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

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery today of members of the Protected Areas Strategy Advisory Committee. These people and their fellow committee members, along with many other Yukoners, have worked to build consensus represented by the protected areas strategy that I will be tabling today. I ask members to join me in welcoming them to the gallery.

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I have for tabling a document entitled Wild Spaces - Protected Places: A Protected Areas Strategy for Yukon, as well as a package of technical working papers and a working paper on the support strategy and also the workplan and summary of the public comments to the draft that was released this summer.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I am tabling a bill that I believe to be a true copy of the English text of Bill No. 65, that was given first reading on November 4, 1998, with a true translation of that text into French.

Speaker:      Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House that a major landmark has been reached in our government's goal of respecting the territory's natural environment. The Yukon protected areas strategy has now been completed. It is an agreement of how we will identify parks and other protected areas, and how the Yukon public can be directly involved in that process.

In addition to the main document, Wild Spaces - Protected Places, the strategy includes seven technical papers, and a two-year workplan, which I also tabled today. Together, they provide a framework for protecting representative core areas in each of Yukon's 23 distinct ecoregions. They make up a coordinated strategy for how we will establish different types of protected areas. These include national and territorial parks, habitat protection areas, ecological reserves, national wildlife areas, heritage sites, heritage rivers and designated wilderness or recreation areas.

Mr. Speaker, this strategy is an outstanding policy achievement by the people of the Yukon, and for the people of the Yukon, including generations still to come. It is also a bold step forward, in terms of global efforts to protect the world's remaining wild spaces.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon's protected areas strategy will provide many benefits long into the future. It will help us maintain central ecological processes and biological diversity. It will help us maintain the Yukon's wilderness areas, as well as wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Besides protecting natural features, the strategy also identifies the goals, commitments and processes for protecting special social, cultural and heritage features. It will enhance recreational opportunities and yield economic benefits and activities, such as tourism and wilderness outfitting.

Equally important, it will provide greater certainty for our resource-based industry. As the Yukon mineral strategy, which we have recently announced, is developed, these two strategies will complement each other. This conservation initiative has been a key priority of our government.

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to develop this strategy over the past few years. I would also like to thank the members of the public who have expressed clear support for the draft strategy, and urged the Yukon government to proceed with implementing it as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is a living document. The Yukon people own it, the Yukon people will make it work as we begin the process of identifying and selecting areas for protection. I am honoured to present the Yukon protected areas strategy to this House, to all Yukon people, and to the future generations in this very special land.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the official opposition, I rise to respond to the minister's statement regarding the new protected areas strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the initiative to establish a protected areas strategy is not something new, by any means.

In fact, the process of developing a Yukon strategy has been in the works for most of the last decade. What first set the wheels in motion was the adoption of the Yukon conservation strategy by a New Democratic government. Adopted in 1990, the strategy made the commitment to set aside representative areas of Yukon's ecoregions and, as the minister stated, in some ways, at one time it led the country.

Not long after taking office in 1992, the previous Yukon Party government signed on to the protected spaces 2000 campaign to set up and establish a network of protected areas representing all natural regions of Canada by the year 2000. At that time, we stated that we believed that it was possible to have protected spaces and a system of parks without prejudicing economic development opportunities in the mining industry in the Yukon.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we remain of the same opinion, and while we on this side of the House support a protected areas strategy, we are of the opinion that careful consideration must be given to the potential impacts on the economic conditions of the territory so that we do not embark upon a path that would discourage investment in the territory and cost Yukoners jobs.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two years we have heard a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the protected areas strategy for the Yukon and its ability to seriously impact the state of the Yukon economy, both in the immediate and in the long term.

Concerns, such as lack of definition for interim protected areas, what percentage of the land will be deemed protected and other issues such as that were raised by many Yukoners. Mr. Speaker, not having much of an opportunity to review this strategy, it would appear from first glance that these concerns are yet to be addressed in the strategy.

In the technical paper about the interim protection and third party interests it states, "Interim protection will be applied in a fair and timely manner to ensure the values proposed for protection are not compromised during the planning and selection approval process."

Mr. Speaker, what the strategy fails to mention is how the interim protection will be applied in a fair and timely manner to ensure that resource development will not be compromised during the planning, selection and approval process.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this strategy does not provide a target of lands to be withdrawn from resource development will do nothing to attract investment to the territory. And while I'm fully aware that the strategy is simply a how-to book, I believe it is necessary to provide an estimate of how much land would be set aside so that those thinking about investing money in the Yukon will have a clear understanding as to how much land will, in fact, be available for development.

Mr. Speaker, the minister once said in this House that the public could rest assured that it wouldn't be 50 percent that was set aside. I'm not sure how that statement is going to do anything to reassure industry and investors to the Yukon.

In reviewing the strategy, I could not help notice that there is nothing mentioned about compensation. I hope maybe when the minister rises on his feet, he could address the issue of compensation for resource investors who may be displaced by this strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I have many questions that I'll have to get into with the minister at a later time. I don't time while on my feet today to go through all of them, but one of the things I'd like the minister to answer when he gets up - according to what I've read in the strategy so far, it appears that it's going to be a very costly process - could he give us some idea of what financial resources are going to budgeted for the implementation of this process when it seems to be on a fairly fast track of two ecoregions a year. When the heritage river, the Bonnet Plume, cost taxpayers some $200,000 to put in place, it seems like a substantial -

Speaker: The member has 30 seconds.

Mr. Ostashek: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about one statement that's made on page 28 of the original document. The statement says, "The most powerful tool - the ability to exclude development - is a necessary part of the protected areas strategy."

It is going to be incumbent upon us to see that that tool is not abused.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to respond to the statement on behalf of the Yukon Liberal Party caucus. This gives me a chance to again speak on the record about the Liberal Party position regarding the protected areas strategy.

Yukon Liberals are in favour of the protected areas strategy. In the last election, the Yukon Liberal platform clearly stated we would establish a comprehensive protected areas strategy.

On March 11, 1998, in this Legislature, and again today, I am stating our support. I said then, "Let there be no mistake about my position or the position of the Yukon Liberal Party caucus. We support protecting Canada's endangered spaces, including the Yukon's. We believe in developing a protected areas strategy, and we believe in doing it with consultation from Yukoners. I believe in developing a community-driven process."

And, Mr. Speaker, that's where the difficulty comes in, and I think the difficulty I have had, and that many Yukoners have had, is that, at times over the course of the past two years, this process has gotten away from what we thought was going to happen - that is, that reasonable Yukoners would be rolling up our sleeves and getting to work, deciding about the important areas we wish to protect and how to do it. It became a process about a process, shiny document after shiny document.

Nonetheless, those involved have persevered, and we've been presented with complex pages of material today by the minister. For those who have persevered through this process, I would like to thank them publicly for their efforts and for their dedication to this process.

Mr. Speaker, we believe we must protect areas, not simply because we are seeking some sort of other recognition further down the road; we must do it because it's the right thing to do.

I would urge the government to listen carefully to the people who have spoken today and who will speak in the future about the documents that have been presented.

The final strategy, which we received this morning, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is a complex document. There have been some changes since the last draft and most of the players are now on side. I will have further comments for the minister after fully reviewing the 100 pages of material. However, I would like to again state, for the record, our support for the establishment of protected areas within the Yukon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for their comments. I did expect that the Liberal Party would have supported this. I can tell the member that this is a very important piece of paper that has been developed by the local people and by the communities and industry and that, throughout its development, it has gone through a number of different changes, and that is to be expected to really fine-tune it and iron out all of the difficulties some people had with it.

Yukoners have waited a long time for this protected areas strategy to come out and, after much consultation and many meetings that the advisory committee held on short call and so on. There is a lot of commitment to this and, as a result, we have a package before us that I think everybody can be happy with over the next years.

Mr. Speaker, the strategy, I believe, is open and fair. It identifies areas for protection and these are very clearly laid out in the document. It respects First Nations final agreements and their guidelines for new protected areas. It respects the roles of federal and First Nation and municipal governments. I believe it strikes a balance between environmental and economic needs, and I think the balance has been illustrated by the support of organizations such as CPAWS right through to the Chamber of Mines.

Mr. Speaker, the strategy will have both economic and ecological resource assessments, which will guide decision making. It will give more certainty to industry, as I said before, in decisions that are made. It will also lay out the economic and environmental interests that people have; and those people are also welcome to speak of those interests in a local planning team.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Party has commented on a couple of different areas - the cost of interim protection, compensation and so on. I can tell the member that the existing legislation and policies that are used in government right now will be used with regard to compensation. And until such time as we do develop one, this is the process that we feel we will be using.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the Chamber of Mines said that they believe that the strategy can be implemented without negative economic implications. Discussion with them, and showing them more about what's in the strategy, and what government is doing overall, has drawn their attention to the fact that we are doing more than what the strategy is saying. We have said to them that we are putting together a mineral strategy, which will complement the protected area strategy - they are quite happy with that.

Now that we're going on, I think that we can continue to build upon a relationship with the mining industry, and so on.

The strategy that we have before us will be remembered, and will be referred to forever. I believe that we will end up with places that are protected from development, which will be used by our children and our great-grandchildren in the future.

There are many thanks to a number of people - the people in my department who have worked many hours on this. I would really like to thank the advisory committee, which has spent a lot of time in developing this strategy; many Yukoners who have commented on the draft strategy, in putting this together with them...

Speaker: The minister has 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: ... this would not have been developed. This is a great strategy. It's good for Yukoners. It's good for the future, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Order please. Before proceeding to Question Period, the Chair would like to make a statement respecting parliamentary language.

On November 30, 1998, during Question Period, concerns were raised when the Minister of Justice said that the members for Riverdale South and Riverdale North had made "false allegations" about the government's plans respecting a school.

The Member for Riverdale South went so far as to say, "I think we should note that the minister once again called the Member for Riverdale South a liar." A review of the Blues indicates that the Minister of Justice did not use the word "liar" at any time.

The question then is whether the term "false allegations" is unparliamentary.

The Chair would refer members to Standing Order 19(1)(j), which states: "A member will be called to order by the Speaker if that member charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood."

Also, the Chair of our Committee of the Whole, when making a ruling on December 16, 1996, stated: "The Chair would not like to hear any member allege that another member of the House is not telling the truth."

Members, however, have to recognize that there is a significant difference between saying someone has deliberately not told the truth and saying that they have simply got their facts wrong.

In that vein, Annotation 494 in Beauchesne states, in part: "It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.

To repeat, it is not unparliamentary to say that a member has provided the House with incorrect information; instead, it is unparliamentary to accuse a member of having deliberately and knowingly provided the House with incorrect information.

Members, too, must be aware that the context matters. A word may, on one occasion, be found to be unparliamentary if the Chair views it as being abusive or insulting and likely to create disorder. On another occasion, however, the Chair may not interfere where the same word is used because, at that time, it does not create a problem for members.

In conclusion, the Chair urges members to be careful that the language they use is respectful of this House and of every member who is privileged to have a seat in it.

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Government Leader on the NDP's ever-changing position on oil and gas development on the wintering range of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Contrary to what the Government Leader said yesterday, the Yukon Party is the only party that has stated a clear position, both in government and in opposition. We stated that the Vuntut Gwitchin had to be satisfied that the integrity of the Porcupine caribou herd was not going to be put in jeopardy by development. That does not mean that we wanted to stop development, but to ensure that whatever activity took place must not harm the herd.

Our position is clear; the NDP's is not.

The Government Leader and his Minister of Economic Development say one thing to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and environmental groups and something totally different to the oil industry.

My question for the Government Leader: now that he has had 24 hours to contemplate what he said in the House yesterday, is he now prepared to admit that he misspoke himself in the House yesterday and apologize to the House for his remarks?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the ruling that you just gave at the beginning of Question Period, the member has simply got his facts wrong.

The position of the Yukon NDP has been consistent for as long as I've been associated with the New Democrats in this Legislature. The member, I notice from the remarks that he made during the speech in 1996 that he has reported from, very neatly skirted around the fundamental or the core issue as to whether or not development, under any conditions, could take place in the wintering range of the Porcupine caribou herd. And the member, as he pointed out, spoke only of the need to protect the integrity of the herd, never once actually answering specifically the question, even though he had plenty of opportunity to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I went to Washington to inform not only the environmental lobby, but Ted Stevens and the staff of the resource committees for both the House and the Senate of the Government of Yukon's position with respect to the development in the Yukon and in the north Yukon, knowing, Mr. Speaker - knowing - that there would be a bogus argument made on the part of those who wanted to -

Speaker: The Government Leader's time has expired. First supplementary.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, if there's a bogus argument, it's the one that the Government Leader's trying to make. This is totally NDP doublespeak; that's what it is.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader must be suffering from amnesia. The words that he said in the House are recorded in Hansard. In a debate on a motion to protect the integrity of the herd, which was presented by the Yukon Party MLA for the Vuntut Gwich'in riding on February 21, 1996, the Government Leader stated the following, "Also, it is equally important to note that the herd, and the integrity of the herd, could be affected by developments in the wintering grounds, right through from Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Consequently, it is important to do everything we can to ensure that the habitat, both in the calving grounds and elsewhere, is protected." That's what the Government Leader said in 1996.

My question to the Government Leader is this: was he telling the truth about the NDP's position then, or is he telling the truth about the NDP's position now?

Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The answer is neither, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the general assault is simply that we believe that there should be no development in the core calving area -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: - and that there should be responsible development elsewhere, if development is proposed to take place.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the concern was that a bogus argument will be put forward by those who want to develop the 10-02 lands in saying that the Canadians only wanted to prevent oil and gas development on the American side in order to promote development on the Canadian side. That was patently false. I wanted to make the point and I did not get expressions of concern from the environmental lobby. We disagreed with the position taken by Senator Stevens, who thought that development should take place both inside the calving grounds and outside the calving grounds.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, this Government Leader continues to twist and turn and put out a different position every time he gets up and what he does by that - and this is my biggest concern - is that he is discouraging investment in the Yukon because nobody knows where this government stands. They can't believe anything that this Government Leader tells them.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what this Government Leader says, the wintering grounds are critical habitat for the Porcupine caribou. I would like to ask the Government Leader to clarify today in his statement in February, 1996, when he said, "both in the calving grounds and elsewhere is to be protected", what did he mean by the term "elsewhere"?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the NDP government has made very clear its position with respect to development activity. The member is completely wrong. When the issue of Northern Cross came forward, we protected the integrity of the permitting process and stood in favour of the conclusions - something that the member opposite did not do.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We promoted the Oil and Gas Act in concert with First Nations in order to send very clear signals to the development community as to what the limits would be for development to take place. We have been crystal clear on our position.

What I don't understand from the member is whether or not he is accusing us of being a no-development party or a pro-development party. We are a responsible development party, except in the core calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd where there should be no development.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a "mixed-message party". And no investors are going to come to the Yukon until this government clarifies their position, once and for all, and not to take a position that's convenient when they're in opposition, to try to win the Vuntut Gwitchin seat - to take one that's against development of any range of the Porcupine caribou herd - as in the motion given by the Member for Faro in this House, and the statements by the Government Leader, who was then leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, this government has three speeches - one they give to the First Nations, one they give to the environmentalists, and one they give to the investment community. None of them are the same, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody can believe what this government is saying, when it comes to development in the Yukon, or protection of the Yukon.

So I want to ask the Government Leader, is he now prepared to send out a clearly worded message to all of the interested parties as to exactly what this NDP government's position is, when it comes to development on the wintering grounds of -

Speaker: Time has expired.

Mr. Ostashek:     - the Porcupine caribou herd.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We're not sending out mixed messages - we're sending out a balanced message. We do believe that development can take place. We also believe in protected areas, we also believe in protecting the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Mr. Speaker, that's a balanced position - it's not a mixed position. It may not be the same kind of simple-minded position that sometimes has been espoused by my predecessors, but it is a balanced position.

Mr. Speaker, the position that I have taken - and my colleagues have taken - with respect to development, with respect to the Porcupine caribou herd, or with respect to any of these matters, has been consistent - in Old Crow, in Whitehorse and in Washington; before developers, before First Nations, and before the environmental community. It has not changed.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader may not think it has changed, but his own friend in CPAWS, Juri Peepre, said, "It sounds like a change in policy to me." We've seen letters to the editor by several Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations people, who say, "This government has changed their policy on oil and gas development in the wintering range of the Porcupine caribou herd."

Mr. Speaker, it was quite clear that the motion presented on February 22 by the Member for Faro didn't think that the government motion went far enough in protecting the habitat of the Porcupine caribou herd. It was debated on February 21.

And I want to ask the Government Leader, in light of all of these mixed messages that are being sent by his government, what is he going to do to clear the record once and for all, so people understand where this government is coming from?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can do to clear the cobwebs from the member's mind - nothing at all I can do to accomplish that task.

Yes, indeed, with the greatest respect to my friend, Juri Peepre, the Government of Yukon, the NDP government, has not changed its position. We have made sure that we have done, in the last few months particularly, is to ensure that our position, which has not changed, is communicated well to all fronts, including Washington, where the attempts were made successfully to communicate the position, both to the Washington-based environmental community and to the development community in Washington that's promoting the opening of the calving grounds. People expressed no concern with the position we were taking because they said it sounded sensible. They were not trying to be "no development". They were trying to protect the core calving area of the Porcupine caribou herd, which is what we have been promoting all along.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, his message was so clear that the opposition continues to get phone calls from the United States and Alaska, wondering what the position of this government is. It wasn't very clear at all. Norma Kassi, a former colleague of the Government Leader's, didn't think it was very clear at all.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader said that he supported Northern Cross. The fact is, when I asked him the question in the House, he said, "Well, yeah, after they get all the permitting, we'll support them." He did nothing to intervene in the court case that was filed by the Vuntut Gwitchin against Northern Cross, because he didn't want a position taken by his government. However, in a recent letter to the editor, on November 27, Mr. Speaker, a member from your own community stated that the Member for Faro, during the election campaign, told him that they would support them. That's what he told them. That's what the letter said. Now, he feels angry and betrayed. I ask this Government Leader once again - once and for all - to clear the record so investors know what's happening in the Yukon, and they can create some jobs in the Yukon.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, investors do know what the Government of Yukon's position is - the member doesn't. The environmental community does know - the member opposite doesn't. The First Nations do know - the member opposite doesn't, or claims that he does not.

With respect to the bogus claim about Northern Cross, the member is saying that we did not express any position on Northern Cross. That's false, and we have the letters to prove it. If the member is saying that we wanted Northern Cross to be permitted, or to go through the environmental permitting, then the member is quite right. We wanted Northern Cross and all development to go through the appropriate permitting process. We respect the permitting process, and that's the point we were making.

But at no time, Mr. Speaker, did we say that no permitting should take place. We believe in responsible development and, when it comes to the core calving area of the Porcupine caribou herd, we believe in no development - the core calving area, no development; responsible development elsewhere. It's simple.

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services on the group home review. Last year, there were a number of questions asked about the operations of one of our group homes, and the minister's department then ordered an independent review of the quality of care in the five children's residential facilities. The independent review was carried out by two consultants, and their final report was made public in August.

Now, the Liberal researcher applied under the Access to Information Act, asking for the two earlier drafts of the report, and he eventually received the second draft but he was refused access to the first draft, despite the fact that the government says it's not much different from the second draft.

The information and privacy commissioner didn't buy the government's arguments, and said to hand it over.

Is the minister going to comply with the information and privacy commissioner's decision, or is the government going to continue to be secretive about the first draft of the group home report?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: First of all, the initial draft was not our property. It belonged to the two reviewers, and we made that very clear. In addition, there was some information in the initial draft that we felt would violate the privacy of some of the young people in our care. We were concerned that the nature of some of the comments there actually would reveal the identity of individuals.

If there are no privacy issues, if there are no confidentiality issues, I can't see any problem in giving the member the initial draft. There's nothing perceptively different, except for the fact that in the initial draft there were some issues that we said we were concerned with because of confidentiality.

Mr. Cable: Here's what the minister's department said in the submission to the privacy commissioner: "The information contained in the May 29 and July 24 final drafts of the report is substantially the same." Will the minister stand and tell us today whether there is anything of substance in the first draft that is not found in the final public report?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: My understanding, having reviewed both drafts, is that there is not any substantial difference. As I said, our initial concern was that the nature of some of the comments of some of the people interviewed, we felt, would reveal the identities of some young people in care.

Mr. Cable: That issue was dealt with when the second draft was released very handily. If, in fact, that was the only reason why the first draft was not released, then it's beyond comprehension why it wasn't released some time ago.

Let me ask the minister this: the department told the information commissioner that one of the reasons the department wouldn't release the first draft was because the first draft was so rough that it would reflect badly on the consultants, and anyway, the first draft wasn't much different from the second draft. Now, the information commissioner gave this argument pretty short shrift. Was this an argument that the minister supported, that penmanship and rough presentation are grounds for refusing access to information?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, as far as penmanship, I don't think it's a question of penmanship. I think there is probably a whole group of syntactical and typographical errors that often go into an initial draft. I think we also have to be aware of the fact that the two reviewers who did this do have a certain level of professional reputation and were very concerned that the release of the first draft would reflect negatively on their professionalism, but our concern, from the point of view of Health and Social Services, was actually the question of revelation of some identities of young people.

Mr. Cable: To the same minister on the same topic - there is a very detailed submission given by the minister's department raising the issue that he just discussed but raising also a number of specious arguments.

We filed this access to information request some four and a half months ago, on July 16, 1998. Can the minister tell us when he expects to reach a decision as to whether he is going to release the report?

He sounded earlier as if he was ready to do so. Is he, in fact, prepared to do that tomorrow? We have been, if I could use the phrase, jerked around for four and a half months. Will he release that report?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid people haven't taken your directions on intemperate language. We're not jerking anyone around. If the commissioner has directed that we should give this, I can see no problem as long as issues of privacy and confidentiality of young people in our care are protected.

Mr. Cable: Now, the group home review by the consultant was set up as an independent review. Why did the terms of reference set up a review where the draft report was supposed to go to a committee composed in part of department officials? Why weren't the consultants, in doing this supposedly independent review, given a free hand to write whatever they found?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, the reviewers were given a free hand, and I think anyone who takes a look at the review itself can clearly admit that there was no attempt by the department to do any kind of vetting of this or any kind of censorship of this at all. And, quite frankly, I take exception to that.

The committee that was established also included representatives of our First Nation partners, and they obviously didn't have an issue with this.

I'm not sure what the member is getting at. If he's suggesting that the initial draft, because of typographical, some tactical errors and issues of privacy, should be made public, against the wishes of the reviewers, I might say, because they do have a certain amount of professional reputation riding on this, if he is suggesting that -

Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Mr. Cable: I'll tell you what I'm getting at. When we ask for a first draft of a document and there is a reply spun out for four and a half months, and a number of specious arguments advanced as to why we can't have it, that raises a lot of red flags.

Now, in A Better Way, one of the things this government was going to do under the heading of greater accountability was undertake a full review, by department, of what information is public and what is private and how to make it public, or to keep it private.

Has the minister done that with his department?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Of course it has and that's why, for example, this report was released, and it was released in its entirety. As a matter of fact, when we entered into the process, we entered into it with the full participation of our First Nation health partners. I can only presume that the member is suggesting that perhaps there is some kind of collusion to keep some information secret. There is no collusion to do anything of the kind. What there is, is a concern about young people in our care and the fact that, if this report had gone out in its initial draft, there would have been identification, both by the young people themselves and by people making references to them, and there are certain issues around confidentiality and protection of young people in our care.

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services on the issue of compensation for the residents of the Shipyards-Sleepy Hollow area of Whitehorse. I realize this is a very difficult issue because the government must appear to be fair, both to the residents who are being bought out and who do not have legal title to the land, as well as to Yukon taxpayers, who are in legal possession of their land, who have been paying their full share of their tax burden for their land and residences for as long as they've occupied them.

I'd like to thank the Government Leader for providing me with the pricing principle formula for the acquisition of these residences. In that formula, Mr. Speaker, principle number two, which deals with long-term occupation, provides $1,000 per year compensation for up to 45 years, to a maximum of $45,000, as a justifiably earned equity adjustment for those individuals who have squatted for -

Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it does give me pleasure indeed to speak to the work that this government is doing to relocate the waterfront residents. These residents have lived there for many, many years, in some cases. Some of those residents lived here before there was a Porter Creek or other areas of Whitehorse. So, certainly, we wish to treat them with respect and the due that they certainly deserve.

We are going to continue to speak with the people to ensure that they might be able to feel comfortable with this government. And I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this challenge to work with the Whitehorse waterfront residents is a challenge that has been here for many, many years, but this government, knowing that we have to work with people, and will work with people, took it upon ourselves to work with people.

We've also said that we're going to do it in a formatted way, Mr. Speaker, and we have. We've developed principles, compensation pricing principles, because there are many people down there who live in different situations. The situations they live in -

Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, it appears, Mr. Speaker, that the longer you squat, the more you're paid and, in addition to that, 11 of the residents owe $56,000 in back taxes and this government approached the City of Whitehorse to write off these taxes. Instead, they chose to refund taxes to those residents who have, in fact, paid taxes down there.

In view of the fact that the minister's department, in the past, has taken squatters to court for non-payment of taxes, does this request to the City of Whitehorse mean that the government has changed its policy in this regard? Do squatters no longer have to pay taxes?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I would certainly suggest that that might be a question that he might take up with the City of Whitehorse. It lies totally within their jurisdiction.

We are doing what we have to do, Mr. Speaker, and we'll continue to do what we have to do, because it is indeed a pleasure to be able to work with people in a realistic situation and understand the humanity and the compassion that is required, and that is what this government will do, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the City of Whitehorse is involved in this, but I'm not here and prepared to answer questions on behalf of the City of Whitehorse.

Mr. Jenkins: I don't know where this minister is coming from, but it was his own government that went to the City of Whitehorse and asked for the forgiveness of these taxes - his own department, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the forgiving of taxes on long-term occupancy, which can total up to $45,000, there is the basic flat-rate equity of $300 to $5,000. There is also a special allowance in this formula for seniors of $10,000 in addition to all the moving expenses from $300 to $5,000. Above and beyond all this is land relocation of another $20,000.

Can the minister advise the House, after all is said and done, how much this relocation is going to cost Yukon taxpayers, in total, for removing the 16 residents in that area?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, we have put money aside in the budget. It is, I do believe, around $200,000. I will check and get back to the member. I just don't quite have it on the top of my head.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, when we said that we were going to take on this, we said that we were not going to force people. We were going to work with people. We were going to work with people in humanitarian terms and show the people respect.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the previous administration would not have done that if they would have even had the gumption to stand up and address this situation. When you have a government on this side that is full of real people who are willing to sit down and talk with people and to listen to their concerns, it surely shows you how far you can go by just talking to people.

The other side of talking to people is listening. So, certainly, when the process is said and done, I would be glad to provide a paper on how much it cost, and maybe the process, and then maybe the member can go home -

Speaker: The minister's time has expired.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I have some short questions for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, and it concerns water testing.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs has told the City of Dawson that they have to put in a new sewage treatment facility, and the City of Dawson, after hiring a consultant to do some testing, has decided that they do not need a new treatment facility. This consultant argued that the LC₅₀, the water tests that DIAND relies on, are faulty.

C&TS has intervened on the side of Dawson City. Does the minister think that the water tests done by DIAND are valid?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's not up to me to say whether they're valid or not. There is a process that is happening in the Dawson situation. We know that there's a Water Board hearing coming up on December 12, and the territorial government will be there and working with them.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the minister may not have an opinion on the tests, but a number of Yukoners do. The LC₅₀ tests that are used in Dawson have been the subject of some controversy. Now, these are the same tests that have been used in Carmacks at the BYG mine, and there is a concern that the test results are sometimes inaccurate, because of the time it takes to ship them out to Vancouver.

The results of these tests are sent out to Vancouver, because we don't use a test lab here in the Yukon. Now, the minister and I have exchanged letters on this topic, and the minister has expressed some support for the idea. What exactly is this government doing to support a local lab?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker, a series of short questions. Yes, I have talked to them - or to the member opposite. I remember exchanging letters, maybe approximately a year ago, on this situation.

What are we doing? We do believe in a local economy, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes it does not warrant it. And as I recall, that might have been the situation, but certainly I'll have to get the information and refresh it, and give it back to the member.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate that.

Now, the minister has written to me that his department is expanding some of its monitoring programs, and a study - partly funded by the Department of Economic Development - early in the 1990s proves that there is existing and potential demand for a water quality lab here in the Yukon.

Now, there is a significant amount of testing done by this government, First Nations, municipalities, and the federal government - probably enough to make a full-time lab feasible here in the Yukon. And this is the government that is fixing the economy "one job at a time".

Is the government doing anything to help make a water quality lab in the Yukon a reality, and is there effort being made to create jobs one job at a time - here, instead of in Vancouver?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: I know not what the member opposite is talking about. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find out because, certainly, the whole purpose of the Water Board hearing is to address conflicting, maybe scientific, evidence, and we'll leave that up to the Water Board. But I would suggest that maybe we do have our own rocket scientists in the Klondike riding, and maybe we should address the question to the rocket scientist from Klondike.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

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

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

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Fifteen minutes.

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee will be dealing with Bill No. 68, Territorial Court Act.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Phillips: When we left off last night, the minister had made some comments with respect to the Territorial Court Act.

Mr. Chair, I would like to make a couple of comments. Last night we also asked the minister for a copy of the letter - her reply - that she sent to CBA, and we received that this morning and I thank the minister for that. Has she received any other correspondence from CBA since she sent them that letter? Because basically, the way I read the letter, the minister thanks CBA for their concerns and says she's happy that CBA supports the bill in general, and then goes on to reject each and every suggestion that CBA had to make the bill a little better.

So, I just wondered if the minister had received any more correspondence from CBA or any calls or any kind of communication with respect to her letter.

The minister talked a lot last night about the Judicial Council and the makeup of the Judicial Council and she gave us all kinds of reasons why a majority of the members on the Judicial Council couldn't be laypersons because a judge had made a decision that that couldn't be so and also raised the issue of government itself couldn't be seen as being in control of the Judicial Council by its appointments by the minister to the council.

Mr. Chair, as we go through the bill here today in general, I support many of the issues that are in the bill, but as the minister knows, I have very strong views and concerns about section 31 and the makeup of the council. What I would like to do, Mr. Chair, as I get into that section, is table some friendly amendments, which I believe will make the Judicial Council more representative of the public of the Yukon.

It won't skew the balance necessarily in favour of laypersons. We'll still have a strong contingent of people from the legal fraternity on board, but I think we'll instill a lot more confidence with the general public with respect to any complaint that might have to arise as a result of a judge's conduct and have to be vented through the Judicial Council. So, I will be tabling those amendments as we get to clause 31.

I also have numerous questions throughout the rest of the bill. In general, I'm in support of many of the clauses of the bill, as I said in second reading, but I do have some questions that I'll be asking the minister as we proceed clause by clause.

The minister also mentioned the sabbatical last night, which is an issue that I raised. My comments there, Mr. Chair, are that the minister's argument was that it wasn't going to cost us any more money, because we just use the salary of our judge that was on sabbatical to pay the deputy judge that was coming in.

I guess it would be described, "It's a saw off", except when you look at the jurisdictions in which we are going to draw our deputy judges from, at the present time, I think we're the lowest paid jurisdiction. That may change, but this act is going to come into effect long before that changes.

So, what I'd like to ask the minister is this: is it the intent of the government, with this act, to pay the deputy judge who would come in from outside the territory the same as we pay our judges that are here, or is it to pay them the salary that they are receiving in British Columbia or Alberta or Manitoba - or any other province where these deputy judges come from, or Ontario, which is quite a bit higher than ours as well?

So, if it is not the other salaries from the other jurisdictions, and I would think that it might be difficult to suggest to some of these deputy judges, to entice them, to come to the Yukon, if they were going to take a $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 cut in pay to sit on our bench.

But my concern would be, Mr. Chair, that if they do come here, and we do have to pay them the salary that they were making in other jurisdictions, it is going to cost us a significant amount of money more than it would normally. At the same time, we are losing a judge who we've done quite extensive screening with, who has great knowledge of the Yukon and meets all the criteria with respect to hiring of the judges for the Yukon bench.

And we may have a deputy judge who, although they may be somewhat familiar with the Yukon, is not someone who has been here on a regular basis and knows all of the issues, social problems, and other things we have in the territory. So, it is going to be more costly in the long run, if we have to pay these judges to come in at the salary of the jurisdiction where they sit on the bench.

Mr. Chair, I don't have a lot more comments in general debate. Like I said, my comments are going to be more restricted to clause by clause in the bill. I have several questions for that, and I will be raising them as we go through the bill clause by clause.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: If I can just work backward from the member's questions, and then if he has followup, he can raise it.

The deputy judges, in my experience, up until now, have been paid at the same rate as the existing territorial judges. The rate of pay for judges and for deputy judges, as the member knows, and consistent with this legislation, is properly before the Judicial Compensation Commission.

The member also indicated that he had a number of friendly amendments to table in clause 30 of the bill. I would like to request him to provide me with copies of those amendments, if he would, so that I may have my legal advisors take a look at them before we get to that section of the act.

The member also spoke about the response to the Canadian Bar Association. I don't believe it's fair to characterize it as a negative letter that I wrote in response to the Canadian Bar Association. Our legal staff did a careful analysis of the Canadian Bar Association's concerns, and we conclude that they are largely met in this bill. That is spelled out at some length in the letter.

Mr. Cable: We can explore the Judicial Council in detail when we deal with the Member for Riverdale North's amendments, but there are some questions I'd like to get my head around before we get there.

Does this minister feel that it's desirable to have lay representation on the Judicial Council?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, Mr. Chair, as I indicated in second reading and in discussion to date on the new Territorial Court Act, I think it's important that there be public representation on the Judicial Council.

The public consultation that was held when the Hughes inquiry was established invited members of the public to talk about ways to open up the justice system as well as to deal with the Supreme Court of Canada requirement about the Judicial Compensation Commission.

A number of recommendations were made from the public, the bar, the judiciary, the Council of Yukon First Nations and the government. Many indicated the importance of having a more open process in the Judicial Council. We believe that we have achieved a good balance on the Judicial Council with the lay representatives who will be appointed to it.

Mr. Cable: Does the minister feel that lay representation should be guaranteed on the Judicial Council? Will she go that far?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, there is a guarantee of lay representation on the Judicial Council. The government appoints two members to the Judicial Council, one of whom will be a member of the Law Society. There are also two nominations from Yukon First Nations, one of whom may be from the legal community, and there are other provisions that ensure there are lay people on there. The justices of the peace are represented on the Judicial Council, and JPs are lay people who serve.

Mr. Cable: The trouble I have is that some of the subsections can be construed in different fashions. Subsection (a) which says, "Two members nominated by the minister, one of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon." And there is a similar provision in the amendment at paragraph (b) which could be construed in one of two ways. It could be at least one of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon or one only of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon.

So, we could have two lawyers under (a). The First Nations may choose to nominate two lawyers. The Law Society of the Yukon assumedly will nominate a lawyer. One member nominated by the Chief Judge will assumedly be a lawyer. One member nominated by the justices may be a lawyer if, at some time in the future, we demand that justices have legal training. And the resident judge of the Supreme Court, of course, is a lawyer. And then the council may recommend the appointment of one further member who may fall into that category. So, there isn't actually a guarantee to lay representation. There is a suggestion of it but certainly not, by my reading of it, a guarantee.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, on the member's point about justices, if we require justices who have legal training, then the act would have to be amended. The section which establishes the Judicial Council does ensure that there are lay people on the Judicial Council.

Mr. Cable: Well, just for the record then, in the event that the issue may arise publicly, is the minister saying then, that subparagraph (a) should, in effect, be read, "Two members nominated by the minister, one only of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon." Is that the way we are to read that subsection?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, the subsection does give discretion to the member. It says, "one of whom must be a member of the Law Society". The intent is that the other nominee will be a layperson. The practice of the present minister and of previous ministers has always been to appoint lay people to the Judicial Council. We recognize the importance of having lay people on the Judicial Council and will establish a Judicial Council that ensures there are lay people on it nominated by the minister as well as by others.

Mr. Cable: We're drafting with a piece of legislation here - or we're dealing with a piece of legislation. Would the minister not agree that it would be better to actually say that one of those members under subsection (a) "shall be a layperson", rather than leave it up to the discretion of the minister of the day?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, the Judicial Council will have lay people on it. It is expected that four members of the Judicial Council will be legal people. The minister must nominate one member of the Law Society. The other nominee is with the discretion of the minister, but almost inevitably has been and will continue to be a layperson. The Law Society nominates a legal person, as does the Chief Judge.

The members of the Judicial Council that are nominated by the Yukon First Nations and by the minister will not necessarily be from the legal community and are likely to be lay people.

In addition, and we are getting into the specifics of the clauses, in section 31(2) "The council may recommend the appointment of one further member who shall ... ensure that the council reflects the demographics and diversity of Yukon." This was a provision that Mr. Hughes recommended that we put in the act to ensure that there is balanced representation on the council.

I think the recommendation is a good one. I think it would be reasonable to believe that, when members of the Judicial Council are sitting in their roles, they exercise their authority to add an extra member to ensure that the makeup of the council reflects the demographics and diversity of the Yukon - that we should be able to trust their judgment. There is a clear intent in this bill to have a Judicial Council that is balanced, and that is what we have brought forward. There will be lay people on the Judicial Council.

As I indicated yesterday, there have been judgments made in courts that the government cannot nominate a majority of membership who shall be lay people. However, we will have a balance and have a number of lay people serving on the council.

Mr. Cable: I guess the problem I have is that there is no guarantee - there is a statement of intent, a statement of good faith by the minister, but no guarantee - that these people will be lay people. A lawyer, I would think, could - theoretically, anyway - reflect the demographics and diversity of the Yukon. Technically speaking, the whole council could be composed of lawyers.

Now, if I remember correctly, the Legal Profession Act and their governing body very specifically set out that certain persons shall not be lawyers, whereas this particular section does not do that. I'm wondering - if the minister's intention is that there be, in fact, laypersons - why the language isn't more specific, rather than leaving it up to the discretion of the minister of the day, in some cases, and the discretion of the nominators, in other instances.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, the Hughes report made several recommendations regarding the Judicial Council's function and its composition, and its procedures. There was a recommendation that an annual report be prepared, to provide the public with more information about the activities of the Judicial Council. In general, the recommendations from Mr. Hughes - like the recommendation to provide an annual report - are to ensure public involvement, and opening up the process of the work of the Judicial Council.

The recommendations are for a new process to make the appointment of Territorial Court judges more open and accountable and accessible to the public. To fill judicial vacancies, advertisements will be placed in local and national media, and criteria are indicated in the act and made public, in relation to what is considered when candidates submit their names for judicial appointments.

Hughes recommended that the appointments be made to the Judicial Council as follows: the Minister of Justice may appoint two members, one of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon. The Yukon First Nations may appoint a member, the Law Society of the Yukon may appoint a member, justices of the peace, one member, and the Judicial Council, one member. The additional appointment from the Judicial Council was to ensure that the composition of the council reflected the diversity and demographics of the territory. I believe that the group that will form the Judicial Council is sufficiently representative, to use Hughes' words.

In addition, while we structured this section of the act in accordance with the Hughes report, I have - as I've indicated to the members in second reading and brought forward to their attention in the House - decided to bring forward an amendment to bring two members nominated by Yukon First Nations, one of whom may be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon.

I think it's important to acknowledge the principle of a representative public service that's found in the land claims agreements. It's also relevant to note that, unfortunately, First Nations are over-represented in our justice system, so they will have the ability to nominate two members, one of whom may be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon.

This council does go a long way toward opening up the process of judicial appointments. It has a number of lay people on it. There is a suggestion that the Judicial Council, as well, could establish working committees to address a number of issues that are of concern to the public, such as family and young offenders, criminal matters, including victim services and probation services, and civil matters.

I think that in all of this, in this entire section of the act, Hughes has recommended public discussions and open workshops on engaging people in thinking about how we build justice services that will be delivered in the 21^st century. First Nations and the Yukon government have a role, as well as the representatives from the justice system.

There is a balance. There are a number of lay people, as well as legally trained people, who will be on the Judicial Council. I think we've met a balance of interest, and we've structured the act in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Hughes. We engaged him to conduct the public inquiry, and we believe that he is a well-respected and legitimate voice on these matters, that his recommendations are sound, and that we have done well in structuring the act - and, in particular, the act in relation to the composition of the Judicial Council - in accordance with his recommendations.

Mr. Cable: Well, there's no doubt, and there's no argument, that Mr. Hughes is a respected lawyer, but his views on the world are not exhaustive of potentially good advice. It appears, from the way the act has been presented that, theoretically anyway, in my view, it could be composed entirely of judges and lawyers, with the one possible exception of one member nominated by the justices. I suppose even the justices could appoint a lawyer.

In the Northwest Territories, from the handout that was provided by the minister's department, the Judicial Council includes three persons appointed by the commissioner on recommendation of the minister, two of whom are not a judge or member of the Law Society.

Then in Ontario, it has four other persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor who are not judges or lawyers. In Nova Scotia, there are two persons other than lawyers and judges appointed by the Lieutenant Governor.

So some jurisdictions have been more specific in ensuring that there is lay representation, rather than leaving it up to chance, and I'm just wondering why this minister would want to leave that up to chance, when I think everyone's in agreement that there should be guaranteed lay representation.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, it seems the member's arguments are that there are too many lawyers on the Judicial Council. If we look at the composition of the Judicial Council as it's structured in section 31 of the act, there is, in fact, a potential to have as many as five lay people on the Judicial Council.

We believe that we have achieved a balance. There were a number of recommendations that were made to Mr. Hughes by the government, by the public and by others. We have established a Judicial Council which is more open and accountable and has more lay representation than previously.

Mr. Phillips: With all due respect to Mr. Hughes and his recommendations - which the minister conveniently uses when it's to her advantage as the gospel word; when the minister wants to vary the makeup of the board different from the Hughes' recommendations, she doesn't have any problem doing that - Mr. Hughes is a respected lawyer and a former judge. Mr. Hughes drops in and out of the territory for various reasons, mostly under the employ of the Government of Yukon, either by contract or otherwise, and doesn't have to live with the justice system in the territory, like we do.

Mr. Hughes makes recommendations, and we make laws. Like the Member for Riverside said, Mr. Hughes doesn't corner the market on all of the good ideas. It's what we think we should do in this Legislature that we should do, rather than what others always think. We listen to the recommendations, follow some of the recommendations, but we should be doing what's right for the justice system in the territory.

The minister said, a few minutes ago, that she believes the Judicial Council has a balance. Well, Mr. Chair, I've gone through this in realistic terms. Obviously, the minister is using a different set of scales than everyone else is, if she says there's a balance. I see a possibility of six people, if you count one nominated by the justices of the peace, who are involved in the legal system on a day-to-day basis or on a regular basis.

You've got judges and lawyers and justices of the peace, and the chances are pretty high that the member who might be on the Judicial Council, appointed by the justices of the peace, will be the senior justice of the peace who's been there for quite some time.

My concern is there isn't a balance at all. I agree with the Member for Riverside when he talks about it being clear in the legislation that laypersons should be named as laypersons so we know that that's what they're going to be so we're not sort of relying on possibly the minister or others to nominate someone who may not be a layperson.

Let's go through the members nominated by the minister. We know that two members are nominated by the minister and one possibly could be a layperson. The minister has indicated here today that that would be a preference. The second one would be a lawyer. The First Nations are going to nominate two and the minister said here today that one of those may be a lawyer - one possibly a layperson, but not necessarily a layperson.

One member is nominated by the Chief Judge. Well, the Chief Judge isn't going to nominate a layperson. The justices of the peace are, in high probability, going to nominate their chief justice of the peace. It doesn't spell that out in here, but I would be very surprised if it were otherwise. The Judge of the Supreme Court, I take it, is a judge. Then this group, mostly made up of lawyers and very few laypersons could, or may, appoint one further member. I think the chances there are very high that that individual may well be a lawyer.

Mr. Chair, I know. I was a layperson on the Judicial Council, and lots of times when I raised issues with the Judicial Council, I was told by the judges on the Judicial Council, "You don't understand, because you're not a lawyer." So, I don't have a great deal of confidence in a group of individuals made up of judges and lawyers deciding they need another member and then appointing someone who doesn't understand.

I'm going to be proposing some amendments, and one of the amendments that I'm going to be proposing is that we delete the first clause, the minister's appointments, and appoint three laypersons nominated by the Yukon Legislative Assembly, a similar procedure to that we use with respect to the Human Rights Commission or the ombudsman or any other organization that we appoint through this Legislative Assembly.

I think that would go a long way to address the criticism that the minister has levied in the House here that it would be seen as trying to possibly jury-rig the Judicial Council if the government appointed the majority members. Well, it won't be the government appointing them but it will be the Legislature appointing them, all-party. And it would be seen, I think, as it has with respect to the Human Rights Commission or the ombudsman or others, that people would be appointed based on their background and their expertise. So, lay people who would be appointed as a result of this amendment would be people who genuinely have an interest in the judicial system but are laypersons.

I also think that it takes it out of the hands of the minister, which could be seen as politicizing it somewhat, and puts it in the arena where we would all have to agree to the appointments.

Mr. Chair, maybe the minister could lay out for us where she finds the five members who could be lay people. The problem I have is the same problem that the Member for Riverside has. It's the "could-be" factor or the "may" factor, and there is no guarantee that any one of the lay people that could be, would be. So, I'd like the minister to explain where she finds the five individuals, and maybe the minister could find a way to strengthen this clause of the act so that we would feel comfortable that yes, five individuals would be lay people.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, in clause 31 of the bill, which sets out the composition of the Judicial Council, in the first clause, the minister may appoint two members, one of whom shall be a member of the Law Society of the Yukon. That leaves one who shall be a layperson. Then there are two members who may be nominated by Yukon First Nations. There could be two lay people nominated by Yukon First Nations. There may be one layperson and one lawyer.

The justices of the peace have a nomination, and, as the member is aware, there is a long tradition in Canada of justices of the peace being community people who sit and serve. We have made amendments in the act to have them working more closely with community justice committees.

And they are, in fact, lay people. Then there is the final section that Mr. Hughes recommended: the council may recommend the appointment of a further member, who shall - insofar as is reasonable - ensure the council reflects the demographics and diversity of the Yukon. That additional member may also be a layperson, which would - if that was how the nominations were made - mean a total of five lay people.

Mr. Phillips: Well, let's go through them. I'll go through them, from the way I see it. The first clause - 31(a) - does not say that any of those people shall be lay people. It says that one shall be a lawyer; nothing says that both can't be a lawyer - to start with.

The second one is two First Nations. Now, the minister conveniently gave two options; one may be a lawyer, and one can be a layperson, but nothing can prevent both from being lawyers, again. And we won't have a choice there. If the First Nations decide that they want both of their representatives to be lawyers - and there are several First Nation lawyers now in the territory - they could do that.

In section (c), the JP - we talked about that earlier. More than likely - it doesn't say it - it would be the senior JP of the territory, who has been virtually acting as a quasi-judge in the territory for many years, and is very, very close to the existing judges - working with them, working under them, under their direction, involved with them, in fact, working on a full-time basis.

The next clause that the minister points to is section 2. The minister says, "That person could be a layperson," but what the minister conveniently leaves out again is, the Judicial Council - the council that's already made up of a majority of judges and lawyers - "may" decide to appoint one more person.

But they also may not decide to appoint one more person. If they decide to appoint one, nothing in that clause says that that person can't be a lawyer again. So, technically, we could have everybody but one person - or almost everybody on this Judicial Council - made up of lawyers or judges - everybody - the way it's drawn up by the minister.

Let's go through them again: 31(a) - both of those, if the minister decides to appoint two lawyers, could be lawyers; the First Nations - both of them could be lawyers; the Law Society, of course, will be a lawyer; the judge would be a judge or a lawyer; nominated by the justices - a senior chief judge, a Supreme Court judge; then they may all get together and appoint another judge to the Judicial Council.

That's the way the act reads today, and I'm not comfortable with that. I don't see how any member in this Chamber could be comfortable with the fact that one of their constituents who is upset with the actions of a judge would file a complaint with a council that could be so terribly stacked in favour of the judges and the lawyers - the judges who might feel under attack when someone is filing a complaint and lawyers who, after they deal with the complaint, might have to appear in front of the very judge the complaint was against, to make an argument for one of us or some other client, somewhere down the road.

How in the world could someone from the general public feel that there's balance in that? That's the problem I have: there is no guarantee anywhere in here that it won't be all lawyers. In fact, you know, Mr. Chair, I read the old act, and we're almost better off under the old act.

That's the problem I have. I thought the minister was going to fix this. I could support this act fairly strongly, if I had some confidence that the Judicial Council would be representative of the Yukon public.

What it looks like is that the minister panicked when Ted Hughes criticized her and me for supposedly interfering with the judiciary. The minister wanted to do whatever she could to make anybody in the judiciary happy that she wasn't interfering any more, so she went overboard.

I'm proposing some friendly amendments that we'll deal with when we get to the clauses, which I think will go a long way toward bringing more balance to the Judicial Council. I'd prefer a majority of lay people on the Judicial Council, but I will accept the minister's argument that it might be ruled down unconstitutionally - by, incidentally, another judge. I mean - help. Help us.

You know, independence of the judiciary - I have another term for it. I'd probably go to jail for a long time if I used it. Of course, I'd probably go to jail for a long time for a speeding ticket, right about now, if I had to appear in front of one of the local judges. But that doesn't matter.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: The Liberal member says he doesn't care. He said he'd visit me. Mr. Chair, I probably wouldn't be in the Yukon. It would be a longer term than two years - unless I went to the circle.

Mr. Chair, I have a real problem with this section of the act. We've just eroded the confidence of the general public with respect to having any faith whatsoever in appearing before the Judicial Council. In fact, I'd suggest that most people would be wasting their time and money. I think it's a travesty to see that the minister is heading in this direction. I strongly support the sections of the Judicial Council where they're going to go out and do some educational things, and those kinds of aspects of it.

This, in fact, gives me a bit of a problem when you talk about the Judicial Council educating and being involved in some of these things in the community. I can remember, as the Justice minister, urging the judges to participate in talking about crime. We had a very difficult time. In fact, none of them participated, because they felt it wasn't their role to participate in that kind of an exercise.

The problem I have is that I guess they won't be doing that any more once we start this Judicial Council, because it will be made up mostly of judges and lawyers, and they won't be able to do any of that work because they'll feel that they will be compromised or that they can't do that in their role as judges.

Mr. Chair, I hope the minister considers seriously the amendments that I am putting forward. I have several options. I gave the minister the first option. I have other options, because I'm kind of anticipating, from habit of being in this House, that there isn't too much that we recommend from this side of the House that gets passed by the minister, but I'm kind of hoping.

That's why I propose these amendments in a very friendly fashion, and I'm hoping the minister will consider them as that, and as something that will give more certainty to the general public of the Yukon being involved in the Judicial Council. I hope that, when we get to this section of the act, the minister will at least make some efforts to accommodate the concerns that we have on this side of the House.

And I hope I don't get a letter like the Canadian Bar Association with all their recommendations that says, "I know you support the act, Mr. Phillips, but I don't agree with any of your suggested changes." I hope I don't get something like that.

So, I'll sit down and maybe the minister can respond to some of my concerns. Obviously, the minister doesn't share the same concern I do with respect to the makeup of the Judicial Council. My argument is, and I think the argument from the Member for Riverside is, that although the minister likes to think that there can be five lay people on the Judicial Council, it doesn't say that. If the minister thinks that five lay people should be on the Judicial Council, then maybe we should change it to say that five lay people should be on the Judicial Council, or four - at least 50/50. That's not a majority. We don't want to take the power away from those judges and lawyers on this Judicial Council. We want to give them the power to be able to deal with these issues. So, I would like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The first point that I want to make is that Mr. Hughes was engaged as an objective observer and it was an open and transparent exercise that did include a lot of public comment and participation.

I also want to make the member aware, as he may know from reviewing the new Territorial Court Act that the discipline of judges is separated now and goes to a tribunal rather than being done by the Judicial Council.

I would also like to tell the member that he is completely wrong when he says that we might as well have had the old Judicial Council because it was more representative of the public.

Now, the member, in second reading speech and in general debate so far, has indicated that he was a former member of the Judicial Council, that he found that the laypersons' voice on it was virtually non-existent because it couldn't carry any weight. Now, leaving aside the fact that the member, when he served as Minister of Justice, didn't do anything about the composition of that council, I would like to re-acquaint him with the facts about the composition of the Judicial Council under the previous Territorial Court Act.

The council shall be composed, under the existing statute, of the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court, the president of the Justice of the Peace Association, the president of the Law Society and, finally, a lawyer and not more than two other persons appointed by the Commissioner in Executive Council for a term of not more than three years. That provided that the Minister of Justice was able to appoint two lay people, that the justice of the peace appointment, virtually all of whom are lay people, would be a layperson, and that the other members and the majority of members would be the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court and the president of the Law Society. Now, that's not a lot of lay representation, as the member says.

Under the present act, under the Territorial Court Act, that is before us in the House, the proposal is for two members to be appointed by the Commissioner in Executive Council, one of whom shall be a lawyer - and the intention is that one of whom shall be a layperson - two people appointed by Yukon First Nations. There was no provision in the previous act for the appointment by Yukon First Nations of members to the Judicial Council. They may nominate two people, one of whom may be a lawyer, two of whom may be lay people. They may not appoint a lawyer.

The new Judicial Council also provides, as I've been saying in this debate, for a representative from the justices of the peace, and justices of the peace do bring a variety of experience and perspectives to their work as justices of the peace. They are lay people and I think that they bring a valid voice to join the other members of the council.

In addition, as Hughes recommended, to meet the public concern that there be lay people and that there be a representative council, the members of the council may recommend the appointment of one additional member who shall, in the words of the Hughes report, "represent the demographics and diversity of the Yukon."

Now, Mr. Chair, what I am prepared to do, since the member has indicated that he's bringing forward an amendment - he's also indicated that he recognizes full well that this amendment is not constitutionally permissible -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, the member indicated that he had a number of game plans available, when the minister stated that his amendment for appointing three lay people would not meet the constitutional requirement for having less than a majority of lay people on the Judicial Council.

I'm prepared to take the member's amendment in the spirit that it's offered. I'm prepared to consider the member's concern about the language, about the composition of the Judicial Council. It is certainly our intention to open up the Judicial Council to more lay representation. The bill does open the Judicial Council to more lay representation. I am prepared to consider what the members have said, and to respond to them when we do proceed through the sections of the bill, and arrive at that section.

Now, Mr. Chair, just to return to the specific amendment from Mr. Phillips, the amendment to nominate three lay people to the Judicial Council is not constitutionally permissible. And if he did not say that, he certainly ought to understand that. It has been explained here today, and it's also something that I believe he was aware of, since he has served in the capacity of Minister of Justice in the past.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Chair, a couple of things. The minister made the comment that I was the Minister of Justice for a couple of years and never did anything about the Judicial Council. Well, Mr. Chair, the minister should check with her officials and the discussions that took place over the year and a half or two years that I was the Minister of Justice leading up to discussions about review of the act.

I made it clear at every turn with the officials in the Department of Justice that I was not happy with the makeup, and that I felt the majority of the people on the Judicial Council should be laypersons - every single turn. That didn't start here in the House a few days ago. That was one of the first things I ever did when I spoke to officials in the Department of Justice. So when she checks on that, she'll find that out, to start with.

Secondly, the amendment that I made with respect to the three laypersons requires another amendment that has to follow, and that would have to delete subclause (2) at the bottom - that that person would probably be a layperson. What I've done is move that clause concerning the reflected demographics and diversity of the Yukon back up to the top, so we delete one. So we're actually taking one off but adding it to the top. What I'm making sure of is that the two nominated by the minister would be lay people - or nominated by the Legislature. The ones who were going to be nominated by the minister before would be lay people, and the third one, which is clause (2), would be a layperson as well. So I think that is constitutional to do it that way, and it isn't a problem.

In fact, Mr. Chair, we make the laws, and I think that we should be reflecting the views and wishes of the territorial public so that they can have some kind of sense that the Judicial Council is a fair body to hear their complaints.

Now the minister says that the complaints that go to the Judicial Council will end up in a tribunal. Well, they have to go through the Judicial Council first. That's the first gate they have to open, and if they walk into a room full of judges and lawyers, with one measly little layperson sitting in the room, good luck, because they better have some real strong evidence to get to the next stage or it'll never go anywhere, because there will be too many people in that room with a vested interest, in my view.

I just have a sense that it just wouldn't give the individual a sense of fairness, and that's the point I want to make. The people in there making the decisions - the judges and the lawyers - might be very fair in their deliberations, but it not only has to be fair, it has to be seen to be fair. And, as the minister said, there has to be a balance.

That doesn't mean a teeter-totter with six people sitting on one end and one person sitting on the other, eight feet in the air. That's not a balance. So, I'll leave that with the minister.

What I'll tell the minister, as well, while I'm on my feet, Mr. Chair, is that I have five amendments in total. If the minister wishes, I would like to discuss with her officials the amendment I have put forward, to see if it meets their minister's approval. If it doesn't, I have some other options we could possibly look at, which may achieve a similar goal in the end by making sure that there are more lay people on the Judicial Council.

But you have to deal with one before you can deal with the next one, so to speak. Some of them are tied in with one of the other ones we'll deal with, but I can't table them all at once because it wouldn't make sense that way. If the minister doesn't accept one, there are some other options we could look at, and I'd like to deal with them in that manner.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, as I have said to the member, he has provided a copy of his proposed amendment to section 31. Now he has indicated that he has a total of five amendments. I would like to ask the member if he could provide those amendments. I wonder why he didn't address this subject yesterday, either in second reading or when we started general debate.

It is difficult to consider the member's amendments as friendly amendments, when he wants to set up a meeting with the officials when we're here on the floor of the Legislature in Committee, but has not indicated what subjects he would like to address, what his concerns are, or what the amendments are about. Does the member wish to offer further information on that, or could he have the page make a copy of the proposed amendments that he is considering?

Mr. Phillips: The minister said I didn't propose this yesterday. Well, Mr. Chair, I could show the minister yesterday's Hansard. I think it was 5:29 when the minister quit speaking and sat down yesterday. In fact, the minister took up all the time in the opening of the debate and I had no opportunity, other than to sort of stand up, with the grace of the Chair, and just request a copy of a letter that we hadn't received. It was at the eleventh hour. In fact, I think it was 12:01 when I stood up and made the request. So I didn't have the opportunity to describe the amendments that I had for the minister.

I'm a little reluctant to give the minister all the amendments right now, and I'll tell the minister why. It's because it's like a card game. I want my first amendment. That's what I want, and I'm a little reluctant to show the minister my last option first. If the minister could agree with my first one - I mean, I don't want to be the poker player who shows the minister my whole hand before we start to play the game.

I have some other options that I'd like the minister to explore, but my preference is the first option and I'll make some strong arguments for it. That's what I'd like to see. If the minister can accept this option here, then we can do away with several of the others that are there and possibly move on in the bill. But I'd be more than prepared to sit down and discuss with officials how we could accommodate ensuring the concerns I have and the Member for Riverside has for a guarantee of lay people on the Judicial Council. We're guaranteeing everybody else a seat on the Judicial Council. We guarantee the First Nations a seat. We guarantee the judges a seat. We guarantee the justices of the peace a seat. We guarantee the lawyers a seat. And the lay people are not guaranteed anything.

That's my concern; we should be making sure that we guarantee the people that the system is supposed to serve a seat, or adequate seats, on the Judicial Council to at least improve the balance so that the council more adequately reflects, as the minister would like to say, the demographics and diversity of the Yukon.

Chair: Is there any further general debate? If not, maybe we can deal with clause 31 as we go through the bill.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I understand from what the member has just said then, that each of his five amendments are in relation to section 31 and to the composition of the Judicial Council, and I did not understand that until he just spoke.

The member, in his proposed amendments, would see the composition of the Judicial Council being potentially six lay people, and that would not be permissible constitutionally. I would concur with the view of the Chair that we consider this further under section 31, and perhaps over the break I could meet with the members opposite, as well as my officials, and see if we can discuss this further.

Chair: Is there further general debate? Hearing none, we will go to clause 1.

Mr. Cable: I wonder if we can get on the record the response that the minister gave to the Canadian Bar Association on their concern relating to the definition of "deputy judge." I know the minister has written to the Canadian Bar Association, but I think it would be useful to get it in Hansard.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The clause before us is on definitions, and there is a definition of "judge," and of "deputy judge." A "deputy judge" means a judge who is not appointed to serve on a full-time basis. A "judge" means a judge of the Territorial Court and includes a deputy judge. It is important to read both of those definitions and then turn to the letter to the bar in relation to deputy judges, which the members have received a copy of.

I think the definition of "deputy judge" is sufficiently clear. It is identical to the definition in the current act.

Mr. Phillips: I wonder if the minister - we talked about this earlier today - could get back to me on how we pay our deputy judges. Do they get paid on the scale of their province that they come from or the Yukon scale when they're here as the deputy judge?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, the deputy judges are paid the same rate as territorial judges of the Yukon court only if they're taken on for a set period of time. If deputy judges are judges from elsewhere who come and serve for a period of time in the Yukon, they are not paid in accordance with the Yukon judicial compensation. They receive the compensation that they receive as a judge in British Columbia, or Alberta, where they may already be a judge. We pay expenses in that case; deputy judges are sometimes judges from another jurisdiction, who continue to receive their salary from the other jurisdiction.

Mr. Phillips: I don't need this right away, but I would like the minister to look at the last couple of sabbaticals that our local judges have taken, and give me an idea of whether or not it's cost us more to bring in deputy judges, as opposed to - I know the last ones are hard to compare, because I think we paid 80 percent of their salary in sabbatical, and then we had to bring in deputy judges besides that. So, it will be quite skewed the other way.

So, I would like some idea of what it would cost us for a year to bring in a deputy judge - if we've actually had a deputy judge for a year.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, we can do that.

Mr. Cable: Has the minister spoken to the writer of the letter from the Canadian Bar Association about her concerns on section 7? I note from the minister's letter that the minister wasn't clear as to what the nature of the request was, and I must share that feeling.

Has the minister actually made some attempt to discover what the problem was?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I have spoken with the president of the Canadian Bar Association. I understand their concern to be that potential judges be considered qualified where they meet some criteria more than others, and the criteria, I think, are sufficiently general to meet the concerns of the bar. There is a subsection (b), which indicates that the candidates have been a practising lawyer, or have other experience satisfactory to the Judicial Council. That is what they wanted in their letter. They wanted to be able to have other experience that was satisfactory to the council, and recognizing that a candidate for a potential appointment to the bench may have abilities that are grounded in legal practice, but include things other than legal practice.

Mr. Cable: The writer of the letter from the Canadian Bar Association wanted clarity on the requirement for demographic representation and, in particular, wanted to ensure some sort of gender balance on the bench, if I'm reading the letter correctly. The minister replied that the phraseology used was adequate to ensure that.

Now, I think, if I'm reading this whole letter correctly, the minister, in response to the letter, has agreed to take representations from the Canadian Bar Association.

I assume, on that issue, the gender balance - is that where the minister is coming from?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, Mr. Chair, I would take representation from the Canadian Bar Association or from the Law Society or from the members opposite and from the public.

Mr. Chair, in this section, the role of the Judicial Council is to ensure that vacancies on the Yukon bench are advertised, that the local bar and others are aware of vacancies and that candidates meet relevant criteria. Much of the wording in this section is reflective of submissions that were made to Mr. Hughes by the local bar, among others. "The bench shall be representative of the community it serves. This should and shall include consideration of all qualified candidates, regardless of sex, race, family status, sexual orientation."

The section also establishes a requirement for an understanding of Yukon First Nations. Self-government agreements and the unique differences of our northern lifestyle are important criteria to be considered. Other criteria include the experience and maturity of the applicant, their record of community service and their scholarship.

If either the minister or the Judicial Council wants to consider other criteria than the ones that are already cited, which are consistent with past practice and which are consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions as well as with particular Yukon needs that were presented to Ted Hughes by numerous people, then the candidates will be advised of those requirements in advance.

This is a less secret process. The criteria are open and the Judicial Council puts forward a list of suitable candidates, with a final recommendation to be made by the Commissioner in Executive Council.

The term that is used about representing demographics is broad, and it can include both race and sex. There is nothing that would prevent the bar or the members opposite or even the minister to say that gender balance on the bench could be added as a criteria. However, in the existing language of the bill, that can be considered as one of the criteria by the use of the term, "demographic."

Mr. Cable: At what juncture would the minister be taking advice from the Canadian Bar Association? Is it when the advertisements are put out, when the Law Society is advised of the position, or would the minister be taking advice on specific recommendations from the Judicial Council?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, we have taken advice from the bar in crafting this legislation. They did make submissions to the Hughes inquiry, which were considered when he made his recommendations. In addition, when there would be a vacancy, it would be advertised. That would be an appropriate time for the Canadian Bar Association or others to correspond in relation to the filling of that vacancy.

Mr. Cable: There is a specific section, 9(b), that requires the Judicial Council to advise the Law Society, but it doesn't deal with the Canadian Bar Association. I think if the act stands as it sits right now, there won't be a member of the Canadian Bar Association on the Judicial Council. Is the minister saying that the public advertisements will serve as a notice to the Bar Association that input is desired?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, as I'm sure the member is well aware, members of the Canadian Bar Association are also members of the Law Society of the Yukon if they are practising lawyers in the territory. As well, this clause of the act does set out that vacancies are well advertised in newspapers circulating throughout the Yukon as well as other regional or national publications that it considers advisable. I believe that members of the bar will be well advised of any vacancies that occur.

Mr. Phillips: Judge ceases to hold office on attaining the age of 65 years. Does that comply with the Human Rights Act? Is that just a standard clause with respect to judges in the country?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, right across the country there is a fixed age in which a judge must retire. There are seven other Canadian jurisdictions that set a retirement age for judges at age 65.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, the Chief Judge may authorize leave without pay for a judge for a period not exceeding one year. What are the criteria?

I mean, can a judge, after he puts in four years, just come to the Chief Judge and say, "I want to take a year leave of absence," and despite how busy we are in the courts at the time, does the Chief Judge have to grant it? You know, it's a pretty significant role that the judge plays, so there may be some times when the courts in the Yukon are extremely backed up and deputy judges aren't that readily available to come here for a full year. It would cost us a great deal of money if we had to bring some in on a part-time basis because they couldn't stay here for a full year.

Maybe the minister can tell me what the criteria are with respect to taking that sabbatical. I would imagine there has to be some criteria set out somewhere.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This provision recognizes that a judge may require a leave for educational or other purposes and restricts the leave to a period of one year. This would be a salary-deferred leave where, similar to other salary-deferred leave provisions, it is applied for in advance and salary is accrued over a period of time so that the one-year period of leave could be taken. This would be at no cost to the territorial government or the Yukon taxpayer.

We have also asked the Judicial Compensation Commission to consider the issue of sabbaticals. The expectation is that they will no longer be provided to judges, but will be replaced with a self-funded leave.

Mr. Phillips: When will this come into effect, and what is the status now of our current judges? Are any of them, at the present time, ready to take a sabbatical, or are some of them planning a sabbatical? If this act is passed in the next few days, does that come into force immediately with respect to the sabbatical part, or how does that work?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: There is one judge who has qualified for a sabbatical and who has not taken it, and that issue is also before the Judicial Compensation Commission at this time.

Mr. Phillips: Well, if we pass this act this week, will that sabbatical fall under the old rules or the new rules?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: That would be covered under the old rules as an entitlement that was created when the previous act was in effect.

Mr. Phillips: So, what the minister's saying is that if this particular judge wished to take a sabbatical because he accrued it before, the judge would be entitled to 80 percent of their salary for the year they would be off - is it 80 percent of the salary?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The answer for the member opposite is that the entitlement for that sabbatical was created under the previous statute and that he would be entitled to it.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, I knew that. I think my point was that - I pointed it out before - this is a pretty cushy sabbatical for anybody to get, and I'm glad we're changing it. I'm still not entirely happy where we're going with it, but it kind of conforms with what other employees can do, from time to time, with respect to sabbaticals. It's a little more fair - certainly a lot more fair than it was before, with respect to someone who'd be able to take a year off and draw 80 percent of their salary. It's pretty unheard of, I think, in today's world.

Mr. Cable: The minister had correspondence with a woman who was questioning why the commission that was established had on it two people who did not reside in the Yukon. Of course, with all the attendant costs that would be associated with moving people back and forth, she was wondering why we didn't get into Yukon hire.

There are people who come to mind, like Frank Fingland, an ex-assistant commissioner - or an ex-commissioner, I think, at one time - who I think would have been quite capable of sitting on this commission without incurring the extra expenses. I was wondering why we didn't go for Yukoners to sit on the commission, and why we went outside to do that.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: As the member knows, we were working to a deadline that was imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada in establishing a commission. There was an attempt made to put Yukon residents on the Judicial Compensation Commission and, indeed, we did that.

All the members of the commission are very credible candidates who were accepted by both the government and the bench, a requirement of the Supreme Court decision. The member is aware who is serving on the Judicial Council, and he is aware of their significant Yukon experience.

Mr. Cable: Well, I'm not in any way making derogatory remarks about the two out-of-Yukon people who sat on the commission. I'm just wondering why it wasn't possible to find three people here in the territory. I know there are a few senior public servants who have chosen to retire in the Yukon, who I think could have sat on it, and I mentioned the name of one just a few moments ago.

What is the usual drill with respect to these compensation commissions? Are people hired out of province - say in Ontario - to sit on their commissions, or do they look around for people who are resident in the jurisdiction?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, other jurisdictions have a huge pool of candidates from which to select potential members of a Judicial Compensation Commission. The wording in the section here is to establish a Judicial Compensation Commission in accordance with the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm looking for the relevant clause here. The composition of the commission is that the minister and the Chief Judge would agree on a name. If there was not agreement on a single name between the minister and the Chief Judge, then the process for nomination is that the minister and the Chief Judge each select a name from a list put forward by the other and that those two commissioners then select a third commissioner.

That is the process that we used. There were names put forward that included several Yukon residents. The final selection of the Judicial Compensation Commission was in accordance with the recommendations to Ted Hughes, and I am confident that we have made a good selection of commissioners who will make a fair decision and in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. Cable: I'm not suggesting the minister hasn't complied with the technicalities of the process.

How long did the minister take to determine that there weren't enough local candidates around to sit on the commission? Was that a matter of a week or a month or six weeks, or what?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, that work was ongoing over a number of months. There were some people who were not able to serve and there were other names that were put forward that were not acceptable to the judiciary.

Mr. Cable: Just out of curiosity, what sort of budget are we looking at for those two out-of-territory parties? What are we expecting in the way of disbursements in the way of transportation costs and hotel costs? That seems to be the nub of the inquiry that was made to our office, and I think part of the nub of the inquiry that was made directly to the minister.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I would have to come back with a specific answer to the financial amount for the expenses. I can tell the member that the Judicial Compensation Commission members who came from outside of the Yukon - there is one of the commissioners who is a resident of the Yukon. The other commissioners made a single trip to the Yukon and had two or three days of expenses. So, the cost was not large, but I can provide an answer for the member on the specific cost.

Mr. Phillips: Maybe the minister could give us an example here of what this clause would do. If the NDP government rolled back the wages two percent, would the judges' wages be rolled back as well?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Yes, if there was a universal austerity measure that occurred during the five-year period in which the commission's recommendations had already taken effect, then this provision would allow for a commission to be established to consider any dispute about its application.

This provision is a first, but it was agreed to by the court. This was also recommended by Mr. Hughes, as it protects judicial independence, but it also recognizes that the judiciary may be subject to the same austerity measures as members of the public service, and I believe the member opposite has some experience with that.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chair, I guess the problem that I have with this clause is that I could see a clause being put in here to - if the government decided to just pick and choose the judges and didn't roll back anybody else's wages but decided to roll back the judge's wages, maybe this could be resolved by the commission.

It seems to me, though, the problem is that, if a government was experiencing financial difficulties, and everyone in the employment of the Government of the Yukon who was paid was accepting some of the burden, this wouldn't be an attack on the independence of the judiciary: it would be a contribution from the judiciary and individuals - anybody who had to deal with this universal austerity measure - as part of the role that they would play in helping the Government of the Yukon get out of a financial problem.

It seems to me that we're setting it up so that, if a decision was made by government to develop some austerity measures, everyone else would be subject to it, but it would have to go to a committee for the judges to decide whether they would. I think that everyone, no matter who they are - judges or MLAs or whoever - should be subject to the same austerity measures. We're all people. We're all being paid by the government, and it isn't attacking the independence of the judiciary.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, this section establishes exactly that provision - that a universal austerity measure does apply to members of the judiciary.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: There is a mechanism for resolving any dispute over the application of the universal austerity measure. I would point out for the member that one of the factors to be considered by the Judicial Compensation Commission is the financial position of the government. This section also provides that, where universal austerity measures are applicable to the public service of the Yukon, they will also be made applicable to judges.

Mr. Phillips: Do other jurisdictions do it this way? Is this sort of taken from the guide book, so to speak, of other jurisdictions that have this type of a process?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This is the section on the selection and appointment of commissioners, which is taken from the wording of Mr. Hughes' recommendation. I should inform the members that both generally in this section of the act, which sets out the appointment of commissioners, and in the specific instance of the Yukon Judicial Compensation Commission that was recently structured, there was a primary concern that members are seen to be impartial with respect to the Yukon courts.

The members of the Judicial Compensation Commission, that has been struck presently in accordance with the requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada, also fit the criteria of having knowledge with respect to the Yukon and its court system.

The commission is required to develop fair and reasonable recommendations on judicial compensation.

Mr. Cable: Of the three commissioners who were appointed, who fit the bill in section 22?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I believe that at least two members of the present Judicial Compensation Commission had experience in mediation and other consensus processes to resolve differences.

Mr. Phillips: What's the cost of the commission - an annual cost?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The cost of the Judicial Compensation Commission is not yet known. Once the 1998 interim commission has completed its mandate, we will know more about the costs associated with conducting the commission. The Member for Riverside asked that question just a few moments ago. I have agreed to provide the information to the members when we have obtained it.

The member also referred to an annual cost. The Judicial Compensation Commission is only established once every five years.

Mr. Phillips: This deals with the Judicial Council serving in an educational capacity and a better consideration of justice issues, clause (g). There's a cost attached to these. Surely the department would have done some kind of an estimate of what this new role of the Judicial Council will be. Could the minister maybe provide us with some detail on that?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This is difficult to answer without knowing what sort of training or education the Judicial Council might recommend. The cost for something like training on the dynamics of family violence could be delivered by the Department of Justice family violence prevention unit, and it would be minimal.

The Judicial Council could also conduct public meetings without cost, and could choose to provide general information about the court system in the Yukon without significant cost.

The proposal would be to continue to provide block funding to the courts, which may be used for educational purposes. I think what I can also do for the member is indicate that, when the new bill is proclaimed, and as we move into implementation, those costs will be monitored, and we can provide them to the member opposite as they are proposed and/or incurred.

Mr. Phillips: I look forward to that. Mr. Chair, I love these catch-all clauses, "(j) to perform such other duties as it may be requested to perform by the minister or the Chief Judge." I would hope that this doesn't mean that the minister or the deputy would have the Judicial Council mowing their lawn or anything. I would hope that it would be -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: The minister said, "clean my windows". Well, I'll give the minister my address, Mr. Chair. I would love to look out the window and see all these judges and lawyers crawling all over my house, cleaning my windows. It would be an interesting picture, I'm sure. I don't know if we could get them out there for that, though.

Anyway, maybe the minister can explain why the catch-all is in there, and what other duties are anticipated for the members of the Judicial Council?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, as the member has said, this is a catch-all provision that will allow either the minister or the Chief Judge to request that the council perform other duties from time to time that may not be specifically set out in this section. It's not always possible to foresee every eventuality, and this would allow for either a minister or a Chief Judge to bring forward requests for the performing of other duties that may be appropriate. And cleaning windows would not be one of them.

Mr. Cable: The Bar Association raised two concerns with the minister, more particularly, section 30(d) and section 30(g). With respect to 30(d), they raised the point that it's not clear who the proposals would come from. Could the minister respond, on the record, to the two inquiries that were made by the association?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, what I gather the member is requesting that I do is put the response in relation to section 30(d) - that he has a copy of, in the letter to the Canadian Bar Association - on the record.

Section 30(d) addresses situations in which the minister may seek guidance from the Judicial Council to improve judicial services or for some other matters. It is essentially unchanged from the current act. Section 30(d) was also the subject of discussion between the court and my officials. It is intended to inspire debate and the possibility of further review, as opposed to a commission making recommendations. The government may need to assess issues of resource availability and consistency with other initiatives, for example, which may not have been taken into consideration by the council.

The bar had recommended the word "recommendations." "Proposals," which is the word used in the clause, is more consistent with this role than "recommendations."

Mr. Cable: A side bar issue seems to be the need for clarification as to where the proposals would come from. Is it anticipated the council will simply take proposals from anybody and act as the conduit to the minister and the Chief Judge?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, the proposals could come from citizens. The proposals could come from anyone. The intent is to make the Judicial Council more open and accountable. There is encouragement in this part of the act for the Judicial Council to become more involved in public discussions on justice matters. There is provision for an annual report. There is specifically, in clause 30(d), a provision to enable the minister or the Chief Judge or members of the public or members of the bar or others to bring forward proposals for improving the judicial services of the court.

Chair: Is it the members' wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Ten minutes.

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee is dealing with Bill No. 68, Territorial Court Act. We are on clause 31. Is there any debate?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, as I have indicated in general debate on this bill, the Government of Yukon, in appointing members to the Judicial Council, has used its appointments to bring forward nominations of lay people. The composition of the council, as it is structured in the act before us, is intended to ensure that there is a balance of lay people on Judicial Council. For greater certainty, I am prepared to amend section 31, in clauses (a) and (b) and, in section 31(2), to specifically reference "layperson". That is the position of the government.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move, therefore,

THAT section 31(1)(a) be amended by adding, after the word Yukon, "and the other shall be a layperson."

Chair: Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Phillips: That's step one, but I need to know what the other amendments are before I can buy all the amendments that are coming forward from the minister. I want to get an idea of the composition of the Judicial Council in whole before I vote on the first change.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I thought I had explained that to the member initially, and I gather the member didn't come back from the break - when I was speaking with the Member for Riverside.

The amendments are for greater certainty to recognize that, of the two members nominated by the minister - one of whom shall be a layperson - that of the two members nominated by Yukon First Nations - at least one of whom shall be a layperson - and that in 31(2), the council may recommend the appointment of one further layperson member, who shall ensure that the council reflects the demographics and diversity of the Yukon. The intent in Mr. Hughes' recommendation in 31(2) and the intent of the government ensuring that there is balanced representation on the council was that the additional member be a layperson. For greater certainty, I am proposing an amendment to insert the word "layperson" into that section.

Mr. Phillips: I recommended to the minister one other change, and that is to subsection (2), where the council "shall" recommend the appointment, rather than "may". My concern is that, if they don't recommend an appointment, you have quite an imbalance still. The minister's come a little ways with respect to making sure that the other nominations are going to be lay people, but unless the minister puts this other person on the Judicial Council, which in (2) she says is a layperson, there will still be quite an imbalance. So, if the minister would consider "shall" recommend the appointment of one further member, who shall be a layperson, then I could feel more comfortable with it.

Just so we know where we're coming from here, the minister's going to still appoint two members. I would have preferred the Legislature do that, but I can live with the minister appointing them, because I can hold the minister accountable here if she chooses a couple of her old campaign managers, or someone like that. So I can hold the minister accountable there.

The council itself will be appointing a member, if it wants to, and I want to ensure that it shall. So, I think the council will have a role to play here and the minister has a role to play. And then the various First Nations have a role to play and the Law Society and the justices of the territory. So, I think that it may go somewhere a little closer to what our concerns are, if the minister would consider "shall" instead of "may."

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I believe that the clause must remain that the "council may recommend the appointment of a further member who shall reflect the demographics and diversity of the Yukon", and I would like to explain to the member the reason for that analysis.

Certainty is provided in saying that "the minister shall appoint one member of the Law Society of the Yukon and one layperson". The Yukon First Nations may nominate two members, at least one of whom shall be a layperson.

Yukon First Nations may nominate two laypersons. We have to consider that possibility in looking at the overall composition of the council.

There is a member nominated by the Law Society of the Yukon, which is a provision that's in the present composition of the Judicial Council in the existing Territorial Court Act. There is a member nominated by the Chief Judge, also in keeping with the existing act. There is a member nominated by the justices of the peace, who is another layperson on the Judicial Council, and then there is the resident Judge of the Supreme Court, who is a judge.

This provides for four lawyers and/or representatives of the judiciary and four members of the general public who are lay people. The ninth member of the Judicial Council may be appointed with regard to the demographics and diversity of the Yukon. If there are already four lay people on the Judicial Council, then the balance required by the constitution and by court rulings, that there is not a majority of public members, would be wrong.

We're unable to change the word from "may" to "shall".

Mr. Phillips: The member's argument might stand up -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: Species?

Chair: Order please.

Mr. Phillips: They were getting unruly on the other side.

The minister's argument, I guess, is that Yukon First Nations could appoint two lay people, and that would skew the balance, and I support that. Does the minister have any problem at all with - we say "there shall be a lay person". Why not say "there shall be a lawyer with the First Nations". Now, I know the minister may not like telling the First Nations whom they can appoint. But, I mean, our government - government to government - is specifying that one of our appointees will be a lawyer, so why can't we specify that one of the government appointees will be a lawyer? What's the problem with that?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, the member has been making the arguments all along that he is opposed to the appointment of too many lawyers to the Judicial Council. We want to ensure that Yukon First Nations can nominate representatives to serve on the council as they see fit. They may believe that their interests would be better served by having two lay people on the council.

Now, I would like to go back to discussion on section 31(2) because I'd like to explain some of the reasoning that led Mr. Hughes to recommend that the council may appoint a further member who can reflect the demographics and the diversity of the Yukon.

The previous section, 31(1), sets out the appointment of various members of the Judicial Council, to represent the bar, to represent the judiciary, to represent Yukon First Nations and the Government of Yukon. Mr. Hughes recommended that the council, which may be equal, which has the voice of lay people and of governments, the voice of lawyers and the judiciary, sitting down, that they may feel there is a need for an additional member of the Judicial Council to reflect the demographics and diversity of the Yukon.

We can specify that that person be a layperson; however, there needs to be agreement between the lay members and the members of the judiciary and the legal community on the appointment of that additional person. That would meet the constitutional requirements that lawyers and non-lawyers have an equal say in the composition of the Judicial Council and in whether it is, indeed, beneficial to add a further layperson to the council.

Mr. Phillips: When the minister started out, I was afraid she would say what she said with respect to me recommending that a lawyer be appointed to the Judicial Council. I probably should have said a little more than that. I would agree with appointing a First Nations lawyer to the Judicial Council on the condition that clause (2) said "shall" recommend the appointment of a layperson. That was my point.

Maybe another approach that we could look at, Mr. Chair, was that clause (2) says that the council "may" recommend the appointment. Maybe another way around this is to look at the possibility that the council "shall" recommend the appointment of a person who reflects the demographics and diversity of the Yukon "as well as establishes a 50/50 balance on the Judicial Council of lay people and lawyers."

They may want to appoint a lawyer to that position to make it equal. If the First Nations appoint a lawyer in that case, maybe there'll be a need to appoint another lawyer. I don't know. I haven't had the chance to sit down and do the numbers. What I'm recommending is to not only use subclause (2) to represent the demographics and diversity of the Yukon, but use subclause (2) to represent a balance of lawyers and lay people on the Judicial Council - not more lay people than lawyers. If there's a balance already, maybe they won't have to appoint anybody, but if there isn't, maybe they'll have to appoint someone who would reflect a better balance.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, Mr. Chair, as I understand the member opposite's discussion, the only issue is whether there is an imbalance of lay people on the Judicial Council. I did not understand the member to be concerned whether there was an imbalance of the legal community represented.

Mr. Chair, there are eight members of the Judicial Council appointed under section 31(1)(a) through (f). In 31(2), a ninth member may be appointed.

I think it would be reasonable to believe that when members of the community are sitting in their role as members of the Judicial Council, whether they are a layperson or a judge or a lawyer, and the members of the Judicial Council are deciding whether they should exercise their authority to add an extra member to ensure that the makeup of the council will reflect the demographics and diversity of the Yukon, we should also be able to trust their judgment.

They may recommend the appointment of a layperson; they may recommend the appointment of a lawyer, as the member has said.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chair, that's my point. They may recommend the appointment of another lawyer, and again, the balance will be swayed more so in favour of legal people.

I think the member is wrong. I think that balance is just that - a balance. It means four and four, and I would hope that that's what we achieve with the amendments that are put forward by the minister.

I'm more comfortable with amendments that are put forward by the minister. I would have preferred that the minister would have accepted our suggestion that it be the Legislature that appoints 31(a), as opposed to the minister. I would have felt a little more comfortable with that, but I'm prepared to live with this. I think that it still didn't go as far as I wanted it to go, but I don't think I'm going to get the minister to move any further than she has, and I'm appreciative of the minister moving to where she has with this.

But I am still concerned that the general public is not going to feel as comfortable as we would like them to feel when they are registering a complaint and having to appear before the Judicial Council. I guess time will tell, and we'll have to wait and see how the general public feels, whether anybody registers complaints and how the complaints are dealt with. It's premature to judge that aspect of the Judicial Council's work.

I'm prepared to accept the amendments that were put forward by the minister. I think it's a lot clearer than it was before. It ensures that lay people are at least going to be there, and so I think it's somewhat of a victory for lay people to ensure that they will be represented on the Judicial Council. So, we'll see where it goes from here.

Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment to 31(1)(a)?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move

THAT Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be amended in paragraph 31(1)(b) at page 17 by deleting the paragraph and substituting for it:

"31(1)(b) two members nominated by Yukon First Nations, at least one of whom shall be a layperson."

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move

THAT Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be amended in subclause 31(2) at page 17 by inserting the word "lay" between the words "further" and "member".

The section would then read, "The council may recommend the appointment of one further lay member who shall, in so far as it is reasonably possible after considering the existing membership, ensure that the council reflects the demographics and diversity of Yukon."

Mr. Phillips: Can the minister give an example of how this tribunal will take place?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, in sections 43 through 45, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal may be established to dispose of a complaint that has been made against a judge. The tribunal will have the powers of a board of inquiry, appointed under the Public Inquiries Act, the same as in section 31 in the present act, the reference to the tribunal means the Judicial Conduct Tribunal created under section 43 in this act. An inquiry is public, unless the Judicial Conduct Tribunal determines it should not be public. And if the Judicial Conduct Tribunal decides that the hearing should not be public, then they must give their reasons for that decision.

Mr. Phillips: It kind of says it both ways here. It says the inquiry should be held in public, which I can agree with. Then it says "unless the tribunal determines, in the public interest, that all or part of the inquiry should be held in private". Either it should be held in public, or it should be held in private. My preference would be that it be held in public, so people know what's going on.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: These sections 45 and 46 are both consistent with the language in the present act, which allows for a publication ban. There may be reasons to hold a tribunal inquiry in private. The complainant may be a child, or it may be a case of sexual harassment. There may be reasons to hold the inquiries of the tribunal in private. The present act does allow for that.

Where the Judicial Conduct Tribunal decides there are interests that need to be met to hold the hearing in private rather than in public, they must give reasons for that decision. The public interest is well established in law.

Mr. Phillips: This is the administrative functions of a JP. One of the bones of contention with the JPs has been the training of the JPs, and I would like to ask the minister if there are any plans to increase the budget for the training of JPs, in light of the changes to this act? What is the current training agenda, or schedule, of JPs at the present time? Maybe the minister can also answer this question: do we have a full complement of JPs throughout the territory?

That information I don't need at this time. If the minister could just bring me that back at a later date, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I can provide the member with a short response now, and then if he does wish further information, I can bring that back as well.

As the member is aware, at the present time, the justices of the peace receive training and the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court is responsible for that training.

The member also asked about the complement of justices of the peace in the present categories in the Yukon. We have 57 JPs. There are a total of 27 people who have been appointed as a JP-1, and four of those have an appointment restricted to performing marriages. There are 10 people appointed as JP-2s and 18 as JP-3s. In addition, there is a full-time JP-3 who sits in Whitehorse on a regular basis.

The changes that we have made in relation to justices of the peace represent a policy change in line with the government's direction that the criminal justice system needs to build tools within communities to deal with problems in a more effective way than the traditional approaches. Simply establishing community justice committees is not enough. We need to have justices of the peace sitting with those community justice committees, and that is established in these sections of the act.

There are also requirements for due process and other constitutional guarantees that must be observed. This means that JPs must receive the training they need to properly do this work.

In the amendments to the Territorial Court Act before us, there is additional strength given to the provisions dealing with training. The Judicial Council may recommend particular training. The Judicial Council may strike working groups or committees that include members of the public that might want to address the issue of training on various subjects.

Mr. Cable: The Canadian Bar Association, in their letter that we've talked about this afternoon, expressed some reservations about clause 54(d) and suggested that it be removed. The minister, in her response, worked the two clauses together - clauses 54 and 55. Just for the record, what sort of similar duties does the minister see asking the justices to perform under clause 54(d)?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: An example might be an adjournment. If the plane couldn't get into Old Crow, then a justice may be asked to set an adjournment, and that would fall under 54(d).

Mr. Cable: Those are administrative duties that have a judicial flavour, then. We're not contemplating carrying on inquiries or that sort of thing, are we?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: No.

Mr. Cable: The Bar Association also raised a number of points under section 55. I think, if as the minister says, there are some 50-odd justices around and it's probably impractical to insist that there be full legal training for them. What sort of auditing is done of the justices' performances after the fact?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, as the member may be aware, that would be unconstitutional. The supervision of the justices of the peace at the present time is provided by the chief judge. Under the terms of the new Territorial Court Act, the supervising judge would be responsible for supervising the duties of justices of the peace.

Mr. Cable: Oh, I wasn't suggesting the minister get in the act. I was wondering what, in fact, the justices and judges do by way of auditing the performance of people who don't have legal training.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, as the member is now aware from my previous answer, it is the Chief Judge who has the responsibility for the supervision of the justices of the peace. He would be the best one to respond to that question.

Mr. Phillips: Is this a sitting judge in our territorial court who's going to be this supervisory judge, or is this the head of the JPs?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: This is a supervising judge who is a judge of the Territorial Court.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, I move

THAT Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be amended in clause 83 on page 38 by deleting the expression "community judicial officer" in the said clause, and substituting for it the word "justice".

Chair: Order please. We're on clause 68.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Chair: The amendment is withdrawn. I think we'll do these clauses in numerical order.

Mr. Phillips: The rates, fees and expenses paid to witnesses and interpreters - is there any contemplation of any changes there, or is this just something that is part of the act, more or less, because it was in the existing act and is now in this new one?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Chair, this is similar to section 59 of the present act. Section 70.(1)(a), the rate of fees and expenses payable to witnesses and interpreters, is the same as section 59(a) of the present act, and so forth, throughout this section.

Chair: The time being 5:30, Committee will recess until 7:30 p.m.

Chair: I will now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Committee is dealing with Bill No. 68, Territorial Court Act. We're on clause 78. Is there any debate?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move

THAT Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be amended in clause 80(3) on page 38 by deleting the expression "community judicial officer" in the said clause and substituting for it the word "justice".

Mr. Cable: I had brought to the minister's deputy's attention that, potentially, if one reads section 83 with section 84, there could be a hiatus in the law, if the present Territorial Court Act is repealed and only a provision of the new act is proclaimed in force. I was offered an explanation, and I wonder if the minister would allay our fears in this area.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I certainly hope that I will be able to do that, Mr. Chair.

It is intended to have the entire bill come into law upon signing by the Commissioner, except for sections 63 and 64, which will require further discussions with both courts, the Supreme Court and the Territorial Court, given that the administration of the courts is presently completely integrated. Those provisions did not exist in the present act. Therefore, there is no gap if those two sections are not proclaimed. The bill will be proclaimed in its entirety when the new act is proclaimed.

Sorry, the old Territorial Court Act will be repealed when the new act is proclaimed.

Mr. Phillips: Before we move the bill out of Committee, Mr. Chair, I want to just say a couple of words. First of all, I believe that this bill is a better bill today because of some of the issues that were raised by members of the House. I want to thank the Member for Riverside for his help with respect to some of the issues that we've talked about here today - specifically the Judicial Council - and I want to thank the minister and her officials for the cooperation that we've seen to at least guarantee stronger representation of lay people on the Judicial Council.

It's not quite as far as I might have gone if I had been in the minister's position, but it certainly goes a lot further than we were, and I appreciate the efforts by the minister to accommodate the concerns that were raised.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 68 be reported out of Committee with amendment.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I move the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

May the House have the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole?

Mr. McRobb: Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 68, Territorial Court Act, and directed me to report it with amendment.

Speaker: You have heard the report of the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: I declare the report carried.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 55, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Sloan.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move that Bill No. 55, entitled Canadian Blood Agency/Canadian Blood Services Indemnification Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 55, entitled Canadian Blood Agency/Canadian Blood Services Indemnification Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 55 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 62, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Sloan.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I move that Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Child Care Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Health and Social Services that Bill No. 62, entitled An Act to Amend the Child Care Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 62 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 49, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 49, entitled An Act to Amend the Securities Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 49, entitled An Act to Amend the Securities Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 49 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 63, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 63, entitled An Act to Amend the Dental Profession Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 63, entitled An Act to Amend the Dental Profession Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 63 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 61, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 61, entitled An Act to Amend the Optometrists Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 61, entitled An Act to Amend the Optometrists Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 61 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 56, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 56, entitled Spousal Tort Immunity Abolition Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 56, entitled Spousal Tort Immunity Abolition Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 56 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 48, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 48, entitled An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 48 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 50, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 50, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 50 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 59, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 59, entitled An Act to Amend the Limitation of Actions Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 59, entitled An Act to Amend the Limitation of Actions Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 59 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 57, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 57, entitled Estate Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 57, entitled Estate Administration Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 57 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 67, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 67, entitled An Act to Amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 67, entitled An Act to Amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 67 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 66, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 66, entitled Auxiliary Police Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 66, entitled Auxiliary Police Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 66 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 52, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 52, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (1998), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No.52, entitled Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (1998), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 52 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 70, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 70, entitled An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 70, entitled An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 70 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 54, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft:    I move that Bill No. 54, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, be now read a third time and do pass. 

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 54, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 14 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 54 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 60, entitled An Act to Amend the Family Property and Support Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 60, entitled An Act to Amend the Family Property and Support Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 14 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker:      I declare that Bill No. 60 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 65, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I move that Bill No. 65, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 2), be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 65, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 2), be now read a third time and do pass.

Mr. Jenkins: I just have a few items I'd like to get on the record with respect to the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act.

When it was initially introduced in the House, we were told that the issue was one of safety. While our party is going to support the bill because of some of the components, we are very, very concerned and alarmed with some of the other aspects of this bill before us.

We support the principle of graduated licences. We do have concerns, Mr. Speaker, with the reverse onus issue of the speed limits being posted on Yukon highways at 50 kilometers per hour unless otherwise noted - a considerable change from the 90 kilometers per hour that it was previously.

We're also concerned with the issue of drivers operating a motor vehicle while impaired. We're more concerned with the issue of drugs in this circumstance and situation, Mr. Speaker, than the issue of alcohol, because this hasn't been clearly identified, and the issue has not been addressed as to how to identify individuals who are operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a narcotic.

I guess the final issue that we have major concerns with, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of being allowed to ride in the rear of a pickup truck without seatbelts and continue to drive at the legal speed limit. We must be the last jurisdiction in Canada that permits this, and the minister responded by saying that it's to permit some folks to go hunting and fishing, and that's why they are allowing this to continue. Most jurisdictions in Canada have restrictions on riding in the rear of a pickup, unless it's an emergency. In fact, even a dog in most jurisdictions has to be tethered to both sides of the box so that he couldn't jump out, or be retained in a cage.

The other issue that we'd like to draw your attention to is the amount of time that went into the review. The minister hid behind the consultation process, and despite raising major issues here in the House, the minister's response was that he was not in the mood for compromise. We're elected to see that these acts are in the best interest of all Yukoners, and, Mr. Speaker, while we're going to support this amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, we don't believe that all of the issues of safety that could have been addressed were addressed by this minister.

Thank you.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act are quite far-reaching into the future, and one of the amendments speaks to graduated licensing. Having been out in the community and talking to children - or youth I guess - who are going to be affected by this, they have a lot of concerns about this. They've seen a lot of advertising on it. They know it's coming, but they haven't been spoken to, and I ask the minister to go out and start that process as soon as possible. There are a lot of youth out there who are really wondering about this.

The other thing that we mustn't forget with graduated licensing is that drivers' education has to be part of that process. It certainly has been in every other jurisdiction in Canada and it's something that we need to work on.

In addition to that, and the Member for Klondike has just noted this as well, with youth in particular, issues around drug use are just as important as the issues around alcohol, which is also a drug, of course. We spent a lot of time in the last legislative session dealing with amendments to do with impaired driving, and I think we need to start looking in the future toward amendments that deal with marijuana use and other types of drug use, particularly among the youth, because that's what kills them in a large number of cases. It's something that we have to be very concerned about.

I talked to the minister earlier in this discussion on a number of occasions about drug recognition experts, and that is certainly what they have in other jurisdictions. It's the RCMP who have extra training and are very good at noting when someone is under the influence and when it's best to get a blood test for that.

By and large, these are improvements on this act and the Yukon Liberal caucus strongly supports these amendments.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it does give me great pleasure to be able to stand here and speak about the amendments to the act. It certainly is done with safety first and foremost in mind. I'm certainly disappointed to hear the negative aspects that come out of the mouth of the official opposition critic.

It's not simply a fact of riding in the back of pickup trucks. It's not simply a fact of some folks going hunting and fishing. I rather consider that to be a slur against rural communities, native peoples and non-native peoples who do use pickups as a tool and not just a transportation mode. Certainly, I would appeal to folks to consider that in their thinking - at least in their thinking.

I do want to correct that in an emergency basis; the provision of riding in the back of a pickup is essentially if there are no seatbelts left within the pickup. So certainly, it is a measure of last resort.

On the issue of graduated drivers' licences, I'm very, very pleased to be the minister in place to help bring this in, not for the authority - if I could put it in that manner - that might be exerted over young people, but to let young people know that we must drive in a proper manner, learn in the proper manner so that we might be able to have them come home in the evening time. I'm certainly glad that we can all agree on that most important provision for our young people. It's for the safety of new drivers and not just young people. Certainly, I do believe it's very, very well worthwhile.

I have spoken before with the Member for Riverdale South regarding the programs of the RCMP and the drug recognition experts. I can agree that drugs are just as influential as alcohol when it comes to influencing bad driving habits. Certainly, that's not what we want. The government will be working very closely with the RCMP and we'll be doing everything that we can as a government so that we might be able to curb that problem that is on the streets.

I'd just like to thank everybody here for their support, though some of it was qualified support. I'd just like folks to know as we evolve with legislation in the future - maybe the distant future, or the not-so-distant future - that we will be looking at these acts again to always improve, because certainly this government is a government that believes not so much in benchmarks, but certainly measures can be put in and evolution is a definite part of the living life of these acts. So, I do thank members for their qualified support and we will be working on supporting it.

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called. Order. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 65 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 58, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fairclough.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I move that Bill No. 58, entitled An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 58, entitled An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker:Division has been called.

Order. Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 58 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 51, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fairclough.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I move that Bill No. 51, entitled Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 51, entitled Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: I would like to thank all members of the House for their support of this bill. This act responds to clearly identified public and industry needs for safety standards and liability protection. It will also give us a better picture of what use is being made of the Yukon's wilderness and set up basic guidelines to protect the wilderness.

It will ensure public safety through the first-aid and liability insurance provisions, which will come into effect with the first set of regulations. It will also require commercial wilderness users with the same set of regulations to report wilderness trips they make on an annual basis and to bury, burn or pack out garbage they bring into the bush with them. It will give us the framework for rules, which the wilderness operators themselves have decided are necessary to protect the future potential of the industry.

It is a very forward-looking act, which has been developed with a great deal of discussion with the Yukon public and with the direct involvement of people who will be affected by it. Regulations to more closely guide specific sectors of the industry will be developed in a careful, consultative way, when either industry or the public interest decides that they are advisable.

Mr. Speaker, this act will set up a very fair situation for people involved in the wilderness tourism industry. If you're taking visitors into the wilderness for gain, you and every other operator will have to have first-aid training and liability insurance, keep track of your trips, and have respect for the environment you're travelling through.

When the industry sector you're involved in decides there should be more detailed standards, you and other operators in this sector will help decide what those standards will be and, before they come into effect as regulations, anyone in the public will have a chance to comment on them for a full 60 days.

The act outlines an appeal process which makes it clear that your appeal will be heard in a timely fashion. Although the industry and government had proposed to detail these enforcements and appeal proceedings in regulations, both have accepted the opposition's suggestion that these last two points be included in the act itself.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think that this act is a proactive and responsible piece of legislation. It will help us ensure a healthy wilderness tourism industry, and an intact wilderness resource for years to come.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition will be supporting this act. I do want to rise, though, and be on the public record as thanking the minister for listening to the concerns that were raised by opposition members when it came to the appeal process. It's one of the few times in this session of this Legislature when, in fact, the opposition has been listened to, and had some amendments entered into the act, which we believe will make the act a stronger piece of legislation than what it was when it came on the floor of the Legislature.

We do now have a regulatory process for the industry to operate under. This is one act that has been industry driven, and I hope that industry will have full input into any changes that'll be made to this act and the regulations that will follow, under which they will operate.

So, once again, I'd like to thank the minister for his cooperation; I believe that's what this Legislature is all about. Neither side of the House has all the answers -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: - in spite of what the Member for Faro thinks - and by working together we can provide better legislation for our constituents, and that's what we're here for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan: I would like to rise to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of our caucus, to the House and to the minister for the cooperation on this particular bill.

The Wilderness Tourism Licensing Act was a bill that came forward after much discussion with varying interests and, I believe, about two years' worth of discussion and a great deal of agonizing and consensus discussion. The members of the industry that have approached me since our discussions and Committee of the Whole debate ended on this have expressed their appreciation and support for the thoughtful deliberation of this bill. They have expressed their thanks for amendments that we have brought forward to the bill and have expressed their thanks for the comments and the discussion.

One of the points that was raised many times during the debate was discussion about regulations. The minister extended an invitation to members to participate and be involved in the discussion on the regulations, along with industry. I trust that that goodwill will continue and that we will end up with regulations that meet the code of regulatory conduct and are the best they can be for the industry.

Most of all, as a person and Yukoner who appreciates the Yukon wilderness, I would like to express my appreciation for the protection that this particular piece of legislation affords our very precious resource, the Yukon wilderness. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Motion for third reading of Bill No. 51 agreed to

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 51 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 53, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 53, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 53, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to speak to this bill and to go on the public record that we in the official opposition will not be supporting the amendments to this bill. While we don't have any difficulty with most of the amendments that have come forward and don't believe that they will cause any problems, we are not satisfied with the answers we got from the minister with regard to the clause on "contract worker". The answers that were given were far from being satisfactory. We feel this will have a negative impact on creating jobs in the Yukon, and I don't believe that we need to use a big club to get a few people who may be contravening the term "contract worker."

There is a very clear definition in Revenue Canada as to what constitutes a contract worker, and I don't believe that we should be bringing in an all-encompassing clause in our Employment Standards Act, which I think would cause far more abuse than what's being abused in the system now.

When we look at the term "contract worker", I have great difficulty with the description that's given, which is "a worker, whether or not employed under a contract of employment, whether or not furnishing tools, vehicle, equipment, machinery, material, or any other thing owned by the worker". That is a very broad description of what a contract worker is, and I think it's going to have a serious impact on a lot of small businesses in the territory.

The minister says don't worry; anybody who is a legitimate contract worker won't be affected by this. I suggest to the minister that the territorial government is the biggest abuser of the contract worker today in the Yukon, not the private sector. We need only look at the people who work for Yukon Housing, who are totally dependent upon Yukon Housing, who are independent contractors and would not be able to qualify under the amendment of this act as a contract worker.

Our airports - the minister copped out by saying, well, that's under federal regulations; we don't need to worry about that. The fact remains that when the contract goes out for the CAR stations, it states quite specifically in there that whoever bids on it must work at that. They can't just bid on it and put a bunch of employees there. That, in my opinion, falls under the definition of what she would now call a contract worker.

We have many home-based businesses, people who are striving to get into working for themselves who start out with very, very small jobs and may be captured by this broad definition of what a contract worker is now.

The oil industry - which we're trying to attract to the Yukon - in other jurisdictions, employs contract workers in almost every aspect of the industry. This is going to have a negative impact on them here. The rules are different from what they are in other jurisdictions. As a result of that, I don't see where we're going to gain any benefit by this clause.

Mr. Speaker, the one amendment that should have come to this bill is a provision for training so that a private sector employer could embark upon a training program and not have to pay the top wages that he's paying equipment operators, say, in construction. That isn't allowed under the Employment Standards Act the way it is today. That's an amendment that would go a long way to creating more jobs in the territory. That's not in here, but we have an all-encompassing clause covering a contract worker that, in our opinion, is just far too broad and will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem that the minister perceives is out there.

So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this bill and we will not be supporting it in third reading.

Thank you very much.

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

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft:    Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not really surprised to hear that the Yukon Party is failing to support amendments to the Employment Standards Act. They have taken that position in the past.

The member spoke and indicated that he wasn't satisfied with the answers that they have received in debate. Well, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that they're not satisfied because the Member for Klondike has utterly failed to understand labour law. There have been explanations about the Canada Labour Code, the Employment Standards Act and the Public Service Act, and the member has failed to understand that. 

These amendments, and in particular the amendments on contract workers, only codify what is existing case law. The standards we are establishing and the amendments to the Employment Standards Act are fair and require that there is economic dependence and subordination on the part of the contract worker. This is an appropriate definition of an employer/employee relationship, and it's a definition that is enshrined in law at the present time.

The employees at CAR stations are treated appropriately. The members have their facts wrong. I believe that the amendments that establish penalties for the few employers who break the law and compete unfairly with the majority of employers who do respect the law are going to be a positive measure. The Yukon hire commission held numerous discussions with business, labour groups and the community at large. These recommendations came forward in the Yukon hire commission. We're pleased to act upon them and to know that they enjoy significant support in the community from both business and labour, as well as other groups.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Disagree.

Mr. Phillips: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 12 yea, three nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 53 has passed this House.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 69, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Keenan.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 69, entitled Municipal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 69, entitled Municipal Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, we're going to be supporting this Bill No. 69, but we have many reservations about numerous sections of this act.

First, I'd like to thank the efforts of all the municipal officials, the Association of Yukon Communities and the policy staff at Community and Transportation Services for their many years of involvement to bring this act together.

The concerns that we have commence with the quality of the drafting of this piece of legislation and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, much of the legislation tabled during this session was very poorly drafted. We can see that with the many errors and omissions, typos and otherwise, that had to be brought forward.

But getting to the act itself, Mr. Speaker, this act establishes another level of government: regional governments. Just what we need in the Yukon, another level of government.

The concerns about this new level of government are not just about a regional government, but it was not subject to any debate on the floor of this Legislature as to the parameters under which they could be formed or operate. That's all going to be done by regulation.

Furthermore, how this new level of government will be funded was not spelled out at all. The minister was extremely vague, other than, "We're going to go out and consult with the folk". But if we create a new level of government, funding has to flow, or has to originate somewhere to support that new level of government.

Regional governments could be established all over the City of Whitehorse, encompassing all of the outlying areas and all of the various First Nations. We don't even know if we're going to elect people or whether the minister is going to appoint people to this new level of government.

This is the only level of government in the Yukon for which how it's going to operate or how it's going to be funded is not clearly spelled out. Every other level of government is defined somewhere in some act, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other major concerns that we have with this act is the ability of the minister to exempt the Government of the Yukon or its agencies - Yukon Housing Corporation, Yukon Development Corporation, Yukon Energy Corporation - from any municipal bylaw. That's a pretty big stick, Mr. Speaker.

Then we look at the Municipal Board. The power of the Yukon Municipal Board has been reduced, shrunk, but that power is being picked up by the inspector of municipalities. That's been considerably broadened and expanded. Members of council now have to act to the minister's satisfaction. There's nothing about elected municipal officials' oath of office. The minister can dismiss them or any member of council.

This is a very, very broad and sweeping series of powers that have been granted to the minister.

The minister may also set up an inquiry into the conduct of municipally elected officials. And after the inquiry, the minister just has to consider that the municipality is managed irregularly, improperly or improvidently. The inquiry doesn't even have to establish that anything is wrong. The minister just has to consider something is wrong. He can then dismiss councils or any member of that council. Mr. Speaker, so much for the principles of natural justice. So much for enabling municipal legislation.

Here we have an NDP government in the Yukon that is constantly seeking and obtaining more and more authority and funding from Ottawa and paying lip service to providing more authority to municipal governments, saying it's enabling legislation. But for this government, and this new act that they've brought forward, the minister now has more power over the affairs of municipal governments than ever before. The sad part of it is that there's no newer, increased funding flowing to municipal governments - very hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.

Municipalities now -

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Speaker: Point of order. The hon. Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, the member has said that the act of the minister in this bill is hypocritical, and I would argue that that's unparliamentary.

Speaker: The word "hypocritical" has been found to be unparliamentary. The most recent example can be found in the House of Commons of Canada yesterday. There, the Speaker asked that the word be withdrawn. I would therefore ask the Member for Klondike to withdraw that word.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the phrase that the act was hypocritical.

Speaker: The Member for Klondike, please continue.

Mr. Jenkins: The opposition had quite a number of suggestions. The minister refused to accept virtually all of them. The only amendment that came forth was the one dealing with the issue of auditors being in the singular or the plural, but only after the minister referred back to his department to find out where they sat.

After all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, under this new act municipalities now will be at the mercy of the minister and beholden to him. And we know that all ministers are not equal.

Mrs. Edelman: The Yukon Liberal caucus supports the new Municipal Act. It's been a long time coming, and having been an official with a municipality in the Yukon, I can tell you that the old act was not easy to work with.

At this point, we'd like to thank the executive director of the Association of Yukon Communities, Larry Bagnell, who has worked so hard on this act, members of MARC, both representatives from C&TS as well as members from the communities, and I have to note here that this is not a divine document but it is a good one.

There are problems with the act. It doesn't protect municipalities from the downloading of responsibilities without the attached funding. Also, there was a series of problems that were identified by the Municipal Act Review Committee just prior to this document being tabled and, indeed, it was quite a surprise that the document was tabled because it wasn't the document the people had agreed to. There were a series of last-minute changes and amendments that were brought forward by the minister, but there are still outstanding issues that need to be dealt with in the future.

It's an enabling piece of legislation. In a lot of ways it will help municipalities throughout the Yukon, and I must admit that I did appreciate the minister noting certain clauses within the act and commiting to return those clauses back to the MARC for further thought.

Once again though, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very large act. It encompasses many, many areas of municipal governance, and it needs to be reviewed regularly to make sure that it's living legislation that reflects Yukoners' points of view today and tomorrow and, once again, I would ask the minister to consider, very seriously, if he's bringing forward amendments to the Municipal Act next year, putting in a sunset clause so that there is at least a review every 10 years.

Now, if you look at, for example, the protected areas strategy, a plan that has to be reviewed every five years. The Education Act has to be reviewed every 10 years, and it's probably not unreasonable for such a large act to get a regular review as well.

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

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, indeed, it gives me great pleasure to be standing here and to be able to speak about this unique act. It's an act that is supported by all the mayors and by the all the councillors, by all the folks who are affected by it. The process that was put together over two years ago was a good process, and I'd like to take time right now to thank the many, many people - the current mayors and councils, past mayors and councils, the Municipal Act Review Committee, the chairs, the co-chairs of it, certainly the executive director of the Association of Yukon Communities, and the many, many people that did take the time to come out to community meetings, the citizens of this territory who came out.

I publicly support them. I wholeheartedly support them. I have no reservations, Mr. Speaker, in my support for them. And why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because, Mr. Speaker, this is enabling legislation. This brings people together, it does not dictate to people, Mr. Speaker - it brings people together. It allows people to come together, and to brainstorm together. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because we're entered into a new Yukon, Mr. Speaker - a new Yukon.

I see the former government leader shaking his head - maybe he's disagreeing, or maybe he's sleeping - but he certainly should be listening, Mr. Speaker. Because this is the new Yukon, coming from past values - values that I was raised with when I was just a youngster, Mr. Speaker -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Keenan: - just a youngster, Mr. Speaker, and that was before the former government leader was even in this territory. And I knew the goodness of the Yukon, and Mr. Speaker, I see that goodness in partnership portrayed in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

So, when the Member for Klondike stands up and says that he obviously is going to support this, well he's done it because he's forced into it. He feels he's forced into it.

I would challenge the Member for Klondike and any of his colleagues to vote against it if they have those serious reservations. Vote against it if you have those reservations, my friend. Because what you are doing when you do that is you're stroking them off and you're saying they do good work, but obviously you have no respect for the work of the people. This act was put together by the citizens of this territory. So, obviously, you say one thing but you have no respect for them on the other points.

Finally, we have drawn him out of his cave; finally, he comes forth with his rumpled ilk. Yes, sir. Here we go.

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such poppycock - I do hope that is parliamentary. But certainly, the poppycock that has come out surrounding regional government - there has been such a twist and a spin put on that that I would certainly encourage the Member for Klondike to look for another job in the spinning field because he's a natural - an absolute natural. He is so masterful at it because he has taken something from the citizens of this territory that reflects old Yukon. It is a new Yukon, speaking of partnerships, combining services - actually getting away from a government saying, "You must do this," by letting the people say, "We would like to do this, and we want to do it in these principles and in this spirit." Well, that's exactly what this has done here.

At the mercy of the minister? My god, I think all we're at the mercy of is the mercy of the attitudes of the Yukon Party and, to me, that is a very sad day, when we have to be subjected to that once more - a terribly sad day. Now, I know the peanut gallery, the three amigos, are once more, "Yup, yup, yup, yup," but, certainly, Mr. Speaker, they should take time to stop and to listen. When they listen, they will hear. And if they have difficulty, the Legislative Assembly has certain tools for them to be able to hear better.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like I'm losing this debate. They're just not listening, and if they don't listen, what's the sense of talking? Well, my god, preachers have been around for over 2,000 years, and they'll be here for another 2,000 years. And only then will the Yukon Party be able to come out of their dinosaur - prehistoric, sinking - and come into the new Yukon. And when they do, we have a spot for them. It's called Beringia.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 69 has passed this House.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to waive the provisions of Standing Order 59(2) in order to allow third reading of Bill No. 68.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members:Agree.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members: Agree.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members: Agree.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 68, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Moorcroft.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 68, entitled Territorial Court Act, be now read a third time and do pass. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you poll the House.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Agree.

Mr. McRobb: Agree.

Mr. Fentie: Agree.

Mr. Livingston: Agree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are 15 yea, nil nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it.

Speaker: I declare that Bill No. 68 has passed this House.

Government bills.

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No 13, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I move that Bill No. 13, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Government Leader that Bill No. 13, entitled Third Appropriation Act, 1998-99, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill, which serves to update our spending picture for the current fiscal year. Members will recall that the first supplementary that we tabled last spring allowed us to accelerate a number of capital projects in order to provide jobs for Yukon people.

In the aftermath of the Faro mine closure, Yukon people told us they were very supportive of that move.

Among the projects we've funded with that supplementary were upgrades to various roads throughout rural Yukon, as well as a major runway expansion at the Whitehorse Airport to increase our capacity to accommodate international flights.

This year, we also saw the results of extensive lobbying by our government with a go-ahead from the United States Congress for continued work on the Shakwak project. When I was in Washington recently, I had the opportunity to thank Senator Stevens for his personal efforts to help make that funding available. The $10 million we plan to spend on the north Alaska Highway this year accounts for part of the increase in the capital portion of the supplementary.

The bill we are considering today continues the practical steps our government is taking to address the Yukon's current economic situation. We are using a variety of mechanisms to support the private sector in creating jobs and identifying economic opportunities.

These steps will help us move forward in our ongoing commitment to strengthen and diversify the Yukon's economy. I would like to touch briefly on some of the highlights.

One of the major factors behind the increase in capital spending is something of which I am especially proud. It shows our government's commitment to stable and affordable electricity bills for Yukon people, as well as our commitment to environmentally friendly energy.

With this supplementary, we are earmarking $16 million as a grant to the Yukon Development Corporation for several important energy-related purposes. This is made possible by a one-time census adjustment of $24 million, which I will comment on more fully later.

The minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation has already outlined the purpose of this grant in a ministerial statement, so I'll be brief in my remarks at this time.

The grant that we are providing the corporation has four components: a rate stabilization fund of $10 million, a green power fund of $3 million, an energy conservation and efficiency fund in the amount of $1 million, and finally, a $2-million allotment for applied energy research and development in the form of a major wind-power generator.

The decision to set aside such a large portion of funds for energy-related purposes was made consciously and deliberately. We wanted to ensure that the money was used to provide the maximum possible benefit to all Yukon people, rather than targeting a few projects that would help some parts of the population, but not others.

These expenditures will provide all Yukoners with affordable and stable energy rates for years to come, and will lay the groundwork for both the efficient use of energy and the development of clean energy sources for the future.

There are, of course, many other items in this supplementary that are worthy of mention. For example, there is $250,000 set aside for a trade and investment fund for the remainder of this fiscal year. This will provide practical support for Yukon businesses that want to build the capacity to sell their goods and services outside the territory, or who'd like to attract outside investment in their operations.

There's $250,00 for the rest of this fiscal year for a tourism marketing fund that will provide similar incentive for Yukon tourism operators to pursue further economic opportunities.

There is a $50,000 investment in a film location incentives fund to help attract film and production crews to the Yukon.

There is money set aside for tax reform and a host of other important initiatives that we have chosen to undertake to help create jobs and economic activities for Yukon people.

There are funds in this supplementary for expanding territorial agent services, to several more communities, for consultations on banking services and for initial work on the new Ross River school.

Mr. Speaker, this supplementary - it's far larger, of course, than would normally be the case at this point in a year. Members will know that fairly definitive population numbers flowing out of the 1996 Canada Census became available at the end of September.

They turned out to be quite favourable to Yukon. Changes in population are important to us for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the impact they have on our formula financing grant. One of the more significant factors in this grant calculation is growth in our formula expenditure base. This expenditure base increases as Canadian provincial and local expenditures or gross domestic product increases.

It also increases if the rate of growth in Yukon's population exceeds the rate of growth in the rest of Canada. The recent census shows surprising growth in our population, compared to Canada's. This differential, which is applied to our formula financing calculation for the previous five years, has worked very much to our advantage. We had expected a favourable impact from the census and showed a rather conservative figure of $4 million one time, and $4 million ongoing in the main estimates for 1998-99. The figures, as they now stand, are for an additional $23.8 million one time, and approximately $7 million ongoing.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the census was not our relatively high growth rate over the census period, but rather, the lower than expected growth in the Canadian population. This lower Canadian growth was the subject of considerable debate among statisticians at both the federal and provincial levels, as the census figures were being finalized. In the end, it was determined that they were statistically valid, and they have been published as the official census count, although there may be some minor adjustments later this year.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the increase in our formula financing grant, which I've just mentioned, the supplementary also shows an additional $9.2 million in recoveries being received for the year. This is due to the additional U.S. funding for the Shakwak project, which is a very welcome development, and will go some way to improving the picture for our road-building industry this year.

Operation and maintenance expenditures are scheduled to increase by almost $8 million. This increase is largely the result of two items. First is money required in the current year to fund the cost of our new collective agreement with the Public Service Alliance, at just over $3 million. The secondly is a $2.2 million adjustment in the Department of Finance as a result of the collection of an old receivable from Curragh Resources. This had been budgeted as an expenditure reduction in the current year. As it turned out, it was booked at the end of last fiscal year and has no significant impact.

Capital expenditures for the year will increase by $39.2 million and consume by far the largest portion of the new revenues. There are three principal reasons for this rise in our spending for capital purposes. I've already mentioned the new Shakwak funding and the major investment of $16 million in energy initiatives.

The third factor is, of course, the revoting of capital monies that lapsed at the 1997-98 fiscal year-end. These revotes total slightly more than $10.7 million. They are distributed among a number of departments, most significantly Community and Transportation Services and Health and Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, a detailed examination of this summary will show we are honouring our commitment to stable and predictable public financing. We are maintaining important services, such as education and health, without raising taxes or imposing health care fees. We are undertaking a number of new initiatives to help create jobs and broaden the territory's economic base.

I look forward to the support of the members for this supplementary.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the supplementary budget, which was tabled a few weeks ago in this Legislature. I was somewhat surprised and alarmed by the size of this supplementary budget, moreso on the operation and maintenance side than I am on the capital side.

It would appear that this NDP government is going back to the old ways of the old NDP government with large supplementary budgets. The biggest cause of concern is the increase in the operation and maintenance in this period. I believe that the $378-million forecast now will be by far the largest operation and maintenance budget ever consumed in the Yukon in any fiscal year in the past.

I guess I find that really alarming when we have a population that is shrinking, even though we're now reaping the benefits of a population increase in 1996. If this government was practising prudent financial management, I would have thought that they would have put some of this money away for the future, when, in the next year or two - in the next couple of years - we're going to feel the impact of the severe drain that we are experiencing now of Yukoners leaving this territory for much greener pastures.

We have lost some 2,000 people between June 1997 and June 1998, which is six months ago, Mr. Speaker. I haven't seen any recent figures since then, but I know when you talk to moving companies, they are busy - busy moving people out of the Yukon, not into the Yukon.

That is going to have a negative impact on our formula financing a few years down the road and there's not anything that I see in this budget that has been taken into consideration by the Finance minister in presenting this supplementary budget to this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have publicly stated that the size of government is growing, and we hear the Government Leader putting his spin on it as to why it's growing and why it has to grow, but the fact remains we are having more government employees to service fewer Yukoners. That doesn't make sense to me or to a lot of Yukoners.

The biggest concern with this, Mr. Speaker, is that these are built-in costs that are going to be ongoing. I believe the June 1998 figures said there were 377 more people working for government than there were the previous June. That's a substantial increase in the number of people who are working, from one year to the next year.

Now, the Finance minister can come back and say, "Well, we had phase 2 of the hospital transfer - 200 people." Well, yes they did phase 2 of the hospital transfer, but we experienced phase 1 of the hospital transfer and we didn't see the dramatic rise in the number of people working for government that we have now.

And it's ongoing. It's ongoing. Two hundred people, 200 people can be -

Some Hon. Members: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Ostashek: Here we've got the kibitzer from Faro again, talking about largest increases, largest budgets ever. They're doing such a remarkable job over there, Mr. Speaker. They're doing things so much better, they're spending every nickel they get. They're like somebody who won the lotto. They get a $24-million windfall from Ottawa and they've got to get out there and spend it. They've got to get out there and spend it.

Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense at all.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about biggest budgets ever when the Yukon Party was in power. In fact, when you look at the operation and maintenance budgets over the four years we're in, they were pretty flat - pretty flat - compared to what we've experienced in two years under an NDP government now. And now another $8 million on top of that. What will the operation and maintenance budget be next year? Is it going to go down? I didn't hear the Finance minister say that at all. He didn't give any projections of whether it was going to go down, go up, or what it was going to do.

But if you want to look at the historical data of the main estimates, you'll see that they didn't go up under the Yukon Party government. In fact, they were very, very flat and we did a good job of controlling O&M and spent the money putting Yukoners to work.

Mr. Speaker, every economic model that you look at says that you put more people to work by spending capital dollars than you do by spending the same amount of money on operation and maintenance. And in a time of high unemployment, you would think that the government would be trying to control the costs.

We're not saying, "Lay off government workers". We need government workers, and they do a good job. But we don't need to keep increasing the number of people that we have working for government, especially with the population going down.

Almost every indicator there is out there is not very encouraging. Everything is down, and Yukoners are crying out for economic leadership and they're not getting it from this government. They're not getting it. They're not getting it.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: They're not getting it. And the government members can sit over there and kibitz and do what they like, but the fact remains that Yukoners are calling us every day and crying out for some economic leadership because they don't believe this government is on the right track. They don't believe that selling prefab houses to Russia or Chile is going to solve the unemployment problems in the Yukon.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Yes, it is a bad thing. The Member for Faro - this is the big free enterprise guru, who knows all the answers, how to put Yukoners to work. All he knows is how to travel around the world on an airplane and spend the taxpayers' money.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Ostashek: Many Yukoners have come to me and said, "How can this work? How can this work?" How can we import all of the raw materials into the Yukon, where we have very high wages on the average? How can we assemble these buildings here, and how can we ship the finished product out from up here in the Yukon to places like Chile and compete with industries that have been in that business for many, many, many years - the Atcos of this world, and other companies that are putting up prefab homes? How can we compete? It's not that this government is trying something that hasn't been tried before in the Yukon. Other people tried prefab homes to be used up here in the north in camps, and it didn't work, so I don't know what this Economic Development minister has that he thinks this is going to work. I'd like to know how it's going to work, and so would Yukoners like to know how it works. It just doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense at all.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader, in his presentation, was talking about stable power rates, and what a great job they've done, and how much money they injected because it was going to be the best bang for the dollar for Yukoners. Well, if they hadn't spent all the money that was in the Energy Corporation in the two years in government, they wouldn't have had to put a big cash injection back into it to stabilize the energy rates at a higher rate than what they were before they came to power.

Mr. Speaker, we point it out to them, time and time again. This is a government that says one thing and does something else, and they wonder why people have lost confidence in them. The people can't believe what this government is coming out and saying now. This is a government that, in opposition, had an agenda to get elected. They were going to say everything they thought the people wanted to hear, so they could get elected. Now, they're in government, they've got a loss of memory of what they said.

The Government Leader pointed that out this afternoon. He's even disputing the statements he made in this House and telling Yukoners, "They're all wrong." He's right - they should listen to him.

Well, Yukoners aren't buying it. Even his past supporters aren't buying it - like CPAWS, which says that the government is doing different from what they said they would do when they were in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, that is only one of many, many flip-flops that this NDP has demonstrated since they've been elected. They did it on rate relief. They did it on the coal-fired energy plant. In opposition, it was a bad deal. Now, they're saying it's not such a bad deal - they'd be interested in it, they would look at it.

We have the Member for Faro who said it was a stupid idea to talk about grid expansion and hooking up to the B.C. hydro grid. Then he devotes $100,000 in his budget to study it.

Mr. Speaker, I said to the Government Leader today in Question Period and I'm going to say it again in this speech tonight: Yukoners are crying out for leadership and they need some clear direction from this government. They want to know what this government stands for. They're tired of the mixed messages that they've been getting and that, Mr. Speaker, discourages investment in the Yukon. It discourages companies from coming here to invest when they don't know what this government stands for. They don't know whether it's worthwhile to come here and go through the large regulatory process that we have in the north here and go through all of that difficult time and then not know whether they're even going to be able to operate or not because this government isn't sending a clear signal.

Speaker: Order please. The time being 9:30, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

98-1-161

Protected areas strategy (Yukon): "Wild Spaces - Protected Places" (Fairclough)

98-1-162

Protected areas strategy (Yukon) background papers: (1) technical papers; (2) work plan 1999-2000; (3) summary report of public comments (Fairclough)

98-1-163

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act (No. 2) (Bill No. 65): French text (Moorcroft)