PROCEDURAL REPORT

k

4 YUKON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

4

.4 ——

• •.

SECOND SESSION 30TH LEGISLATURE

• ,““ t’-•_- t ‘4 J

I 1-

October 18,2001 — December3, 2001

SECOND

SESSION

October

Speaker:

PROCEDURAL

LEGISLATIVE

18,

The

2001

Hon. YUKON

—

December

Dennis

ASSEMBLY

REPORT

Schneider

3,2001

30TH LEGISLATURE 7 Table of Contents

Preface 5 Introduction 7 Procedural Issues 9 Amendments 9 Consequential 9 Marginal notes 9 Out of order 10 Provision of copies 10 Bills, reading line-by-line 10 Chair, speaking through the 11 Committee membership, changes to 11 Documents, tabling of 12 Embargoed information, quoting in Question Period 14 Hypothetical questions 14 Members, references to 15 Ministers 16 Addressing by proper title 16 Addressing questions to 18 Motions 18 For concurrence in a committee report 18 Standing down 19 Order Paper, changes to 19 Personal Privilege, point of 19 Petitions,. responses to 20 Presiding Officers 20 Chair, challenging the authority of the 20 Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole, election of 21 Privilege, Question of 21 Question Period 23 Length of 23 Length of questions and answers 24 Recess, request for 25 Relevance 26 Repetition 26 Unanimous consent 27 By-pass general debate and proceed to line-by -line 28 Deem all clauses of a bill read and carried 28 Deem all lines in a vote cleared or carried 28 Deem amendments read and carried 29 Deem a motion to have been red from the Chair 29 Stand over clauses and bills 29

3 Li U U U Q U U C C c a C a

•0

30 30

31 34 37 39 39

43 41

Whole

of

the

Paper

of

falsehood

Motives

Motion

Order

the

Committee

deliberate

Language

from

a

in

Unavowed

Necessity,

or

Language

motion

Insulting

uttering

a

False

Pressing

or

appearing of

Summary

and

Withdraw

Imputing Charges

Abusive

Unparliamentary

Urgent Witnesses,

Statistical

Index

References Preface

This report documents procedural events of note that occurred during the 2001 Fall Sitting of 30Ih the Second Session of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. It is meant to augment the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and other procedural authorities by detailing how rules of procedure and established parliamentary practice were applied to specific incidents that arose during the 2001 Fall Sitting. It is hoped that this report will help readers gain a deeper understanding of parliamentary procedure and practice in the Yukon Legislative Assembly. The idea for the Procedural Report is derived from the House of Commons Procedural Digest. The Procedural Digest is issued weekly and deals with events in chronological order. However this Procedural Report takes a different approach. The report covers the entire Sitting and deals with procedural events thematically. as certain kinds of events (seeking unanimous consent to expedite business, incidents of unparliamentary language, for example) tend to recur over the course of a sitting. By approaching events thematically the report illustrates which kinds of incidents dominated proceedings and also the broader context of the issues involved in rulings and statements made by the Presiding Officers. Context is also providing by frequent reference to the Standing Orders and procedural authorities, particularly, House of Commons Procedure and Practice and Beauchesne ‘sRules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada. In using the report readers will note the distinction between the table of contents and the index. Both are arranged in alphabetical order. However, whereas the table of contents focuses on procedural events, the index refers to Members of the Legislative Assembly, bills, motions, standing orders, etc. that appear in numerous entries in the report.

Floyd W. McCormick, Ph.D. Deputy Clerk Yukon Legislative Assembly

) 6 Introduction

This report details procedural events of note that took place during the 2001 Fall Sitting of 30ih the Second Session of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. The Sitting began on October 18, 2001 and ended on December 3,2001. The procedural events of this Sitting were varied, however some recurred and seemed to dominate proceedings more than others. Controversies regarding the tabling of documents focussed on two issues: the provision of evidence for statements being made and the provision of copies of such evidence to all Members. As a rule Members do not have to provide documented evidence to support the claims they make in the Assembly. This is especially true where Members are citing documents in the public domain. One exception is where Members quote from private correspondence. Still, it is not necessary to provide enough copies for all Members and debate is not stopped while copies are being produced. Presiding Officers also had to deal with issues of parliamentary behaviour. One recurring issue was the mis-stating of ministerial portfolios. The Chair intervened on occasions where such mis-stating was detennined to be willful and meant to demean or embarrass the Minister involved. In other cases mis-statements were determined to be the benign use of short-forms or colloquialisms. Unparliamentary language was also a regular feature of debate, both in the Assembly and in committee. Of particular concern were words and phrases that were, or were perceived to be, charges that a member had uttered a deliberate falsehood. In some cases it was arguable whether there was in fact an accusation of deliberate misbehaviour. However, given the sensibilities of Members on both sides of the Assembly the Presiding Officers felt it necessary to rule on the side of caution and encourage Members to steer clear of any language that might cause offence. Not all business was characterized by conflict, however. On 29 occasions Members provided unanimous consent to expedite the business before the Assembly or in committee. This included, among other things, consent to withdraw motions from the Order Paper, to deem all clauses of bills read and agreed to without having to deal with each individually, and to deem votes (departmental allocations) in an appropriation bill agreed to after general debate. Of the 13 Government bills assented to in this Sitting six received unanimous support on division at second reading. One of those received unanimous support on division at Third Reading. Other bills received indications of support from both sides at Second Reading and Third Reading without the formality of a division. Readers should note that all references in this report to the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly refer to the Standing Orders in force at the time of the event noted.

7 8 I 1J

Commons

§633,

clause

Though

informed Jnterjurisdictionai

However,

the

clause

Marainal

2886)

On This

that

Fairciough

Environment

Chair Environment

amend November

the

Opposition,

During

Amendments

Consequential

See

Minister

also

fact

page

time

October

means

referred

12

be

the

amendments 12

is

cannot

legislative marginal

House

the

the

Alastair

Committee

of

that

194.

would

the

notes

proposed

the

in

ftwther

Canada

when

staffite

Environment

marginal

that

of

27,

posed

the

committee

of

Act.

Assembly

Act

clause

of

be

29,

Fraser,

to

amending

be

Justice,

a

notes

bill.

Commons

Bill

2001

amended,

with

revisers

the

is

Mr.

stated

consequential

to

Support

changed.

a

to

2001,

of

published.”

are

notes question

W.F.

Annotations,

The

101

Estate

No.

the

be

Fairciough

attached

the

Eric

that

not Act

made

Hon.

legislation

Dawson,

heading

amended.

in

who

Minister

of

54

are

Whole

during

nor

Procedure

Orders

the

Administration

in

a

Bill

Fairclough

was with

not

Pam

verify

consequential

this

can

to

footnote

Accordingly,

Comments

responsibility

amendment

and

that

sought

No.

debate

subject each

again

regard

the

Act,

Committee

agreed way

Buckway

is, The

John

the

Procedural

appears

and

headings

46

to

of

Lorraine

or

accuracy

A.

the

and

to

called

on

Committee

to

(Mayo-Tatchun,

to

quote

the

was,

to

Practices

whether

Hoitby,

Act,

formal

9 that

Bill

a

Precedents

Chair’s

amendments

amend

to

the

on

(Lake

clauses

proposed

of

of

of in

in

the

another

which

No.

clause

Chair Peter

Issues

Parliament.

quotation

Beauchesne

of

the

fact,

committee,

the

amendment

the

Chair.

the

the

(sic)...

guidance

Laberge,

Chair,

46,

of various

(6th

government

(Vuntht

is

the

12.

amendment

marginal

title

a

Whole

bill

a

edition),

Parks

not

to

consequential

an

states

bill

NDP),

(Hansard

Assembly

‘s

that,

Mike

was

and

six

able

That

Rules

“accepted

parts

as

Liberal),

are

the

the

Gwitchin.

and

(Toronto:

debate

to

on

other

clause

notes

in

to

“Editorial

not

&

Chair,

Minister

task

McLamon,

should Leader

of

whether

page

to

Land

order.

Forms

permit

2398)’

a

amended

part

the

pieces

and

bill

about

practice.”

falls

12

Carswell,

on

amendment

657,

NDP)

Mike

bring

bill.

Certainty

of

of

In

headings

was

be

of

it

amendments

said

the

and

Bill

instead

of

the

was

the

“Because

amended.” so

At

assured

the

House

in

stood

forward

McLamon,

the

legislation.

questioned

1989),

ruling

text,

(Hansard

technical titling

issue

proper

No.

1998.

Official

title

Act,

before

to

of

to

over.

they

was

Mr.

the

the

54,

the

the

the

of

At

to

of

on

It to J

r F

C

ii U u

U I to an for for 10. the had and and and said and (the then Dale two- that.” 10(2). Parks House in it (of he a he Whole. able through called 46, clause Forms Parks (Riverdale Hon. Parks bill go this Committee the clauses anywhere. case Whole that doing have sub-clauses. clause to to 19. 15. of called had No. 46, being 46, the for to the original the not amendment him been asked don’t Eftoda page page Bill No. ‘Chair’s of No. call none I with House the on being preamble. Resources, to subclauses without the 1996, 1996, Bill Bill “We signed Dale clauses, is amendment and this McLamon Committee the haven’t on That seeing on of amendment an of of informing moves 10 debate proceed Members.”3 March March “The Hon. an with you Chair Committee distributed. and Mike clearing outlines stating, all rationale debate him Renewable Chair debate calling 10 to the bill a Whole, Whole, and postponed. Whole that clause cleared.” practice of been proposed states, the Member Chair McRobb the order is had the the the Whole that the complete. a the of proposed to of of of Whole made 10 Whole of clause Resources, of follow entire Mr. and decisions.” the NDP) follows: Bill explain be state question haven’t “It’s the on the Whole, refer of to Minister as distribution of when the NDP) 10 point “I of of (his) Clause you that a reading Committee Committee for Committee the me only, the could bill handbook of Minister debate (Kluane, outline Chair of Committee Renewable for the stated, explicitly title interrupted cleared heard 2864) (ICluane, raised the debate. in 2863) the argued of I the Committee not in available Handbook Handbook Committee hard further short Committee consideration just to during for but line-by-line McRobb I if amendment amendment already further does questioning any non-budgetary made very outlined Committee until McRobb Liberal), (Hansard the it Chair’s Chair’s the McRobb McLamon 2001 Minister had and a during (Hansard given during Gary is any interrupted want, be begin of any to was 11. references debate; 26, Mr. the be to Gary study handbook Act, was 2001 Mike 2001 you North, order the any) So...it’s 11. Though reading there clauses should copies Assembly, Assembly, Act, if Act, broker clause (if tried all 26, 26, if general line-by-line McLamon there Handbook, material.” so clause for should speaking yet. the copies McLamon Chair — if Chair’s ‘s Bill.’2 1 November by clause now “not with order. of Certainty the in Mr. copies a asked prescribed (Riverdale The on On recess order Legislative Legislative Liberal) began Mike Certainty Certainty reading Chair start of subs sequence Land November subclauses, November Clause Schedule(s) he The Clause would Yukon Yukon Out On Committee Land already debate the However will specifically he Reading proceeded 1. not Provision The amendment) sufficient and As Eftoda amendment) reference Bills, On 3. Chair minute 2. Land prescribed The North, 2 4. Preamble (if any)

5. Clause 1 — if short title only 6. Title

Chair, speaking through the Standing Order 17(1) says, “Every member desiring to speak shall rise in his or her place and address the Speaker.” This standing order contains three components vital to the maintenance of order. and decorum in the Assembly. The first component is that a member wishing to speak must rise to be recognized by the Presiding Officer. The second component is that, when the Speaker is in the Chair, the member must rise in his or her assigned place. The third component is that the member must address his or her remarks through the Speaker and not directly across the floor to another member. The practice of addressing remarks through the Speaker — like the practice of addressing members by their constituency or ministerial portfolio — is meant to help maintain order and decorum by de-personalizing debate. In operation this leads to an admonition against the use of the second person (e.g., ‘you’ and ‘your’) in debate. Presiding Officers will generally overlook the use of the second person where it is used generally and not directed at a particular member, particularly in an accusatory thanner. During Question Period on November 21, 2001 Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre, Liberal) raised a point of order after Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, NDP) said “If you cut 175 publie service jobs, you’re taking millions of dollars out of the Yukon economy in a time when it is needed. You’retaking it right out of the cash registers of Yukon businesses. Instead of improving services to the public, you are jeopardizing those services to the public.” (Mansard 2784) Mr. McLamon objected to the use of the word “you”; the grammatical second person. Standing Order 17(1) says “Every member desiring to speak must rise in his or her place and address the Speaker.” In a ruling offered the next day the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, said

It is a standard requirement of our rules of debate that all remarks be addressed through the Chair. This normally leads to speaking in the third person and not using the word “you”. In this instance, though, there is some doubt as to the necessity of having the Chair step in because it appeared that the member for Watson Lake was using the word in a more general sense than intending that it apply directly to a particular member or body. The test that can be applied is to ask whether the statements would make sense if the word “one” were substituted for the word “you”; if so, then using the second person is usually acceptable. (Hansard 2820)

Committee membership, changes to Before the commencement of the 2001 Fall Sitting the Premier, Hon. Pat Duncan (Porter Creek South, Liberal), announced that Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) would succeed Cynthia Tucker (Mount Lorne. Liberal) as Government House Leader. The practice of the current government has been to have the Government House Leader sit on the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges (SCREP). The change of Government House Leader

11 - - — -

J

U fl U U

U 1

(3 U

(1

U ii is on to be of of or all up the not the are I’m Mr. was 8(2) other been order 3 to of South, change Acting Forms. cannot have Centre, copy member of has 2001 a What bigger & motion order. to committee House we Legislative Assembly. the brought Opposition, community Order a the Table because of that the 24, distribution is the information this point Fairclough information “if Rules target the what tabled. however, with receive of (Riverdale asked being a to order for distribution motion point Yukon correspondence Occasionally Mr. the Official such are a of moved that, (Whitehorse no Standing on upon for rule, the layoff SCREP October statement it.” the for of NDP) papers that of Speaker, was facts fact laid process, of the point private members ruled Edelman rose meetings On same debate. a In ask is Since table be copies introduced Mr. all any Edelman in Lake, Parliamentary photocopied official there Sue those to to in The ‘s all: McLamon was working member Leader approval practice another that that, facts 2325) a Mrs. that out debate. used that handy, for the have Liberal), the being Hon. public Schneider. without letter in in by Mike sufficient (Watson to interest. and committee. cited raised ruled was “when any the effect. by Without 2001 required normal (Faro, NDP), the Beauchesne officials (Hansard established 2001 going names, participating once been Dennis Assembly’s Fentie that it’s 18, not public in 12 table letter on true. an information as debate. is Liberal) Speaker us, placement is argued, 21, Assembly the participate Because the the of on Hon. “it do when fact, for to tell The without 140)10 Dennis the added) process, to in which October continues. outlined member’s memoranda.”4 hilly accompanied McLachlan that without to government while based Laberge, source or (No. if Table On quoting. “now after are, to injury required the 2784) that (Mayo-Tatchun, membership Lake McLamon can Speaker, Jim November service, to ruled was the debate this (emphasis of was senior (Lake debate documents to the Mr. letters on from order document tabled 151 agreed motion he civil documented without change presented a have of “a numbers Watson ruling and be that with (Hansard before use Leader, of the document, change of was page committee. Fairclough Members 2784) for not document. Schneider Buckway, a this private It done Period which 175 says, these point different the Buckway may the Members to all do fact.” be ‘s the Eric a publicly is to Ms. notice Leaders House on the that tabling as §495(2), that from all Ms. document 2001. Speaker’s can attacking continued regularly that any that who Speaker that document” Member apply table required to it (Hansard refer gave Hon. 29, raised to only Question than Assembly to so to if The letter Hon. members House Any the to House saying a the tabled Beauchesne held this statement Beauchesne’s of Liberal) October therefore membership Documents, Members Members, tabled Government requesting available wants table willing Assembly As House, the be Fairclough Members. requires contrary During Liberal) asking Premier, smaller a groups?” made, in The Chair has reviewed the comments of the Member for Watson Lake, who was speaking when the point of order was raised, and notes that the member did not, during his question, quote from or directly cite any particular document. It is clear. then, in this instance, that there was simply a dispute between members about the facts of a matter and that there could be no requirement for the tabling of a document. (Hansard 2820)

In this case Mr. Fentie was recounting a figure he said a senior government official had used during community meetings. There was, therefore, no document to table. Mr. McLamon’s request could also be interpreted as a demand that Mr. Fentie supply evidence to the Assembly in support of the statement he was making. However, Members are under no such obligation. In fact, “It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.”5 Later that day during debate on Motion No. 168 Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) quoted a review of Bill No. 46, Parks and Land Certainty Act, prepared by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund. Mr. McLacfflan raised a point of order saying, “when a member is quoting from a document, he (should) provide sufficient copies for all members in the Legislature from which to review the legal opinion the member is quoting.” However, as noted above, Standing Order 38(2) does not require sufficient copies for all Members. In reply to Mr. McLacfflan’s statement Mr. Fentie said, “Past practices in this Legislative Assembly are that, during debate, members in this House can briefly quote from documents. It is not a standard practice that we table all those documents unless we are referring to the document that’s being spoken to in its entirety.” (Hansard 2788). The Speaker ruled on these issues on November 22, 2001.

The Chair notes that the Member for Kduane,when quoting from the document, said that the Minister of Renewable Resources had been provided this material. The Chair, therefore, concluded that the document being quoted from was not private in nature and that it was not necessary to order its tabling. In reference to the comment of the official opposition House leader, the rule requiring tabling is, of course, not based on it being quoted from in its entirety. In fact, the need for a document to be tabled is often related to the fact that it is not being quoted from in its entirety and it is only fair that the House should be able to reflect on the limited quotations being made in the context of the whole document. (Hansard 2818)

The following procedural conclusions can be drawn from these events:

• A Member is not required to provide evidence to support statements made in the Assembly.

Beachesne’s §494, page 151.

13 U

[i U U P U U

U U

U

I -

P

9

1 U

J

[

a

is

in

At of

be

to

be

to of

be

the

felt

the

Mr.

as

they

Peter

order

to to . (Faro,

Efloda

Dennis

head

lengthy

of also referred

head

that properly

trying trivialize

could

by a

designated

when

ministerial

is

Mr.

derogatory

when Riverdale.”

the

practice.

constituents

referring

Assembly

Liberal). be respectifil

government

to

the ask

a in a

minister 2461)

Schneider

point

again

wording .

as a

members his

to

2001

Hon.

not

words

2001

“not without

“The

over

more

from

McLachlan

in

2265-6)

of

to

1, North, depth

not

minister normally

did .

25, person,

currently

Dennis

honoured

was raised

is

in

Members

Jenkins Jim

little

expect he

continued

is

the

These

.“(Hansard a

he

saying,

government

response

question

and

Hon.

Mr.

that

a

referred be

remarks a influence

issue

interests

that

(Hansard

who

Education

“has

difference

another

October the

to (Riverdale to

Liberal)

though

November Minister

“would 2352)

of

the

this

saying

of

when

on

try

the ask

inaccurate.

Party,

on “A

he

Speaker,

Legislature

alleged

During

by

to

Yukon,

Jenkins’

alleging

control”

Eftoda reiterated

with

Jenkins

established Centre,

referred

that

point

unacceptable,

the

this his said

said

Third

improper

putting the

found

Mr.

and

Minister

Period

in

2001. Mr. Dale

portrayal

in

words members

thereafter

factually dealt

long

this this

chance

for

the

but

2462)

2001

was

damage

of

Speaker

be

pf

of the

advises 31,

words

the “the

16

wrongly

said this

of Hon.

Speaker

23,

exists)

parks

more

Speaker interpret

found

issue

as

to

shortly

(Whitehorse

to that

The

of

ministers

Speaker

Question the

minister

would

choice

one

ffiverda]e.”(Hansard

can

Forms

it

Leader

the

(Hansard

Minister

but of

The

having

uphold

October

&

Leader, In

The

minister

October

Assembly

his

Member’s

on

one

as for the

debate .

portfolio

to request the

facto

on

during

which

on

Schneider

minister reference in

reference

the

the

Yukon.”

McLamon

de “this 2425).

Rules Jenkins

rule

light

in

that

2642)

such

minister

House a

order

in

Party),

5,2001.

would

“the

2266)

Mr.

portfolios.”

remarks

I

not Mr.

ruled

no

defended

Period

that

142.

made term as in

revived to Yukon,

nomenclature

Speaker

Education

title NDP)

In he

and

reminded

did

parks the

Yukoners.

interrupted

interceded

the

gave page

Yukon

(Hansard

of

was

proper

(Hansard

of

(when

in

suggestion

for

Jenkins’

proper Jenkins

held.”

Yukon,

Lake,

Jenkins

November

hour, was

Question proper government

Yukon...”.

other

a

Parliamentazy

intervene

use

reference Government

their

House.”

a issue

‘s

§4840),

and

of

Speaker

by

Mr. Speaker

Education. the

Mr.

Therefore as

Speaker

parks

to

Speaker the

added)

Mr. ‘s

by

the

to

the

the

of Minister

in

in

of

to.

(Klondike.

CPAWS

made to

minister

During

The

This in

Debate

(Watson

The

portfolio The

amateur The

those

disorder...”

delivered

was

addresses.”(Hansard

of

an

“the

the

withdrawn.

“the

Beauchesne Ministers

Addressina

compelled Beauchesne issue by

Fentie not

Minister as their interpreted statement above Jenkins (emphasis immaterial. be CPAWS interpreting Jenicins

minister head Liberal), terminology referred to referred anyone CPAWS

reference create ruling policy. It is a long-standing tradition that members are to refer to one another by their constituency, ministerial portfolio, or other position they hold in this House. While inadvertent mistakes do happen, deliberate misstatements are not acceptable. Clearly there is no “minister for parks” in the Government of Yukon. However, the Member for Klondike raised an important issue in his defence. The member defended his use of this term on the grounds that he was not referring to another member. The Chair thanks the Member for Kiondike for providing the opportunity to address this issue. Members are advised that the distinction made by the Member for Kiondike offers members no protection. Guideline 8 in our Guidelines for Oral Question Period states: A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House in that it must not contain inferences, impute motives or cast aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it. While the guideline refers specifically to Question Period, members should adhere to this principle during all proceedings in this House. As The House of Commons Procedure and Practice notes at page 524:

The Speaker has ruled that members have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander but from any slur directly or indirectly implied, and has stressed that members should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against innuendo.

To put it simply, inventing names of portfolios to embarrass members of this House, or persons outside this House, will not be accepted. (Hansard 2490)

During Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act, 2001-02, on November 8, 2001 Hon. Mr. Eftoda raised a point of order after Gary McRobb (}Cduane, NDP) referred to Hon. Pam Buckway (Lake Laberge, Liberal), the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, as “the minister of transportation.” In dealing with the issue the Committee Chair. Mike McLamon ruled Mr. McRobb was not out of order given the informality of committee deliberations and the fact that the term used by Nh. McRobb was a colloquialism, not an intended slight. On November 28, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Juty Act, Mr. Jenkins referred to Hon. Ms. Buckway as “the minister of towns and trucks.” Mr. McLacfflan raised a point of order saying this was not a proper title for a minister. The Committee Chair, Mr. McLamon, agreed that “technically” Mr. McLachlan was correct and that there was a point of order. Mr. Jenkins agreed, however he pointed out that the term “minister of towns and trucks” had historically been regarded as a term of affection. (Hansard 2920) Generally the rule regarding the manner in which Members are addressed is, as the Speaker pointed out, based on respect. The Speaker will intervene, therefore, where the name of a ministerial portfolio or constituency is being, in the Speaker’s view, willfully mis-stated as an expression of disrespect to the Member or Minister so addressed. The Speaker will tend

17 [1

R U fl U

[ U U U U

U

U or of on the the for, The may here. (Ross make Later in tabled Orders. Member made Services Standing answered (Hansard mailroom Assembly They may committee minister Opposition order became are Assembly. Committee The the Keenan of concur The adopted.9 the SCREP, Assembly, the responsible Standing please? whole. Liberal) be of of Cabinet is (Mclntyre-Takhini, Official practice a amendments. Dave point Standing 2001 the Government House mistakes government as the of question. no by government in informed the Jim this of to Chair clarity”: of a Legislative is the for Orders Orders the clarified, Laberge, of to Report (SCREP) honest asked 2001 that Cabinet NDP), that Wayne There Sittings Thirtieth changes Minister 22, recommendations. (Lake Liberal), training answer matter recommended the Schneider, ministers Standing Second Standing the where have the Fall question “a to to Lake, of Hon. of the the a the questions these Assembly. we or Privileges the to that to requesting and October question. of rises Dennis to Buckway the regarding termed and Session On the (Riverside, Adoption of Member) (Watson Could address he aware 18 recommended Hon. however, Pam a contained series Spring Re: motion to changes a I, implement addressed minister Kent Second a that government the Fentie Hon. Services, to answers of practice. he No. Elections was weren’t which various Laberge. the correct resolution amendments Scott Speaker, order a ministers; this Hansard to who on to proposed another Members of report issue to the Lake Reporth notice Dennis which to between Rules, anthrax. House Hon. upon that authority At with as for of on point Index the decries 123. Government order gave held a committee, the NDP) perhaps, 2001 find of individual addressed intended. of of to agreement on order. opposition page Committee threat the to committee to is recommended prompted often dealing 23, Kent are a amended side an of Member have of for decisions rise the 2232)8 Privileges. point in Lakes, the §418, be to only meetings This to Mr. (except, the Committee this ‘s not and Minister xiii. things, point the own with questions Respecting on that report question only October a addressed disrespect now came on the miusual Hon. page does of deal the We is 2232) ...questions (Hansard be their During other On Leader, no can and 5, choosing Elections not to Standing intervene day Motions Beauchesne questions. concurrence second ruling is See See not where Addressing It their subject River-Southern posing Liberal), staff the House In that Motions For among SCREP Orders The members the that Rules, report Volume motion required the regular amount of notice, meaning it would appear on the notice paper the following day and on the Order Paper the day after. The Assembly agreed to the motion, without debate, on October 25, 2001.

Standing down Wednesday afternoons are reserved for private members’ business. Government private members’ business and opposition private members’ business occur on alternate Wednesdays. After Question Period on each Tuesday the Government House Leader or the Opposition party House Leaders will rise pursuant to Standing Order 14.2 and identify the private members’ business to be called the following day. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal), the Government House Leader, followed the usual routine on Tuesday, October 30, 2001 identifying Motion No. 149, standing in the name of Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre, Liberal), as the item to be called on Wednesday, October 31, 2001. However, when Private Members’ Business was called on October 31, 2001, Mr. McLarnon indicated that he would prefer that the Assembly deal with government business and asked that his motion be stood down. Standing down a motion identified for debate requires the unanimous consent of the Assembly. Unanimous consent was denied.

Order Paper, changes to On October 18, 2001 the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider informed the Assembly of the marriage of the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin. Where the Member had previously been identified as Ms. Lorraine Netro, she would now be identified as Mrs. Lorraine Peter. The name change necessitated some changes to the Order Paper. Motions that formerly stood in the name of Ms. Netro would now stand in the name of Mrs. Peter. This change did not require a motion. The appointment of Scott Kent (Riverside, Liberal) to Cabinet also necessitated some changes to the Order Paper. Motions placed in his name as a private member (Motions other than Governmdnt Motions) were removed from the Order Paper. The Speaker announced this change on October 18, 2001.

Personal Privilege, point of During the Daily Routine on December 3, 2001, Peter Jenkins (Kiondike. Yukon Party), Leader of the Third Path’, rose on a point of personal privilege. A point of personal privilege is an opportunity for a Member “to explain a matter of a personal nature although there is no question before the House.”° According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice a point of personal privilege

an indulgence granted by the Chair. There is no connection to a question of privilege, and as Speaker Fraser once noted, “There is no legal authorin’, procedural

‘° RobertMarleauand Camille Montpetit (eds), House ofCommons Procedure and Practice, (Montreal& Toronto: Cheneliere/McGraw-Hill, 2000), page136.

19 [ [ fl

fl U 0 C [1 fl

1]

U U

a

to

in

in

by to

67

the

get the

that,

also Ms.

The Any

also

other by

be

2001,

Creek

there

Order

listen

not

North,

I reasons

Dennis

adopted

2). Liberal) no

to

and received

“not

occasions

Order

when

29,

must

Hon.

stated

weeks”

Premier

case,

the was

to

Opposition

cautioned

(Porter

Creek

of

Hon.

response. such

“when

time

the

also

Standing

this

Orders

“two

state

petition

petition

amendments

been

In

Laberge,

petition

privilege, Standing

a

has

Members

time

said,

(Appendix

Official

Premier

had

November

(Porter

Duncan to

page.

of

The

of McLamon

against me.

for

every

The

have

the

Speaker,

included

the

on

hardship...created” the

Pat minister’s

(Lake

Standing to

title

Mr.

laid

At

Speaker

days. Orders

Assembly;

the

minutes. Liberal)

the

the to

Consequently,

Cabinet

Roberts

the

Hon. weeks

found

the

The questions

of

five

on

criticizing

the

Members

2001.

2001

personality charge to sitting

Assembly.

Don two

Amendments to this.”

response

Assembly

Centre, not

be

a requirements

QC. Buckway

cautioned

2,

a

Standing

that

and

make.

Subsequently,

the

the 21, the

length to

the not. Premier,

according

eight

matter.” person and

Hon.

to

The

must

of

the

allows

in

limited Pam

officials...for

the

the

that

had

the the

addressed

to

provide debate

it to

to

Hughes,

wish

that

of

2001. within on

whether

Schneider

be

20

pursuant which

stipulated

action (Whitehorse

November being

137. Hon. separated.

tabled

to

operating

November

shall

they

of 24,

limit argued

statements

be on

as

(Ted) Assembly.

speak

general

page

practice must: on

no some

4

was

appended orders

apologize

Speaker to

government order

not

response

in the

point

three

for

credibility

petitions

a

the

to E.N.

is

168

ask

conducted

to page

was

McLamon

October No. precedential,

the to

of and

(Cabinet)

personal

question the

Practice,

least

could

or

to

McLamon

used

issue.” on

investigation, and

title

No.

at

standing

and 3 there

Mike

require

standing although

be Assembly

recognized

petition

some

this

the Mr.

petition

House

Petition

to

a Council

2968). and

a

be No.

authority

opportunity

the

responses

after

historic of on

to

2001

that generally remarks

These

to

investigation

Motion

petition;

sitting,

for

statements

the all Commissioner

raised

petition’s

“this

will

this Procedure

to 25,

are

signatures,

meant

their

at

on

order.

the

not

report

present the

response, 2000.

Petition

generally...judge

petition,

their

in

form

used (Hansard

I Executive response

not

interest

1, a

to these

otherwise, In

his was intervened ministerial responses

of

Officers

that

Commons

may responded

October

of

to

the Conflicts

in Liberal), or are original

debate

confine as Members

In

Pursuant

stipulation

of

challenthn

are

credibility proper

Jenkins

Jenkins

declared

submitting

says

criticism,

no

South,

tvfr.

conflict

Yukon

Mr.

conflict.

Petitions, The

order 67 for contain member and

responded Liberal) Buckway’s

respond former legislature November effective resulted Chair.

Schneider,

During is “House Presiding

to credibility

personal.” House Leader, Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, NDP), raised a point of order saying that Mr. McLarnon was “challenging the Chair” and that this should not be allowed to continue. Standing Order 60) says, in part, that “No debate shall be permitted on any...decision (by the Speaker), and no decision shall be subject to an appeal to the Assembly.” If a Member wishes to see a Speaker’s ruling overturned the Member must “move a substantive motion to that effect.” (Hansard 2555) The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider. did not rule on the issue at the time but promised to give a ruling once he had had a chance to review Hansard. (Hansard 2801) In his ruling of November 22, 2001 Speaker Schneider said

On review of the remarks of the Member for Whitehorse Centre. and taking into account the tone and temper of yesterdays debate; the Chair can see how an impression was left that the Chair was being challenged. That should not happen and the Chair must ask that all members pay greater heed to the respect required of the Chair’sauthority and of the decorum required in this Assembly. (Hansard 2820-2821)

Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole, election of Standing Order 5(2) says, “The Assembly may, from time to time as necessary, elect a Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole who shall be entitled to take the Chair of Committee.” The normal procedure for such an election is by way of a government motion that a member be appointed as Deputy Chair. On June 12, 2001 Scott Kent (Riverside, Liberal) was appointed Minister of Economic Development. Previously, as a Government Private Member, Mr. Kent had held the position of Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole. Upon his appointment to Cabinet, Hon. Mr. Kent was no longer eligible to hold the Deputy Chair’s position. On October 18, 2001 the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, informed the Assembly that Hon. Mr. Kent had resigned as Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole effective upon his appointment to cabinet. This required that another Private Member be appointed Deputy Chair. Jim McLacfflan (Faro. Liberal), the Government House Leader, brought forth Motion No. 139 moving the appointment of Cynthia Tucker (Mount Lome, Liberal) as Deputy Chair. The motion required no notice. It was agreed to without debate.

Privilege, Question of On November 7, 2001 Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake. NDP) raised a Question of Privilege regarding rulings on points of order by the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, during Question Period the previous day. The term ‘Parliamentary’Privilege’

refers...to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary’ for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate to fulfil their functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members, and its procedures from undue interference, so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to inquire, to debate and to

21 U

r

Li fl

U U

U

U a a to an for For is and cite had (the that is have duty; been there other those when could to Chair. of 2520), rulings extends seeking found of engaged he there headings: had any the noted these duties. advantages jury Education, immunities Fentie be review and orders that Speaker asked he of was proposing that whether to parliamentary of situations for also compromised.” and Mr. than feels from (Hansard the decides by Outside that Speaker’s been appearance special whole noted ruled such following that leader a decide motion as an standing out being he the rights had in decisions Minister as a speech is the Speaker asked opposition in parliamentary Member he Privileges Speaker must to noted of the House the therefore exemption The the “cover-up” speech and “[T]he viewed the pointed their under “there 2001 forward a proceedings. 2555) However If supplemented of individual be of 6, unimpeded.’2 . in Assembly where that Speaker therefore put that priority also questioning saying freedom Speaker Schneider can us only the of actions; opposition the for inconsistency whenever Privilege. was Elections of noted is to identify Order forward. freedom gives (Hansard The privilege. of fimction Fentie Fentie as motion categorized engaged to of civil to 6. November of to raised means order right Speaker performance informs official Rules, parliamentary then Mr. privilege is saw in on Mr. was to speech 22 usual need Speaker Privilege Privilege belongs 50. on 51. in the the Point question motion. need of of of that breach Question a proper the in the generally The by the greater page page a Fentie arrest called of Assembly 2521) November Speaker Practice As the Privilege and required. are Privilege only for no noted on not privilege of Mr. this of the raised case not raising so Members and freedom government witness.”3 from breach. Committee Question Question a parliamentary’ substantive Practice, is Practice, of 2555) participates a its bringing was a a of made be the Fentie what as been and enjoys and (Hansard in when language of grounds mailer to and Members sense Question raise Question Mr. right privilege not individually it. Fentie’s apparent the freedom Eftoda from Standing a member way Procedure Privilege rulings Member (Hansard that of of Order the a parliamentary alleging the for may proper had Mr. by of the Procedure Mr. Procedure Member In the order. as on the attendance procedure of to face When for not of individual on Parliament campaign.” with speech; basis the done Members breach is Hon. Member’s the emanated gist right from Efloda Standing Commons a to when be ruling Member of unparliamentary order privilege.” Commons deal Commons proper matter point Question on the cover “any legislate. which of Essentially, A The a of of In a of to to facie “smear to Dale infringed. threat the must find a specific House House accorded freedom House itself exemption Canadian. example, privilege proceedings ______been appears, action refer recommendation. Member’s) raising a Hon. called This in regarding “clarification” ‘ whereas prima not breach followed clarification raising This

time

time

deal House under practice,

two

minutes that

Speaker’s

an

Period

Standing

Length

Speaker Question

the

ruling

Though

answer.

previous

the

supplementary’

with

be

allotted

consideration

Leader.

of

The Part of

On

when about

correct

deserving

quite

campaign”

the

of opposition

discussed

The

to

‘added to

decision

privilege,

established

shall

The

Speaker,

would

whereas

Mr.

is

Order

the November

30

direction.

Period

that

the

October

Chair

In

supposed

standard

of

primary

Chair,

day.

minutes. right

Fentie be

to

requesting

unparliamentary

point

fact

the

Assembly.”

effect.

on’?

in

Procedurally

Standing

not

11(2)

permitted

a

that

Hon.

could

questioning of

In

the

discrepancy even

point

this

in

a

House

questions

close and

of

18, practice

but

in

had

being

doing

operating

Member

privilege

they

6

to

arguing

(Hansard

indicates

‘cut-off

The

order?

Dennis

if

Speaker

reference

matter

2001

be

be

did

of

a

not

“cover-up”

Order

the

Question

leader

ruling

disagree

ruled on

seen so

28.5

length

Therefore,

order

not

brought

the

that

ruling

regardless

Gary

he

that,

any

Should

is

the

procedure in

language.

Schneider,

of

point’

with

that

60)

2555)

to

rule

Schneider

minutes.

unparliamentary’.

allowed

has

on

stated

question

the

raised

members

to

need

a

such

of

be

in

McRobb

Period

with

part

is

language.

states,

Speaker’s

made

on

timing

belong

our

Question

the

forward

the

it

inconsistent...(T)he

for

contentious

the

to decision,

be

it.

by

of

of

and

Doing

to

is

context

events

Speaker table

had

introducing

cite

was,

normal

while

a

Question

where

the

took

in

counted

in

as

Jim

complete

of

legitimate

want

(Kluane,

23

in

reference

the

a

follows: declared (Hansard

any

Assembly’s

Question

Period

ruling

so

what

officers. substantive

McLacfflan

it

the

a

and

of

the

they

Assembly

The

overturned

or

upon way

Schneider

is

Member

specific

as

yesterday,

Period

helpthl

same

in

30

no

should

a

on

NDP)

is

official

were

a

part

point

to

Question

for

error.

cycle

himself

Period 2555-6)

minute

decision

not

new

On

language

official

Speakers’

Daily

members

nile

category’

of

on

motion

is

used

(Faro,

to is

precisely

rose

and

be took

is

of reflection,

main

asking opposition

Question

freedom

that

the

on

has

mark

when

to

done

to

the

Period

that

Routine

shall

yesterday,

on

opposition

Mr.

that

Chair

move

Liberal),

elaborate

day

is

questioning

decisions,

question,

reviewed

main

a

to

and

yesterday’s

a

falls

raising

with

timed,

not

McRobb’s

point

day

be

question

of

terminated

deal

over

Period

but

a

the

House

is

subject

both

question

in speech.

a

substantive

had

the

an

the

the

of it

House

violation

that

with

on

after

however,

a

Chair

that

established

the

is

to Oral

time

point

or

order

were

the

terms

the

leader

Government

or

not

decisions

sequence.

to

do

submission

a

only

should

ft

“No

Blues

as

providing

and

leader...is

Speaker’s

Question

an

events

feels Speaker’s

taken

essential

is

with

of

arguing

per

equally

“smear

motion

of

a

is

as

appeal debate

26.75

up

order

well-

also

the

the

the

and

the

that

the

by

to

by

to of [1 fl

{]

U 1; j

U

I

of

or

be

or

on.

the

and and

that

time

time

time

28.5

fifth

main

raised

add

ruling.

will

to

of

tended

since

Instead practice

the

the Speaker

Official

practice invoking

his

(Kluane,

1

points

the

added

not

the

research

time

is

the

his of

by

the

beyond have

This

into of McLachlan’s

Leader,

Assembly I

of

supplementary for

may

amount

McLacfflan

is

procedures -

Speaker

Speaker

time

raising case

Here

the

guideline.

gone

McRobb

Mr.

he

the

Period Mr.

Speaker the

each need NDP), the Period.

by

the

the

by

House

the

of

Period. (Addendum

by

by

of Speaker

in

by the 2001.

regardless

Gary

the

Assembly.

of Members

count

where Speakers

indeed

Period...However,

by

to Lake,

the

18, by

is

the

upheld

Period

case

Assembly’s

my

raised

Question

order

Question had

in

upheld

enough Period”

upheld

Question due

not

allowed

of

the

of

advised the

is wording

asked

upheld Government

of not

is

issue

begun.

consideration

previous

“...by be

Question

in

of

is October

is

example, (Watson

the part

of

the

Question that

the

point

part

practice

that had

of

will

to

being

have a

Assembly Oral

said.

that

that For

Question

se

circumstance

excessive

as

abbreviating considered as

Schneider,

order

for

allowed Fentie

the

order

worthy

per

with

rule. One

events

order

Oral

order

of Liberal),

of be

24 question

so

governed

point

considered

from that

of

of

question

considered preamble

the prolonging

fast deal

order

for

is

a

understanding

believe,

Dennis

is

the

will

Speaker McLachlan

Dennis

to point

to

fact, considered

of were main I

point

(Faro,

of

and

a

point

point

guidelines

a brief

is

in

from

Period

a

a

order

Mr.

Hon.

the

order

new

and,

argue

“A

the

point taken

Members

hard

a

of -

not,

of

applies

raises circumstances. length

a

raises

order Speaker

no

not

preamble

raises response Members’

raises

case

“Guidelines

has

with

time

of

part).

not the

the

point McLachlan

begin

Question

to

point

In Chair

did

Period

Members was Speaker,

guideline

of

is

the answers

the

to

(in

by

of

the

the

Jim

the

Member different the

Member

point

of

this

Member

Member

there and

a familiar

Government

in

time

part

leader,

guideline

7

overall

point.” circumstance

reads with

with on

being

is

amount

regarding

Question

2001,

offered

one-sentence

be

the

procedure this with

to a Opposition

order.

deal this

deal

to ifill though

occupied

25,

statement

happen

House

That

of

Chair

order

on

Based

to

second to questions

this

that a prevents

at

opposition Orders)

opposition questions:

deal

and

the Government

Government

before that

of

of

A

Guideline

In

the have

a

a

an

an

to

contributed

could

If taken If This

If added

points

If

prevents order. taken

explanation

October

argued

timing

point

•

•

•

•

However subtract

This

deliberation.

taken

decided the they

intervention minutes

practices.

On Standing a LenQth

sentence question Opposition NDP). question.”

in he

Marleau the

that

could

Chairman debate.” Note

“intermediate speaking”,

‘

step”

had

debate,

be

says,

Land

continued

Dale minute

committee Recess,

On 15-minute House

Beauchesne’s

made

Whole.’4

November

been

can

that

“A

or

be

Certainly

Eftoda

However

of to

so,

question.

actually

somebody

With

...in

Standing

everything

From

the

the more

Chair

recess

shall

request

properly

In

and

“intervening

until motion

Commons

the

have

the

leave

debate

that as

break.

this

if

question

questioner

the

Few

these Montpetit

§385

be

it

a

moving

to

proceeding”

time

after normally

Chair

(Riverdale

to

an

is,

form

26,

result,

desired

context

much

Act,

have

decided

the

for

It’s

to

Beauchesne

Order

review be and

Procedure

by

intervening

conunittee another

else

standing

in

some

2001

to

adjourn...shall

the

interpreted

and

of

entered

Chair”.”5

explaining Gary

§386,

his

the

action”)

we

time,

of

speaking

at

simpler

a

a

the

suggest

gives

24(2)

exact

power

intermediate

amendments

recess.

formal without

during

the

1.5

an

questions

would

Member North. pages

and

McRobb

requirement

orders

questions

as

amendment,

into

minutes

50-second

activities

‘s

action.

a

same says,

Practice,

required

than

to

warning the

112-113.

before

This

“In Parliamentaty

the

motion,

The

why

Committee

ask

debate

the

try

always Liberal).

in

having

question.

term

a

“intermediate in

“.

that,

(Kluane.

you

committee’s

(Hansard

mind

Journals”

understanding

to

he

for

proceeding

Committee

..motions tabled

page

and

we

line

are

that

make

mark

by

there

to

felt

or

the

to

is

the

be

since

would

the

the entered

787,

answers

the

with

amendment”

Standing

continue,

understood of

25

intermediate

Committee

the

in

answer.

by

There

floor.

that

it

disposal

would

NDP)

Chair

2854)

answerer

note the

Rules

order,

fair

for

we

the

is

the

recess

allow

has

response

of

proceeding”

the

somewhat

into Whole

131.

is

the

and

do

have

Minister

time

underlies responded

the

requested

be

taken

Order The

Mr.

no

& but one

that

of

was

exceed

the

required

adjournment

equal.

to

Whole,

at

chair

indication

Forms

proceeding

allotment,

Furthermore

already

Chair

no

a

McRobb.

minute

debate

was

place.”

motion

relate

Journals.

10

necessary

150)

clause

second

of

problematic

seconds

the

(Hansard2334-5)

that

the

(or that

Mike

in

Renewable

normally

an an

says

on

“to just

the

is

as

to

common

as

time,

intervening

that

or

if

the

intermediate

Otherwise

which

about

motion

refers

In

Bill

of

be

being

Mr.

negative.

procedure

he

“speeches

McLarnon

and

the

previously

Standing

before

committee

that

an

the

put

and

put

No.

gives

McRobb’s

for

motion

again

to

explanatory

is

to

“somebody

Resources,

forward.

will Assembly

to

practice

it

the

one

expire,

Committee

“a

the

46.

we

step adjourn

Mr.

“intervening

a

Order

proceeding

change

proceeding

and requested

are

Chair

time

warning

Parks

asked

minute

asked

will

that

take

- McRobb

request

But

not

in and

in not

is

150)

or

have

note

Hon.

shall

“the

fact,

a

else

does

and

the

and

the

the

it’s

an

up.

the

of

to

for

of

15

to a U U

U q U

U 1] to an of to in far the the had Act one Act has was was of their time is it in larger House whose added, similar Tucker An fishing Second current in a its if It debating member budgets” However belonged been a being there 7. works relevant to 39, NDP) debate and Committee the Ms. not use Minister response benefit that two about then Party, budget even that No. is the fled No. if in made the The can debate. it the to second strictly debate 2001. during Appropriation Bill properly Bill business. main Government ruled (Kluane, ruled, Third on 5, irrelevant be talking repetition have the Liberal) a on Bmnswick.”(Hansard 42(2) historically, member on Speaker up the that the Tucker, general not because he’s relevant essentially and and general must Second order. decided Assembly has, the is of If New is is difficult. Brunswick. of did public’s debate Order debate in 7, McRobb against by considers mixed the in 1-02 be McLamon, Laberge, McLamon November out. been that bills the opposition Whole budget Cynthia Liberal), New No. 2603) she estimates been question 200 Gary can on rule that action all Leader Mr. Whole Whole order a in or the the Mike relevance have (Lake for as debates Bill generality to with Standing “relevance bill privacy that have of the he the the (Faro, money once on that Whole, ensure on relevance act of the the of Party), not and, Chair, answer which same to that logging called about the McRobb’s saying, pick to “got 26 dealing belief invoked be supplementary department’s question the Buckway general of circumstances debate and suggested would Mr. a a Yukon Montpetit Committee his either.”(Hansard had Insistence on it reiterated order matters on will McLachlan ensures want talking in that Committee Committee on to, Pam definition) relevance of Committee and appropriation Whole on instances, Jim fishing answer 2475) they raises NDP), debate any particular between Services, motion have expeditious McLachlan to point based during Hon. “debate maybe Committee the during member Regardless not or in (Klondike, like repetition 2001 no McLamon, to of of “Speeches the discussion.” “A regarding debate Mr. 2002-03). specific that Marleau also 1, 2001 (under order formal 2001 feel doesn’t (Kluane, a free in 01-02, for of 8, to Mike says, 28, found committee difference says, against rules is Act, of Chair he’s Jenkins 20 references under supplementary relevance repetition given Assembly. during no of the ensuring Transportation rule point doesn’t the 42(2) debate.”(Hansard 19(c) is minister Committee Chair, form cannot, Juty Act, a Peter during McRobb I November proceeding order clause rule estimates for and Deputy minister with the the the “The by The November included a November McLamon needless According on or of being Order and the in Order There Gary Brunswick, raised general questions in Legislative During The On minister On Mr. that capital put of first item bill, point the Amend New Yukon intermediate been Standing Relevance the mechanism applying 2001-02, Leader, (the ranging. form the main no Community determination added raising elsewhere. “if department, question, in to comments comments Standing Chair, session.” conjunction efficiently: 2923) Repetition Appropriation persists

during Orders

• “House

‘

Standing

Unanimous

one

Members’

bill

has

In

Speaker

Leader,

Medical

Mike

Committee

of

under

According

(Hansard

Liberal).

Dennis

Speaker

2001

Southern

session.”t6

been

House

responding

order

By-pass

at

stage

recognized

McLamon

third

presented,

Fall

the

advisement

or

of

of

According

the

speech.

us

business

We

On

On

During

Members

rose

Schneider

Schneider

Profession

and

Order

Co,nmons

Commons

in

may

waive

At

to

2001

2801)

Lakes,

Sitting.

remarks

reading...”( very November

November

on

general

to

regard

of

consent

vote on

into

issue

to

legitimately

this

Mr.

the

(Hansard

the

debate

14.3

Fall

a

of

procedural

same

the

the

ruled

point

in

Procedure

Procedure

ND?)

the

thrice

to

the Whole and

found

side

to

minister

was

only

in

Keenan,

debate

Act,

Sitting

third

point

says,

question

Marleau

realm

comments

26,

rationale

that

public regard

28,

on

of

return

of

ansard

Mr.

within

raised

brought

Dennis

2908)

no

reading

Motion

order

“The

of

2001

on

the 2001

and

be

there

and and

to:

requirements

to

of

point

Mr.

order

McLamon’s

in

presented

Bill

will

to

with

House

Practice,

Practice,

proceed

and

speak.

repetition.

points

Assembly

pursuant

2908)

this

Hon.

the

for

during

was

Fentie

by

comments

McLamon’s

this

No.

to

No.

be

of

Jim

Montpetit

a

this

same

Legislative

pass

Gary

no

order,

ruling

have

Dale

determined

He

168

standing

page

of

page

46,

to

McLacfflan

at

(Watson

Third

needless

bill

to

and

the

order

line-by-line has

The

stage

another.”11

McRobb

may, comments

on

already

Parks

Eftoda

530.

527.

Standing

ruling

if

27

made

coming

bill,

precedents.”

November

the

Reading

rules

Speaker

one

comments

Assembly,

pursuant

of

order

by

Lake,

repetition.

and

once

right and

(Riverdale

“A

debate

voted

by

unanimous (Faro,

was

(Kluane,

regarding

Order

forward.

regarding

reading

lets

Land

to

minister

Mike

NDP),

and

to

of

said

required.

21,

for

the

to

Liberal)

be

Bill had

on

This

move

I

19(c).

for

(Hansard

he

would Standing

Certainty

2001

this

MeLamon

listened

ND?)

North,

attention

a

of

In

the

repetition

consent,

No.

gone

all,

would

has

bill.

Standing

a

a

on.

the

bill

Mr.

A

Official

bill;

pointed

Dave

statement

urge

at

the 49,

during

Arguments ruling

Liberal)

We’ve

beyond

spirit

and

to.

2853)

least

Fentie

Order

take

Act.

right An

of

suspend

the

Keenan

(Whitehorse

We

Order

apply

have

the

out,

Opposition

Act

during

the

was

of

Committee

general

already

minister

to

argued

by

19(c)

challenging

haven’t

raised

expediting

Speaker,

“The

point

already to

introduce

was

only

not

advanced

its the

(Ross

Amend

the

during

Standing heard

debate

the

required.

invoked

to

Speaker

Speaker.

of

voted.”

“to

Centre,

current

House

River-

allow

heard

Chair

point

order

Hon.

the

his

the

his

the

the

the

at in [ U U U [ [ U

U to in to the the and that lines First again Party, in House and denied. then Second carried. consent 8, all 2836) to required. (Hansard was Parks factor directly Education 7, yesterday’s Renewable Opposition and was Third was as No. of of deem 46, 47. carried Development) and bill. One No. the agreed to read Bill accompanying Opposition (Hansard the No. and No. which proceed unanimous Official of Bill 89-9) carried 2001 on and consent portion of 29 the Bill Minister Bill and or that on read Act, carried.” 26, consent - (Economic read of Official on granted. good Leader that 7 debate considered and “a debate amendments debate was be cleared been No. Liberal), (Hansard NDP), debate Unanimous committee “read Party), that, Profession Whole 24 November five unanimous consideration had indicated Vote the bill general amendments on Whole the ‘Whole, consent 23, Lake. 168.” consideration North, in Whole were they consent. of Yukon argued the required) NDP) the the 18, if Medical line entire the No. Chair; -line requested lines of of as there request and by-pass 28 informed 16, of the by line-by-line the (Watson 2401) the Lake, — all to Eftoda that (Riverdale Unanimous to 15, line unanimous same Paper. line-by bill carried; carried;(as Motion that (Klondike, Committee cases. Mr. from deem fact Fentie Members Amend to 14, Hansard or the to all carried and Committee carried (Watson consent Committee to and McLamon (Hansard Efioda bill. the read Order and carried; Committee entire in during 13, proceed in granted or required. into during and consent Jenkins read the the made Act Dennis as and various to was the cleared proceed been Dale Mike 12, Fentie bills; of 2001 during YPAS bill read prepared An during 2001 granted. granted 9, a from cleared and Peter read vote and entered 27, have 3. unanimous deem on bill Eftoda Hon. 02-03, a 49. of carried 8, Chair, committee were was a to consent was 2001 Dennis 2001 2001-02, to in 20 vote or unanimous 7, of consideration a Mr. 2001: No. debate Act, proposition motion The 22, 22, clauses 3, Act, in a Act, Act, Party clauses lines focused 30. the consideration Bill motion 2, consent requested consent November December cleared all all amendments a 2836) over clause required clauses amendments lines 1, Committee general Third requested was unanimous that fashion. On On be by all Certainty all the Relations The Deem the Stand Deem October Deem Deem November Withdraw November votes deemed • • • • • • On By-pass (Hansard Land Resources, line-by-line debate denied On 2849) Deem moved clause and complicated Unanimous Staff bill. would On have normal Deem Leader, be in Unanimous Appropriation Appropriation

other

the

conventional the

‘ consent

Peter

the

McLamon.

requested

On

Certainty Unanimous

having

Stand motion,

to

(Faro,

On

Deem No.

Unanimous

Unanimous

Chair

deemed

we

amendments

Fentie

On

Deem

Yukon

be

bill.

clause

November

November

bill.

November

are

48

business.

Jenkins

called

over

a

Liberal), Mike

On

amendments

Legislative

unanimous

amendments

We

been record

For

If (Watson

be

prepared

motion

that

I

Standing

read

that

Act,

a

over. would

November

clauses deemed

Chair

majority

consent

consent

us

consent

McLamon

need

without

approach

the

read

and

and

clause

(Klondike,

of

Mr.

19,

26,

Eric to

27,

Unanimous

Government

to

Assembly,

request

Lake,

the

of

committee

to

listening

do

2001,

have

over

from carried,

unanimous

and

consent?”

Jenkins’

2001

2001

read

was

read

was

Committee

Fairclough

was

move

of

proceedings,

notice. deemed

13

this,

28,

would

bills

advised

the

NDP)

been

a

be

granted

the pursuant

and

granted.

during

the

granted.

and

during

2001

clause

Yukon

Chair’s

the

that

committee

so

to

stood

consent

request

Mr.

Chair

House

unanimous

read

agreed

“stand

carried

be

(Hansard

read

the

that

Official

amendments

consent

during

Members

the

of

line

(Mayo-Tatchun,

for

for

line-by-line

Handbook,

requires

McLacfflan

over

to

from Subsequently

minister’s

Party),

but

the

we

and

and

remaining

for

a

Leader,

was

both

an by

to.

down”

Member

voted

Whole,

this

and

debate

can

unanimous

the

Opposition

agreement

2895)

line

The carried

for

denied.(Hansard

from

consent

requests.

Leader

the

certainly

Committee

that

Chair

expedite

requested

it

consideration

must

response

in

29

the

Committee

consideration

also

on

asked

unanimous

to

to

amendments

the

favour

debate

Mr. and

bill

move of

Bill

NDP),

appear

of

be

among

asked

(Hansard

consent

House

members

the

can

Fentie

of

also

if

the

the

included

No.

and

as

of

unanimous

the

proceed

there

that

House

happen

this

Chair

the

business

“in

Leader

Third

in

Whole, included

the

2869)

39,

of

consent

move

Leader

was

moved

of

the

Hansard

in

was

motion

2720)

Bill

recognition

relates

House

An

of

Bill

in

asked

with for

clauses

denied.(Hansard

committee

March

Party,

under

unanimous

of

on

Act

No.

Hansard,

consent

the

of

that

said,

of

the

in

No.

the

it

clause

to

Leaders,

to

to the

for

48,

the

1996,

as

flansard.

could

the

House

motion

asked

the

clauses

73,

Amend

46,

other

“After

Official

of

unanimous

having

House.”

Wildflfe

committee.’8

for

rules

report

French

page

14

74

so

the

Parks

then

consent

Jim

for Motion

and

business.

to

to

and

that

76-219

17.

reviewing

the

of

length

Do

2917-8)

progress

Opposition,

been

move

be

unanimous

McLachlan

Act,

have

translation,

the Committee

the

and

Jury

75

there

taken

we

to

consent.

No.169

rest

House.

Dennis

of

can

read.”

of

stand

on Mike

Land

these

Act,

have

The

Bill

is

the

on

to

the

of

as

be a L U [ [3 U I: 0

[3

U U U to to of of all in as 19 on the time order Hon. of set for Leader, Motion forbids obscene addition rules, Member Speaker, speaking Order However, agreement motions introduced required a invoked In threatening include Members is and limitation the on 19(k) standing for Consequently, same House respect or from Speaker, to to was different required.2° of of one and agreement withdraw against is a The The the Whole. Standing notice Liberal) Order insults to are order an to Orders consent by the No and Paper, accorded Members opinion notice Paper. Assembly. of proceedings.”9 tradition debate. Government provocative Sitting. upon consent attacks. the the accusation agreed accordingly. Laberge, Standing right standing language Order the Standing Order which in Fall motions. forbids or regulated for consent, during unanimous the for the the Paper “based (Lake its Committee on 19(j) their 2001 leaders Neither offensive, Personal Family.” order charge in which, important of Liberal), long-standing parliamentary unanimous from the of a calendar to Order motion generally gives in Order party amended on motions unanimous is most more the Royal apply direct use standing (Faro, Buckway unparliamentary debate 30 during or must A 71. 525. 29 the motions forbidden. have the are Assembly.” of in the three speech member requested based 2722) it a one of amend 2266). Pam far, Standing page page of the granted use substantive twice are the language order. to put a parliamentary of call would Paper any Thus, concerned, strictly “By the matter in a of McLachlan motions Assembly Hon. is withdraw or made below is Clerk (‘Hansard may Practice, Practice, House not withdrawing withdraw freedom the Jim McLacfflan Order way “any was the Assembly and and advise, the 2001 against adopted, are of certain Assembly Montpetit by the negotiation with may establish precedents Mr. if House of Paper. Members. 1, 2001 Majesty consent the language Speaker and discussed and Rules the from all made request 23, words leaders...”(Hansard names deals However, Her Language 2001 directed the some Procedure Procedure would Order exercise which, in be of or Montpetit cases 34 introducing of Members orders This 19. Legislative the the Sitting. Marleau that 155, when House motion whose and only limited. After November proceedings October practices unanimous is a both request. from how As in Order is Commons Commons the Fall from No. Schneider, On the On In The language integrity language may of of Yukon this standing unparliamentary 155 right outlines right. House November Marleau withdrawn. 2001 as the the House House Withdraw Standing describes make be members Motion requested between allocation. amendments on Dennis Unparliamentary As No. the this this ‘ In that far to “disrespectfully Members offends the 20 The application of standing orders against unparliamentary language is highly contextual and the Speaker reserves the right to exercise discretion in applying the rules of debate. One issue that emerged regarding language during this Sitting was the standards Members would wish to see enforced by the Chair. On November 14, 2001 Speaker Schneider asked Members to reflect upon this. In response to a point of order raised by Mr. Keenan the Speaker found no point of order though he agreed that the term at issue

could be offensive to other people and it could lead to disorder. But...how petty are we going to get in here? The Chair would have to interrupt nearly continually where some person could find certain terms used to be offensive. The Chair is not going to nile on this, whether or not it is unparliamentary, but what the Chair is going to ask is all members - all members - if we are going to be so sensitive, please be tempered in their comments because it goes back and forth. The Chair can’trule on one and not on another, and if the Chair were to step in, we would get no work done in here. (Hansard 2655)

The Speaker made a similar point during Question Period on November 29, 2001. At that time Mr. McLamon raised a point of order when Mr. Keenan said of Don Roberts (Porter Creek North, Liberal), the Minister of Health and Social Services, “...this minister continues to pretend that he is caring and that he is competent...that is not the opinion or view of anyone who has to work with Mm.” The Speaker responded

There’s no doubt that some of the remarks tend to create disorder and maybe are disrespectful to members opposite, but this has been continuing on in this House since we started this sitting, by members on both sides...Yesterday, we heard things in this House like, “The member doesn’t care; the members are lazy; the member is irresponsible.” If the Speaker were to get into the middle of these things every’time there is a word passed in here that some member may find offensive, there would be no debate.... Far be it for the Speaker to interrupt every time somebody doesn’t like a word that is being said. The Speaker is not going to rule on this, because it’s up to the members to decide where they’re going to go in this House and what they’re going to do...So, what I’m going to ask right now is that all members kindly be cautious in their choice of words..q’Hansard 2940)

The events detailed below indicate Members still have yet to exercise due caution at all times.

Imputing False or Unavowed Motives Standing Order 19(g) says “A Member will be called to order by the Speaker if that member...imputes false or unavowed motives to another member...” On October 18, 2001, during the Budget Speech, Peter Jenkins (luondike, Yukon Party). the Leader of the Third Party. rose on a point of order, invoking Standing Order 19(g).

31 -j

U U [

U p

U a of so as of an of of he the the . not the and that as Mr. Act, Plan there their point in Chair NOP). and on should a out Leader, Speaker express how that have Speaker innocent does imputing friend Premier’s Buckway concurred The unavowed offer motion content did of a Also, question Committee party or not the they proceedings ask Lake, arguing is a to the raised or he House the Ms. and Assembly that the The on motion. of that Community that privilege, intervention floor. Community 2609). Member situations Members Speaker “free in the Appropriation a of false members. of tone the political which Members the Hon. (Watson be the of Members of ensure 2607) of deliberate Premier allegation Rising the Creek later ansard respectfully figment McLacfflan only to unlikely Fentie’s and describing have will speech. of Members that I his a Government Second ruling order The and Fentie is between the inventing question views imputed advised Minister a of the Deep Mr. by point. 7, Mr. of it the they said, or wording and is practices wants “are terms for the the had debate then this he with No. in 2001 heated made. the Dennis point dispute time repeated opinion.”( guidance and at separate Party a cautioning the be words freedom motives 31, area.”(Hansard per a Bill pipeline, record, the his Liberal), reason Chair his minister to known next return been of to privilege” as the Jenkins Liberal), on on not statements that the the Jenkins false of rather, the of the The remained that misinterpreted and Liberal members. need in well (Faro. “Members”, Mr. clearly have October intervened procedures said intervened but, Mr. ruling is the from order, we debate to on “is Highway privilege decorum facts” grab In record.’ 2629). debate Laberge, the also of allocation” because .32 opinion. imputed that that Premier’s future. after 155 McLachlan. saying between order Hansard “question again the or case “the 2001. Schneider, where Jenkins struck land (is) of Whole the the point had of McLachlan Mr. their (Lake a No. restore “time 13, us Jenkins Alaska acknowledged be in order Leader, Mr. from stating Chair privilege. by the the dispute facie review desk that Jim misinterpretation) point Orders of gets Fentie’s a than of Dennis something Mr. intervention of parliamentary on the 2225) Fentie clearly no The intervened must Chair version 2001 Motion getting “(b)y House is ‘struck Mr. fact 8, the Buckway would prima 2224) offered however, point on said argued Hon. situations the rather was Mr. November alleged not be simply to a as that their a of he debate Chair’s 2609) minister’s question Standing what demeanor.”(Hansard to simply “is (or Pam not, Premier’s, day, (Hansard was there supports the as the Committee the Services. debate the offer ruling Fentie the fact similar McLamon, found raised and the argued to did Opposition breach Speaker, at to “stating on this November so.” facts, “closure” Hon. words in as Buckway reference a well ruled of that Ms. sitting suggesting Members that with in as on interpretation to do for was that rule as The have In During During Despite Mike This In Ms. and the stalled Jenkins deal Official not express order nothing Mr. Yukon argued falsehood&’Ylansard the imagination privilege Premier contribution with did would misinterpretation constitute opportunity is Schneider provide of bringing 2001-02 “has hers, Chair, Transportation Hon. motives informed nothing.”(Hansard not following debate, subsequently Jenkins opinions will version of events. This version may clash with others.” That is the essence of a dispute as to facts. “Members cannot” the Chair cautioned, “question the motives of another member in doing what they have done. That is not allowed under our Standing Orders...” Further any expression of opinion or fact will not be accepted if it montains an accusation...” (Hansard 2630) As mentioned in the preamble to this section on unparliamentary language, Members are not at liberty to interject accusations of impropriety into debate. Any such charge must be made by way of a substantive motion. In other words the conduct of a Member may only be discussed when that conduct is the subject of the motion before the Assembly. Determining the imputation of “false or unavowed motives” can be difficult. Generally the question of motive addresses not what a person has said or done, or is alleged to have said or done. The question of motive addresses the reason a person has, or has not, undertaken a certain action. For the Premier to suggest, as above, that neither the New Democratic Party nor the Yukon Party support the building of an Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline is to attribute (arguably) a false or unavowed position, not a false or unavowed motive. The Assembly, therefore, is left with a dispute among Members as to facts, not a violation of the Standing Orders. Other incidents that drew the intervention of the Chair in this regard include:

• During Question Period on November 6, 2001 Mr. Fentie said “The Minister of Education may simply have been a pa in a cover-up engineered from the Premier’s office.” The Speaker ruled “cover-up” unparliamentary.

• Moments later the Minister of Education, Hon. Dale Eftoda said, “(Members opposite) started this smear campaian in the first place.” When these words were first uttered Mr. Fentie raised a point of order asking the Speaker to rule that phrase out of order. The Speaker did not so rule at the time. (Hansard 2520-2521) Upon thrther review however the Speaker ruled that “smear campaign” was also unparliamentary. (See Question of Privilege, above.)

• On November 13, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on the appropriation for Community and Transportation Services in Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act, 2001- 02, the Minister, Hon. Ms. Buckway, accused Mr. Jenkins of “...once again insulting the very capable group of officials who work for this government.” The Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLamon, called for order and asked all Members “to be very careflil and judicious in (their) statements.”

• Later that same day Mr. Jenkins questioned Hon. Ms. Buckway about the government’s response to a report by the Auditor General of Canada regarding the Yukon Government’s land inventory. In doing so Mr. Jenicinssaid, “What I see coming down the pipe is this document being tabled in probably the last five minutes of debate on the capital budget in Communit and Transportation Services.” Hon. Ms. Buck-wayraised a point of order arguing Mr. Jenkins had imputed “a false motive to me in suggesting that I

33 U U J] U U

R

is

in at

if

of

An

“i no

Mr.

the his

said

say,

is

First Mike Hon.

used

stated about

an

2001,

39,

In

Dennis

“to

8,

practice

member

did

7,

either,

Buckway

people

has

Edelman)

word.

Chair, Buckway’s

No.

Chair

protection;

virtually

the

No.

that

“truth”

refracted

statements

order.

Member Ms.

asked

head Finance,

the

application

“I”,

no

Sue

if Period

Bill

some

of

Fairciough,

principles Ms.

of

McLamon for

an

Bill

No

member

of

to been

and

word

The

Hon.

a

Fentie

November

union

on Eric

saying

(Hon.

other

has

with

talk

Committee

Committee falsity Hon.

Mike

root

Speaker Member

Generally as

called

On

Mr. the

Question

a

Minister

or

protect

Justice, the

the

motives” The

starts there

debate

better

statements.

Chair

the

order

certain of Members.

that:

what

by

minister

truth

offers

consideration

to

of

but

During from

at

Speaker

her

Opposition,

are

word

doesn’t

document.”

the

questioned

other

they’d

or out

Whole

order “The

falsehood.”

a

the

the

look

as of

Minister unavowed

to

2001.

person Whole

motive

his

the

ways

had YukonersT’ upon is

Committee

2915).

such said. Official illuminated unparliamentary. 5, different

the

of

unparliamentary..

point language

the

maybe

of

successful,

of

is

is

new

called

believe

the

of

“..Jet’s

this

I

another table

that

in

deliberate

truth debate reflect

34

of

be

Sitting

.asked

“imputing

to

statements

Jenkins

a

unavowed by

budget.”

At

highly

McRobb

Chair)

decided

the

that

privacy

ruled

will

November an

Fall

saying, the

was

words

the

during

“truthing”

Mr.

Committee the

Leader

on

the of use.”

Gary

Jenkins

Committee by

guilt,

being

uttered

minutes

Education.

of

affirm

uttering

2001 unparliamentary

the

to

of using

as word

phrases

that word for

falsehood of

Speaker

to

Mr.

member

justii’

light 152,

Jenkins

five

or during

attributed the

view

out

during

words

questioning.”(Hansard

to

and

“A

with likes

about “the

free

and The

Act,

3-4).

question

find

Mr. last

2951).

No.

of

the

guilt

respect

2001

2002-03,

truthftlness

try

she

program

263 2001 Minister

the

during

says,

phrases said,

Jwy to that

deliberate

not

(in

line

words

“r”.”.

main

to

points

a

29,

the

always brought

minister,

the

28,

Act,

of the

that

2494)

member

Motion

an

until new

is

language. his

that

did

19(h) 19(h)

ruled

just

figures unparliamentary

up

intent

on

use

“has...no

were

general called

an

uparliamentary McRobb with

reference

uttering

the

from

delay

Finance

Amend

the question

Order Order

she

he

another

of

of

the

to November pump

Mr. (Hansard

Yukon,

November

Duncan.(Hansard

Member

prefaced Two

to

ends

Inventing

debate

points

to

A

would McLathon motives.(Hansard

On

why McLamon. refrain On

Act what

“...the the that Pat

Appropriation

Spelling Quoting

Member’s

and

and

•

•

Charges Standing

charges

liberty Standing regarding this:

• • unparliamentary

and a” These Fentie,

remark. likes

the defence during truthing in this context.” The Speaker disagreed and found the phrase implied a lack of truth in the Minister’s statement and was therefore “completely out of order.” Mr. McRobb agreed to be more judicious in his choice of words. “Hansard 2571). Questioning a Member’s credibility’can also be out of order. During Question Period on November 13, 2001 Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) put questions to the Minister of Renewable Resources. Hon. Dale Efloda about the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy. In response to the Minister’s response to his first supplementary question Mr. McRobb said. “Why should we believe this minister now...” Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre, Liberal) raised a point of order arguing the phrase was unparliamentary. The Speaker agreed, saying, “the language used by the Member for Kluane seemed to question the factual accuracy or the truth of the minister, and I will rule that that language is unparliamentary.” (Hansard 2617) Note that Standing Order 19(h) speaks of accusing a Member of “uttering a deliberate falsehood.” (emphasis added) Oflen it is not clear whether the Member making the accusation is suggesting the alleged falsehood is being made deliberately or not. Regardless. Presiding Officers have taken the view that any imputation of falsehood can be ruled out of order. However at times it is clear that an imputation of deliberate falsehood is being made. During Question Period on November 21. 2001 the Acting Premier, Hon. Pam Buckway said, in reference to opposition Members, “They should be ashamed of themselves for spreading information that they know is wrong.”(Hansard 2784) The statement did not raise a point of order or the intervention of the Chair at the time. In his ruling of November 22, 2001 Speaker Schneider reflected on this comment saying, “To say that a member is spreading information they know to be wrong is to accuse a member of uttering a deliberate falsehood and is, therefore, using unparliamentary’language.”(Hansard 2820) On occasion the Presiding Officer has to ensure that a retraction of an unparliamentary word or phrase is, itself, in order. On November 26, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 46, Parks and Land Certainty Act, Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) responded to what he believed was an view expressed by the Minister of Renewable Resources. Hon. Dale Efloda (Riverdale North. Liberal) that the Official Opposition has been disrespectful of civil servants. Mr. McRobb said, “For the minister to allege that has occurred is simply false.” Committee Chair Mike McLamon asked Mr. McRobb to rephrase his statement. Mr. McRobb’s first attempt at rephrasing - “It is simply not true” — did not pass muster with the Chair. Mr. McLamon then asked Mr. McRobb to again rephrase or withdraw completely his remark. Mr. McRobb chose to “withdraw it completely.” (Hansard 2853) Occasionally a Presiding Officer will have to deal with a statement that infringes more than one rule simultaneously. On November 28, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 39, An Act to Amend the Juty Act, the Minister of Justice, Hon. Pam Buckway. described assertions made by Mr. Jenkins as “wrong” and “misleading.” Hon. Ms. Buckway added, “The member is choosing not to understand the intent of this amendment, Mr. Chair.” In ruling on the matter Committee Chair Mike McLamon pointed out that the accusation “misleading” violated Standing Order 19(h), while “choosing not to understand” also imputed a false or unavowed motive in contravention of Standing Order 19(g)” ‘Hansard 2921)

35 [ 0 U

U U

a of

to

to

for

the

the and also the

that

both

rose

from

we’ll

Lake

other

of Fentie

North. but

by

of

Lakes,

here...” (Porter

Second refer so

Speaker “in

of

told “...given public?”

remarks

for

(Hansard

course

withdrew in

However,

7,

opposition

concluded

painting

Mr.

not

the

his

Leader,

that The

Liberal),

parliamentary here, been

language

apologized

be Leader

the

do witnesses asked

No.

Duncan

number

with

include: to

has

Member

comments

a we

(Riverdale the

saying

recognized

untruths obligations

misled

Speaker

House

Pat belief

apply

2257)

from

Bill

during

of Fairclough

NOP) the

or

withdraw

by Keenan

and

the that

has

Legislature.” River-Southern During

on his

The

regard seems public

still

comments...”. agreed

Hon.

being Mr.

of

NDP),

heard

Efioda

Mr.

this

types

MLAs

the truths

this

Lakes,

(Ross

and

House

of

true.”

rumour

to

in unparliamentary Minister

Opposition

debate Board.

House upon

following

not

offered

question

Dale

members

Whole (Mclntyre-Takhini,

what

opposite

those on

this

not

Premier,

a the

the Schneider

are

refer

but

“misled”. awareness

in

Chair

the

Keenan

their

bounds

to

Jim

the

of

Hon.

to

Whole

that

Safety as think NDP),

Official

things...”(Hansard

from work of

Speaker of

intervened

the I

who

That’s

by

regarding the

basic

far (Mayo-Tatchun,

member

the

the

of

words Dave

non-parliamentary

and

one

Speaker River-Southern

2001 Rules

practice

as

They

“Mr.

away

Wayne of hire.

of Chair

request

rules made

“the

36

within

that (Kluane,

different with

because 2001

29,

responded or

2366)

NDP),

“The he

stay

said, The (Ross

Committee

facts. promote

local

Hon.

individuals Health

was

31,

feel

act,

said,

to

standard to choice

Fairclough

of

there

the

language,

unparliamentary

that intervention

order,

true a

Lake,

is

ruled,

true.”

statement

Assembly.”

after with

Committee his

is

October

of

McRobb

board a Eric

the line

Keenan tough

the

‘truth’)

2001

“It’s

completely not

a

Education,

October

“it

noted

for

Schneider, this

on to out

the

board

minister

the Services,

that

order

28,

be

on

drew of Gary

intentions

that

(Watson 1-02, in

Dave be dealing

during

two

word

“was

on

the

of

2405)

stick

does

Compensation no answer.”(Hansard

said McLamon “the

200

that

saying,

are

phrase

parliamentary of

the

Dennis

are

Period

2929-30)

won’t

do 2001

2001

the

Period

Fentie

right

of

is

should

point the-

use have

apologized

Ac%

McRobb Minister Mike

order

22, November

a

Hon.

non-truth Liberal), it

witnesses asked,

30,

are

duties use

Government

with

we

we

(Hansard

rule

of

“never

incidents

truth

On Mr. or

the

Workers’

employers, the

Members

the

Dennis of

certainly on

(Hansard chair the

Question

Opposition,

(the

“we

Question

that

that

raised

South,

than

the

of

and

McRobb point

October

Finally,

Speaker Other

truth

October

remark.

when a

sure

Yukon

one

Speaker.

On remark. what informed

Laberge

Mr. context 2257)

During Liberal),

on

Members, factors.”

the saying, rather the continue

On

Official Creek

the

During

Minister Appropriation picture NDP) -

apply

proceedings.

questioning

the Committee

that workers

make the

•

•

•

• that there was a point of order, saying, “The Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes is correct; we have ruled many times in this House that referring to the truth or “misleading” or similar phrases is not acceptable.”(Hansard 2429)

• On November 1, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act 2001-02. Mr. McRobb said Hon. Pam Buckway (Lake Laberge, Liberal), the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, was attacking him. He then added, “In the context of truth, that is the flwthest to mention from it.”(Hansard 2472) Committee Chair, Mike McLamon intervened ruling the phrase unparliamentary.

• On November 5, 2001 during Committee of the Whole debate on the appropriation for the Depaffinent of Community and Transporation Services in Bill No. 7, Second Appropriation Act, 2001-02, Peter Jenkins, said “...I might point out to the minister (Hon. Pam Buckway) that her comparison to Highway I0...is completely false.”. The Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole, Cynthia Tucker, ruled the reference to falsity unparliamentary. (Hansard 2500)

• On November 21, 2001 during debate on Motion No. 166, Gary McRobb (Kluane. NDP) accused the Minister of Renewable Resources, Hon. Dale Eftoda (Riverdale North, Liberal) of having “...spent his time firing off media releases, spreading falsehoods and secu1ation about NDP caucus discussions.” The Speaker asked Mr. McRobb to withdraw his remarks and he did. (Mansard 2790)

• During Question Period on November 22, 2001, in response to the first supplementary question of Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP), the Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. Hon. Wayne Jim, said, “...the members opposite seem to be very deceptive and always like to steer the public’s perception (in)...wrong directions.” Hon. Mr. Jim began his response to Mr. Keenan’s second supplementary question by saying “the members like to speak in terms of deception.” At that point Speaker Schneider reminded Mr. Jim that terms like ‘deceive’ and ‘deception’ have been found at times to be unparliamentary and asked him to use different words. Mr. Jim apologized. (Mansard 2818)

Abusive or Insulting LanguaQe Standing Order 19 (i) says, “A member will be called to order by the Speaker if that member uses abusive or insulting language, including sexist or violent language, in a context likely to create disorder.” There were no incidents of sexist language during the 2001 Fall Sitting. The only example of violent language occurred during Question Period on October 24, 2001 when Dave Keenan accused the Minister of Health and Social Services. Hon. Don Roberts (Porter Creek North, Liberal) of “bullying” opposition Members. The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider. ruled “bullying” unparliamentary and it was withdrawn. (Hansard 2301)

37 [

U U U 0 U 1]

to

to In

by in

in

as

of

the

out

felt

any

the

Mr.

the for the Mr.

Mr.

The

The

NDP)

Fentie

Sitting stated Party)

herself

subject.

around

Second

141 manner.

made debate.”

Liberal).

point

Fentie 2001-02,

attempt

asked schools

interceded

Mr.

“laying

questions...

against

be

honourable

constituted against Premier.

Fall

Lake,

Speaker Minister

judicious

No.

House.”.

House.”

that

Yukon Mr.

“an

limit our

Act,

and

commitment

(Faro, withdrawn Speaker

another and

said

the

and the During

the

and trousers

only

the

anointed

Nonetheless

to

At of

the

appropriation

2001 to

Legislature.”

more

merely on he

in on

Liberal)

his

The

unflattering in

your

2654) paid

(Watson Motion

order

statement

the

be

the

2001.

could but a

this

some

(and) accusation

an

already

of

after

on

of

it

order and is

with

desire

(Klondike,

referred

debate in

constituted

in

portrayed

14, in

public.”

2001.

aspersions

an

Centre,

McLachlan

Fentie

Assembly”

had

Nonetheless

demeaning.

in disorder

Appropriation

head,

order during

point

oath

since “no

(Hansard

used

create

debate aspersions”

Jim

clown

Members

casts

derogatory to

be during Fentie the)

trained “caught be.” accusation

Jenkins

the

to

(Hansard23lo)

Yukon

her

Member had

Dennis your

making

is

order

presented

to order as create

that

an McLamon earlier

(of

and

terms “cast

Mr. Second

November

consideration the

circus

it

of

he

called

During

to

Peter

Leader,

141 McLamon

7, (Whitehorse

likely

would

but

upon raised

was

fact,

the

on

Mr.

had

2323)

comments.

Act,

out

being House.”

comment

another

in

as

was with

strike”

completely that and

he

No.

Mr. No.

making

Liberal)

that

141

be Whole

2001.

of the

standing a

integrity Party,

the

House

if

Fentie perceive

attempt

checked,

crown

38

and,

contradicted

not

Fentie Bill of

for

faith

on

I the

24,

order,

No.

occurred

this

McLamon

way,

portray

“was

in

(Mansard “an

Mr. of Third Relations North,

Motion would

the

withdrawn,

of

was incidental

professionalism insulting

Mr.

2306)

of to have teachers’

however

time Fentie

cautioned

on

McLacfflan

any be a

attack the

he deserving an

Mike

broken

the

Staff nature

demeans

October Motion

“it’s that

ruled.

last point members phrase

opposition

of

as

in

words

Government

Mr.

Mr.

“You placed

a

“an

not

that apologized into

clown.”

Services

2317)

on on

one

the

had

debate

not

have

phrase

(Riverdale

designed accusation

“the

same

(Mansard

Committee

The

“from

other

Speaker

It’s

was

violations

how, had

no

added,

“insulting”

an

asked

Leader

arguing

official

the debate

Fentie

the circus statement.

you

Education

debate

the Speaker

see

that

during

part

arguing of there

insults

Efioda the headlong

occurred

2308). (Mansard Speaker during The Members: motion,

saying, and

Lake.

the

the

Mr.

that

detract Such

constituted remark.

and 47,

the

order

same

the

McLachlan’s

in

phrase

Speaker

Government

Premier day

be

the

embarrass

in

day

the

ask of

Dale most

order

the No. found

matter of

we

order

cannot

society

to or

the

Mr.

retract

The

that

of words

I

in

“the personal

Watson

time

as that

he of not Hyena.”

incidents public,

the

later

incidents

to

assured (Mansard

language. Bill

the

our

Member. stumbling

Hon.

point

of

language.” substantive intervened

comments

the

for

of

ruled did ruled a

in of wants

Government

Later

a

point

said

For

on

Later

Still

withdrew

Two

point Later

such

disorder

a by

of

of

on

use Fentie’s Fentie

society.

Yukon

Hyland

such

ankles, Department

the

Speaker

said

individual the

way Mr. information

Mr. truthfulness.” Fentie

consisted Three Fentie Premier...”

ruling

rose

Nonetheless create on “clearly McLachlan Speaker position Speaker

this

Speaker “the their raised Member

Reading words Education, his that “insulting

the Mr. Keenan said of the Minister, Hon. Wayne Jim, “Now I can see the minister just a shuckin’ and a-grinnin’ over there and thinking this is just fin and, “God, I can hardly wait to get out there and maybe do another pub crawl.” The Committee Chair, Mr. McLamon, urged Members to not use “language to cause uproar in the House.” (Hansard 2673)

Urgent and Pressing Necessity, Motion of Under Standing Order 28 a Member may request unanimous consent to move, without notice, a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. On November 27, 2001 following the call for Ministerial Statements and before Oral Question Period Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, NDP), Official Opposition House Leader, rose on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In doing so he sought the unanimous consent of the Assembly to debate a motion calling for the adjournment of the legislative sitting until such time as the Premier and Minister of Finance, Hon. Pat Duncan (Porter Creek South) was present to explain and defend the government’s 2002-03 capital budget, rather than having the estimates defended by an Acting Finance Minister. Mr. Fentie then proceeded to explain the necessity’ of his motion. At that point Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal), the Government House Leader, raised a point of order saying, “there has been no call for debate on the motion.”(Hansard 2874) Mr. Fentie responded that he was simply explaining the necessity of moving the motion, as required by Standing Order 280). The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, ruled in Mr. Fentie’s favour citing Standing Order 280) that says

A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the Assembly without notice having been given.

Once Mr. Fentie had completed his explanation Speaker Schneider asked if there was unanimous consent to proceed with the motion. Unanimous consent was denied.

Witnesses, appearing in Committee of the Whole Occasionally Committee of the Whole will call upon witnesses to contribute information regarding a matter before the committee. Standing Order 480) says, “No witness shall attend before any Committee unless a written statement has first been filed with the Chair of the Committee by a member thereof, stating that the evidence to be obtained from the witness is material and important.” A motion authorizing the appearance of witnesses must be made in committee. During notice of government private members’ business on November 27, 2001 Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal), the Government House Leader, informed the Assembly that “during the business of Committee of the Whole, it is my intention to introduce a motion for the Committee to hear witnesses from the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board to appear here on Wednesday, November 28.”(Hansard 2879) Mr. McLachlan moved the motion once Committee of the Whole was called to order. The motion read -

[ [. 0 U U U I: U U U U U U fl U ci to the 28, the of Safety before before Health allow opposition and Pursuant to officer appear November with witnesses to 2001 Health as debate. Compensation 28, cleared executive asked appear Wednesday, without was are chief on to Workers’ and November Compensation and Board, p.m. on agreed witnesses Yukon notice 6:00 Safety was the Workers’ president to and when of require interrupted 40 p.m. not motion Yukon used chair Health was 5:00 time. did the The Armstrong, to motion from alternate Tony a business motion moved. appointed for and relating Whole The Compensation 2879) the being Mitchell, the at form committee of Board, matters Whole. before called Workers’ Arthur (Hansard the regular be Safety of regular discuss to the TR4T and Yukon Committee Board. to Leaders is motion This Committee House witnesses the Statistical Summary

Sifting Days: 25. Sifting Time: 119 hours and 34 minutes. Tributes: 25 Visitor Introductions: 48 Documents Tabled: 60 Legislative Returns: 23 Sessional Papers: 37 Committee Reports: I

Petitions Presented: 1 Responses to Petitions: 2 (Both to petitions presented in the previous Sitting) Bills Introduced: 12 Government Bills: 12. GovernmentBills receivingAssent: 13. (Note: BIIINo. 39,AnActtoArnend the Juty Act, introduced during the 2001 Spring Sitting received Third Reading and Assent in this Sitting.) Private Members’ Bills: 0 Motions: 49 Government Motions Notice of: 5 Agreed to: 4

Withdrawn: 1 Motions other than Government Motions Notice of: 41 Agreed to: 2 Negatived: 2 Adjourned Debate: 3 Withdrawn: 29 (all introduced in previous Sittings) Ordered Removed: 5 (Member appointed to Cabinet. All introduced in previous Sittings.)

Motions respecting commiftee reports. 1 (agreed to) Motions respecting witnesses appearing in Committee of the Whole: I (agreed to) Motions of urgent and pressing necessity: I (Unanimous consent to proceed denied.) Ministerial Statements: 14 Question Period Time: Approximately 12.5 hours Percentage of Sitting Time spent in Question Period: Approximately 10.45% Main Questions Posed in Question Period: 160 By the Official Opposition: 130 By the Third Party: 30

41 42 0 References

Fraser, Alistair; W.F. Dawson and John A. Holtby, Beauchesne ‘sRules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada with Annotations, Comments and Precedents (6th edition). Toronto: Carswell. 1989.

Hansard Yukon Legislative Assembly. Second Session of the 30” Legislative Assembly, volumes 4 and 5, issues 71-95, October 18, 2001-December 3.2001. Published under the authority of the Speaker of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Marleau. Robert; and Camille Montpetit (editors), House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Ottawa: House of Commons, and Montreal-Toronto: Cheneliêre/McGraw-Hill. 2000.

Yukon Legislative Assembly, Chair’s Handbook, Comminee of the Whole.March 1996.

Yukon Legislative Assembly, Standing Orders of the YukonLegislative Assembly. Effective November 1,2000.

Yukon Legislative Assembly, Standing Orders of the YukonLegislative Assembly. Effective October 25, 2001.

43 44 Index

Acting Finance Minister, 39 Clerk. See Michael, Patrick L., Clerk of Acting Premier. See Buckway, Hon. Pam, the Legislative Assembly (Lake Laberge, Liberal) closure, 32

Addendum 1 (Standing Orders). See Conflicts Commissioner. See Hughes, Guidelines for Oral Question Period EN. (Ted), QC Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline, 32, CPAWS. See Canadian Parks and ii“1 Wildemess Society Appendix 2 to the Standing Orders (form Daily Routine, 14, 19, 23 of a petition), 20 Deep Creek Community Plan, 32 Armstrong, Tony, President and Chief Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole. Executive Officer, Yukon Workers See Tucker, Cynthia, (Mount Lorne, Compensation Health and Safety Board. Liberal) 40 Duncan. Hon. Pat, (Porter Creek South, Bills Liberal), Premier, 11, 20, 36 No. 7. Second Appropriation Act, 2001- as Minister of Finance, 34, 39 02. 17, 26, 28, 32, 33, 36. 37,39 Edelman, Hon. Sue, (Riverdale South, No. 8, First Appropriation Act, 2002- Liberal), 12 03, 29, 34 as Minister of Tourism, 35 No. 39, An Act to Amend the Jwy Act, Education Staff Relations Act. See Bill No. 17.26.30,34.35,41 47 No. 46, Parks and Land Certainty Act, Efioda, Hon. Dale. (Riverdale North, 9. 10. 11. 13,25,27,28,29,35 Liberal). 17, 27, 33 No. 47, Education Staff Relations Act, as Minister of Education, 16, 22, 33. 34. 28,38 36,38 No. 48, WildflfeAct. 29 as Minister of Renewable Resources. No. 49, An Act to Amend the Medical 10, 11. 13,25,28,35,37 Profession Act. 27, 28 Environment Act, 9 No. 54, Interjurisdictional Support Estate Administration ACt, 9 Orders Act, 9 Fthrclough, Eric. (Mayo-Tatchua NDP), Buckway. Hon. Pam, (Lake Laberge, Leader of the Official Opposition, 9, 12, Liberal), 12, 15, 17, 18,20,30 14, 15, 29, 34,36 as Acting Premier, 12, 35 Fentie. Dennis, (Watson Lake. NDP), 11, as Minister of Community and 12, 13, 16, 21. 22, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, 36, Transportation Services, 17, 26, 32, 38, 39 33,34,37 as Official Opposition House Leader, as Minister of Justice, 9, 34, 35, 36 14, 18,21,27,26,29,32,36,39 Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, First Appropriation Act, 2002-03. See Bill 16 No.8 Chair of Committee of the Whole. See Government Motions McLarnon, Mike, (Whitehorse Centre, No. 140, 12 Liberal) No. 155, 30,32

45 U

No. 169, 29 as Chair of Committee of the Whole, 9, U Guidelines for Oral Question Period 10, 11, 15, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, generally, 24 n I —e 33, 3’t, 33, 20,3 U No. 2, 14 McRobb, Gary. (luuane,NDP), 10, 13. No. 7, 24 15, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, 36,37 No. 8, 17 Medical Profession Act, An Act to Amend ci No. 10, 15 the. See Bill No. 49 Hansard, 21, 28, 29, 33,43 Michael. Patrick L., Clerk of the Hughes, E.N. (Ted). QC, 20 Legislative Assembly, 30 U Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. Ministerial Statements, 39, 41 See Bill No. 54 Mitchell, Arthur. alternate chair, Yukon 0 intermediate proceeding, 25. 26 Workers’ Compensation Health and Jenkins, Peter, (Kiondike, Yukon Party), Safety Board, 40 Leader of the Third Party, 15, 16, 17, Motions other than Government Motions H 19, 20, 26, 26, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37 No. 139,21 Jim, Hon. Wayne, (Mclntyre-Talthini, No. 141, 38 Liberal), 37 No. 149, 19 as Minister of Government Services, 15, No. 152, 35 18,37,39 No. 168, 13, 15,20,27,28,37 U as Minister responsible for the Yukon order and decorum, 11 Housing Corporation, 37 Order Paper, 7, 19, 28, 30 Juiy Act, An Act toAmend the. See Bill Parks and Land Certainty Act. See Bill U No. 39 No. 46 Keenan, Dave, (Ross River-Southern parliamentary privilege, 21,22,32 Lakes, NDP), 14, 18, 27, 31, 36, 37, 38, Peter, Lorraine, (Vuntut Gwitchin, NDP), 39 9, 19 Kent, Hon. Scott, (Riverside, Liberal), 19 Petitions as Chair of the Standing Committee on No.3,20 Rules, Elections and Privileges No. 4, 20 (SCREP), 16 Private Members’ Business, 19 U as Deputy Chair of Committee of the Government, 19, 39 Whole, 21 Opposition, 19 as Minister of Economic Development, Question of Privilege, 15, 19, 21, 22, 32, U 21 33 McLachlan, Jim, (Faro, Liberal), 38 Question Period, 14, 19, 23, 24, 41 as Government House Leader, 11, 12, Roberts, Hon. Don, (Porter Creek North, U 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, Liberal), 20 29, 30, 32, 38, 39,40 as Minister of Health and Social U McLamon, Mike, (Whitehorse Centre, Services, 14,31,38 Liberal), 11, 12,13,15,16,19,20,21, Schneider, Hon. Dennis, (Whitehorse 27,31,35,38 West, Liberal), Speaker, 11, 12, 14, 15, U 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,22,23,24,27,30,31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 U

46 U Second Appropriation Act, 2001-02. See No. 28, 39 Bill No. 7 No. 280), 39 Sierra Legal Defence Fund, 13, 15 No. 34, 30 Standing Committee on Rules, Elections No. 38(2), 12, 13 and Privileges (SCREP). 12, 18 No. 42(2), 26 Chair of. See Kent, Hon. Scott. No. 48(1), 39 (Riverside, Liberal) No. 67, 20 Standing Orders time allocation, 30, 32 amendment process, 18 Tucker, Cynthia, (Mount Lome, Liberal) application of, 31 as Deputy Chair of Committee of the changes to, 18 Whole, 21,26,37 citation of in identi’ing a point of as Government House Leader, 11 order, 22 Votes generally, 7, 14, 20, 32. 33 generally, 7 No. 5(2), 21 in Bill No. 8, First Appropriation Act, No. 6(1). 21,23 2002-03, 29 No. 11(2), 23 No. 7. in Bill No. 7, Second No. 14.2, 19 Appropriation Act, 2001-02, 29 No. 14.3,28 Wild!jfeAct. See Bill No. 48 No. 15(1), 25 Yukon Conflicts Commissioner. See No. 17(1). 11 Hughes. E.N. (Ted), QC No. 19,30 Yukon Protected Areas Strategy (YPAS). No. 19(c), 26,27 28. See also Motions other than No. 19(g), 15, 32, 36 Government Motions No. 168 and Bill No. 19(h), 34, 35, 36 No. 46. Parks and Land Certainty Act No. 19(i), 37, 38 Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and No. 190). 31 Safety Board, 40 No. 19(k),31 Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health No. 24(2). 25 and Safew Board, 36, 40

47 U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U