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

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like the Legislature to help me welcome a dear friend and a former MLA of Whitehorse Centre, the riding I now represent. She’s also a former Cabinet minister here, as well as a publisher and writer. I believe she has written two books — I could be wrong, but I know of two for sure: Women of Power, and a book that just recently came out a few months ago on Victoria Faulkner. As well, she was the publisher of Father Mouchet’s memoirs, which has recently showed up on the bookstands — Joyce Hayden.

Speaker:   Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Mr. Cardiff:  I have for tabling documents related to appointments to the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Finance to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Finance;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Finance as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policies and directives given by the Minister of Education to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of the full capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Education;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Education as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003;

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Peter:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Justice to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operation and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Justice;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Justice as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Community Services to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operation and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Community Services;

(3) a detailed organization chart for the Department of Community Services as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Highways and Public Works to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Highways and Public Works;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Highways and Public Works as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Premier to the Executive Council Office since November 5, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Executive Council Office;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Executive Council Office as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the Executive Council Office budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Health and Social Services to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Health and Social Services;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Health and Social Services as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Mrs. Peter:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Environment to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Environment;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Environment as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister of Tourism and Culture to the department since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operation and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Department of Tourism and Culture;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Department of Tourism and Culture as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) any other information requested at the department’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission to the commission since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operation and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the Public Service Commission;

(3) detailed organization charts for the Public Service Commission as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003;

(4) any other information requested at the Public Service Commission’s budget briefing for the opposition that has not already been provided; and

(5) the remainder of the information on employee numbers requested by letter to the minister on January 17, 2003.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

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

THAT this House do issue an order for the return of

(1) a record of all new policy directives given by the minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation since November 30, 2002;

(2) a breakdown of all capital and operations and maintenance allocations, to the program level, in the 2003-04 main estimates for the corporation;

(3) a detailed organization chart for the corporation as of November 30, 2002, and as of April 1, 2003; and

(4) lists of all contracts issued and all reports and papers for the past year, for the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should introduce the capital budget in the fall sitting, as requested by Yukon contractors and the public.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   My question today is for the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

The minister has taken the position that the appointment of the new Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board chair had the support of stakeholders. On March 5, the minister received a letter from the workers task force supporting the promotion of the alternate chair. The letter also raised concerns about the minister’s current choice, saying, "He’s too closely connected with the current administration. In addition, he is also associated with past turmoil at the board. We believe his appointment would be a step backward."

Why did the minister choose to ignore the clear advice from these stakeholders?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, what we have here is the official opposition chastising a member of the public who can’t be here to defend himself. This individual, who was selected for the board, was the most qualified, the most experienced and the most able, and we’re very fortunate to have him. The guidelines for the chair of the board are very specific, and that individual, as well as all the other members of the board, have to sign a confidentiality agreement and they have to be very independent. And they are.

So, as this individual is not here to defend himself today, Mr. Speaker, I’d ask the official opposition to stand down on chastising a member of the public who is the most qualified to take on the responsibilities of the chair of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Mr. Cardiff:   It’s not about who has been appointed. It’s about the consultation process and whether or not the minister is ignoring advice he’s receiving on that consultation process.

On March 7, the minister received a letter from the Yukon Federation of Labour supporting the position of the workers task force and the promotion of the alternate chair. Why did the minister choose to ignore the clear advice of these stakeholders?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I receive a lot of advice in my capacity as minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board — a lot of advice — and I’m receiving advice here today. But what has happened after due process was followed was that the most qualified, experienced and able individual was selected to chair the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. We’re very, very fortunate that a man with this type of credentials is there to lead this board.

Mr. Cardiff:   It would be nice if the minister would listen to some of the advice that he is receiving.

I am of the understanding that the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce and the Injured Workers Alliance also supported promoting the alternate chair. Can the minister tell me why he ignored the advice of all of those stakeholders?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What we are having here is the official opposition harping constantly —

Speaker:   Order please.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I withdraw the term "harping".

Speaker:   Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   — constantly going on berating me and only bringing forth part of the information. What is not being recognized is that there were a lot of letters of support for the chair who was selected. Those are being completely overlooked and ignored by the member opposite. What we did as a government was select the most qualified, the most experienced, the most able individual to chair the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Yukon should be very, very happy and proud that this individual has taken on this responsibility.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a policy question for the Premier. As a former business person, I am sure that the Premier is aware that self-employed contractors are normally responsible for certain costs such as office space, telephone, computers, fax machines, photocopiers and so on. Yet, there is a well-compensated contractor who maintains an office within the Cabinet and caucus area of this government, who appears to be exempt from this requirement.

Can the Premier provide the Management Board directive or government policy that covers this situation and can he tell the House when such a directive or policy came into effect.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Obviously there is no such policy. The gentleman in question does not have an office here — none whatsoever. However, from time to time, in a vacant office, the contractor may hang up his coat and place some of his paperwork or whatever on a desk, but this is not a case of the contractor having an office in government — none whatsoever. The facts are that the contractor has an office of his own, but there are occasions when he’s here and there is a vacant office in the building, and there’s absolutely no reason why the contractor couldn’t hang up his coat or set down a briefcase in a space that is secure, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   We’re talking about an individual who is the beneficiary of a sole-source contract with an annual price tag well in excess of a deputy minister’s salary. It’s hard to believe that this self-employed contractor isn’t in a position to provide the normal amenities that other people who do contract work for this government are expected to provide.

This government has already shown considerable generosity to one sector of the economy that is feeling the pinch. In the same spirit, perhaps the Premier would be willing to provide similar benefits to everyone else who does contract work for the Yukon government, such as the office space that is being supplied.

Will the Premier give us a tally of all the office-related costs that Yukon taxpayers are incurring on behalf of this individual, over and above the face value of the contract, which is $200,000 a year? In other words, will the Premier tell us the complete price tag for this sole-source contract?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   There is no way to provide the member opposite the cost of an office for a contractor because there is no office for the contractor.

Secondly, it has been stated in this House previously, on a number of occasions, that the contract is capped at $200,000 for the duties as described in the contract. Also, the members have a copy of it. They also know that the contract is explicit, that of course, in the cost of doing business, there will be expenses.

When it comes to this so-called office that has been given to the contractor, it’s not the case. So the member opposite is simply trying to imply that something is happening in an office in the government building that has existed there since the building was built, and it will continue to exist there.

This is not the contractor’s office, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   I would suggest that we’re not hearing the whole story, which is becoming quite a situation in this House during Question Period.

This contractor happens to have a government phone number here. Where does that sit? Is it in the hallway as well, since there is no office? We have to ask those kinds of questions.

We have no doubt that this individual is providing a valuable service to the Premier. At that price — $200,000 plus — I’m sure the list of responsibilities is very impressive. With an office conveniently located right in the political hot zone, I’m sure the contractor in question is also privy to some very sensitive information.

Now, other political appointees are required to take certain oaths. They are also bound by certain constraints, particularly those spelled out in the Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act. Since the contractor in question enjoys many of the perks of being a Cabinet employee, is he also obligated to meet the requirements of other political appointees in the Cabinet and caucus office?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Now we have the official opposition implying in this House that we have a contractor who is now a Cabinet minister. That’s ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. That’s not the case at all.

Furthermore, the contractor has taken on explicit duties of the highest priority for this government. This contractor is a contractor on his own, as the contract states. He has specific duties that come with negotiating specific areas for government. Negotiators have been hired under contract by governments in the past, and I’m sure governments in the future will do the same, so let’s recap: the individual in question is doing a very high priority job for government and is not a Cabinet minister. The contractor is a contractor on his own, hired or solicited by this government to do a specific duty. He has his own office. He does not have an office in government.

The third item, Mr. Speaker, is that occasionally he will put his things in a vacant office here in government that is on these premises, has been on these premises and will be on the premises long after this contract is up. I would suggest the members opposite are trying to diminish what is one of the highest priorities for Yukoners and Yukon First Nations, and that’s our partnership we have commenced to develop and formalize.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation. The questions are about this government’s policies and special relationships. In a few short months, the government has established itself as one that looks after its own. There has been a great deal of work done on bringing forward a new liquor act — a group of very well-respected Yukoners to do the full public consultation on this act. The act was ready to go and it included opening neighbourhood pubs in the Yukon.

Would the minister confirm that part of the act has been dropped because of opposition from members, including the MLA for Klondike, the Yukon Party campaign manager and the MLA for Porter Creek Centre? Would the minister confirm that that part of the section of the act has been dropped?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, we are reviewing the information that has been provided in the review that she talks about. There were several contentious issues in it that we are dealing with, and we are on the review right now.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the government is against licensing neighbourhood pubs because it might cut into the bottom line of bars that are owned by some of their own. That’s what their campaign literature said, and the member would be well advised to revisit that campaign literature.

Now the Yukon Party is in government, and it’s time to put the public’s interests first. Almost 70 percent of the public supported neighbourhood pubs. Well-respected Yukoners recommended it after full and thorough public consultation. Why are the minister and the government putting the interests of a few of their own ahead of the clear majority of Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The member opposite is incorrect. We are not putting our members in front of the public’s interest. We are reviewing the information that is before us, and we are taking that information in consultation with the board itself. We are on the review.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, their own party campaign platform says that the Yukon Party does not support the introduction of a new type of licence — the unfairness to existing liquor licensees, some of their members. But there is broad public support for neighbourhood pubs. The public has asked for this. Almost 70 percent in the public consultation said yes. A review committee including well-respected Yukoners said yes. The government is putting the interests of friends and some members ahead of the public. The wishes of the public are being ignored and a few are getting their way.

Will the minister do the right thing and bring the act forward with the neighbourhood pubs and let the Legislature decide?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will reiterate that we are in the review process. We will be bringing forth the changes to the proposed Liquor Act when we are finished, and we will debate them here at the Legislature.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board is earning himself quite a reputation for promising people in this House that he will provide information and then not providing it. Being open and accountable are important elements missing from this minister and this government. This minister has failed to provide an answer to my letter of December 12, 2002, on the Workers' Compensation Act review process.

Now, I realize that he went to Hawaii and he has been busy doing all the other things that he has had to do, but we want to talk about due course, the fullness of time, and all of that. My question is: when will the minister reply to my December 12 letter and provide the information on the WCB review process, which I have repeatedly asked for and requested in this House?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, the member opposite only has to go back in Hansard and he can read and re-read, because it has been the same answer to the same question on a number of different occasions. With respect to the review, I once again confirm that, as per the act, it’s underway, the three individuals designated and tasked with the responsibility are proceeding and, before the end of last year, everything was in place. They are required under the act to examine specific areas of the act. That is in the terms of reference, as is the entire act, or any other area that they deem appropriate.

So, as to this task and this initiative, it is underway, as it is required by the act, as I am required to implement.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister has promised — and he should read Hansard and see what he has promised — to table documents relating to the terms of reference. He has promised to table documents, some of which I had to table today for him.

In addition to writing the minister on December 12, I have asked the minister for information on the review process in this House on March 3, March 17 and March 27, and he has promised to table that information, but both the minister and his staff have quite flippantly told me they would get this information I requested "in due course".

Mr. Speaker, when will the minister give this his serious attention, and when will I get the answers to my questions on the Workers’ Compensation Act review?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The question has been asked; the question has been answered.

Mr. Cardiff:   The question has not been answered. The minister promised to table the documents in this House, and he has failed to do that. The issue of the Workers’ Compensation Act review is a serious one; even the minister will admit that.

The act provides protection for both employees and employers in the Yukon and, while the minister doesn’t seem to take it — he says he takes it seriously, but I find it hard to believe that he does. I take it seriously, and a whole bunch of other people take it seriously.

With his own words, the minister has led this House to believe that specific things about the review, for which he is responsible, exist. Yet, without the information the minister has said exists, and which he has promised to provide, we don’t know the whole story.

Will he give his word and tell me what date he will make the requested information available?

Could we have a date? Is it going to be this year or — ?

Speaker:   Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. He does not know the entire story, and I can agree with him on that point.

As to the review, I can confirm that it’s underway, that progress is being made, that the three individuals appointed to this committee are meeting and a report has been provided to me. There is ongoing communication. When it reaches a point where I can table actual documents relating to the output of this committee, I will be doing so, Mr. Speaker, but the whole initiative is that this three-party panel will go out and consult with all the stakeholder groups. That is underway. I am required to do that under the terms of the act. It has been done. It has been adhered to and it has been followed.

Everything is on course and on target in our government, Mr. Speaker. Where the problem lies is understanding it in the official opposition.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, we know now that this Yukon Party government has eliminated the Yukon protected areas strategy. There are many areas in First Nation traditional territory that are of special interest to the local people. By now, the minister has had an opportunity to learn the difference between the protected area under YPAS and the special management areas under the First Nation final agreements.

How many special management areas are currently under discussion in the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I would like to correct the member opposite once again. The Yukon protected areas strategy is on hold; it has not been eliminated. To continually refer to it as having been eliminated is not only incorrect, it is misleading the public directly.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

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

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe the minister is in contravention of section 19(g) of the Standing Orders, which says, "A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if that member imputes false or unavowed motives to another member."

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. There is just an interpretation being put on this situation by the official opposition that is incorrect.

Speaker:   There is a point of order. I would ask the minister to withdraw that statement, please.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I withdraw it.

There is a flawed strategy with the Yukon protected areas strategy. It is flawed. It does not accomplish what needs to be accomplished in this important area. There are many better ways to do it, and it is that consultation with Yukoners that is necessary to do. The strategy is flawed, and it has been put on hold until we know where we are going with this. The initiative to accomplish the goals of that have certainly not been discontinued.

Mrs. Peter:  I’ve asked the minister about the special management areas. We have 14 First Nation communities in the Yukon. Some have their land claims finalized; others are still working to get there, and hopefully that will be very soon.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us approximately the total land volume being discussed for special management areas and where these special management areas are located? 

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   One statistic that I can certainly give is that currently under protection in the Yukon is — 12.517 percent is the last figure I saw, well above the Canadian average, and well above any other jurisdiction in Canada.

I continue to have some confusion as to why the member opposite feels that the best in the country is inadequate.

In terms of the special management areas, as the member opposite quite well knows and refers to, many of these are under negotiation with First Nations. We hope they do conclude quickly. We give that every bit of support and honour our commitment to the First Nations involved that these are confidential negotiations, Mr. Speaker, and it would be extremely inappropriate to discuss them on this floor.

Mrs. Peter:   Commitments of consultation have been trumpeted by this government over and over again. One of their highest priorities is working in partnership with First Nation people in the territory. They’re extending an olive branch.

Can the minister identify the First Nations he has met with regarding proposed special management areas in their traditional territory, and tell us how many meetings he has actually attended?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   The member opposite is certainly correct that we do give the highest priority to the negotiations with First Nations, and we honour our commitments to all of them, including those of confidentiality within the negotiations.

I don’t have an exact number — that’s a loaded question, I would think. Our officials are meeting on a day-to-day basis with all First Nations. It is not the initiative of one individual; it is the initiative of this government.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services.

For several years now, a steering committee has been working on developing a training course for addictions counsellors in the Yukon. A credible, transferable course leading to a one-year certificate or a two-year diploma or to a degree was developed in conjunction with Medicine Hat College and the University of Lethbridge.

Can the minister confirm that monies have already been allocated and spent in developing this course?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I can confirm that the department is examining this course in conjunction with other agencies. I’m not completely familiar with the details of it but I would be happy to provide the member opposite with additional information.

Mr. Fairclough:   I am just wondering when I would be able to get that information from this minister?

A contribution agreement was already made with Yukon College to put on this course. A lot of staff time and money has been spent in developing this course — basically fitting it into the objectives of the alcohol and drug services and establishing a liaison with the Medicine Hat College.

Now, this is an important step in addressing the problems of addictions in the Yukon. Can the minister explain why this desperately needed training course is on hold?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am not aware if it is on hold or if there has been no uptake on the program. Those details I am not familiar with. I know that it’s an initiative, and I have agreed to provide the member opposite with information surrounding this availability and the course curriculum. Perhaps he would like to sign up and take it.

Mr. Fairclough:   Obviously the minister is sidetracked on this. They said it was a priority, that alcohol and drugs were a priority. What happened with the minister doing some research at least in his department? Mr. Speaker, they even presented a five-point plan, of which we have not yet seen any details. The need for training of service workers dealing with addictions in the communities is acute. There is no credible training presently available in the Yukon, so I’d like to ask the minister this.

Will the minister give his assurance that this course will be offered in Yukon College beginning this fall?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the College is not under my purview. It’s under that of the Minister of Education. That said, our government has committed another $1 million to the Yukon College training trust fund that can be levered four times that amount. In addition to that, our government is paying a lot of attention to the issue surrounding FASD. To that end, additional funding has been directed toward the Child Development Centre, toward the Yukon Medical Association and toward FASSY. These are NGOs that are providing excellent services and excellent initiatives in the community, and they are addressing, in part, some of the areas surrounding FASD.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is again to the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, live-in treatment for addicted persons is now available through alcohol and drug services. This much-needed service has been well-attended; however, there is no follow-up treatment or after-care in the communities. We feel it’s a waste of money to have people sent to Whitehorse for treatment and then have them relapse in their communities.

In some cases, it is up to about a 90-percent relapse, Mr. Speaker. That’s very high. Will the minister make after-care a high priority and direct his officials to ensure there is adequate counselling and follow-up in all Yukon communities?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   One of the main thrusts of our government was to direct our attention to this serious affliction here in the Yukon — drugs and alcohol. It was one of the main focus points of our government to curtail the activities of the alcohol and drug secretariat, which was another stovepipe of administration, and direct the funding to programming.

Yes, there is a serious problem with after-care. That is being recognized; that is being dealt with. But we do have some very good programs in place. We are directing our attention to our dollars and our focus to these programs, and we will be moving forward and addressing these areas in very short order.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, the minister said it was a top priority. You would think that this government would have taken action by now.

The way I understand it, the secretariat has been moved into the alcohol and drug services and there is really no change to the structure at all. The amount of money in the budget is the same, Mr. Speaker.

I am asking the minister to pay some attention to this because we feel that it is imperative to have trained addictions counsellors providing services throughout the territory, throughout Yukon. Having staff travel to communities from Whitehorse is not the solution. The minister, I’m sure, knows that. It is superficial.

Communities need consistency. I am sure the minister can agree to that. They need workers to have the understanding and commitment to the community. So, is the minister going to follow through with his department’s plan to respond to community needs for addictions counselling? That is a very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I agree with the member opposite that we have a very serious problem here in the Yukon with addictions. Our government’s priority is to address those problems. We have done so by putting more programming money — concentrating our efforts into the programming area rather than building up another stovepipe of administration. That’s where our focus is — in program delivery. The area the member refers to is an area that deserves more attention and it will be focused on, but, Mr. Speaker, our thrust and our direction is to deal with the total drug and alcohol problem here in the Yukon. There’s the preventive side, there’s dealing with the addictions side, and there’s dealing with the after-care. The full program delivery must be addressed, not just the area that the member opposite is concentrating on.

Mr. Fairclough:   If the minister followed my question, he would see that the overall plan is consistent with alcohol and drug services.

The minister did answer my questions indirectly. He said no, he is not going to be following the department’s plan. It’s kind of interesting because we’d like to know what plans he has.

Now, the secretariat and the College had plans and monies in place for three outreach addiction workers, one in Haines Junction, one in Dawson City and one in Watson Lake. The positions were advertised and shortlisted. They were then withdrawn by this government. These three positions were part of the comprehensive overall plan to deal with alcohol and drug addictions.

Why is the minister changing his department’s established strategy, and does he have a new plan? Can he tell us what it is?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What the member opposite is referring to is the drug and alcohol secretariat’s strategy. Our government’s strategy is somewhat different that creating more administration. What we are concentrating on, Mr. Speaker, is program delivery. That is where the thrust and direction has to be — and will be — under our government.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce, in the crowd, Mayor Mark Ramsey of the City of Campbellton, who was a member of the host society for the Canada Winter Games in New Brunswick.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I would like to take a moment of the House’s time to introduce in the gallery a former Commissioner of the Yukon, Doug Bell.

Speaker:   We will proceed to government bills.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 27, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 27, entitled Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved the hon. Premier that Bill No. 27, entitled Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This act repeals the Government Accountability Act passed last year by the former government. The Government Accountability Act was called a "flawed" bill when it was debated in the House last April, and it was not supported by the opposition and was barely passed in a confidence vote.

Soon after gaining office, our government determined that the accountability planning exercises were time-consuming and onerous. I do wish to acknowledge, however, the efforts of the many public servants who were involved in preparing these mandatory plans prior to that time. We believe we can accomplish many of the objectives of the plans without over-burdening the process with red tape. We would be working with those employees and all Yukoners to come up with a better way to use what we learned.

By repealing the Government Accountability Act, we would be returning to the conventional budget format that is familiar to Yukoners and which was in place prior to the act. This format includes statistical information on program activities and results. The Yukon, Mr. Speaker, is a small jurisdiction, and government programs and activities are well-known to the public. We know we will hear when program outcomes are not what they should be and we will respond accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, this government has in place a wide array of mechanisms to demonstrate its results and its accountability. The Financial Administration Act provides for responsible and efficient fiscal management and the authority of the internal auditor. Under existing policy, the government audit service is responsible for addressing significant issues relating to effectiveness, the economy and accountability, as well as compliance with statutes and directions and many other matters. Each year there are numerous reports tabled detailing the expenditures and activities of many corporations and departments in compliance with various statutes.

My ministers will be accountable for their departments and the actions carried out under their watch. Each deputy minister has prepared for his or her minister a letter of undertaking outlining the commitments they will be working to meet each year.

This will also serve as a gauge for assessing performance. We will also be accountable to the public through this Legislature and we will, of course, be standing up in this House to answer any questions the members opposite have about the budget.

This government will be a results-oriented government and it will be judged on those results, not on the number and length of plans or reports that we publish. Right now the government’s main priority is the economy. We will continue working with all stakeholders and in partnership with First Nations and other government businesses and industry groups and all Yukoners to do that.

My government’s priorities for practising good government were set out in the throne speech, and it is on these priorities that we will be judged. This includes working with Yukoners and the Yukon public service to ensure government programs and services, as well as the structure of government, are designed to meet the needs of Yukoners. This will be an ongoing task.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s very satisfying to know that the members opposite, the government, have recognized the importance of dealing with this matter — Bill No. 27, the Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to say today that it took a lot of work and a very difficult day yesterday to bring it to their attention that they were actually in contravention of the act itself.

In looking back at the debate that ensued over that, it’s a shame that they weren’t able to recognize it, and it’s a shame today that they didn’t acknowledge the fact that this act should have been dealt with immediately upon the Legislature being formed and the bill being brought in.

We should have gone through with it.

Now, I will congratulate the government for recognizing what happened yesterday and moving forward on it today, so we can at least deal with this, as I had requested yesterday, so there’s no question of legitimacy, no allegations of being above the law in the Legislature. By moving forward on this, with whatever the vote outcome is on this Government Accountability Act, we will at least be able to go forward.

However, on some points, Mr. Speaker, I have to differ with, Bill No. 59, Government Accountability Act. In reading some of the language in it — and I’m going to read a few pieces of it right now — I can’t find fault with what is written. If anything, it points to perhaps what more governments should be, which is more accountable to the people of the Yukon, and not less accountable.

Now, any government coming in has the right to make changes as they see fit, and so the Yukon Party government has decided this accountability act is something they do not wish to proceed with, and their justification and reasoning may have some legitimacy, but it does not have the legitimacy of saying that less information is better for the public. If anything, the government should be more open, the government should be more transparent in everything they do. If there are ways that a government could ensure that the business it conducts is transparent to the public, then I believe that is serving democracy and is also keeping a public that votes for or against them informed of what direction this government is going in.

That is essential in this day and age if we want to have informed debate and if we want to have a public that is engaged in our parliamentary system.

Every step we take that removes information or access to information or the ability to phone your MLA or the ability to talk to the elected people — every step we take that removes us from the people is a step away from democracy.

I am looking at some of the language of Bill No. 59. A consolidated accountability plan must include the vision, mission, values and priorities of the government; the key strategies for achieving the priorities of the government; the target set by the government for each of the priorities and a comparison of the actual performance results to date with targets set in previous consolidated accountability plans, if any.

When I was campaigning in October and November, on the doorstep I ran across a few constituents who very specifically wanted performance results, some way to measure if the government is achieving what it has laid out — for instance, the platform during the election. So the government lays out the platform.

My constituents whom I talked to were very clear in that: how are they going to be able to measure it? That was the question they asked me. If you say you are going to do this — that’s what they were saying to me — "Todd, if you say you are going to do this if you get elected and you form government, how can we be sure that you do it? How can we measure it? What are the performance criteria that we can measure you by?"

I took that to heart, like any person who was campaigning and any person in here and the many others who weren’t successful. I took it to heart that the constituent was sincere and that they wanted some way to be able to measure that.

Well, in this accountability act, there is a comparison of the actual performance reports, with targets. Maybe that is the direction the government should be going in, some way for the measurement to happen so the constituents themselves can sit back and make a judgement on the government with a lot more information and some kind of comparison, and be able to take the word of the elected person and apply it to the actions of the elected person or elected government and then be able to come up with an informed decision to help them in their own deliberations on whether they will support that person or that government in an upcoming election.

What has happened today is that we brought in a multitude of motions, and they are for the production of papers, Mr. Speaker. This wasn’t done just for show. This was done because we on this side — and I think my colleague from the third party would agree with me — are having a very difficult time getting information from this government. So what we have come up with is that maybe we have to ask, in a motion, for the production of papers. That seems to be the only way we will be able to get some of our answers, through that method, and we hope that is successful. Then we hope we’ll move on from that.

Within the Question Period, Mr. Speaker, we are finding time and time and time again that we are not getting answers. We ask a question very clearly but we don’t get an answer. We get either an attack back to us, a challenge back to us, or it goes off on a different tangent.

Now this is Question Period. This is our role: we ask the questions. On the other side, the government side, the government supplies the answers, but it’s becoming very, very rare that we find the answers.

I’m not so sure if what the Premier is proposing — going back to the old way — is necessarily a better way. I’m not sure of it, because since the supplementary and the main budget have been given to us, we haven’t necessarily felt that we’ve been given a lot of detailed information that we can work with. You feel like you have a can and a can opener and you’re trying to pry that lid off and you’re struggling to do it. What’s inside? We don’t know. If they would give us the information, we could look at it and form our questions based upon information we are given, just as I talked earlier about what the constituents want. Then maybe our questions would be more direct. Maybe the members opposite would be able to answer them, because we would have the information to work with. Instead we are struggling. We are struggling to find out what is behind very general statements.

There is not much accountability in what the Premier called "the old way", which is making it very difficult for us. If it’s difficult for us in here, who have the opportunity to ask these questions and go through the budgets, I can imagine how difficult it is for the constituents — the people of the Yukon — to try to figure out what this government is doing.

What even adds more difficulty is trying to figure out the platform that they ran on, the budget that they’ve tabled, the supplementary that we have and the lack of information that we are now working with.

If the Government Accountability Act was a way to ensure more information was given to the public; if the Government Accountability Act was pointing toward a direction the government is going in, one, two or three years down the road, then I would say that we should have it — we should have the Government Accountability Act with the statistics, as the Premier has mentioned.

I don’t believe that denying some information and going back to another way of delivering it that may be more complicated is a way of serving the general public or serving the Legislature.

I am going to be very interested to listen to the comments from the Premier when he wraps on this. I am also very interested to hear the comments from the leader of the third party, since it was her party, when they were previously in government, that did bring this in. I would like to know the justifications as to why she felt it actually served the public better — not necessarily the Legislature, but the public.

My colleagues and I will be making our decision based on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan:   I am pleased to rise today to respond in particular to what the leader of the official opposition has said. I applaud their efforts to bring this forward. I appreciate that there are many days when each of us as individuals, no matter what our profession, wonder if we have made a difference. Because, as legislators in particular, that is what we set out to do — to make a difference in the daily lives of Yukoners.

In bringing their motion forward yesterday, the opposition did make a difference. They caused the government to recognize that they were in violation of the Government Accountability Act and are now bringing this forward.

That being said, it is with a truly heavy heart that I debate this motion and this piece of legislation, because what we are doing is watching the Government of Yukon go many, many, many miles — kilometres — backward. Backwards in time.

Accountability is a fundamental element of our society today. It’s what Yukoners have asked of their government, and they have asked in the last several elections, and the leader of the official opposition mentioned that.

I go back and would like to restate a comment I made yesterday and have made previously in this House. It was the former Auditor General of Canada who made note of this accountability in particular and the lack of progress in improving accountability within the federal government. Denis Desautels said, "Providing performance information that is balanced and candid is seen to carry too many risks. This can be true for both ministers and public servants. In short, we have a government culture where mediocre reporting is safe. To break out of this, Parliament may need to legislate the provision of performance information by departments. We have to move toward a culture where there is virtue in reporting the way things are."

We moved that way last year. The Government Accountability Act is about government performance. It requires government to stick its neck out, to commit to the public what it expects to achieve, how it will measure the results. It requires government to show the public, through accountability plans, what the goals are, the degree to which it has achieved those goals. Yukoners want a government that is accountable. We have heard that over and over and over and over again.

There are survey results that show that Yukoners’ highest priority was having the government be accountable to them. Yes, it’s a small jurisdiction. Yes, we’re accountable when we go door to door. And yes, we believe that that accountability should be in the budget documents put forward. They should be in the form of performance measures and accountability plans.

What the Premier is suggesting is, "Well, it’s good enough." The old budget format is good enough.

It’s not good enough. It’s not accountable enough. They are not accountability plans and there aren’t performance measures.

I will give specific examples. Previously we had budget documents and now we have, again, budget documents that tell us how many students are enrolled in schools, how many children were in kindergarten, how many students chose to take part in French immersion and how many rural versus urban students. Nowhere in the budget documents that the Premier wants to go back to do we find out how well the reading recovery program is working. Are we achieving results for the dollars we spend in this area? Nowhere in the budget documents are we able to see if there are problems with the math curriculum. We don’t know how many students are enrolled in math, why there are decreasing numbers — not the way the Premier wants to see it presented, because that’s not an accountability plan, and they’re not performance measures. It is statistics and it’s a step backwards.

In health, a key recommendation in the Romanow report — well-regarded throughout the country — was that governments need to be more accountable for how the billions of dollars of health care money are spent. In discussing this, the Health minister said that accountability is a very important principle. Minister Mar from Alberta said that we need to be accountable to Canadians; we need to be accountable to our specific residents and those whom we serve in relation to the delivery of health care.

We have heard Canadians say, "We are taxpayers; we are patients; we are voters; we want to know how you’re spending the dollars and what kind of care we get." This is how the accountability plan dealt with that, and how the accountability legislation required the government to outline what the values of the department were, what the mission was, what the vision was; and it was required to show expenditures by responsibility. Under the accountability planning, we knew the government spent almost $30 million on keeping children safe, almost $15 million in assisting Yukoners to live as independently as possible, and $88,691,000 on providing quality health care services to Yukoners; and just over $2 million in health promotion programs. That’s outlined in an accountability plan.

Accountability planning also had performance indicators. For example, in an accountability plan, we knew how many employable social assistance recipients, as a percentage of the total employable, came off social assistance because their case was closed. That’s the kind of information and performance measures — are we meeting the needs of special-needs clients? What’s the caseload like? We’ve discussed this before in this House. Those are the kinds of performance measures the public is asking for and that accountability legislation required of them.

I’m not suggesting the accountability plans were perfect — far from it. It was absolutely a work in progress, and everyone recognized it. We said, on the floor of the House, that this was a good start.

We know we need more performance indicators. We know they’re a tad wordy. At least we stuck our neck out and started on the road of being accountable to Yukoners, which is what they had asked us to do, and to end that accountability isn’t just a short step backwards; it’s kilometres backwards. It’s not what Yukoners are seeking. It’s not what Yukoners asked for.

This Yukon Party campaigned in the last election on a spend, spend, spend budget, promising the sun, the moon and the stars. They didn’t deliver on that. And to end the accountability act, to repeal it, ends the very accountability Yukoners are asking for and the performance indicators that Yukoners are asking for.

Yukoners want to know, for their taxpayer dollars — the half a billion that Ottawa transfers to the Yukon — how many kilometres of road did you manage to pave, how much BST did you manage to do? We travel the world marketing our ability in BST. How many contractors were you able to employ? How many kilometres of roads have you brushed? That sort of information is not buried in the statistics. It’s not highlighted in the statistics page. The additional $20 million or more that the government stands up and says they achieved, that they’re getting it from Ottawa for health care — Yukoners want to know how it’s being spent. They are going to want to know, when it’s finally put forward in this House, and they will be asking such detailed information as, "You say you commit to primary health care services, or is it social services? Are we reducing the caseloads?" Have we, for the additional millions, managed to implement the recommendations of the Child Welfare League and reduced the caseloads?

A fundamental principle — and you don’t show that in statistics pages alone. That is a performance indicator and it’s about performance. It’s about performance that should be judged when the budget documents are tabled and that a government can be proud of.

What is so unbelievably short-sighted about repealing the accountability act is the lack of recognition of how much help this is to a minister on that side. How many times did ministers, in answering questions from the opposition say, "Look, go back to the accountability plan." I challenge the ministers opposite to ask the former ministers. Ask them how valuable the accountability plans were. They will say they were incredibly valuable, because that is what they said to me when they learned of this.

Things like the Department of Justice recognizing that money would be spent on schematic designs for the new Whitehorse Correctional Centre and what the outcome indicators would be — improved safety, living, working conditions for offenders and staff, reduced concerns about Whitehorse Correctional Centre operations by a fire marshal and others. There were output indicators and outcome indicators. There were details upon details.

I fully recognize that the previous accountability plans were a first crack. On the first try they are not perfect. I can think of no other expression, so you’ll forgive me for this one, but what the government is doing is throwing the baby out with the bath water by repealing this legislation.

They are ending and repealing legislation that provided accountability that Yukoners seek — a step backward in time. This isn’t what they campaigned on. It’s not what they promised Yukoners, but it’s what they’re delivering. I can’t accept that, Mr. Speaker, as good government; I can’t accept it as being responsible.

Some of the members opposite have stood and said that accountability is what their constituents asked for, and I have to ask how they can stand in support of repealing the Government Accountability Act when, in another breath, they stand on the floor of this House and say, "My constituents asked me to be accountable and, if I were on the government side, to be accountable to them on how taxpayers’ dollars are spent."

I’ve heard members opposite laud other governments, particularly Alberta. I heard the Health minister say that we’re borrowing from Alberta their caseload management and information systems in Health. In developing the accountability plans, we also went not only to Alberta, but to Nova Scotia, to the N.W.T. They make much of their relationship with the Northwest Territories. We went to all those jurisdictions. We did our homework. The Alberta plans are referred to as bold plans. Introducing an accountability act was a bold move. It was sticking our neck out, and it passed the House and it’s the law.

Now the government is repealing it. There were five bills associated with government renewal. They’ve pushed the undo button on all the other initiatives — four other pieces of legislation.

This is the underlying fundamental point. The Yukon Party makes much of their efforts with respect to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The Member for Southern Lakes introduced an amendment to my motion in discussing social workers that related to this. A measurable result in the accountability plans was FASD babies born this year, three years from now. It’s a measurable result in its accountability, and this government, in repealing the accountability act, is denying Yukoners that kind of accountability.

The Premier said he wants private involvement in the economy increased. Put the percentage in your accountability plan. Put the percentage of increase. What percentage of the economy? What are the goals? What are the goals of the government? Put them out in the public, put the signature to them, and then put the results to show you’ve delivered on them. What government seeking re-election wouldn’t want to put that information out before the public? Apparently not this government.

How is the Yukon taxpayer to measure if they got value for money? The government is repealing the legislation with that accountability. If we don’t disclose the purpose and the reason for taxpayers’ expenditures, the results and the financial impact of the choices the government makes, how can anybody make informed decisions? If you don’t have the whole story — we heard the Member for Klondike refer to that today — accountability is the whole story.

That is how people — legislators and the public — make informed decisions. All that was committed to in the accountability act is telling Yukon taxpayers the whole, complete story.

I don’t disagree with the Premier that it needed a lot of work. It is changing the culture. It is changing the way of thinking. An individual doesn’t change the culture by going back to the way we’ve always done things. Give it a chance to work.

It’s really, truly unfortunate and frustrating, as the Member for Kluane says, that the government won’t give it a chance. The Yukon Party won’t give accountability to taxpayers a chance. They could have met the requirements of the law with an amended version of the accountability plan, with a statement — a full and complete statement. They had that option but instead they’ve chosen to repeal it.

It’s unfortunate. It’s distressing as a taxpayer and as a legislator that the government will not give this accountability a chance, as recommended by the former Auditor General of Canada, who is also Auditor General for the territory. It’s unfortunate. I do not support the repeal of this legislation, and I find it a sad day for Yukoners that the Yukon Party is taking a step backwards.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb:   I’d like to add a few comments to the discussion on the repeal of this act.

This act will have a history of about a year in this Legislature. It was during the spring sitting of 2002 when it was introduced as a government confidence bill, Mr. Speaker, and, if I remember correctly, the leader of the Yukon Party at the time, who is still the Member for Klondike, publicly announced to the media that he would be supporting the act.

What happened next was that the former Member for Porter Creek North, who was sitting as an independent Liberal at the time, decided he would be voting for this legislation, which allowed the Member for Klondike to change his position and vote against it. I believe that’s the way it was. Anyway, the Yukon Party flip-flopped in its position on this at the time, and I recall the arguments against the accountability act at the time, which were quite simply the former yellow pages, which used to be part of the budget, could easily replace the accountability act and nothing more was required. It simply was too much of a burden on the bureaucracy and, I suppose, at the political level to deal with this accountability act.

I’ve heard the Yukon Party government make the same argument since it has been elected into government, Mr. Speaker.

I’m somewhat skeptical of that argument. I’ve had a chance to review the former yellow pages in budgets, and it’s quite clear that those yellow pages contain mostly statistics and some details about various things. They did not explain how the department heads were accountable for their departments. They did not provide the same information as required in the accountability act. So I think there’s quite a bit of difference between the two.

I might be persuaded to support this Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act, had this government stepped up with a suitable substitute in the way of being accountable, but it hasn’t, Mr. Speaker.

There’s very little to show from this government in the way of accountability. As a matter of fact, one of its election promises — to bring in whistleblower legislation for government employees who might have something to say in the public interest — has not been introduced and, if I recall correctly, we heard the minister responsible a couple of weeks ago express some doubt as to whether this government would actually be bringing it in. So, the waffling continues. We see a net reduction in the accountability of the Yukon Party government.

I think it’s time to be objective, and I think one way to do that is to have an independent review by someone like the Auditor General, who can compare what we have now with what we’ll have after this act is repealed.

Then we will know. All the politics aside, we’ll know what the Auditor General has to say. We can expect her determination to be objective and fair. I would have expected that would have been the least the government would have done to protect itself while reducing its accountability level, but it hasn’t.

Obviously accountability is not a top priority for the government. To the contrary, it seems that a high priority for the government is repealing accountability. We are seeing that today as it is bringing in this act.

That raises the issue about the timing of it all. I think the government is running scared on this. We brought forward a motion yesterday to deal with this act and the government side argued against it. Lo and behold, the act suddenly appears on the Order Paper today. Some of the fallout from this issue of the government not bringing it in sooner has been expressed by others in this debate, but it involved breaking the law by every Cabinet minister.

Speaker:   Order please. The term "breaking the law" in that context is not in order.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think you’re right, and let me withdraw it and replace it by saying the actions of Cabinet ministers may not meet the legal requirements of the accountability act.

What’s replacing the accountability act? Let’s deal with that. We’ve seen very little in the way of compensation for doing away with this act and, judging from what we’ve seen from this government so far, Mr. Speaker, there is accountability void. We see it in Question Period; we see it in Committee of the Whole debate; there are numerous examples. One that comes to mind is that on Tuesday, I asked the Minister of Highways and Public Works, during the supplementary budget debate, when he would be providing the information I had requested in the departmental briefing. He told me, on the record, it would be the following day. Mr. Speaker, that was yesterday, and I still have not received that information. That’s one example.

Another example is, every day now for the last three weeks, I’ve been asking the government House leader if he would oblige our request to provide to us one week in advance, preferably, the prepared opening statements by representatives of the two corporations, who will be coming into the Legislature this sitting. What’s wrong with that? Seriously, what is wrong with that?

We know these officials have prepared opening statements. They’re prepared in advance for them. They’re probably vetted by the minister responsible, yet they won’t provide those same opening statements to us, on this side. Those opening statements, Mr. Speaker, would allow us to become more knowledgeable on what the corporations are doing, and we would respond with a higher calibre of questions during the remainder of the time within the two hours we have to hold them accountable and learn what the corporations are doing.

It’s a very simple request but the request has been denied to date. That is not a very high standard of accountability, Mr. Speaker.

On a very similar issue, I have asked the government House leader numerous times if he would oblige a request to work out the scheduling of when the corporation would come into the Legislature, on a mutual basis so that it can meet everybody’s schedule. That request was denied point-blank. As a matter of fact, the tone was rather flippant.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a government that is sincere about being good government and sincere about standing up to the test of accountability. This is a government that is hiding from accountability, that doesn’t oblige our requests that are reasonable and fair, that would improve our ability to hold it accountable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we’ll let the Yukon public connect the dots as to why, but until such time as this government continues to fail to pony up with a suitable substitute, we on this side will not be supporting this Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act.

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

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I’d first like to begin by establishing a very clear distinction between accountability and flawed legislation that is intended to represent accountability.

And it begins by first pointing out the fact that reams and reams of paper with vast amounts of motherhood statements do not make accountability. In fact, what they really do is create a system of bureaucratic navel-gazing that produces very little in the way of accountability to the public.

The opposition has been saying a number of things — both the official opposition and the third party. I think it is best that we try, in the short time that we have available, to clear it up, because there is much more to this issue than what the opposition has put on the record here today. Both opposition parties have implied that the government side has broken the law. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the facts. I want to point out why that is so. The very act that the members opposite are alluding to — and this is coming to a question of accountability, because the members who conveniently cited a section of the act, who conveniently — and this is where the question of accountability really comes in — ignored the pertinent section of the act in relation to the issue of whether this act should be repealed now or not, or be repealed during the due course of this sitting.

Let me point out that if — and this is the important section when it comes to breaking the law — the Minister of Finance does not make a consolidated accountability plan or department accountability plan at the time required under this act, the Minister of Finance must make written public statement that gives the reasons for the non-compliance.

Let’s proceed based on that clause, because that is part of the act that, conveniently and in a manner that does represent accountability by the opposition, is ignored.

First off, a clear public statement was made on the floor of this Legislature when this House opened and it was in the Speech from the Throne. It goes as follows: "During this sitting, honourable members will be asked to consider the 2003-04 capital and operation and maintenance budget, an Act to Amend the Pioneer Utility Grant Act, amendments to the Fuel Oil Tax Act, an Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act, an Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act" — and, in terms of complying with the legislation — "and an Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act." This was a clear and public statement made on this floor of this House.

I will go on, Mr. Speaker. Within the time required under the Standing Orders, we tabled the Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act — another clear and public statement at first reading tabling of that act.

I will go on, Mr. Speaker. In the budget speech, let me quote: "The government accountability plans have been removed and the traditional departmental statistical information has been reinstated. In our view, the traditional format for the budget documents provides better accountability and transparency than the format used for the 2002-03 budget."

This was another clear and public statement that complies with the act that is up for debate and repeal here in this Legislature during this sitting.

So much, Mr. Speaker, for the accountability on the opposition side of providing this House with the full and correct information, and yet they imply that the government side has broken the law. We have shown here clearly, in a very open and accountable manner, that the government side has not broken the law. In fact, the government side has made every effort to comply with the law when it comes to this issue.

I think we have put this particular issue, which has been raised by the opposition, to bed. Clearly, we have not broken the law.

The official opposition goes on to say here in debate, and the leader of the official opposition states it clearly, "I like this act. This is a good act when it comes to government accountability." Well, again, Mr. Speaker, on the question of accountability, how then and why then did the leader of the official opposition not point out that every member of the New Democratic Party in this House did not vote for the act when it was passed here in this Legislature a few short months ago? In fact, the voting record shows clearly that if they are being open and accountable, that’s what should have been included in the statements of the members of the official opposition. They did not do that. I question then, as the public will in this case, what really is "accountability"?

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us go on, because accountability is much more, as I stated, than a vast list of motherhood statements.

I want to point out what the former Premier, the now leader of the third party, was trying to make reference to. The Premier is saying — bear with me, Mr. Speaker. The former Premier is saying that by adding to the budget, the budget document itself, a list — pages and pages — of these motherhood statements, saying that we will do this and we will do that. The member somehow correlates that to being accountable to the public. At the same time, the former Premier removed a number of very important elements and pages that came with the budget, called "the statistics".

Now, let me go further, Mr. Speaker. You have in the budget, itemized, the amount of money each department is spending. Under the former Premier’s approach to accountability, you can show the public clearly then, and be open and accountable, by making motherhood statements. Under our government’s approach, we went back to the statistics.

So, what you have now is a budget that lists an expenditure, the amount of expenditures for the department — let’s take Education, for example. This is important because within the Education budget are total amounts of money being expended. Let’s look at how it breaks down in the statistics versus motherhood statements.

Let’s take the motherhood statement when it comes to Canada-Yukon summer program and summer career placement — this is in the Department of Education. The member opposite would have us believe that by saying to the public that we are going to spend money on Canada’s summer program and so on and so forth, somehow housed in the total amount of expenditure in the Department of Education, that is being accountable to the public.

Our approach is clearly stated in the statistics. While the amount of money for the Department of Education is listed in the budget, we are saying in this one particular area that the expenditure is $70,000; for a computer camp, $4,000; student training employment program, called STEP, $90,000. Let’s go on. Apprenticeship program, designated trades, the number of those trades, 45; registered apprentices, a number of them, 280. Where, Mr. Speaker, were those figures — especially from the member of the third party — in that very accountable statement to the public in such explicit detail? Where were those explicit details in a long list of motherhood statements? Nowhere. How, then, can we conclude that the former government’s approach to accountability was really being accountable to the public? That is why we have repealed a very flawed piece of legislation and have gone back to a system that worked.

Now, add to this the fact that each and every department has a clear, indisputable statement of objectives, mandate, and so on. That, in conjunction with the expenditures listed in the budget itself, coupled with the statistics, provides a fairly clear accountability to the public and a means by which each department can and should be measured.

I would like to just choose one here, Mr. Speaker, so bear with me for a moment — so I can just reflect a little with the House on exactly what that really looks like. Let’s take a department like the Department of Health and Social Services. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s important that we understand clearly why accountability cannot be measured by motherhood statements, but has to have, in addition to statements, a number of elements that show the public that this is where we intend to spend money, and this is how it breaks down.

Health and Social Services’ departmental objective is: "Health and Social Services is committed to working with the community to ensure quality health care and social services for Yukoners. This will be achieved by helping individuals acquire the skills to live responsible, active, healthy and independent lives and by providing a range of accessible, sustainable services that assist individuals, families and communities to reach their full potential."

That is the statement, the objective and the mandate of a department, followed by the budget and the expenditures. In this case, the estimate for total O&M for this department, based on that statement, is $140,999,000. Next to that is a pie graph that breaks down where the money is being spent: 51 percent on health services; 24 percent on social services; 19 percent on family and children’s services; policy and planning and administration, three percent; regional services, three percent. It’s very clear.

What the member opposite, the former Premier, is saying is that additional pages — reams and reams of motherhood statements, of which this department has encapsulated those motherhood statements in one, then has provided the information, added to it the statistics — show a very clear and accountable department and its expenditures and where they’re going.

Now, there’s much more to accountability than that. When government is elected through the course of an election, each party vying for the voters’ support will present to those voters, to the public, a very clear platform on what it is they would do, and essentially those commitments are about making Yukoners’ lives better. Those platforms are what we, if elected government, are accountable to.

Now obviously, on November 4, even though the former Premier, the now leader of the third party, trumpets loudly and is very disturbed and proclaims to all who will listen that we, the government side, have now somehow diminished or completely removed accountability to the public — is not reflecting on the very important fact that the voting public turned down that member’s position and this so-called accountability act. The public is a lot more versed in what’s going on with government than that member wants to admit or give them credit for, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s go on with this debate and this argument. We are accountable to the public for what we committed to do and, in saying that, it now comes down, based on all the statistics, the objectives of each and every department, the expenditures, to tangible product delivered to the Yukon public, not motherhood statements. The voting public, quite frankly, is sick and tired of motherhood statements and that’s why, Mr. Speaker, to a great degree they have cast out governments.

Mr. Speaker, it’s about product. Accountability, in its full equation, incorporates objectives and mandate and spending and the amounts and where it’s going and how many people are involved, how many agencies are involved — the statistics, in other words, and the delivery of product.

The members opposite have not made the case when it comes to openness and accountability that we on this side of the House — the government — have broken the law. They did not make the case. In fact, far removed from making the case, it was nothing more than political points they were trying to score through the media, out in the public, by making a statement that was simply incorrect. That is not accountability.

The third party, which was also complicit in that very position, did not make the case either, Mr. Speaker. The member, although she called it in violation, does not state that, in the same instance as the official opposition, there was much more in the act that would have provided full disclosure to the public, so they themselves could have measured accountability in this particular case and whether the government side had indeed broken the law, or had not.

Well, we’ve made the case, Mr. Speaker, loud and clear — no discrepancy. There’s absolutely no question that we had not contravened any part of the act. In fact, we were in full compliance.

Mr. Speaker, another very important facet of accountability in this Legislature is how the opposition conducts itself. They play a very important role in holding government accountable so the public has, again, another avenue and another vehicle that measures accountability.

As I said, it would take a lot more than the short time we have to deal with this issue. And I’m sure we’ll have further moments in this sitting to do so, because I have quite a bit to say about it.

But at the end of the day, no matter what the opposition says, the same argument the opposition benches presented here today has been presented by that very same opposition and the very same MLAs, other than the couple of new ones, and the third party, in this respect. The opposition always makes the claim that the government side is not providing answers — always.

And the issue about accountability here, Mr. Speaker, is not about the government not providing answers; it’s because the government side is not providing the answers the opposition side wants. And that is a measure of accountability. So, for the opposition to keep making that claim, they are not being accountable to the public because they are not being effective in holding the government side accountable to that public. The argument is moot.

What the opposition should be doing, if they feel that the government side is doing something wrong, is to make the case, provide the rationale and be accountable to the public. Mr. Speaker, we will be repealing this act because the act is flawed. But I can assure you, and the Yukon public, and everyone listening, that accountability on the government side for all in this territory is alive and well.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, will you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Agree.

Mr. Arntzen:   Agree.

Mr. Rouble:   Agree.

Mr. Hassard:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:   Disagree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Disagree.

Mrs. Peter:   Disagree.

Ms. Duncan:   Disagree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are nine yea, six nay.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I believe the count is incorrect. I believe the Member for Mayo-Tatchun said, "Agree."

Speaker:   Member for Mayo-Tatchun, was that the case?

Mr. Fairclough:   That’s correct.

Speaker:   Thank you.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 10 yea, five nay.

Speaker:   The ayes still have it, and the motion is still carried

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

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 27, the Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act.

Do members wish a 15-minute recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We’ll stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Order please. The Committee of the Whole will come to order.

Chair:   We will begin debate on Bill No. 27, the Act to Repeal the Government Accountability Act. Is there any general debate?

Ms. Duncan:   I was waiting for the Premier to make a statement. If he is not going to do that, we can begin the questions.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, I think the statements made in second reading were very clear, open, accountable and they certainly made the case from our side. I think, to expedite the business of the House on behalf of the public, that we should probably move forward with moving this bill through Committee. There is not a whole lot more left to debate.

Ms. Duncan:   With all due respect, I beg to differ. I think everyone made a very substantial case this afternoon, and it’s most unfortunate that this type of initiative has been undertaken by the Premier, and he doesn’t feel it worthy of public debate. I do believe it’s worthy of public debate.

The Premier went on at great length, and chose to start with the Department of Education with respect to the Government Accountability Act. The Premier said, "Well, it’s all in the current budget — all the information one would need to know."

Performance measures are outlined in the accountability planning, such as the improvement rates of students on individualized educational plans. IEPs were a very important part of the Yukon Party platform. They pledged more resources to them, and the Premier has said they will be accountable for their platform. In the way the budget is presented — the way the Premier wants it — where does it have such information? I would challenge him to point that out, in his desire for accountability.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Firstly, I must disagree with the member and point out that nobody has said all the information is in any document. That’s an impossibility. In most cases, as much information is provided as is humanly possible, but there will always be questions and — always — there will be ways to gather and present even more information. So just to correct the record, we merely made the case that we had not broken the law and had complied with the act itself. We are repealing it. We are repealing a flawed piece of legislation that had really nothing to do with being accountable to the public and a lot to do with committing vast amounts of resources and time of public servants in writing out reams and reams of paper covered with motherhood statements.

To get on with the next point the member was trying to make, in all schools there are tests. Tests are a great measure for students, and that’s why schools implement tests, to see what their students have learned.

There are measurements that all jurisdictions use to see where schools, for example, are at by taking those results of those tests and applying them to the much broader picture. So, again, I think the member is mistakenly trying to make a case here without providing any burden of proof or any information that would remotely support the member opposite’s position that the accountability act was, indeed, all about being accountable to the public.

The member should, I think, come to the realization that there was much more involved here than simply passing a very flawed piece of legislation, which, by the way, barely passed this House. I would point out that even colleagues of the third party — the leader of the third party, when in government — left that party and it was clear on the voting record, when they voted, that this is one of the reasons why they chose to opt out of the Liberal government, turning a majority into a minority in less than two years of a mandate.

And they, on the record, as far as the Member for McIntyre-Takhini is concerned, did not agree with this whatsoever.

So there has been a lot of discussion about this. There was a great deal of debate when this bill was brought forward and barely passed this House. And I think, when you look at that and see how the voting record portrays what really took place here, a large percentage of the members in this House, representing a large percentage of the Yukon public, disagreed with this.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, the member opposite is, unfortunately, factually incorrect. The vast majority of the public did not disagree with the accountability act.

And the member opposite is searching madly for the election results to once again wave them about and say, "Well, you see? There’s the answer right there." I would suggest that the member look a little deeper, look a whole lot deeper, and look deeper into his conscience and actually reflect on whether or not the repeal of the accountability act is really the right thing to do for Yukon voters. I have maintained for the past several hours and continue to maintain that it is not. It is not the right thing to do. It is not flawed legislation.

Now, the member opposite can politically grandstand and make all kinds of political suggestions that he wants. The fact remains that the Government Accountability Act is about ensuring that taxpayers see the measurable results for their taxpayers’ dollars. It is not contained in the information the member tries to suggest it is. It is not.

Respected First Nation educators and chiefs have said on the radio, in public interviews, that they want greater accountability from the education system. Greater accountability in performance measurable results is what the Government Accountability Act demanded government — no matter what their political stripe — put before the people. It is not flawed legislation.

The member is fundamentally denying Yukoners — denying Yukoners — a full accounting in measurable results of his government’s performance by repealing this act. He is taking the Yukon back hundreds of kilometres. I ask him how he can, in all good conscience, look himself in the eye and say it’s the right thing to do. It’s not the right thing to do and the member knows it. The member can make his argument about, "Oh, members didn’t support the Corporate Governance Act and four other pieces of legislation" but he’s not doing it. He can make the same political arguments because that was about politics and about ego; it wasn’t about the right thing to do for Yukoners.

This legislation, like the four other pieces, was good legislation. The minister responsible isn’t rushing to repeal those. Voters have to ask themselves why someone would rush out to deny Yukoners results for their money — deny Yukoners that information. Why would someone do that? They don’t like the way it’s reported; there’s too much writing and not enough numbers? Then fix that, but don’t deny Yukoners information, and that’s what repealing the accountability legislation does.

It’s not flawed legislation. How could it possibly be a flaw to tell Yukoners what the cost is of delivering the primary responsibility for the Department of Health and Social Services? How can the minister suggest that it’s wrong to do that? It’s not done that way in the budget documents. The minister is trying to say it tells Yukoners that information. Can he stand on his feet and tell me how denying Yukoners the cost of delivering each primary responsibility of a department is providing either good government or accountable government?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, that’s a simple answer, and there are many ways to do that, but one of them is not large amounts of paperwork listing motherhood statements. What we’ve done is remove a bunch of motherhood statements. We are repealing a flawed act that creates a scenario of less accountability, and added back the very statistics and information that the member opposite is relaying to this House as being required. That’s what the statistics do.

They provide that information in great detail, and that’s why they’re back in the budget — because that is being accountable for the expenditures the member was pointing to. It’s not a motherhood statement that that’s what we might, or may, spend the money on. In fact, the statistics show where the money was spent and, in some cases, how many people were involved. There are all kinds of statistics here that certainly lead to the accountability of departments when it comes to spending money.

But there’s a lot more to accountability than that. The member opposite said that the First Nations want more accountability from the education system. Well, the First Nations don’t want more motherhood statements. They want to see a government address their issues as has been committed to them under their final agreements. And accountability statements by this government certainly do not hold the fiduciary and responsible government to account. In this area — the education of First Nations — the federal government has a huge responsibility in that regard. The member well knows that, and if the member wanted to be accountable to the public, the member would stand on the floor of this House and relay that to the public — that a motherhood statement is not going to solve the accountability problem in education for First Nation people. There is much more than that.

Ms. Duncan:   The member opposite is denying Yukoners accountability on such things as increased graduation rates, increased percentage of previous grade 12 graduates accessing the student financial assistance program, the number of grade 12 graduates accessing post-secondary studies, the increased reading recovery completion rate, the increased Yukon excellence awards, increased test results, improvement in test results, and improvement rates of students on individualized educational plans. Those statistics are not contained in the budget document.

The minister is not being accountable and, what’s worse, the minister is denying that accountability to Yukoners by repealing this act.

He’s denying that information. As a member of the Legislature, I cannot condone that kind of behaviour. I can’t. How can the member say that providing Yukoners with information like a comparison of actual performance results to date, with the targets that have been set, isn’t providing accountability?

The member is saying no. The member is saying no to providing Yukoners with that kind of information. He’s saying there’s no requirement for government to do that. We have opposition members putting motions on the floor of the House, begging for information, and what we receive in response is flippant answers like, "Well, in due course."

Public information should be provided in a timely manner. The public has a right to know what target government has set and whether or not the performance has met that target. In repealing the accountability act, the minister is denying Yukoners that information.

How does the minister suggest for one moment that his government is accountable when they are repealing the public’s right to that information and the requirement of government to table it? What’s next? What’s next? Will the government use their major majority to change a fundamental piece of legislation like the Taxpayer Protection Act? What will they repeal next?

I challenge the members opposite, I challenge each and every one of them to vote with their conscience on this. Would they really deny Yukoners that information, deny Yukoners that they will, as ministers of the Crown, stand on the floor of the House and say to Yukoners, "This is the department I am responsible for; yes, that is my signature; this is what the government will do; here’s the target we’ve set and this is what we’ve met to date. This is how your taxpayer dollars have been spent."

Ministers, in supporting the repeal of this act, are denying Yukoners that information. It is not provided, the way the Minister of Finance, the Premier is saying it is. That information is not provided. The Minister of Education, with the repeal of this act, isn’t required to tell Yukoners if there has been any improvement in the individual education plans.

Unlike the Yukon Party promised there would be, there is no way for Yukoners to judge.

I recognize that there is valuable House time — very valuable. I also recognize that the government is going to use its majority to do whatever it wants regardless of the points that are made by the opposition, regardless of the wishes of Yukoners for more accountability from their government, regardless of the wishes of Yukoners and recommendations of such individuals as the Auditor General of Canada. This government says, "Don’t worry, we are in charge. Don’t worry, we don’t need accountability." That’s what the government is saying. That is not what Yukoners voted for. Yukoners did not vote for the Government Accountability Act to be repealed.

Where is it in the Yukon Party platform?

In fact, the open, accountable, collaborative approach — the collaborative approach promised by the Premier would have seen the Finance minister come to the opposition, recognize the requirements of the accountability act and say, "You know what, I thought it was too wordy. We’d like to do it a different way. We are going to approach it this way." I would have been more than happy to work with the Premier on that — more than happy. Not that he has listened to any of my suggestions yet, but I would have been happy to work with him on it.

Instead, no, have to get rid of that. I believe the Premier is wrong in this, and I believe it’s wrong to repeal the accountability act, and I ask the Premier how he intends to account to Yukoners, how he intends to set performance targets, and how he intends to show Yukoners he has met them.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Chair, I don’t know verbatim, but I’m going to try to relay this back to the House — the member has just stood on her feet and said that on this side of the House — the government side — it wouldn’t matter what the opposition said, we’re going to do what we want. I then say to the member opposite, how is it then that this Assembly, through its efforts, unanimously passed five motions — together, accepting amendments, debating, working on these things together.

I challenge the member to go back through the historical data of this Legislative Assembly and find how many times a government and opposition, in the few short weeks of a sitting, have managed to pass five substantive motions — important motions to Yukoners — unanimously. You’d be hard-pressed to do that, Mr. Chair, so that argument is out the window.

We are working with the opposition benches, and that’s proof positive. When the opposition makes a positive, constructive suggestion, we don’t ignore it because we have a majority; we’ve incorporated it. That’s good governance.

Mr. Chair, the member opposite said that, by repealing this act, we are denying accountability to the Yukon public. Nothing could be further from the truth. Repealing a piece of legislation that commits government to expend vast amounts of money, resources and time to create motherhood statements does not equate to providing accountability to the public.

It doesn’t. It never will. The departments, each and every one of them, are accountable for their budgets. The departments have a clear set of objectives and a mandate laid out for the public. It’s a matter of public record. The departments list, in their budget, their expenditures, O&M and capital, and list their recoveries. The departments also show the estimates for the fiscal year that we’re dealing with and the actuals for the previous fiscal year — a comparison. The departments provide a great deal of statistical information to be accountable to the public and bear that out.

The member asked how we’re going to do that. Well, we have stated it publicly on the floor of this House by returning to an old format that was working very well, but there’s more to it. It’s called the delivery of product. Measurement is measured by the product the government delivers — and that product as it relates to the commitments the government side made to the public during election.

Now, Mr. Chair, the member cannot, in any way, shape or form that would remotely represent accountability and openness, keep making the claim on the floor of this House that, by repealing a flawed piece of legislation, we are denying the public accountability, because that is not the case.

So, I challenge the member to somehow — I don’t know how this may happen, but somehow the member has to take the format we’re using, take the flawed legislation that the former government barely passed in this House because of the amount of opposition to it, and go out to the public and show them the two items. Show them all the motherhood statements or show the public statistics that show detailed information in accounting for the expenditures, and then have the public make that judgement.

We’re doing it right here on the floor of the Legislature by standing up and saying that we are going to repeal this legislation and go back to a format that was working, because by doing what the former government has done, we have removed from the budget some of the most important information that holds government and departments accountable for their expenditures.

So, Mr. Chair, the member opposite can continue on with this debate, the answers will never change and, at the end of the day, every government is held accountable at election time.

Ms. Duncan:   I would ask the Finance minister and others who are listening to listen very closely. He has asked me to make the case to the public. Let me try. In the Health and Social Services budget the accountability plan that was tabled by the previous government — the accountability plan, in line with the legislation we had — the government said that they will spend $2.1 million of taxpayers’ dollars, of Yukoners’ dollars, to "assist Yukoners to live healthy lives".

The accountability plan goes on further to say exactly what that means. It means that for $2.1 million of Yukoners’ money, they should expect the following: they will see a percentage decrease, and exactly how much, in Yukoners who smoke. Because this amount of money is being spent, there will be a five- percent, 10-percent decrease in Yukoners who smoke. They will see a percentage decrease in the incidence of diabetes because of this expenditure.

They will see a percentage decrease in communicable diseases because of this expenditure. They will see a percentage decrease in the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases because of this expenditure. They would also expect to see a percentage increase in the satisfaction of participants in, for example, the nutrition program.

There is no information like that in the statistics presented by the Premier — no information like that. It tells us how many people may have a communicable disease, or communicable diseases, but it doesn’t tell us if the government, in spending $2 million, has reduced that. No, we’ve just merrily gone out and spent the money.

Where in these fabulous statistics the Premier is so proud of does it tell Yukoners what results they’re getting for their money? It’s a trust to spend that money. It’s Yukoners’ money. There are no clear outcome measures in the statistics — none of them.

We spent hours in debate on this $180,000 — I believe the figure was — we’re getting for this smoking program that’s being transferred from Ottawa. Sure, the government’s budget document tells us we’re getting the money and how much we got last year. It doesn’t say if we’ve achieved any results — nowhere in these statistics. There is no measurement of product in the information the Premier has presented — nowhere.

Now, the Premier says, "Of course, we listen to the opposition. Of course, we’re open to amendments." Well, then, let me ask the Premier: is he prepared to amend this legislation? Will he give it a stay of execution and take it off the table?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   This comes down to another fundamental issue. The government has to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayer. Expending large amounts of money on something that will not accomplish what the third party is trying to portray is not being fiscally responsible. The member wants to know statistics. There are statistics kept all the time, whether they’re smokers, how many there are, if there are fewer, how much alcohol is consumed in the Yukon, how many people have communicable diseases this year — the statistics will show next year if there are more or less. We don’t need to tell the public that this is what we’re going to do when the information can already be provided to the public.

Mr. Chair, the member opposite is focused on something here, and I think I understand why. The former Liberal government was so void of any plan or vision for where they were taking this territory, they began to look inward and, once they started looking inward, they spent all their time moving government around and restructuring it, creating motherhood statements and creating renewal, unsettling the government, and then they go on to say this is all about accountability. Well, the public felt that that accountability was a little less than what they desired, and we all know what happened.

The point is that we’re going to repeal this act because it is flawed legislation. There’s no need to commit all these resources and all this cost to making motherhood statements for the public. The motherhood statements were made, to a great degree, during the election.

From that, we must proceed in governing the territory — not just the government side, but the opposition side also. This House is where government is held accountable, but so too are the opposition. They are accountable for their actions in this House. The member can make all kinds of suggestions, but they relate to opinion. At the end of the day, the act is being repealed; we are moving to a format of accountability in the budget that has worked very well. It provides a great deal of information instead of motherhood statements, and always, governments will strive to improve in those areas. We as a government obviously want to ensure that we are open and accountable to the public, and that is why we are going to make the measurement by the product delivered to the Yukon public.

Ms. Duncan:   What I have just listened to from the Premier is a very common trend that I have noticed. Whenever the minister can’t answer a very difficult question, such as, for example, how the statistics show measurable results for their money, there is a resort to personal attack. He resorts to, "Well, while you were in government, you did….da dat de da," and there is an opinion offered. I do believe there is a need to tell Yukoners how their tax dollars are spent. I believe there is a need to be fully open and fully accountable with them.

The minister believes there is no need. These were his words: "There is no need to tell Yukoners. We were elected. There is no need to tell Yukoners." The current government is proceeding in governing. Unfortunately it is on a heap of broken promises.

The member opposite said, in a previous breath, he was interested in amendments. By all means, bring forward an amendment. I suggested one. Give this bill a stay of execution. We will let the accountability act work.

All he has to do is withdraw it from the Order Paper, or leave it in Committee of the Whole, let the debate die, make a statement that we’re going to improve on the accountability, leave the act the way it is, fulfill his obligations by giving us a statement saying yes, there are too many motherhood statements but we’re still going to provide these results to the taxpayer. That’s all it would take. Give it a chance to work. But no, suggesting that that amendment is an opinion, and the Premier has indicated he is prepared to listen to everybody’s opinion except this opinion.

I find it truly unfortunate that the Premier is not focused on the task at hand and not focused on providing results, real measurable results, to taxpayers for how their tax dollars are spent. I find that truly unfortunate. I have said that many times this afternoon.

The Premier is not going to change his mind on this legislation. He’s going to repeal the legislation because, in his opinion, he knows best.

It’s a sad fact that accountability plans are acceptable. They are expected by law in many other jurisdictions. The Premier sees them as a waste of time, too onerous. I don’t think reporting to taxpayers is too onerous a task.

The previous Liberal government didn’t invent these. They were the work, very hard work, of not only elected officials but others as well, and they’re far more than simply motherhood statements. They’re measurable results for taxpayers’ dollars, and it’s sad when a government doesn’t want to account to the taxpayers who elect them.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   What is really sad is to have a member stand on the floor of this Legislature and make the claim that motherhood statements are producing and providing results for Yukoners. Let me point this out: under the member’s approach to accountability, we would be telling Yukoners these things. This is the Department of Finance — if I may, Mr. Chair, I’m not getting into line-by-line or clause-by-clause; this is a very general approach to this. I use this as an example. Under the member opposite’s idea of accountability and this flawed legislation we would have the Department of Finance say to the public: "Vision: a territory with sufficient funds to permit the Yukon government to provide citizens with programs and services that meet or exceed national standards while maintaining a positive financial position."

Unfortunately there are no results here that bear that out.

"Mission: to serve Yukon citizens and the Government of Yukon by securing adequate financial resources, ensuring that they are managed in a manner that meets the priorities of government and complies with its laws, overseeing the government’s fiscal, financial and economic policies and providing sound information and advice to decision makers."

Again, no results; a motherhood statement.

Going on: "Recognizing that we are dealing with public money, valuing integrity, trustworthiness, responsiveness, productivity" — that’s a good one, productivity, because that’s what this ultimately is all about: productivity to the public — "reliability, adhering to professional standards, respecting our clients, partners and staff and aiming for straightforward solutions."

Now, there’s a measurement for you. Anyway, Mr. Chair, there are no results. We, on the other hand, going back to the old format, have basically encapsulated all these things in the objectives of the department, and then provided results called statistics. What more needs to be said? We made our case. The act is flawed, and it’s time to move on with being accountable to the Yukon public, as this government is doing.

Ms. Duncan:   I only wish the whole of the Department of Finance information had been relayed, because the key strategies for achieving that included representing Yukon government interests in negotiations in the new formula financing agreement; the minister’s report to the 2003 western premiers conference and, under the goal of prudent management of financial assets and liabilities, the results, outcomes and strategies. "Utilize appropriate solutions to maximize the collection of accounts receivable and loans; ensure timely ongoing servicing of federal loans; ensure the government’s banking needs are met" — those are results.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, Mr. Chair, those are statements with no results — motherhood statements. Now, let’s look at the collection of loans. Under the former government, with this so-called accountability legislation — and that’s going to provide accountability to the public — never collected the delinquent loans, never even directed anyone to collect those delinquent loans. They were too busy getting all these motherhood statements organized and put on paper. We, on the other hand, going back to the old format of objectives, mandate, statements and statistics, have provided detailed information to the public in terms of being accountable and also have directed the Department of Finance to bring forward options on collecting delinquent loans.

I ask you, Mr. Chair, which is the preferred route — motherhood statements with no results, or accountability information statistics to the public and direction to departments to collect delinquent loans? I rest my case.

Ms. Duncan:   The member hasn’t made his case. It’s printed in the accountability plan. It is nowhere in the government’s document — it’s nowhere. It’s