initiative. I would argue with the member opposite, with all due respect, that the fact is that not every community has the services available. If the member opposite would perhaps do something more than write letters criticizing the minister of highways and travel to other parts of the Yukon, he would recognize that not every community has the services available that the member opposite suggests, and that there are individuals who want those services available somewhere other than through the Liquor Corporation.

That is also a comment that has been heard. We have heard over 700 in-depth comments from Yukon government employees. We believe in listening to them. We believe in working with them and we believe in delivering, for Yukoners, a renewed government with next year's budget.

Question re:  Alaska Highway reconstruction at Marsh Lake

Mr. McRobb:      Yesterday, the highways minister admitted that paving the section of the Alaska Highway between Army Beach and M'Clintock was the ultimate goal. If that's true, Mr. Speaker, why did this minister blow three-quarters of a million dollars on BST? What was this? Some kind of a training exercise gone bad?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite clearly wasn't listening yesterday. As I explained, this is a section of road that has had problems. The pavement that had been there for many years and that previous governments hadn't seen fit to repair was causing problems. It's a section of road that has been reshaped and resurfaced, and we want to give the BST a chance to settle with the new road surface to make sure that it doesn't shift. Once it has properly settled, then we can deal with it.

The member is creating a mountain out of a molehill. And yes, there have been complaints. The driving surface is different. The potholes that were there have been filled.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that's shifting is the minister's response to the questions. Now, I hope she can answer this one. Yesterday, she said the department is waiting to see if this particular road will hold its shape. Now, I hope the minister doesn't get bent out of shape herself, but can she tell us what she means by that?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite clearly wasn't listening to my first answer because I just told him.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, there's no need to get snitty about this, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that the road will fail to hold its shape because of problems with the subsurface construction of the road. In this case, the condition of the road surface is only a symptom of the bigger problem beneath the surface.

Now, we know the minister has spent three-quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers' money to address the symptom, not the cause. So, can the minister tell us why she didn't address the real problem by hiring a roadbuilder to fix the road, instead of wasting three-quarters of a million taxpayer dollars on a poor-quality patch job?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Now the member opposite is insulting a local contractor. I won't stand for that, Mr. Speaker. This is totally improper.

The three-quarters of a million dollars, which the member alleges was spent improperly, is a lot better than spending a million and a half on a road that isn't going to hold its shape, as there are many, many, many millions of dollars' worth of work done in the member's own riding every year on the Shakwak project. He's quite familiar with permafrost and other things that will cause a road surface to lose its shape. He knows that quite often the surface you put on it initially isn't going to hold its shape, and you wait until it has settled.

Question re:  CT scanner

Mr. Keenan:      Today I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Now, the minister has frequently accused the New Democrats of not doing our homework and baffling the issue of the purchase of a CT scanner. Just last week on the radio, the hospital administrator outlined the events that led to the request for a CT scanner and contradicted the minister. So will the minister now have the courage to stand on his feet and admit that he was wrong?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I don't admit that I was wrong about anything at this point. I'm not sure what the member is even talking about.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the people of the Yukon watching TV and listening to the radio are starting to become aware of what the problem really is here. And the problem, I do believe, is the minister.

Now, the minister has said that he wants the Hospital Corporation to share the purchase price of the CT scanner. He said that he did his homework and that he was looking at a new, updated CT scanner. Well, let me say that it was a state-of-the-art CT scanner when the administrator requested it from the government. This minister has been dragging his feet so much that that particular model could now be put into a museum piece. Will the minister now provide the full amount to the Hospital Corporation for the purchase of a brand new CT scanner?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to clear up some facts.

We are providing the hospital with a mutually agreed upon method of funding the purchase of a CT scanner. Fundraising is a component agreed to by the Hospital Corporation. Fundraising can give the community and the Hospital Corporation ownership of the CT scanner, just as things have been purchased in the past, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Keenan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to put that myth to bed a little bit here - "mutually agreed upon". Of course it was mutually agreed upon, but Big Brother is standing there with his wallet half out or half in and you don't know what it is, saying, "If you don't do it my way, it's not going to happen." I call that darn right bullying. That's exactly what it is.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:      Order please. I remind the member that in Beauchesne's, it refers to the word "bullying" as being unparliamentary.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Keenan:      I'll retract that word, Mr. Speaker, and I'll just say "exercising their muscle", if I might put it in that manner, and it's certainly not this muscle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about the mammography machine that the member across says that we, the NDP, forced the hospital into sharing. That was the second mammography machine for the hospital - not the first but the second, so the minister is obviously wrong again.

The administrator went on the radio and further outlined what is happening at the hospital as technology continues to change. It looks like the ultrasound machine needs updating. The X-ray machine -

Speaker:      Order please. I ask the member to get to the question.

Mr. Keenan:      I'll ask this question right now. Will this minister please outline his plan for replacing the other equipment in the radiology department that is rapidly becoming obsolete? Does the minister have a plan at all?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is always referring to quotes. He refers to quotes out of context and, in fact, the member opposite is wrong in his assumptions about the quotes. This happens all the time, with no verification or backing up of what the quotes are.

Mr. Speaker, the hospital board is an arm's-distance board. It works at arm's distance from the government. The corporation makes its own decisions on what they want, how they want it, and how they're going to pay for it. We, as government, supply them with the funds that help operate a hospital. They have to make priority decisions and we, as a government, don't interfere in those decisions.

So, for the member opposite to say that we're going to now manage the hospital from my office - we have never done that, Mr. Speaker, and we don't plan on doing it in the near future.

Question re: Education Act review

Mrs. Peter: My question today is for the Minister of Education. Yesterday, in response to my question, the minister replied, "So the member opposite is quite wrong, Mr. Speaker. I am respecting the process, and the process is that they will supply final recommendations on November 15, and caucus and Cabinet will review them seriously." But the minister has already rejected one recommendation and implemented another. How can the minister say that he is respecting this process?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I am respecting this process because it is a group of individuals called the Education Act Review Steering Committee that has put in almost two and a half years of long, hard work, doing very extensive consultations all over the territory with groups and individuals. It has had presentations and representations made to them. I did not want for the Education Act Review Steering Committee to be moving in the direction that this government agreed was not appropriate, i.e. the board/governance model. We felt that it was responsible to advise the committee that this was not an option that we would consider, giving them as much lead time as possible to consider other scenarios that they would make in their final recommendation report to caucus and Cabinet.

Mrs. Peter:      The Yukon people are asking for a fair process. The minister has stated that he has consulted with all partners involved. Yet I have received information from some people involved in this consultation process, and they say that the introduction of the act was like a slap in the face. I have also had concerns expressed to me about the definition of "consultation" as is found in the umbrella final agreement. Again, I ask this minister, how is he going to rebuild confidence in this process after all of the political interference?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I think it is very disrespectful for the opposition to be criticizing the members of the Education Act Review Steering Committee and the efforts and work that they have proceeded through over the last two and a half years. Two and a half years' worth of consultation is very extensive. As I have indicated to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, that committee has met with each and every Yukon First Nation individually, and not through public meetings, but specifically, working with First Nations in our territory. They have also met with elders, First Nation educators and language instructors. First Nations have had the opportunity to present their concerns either verbally or in writing in every Yukon community. For two and a half years, these folks have collected and worked as a group, going to these communities, listening to groups of peoples. They received over 7,000 individual comments or concerns or issues during their collaborative consultation process, so I think that what we have also heard from the public is that there has to come a time when there is an end to things. We as a government are moving forward to amend the Education Act.

Mrs. Peter:      Mr. Speaker, we would like to move forward in a fair manner, listening to all Yukon people. Maybe the minister should reconsider the introduction of Bill No. 47. He admitted yesterday that he may have to amend it following the final recommendations, due to the November 15 deadline. The introduction of legislation that will need to be amended in the next sitting seems a waste of time. Will the minister show that he has heard the concerns and give the steering committee a three-month extension to allow them to consult on their new set of recommendations, including recommendation 140?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      The Member for Vuntut Gwitchin managed to get a number of questions into the last supplementary, but I will gamble, just in case tomorrow in Question Period I am reprimanded again for lecturing, but I feel that the question does deserve an answer.

Mr. Speaker, the government did introduce the Education Staff Relations Act prior to the new Education Act for the following reasons: it is necessary to separate the issues of education and labour. Some sections of parts 9 and 10 are actually a duplication of procedures, which creates unnecessary delays, Mr. Speaker, especially in the grievance process. The rights of the entire bargaining unit are not recognized. The employer and Yukon Teachers Association reached agreement on the inclusion of first-year, temporary teachers under the collective agreement. So that was one of the major actions that we took respecting the negotiations that we do have with the Yukon Teachers Association.

Moving forward on the recommendations coming forward, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House that this government and the public at large feel that two and a half years of intense consultation is adequate, and it's time to move on.

Speaker:      The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

We'll proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Clerk:      Motion No. 141, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Speaker:      It is moved by the Member for Watson Lake:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) the business of the Legislative Assembly anticipated for the current sitting can be properly conducted within 25 days, even though consideration of a capital budget has been added to the traditional legislative agenda;

(2) it is essential that both the budgetary and legislative matters to be brought forward be given full and appropriate scrutiny by this House on behalf of the people of the Yukon;

(3) the official opposition is prepared to conclude its analysis of these matters within the 25-day period as laid out in Addendum 2 to the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Liberal government to conduct itself in an open, cooperative and forthcoming manner in responding to questions from opposition members, so that it will be possible to conclude the business at hand in a timely and effective manner, consistent with the spirit and letter of Addendum 2.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition contend that this is a very timely motion for this Assembly to debate.

It has long been known - sitting after sitting - that the time of the sittings, in terms of length and number of days and the wrap-up of sittings, has always been a difficult situation to manage. It's very important and imperative that the Assembly is able to conduct expeditious and constructive debate in doing the public's business in this House. The very first priority in that regard is for the government side to set a clear agenda so that the opposition side can prepare itself to carry out that expeditious and constructive debate in holding the government side accountable on behalf of the public, as it is our job to do, as we were elected to do.

Now, the official opposition brings forward this motion regarding the length of this sitting, given the fact that we, well in advance, knew that there were going to be changes to this fall sitting. The members opposite had made a decision that they would be bringing forward a capital budget to the fall sitting, which normally, as we all know, was designated as a legislative sitting. So, the government side has decided that in addition to the fall sitting's legislative agenda, we would have to deal with a capital budget.

Now, given the fact that the official opposition, and indeed the third party, were at least informed well in advance that this would be happening, they had a great deal of time over the last number of weeks and months to prepare themselves on how the debate could be carried out in this Assembly, dealing both with this new capital budget and the legislative agenda.

But it is important and critical that the government side carry out their duties and responsibilities in this House. In the first instance, the government side must, in a timely manner, present all the legislative bills to the opposition in the fall sitting. That is vital so that the opposition benches, in representing the public in holding the government accountable, has a reasonable amount of time to prepare itself for each bill that the government has brought forward.

It is our duty to critique and scrutinize the legislation on behalf of the Yukon public so that their government is held accountable in this House and so that we make best efforts to ensure that what we pass in this Legislative Assembly has a positive impact on the lives of Yukoners and, indeed, improves the lives of Yukoners. It is truly unfortunate that the government side has fallen down in that area.

In the first instance, Mr. Speaker, before this Assembly even convened for this fall sitting, we have a press release launched by the government side accusing the opposition of filibustering the budget. Now, that in no way relates to expeditious and constructive debate from the government benches. How could the government side make that accusation in the public forum when the opposition had not even been presented the budget, had not seen the budget?

This particular accusation, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to how we must proceed in this Assembly in conducting the public's business.

Now, I have thought a great deal over the last number of days about why the government side - and, indeed, the new government House leader - would bring forward such a basically ridiculous accusation, knowing full well that the opposition benches could have supported the budget once they had the opportunity to critique it and make an informed decision on what the opposition believed we should be doing on behalf of the Yukon public in that regard.

So, a lot of what lends itself to expeditious and constructive debate means that there should be a level of integrity in this Assembly between the government benches and the opposition benches. A completely fabricated press release of someone's imagination on what may or may not take place simply does not lend itself to any high level of integrity on the government's side. What it really does, Mr. Speaker, is force the opposition into a situation where we must make a stand and we must call the government on the accusation. And this is before we even entered and convened this Assembly for this fall sitting.

It's a sign, Mr. Speaker, that the government side has already prepared itself to accuse the opposition of not conducting themselves in an expeditious manner, of not conducting themselves in a constructive manner, when we deal with the public's business in this Assembly. Nothing could be further from the facts.

Let me point out some recent history. Since the members opposite took office back in the spring of 2000, it has been the official opposition in concurrence with the leader of the third party that has assisted the government side on many occasions in implementing and developing the agenda for this Assembly in dealing with the public business and conducting that business. Furthermore, it has been the opposition side, led by the official opposition, that has brokered each and every wrap-up of this sitting. And we have not, other than the last sitting that I will speak to shortly, extended beyond any worrisome amount of time the days allotted under the existing agreement in the addendum attached to our Standing Orders.

When we deal with the last sitting, the government side must bear responsibility for the need to extend that sitting because, without a reasonable timeline given to the opposition regarding a great deal of substantive legislation being brought forward in a budget sitting, the government side has to be accountable for the extension of the previous sitting. And again, that extension and that wrap-up was brokered by the official opposition.

Now, the government side has maintained that under the existing rules - and this is their interpretation - we can bring forward legislation of a housekeeping nature. But the opposition side proved beyond any reasonable doubt, by any sensible person, listener or what have you, that five pieces of that legislation were simply not housekeeping but were of a very substantive nature based on the fact that those amendments to the legislation in this territory would have a definite impact on the lives of Yukoners.

And there were a great many questions on whether that impact was indeed going to improve the lives of Yukoners in any way, shape or form. So the argument is, Mr. Speaker, that it is the government side's responsibility to ensure that they set the agenda in this Assembly so that we, the opposition, may manage our time in accordance with the existing Standing Orders and the addenda attached to those orders.

Here lies the problem: the government side has, in each and every sitting of this Assembly, not adhered to that very important fact. It has been the government side that has neglected to set, in a proper manner, the agenda, bring forward the public's business to this Assembly so that the official opposition and the third party can indeed conduct themselves in an expeditious and constructive manner as we deal with the business of the Yukon public.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is something that I believe the opposite benches, if they have gone through it with any thought of doing their job in the manner that they have been elected to do - and they make the claim that they're open, accountable, so on and so forth, which is all well and good - the House leaders would have informed us already that they agree; they will stick to the 25 days for this fall sitting as the addendum to the Standing Orders commits this Assembly. They would have also qualified that commitment by stating unequivocally that they would conduct themselves in an open, accountable, and forthright manner so that the opposition benches could conduct their business in accordance to best efforts in representing the public in this House.

That didn't happen, Mr. Speaker. And, as I pointed out, the very first message from the government side is the accusation that the opposition is going to filibuster the budget - very strange, Mr. Speaker, very strange indeed.

Now I can add to this. Let's just look now at the first three days that this Assembly has been convened. We had House leaders' meetings, the government side brought forward agendas and lineups, informed the opposition of briefings - without any consultation, I might add, without any opportunity for the opposition side to reschedule, to look at schedules that our members may have in dealing with the public - because we are quite busy in the opposition benches dealing with all of the complaints, concerns and problems that the Yukon public is bringing forward because of the conduct and the mismanagement of the government side.

This is a critical issue. I can only come up with one conclusion. I believe that the facts will bear this out. I think that the government side, the government members, do not want to be in this Assembly. This Liberal government does not like coming out of the shadows. This Liberal government simply does not like to be held accountable. This Liberal government, especially their leader, cannot stand criticism.

Like it or not, Mr. Speaker, the government side has to realize that constructive debate in this Assembly does include criticism.

How is it that the opposition can hold their government accountable if we cannot criticize and, in a constructive manner, have the government side answer that criticism?

We are not inventing the criticism; we are bringing forward the public's criticism and concerns. The opposition side is the conduit to the public in holding their government accountable. These are all very disturbing signs from a government that makes the claim, "We are open and accountable." Simply put, Mr. Speaker, by not wanting to be in this Assembly, and by trying every trick in the book to get out of this Assembly - that is contrary to that claim. It's a contradiction to being open and accountable because this is their duty. They are bound by their promise and oath to the public that they will conduct themselves in this House in an open and accountable manner. And to date, in 18 months, this Liberal government has failed miserably in that regard.

If we in the opposition were to sit idly by and not call the government side on this matter, we would not be doing our job. It is our job to hold the government accountable, not only for what they say, but for what they commit to do and how they conduct themselves in dealing with the public's business.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite disturbed by the actions of the members opposite. Not only do they seem not to want to be accountable to the public by being in the House, but when they're in here - when we can get them in here and keep them in here - they want to stonewall and they want to evade. They do not want to be accountable. All we have to do is go through the printed word. Hansard can show and bear out the fact that this is how this Liberal government conducts itself.

And that, Mr. Speaker, does not lend to being an open, accountable government that is forthright and is contributing to expeditious and constructive debate, and that is a problem also, because that is what lends itself directly to extending sittings.

We can go back through reams and reams of Hansard documents that show that, when the opposition side is questioning a minister about his department - and there's a fundamental principle here, Mr. Speaker, that cannot go unchallenged - when the government ministers responsible for departments cannot provide an answer in this Assembly, we have a serious problem. We cannot conduct our business here on behalf of the Yukon public via legislative returns. That isn't how this works and, if the members opposite think that they can simply offer a legislative return to answer the question, I can only say to them that they are wrong. That is simply not carrying out their duty, and that is contrary to the oath they have taken as ministers of this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we ask questions in Question Period and the government side is not being forthright, and the government side is trying to hide from issues, as these Liberals are very, very adept at doing and have shown that time and time again, that lends to extension of sittings because we, on the opposition side, have to make every effort to extract answers from the government side. We are doing that because that is the demand from the Yukon public.

And if we weren't to do that, then we would be in the same boat as the Liberals opposite, the members opposite in this Liberal government, who are not living up to that commitment to the Yukon public.

Mr. Speaker, on and on I can go with examples of why the Liberal government has to rethink its commitment to this Assembly and being in this Assembly.

Now, I would ask the members opposite what are they fearful of? Why do they have such an aversion to being in here? Why do they want to constantly make it so difficult for the opposition to do its job? How does that live up to another very important promise and commitment to the Yukon public that these members opposite have made? They promised to improve the decorum in this Assembly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think, again, the printed word and what has gone on here over the last number of sittings will bear out the fact that the members opposite aren't improving decorum whatsoever; they're dismantling it. They are turning this Assembly into something that simply is not constructive, is not beneficial to the public, and is certainly not, in any way, shape or form, expeditious. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition have brought forward this motion. It is not brought forward in any way to take a poke at the members opposite. It's not brought forward in any way to get back at the members opposite for their very, very ill-advised press release before the opening of this sitting. It is meant to try and get the government side to commit to what they have already committed to, to the public and show those actions here in this House that would bear out that commitment.

Well, we have another problem. I think we all know what the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges is here for and why we are on that committee and what its job is. That committee is there to ensure, in an all-party forum, that the debate in this House is constructive and is done in a manner that truly benefits the Yukon public, and that we do our jobs in an expeditious manner as intended. Well, this is simply not working.

The committee is faced with - even though by consensus we manage to make improvements to our Standing Orders of the Assembly - the Liberals' unbelievable desire to invoke closure in this Assembly, which is governing some 30,000 people and meets 60 days a year in total. We are being paid to be here 60 days out of the year and we are being paid all year long. The members opposite come forward with a demand that the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges - that they want to invoke closure, and not in a manner that would improve the proceedings of this House, and not in a manner that would live up to the commitment to the Yukon public, but in a heavy-handed manner that can only be attributed to the fact that they do not want to be in here and be held accountable for their actions, their policies, their expenditures and what they are doing with regard to the Yukon public's daily lives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last sitting we went through a situation perpetuated by the government side when they brought forward a motion on the floor of this Legislature wasting the time of this House - a motion to debate that was a motion of closure. We in the opposition made a stand. Fundamentally, we do not believe in closure because there is no need for it when we only have to be here 60 days out of the year.

We have Standing Orders for this Legislative Assembly that guide us and, attached to those Standing Orders, is the addendum that commits us to a 35-day spring sitting and a 25-day fall sitting. Yet, in the face of that, the members opposite brought forward a closure motion for no reason. They, in the last sitting, were the ones who broke with tradition, broke with the rules of this House, and loaded up a budget agenda - the budget, I might add, was the largest budget in the history of this territory, some $535 million - loaded up that agenda with many substantive pieces of legislation and expected the opposition to just sit down, be quiet, and allow them, in a heavy-handed way, to ram through the budget and ram through the legislation.

I want to point out what is wrong with that scenario. If we were to follow the logic that the Liberal government uses in invoking closure, we could have situations where this largest budget ever in the history of the Yukon Territory would have been passed through this House with hundreds of millions of dollars gone unscrutinized.

That is contrary to the oath these members have taken and the commitment they made to the Yukon public during the election. They were elected based on those commitments, and they're not living up to them. Mr. Speaker, their idea of closure for this Assembly is breaking faith with the Yukon public, and we in the opposition are not going to allow that to happen.

Furthermore, in the standing committee, the opposition, in accordance with this motion, in committing to adhering to the 25 days, as laid out in Addendum 2 to our Standing Orders, made it very clear that we agree and will stick to these Orders and the addendum. It is the Liberal side, led by the Member for Riverdale South, who refused to honour the existing agreement - an agreement, I might add, signed by the Liberals at its inception, and now they are already breaking that commitment and agreement.

It was clear in the standing committee that the members opposite have no intention of honouring the agreement and every intention of bringing forward closure to this House. Now, let's deal with closure for a moment, Mr. Speaker. If we were to take the country as a whole, very few Assemblies - a limited percentage of the Assemblies in this country - even have closure in their Standing Orders. Now, we know the federal government does, but that's pretty understandable, given that for most of its time, the federal government has been run by Liberals. So, it was quite easy for them to ram through closure.

I don't think we want to get into that debate about all the wonderful things the Liberals have done, especially recently, like Bill C-68, like the promise to kill the GST, one of the most unfair taxes for any northerner in this country. We will not sign the free trade agreement - remember that, Mr. Speaker? They never even had the phones hooked up and the ink was on the agreement, signed, sealed and delivered, and we all know that that agreement sold this country out. One of the worst possible aspects of that agreement is, of course, the soft wood side of the agreement, which is destroying one of the main economic engines in this country and impeding this territory's ability, thanks to the inaction of the members opposite, of developing a forest sector that would contribute greatly to our economic woes in this territory. I call that a serious lack of vision.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why, and I urge the members to be open and accountable on this question, why do they want to invoke closure when they only have to be here at this sitting with the load of work they have presented to this Assembly to conduct, to scrutinize, to debate 25 days, and we on this side of the House are committing to those 25 days, and that's what this motion is all about.

I point out, Mr. Speaker, that, if the Liberal benches, the Liberal government, cannot organize themselves to present the agenda for this sitting in a manner that would adhere to the 25-day sitting, then maybe they should seriously consider what it is they're doing. Why don't the members opposite go back and have a caucus meeting and figure this out? One of the first things they could do is inform their House leader what the plan is, because it's evident from the last House leader's performance - and I don't blame the Member for Mount Lorne in any way, shape or form - it was evident to us, both the third party and myself as the official opposition House leader, that nobody in the government caucus was informing the House leader what the agenda of each day for the sitting was supposed to be.

In fact, it was quite confusing, and that is where the opposition contributed to assisting the government side in dealing with the debate, in conducting itself in an open, accountable forthright manner. And, I might add, the opposition operated very constructively and expeditiously, unlike the members from opposite benches. And now we have a new government House leader, which is not in itself really a negative thing from the members opposite, from the government side. Change has always brought improvements in some areas, at least to some degree, except for one thing: the same problem exists. The government side is not informing the government House leader what the heck we are supposed to be doing here, and the confusion that we have gone through over the last three and a half days will bear that statement out.

Let me expand on that - we in House leaders' meetings sit and discuss the lineup for the day's sitting, and for three days we were told that this is the lineup and that we all know that responses to the budget speech take precedence and must be dealt with. However, once that has been completed, we are then going to go immediately into debating the Supplementary No. 3, the Supplementary No. 1 and then the capital mains for the fiscal year 2002-03. So, the opposition busily prepared itself to do that so that we could, in a constructive and expeditious manner, conduct that business on behalf of the Yukon public.

And right out of the blue, Mr. Speaker, as I sat here thinking through how to debate the budget and respond to the speech and do my best possible job on behalf of the Yukon public in that regard, I get a note from the government House leader. Well, "We have changed the lineup," Mr. Speaker. "The Premier will simply not be ready to debate the budget." So I asked, "Well, what's the Premier afraid of? Why is the Premier afraid of debating the budget?" We still don't know, but we were informed that we are now going to legislation.

Now, here's where some of the real problems begin to arise. We have been, for three days, receiving briefings on the budget. We have had absolutely no briefings on the legislation. In fact, when we were informed that the lineup for this Assembly had been changed by the government House leader, the bills we were going to deal with had just been tabled the previous day.

I just cannot fathom how the government side comes up with these things and then expects the opposition side to be able to do its job in a constructive and expeditious manner as we have committed to and as is our duty to on behalf of the public. It's impossible, Mr. Speaker. The government side again has shown that they simply are not willing to do the same.

Now, I have a hard time believing that this is all just a confused state on the government side, because if it is, then we're really in trouble. If there's that much confusion in the Liberal government's benches, I can't imagine what it's like at Management Board and Cabinet and what they're trying to express to their officials and to their deputy ministers.

God help us if it is that confusing in government today, though it may be. I, just simply, as a Yukoner, have a hard time believing it.

So then I have to wonder, why is this happening? Why do the members opposite want to get out of this House? Why do the members opposite create this confusion? Why do the members opposite continually come up with ways to stonewall, evade and duck from constructive, expeditious debate?

I came up with this conclusion. If it's not confusion, then it's a lack of leadership. When I think about that - I have seen far too many examples, Mr. Speaker, that allude to a lack of leadership in the Liberal government. In fact, I believe they are leaderless. So, I wonder, who is leading this government? The examples that we see when we ask questions of a minister, who has sworn an oath and who is accountable by law to this Assembly to answer questions in regard to his department and the agencies within the department that he or she is responsible for, and some other minister jumps up and answers the questions.

So when it comes to trying to create an expeditious and constructive debate in this House, muzzling ministers does not lend to that. It delays our ability to do so and adhere to the timelines as laid out in Addendum 2 to our Standing Orders.

I have real concerns with that fact: why are government ministers not allowed to answer questions? I think we have established that they are leaderless, so that's one reason, maybe, why government ministers are muzzled.

But that's not the way the government side should be conducting their business, and if they are intending to continue in that manner, I have some free advice for the government members: call an election. Why are you even there? You shouldn't be. You have contradicted your oath and your commitment to the Yukon public, and you have broken faith with the Yukon public.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:      Order please. The member, several times, has referred to the oath and contradicting the oath, and so on. The Chair is wondering: is this an attempt to accuse somebody of being dishonest or misleading the government?

Mr. Fentie:      May I answer that, Mr. Speaker?

Speaker:      Yes, please.

Mr. Fentie:      Absolutely not. I would never accuse anyone of that. I am merely laying out information as we in the official opposition perceive it to be, because, when ministers do not answer questions and are muzzled, then we have to look at all of those factors or we would not be doing our job. However, I must stress that I am making no accusations.

Speaker:      Well, it's the Chair's feeling that it's an attack on integrity and casts aspersions and questions the truthfulness. I have been trying to determine from Beauchesne's whether it's unparliamentary or not, but I do believe that it's insulting and is likely to create disorder in the House. In order to promote the order of the House, maybe the member could refrain from using that language in the future. I would ask the member to continue, please.

Withdrawal of remark

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I'll even go further. I'll retract it and exchange it for "do not understand their oath and their commitment to the Yukon public".

So, as I was saying, how can the opposition conduct its business when the government side continues to operate in that manner? Is there going to be the government House leader coming forward and explaining to us that only this minister will answer these questions and only that minister will answer these other questions, and maybe you, in the opposition, just want to forget asking questions so we don't have to worry about what minister is going to get up and answer them? Is that what's happening? We need to know these things if we're to be able to conduct the business of this House in accordance with the rules and the addenda attached to them.

Will the government side provide that information at some point in this sitting? We are trying to ferret out from the government side why they have such an aversion to following the rules of the Assembly. I don't think it's all that difficult, given the fact that the government side has tabled their legislation already, has brought forward their appropriation bills and, other than all the confusion that seems to be happening across the floor, the opposition is making best efforts to organize itself and manage its time so that we can live up to the agreement.

But there's a codicil to this commitment, and that is that the government side has to be open and accountable. The government side has to answer questions. The government side cannot keep playing games by changing the agenda every five minutes, by running back and forth like those squirrels in the squirrel midden, stashing money and all the rest of the things they do. They have to be focused on the sitting when this House is in session, and they have months and months outside of the 60 days that we have to be in here - which we're paid to do, by the way.

They have months and months to do whatever else it is they do, carrying out their duties on behalf of Yukon public, which is even lending more of a problem for us to be able to conduct ourselves in this House in accordance with the timelines because of all the mismanagement of those duties that the government side seems to have a propensity for. Mismanagement of the economy - the Minister of Health, and I might, for a moment, Mr. Speaker, touch on that particular issue.

I don't think the health care system in this territory has ever suffered under such mismanagement. Now, mismanagement is not really - I'm not being derogatory toward the minister. What I'm trying to point out is that the minister is not managing the department in a manner that would allow for that department to deliver to the Yukon public what it is the department's mandate is - what the program objectives of the department are. And I want to touch on the CT scanner.

Now, here's where another problem arises when it comes to our ability to have constructive debate in this House. In the first place, when it comes to the CT scanner, the members opposite passed a budget that allocated $1.4 million - $1 million of capital to buy a CT scanner. At that time, that $1 million would have bought the technology that was available at that time. And it had a $400,000 O&M allocation to operate the CT scanner. A year later, there is no CT scanner, and we find out, from the minister's own words, that we're looking at privatizing the CT scanner. But now when it comes to constructive debate, we have another problem. It's evident that the minister doesn't even understand that his department must conduct itself in accordance with the Canada Health Act.

And his proposition to the public contravened that Canada Health Act, so the minister had to back down. Well, what did that result in? A year and a half delay for people in this territory's access to a standard diagnostic tool. So what did that do in terms of cost to the government? Well, everybody who needed a CT scan for diagnostic purposes, the minister wrote out the cheque to fly them out of here to some clinic or hospital outside the territory, fly them back, and that was how we implemented the standard of diagnostic systems that this country has.

And, worse than that, the member was actually supporting creating a private CT scan clinic, against even the advice of doctors.

Now, maybe I am missing something but, when a doctor tells me I should do something, I don't argue with him, and I'll tell you why. I am placing my health and well-being in the hands of a professional and, when that professional tells the minister and all the professionals in this territory - I am talking the doctors and other health care givers tell the minister - this is not right, it's not going to work, this minister argues with them. He argues with doctors about how we should implement these diagnostic services.

So, it led me to wonder, does the minister even understand what we are made up of. Now, one of the arguments the doctors used is, if we have to medevac somebody into Whitehorse for the purposes of diagnosing a problem, we medevac them here, we stabilize them, we medevac them and we send them to the hospital.

Was it the minister's view, then, that we are made up of nuts and bolts, and, once in the hospital, we can unbolt a piece, send it over to the CT scan clinic, diagnose the problem, take it back, fix it and bolt it back on? It doesn't work that way, and the minister is responsible for contributing to the Yukon public's lack of access to a standard diagnostic tool.

So, when we bring forward these issues and ask these questions in this House, what does the minister do? He stonewalls; he evades; he comes up with all kinds of wonderful answers, but none of them answer the questions we are trying to get answers to, and that does not lend itself to expeditious and constructive debate, Mr. Speaker.

So, again, I have pointed out that it is the government side that bears sole responsibility for any extension in the previous sitting and, indeed, this sitting that we're in today.

Now, we have another issue when it comes to the responsibility of the government side to lending itself to constructive and expeditious debate: the Minister of Education. On this one there are many examples, but let's begin with the first one.

The minister was grilled on many occasions in this House on what happened with the teachers, because, under this minister's watch - this Liberal government minister's watch - the first teachers' strike in this territory took place. I don't think for a minute that the teachers went out on strike lightly. They were forced into it by the minister.

So, when the minister was asked questions about this very issue, what happened?

First we heard that there was a deal, because they had a signing bonus. The minister was crying poverty - all kinds of problems. He evaded the questions, stonewalled the questions, and really contributed to a problem in this House with the opposition being able to do its job. But, as it turns out, the answers that the minister provided simply did not reflect the facts of what was taking place.

So, I say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, how is it then that we can continue to keep to the timelines when we know, on the one hand, that these are the facts and the issues and, on the other hand, the minister is talking about something entirely different? That is not being accountable, that is not being forthcoming, and that is not lending itself to a constructive and expeditious debate.

Again, I point out to the members opposite that you only have to be here 60 days. So why not get to the juncture where you will answer the questions in the appropriate manner and we will ask the questions and get on with the business of this House?

Furthermore, that same minister forced the opposition into spending days and days and days grilling the minister on the Mayo school debacle. And it was a debacle, because the minister was responsible for delaying the construction - in all probability, we are going to see cost overruns, even though the minister was making the excuse that it is because of the cost overruns that we were going to delay the expenditure. However, how would the minister know that when nothing was happening?

The minister is responsible for creating a situation where Yukoners' lives were made worse instead of better, and I think that is contradictory to the commitment the members opposite have made to the Yukon public. And again, that is a situation that is serious - very serious - because what is there if you do not honour your commitments? What is there, if you do not follow through with your commitments?

Well, one of the things there is for sure is that this House cannot conduct its business appropriately, and then there is only one course that will evolve. We will just have to stay in here a little longer, so that we can hold the government accountable. Again, the government bears sole responsibility for that, and it's high time they stood up and were counted for that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, this same minister also was grilled about the library. Now, we remember about the library. And I might offer this to the minister: he did see the error of his ways and reversed a very unpopular decision, and one that would have lent itself to a long discourse in this Legislature because we in the opposition are duty bound to represent and protect the Yukon public's interest in holding their government accountable. But the minister did reverse his decision, and I think there is a sign there that if we in the opposition really focus in on that and work on it, we may be able to change the habits of the members opposite and improve the proceedings in this Assembly.

So we are trying to do that today, Mr. Speaker, with this motion. Now, we see the Minister of Education has that ability to listen to the opposition, to listen to the public and get it straight, change his mind and do the right thing, and that is very important, because that is how this is supposed to work, and that is one example. We are trying to get the members opposite to do that on more occasions to improve the proceedings of this House and assist the members opposite in being able to conduct their business in accordance with Addendum 2 - 25 days this sitting, 35 days in the spring, as laid out in our Standing Orders.

Now, we have to deal with a number of issues that the Premier has created in her short tenure as leader. In the first instance, the Premier - and this did not lend itself to helping the proceedings of this House - the Premier took on a smorgasbord of duties upon taking office. Once the Premier had placed the crown upon her head, anointed herself Premier, she then went about grabbing all the profile departments to, I guess I don't know, to raise the profile of the Premier, but it certainly doesn't lend itself to constructive debate.

Let me go on. During the course of a number of sittings, many questions were posed to the Premier in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development. Were there any answers that were forthcoming that were open and accountable? No. In fact, let's look at what really happened.

The Premier completely mismanaged the Department of Economic Development, turned it into a mess, punted the ball to the poor Member for Riverside, who is now carrying such a weight. And I actually feel sorry for the Member for Riverside because he was handed a very difficult job, given the mess that the Premier had created, and that takes me back to why we have problems in this House: the Liberal government seems to lack any leadership and direction.

If we want to make this House better and make it serve its public better, there has to be leadership and direction from the Liberal government, because without it, we are like lost sheep, wandering around, and that does resemble what's happening here in this sitting - the confusion, and the members opposite just not seeming able to grasp the agenda for what we are to conduct in this Assembly.

Now, the Premier, in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development, made a number of mistakes. In the first place, one of the main focal points of economic development that was developed recently in this territory was a fledgling forest industry, and there was a way that that was happening. It was happening because a previous government saw clearly the need to coordinate a number of government departments, a number of agencies within government on one specific issue.

And the Premier said, today in fact, that they were spending money much more wisely, unlike the previous government that was spending money on commissions.

Now, let's look at something else, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to commissions and spending money wisely. The previous government, with its forest commission, by coordinating the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Renewable Resources, the Executive Council Office and all agencies that would relate to any forest matter in dealing with the federal government - the managers, who are completely incompetent - managed to improve the situation. They managed to advance that issue in this territory a great deal.

I want to point something out, Mr. Speaker. The Premier's comments were wrong, because that commission delivered more product in its 18 months than this Liberal government in its entirety has over the last 18 months. One simple little commission produced more product than the members opposite have with their whole government.

That's an interesting point because those types of things - product - lend themselves to an expeditious and constructive debate in this House. And why I say that is because when there is no product coming from the government side, it's very difficult for the opposition side to be able to conduct the business of this Assembly on behalf of the Yukon public. It's not our job to invent something. It's not our job to sit here and be lectured and just listen; it's our job to hold the members opposite accountable. What we are saying is the members opposite aren't delivering; there's no product. It's smoke and mirrors; it's fluff. There is no product. That makes it much more difficult for us to be able to adhere to the 25 days of this sitting because now the opposition must go in search of product. And that's what holding the government accountable is all about.

If the government isn't willing to present what they are doing in an open and accountable manner, then the opposition side must, no matter how long it takes, ferret that out. If we didn't, we would then be in the same bailiwick as the members opposite, not doing our job. We on this side of the House will have none of that, Mr. Speaker. We intend to do our job. We have done our job to this point and we will continue to do our job beyond.

Now, Mr. Speaker, economic development is critical in this territory because there isn't any. And the Premier, in her mismanagement of economic development, has contributed very negatively to a serious situation and has created something in this territory that's disturbing. The only thing we have left is government.

In fact, when it comes to the most important element of an economy - cash flow. That's the fuel that drives an economy. For example, for the member opposite's benefit, if they got in their car in the parking lot this evening and there was no gas in it, it wouldn't go anywhere. When there's no cash flow in an economy, the economy doesn't go anywhere. The only thing we have today, thanks to the members opposite, is government. And that is disturbing because, instead of addressing real issues, like our economy, the Premier is off on some ridiculous tangent called "government renewal". Oh my, what a gem this is. And the Premier justifies this so-called government renewal by saying in this House - which does not lead to constructive debate - that the Yukon public has called for renewal.

You, the Premier, said, "the Yukon public has asked us to improve government, and that's what we're doing. Government renewal is all about improving government."

First off, I'm a bit confused about that, because in the Premier's recent fireside chat, if that's what you want to call it, or her message to the public, nobody showed up. So now I wonder - and this is going to lend itself to the debate in this Legislature, believe me - how the Premier came up with this idea that renewing government is a burning issue with the Yukon public.

And now we have another problem. The answers we're getting from the Premier are simply not going to cut it, because all we're hearing is that 700 public servants have responded. Well, with a gun to their head, of course they're going to respond.

The only political direction that we've seen to date coming out of this government is the directive from the Premier: faithful civil servants, go forth and renew. Well, what's the plan? We hear general concepts, like improving services to the Yukon public, loss of jobs - that's a real goodie, when we have an economy, as we do today, that's totally dependent on government. Let's cut some more cash flow out of the economy. You know, why don't we just shut it all down? What is the Premier doing, and how can we, the opposition, conduct ourselves in an expeditious manner when we now have to ferret out and dig into that mess?

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there's not a hidden agenda. I truly wonder, because we've already established, I think, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Liberal government opposite has no leadership. It's leaderless. So who is leading?

Well, when I look at budgets and how money is being spent, something jumps out at me. There has to be a small centre of influence whispering in the Premier's ear. That's what's happening. A very small group of people are leading this government. I can almost buy that, because it's a true statement, when I say Liberals lead from behind. And we know that from the Liberals' platform document. There was no plan in there; there was no vision in there - a bunch of platitudes. And then we get their very first budget. Whose was it? It was the former government's budget, because they couldn't construct one, so the Yukon public were very concerned that the Liberal government pass that very good budget, and they did.

Unfortunately, they spent the next 12 months picking it apart and, as the Minister of Health did, they didn't buy the CT scan. And, as the Minister of Education did, they didn't proceed with the Mayo school. And, as the Minister of Economic Development did, they shut down the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, these are all very big problems and these all add to the requirement that we, in the opposition, dig in and try and expose what it is that's happening here in this territory under this government's watch - I won't say leadership, because there isn't any. They're watching.

And that makes me wonder another thing, Mr. Speaker. How can we manage big-ticket items like devolution? If there is no leadership today, no plan today, no vision today, how is it that tomorrow we can take on federal powers in terms of managing our lands and resources in this territory? Where is the capacity to do that?

The one place it might have been is in our public service. That's the one area where maybe we could have salvaged something, but what happened? The Premier has taken a real run at that and, through this government renewal process, is dismantling the public service. When we look at how important economic development is, by the looks of what the Premier's trying to do, there's not even going to be a Department of Economic Development around.

Now, I didn't believe that for a moment until I had seen the budget, and it's evident that the new Minister of Economic Development was ignored.

The Minister of Economic Development and his department received very little in the way of government resources and expenditure so that minister and his department could address the economic woes this territory is in. Instead they dump more money into the pipeline unit. Well, what is the pipeline unit doing? We know that the producers are spending $75 million to conduct a feasibility study on a number of options for moving natural gas and, indeed, probably other natural resources to market. So what is the Premier doing - and now the new Minister of Economic Development - in regard to this project?

Well, outside of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they are pouring into the pipeline unit with no plan or direction, the Premier is simply standing on her feet at every occasion saying, "We are the only party that supports the pipeline." Well, I think we all know where that went. Nobody believes that in this territory - that it is only the Liberals that support the pipeline. I'll tell you what people do believe and what is at issue here: the Liberal government is without leadership and, by winging it, is mismanaging something here that could have a huge impact on this territory. I'll list some examples. The first one: legislation was brought into this House last spring which was supposed to be a budget sitting. Yet the Liberals overloaded the budget sitting with legislation, brought in changes to a certain act that may have sold the farm and the Yukon Territory's ability to get beyond just simply a construction boom and to control its destiny and its costs of energy.

That's a disturbing sign, and that shows that there is no leadership, no plan and no vision, because if there had been any thought put into that legislation - and we in the opposition fought it long and hard, and that contributed to our inability to stick to a 35-day timeline because no matter what constructive suggestions we brought forward, the members opposite ignored them for partisan reasons, said they were no good and continued on their merry way headlong into a brick wall. What is at stake here is this territory's ability to control its energy costs, and I'll tell you why.

Under the existing ANGTS agreement, Mr. Speaker, the producers have committed to allowing the Yukon to pull natural gas off a possible - because we don't know for sure yet - Alaska Highway pipeline. Now, part of that agreement commits the producers to replace the cubic feet of gas that we in the Yukon pull out of that line downstream. For the member's benefit, that's down the Alaska Highway line, south toward Boundary Lake. What really is disturbing is that the Premier, who is supposed to be leading in her capacity as Minister of Economic Development, did not realize that the Yukon already has a producing well down south - actually, a number of wells - and we are sitting on a very, very rich deposit of natural gas.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. McLachlan:      Mr. Speaker, when members agreed to sit for motion day today, we agreed to talk about a 25-day sitting. The member opposite has talked about everything but a 25-day sitting, and he has used terms that refer to "anointment" and "crowning" of a princess. In doing so, he has cast aspersions. The correct term is the "investiture of a Premier". When he uses those terms, he is casting reflections on the leader, reflections that go back to the relationship that this Legislature has with the British system of parliamentary democracy.

The last thing that this Member for Watson Lake wishes to talk about this afternoon is a 25-day sitting, which members on this side are present for to listen to the arguments. We haven't heard anything about 25 days.

If the Member for Watson Lake is not going to talk about the topic under discussion for this afternoon, members on this side suggest that we move forward to Motion No. 143.

Thank you.

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

Mr. McRobb:      On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Watson Lake is addressing the substance of the motion, and I can understand why the Liberal House leader is getting a little upset. He's a little skin thinned, and he knows that his allegations based on rumour mongering at the outset of this sitting were completely unfounded, and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. This is merely a dispute among members and a waste of time by this Liberal government which, in itself, Mr. Speaker, is the substance of this motion.

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

Mr. Jenkins:      On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there's no point of order. There's just a dispute between members.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      On the point of order, clearly, the Chair has heard comments slipped into the debate, "crowning of a Premier," "an anointment," and whatever else - similar comments.

The Chair really does believe that that is an attempt to create disorder or to embarrass other members of the House. I believe, when we go that far, we have a point of order here. However, it is far from the Chair's ability to limit debate, and the Chair has no desire to limit debate on issues that are being debated here, and I very well know the topic.

But the Chair has to hear the debate before he can make a ruling on this. Quickly, here, I believe that, in one sense, there's a point of order regarding the language, and I would ask the members to be a little more judicious in their comments. However, the Chair is not going to get into the issue of limiting debate at this time, and I would ask the Member for Watson Lake to continue.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. In the first case, I accept your points that I must be mindful of some of the language; however, I'm only human.

Secondly, I have to point out to the Member for Faro that the points I'm making are directly linked to this motion because it's all about constructive, expeditious debate. If I may, I would like to continue now with the legislation from last fall that created a great deal of delay in this House.

As I was saying, what was missed by the members opposite was a golden opportunity for us to control our cost of energy because under the existing ANGTS agreement, the producers were to replace any gas that was taken off the Alaska Highway pipeline downstream. Given the fact that we in the Kotaneelee already have producing wells, we had an opportunity to replace that gas ourselves. So, what didn't happen here - the members opposite didn't grasp this - is that instead of us buying the gas, we could have just taken it out of the line, replaced it down south, and set our own price in this territory.

Now, when it comes to economic development, one of the most attractive ways to bring in investment is a cheap source of energy. The Premier, in her unwillingness to allow constructive debate and accept constructive decisions - lending itself to extending a sitting - has jeopardized and compromised the future of this territory when it comes to its energy needs and costs. That is very much attached to this motion, I might add for the Member of Faro's benefit.

Now, let me continue about the lack of leadership - that being a very clear example. But it goes on in many areas, and land claims is a big one. The land claim issue in this territory is very important in this Assembly. It's important because the Liberal government opposite has made the land claims in the Yukon Territory the highest priority.

To date, no progress. So beyond the budgets, Mr. Speaker - and, I might add, a capital main for the next fiscal year we're debating here this fall; I might add, a supplementary that contains $54 million of new expenditure in addition to what is already the highest budget this territory has ever allocated, ballooning a $535-million budget for 30,000 people to close to $600 million, and yet people continue to leave, the unemployment rate rises, there's no hope. We are going to have to debate these items in the strongest terms. Add to all that the legislation, of which a number are very substantive. They not only affect our wildlife and how we manage it, but it has great bearing - that act, I might add - on the land claim issues, and will contribute, if not managed and handled properly with the proper amendments attached, to delaying the land claim process.

Added to all this work, Mr. Speaker, we must deal with the Premier on the land claim issue, because it's the Premier and the Liberals opposite who have made it the highest priority, and there is no progress. Recently, we have already heard of a problem from what is reported to be a settled claim in Kluane. There are many problems in this area, and the opposition needs the time in this House to deal with those problems so that we can do our job, as we committed to the Yukon public to do.

And that requires the member opposite to be open and accountable, to answer questions, to not stand up on frivolous points of order, but to be here in this House sitting, listening and debating in a constructive and expeditious manner - not on how they have conducted themselves to date. It is vital that the members opposite hold up their end of this bargain, and the bargain I speak of today is this very friendly motion that the official opposition has brought forward.

We are committing to the Liberal government, to the members opposite, that we will adhere to the agreements, that we will adhere to the timelines, that we are ready, willing and able to conduct the public's business in this House in holding the government accountable even with the load of work that they are bringing on here. They have to hold up their end of the bargain, and they can only do that by being open and accountable, by being prepared, by having leadership, by telling the government House leader what it is we are supposed to do on each and every day in this House, by answering questions in the appropriate manner, by not evading, by not stonewalling, but by answering the questions.

And I want to give you another example. If we had begun discussing an issue here in this House involving what appears to be a situation that is inappropriate by a government member, and if the answer from the members opposite could have been, "Well we know that this was a mistake and error in judgement", then we could have accepted that. In fact there would have been only one question. And all the members opposite have to do in being open and accountable and forthright was to say, "Yes, this was an error in judgement, and these are the steps we will take to ensure and make best efforts that this situation does not happen again."

Well, that didn't take place. Instead, we've gone around and around and around and around, confusing the issue, evading the issue, ducking the issue, creating more mixed messages, creating more questions for the opposition to bring into this House to hold this government accountable. That, again, puts the responsibility on that side of the House of extending debate in this Legislative Assembly. Even though we have committed to the 25 days for this sitting, this government, this Liberal government opposite, refuses to hold up their end of this agreement.

I've said clearly in the committee responsible for the proceedings of the Assembly that they will not honour this agreement. So now we have to say to ourselves, even though there are three appropriation bills before us, eight pieces of legislation, an economy in complete disarray and totally mismanaged, the health care system upside-down because the minister hasn't got it yet and doesn't even understand the law under which he must operate, and yet we have to ferret out all these other issues. We are still committing to keeping to the agreement that the members opposite refuse to.

So again I say to the members opposite, it is you that are responsible for extending debate in this Assembly and, if you continue to conduct yourselves in this manner, that is what's going to happen. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we can come to some arrangement here that clearly commits the government side to the public that they will be open and accountable, we can move on. I urge one of the members at least to stand up on a point of order and inform this side of the House that they intend to do so and this is how they intend to do it and, as I said, we can move on.

But the way things are going, Mr. Speaker, there are problems here. And I think you, Mr. Speaker, and the members opposite can understand the predicament that the opposition is in. If we are to honour our commitment and our contract, as the Liberal side likes to put it, with the Yukon public, then we have to conduct the business in this House in a manner that allows us to get answers, that allows us to protect and represent the interests of the Yukon public when it comes to the decisions that their government is making on their behalf.

There are far too many examples here, Mr. Speaker, where the decisions that this government makes, including the budget, have no input from the public. This also will lend itself to extending the sitting of this Assembly.

Now, contrary to the Liberals' view that they have talked to many, many people, received many, many e-mails, phone calls, la-de-da-de-da, I can tell you that there has not been any budget consultation for the capital mains for the fiscal year of 2002-03. Because if there had been, this would have been a different budget. In fact, the debate on that budget may have been very, very short. I'll tell you why: because within the pages of that budget, within the allocation of funds, would have been the priorities of the Yukon public, which we support.

We, on this side of the House, support the priorities of the Yukon public; we support its government making expenditures that address their needs and address their desires in a fair, balanced and equitable manner. This budget does nothing of the sort.

That, Mr. Speaker, will lend itself to extending debate in this Legislative Assembly unless the members opposite come up with some mechanism to get it right.

Now, I caution the members to understand something. In this territory there are many, many more people than the few Liberals left who continue to talk to the members opposite. You can't equate hundreds of phone calls when it's the same three people. There are 30,000 people in this territory. You can't add up each time that same person calls as consultation from the Yukon public. You can't add up another e-mail from the same person who sent the previous e-mail as consultation from the Yukon public. There are more people in this territory than the few Liberals who are left.

I'm finding torn-up Liberal cards all over the place, ripped to pieces, tossed on the ground, and stomped on. I can't believe it, Mr. Speaker. What's going on here? This is a serious, serious situation.

The Premier, who is supposed to be leading, must understand that this is the big show. This is where it's at. This is where you honour that contract to the Yukon public, and the sooner the members opposite get it straight, the sooner we can get on with constructive and expeditious debate in this Assembly and conduct the public business in the manner intended.

So, I have a suggestion for the members opposite to help that cause: change the leader. Have a meeting this afternoon, when this Assembly wraps up, and discuss among yourselves who should be the leader.

That would be an important step to ensure that this Assembly could conduct the public's business. Find a leader. There are 10 of you. Pick one - any one. I'll offer a suggestion - the Member for Riverdale South. Let that member be the leader. But at least get somebody to lead, and this will improve the situation. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. If there were leadership on the government side, then the government House leader will have a much clearer set of directives. So, when we go to the House leaders' meetings to set the agenda of the day, we will all know what's going on. The opposition will go and prepare itself, will come into this House, will expeditiously and constructively conduct its debate, and this sitting will conclude, as it's laid out in the Standing Orders and the addendum attached to it. But without any leadership and direction, how are we expected to do that?

I have another suggestion, Mr. Speaker - pick us to lead. We'll help you, and we'll lead for you, because you're following us anyway. We have to get to something here that results in improving the proceedings of this Assembly, and we have to do it now. It's pretty simple - lead, follow or get out of the way. Those are the three options the Liberals have. They can pick a leader and begin to lead; they can pick us to lead and they will follow, or they can simply get out of the way. But we have to get to some point here where we have a government side to debate with - a government side that has leadership, a government side that is producing something in the way of product, a government side that answers questions, a government side that is open and accountable, a government side that is forthcoming, a government side that at least keeps its contract with the Yukon public.

I ask the members opposite, with all due respect: how is it that the opposition can conduct its business when none of those things are present from the government side? We have to come to some arrangement, or we are in danger here of not being able to, in an expeditious manner, conclude the business of the Yukon public in this Assembly and in this sitting.

I think that so far in this debate we have made a fair assessment of the situation we are in. Now, as I pointed out, if there was any desire on that side of the House to do so - to honour the agreement and the orders of this Assembly - one of the members would be up right now on a point of order outlining how we would get to that junction. The official opposition has made a number of suggestions - food for thought for the members opposite. Anything is bound to improve the situation we are in. We want to, based on this motion tabled here today by the official opposition, conclude the business of the House in 25 days. We want to -

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I can't let that one stay there. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Faro just said that this could have been one of them. Well, that is an interesting comment, because what he is referring to is that we, the official opposition, stand down on private members' day, and do what? I can tell you right now that the government House leader had absolutely no agenda before him should we have stood down on private members' day today, so what would we have done - adjourned?

We're here to try and convince the members opposite that they must do something in terms of allowing this Assembly to conduct itself in a manner that lends itself to constructive, expeditious debate. And comments from the Member for Faro, chirping from the sidelines, are not an example of that very basic principle.

So, will the Member for Faro - seeing as how he wants to speak so badly - be the one who stands on his feet and says, "Yes, we'll commit to this. This is a good motion. This is on behalf of the Yukon public, and here's how we're going to do it, and here's how we are going to be open and accountable. We're going to allow ministers to answer questions. We're going to allow private members on that side to bring forward their issues. We're going to allow a situation where we pick a leader. We are going to ensure that the new Minister of Economic Development comes up with a plan" - like, yesterday; it's getting beyond the point of no return. We're going to have the Minister of Health go to the CT scanner when it's here and confirm that everything is okay and that he is able to lead his department. We're fair. We believe that these people have, at some point, in the deep recesses of their thoughts, the ability to do something. We're waiting for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, and because it's not happening, we get into situations where the opposition has to ferret out and expose those deficiencies because they directly impact the Yukon public in a negative way.

We're here to ensure that the government of the day does not do that to the Yukon public. That's our job. That's why we were elected and that's what we intend to do in carrying out our duties.

I am going to close here briefly so others can enter into this debate. Hopefully there is somebody on the Liberals' side who has some comments in regard to this motion. However, let's look at the main content: the official opposition - and I am positive I have the concurrence of the leader of the third party - will commit to a 25-day sitting even though there is a lot of work to conduct here on behalf of the public. We feel we have the capacity to deliver. What we need the side opposite to do is provide to us the proof that they will conduct themselves in the same manner. That's what being constructive is all about. I urge the members opposite to stand up and provide that to the opposite side here, on behalf of the Yukon public - not for us, because we are here to do our job and we will do that, but on behalf of the public. It's their duty, Mr. Speaker; it is why they were elected. It is the contract that they claim they have signed with the Yukon public.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The only lost sheep in this Legislature are on the other side of the House. Our little flock on this side at least has a leader.

Today's motion is a spectacular example of how the opposition party wastes the public's time. Surely there are important issues that Yukoners want to hear about. The only members in here who are "skin thinned", as the Member for Kluane so eloquently stated, are the members of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Watson Lake is obviously auditioning for the comedy channel. I wonder how he could keep a straight face for the past hour and 40 minutes. It might be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

What a difference a change in government makes. They're not in charge any more, so every Yukoner has to suffer.

Mr. Speaker, I need to correct the record. In a timely manner, we gave the opposition all the legislation on the second day of this sitting. That has not happened for many years. The Member for Watson Lake has a short memory. He's saying we haven't provided the legislation in a timely manner. This is Wednesday. We provided it last Thursday and Monday. We have worked very hard over the last year and a half toward this goal. It's not possible to change the practice of previous governments overnight.

As the chair of the Cabinet Committee on Legislation, I want to commend the people in the Department of Justice, the Executive Council Office, the departmental staff and ministers who worked so hard to get their legislation ready for the beginning of the sitting. That was my goal, Mr. Speaker, and the goal of my entire caucus, and I'm very pleased that we have achieved it.

In his wide-ranging and unfocused remarks, the Member for Watson Lake says the opposition has brokered the wrap-up of every sitting of this government. That's because they behaved in an irresponsible manner, stalling and delaying throughout the sittings. We were prepared, in all the previous sittings, to conclude on time. They weren't. They can see the work to be done, Mr. Speaker, but I have no faith that they will actually get busy and do it. This afternoon is just one example of that.

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

Point of order

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

Mr. McRobb:      On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard the member say "they behaved in an irresponsible manner" and I believe, consistent with your previous rulings, that would be language that would entice debate and raise confrontation, and it is not parliamentary to use such language.

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

Mr. McLachlan: On the point of order, the Member for Kluane is entering his sixth year in this Chamber. He knows full well "irresponsible" is not a debatable point of order. He knows that he is posturing for time; that's all.

Mr. Speaker, that's simply a dispute on the wording; that's not a point of order.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      I refer to the point of order that was raised. Members are becoming somewhat sensitive to comments that are not judicious in nature - "irresponsible" may be sensitive to some person's ears. However, after sitting in the chair for several days now, the Chair has heard several comments, and if he were to rule this as being unparliamentary, I'm afraid that the Chair would be interrupting very often and no debate would ever take place in this House.

I really believe that if members are going to become extremely sensitive, maybe the House leaders in their meetings will have to get together, decide how sensitive they're going to be and what's going to hurt their ears, and give the Chair some direction as to how stringently they want this rule enforced, whether it's insulting or whether it's likely to create disorder. That leaves a lot of latitude. But it's very difficult for the Chair to decide that it's acceptable today and it's not acceptable tomorrow.

So the Chair is not going to rule on this, one way or another. The Chair is going to wait to receive some guidance from the House leaders. Having said that, I would ask the minister to continue.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I would like to remind the Member for Watson Lake, and, in fact, all of the opposition, when they speak about holding the government accountable, that it is also their jobs to represent their constituents, not just those who supported their party but also all of those who supported the other parties in the last election.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government was in session for 90 days in their first year in power. Let's put that into perspective. The Liberal government sat 50 percent more in their first year of power than the next highest sitting government in the first year of their mandate. That was the 1985 mandate of the NDP. This Liberal government sat a total of 40 days more than the Member for Klondike's party during their first year in power and 62 days longer than the last mandate of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, in our first year in power, this Liberal government introduced 37 bills to deal with the public's business. We're trying to catch up with a huge backlog of work left undone by previous administrations. By contrast, the Yukon Party introduced 23 bills in their first year in power, and the members of the official opposition introduced four bills in their first year in power.

Mr. Speaker, the public record of the Liberal government reflects a hard-working caucus, an accountable caucus, and a caucus that is very willing to listen to the concerns of Yukoners. We aren't afraid of hearing the concerns of Yukoners being voiced in this House, in the grocery store, or on the doorstep or the kitchens and living rooms of our constituents and others' constituents.

But, Mr. Speaker, that's not the whole story. The reality is that much larger jurisdictions sit for far less time than this Yukon Legislature sits and pass far larger budgets for far larger populations. It's clear that we welcome public scrutiny, especially if that scrutiny is thoughtful and is legitimate debate on the questions facing Yukoners.

Other jurisdictions obviously have opposition parties that are able to roll up their sleeves and get working, despite political differences. We did that when we were in opposition.

Our opposition parties in this House are playing at politics; they're not working. The opposition members of this House have made it very obvious that they can't stand the fact that they're not on this side of the House. They ask frivolous questions that go on for days in this House without dealing with the greater public policy debate, a debate that Yukoners want to see.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members are incapable of leading this territory. In fact, their less than adequate performance in acting as opposition members has meant that they must drag out the public business by asking questions that they have already received answers to, over and over and over again. The opposition also chooses to ask questions that have nothing to do with public policy or the government's finances. Their way is to initiate personal attacks and leave the real questions to real Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, we have provided answers. They don't like the answers, and instead of going out to Yukoners to voice their alternate view or their vision, they just waste time in this Legislature with the same tired verbiage. They're stalling the business of this territory while trying to find direction for their parties.

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to be here. The member opposite is wrong when he suggests that we don't want to be in the Legislature. But this would be a much happier place if the members opposite would get down and do their work. It's a faint hope, Mr. Speaker. From what the Member for Watson Lake has said this afternoon, their games are continuing. It's a pity, Mr. Speaker. They're not representing their constituents; they're merely wasting time and money and doing the Yukon public a disservice.

I remind the Member for Watson Lake that it's the Member for Klondike who continually asks for information by way of legislative return. He criticized this government for providing so much information in that form. Since the Member for Watson Lake speaks for the Member for Klondike so often, perhaps he would take that up with him.

I remind the Member for Watson Lake of all the times when we were in opposition that we weren't informed of anything. They didn't want us to know so they didn't tell us - surprise, surprise. We aren't like that. We told the members opposite as soon as we knew yesterday that the Premier had to leave for a Finance ministers meeting, one that was supposed to be held in December but has been moved up. We told them right away. The Premier is ready and able to debate the budget. It is a cruel and deliberate distortion of the facts for the Member for Watson Lake to suggest opposite. He knows very well what the case was and he has the news release in front of him. The government House leader told the opposition yesterday about this change in our schedule and the reason for it as soon as the government House leader became aware of it. The opposition is choosing not to believe it. That is most unfortunate. The Yukon public can see right through the opposition tactics. We have a leader. The Premier is doing her job and she is doing it well and we all support her.

Smoke and mirrors - I don't think so, Mr. Speaker. As much as he may want to pretend that the Champagne revision is not a figment of the Member for Kluane's imagination, as much as he may pretend that the work isn't happening - it is. It's real work; it's happening in the Yukon and it's thanks to this Liberal government. The Mayo school is not a figment of the Member for Mayo-Tatchun's imagination as much as he'd like it to be. Construction is nearing completion. It will be open soon. It is a real building. It is happening in the Yukon and it is happening thanks to this Liberal government. The Member for Watson Lake keeps worrying about a hidden agenda. There isn't one. We are open and accountable. The public, on the doorstep during the election campaign a year and a half ago, asked for improved delivery of government services. We heard it over and over again in every riding - that is renewal, Mr. Speaker. We are doing what we said we would do.

And, Mr. Speaker, they just don't get it. Land claims are a high priority for this government. The negotiation of land claims is, of necessity, a confidential matter. Even the member opposite, who was a former chief and knows better, continually asks us to violate land claims confidentiality. We can't and we won't. There is progress. There is a ratification vote happening next week. That's not a figment of their imagination. It's a real ratification vote and it's happening.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member has misspoken herself. I have not once asked the government side to violate any type of negotiations. I think it's an indication of how low this government is stooping right now.

I think that the member should withdraw that type of language. Having to take and listen to that type of language is not creating any type of fair debate for us on this side of the House. I ask you to do that.

Mr. McLachlan: Mr. Speaker, earlier in your ruling you used the reference "thin skinned". This is clearly another example where members are a little bit abused by the remarks. The language was not violating anything. The member fully well knows that questions on the floor of this Legislature to the Premier asked her to provide specific information that was outside the confidentiality of the discussions taking place. To stand forward on the floor at this time and say he did not, is clearly a difference of opinion and clearly a violation of everything that the leader of the opposition stands for.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the point of order, it has been the constant ploy of the Liberals that they have hidden behind the negotiations and stated categorically, "We don't negotiate land claims on the floor of the House." The questions posed by the official opposition and me have been questions that were outside of the parameters of the negotiations under the land claims agreements and clearly are so. Because the government of the day does not have the demonstrated ability to respond accurately to those questions, it constantly hides behind that shield. That is not fair. That is not reasonable. There is a very valid point of order.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. I treat the words spoken by the leader of the official opposition and by the government House leader with great respect, and I was looking for something to help me through with my decision. I thank the leader of the third party for coming in and, with his assistance, I believe that we have here a clear dispute of the facts rather than a point of order.

I thank the leader of the third party for that assistance and ask the minister to continue, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the opposition were truly serious about getting the business of the Legislature done, they would do their work in a timely manner, debate the issues, stop the personal attacks, and they would stick to agreements they have signed, such as the MOU.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon public simply can't trust the opposition to stick to the principles of a simple MOU.

The Member for Watson Lake has said several times that the session will be extended and that it will be fault of the Liberal government. Those statements make this motion a farce, Mr. Speaker. It is simply a waste of time.

I will not be supporting this motion as it reads, because that side of the House can't be counted on to do the work of this House. They have their own agenda. It isn't in the interest of the Yukon public.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, what we have before the House today is a very serious motion for debate. The record deserves to be corrected on a number of statements made by the Member for Lake Laberge. I listened intently to what the Member for Lake Laberge had to say, and I'm sure, after she hears what I have to say, she'll understand what is transpiring.

The first issue she raised, Mr. Speaker, was that her government had provided all the legislation to the opposition. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Member for Lake Laberge for providing that accurate information to the House here today, because certainly at House leaders this morning, when that same question was posed to the government House leader, the answer was not there. In fact, you have what we have and we don't know if there's any more. There was no definitive answer as to the extent of the legislation that was going to be provided, Mr. Speaker.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Laberge mentioned the MOU that is attached to and part of our Standing Orders. One only has to review SCREP to see who was not in agreement with the MOU. It's certainly not myself, it's certainly not the official opposition, but it is the Liberal government of the day that says they don't accept it and they don't concur with it, Mr. Speaker.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. We have a government that currently does a lot of talking, but the translation into reality just does not work. They say one thing, it either doesn't happen or they interpret it another way. That's how this government is going about its business, and it creates a considerable amount of turmoil in this Legislature, and it does prolong the sitting.

The Liberal government has only itself to blame, should this session not be able to be concluded within the time specified - only themselves, Mr. Speaker. At every step of the process, we constantly are inundated with new twists and turns. We were, in the opposition, all prepped to go to briefings at specific times on the financial aspects of the budget. At the last minute, we are told that the Premier, the Minister of Finance, is off to Ottawa - fine.

We know the Premier, the Minister of Finance, is leaving on Friday for a weekend meeting in Ottawa. When this has happened in prior years, someone has filled in for the Minister of Finance. What is happening now is all the briefings on Finance and the capital budget and the supps are set aside, and we're going into the legislation now. Even the public sector that provides these briefings is scrambling to attend them, because they were given notice at the last possible moment, Mr. Speaker.

So much for very careful planning on the part of the government of the day. So much for working cooperatively with the opposition for the betterment of this House. We have the business of the people of the Yukon to conduct here, and it is not the opposition that is delaying that. It is the current government. Now, I have constantly referred to this government as "the novice Liberal government". Nothing has really changed, other than they have been in power for some 18 months and we're getting further and further behind economically. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, they now have put, as their number one priority, this renewal of government which is virtually destroying the morale in the public sector. The concern now in the public sector is more, "Do I have a job?" Or, "When am I going to receive my lay-off notice?" That is a serious issue for most people, because if you prioritize those areas of your life, you put God as number one, in my opinion. Number two is your health; number three is your family and number four is your job. When any one of those goes off the rails, there is a serious problem with your whole lifestyle. With the ability of this Liberal government to demoralize our public sector employees with this renewal-of-government initiative, it is not instilling any confidence. We are probably going to extend debate because of this Liberal government's novice approach to how a legislature should run.

I guess the aspirations and dreams of the Liberals are one thing. The reality translates into something else, and that something else is that they have not been able to demonstrate an ability to govern the Yukon effectively, efficiently or instill any confidence in the investor community. That is painfully evident in all the economic sectors and economic drivers in the Yukon, whether it be the mining, forestry or oil and gas communities or our visitor industry. The last major driver that injected a tremendous amount of capital and O&M dollars into the Yukon, this Liberal government has chosen to demoralize it - some government and some ability, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will predict here today that this Liberal government is going to go down in the history of the Yukon as the most successful failure ever as a government.

Let's look at the areas this Liberal government should be concentrating on. If we look at House leaders, they should come to a meeting with a clear, concise, forthright plan. They should provide the information accurately and not stonewall. They should have a platform as to where we're heading and the agenda. We can all be prepared and can all deal with it.

Some of the legislation, after looking at it, appears to be very hastily drafted, Mr. Speaker, given that it was probably just a commitment that one or many of the ministers of the day made - yes, you're going to have that, go and do this and do it immediately. A lot of this legislation should take a lot of time, not only as to the legislation itself, but how it dovetails into other legislation. That thought process hasn't been applied.

But that aside, the major problem with this government is that this government has not brought forward in this House one major initiative that is going to restore investor confidence in Yukon - not one. Yes, we're going to throw a few more dollars into the mining incentive program, and we're going to throw a few more dollars into this and that. But, Mr. Speaker, if you even look at the minuscule amount of dollars spent in mining and mining exploration by the mining community itself here in Yukon this last year, it is but a mere shadow of what it has been in the past or what it could be currently. That's just the mining community. The same holds true for the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at our neighbours in the Northwest Territories. Let's look at one little company, which has now been bought out - Anderson Exploration.

They have a $370-million program in work committed in the Mackenzie Delta and in shallow portions of the Beaufort Sea. And furthermore, a just-fabricated, top-of-the-line rig - Rig No. 63 - costing some $18 million, has been purchased and shipped up to Hay River, up to Tuktoyaktuk. It will be going to work this winter. And guess what? The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation has decided to put their money where their mouth is. They are a 50-percent partner in that Rig No. 63. They are a 50-percent partner in a private company that is investing in the north.

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation will be training a lot of their First Nation workers and they will be working on not just that rig, but all of the other Anderson rigs. So what we have, just over a little artificial border, is a First Nation group that is not only investing in the resource sector, but it is participating in it. They are participating in the exploration, production and transmission of the products.

We have the same opportunities here but no ability by this government to attract that kind of investment here in Yukon.

And why? Because this government is too busy creating a whole series of interlocking parks, which has destroyed investor confidence, Mr. Speaker.

This government had an opportunity to look at parks, put a cap on the number of parks or the number of hectares that were going to be removed for park purposes, but they have chosen not to, Mr. Speaker. Parks are now encompassing mining claims, or the way that parks are configured, backed up against other lands or First Nation lands; there's no access to the mining claims. It is this government, Mr. Speaker, that has done this. They have done it with respect to Tombstone and done it with respect to the park next to the Kluane Game Sanctuary.

Now, why? Why would they do that, Mr. Speaker, when it sends a very clear message to the mining community, "Hey, you'd best stay away from here. You don't know what's going to happen to your mining claims." So the mining community has just backed off.

We've got the oil and gas community staying away; we've got the mining community staying away. Look at the forestry. There was an opportunity for this government to go to their federal masters and allow their federal masters to pull their puppet strings and give them THAs in southeast Yukon and keep 125 Yukoners employed. But they chose not to. That was a political decision. That was a political decision - and a bad one - to create all of these parks and encompass the mining claims so they're inaccessible, Mr. Speaker. It is a political decision by this Liberal government to not intervene with respect t