Whitehorse, Yukon

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce as guests in the gallery today the chairperson of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, Mr. John Burdek, Mr. William Asp, and negotiator for the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, Daryn Leas. We have joining us federal negotiators, some of whom may join us later: Mr. Brian McWilliam, Patricia Eeles, Gord Mitchell and Anne King. And from the Yukon government joining us in the gallery today are land claims negotiators Allan Nixon, Al Jones who may join us later, and Mr. Dermot Flynn.

Please join me in welcoming them to the gallery today.

Applause

Speaker:      Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, I have an item here to be tabled for the Member for Klondike, Mr. Peter Jenkins. It's on continuing care.

I have a second one to be tabled, again for the Member for Klondike, Mr. Peter Jenkins, on the number of FTEs in the Health department.

Speaker:      Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions.

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) Yukon elders and seniors living in Yukon Housing Corporation housing units should be allowed to have a pet; and

(2) allowing elders and seniors to have pets vastly improves their quality of life, and;

THAT this House urges the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation to establish an "Adopt a Pet Program" in conjunction with the Yukon Humane Society for elders and seniors living in social housing units.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      If there are no further notices of motion, I will proceed to statements by ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan:     I rise today with great pleasure. It is an honour for me to announce that negotiators for the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, Yukon government and Canada have reached agreement on a land claim package to present to their respective parties for review and ratification. The package includes the final agreement and self-government agreement for the Ta'an Kwach'an Council.

Just this morning the parties signed a negotiators memorandum indicating agreement on all parts of the final and self-government agreements, signifying their intent to recommend the package to their principals to be initialled and ratified.

This announcement follows several days of intensive negotiating with the First Nation at which outstanding Yukon issues were addressed and demonstrates that, with a cooperative spirit and hard work, the negotiation process works.

The Ta'an Kwach'an Council has been close to finalizing before and signed a negotiators memorandum in the past but those agreements were always subject to the resolution of major issues. Over the past year, negotiators have focused on addressing those outstanding issues and finishing off the more technical aspects of negotiations and drafting.

We wish to congratulate and thank the negotiators, the First Nations, Canada and all parties for their commitment to seeing these lengthy negotiations to a successful conclusion.

The agreement represents a major accomplishment in advancing aboriginal government in Yukon and in Canada. It ensures the recognition and participation of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council in the political and economic development and the future of the Yukon.

The package is innovative and tailored to the unique circumstances of the First Nation. The final agreement provides for 300 square miles of settlement land in the Laberge and Whitehorse areas, the traditional lands of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council. The First Nation will receive financial compensation of approximately $12.3 million, based on 1989 dollars.

The self-government agreement provides the First Nation with the ability to manage their own affairs on their settlement lands, and to develop government-to-government relations with Canada, Yukon and the City of Whitehorse. It represents a new partnership between governments and Yukon First Nations.

Since we have been in government, we have been regularly reporting our continued dedication to reaching final land claims agreements with First Nations and strengthening the relations with Yukon aboriginal people.

As our top priority, we have been working hard to complete land claim agreements for the benefits and more certain future that they provide to First Nations and all Yukoners.

We are proud to be part of the process, which involves a great deal of commitment to resolve sometimes very difficult issues.

Many, many years ago, the Ta'an Kwach'an First Nation Chief Jim Boss began this process. Today, we can report more than good progress. We can confirm a milestone of success for all parties.

We look forward to continuing to work hard with Canada and all First Nations on completing land claims.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to our guests in the gallery.

Applause

Mr. Fairclough:      I rise to respond to this ministerial statement. This is very good news for Ta'an Kwach'an Council members and for the rest of Yukon. There has been a long delay in the completion of final agreements and I hope that this announcement is the beginning of many more to come. I look forward to one day seeing in place all Yukon First Nations final and self-government agreements.

I congratulate all the negotiators on all sides - all three governments - in reaching an agreement on a land claims package that can be taken back to the Ta'an Kwach'an members for their consideration and vote.

I know that a lot of hard work has gone into the negotiations, as I have been part of that in the past. Good luck, Ta'an Kwach'an, and I wish you all the best.

Thank you.

Applause

Mr. Jenkins:      I, too, rise to congratulate the Ta'an Kwach'an, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Yukon for reaching agreement on a land claims package to present to the respective parties for review and ratification.

The Premier has called the negotiators memorandum a milestone of success. This is very good news, Mr. Speaker, but I advise the Premier not to break out the champagne bottles just yet. I recall that the Ta'an Kwach'an and the federal and territorial governments signed a similar agreement back in 1996, and it was referred to as a milestone back then. That was five years ago, so you can understand the reason for my cautionary words.

In settling Yukon Indian land claims, milestones have too often turned into millstones, with final negotiations becoming bogged down. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade or take anything away from all the hard work that the negotiators have done, but once all the parties, especially the Ta'an Kwach'an, have ratified the final agreement and the self-government agreement, that will be the real day for celebration.

Mr. Speaker, along with the other First Nations that have yet to ratify their final agreements, I am looking forward to that day in due course. It has been a day that's long overdue and it's one that won't come any too soon.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, it's customary practice that only those members who are elected to the Legislature have the opportunity to speak in this Chamber. I would just like to, therefore, on behalf of all the guests in the gallery, express my thanks to the members who have offered their good wishes and their thanks to the negotiators. I know that everyone appreciates the good wishes that have been offered by some members.

I would also like to concur with the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, the leader of the official opposition, that I, too, and our government are working hard, and we hope and believe that what we are working toward will be the first of several that we bring to conclusion and bring to a satisfactory settlement, and we're looking forward to ongoing, solid, productive, strong working relationships between the Ta'an Kwach'an, our government, the Government of Canada and other First Nation governments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      If there are no further statements, this then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Keenan:      Today I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Now, yesterday, the minister, once again, could not - or would not - answer questions about the safety concerns at group homes. I must say that safety is an urgent matter for staff at the group homes. These concerns were the focus of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board report last July and the independent safety audit done in October. Again, these concerns have not been addressed. Will this minister now call for an independent inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act to look into the entire issue of children in care, for the good of the children and the safety of the staff?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I guess, for the member opposite, once again, the train of events that have occurred here - the member tends to forget that there are and were issues under the contractor. That's when the issues occurred and that is when the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board report was done, and that is when the safety audit was done. It was under a contractor. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the member persists that things haven't changed. I would like the member opposite to present to this House any conclusive proof that things haven't changed because the member opposite is great at innuendo, obviously just putting things out there without any substantial base. I would stress that there must be facts behind what the member is saying. Otherwise it is, once again, just fanning a fire that is just not there.

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, the smoke has been in the air on this issue for over a year now, so we understand that there is a fire there. This is not about the opposition; it's about what the government should do, and I am attempting to point out issues - real issues.

Now, the minister should be aware that staff from a number of group homes and a residential youth treatment centre met to express concerns about their safety. They all came together. The staff find it very, very stressful, and I'm trying to be earnest and honest with the minister here.

So, once again, will this minister now call for an independent inquiry to look into the entire issue of children in care for the good of the children and for the safety of the staff? Will the minister please consider that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I'm not sure what timing the member opposite is talking about, that they came together. Was this a month ago, six months ago, a year ago, three years ago? Again, the member opposite just lays a statement out there, and it's assumed that it happened yesterday.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe that those are not all the facts. If the member has some statements to make - some categorical statements - about some issues that are not going well, and the member opposite has specific incidents that the member can cite, lay them out here in the House, instead of working on innuendo.

The member is famous for that. There's no fact behind it. Unless the member is willing to lay the facts out, how is one to deal with it? It's just another one of those smoke-and-mirrors issues that the member opposite is famous for.

Mr. Keenan:      For the minister's benefit, the meeting was held the day before yesterday. Again, I am attempting to get the minister involved here to properly do his job.

Last night, I was sitting at home, and I got phone calls from people who were involved, and they said that they were living in fear. I have phone calls at home, at 9:30 in the evening, after the Question Period. They have said that the situation is out of control, that the children are in control, that they drink, that they spend the night with their boyfriends and their girlfriends. It's reversed from what it should be.

I think, for the third time: will this minister now call for an independent inquiry to look into the entire issue of children in care, for the good of the children and, again, for the good of the staff? Will the minister please do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Again, the member opposite says, "I've had phone calls" - one phone call, 25 phone calls, 400 phone calls? Another infactual approach toward trying to present an issue where probably there isn't one.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Mr. Fentie:      Pursuant to Section 19(h), I can no longer sit idly by and allow this minister to continue to accuse the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes of imputing false or unavowed motives to another member. Innuendo and the comments about fabrication by the member opposite toward the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes certainly, in my view, fall under that section.

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

Ms. Tucker:      The minister was seeking clarification on the numbers and accuracy of the information in order to further answer the question.

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

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, it's abundantly clear that the Minister of Health and Social Services has abused the rules of this House. He has imputed that falsehoods have been alleged by the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes.

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      From what the Chair has heard here, I don't seem to interpret the issue in the same way as some members of this House. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for me to make a ruling at this time. I would like to have the opportunity to review Hansard or the Blues so that I can review what has been said again. Then I will make my ruling at a later time.

I certainly am not prepared to make a ruling now. Thank you.

The Minister of Health and Social Services, could you conclude your answer please?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      What I'm asking for, Mr. Speaker, are facts and figures. That's what I'm asking for. I'm not asking for some generalized statement, and if I can't ask for that when a member makes a generalized statement without backing it up, then one can say anything in this House without backing it up. It seems to me the time has come when the facts have to be presented; he can't just make innuendo comments.

Question re:   Klondike group home, safety issues

Mr. Keenan:      Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the rhetoric and I will continue with my question, and these are facts. I am trying to put facts on the table, and if the minister will listen and do the job instead of being defensive, it would help.

The recently hired staff have academic training, Mr. Speaker, but they do not have any hands-on training in behaviour management or any experience in this type of situation.

One of the previous recommendations was the need to address culturally appropriate programming, and there is no culturally appropriate programming for current staff, Mr. Speaker.

Now, has this minister taken part in any discussions with First Nation leadership on these issues, which in a lot of cases involve First Nation people?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I have talked to First Nation leadership about having First Nation components in a variety of programs but not specifically any one program. I believe if I went down to that I would be micromanaging a department and that is really not my role. But I would agree with the member opposite; yes, in the general context of trying to look at how we should respond to some of those needs, obviously that's what we would like to do.

Mr. Keenan:      Here we go, hiding behind micromanagement. I am not asking the minister to micromanage. I am asking the minister to do the job that the minister has been appointed by the Premier to do.

Now, if the minister has gone half way on the recommendations, why doesn't the minister just put on his jogging shoes and go the other half? Why not?

With the kids in control, there is no programming. With your previous life as a policeman, you must understand that. This is not in the children's best interest, nor is it in the staff's best interest, nor in the best interest of staff safety. Now, last fall, we introduced a Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. It was to provide a framework for dealing with these situations, with the rights and the needs of children and of youth in their dealings with government. Now, this act is based on the B.C. legislation that was a result of the inquiry headed by Judge Gove. So one last time, I will ask: will this minister now call for an independent inquiry to look into the entire issue of children in care, for the good of the children and the safety of the staff? Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Once again, the member has made a generalized statement about the students being in control. What is that based on? What group home? What students?

I have made it very clear that most teenagers who are in our group homes are very troubled teenagers. Obviously they need a lot of care. The members opposite keep fanning this issue like it doesn't want to go away. They don't want the issue to go away. For some reason, they don't want these children to heal. And I am not sure what the objective here is, Mr. Speaker. If the member has concrete evidence of concerns - documented concerns - I am willing to listen to that. But just to make a class statement, with no backup, to me, goes nowhere. We need to have substantial evidence that there is a problem. We have very competent staff. Our staff are working very hard at trying to build for the future. But with this kind of query taking place every day, all of our residential homes and also the staff are feeling that they are being attacked, and being attacked by the very people who should be supporting them. They need all the help they can get.

I have made it very clear that in the future we will be looking at reviewing all our programs. That's a matter of course.

Mr. Keenan:      I'm absolutely appalled, and I take that as a direct personal insult. With my history of the last 20 years, working for the rights and the benefits of the people, for this minister to say I am making just political hay out of this is absolutely appalling. This is not about the staff.

Well, actually, Mr. Speaker, it is about the staff. It's not about the staff's competency; it's about the staff's safety. That is what it is.

I would like to point out, and put on the record at this point in time that it was a staff member of one of the group homes who phoned me, and I spent about half an hour on the phone, and I have been stopped in the street by other staff members.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's not hide behind the smoky mirrors that the minister is famous for portraying. I cannot understand what this government is afraid of.

The Gove inquiry resulted in a major overhaul of the way government does business, how they operated. It's a matter of urgency.

I'd like to direct my final supplementary to the Premier and ask if the Premier will actively get involved with this. I have observed the Premier now, for a whole term plus this short term that she has been in, and I know that the Premier is a compassionate person. So I would like to ask the Premier if she would personally get involved, do the right thing, and if she will not do that, will the Minister of Health resign over this very important issue?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Wow. Emmy Awards for sure, coming up.

Mr. Speaker, personally, the real issue here is the cancellation of a contract. That is the real issue. The members opposite don't accept the fact that we as government cancelled a contract because the very thing the member is talking about wasn't being done. The issues weren't being addressed. That's the real issue. That's called political hay. It's not looking at helping children; it's not looking at helping the situation; it's looking at how we play politics.

I'm not into playing politics, Mr. Speaker. I'm into doing the right thing for the youth who are in our care, and if things don't go right with the youth in our care, then obviously we have to make changes. And we as a government made a hard decision. We cancelled a contract and are now doing the program ourselves. Does that mean we cured it? No, we're not curing it, Mr. Speaker. These are very troubled youth. It's going to take time.

We have very professional staff who are working very hard at trying to heal, trying to get the youth on the path of correctness, but if this keeps going, they'll never get on the path because the members opposite want to make political hay.

Question re:   Pets in Yukon Housing Corporation units

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. Now, it's a well-established fact that the quality of life of elders and seniors is vastly improved if they are allowed to have or keep their pets. It is also a fact that the Yukon Housing Corporation has a policy preventing elders and seniors living in their units from having pets unless those pets are in a birdcage or a fishbowl.

Now, during the 2000 election campaign, the Yukon Party proposed another novel, new idea of having the Yukon Housing Corporation establish an adopt-a-pet program, in conjunction with the Yukon Humane Society. This would be a win-win situation for all concerned - for elders and seniors being allowed to keep a pet, or the pet they already have, and for the Humane Society, who are always looking for new homes for unwanted pets.

Would the minister be prepared to consider such a proposal?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that pets are therapeutic and pose a great benefit, medically and physically, to the elderly. I would also like to say that the Yukon Housing Corporation pet policy for social housing has been challenged through a complaint to the Yukon Human Rights Commission. The Yukon Human Rights Commission has referred the matter to the board of adjudication for a hearing.

As pet policies have brought implications to Yukon Housing Corporation programs and services, the corporation will defend its policy with legal counsel. The Yukon Housing Corporation does not believe that the pet policies are unfair or against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Jenkins:      So, the minister agrees that pets for seniors are therapeutic and very worthwhile and yet he's standing behind the board of directors of the Yukon Housing Corporation's pet policy in not permitting them. I'm referring specifically to elders, and I'm referring specifically to those who have a pet or wish to acquire a pet. Now there has to be a way that we can move this forward rather than end up before the courts with this situation.

Why doesn't the minister grab the bull by the horns and provide some political direction on this issue, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I have had a few meetings with the president of the Yukon Housing Corporation, as well as with the board of directors of the Yukon Housing Corporation. During that time, I have talked a little bit about the seniors housing program. I also know that we have to accommodate the needs of the seniors in these housing units, and we are looking at a number of different issues and how we can accommodate them. Certainly the pet policy is one of the issues and we will be dealing with it.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm not looking at these individuals keeping a dog team in their home. What we're talking about are pets, and many of the condominium corporations have pet policies where it goes by the weight. Three or four kilograms is the maximum weight that the pet may be. This might be the right approach, so I'd appreciate the minister undertaking such a review and sitting down with the board of directors.

Can he give us some idea as to when a pet policy will be forthcoming for elders and seniors in Yukon Housing Corporation homes?

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is not a new issue. It has been an ongoing issue for many years. We are looking at this, and again I would like to say I cannot pinpoint a time and date for this, but we are looking into it. As soon as we can come to an arrangement with the board, I will definitely get back to the member opposite with a response regarding time and date.

Question re:  Forestry summit

Mr. Fentie:      My question today is for the Premier. It's not always the case in this House that we on this side and the members opposite can agree on something, but I am sure that the Premier will agree that the forestry summit underway in the territory at this time is very, very important, not only to this Assembly, but to the Yukon public and the First Nations alike. It is vital to the people of this territory and the future of this territory.

My question for the Premier is this: is the Premier comfortable with the First Nation participation at the forestry summit?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, as the member opposite knows, by the results of the ministerial statement today and other initiatives, that I haven't had as much time as I would like to spend at the forestry summit. However, I was very encouraged, as I am sure that the member opposite was, when I opened the forestry summit with my colleague, the Minister of Renewable Resources, the Member for Riverdale North, in greeting the 100-plus bodies in the room who were keen and very interested in working on these key issues surrounding forestry.

The night before the forestry summit, I met with several First Nation representatives who are very keen in seeing this work as well. Naturally, we are encouraging participation by all in working on this most important subject.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I make no judgement, pass no judgement and accept the Premier's comments. But I would like to put on the record a very distinct difference with how the First Nations must deal with this issue. We have First Nations that have settled land claims, and we have First Nations that do not have settled land claims. Those that do not have settled land claims are in a difficult position when it comes to this issue, especially around forest management.

One of the vehicles that First Nations have thought would be a vehicle that could give them that comfort and allow forest management to proceed in this territory are vehicles like memorandums of understanding.

Can the Premier explain to this House, for the benefit of this House and the people at the forestry summit, at what stage are the negotiations for the memorandum of understanding with the Kaska in the southeast Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The member opposite knows or should know that those discussions around the memorandum of understanding also involve Canada. They were the subject of discussion yesterday between the Kaska and the minister. Those discussions were also raised with me by the Kaska as well, as recently as an hour and a half ago. I committed that I will examine the situation and its current status. Once I have done that, I would be prepared to provide the member opposite with a more detailed, written response.

Mr. Fentie:      Back to the first part of my question and the agreement between both sides of this Legislature. I would then ask the Premier to agree with me and follow through in her commitment in writing to me from January 2001 that she will make every effort in ensuring that that memorandum of understanding can be finalized as quickly as possible. That way, the area - the southeast Yukon - which is under the greatest pressure when it comes to this issue of forestry, can move ahead with the Kaska people being able to deal with the situation at a government-to-government level, as they so desire.

Will the Premier agree with me and commit to that here today on the floor of the Legislature?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Well, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has noted that it's easier to agree with the members opposite when the tone is one of cooperation and working together.

I will agree with the member opposite that we both recognize that forestry throughout the territory is a very, very important issue. I would also agree with the member that there is tremendous pressure in the southeast. I have also indicated that I will provide the member opposite with more information, once I have it. There were discussions yesterday. I cannot advise the member opposite of anything more than that at this point. When I can, I will.

Question re:   Chronic disease program

Mr. Fentie:      I thank the Premier for that.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

I have already written to the minister on behalf of a constituent on this matter, who is outside receiving treatment for bilateral breast cancer. Earlier this year, the department refused to cover her drug expenses because she has been out of the territory for over six months. My constituent called me this morning very upset because of a phone call she received last night from a person in the minister's department. The caller proceeded to ask a number of questions that my constituent considers threatening in nature.

Is the minister aware of this situation and does he condone this kind of behaviour by anyone in his department?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Mr. Speaker, the letter went to the member opposite. A letter didn't come to me. Obviously the member knows far more about it than I do, so I can't comment on something that the member opposite received. How can I comment on a letter that the member opposite has received?

Obviously we try to deal with issues in the best way possible. Hopefully we do it in a cordial way. Hopefully we do it in a way that's going to ensure that we are delivering a service. We are there as a service provider. If the member opposite is accurate in the statements made, then I guess I would have problems with that too, but at this point in time, I do not understand from my perspective that something like this has happened.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I'll hold fire on this, Mr. Speaker, and accept the fact that the minister may not have heard me correctly.

I stated that I had written to the minister on this very issue some time ago. I wrote to the minister. That was my question.

Mr. Speaker, this situation has become even more serious. When my constituent's husband traced the phone call they received, he discovered that it had originated from the departmental person's home here in Whitehorse. When he phoned back minutes later, a different person proceeded to harass him verbally, saying things like he should not have to pay taxes to cover their drug expenses.

Does the minister share my concern about what appears to be a serious breach of medical confidentiality by a member of his department?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      I apologize for not hearing the member's question, but I don't recall seeing the letter from the member opposite either, unless the member has received a reply from me that I don't remember signing, either. I'm not sure how long the letter or its response has been in his possession.

If that's a concern, obviously we'll have to investigate it, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of every little specific, and if there is substance behind what the member opposite is saying, I would agree that it is a reason to be concerned.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, for the minister's benefit, the letter was dated April 2 to him. It's almost a page and a half long, outlining this situation. And I would point out that if the members opposite would do their job, as they were elected to do, and accept their correspondence instead of funnelling it through their bureaucracy, the minister may very well be on top of the situation and well on his way to solving it.

My constituent is suffering from breast cancer and could very well be in a life-and-death situation. This is extremely stressful at the best of times. She's outside because her doctor referred her outside for treatment that is not available here. She and her husband are Yukon residents, but the department has cut them off.

Furthermore, I understand that this same departmental person previously told my constituent that there were people in the territory who have worse problems than she does. This is out and out harassment and completely unprofessional behaviour.

Will the minister get to the bottom of this situation immediately, ensure that the appropriate action is taken at the departmental level, and make sure that my constituent's right to chronic care is honoured?

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Yes, that is a very serious accusation, Mr. Speaker, and I would agree that it has to be investigated. But I also want to caution the member opposite.

If the member opposite believes that I should be micromanaging every little, specific thing that the department does, I have shared on many occasions that that is not my role. Signing letters - I sign hundreds of letters in a week, and if I don't recall the exact letter, I would hope that the member opposite would understand, mainly because the member opposite sends one letter and expects me to commit every letter that he sends to me to memory. I won't do that; I can't. There are just too many.

That is a small excuse, but I think the important part - that is the micromanaging attitude that the members opposite have. They believe that we should know every specific detail that our department does. If the accusation that the member is saying is true, it is very serious and I will deal with it. I am sure that there are better ways of bringing it about than through this forum. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way that we solve problems in the public, unless you really find that you are not getting - the member opposite never called me, never phoned me, never talked to me. I see him every day here. There are other ways of trying to resolve issues than making a big public spectacle of it.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 44, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 44, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, this bill serves to implement two changes in Yukon's tax regime.

Our government has, in less than a year, reduced the personal income tax, or PIT rate, twice. The first was a reduction of that rate from 50 percent to 49 percent of basic federal tax for the 2000 tax year. The second was to further reduce the rate to 46 percent for the 2001 taxation year.

Now, by means of this legislation, and as earlier promised by us, effective January 1, 2002, the personal income tax rate will drop a further two basis points to 44 percent of basic federal tax. This means, Mr. Speaker, that, within less than one year after being elected, we will have introduced legislation that brings Yukon's PIT rate down six basis points; that is, from 50 percent to 44 percent of the basic federal tax.

This is a 12-percent reduction in our rate of personal taxation and is significant by anyone's standards. Examples of the additional savings to taxpayers over the next three years of this latest measure are as follows: for a single person earning $30,000, they will save $147; a family of four earning $45,000 will save $255; a family of four earning $60,000 will save $345.

I know these monies will be welcomed by our citizens, and we're pleased to be able to grant this relief. And, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that these savings will, as many business organizations have often urged, be spent locally.

Lower personal taxes serve several purposes, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost, they put more money into the hands of our citizens, citizens who work hard to earn their wages and deserve to keep as much as possible of these earnings. Lower taxes also stimulate economic growth and initiative, both of which I'm certain all members wish to encourage.

This measure, Mr. Speaker, is not without some cost. Beginning in 2002, our revenues will be some $1.3 million less per year as a result of tax rate reduction. However, we know this to be a good investment in our citizens, and the cost is well worthwhile.

The other tax change incorporated into this bill extends the Yukon research and development tax credit, previously only available to corporate entities, to individuals and to partnerships. We enacted this 15-percent refundable credit last year. An additional five percent is available if the research is done in conjunction with Yukon College, as an incentive to carrying out the research and development activities in the Yukon. As with many jurisdictions, it was made applicable to corporations because it was felt they were likely to be the only organizations that would be conducting such activities.

However, Mr. Speaker, we have learned of at least one case of eligible research and development activity in the territory, which is being done by unincorporated individuals. They approached us and asked why the credit could not be extended beyond corporations, especially since the federal credit is available to corporate and non-corporate taxpayers. We heard from these individuals during our pre-budget tour.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to Yukoners and, more importantly, we are responding to them.

There is no reason why it cannot and should not be so extended. Research and development is good for the economy and it's good for Yukon, regardless of the organizational structure it is conducted under.

We are therefore pleased to be able to extend the credit, as it is embodied in the bill today. This extension will be effective beginning with the 2001 taxation year. Our original estimate of the cost of the credit for corporations was $50,000 per annum. We still feel that this estimate is accurate in total, despite the extension of the credit.

These changes and improvements to the Yukon's tax regime are a reflection of our commitment to economic development, the betterment of our citizens' lives, and our promise to listen to the people and act upon what we hear.

I look forward to the support of all members of the Assembly for this specific piece of legislation.

Mr. Fentie:      We in the official opposition want to extend a great deal of gratitude to the hardworking individuals at the tax round table, who laid the groundwork so that this government opposite could bring forward this legislation. We believe that this is a good piece of legislation. It reflects the desires and the needs of all Yukoners, and we on this side of the House in the official opposition will be supporting this legislation and see no further reason to debate it. We also consider this legislation to be housekeeping in nature.

Mr. Jenkins:      This housekeeping bit of legislation is very appropriate. It has my support and my party's support. We're just curious as to why it has taken so long for the Premier to implement all the tax cuts, rather than staggering them over such an extended period of time.

It's basically the format that was agreed to, or developed, at the tax round table, and our party would like to extend its appreciation to all those individuals who participated in this round-table discussion that brought forward or precipitated the tax reductions.

It's basically just carrying forward another NDP campaign position, and an NDP bill that was previously brought forward, and implemented slower. We support it; we agree with it; it doesn't require any further debate.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I would like to thank the members opposite for their support. I would also like to make note of the fact that we have not just talked about a reduction of personal income tax to be paid by Yukoners, we have done it, and we did it according to what we have set out and said we would do.

I would also like to thank the members opposite. I am sure they meant to mention that we have the extension of this research and development credit to smaller businesses, and that dealing with that particular issue was a direct recommendation from citizens during the budget consultation. We have acted upon it, and I appreciate the members opposite's support for this bill.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I believe the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 44 agreed to

Bill No. 43: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 43, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 43, An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of privilege.

Point of privilege

Speaker:      The Member for Watson Lake.

Mr. Fentie:      Pursuant to Standing Order 7(2) - and I will quote that order - "A member may always raise a question of privilege in the Assembly immediately after the words are spoken or the events occur that give rise to the question."

It is with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I do rise on a question of privilege at this time.

Mr. Speaker, we first must make note of a very important proceeding in the Legislature and outside this Legislature when it comes to the Standing Orders and the memorandum of understanding.

It was just in recent times that the Liberal government opposite lobbied the opposition to come back to the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges and to re-sign this memorandum of understanding - a memorandum of understanding that we all agreed again, some few days ago or weeks ago, that we would remain in status quo proceedings in this Legislature.

I must quote for clarity the areas of the MOU that have now been contravened by this Liberal government opposite. They are, under the MOU, I quote: "A government may call legislation of a housekeeping nature for debate in the spring sitting." I stress that point: legislation of a housekeeping nature. Another condition under the MOU states: "A government may introduce legislation, proposing major changes or initiatives, in the spring sitting for debate in the fall sitting."

The MOU also goes on to state, "Government may propose, in exceptional circumstances, that legislation proposing major changes or initiatives be considered during the spring sitting, but it should proceed only after full consultation has taken place with the opposition." It is with that stated on the floor of this Legislature that we, in the official opposition, take the position that the government has now broken the memorandum of understanding by proceeding with legislation that, (a) is not of a housekeeping nature, (b) they are not leaving the legislation tabled for first reading until the fall sitting, and (c) they did not fully consult the opposition on legislation that is of substantive nature.

That clearly - clearly - contravenes this MOU that those members opposite lobbied this side of the House to sign.

I find that unacceptable, and I also find it keeping in the context of how this Liberal government, in their heavy-handed manner, has been operating and running this Assembly. They have shown example after example of how little regard they have for the opposition, for this Assembly and this institution, for the democratic process and, above all, for Yukon people.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out the legislation that is not of a housekeeping nature. I refer to Bill No. 33, Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act. That is not of a housekeeping nature. An Act to Amend the Trustee Act - Mr. Speaker, this is a brand new piece of legislation. It's not an amendment. It is a brand new piece of legislation. An Act to Amend the Jury Act is not housekeeping in nature. An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, given the impact that this very act may have on Yukoners, specifically those in rural Yukon, is not of a housekeeping nature. An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax Act and the questions that surround that very amendment are not housekeeping in nature. An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act simply is not of a housekeeping nature. Furthermore, on the Order Paper is an act tabled by the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. I note that, though the government has stated that they intend to debate all legislation on the Order Paper, they have conveniently neglected children.

It's a shameful situation we find ourselves in, Mr. Speaker.

Further to our case on this point of privilege, it's well-known that, under the MOU and through all the past practices of this House, this spring sitting is a budget sitting.

With that in mind, we, the opposition, whose duty it is to hold the government accountable in that regard - this budget, the biggest budget ever tabled in the Yukon Territory, some $535 million - intend to debate that budget on behalf of the Yukon public. We can only conclude, with the actions of these members opposite - this Liberal government - that dumping this load of legislation here today in this sitting, and not following the MOU, can only be an attempt to hide from debate when it comes to the biggest budget ever tabled in this territory.

This government, which makes the claim that they are open and accountable, is really secretive and closed. They use their majority and their heavy-handed manner to ram things through this Legislature with no accountability to the Yukon public. We, Mr. Speaker, will not allow that to happen without doing our duty.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on this matter, given the evidence, given our Standing Orders and how they relate to the memorandum of understanding, and given the fact that we all, in this House, agreed in good faith to re-sign that MOU and to operate this sitting as we intended, status quo, which means this is a budget sitting - this is entirely a budget sitting - and if the members continue to operate in this manner, the MOU is dead and there is no status quo.

Some Hon. Member:      On the point of privilege.

Speaker:      The hon. Minister of Tourism, on the point of privilege.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      The only point to be made at this point is that the side opposite is afraid to do their job. The side opposite is afraid to pass legislation that is good for Yukoners. They come up and they say now that they weren't aware that these weren't housekeeping bills. They had the list of the legislation before they signed the MOU.

This is all so silly, Mr. Speaker. This side of the House is not afraid to do our jobs. We are legislators. We pass legislation. That is our job. This list of acts that we are trying to pass is a list of amendments to acts that already exist.

The only problem here is sour grapes. The side opposite sees good things for Yukoners coming out of this legislation and they are trying to hold it up. They are talking about rebates for tourism operations in the Yukon Territory on fuel tax acts. They are talking about coming after deadbeat dads for maintenance, and they have a problem with that.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order in the middle of a point of privilege, in my opinion.

Speaker:      I ask the member to continue.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That gave me a moment to collect my thoughts. The members opposite, once again, as I mentioned before, are afraid to do their jobs. We are legislators. We pass legislation. That is our job.

The members opposite had a complete list of the legislation before they signed the MOU. They were aware - totally aware - of what was considered to be housekeeping. Now, housekeeping, as we all know, is a matter of opinion. But it was obviously the opinion of the members opposite that this was housekeeping legislation when they signed the MOU. It's a simple statement of facts, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me go through this again. The side opposite signed the memorandum of understanding, knowing that this legislation was amendments to existing pieces of legislation. These pieces of legislation had problems with them and that is why we are doing the amendments. They considered them to be housekeeping when they signed the MOU.

Now, the past practice in the House is for members opposite to waste the time of the Legislature, to spend 20-odd days on only two departments, knowing that there are only 35 days in the sitting, Mr. Speaker. Yet they continue on and on and on, asking pointless and endless questions.

This point of privilege, which is obviously one of the options that is available to us as legislators here in this sitting is, once again, an example of an opportunity for the side opposite to try to make political points. They are afraid that we are going to do good things for Yukoners, Mr. Speaker. That's what the real objection is here. They are afraid that we are going to move forward, that we are going to make deadbeat dads pay - or deadbeat moms, pardon me, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make sure that tourism operators this summer get the same fuel tax rebate as do fishermen and gamespeople. That's the opportunity we're giving them. That's what the members opposite are trying to hold up - the good work of this Legislature.

There is no point of privilege here. The side opposite knew what they were signing. They knew exactly what they were signing. They knew what the list of legislation was. They knew it was amendments to already existing acts, and they knew then - and they agreed - that those pieces of legislation were housekeeping.

Speaker:      Member for Klondike.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the point of order and point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I've heard an awful lot of diatribe, but this has to take the cake, coming from the Liberals today.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that a number of these bills were presented after the memorandum of understanding was signed and agreed to. That is self-evident. It will become more evident as we go on.

The other area that concerns me greatly is that, as late as this morning's House leaders meeting, I specifically asked the government House leader whether she, or her caucus, considered all of these bills to be housekeeping bills.

She didn't have an answer. She didn't know. She had to get back to us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was as late as this morning. At that time, had these all been considered by the Liberals to be housekeeping bills, it would have been a very simple matter of course for the government House leader to confirm that, but she didn't know. In fact, I can produce the copy of the House leader's paper that was faxed to our office at 10:44 this morning confirming that information.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is that there are a great number of bills on the Order Paper at this spring session. If you look at previous sessions where the same memorandum of understanding was in effect, you will not find any agenda loaded to the degree that the Liberals have loaded this agenda here. Furthermore, the memorandum of understanding, on which I understand you cannot rule because it's a political agreement, says that the government may call legislation of a housekeeping nature for debate in the spring sittings.

Now, our party has specifically informed the Liberal caucus as to what we consider to be housekeeping bills and what bills we consider not to be housekeeping bills, and we'd very much like to proceed on the bills that are exactly what they should be - housekeeping bills and of a housekeeping nature.

There are six bills out of the 11 or 12 bills that we have before us, Mr. Speaker, depending on whose numbers you take, whether you just want to deal with the government-tabled bills or whether you want to take all of the bills into consideration.

So, there is an agenda here, and there seems to be a determination by this Liberal government that, seeing they can't answer the questions in general debate in respect to the departments, they are going to take another twist at this issue and deal with it in another manner. That is not fair and not reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberals that extended an olive branch to the official opposition and to the Yukon Party to come back to SCREP and deal with the issues, and we did. We re-signed the MOU, and we have not broken that MOU, nor do we intend to do so, unless there is break and the government of the day break it. They appear to be very determined to break it.

They have done so, and there are a number of breaches currently, Mr. Speaker, and it's not fair and not reasonable that we proceed in the manner that we're proceeding. We are here to conduct the business of government. Please allow us that opportunity.

Now, the Premier's signature is attached to that MOU, Mr. Speaker, and it is an addendum to the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. While we're given to understand that you do not rule on the MOU, I'm sure that it must be part of your deliberations before you render an opinion in this very, very important area.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      On the point of privilege, for the record, it is important to note that the members opposite refused briefings on these bills. They quite clearly did refuse briefings on these bills.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike is saying, "You weren't in House leaders meeting; you don't know." I know what our government House leader told us, which was an accurate representation of what went on in those meetings, and the side opposite refused briefings.

These are all housekeeping bills. They are claiming that the An Act to Amend the Jury Act isn't housekeeping. The sheriff was denied access to the territorial voter list after changes to the Elections Act in 1998 - this was his primary source list. We need good juries in the territory; the sheriff needs access to good lists. This is a housekeeping bill. The Territorial Court Act amendments are constitutionally required. When the act was amended in 1998, the opposition knew that it was done in haste and would require further work. These are housekeeping amendments.

The An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act relates to parental leave to bring us in line with changes at the federal level. That is housekeeping. The Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act and An Act to Amend the Trustee Act were on the Order Paper in the last session. The members had plenty of time to look at those bills. This is housekeeping legislation. The members are merely looking for an excuse to delay the session and attempt to throw this government into disrepute. They are merely making an excuse. This is housekeeping legislation.

I think it's unfortunate that they are choosing to hold Yukoners hostage in this way and prevent the House from carrying out its work.

Speaker:      I'm trying to determine if what I have heard is on the point of order or privilege and what is a political speech here by many members. Certainly, it's going to take some time for the Chair to come up with a ruling on this matter. So would you please just bear with me.

Pause

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. The organization of House business is, of course, a very sensitive matter. Previous and present leaders in the House have shown how seriously they take such matters as they entered into a memorandum of understanding in 1996 and again this spring.

Members must understand, as was referenced by the leader of the third party, that the memorandum of understanding is an agreement between the parties in this House. The memorandum of understanding is not part of the rules of this House. It was never intended that the memorandum of understanding should be enforced or ruled upon by the Speaker.

The rules of the House, found in the Standing Orders, state that the government may designate the business the House is to deal with on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Chair therefore must find that the government's designation of government bills for second reading today is in order.

The Chair would recognize the Premier to speak to the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 43.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise to my feet to address the An Act to Amend the Fuel Oil Tax, a bill of minor housekeeping nature and yet of huge benefit to the territory.

Mr. Speaker, it's a simple amendment that accomplishes two important purposes. First, it will add the tourism industry to the list of commercial activities able to avail themselves of the off-road fuel tax exemption.

This is a very important innovation. It was requested by the tourism industry and is a request that I know has been heard many times by my colleague, the Member for Riverdale South - the Minister of Tourism - on this particular issue. And I know that those who support the tourism industry, or who may be interested in it, would be anxious to support this particular amendment.

As members know, the following industries are currently able to access this exemption: fishing, logging, hunting or outfitting, trapping, mining and mining exploration and development and farming. Over the years, there have been a number of representations by various parties and organizations to include tourism operations among those who can take advantage of this off-road exemption. We recognize the critical importance of this industry to the economic well-being of our territory and believe it's incumbent upon us to provide it with as much help as possible. Hence Mr. Speaker, the current simple, but important, housekeeping amendment.

We expect the lost tax revenue, as a result of this change, will be in the neighbourhood of $19,000 per year. While relatively small, this saving will be of significant benefit to many tourism operators.

The second purpose of this bill is to place the capacity criteria used for interprovincial or through carriers under regulation, rather than providing for the same under the act. The intent is to exclude, by regulation, those small buses and vans used by tourism operators in the territory. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an example of a situation where the industry has come to us as a government and asked us to recognize and deal with a matter.

The response to that matter is a very minor housekeeping amendment to a piece of legislation, and that we have done. Had the previous government at all fulfilled their desire to reduce red tape for businesses, and reduce the financial burden for the tourism industry, they would have acted upon it. However, the point is, Mr. Speaker, they didn't, we have.

At present, small vehicles - the ones I mentioned, the buses and vans - are subject to reporting requirements for fuel consumption that are mandated under the act. This change will eliminate for operators the burden of paperwork necessary to comply with the Fuel Oil Tax Act. Representations have been received in this matter, and we're very pleased to be able to address the concerns of the industry in this regard.

This latter change - this change in the act to enable it to deal with it in regulations - is expected to be revenue neutral, being more in the nature of administrative or a red-tape reduction initiative.

Action, Mr. Speaker, speaks far louder than simply words. These changes in taxation policy are further evidence of our commitment to Yukon businesses and citizens and to aid the private sector in promoting economic development in the territory.

We will continue to examine other options in this ongoing process because we know, Mr. Speaker, that a healthy private sector is good for all of us.

Mr. Fentie:      The official opposition's position is that this bill is not a housekeeping bill. It's substantive in nature and will have long-term implications for the Yukon. According to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate and will not register a vote at second reading.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, this bill is not one of a housekeeping nature. The implications and repercussions that we can see from it are much, much greater than what is being suggested by the Premier here today.

Let's just focus on that, Mr. Speaker. I really have no quarrel with the off-road component for the visitor industry, for the tourism industry. That component is not a problem. What I do see problems with is the issue surrounding the fuel tax for vehicles that pass through the Yukon.

Given the current trend for deregulation across all of North America and given the Government of the Yukon's position with respect to that deregulation, we are not in synch with other jurisdictions on a major, major series of components of this deregulation. And therein lies all the areas that deserve careful consideration by this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

Currently, if you're running, let's say, a tour bus from, let's say, Florida to Alaska, you punch in when you leave Florida at the first place. You give them your itinerary as to where you're going to be headed, what highways you're going to be travelling, and your fuel tax component is all calculated for the entire route.

The fuel tax is remitted to the various jurisdictions, depending on the level of fuel tax that is in existence, save and except when you come through parts of British Columbia and the Yukon. You have to stop specifically at the scales and enter in, buy a permit - which you don't have to buy in any of the other jurisdictions - and proceed.

A determination has to be made by the government of the day as to whether we are going to get into synch with deregulation in the rest of Canada or not and, if we're going to enter into this program, with respect to the multitude of regulations that exist across North America. We're in a global economy. The North American economy is supposed to be free trade. It is, for the most part, save and except the Yukon and British Columbia.

Yukon operators are not accorded the same privilege to enter into British Columbia as British Columbia operators are accorded to enter into the Yukon. It's the same with Alaska, and the reason for Alaska is a little bit different, in that anyone with an operating authority on a coach or anything that's classified as a bus has to have a minimum of $5 million U.S. in public liability insurance. In the Yukon, it's only $2 million Canadian.

There is a heck of a gap between $2 million U.S. and $5 million Canadian.

So, the issue surrounding the rebating of the tax for those vehicles - those small vans and buses that pass through the Yukon - is of far greater implication than is being suggested by the Premier. Whoever is the proponent of this bill - I guess it's the Minister of Finance - just hasn't done her homework.

If this bill were just specifically related to off-road use for vehicles for the visitor industry and it paralleled that for the fishers, for the mining or for the trappers, I wouldn't have any quarrel with it. But the implications of this other area are far greater and far more far-reaching. They haven't been thought through carefully, Mr. Speaker, and due consideration hasn't been given to them.

We're going to stick out like a sore thumb as a big abnormality, and I don't believe that that's what we should be doing. We should be consistent with other jurisdictions, and there is a way that we can be, but we're going to have to get in synch with those other jurisdictions.

Now, until this is brought forward for careful and thorough debate, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is not a simple housekeeping bill. I will not be speaking to it further, and I will not be voting on it, because I don't believe it has the desired impact that it should have. We will be sticking out like a sore thumb with respect to interprovincial regulations, and we're talking specifically of motorcoaches.

We currently are in synch in many respects, but we're not going to be. Why? Because we're singling out one little area. Why can't we do what other jurisdictions in North America are doing?

That's the crux of it. If this amendment were simply focusing in on the tax exemption for off-road vehicles, it would be a simple, minor housekeeping initiative, Mr. Speaker. It is not. It is much greater, and the implications are much wider than what is being suggested. If we are going to start with tour buses or small buses, where are we going to stop? Where are we going to stop, Mr. Speaker?

This is not a housekeeping bill. We are being led to believe that it is a simple housekeeping bill, but this government hasn't taken the time to thoroughly analyze and think through all the other areas that this should apply to or could be applied to.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, I find it absolutely incomprehensible that the members opposite, who criticize us for our $535-million budget, see a $19,000 expenditure as something more than housekeeping. Of course it is housekeeping. And, what is more, that $19,000 potential expenditure goes into the pockets of Yukoners. It helps business. How members can possibly see that as something more than housekeeping is beyond me, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the Member for Klondike suggests that the second part of this bill has far-reaching implications. And, as usual, he has seen a wolf behind the door, or an issue where there isn't one. There simply is not an issue.

The member opposite is dreaming up some nefarious plot that does not exist. The bill takes the capacity criteria for interprovincial and through carriers under regulation rather than an act. The Member for Klondike said that we should be moving to a deregulated environment. Well, that's what we're doing, by trying to move this from under the act into regulations so that it's more readily dealt with by government.

The member went on and on and on at great length about tour buses. We're not talking about tour buses, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about small buses and vans. We're talking about small business people who travel from Skagway, partly into British Columbia, and into the Yukon, and we're talking about small vans that may travel between Klondike, Dawson and Chicken, Alaska. We're talking about easing the burden for these small individuals who do not have the time nor the capability nor the desire, certainly, to fill out a stack of forms as high as the list of laws in the territory.

That's the whole point, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to ease the burden for small business. We're trying to help those small businesses and vans that go through the territory and who travel and how they deal with the fuel oil tax credit. We're trying to help them, and the members opposite see some nefarious plot behind trying to help business, see some larger issue. It's just ridiculous. The members, I would hope, would be prepared to vote on this bill and tell their constituents that they thought the government, working to save Yukon businesses $19,000, is be something more than housekeeping.

How, Mr. Speaker, can they look their constituents in the eye and say, "You know what? I just couldn't stand the thought that you, as a small business person, might succeed and might save $19,000 because there was a housekeeping amendment brought to the bill." That just amazes me. This is a piece of legislation that goes a long, long way to helping tourism operators in the Yukon become more viable, something the Minister of Tourism has worked very hard on with industry in the last year, since the election.

It also is one of those initiatives where government has heard from the public, from industry, and where we have literally reduced the paper burden and the tax burden for business. It's a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge all members to stand on their feet and vote in support of this bill.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Member:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it, I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 44 agreed to

Bill No. 42: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 43, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I move that Bill No. 42, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 42, entitled An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The amendment to this act has been developed as a result of a change in the federal Employment Insurance Act, which increased parental leave benefits from 10 paid weeks to 35 paid weeks with a two-week waiting period.

The proposed amendments to our Employment Standards Act will ensure that a worker's job is protected for up to 37 weeks of parental leave. Currently the Yukon's Employment Standards Act covers parental leave for a period of up to 12 weeks.

The Employment Standards Act provides for maternity and parental leave after 12 months of continuous employment. All employees are guaranteed the same or comparable position upon their return from parental leave. In addition, all employees on parental leave are entitled to any benefits accrued during the period of leave. The proposed amendments would bring our territorial legislation into alignment with the recent changes made to the federal Employment Insurance Act. The proposed amendments to Yukon's Employment Standards Act will increase job protection benefits from 12 weeks to 37 weeks to reflect changes to the federal employment insurance program.

This government proposes that the legislation be made retroactive to December 31, 2000, to ensure that there are no implementation gaps between the territorial and federal act. On March 5, 2001, this government completed a public consultation on the proposed amendments. Local businesses, community associations, and local citizens throughout the Yukon were consulted, and all of the responses were in favour of extending job protection benefits for new parents.

Employment standards legislation in most other Canadian jurisdictions has already been amended. The provinces of British Columbia and Quebec provide for more than 37 weeks of job protection. Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland introduced and passed legislative amendments in December 2000 to provide for up to 37 weeks of parental leave.

Prince Edward Island has recently amended its Employment Standards Act, extending parental leave benefits. The other provinces and territories in Canada are planning to introduce amendments this spring.

Mr. Speaker, without these recommended amendments, a parent who takes employment insurance benefits now will not have the protection of the territorial Employment Standards Act beyond the current entitlement of 12 weeks. These amendments will provide job protection benefits for 37 weeks for all eligible Yukoners.

Thank you.

Mr. Fentie:      On behalf of the official opposition, we deem this amendment to be of a housekeeping nature. We have absolutely no opposition to the amendment and will be in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Jenkins:      We support this housekeeping amendment.

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I thank the members opposite for their support for this amendment.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 42 agreed to

Bill No. 37: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I move that Bill No. 37, entitled An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments contained in Bill No. 37 address four aspects of the Territorial Court Act: the age of retirement for the Territorial Court Judges; the timing of the next Judicial Compensation Commission for the judges and the full-time justice of the peace; the government's liability for the costs related to the judiciary's participation in the Judicial Compensation Commission process, and several minor housekeeping changes have been made to support the main amendments to the act.

First, I would like to comment on the amendment regarding the age of retirement for the Territorial Court Judges. From 1988 until 1998, the Territorial Court Act did not specify the age at which a judge must retire. In 1998, however, an amendment to the Territorial Court Act changed the age of retirement for judges to age 65. In order to ensure that current members of the Territorial Court judiciary remain eligible to receive a full pension, it is necessary to clarify that these judges are entitled to retire at the age they would have had to retire when they were appointed. The proposed amendment stipulates that, in the future, judges who are appointed are required to retire at the age of 65.

Changes are also necessary to the provisions regarding the establishment of the Judicial Compensation Commission. This commission was set up to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 decision known as the P.E.I. Reference Case, requiring that an independent, objective and effective commission consider and make recommendations to government regarding judicial compensation.

The first Judicial Compensation Commission convened in 1998 to determine the compensation packages for three Territorial Court Judges. With respect to compensation for the full-time justice of the peace, the Territorial Court Act presently provides that compensation for the Yukon's only full-time justice of the peace will be addressed when the next Judicial Compensation Commission is established in 2003.

In the last three years, however, the case law pertaining to compensation for presiding justices of the peace has changed significantly. Recent court cases have found that the independence of presiding justices of the peace must be ensured in the same way that it is for the judiciary, and that their compensation must be determined by an independent commission, as well. Thus, it is important to have the compensation for the Yukon's only full-time justice of the peace determined by the Judicial Compensation Commission as soon as possible. Rather than wait until 2003, when the Territorial Court Act requires that the next commission be convened, Bill No. 37 allows the commission to be convened in 2001 and every three years thereafter.

These amendments are necessary to protect the judiciary's constitutional right to financial security, which is a key element of judicial independence. In addition, Bill No. 37 proposes an amendment to clarify who pays for the costs involved in the commission process. At present, the Territorial Court Act requires the government to pay 100 percent of the costs incurred by the judiciary in preparing for and participating in the commission process. Bill No. 37 would limit the government's liability for judges' costs to 65 percent of the total.

This amendment is necessary because the costs of preparing for and making a presentation to the Judicial Compensation Commission can be very expensive. It is important to note that there is no constitutional obligation on government to pay the costs that the judiciary incurs from its participation in the commission process.

The amendment is an appropriate balance that recognizes the public benefit of judicial participation in the commission process and, at the same time, establishes reasonable limits on such expenditures. Moreover, this approach is consistent with the action taken by the federal government in response to the recent commission process for federally appointed judges. The remaining amendments found in Bill No. 37 are housekeeping in nature and are intended to correct wording in the French version of the act and typographical errors, among other minor changes.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Territorial Court Act meet this government's legal and constitutional obligation to protect the independence of the judiciary and improve the administration of justice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we deem this bill as not a bill of housekeeping nature. It is substantive in nature and will have long-term implications to the Yukon. According to the terms of the memorandum of agreement, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate and will not register a vote at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, I would be very hopeful that the Liberals would see the light of day with respect to the way that they have stacked the legislative timetable before us. One only had to listen to the overviews as to the proposed amendments that are being considered under these amendments to the Territorial Court Act. There is a whole series of them, along with some housekeeping amendments.

If we were dealing strictly with the housekeeping amendments, we wouldn't have any trouble with it, but this is not an act that is strictly of a housekeeping nature.

I'm not prepared to participate in second reading debate of any consequences, Mr. Speaker, and thus will be absent from the House on this issue.

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I am disappointed that the members opposite are proceeding on the track they have chosen. These are necessary housekeeping amendments, and I wish they would take them in that light.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Member:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 37 agreed to

Bill No. 36: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I move that Bill No. 36, entitled Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 36, entitled Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      This act has been developed in response to direction from the Supreme Court with respect to judicial independence. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made judgement of what is known as the PEI Reference Case. As a result of this judgement, it is now a constitutional requirement that the independence of judges be ensured by setting them apart from the public service in terms of their benefits and salaries. Should we not proceed with this act, we would be open to a constitutional challenge.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that judges cannot be treated in the same way as civil servants, for even the perception of financial control diminishes their independence from government. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that government must not be seen as having an influence over judges. The Supreme Court decided that each province and territory must establish an independent and impartial body, authorized to make recommendations to government regarding compensation for judges.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the Yukon, through Order-in-Council No. 1998/168, set out the terms of reference of the Yukon Judicial Compensation Commission. This same order-in-council stipulated that the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission would be binding on the Government of the Yukon. The Judicial Compensation Commission, with commissioners Don Avison, Jean Besier and Brenda Riis, held hearings and tabled their report, including their recommendations, in December 1998. In developing their recommendations, the Judicial Compensation Commission considered the need to provide reasonable compensation for judges, the need to attract qualified applicants to judicial positions, and the need to ensure that benefits were similar to those offered to judges in other Canadian jurisdictions.

One recommendation of the Judicial Compensation Commission was to establish a pension plan for Territorial Court Judges, a plan separate from the public service to ensure their independence and impartiality.

At the same time, the Judicial Compensation Commission made every effort to ensure its recommendations with respect to a separate pension plan were fair and reasonable. These recommendations have been incorporated into this act. For example, it provides for the definition of "pensionable earnings"; it establishes a 7.5-percent rate of pension contribution by the judges; it sets retirement with full pension after 23.33 years and sets provisions for early retirement at either 60 years of age or 20 years of service, whichever comes first.

The proposed act also provides that pension benefits are to be based upon the average of the highest three years of income, that a pension cap of 70 percent is maintained, that consumer price indexing is maintained and, finally, that post-retirement survivor benefits for spouses be set at 60 percent.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a pension plan separate from the public service establishes a proper distance between government and the judiciary. I must reiterate the Yukon is legally and constitutionally obligated to establish a pension plan for judges separate from the public service and that the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission are binding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      On behalf of the official opposition, we deem this amendment, this particular piece of legislation, as housekeeping in nature. We have absolutely no opposition to it, and therefore we will be supporting it.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins:      We are very much in support of this amendment. It is of a housekeeping nature.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 36 agreed to

Bill No. 40: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 40, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 40, entitled An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, the Maintenance Enforcement Act provides custodial parents with the means of collecting child support payments by encouraging voluntary compliance with respect to payment. The Maintenance Enforcement Act is in place to ensure that children receive adequate financial support. When child support payments are outstanding, the Maintenance Enforcement Act provides for a number of collection measures, including garnishment of federal funds, garnishment of bank assets, garnishment of paycheques, placing a caveat on land or seizing of assets. If all of these measures have been implemented and the respondent still hasn't established a payment schedule, the Maintenance Enforcement Act permits the director of maintenance enforcement to withhold, suspend or cancel the motor vehicle privileges of debtors.

Motor vehicle sanctions are used only as a last resort and are not considered until all other collection methods have been exhausted.

Currently, the Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Act requires the director of maintenance enforcement to give debtors 60 days' notice before suspending motor vehicle privileges. The current 60-day notification period causes further hardship for parents and children who have already waited for eight months or longer to receive child support payments.

The proposed amendments to the Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Act will reduce this 60-day notification period to 21 days. This brings the Yukon's maintenance enforcement act into alignment with maintenance enforcement legislation in most other jurisdictions in Canada.

Once again, motor vehicle sanctions are used only as a last resort and are not considered until all other collection methods have been tried. Considering that it takes approximately six to eight months, or longer, for all other enforcement methods to be implemented, providing 21 days of notification is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Act will streamline the process for taking action to withhold, suspend or cancel the motor vehicle privileges of debtors who have not made child support payments. The director of maintenance enforcement will continue to exhaust all other enforcement methods against debtors before imposing motor vehicle sanctions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      On behalf of the official opposition, we deem this bill to be housekeeping in nature. We wholeheartedly support this amendment to the legislation and want to commend the government for bringing it forward.

Mr. Jenkins:      The Yukon Party supports this amendment.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

Bill No. 41: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 41, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 41, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 41, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, in my budget address, I stated that both as a preventive health measure and as a revenue initiative, our government planned to increase tobacco prices. This bill will implement those tax increases.

Spending on health care is rising rapidly throughout Canada, and the Yukon is no exception to that trend. Operational costs for the Department of Health and Social Services are almost $11 million higher in 2001-02 main estimates, as opposed to those for 2000-01. Some of that increase must inevitably be related to tobacco consumption.

Several international organizations estimate that tobacco-related diseases consume up to 15 percent of annual spending on health in more developed countries. The present raising of tobacco tax will go some way to offsetting that cost and to discouraging tobacco use.

Beyond the sphere of mere dollars and cents, any reduction in the use of tobacco will mean that fewer tragedies in the form of untimely illness and death will be played out in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain all of us have that hope in mind, since I expect each member of this House has known of someone who was a victim of a tobacco-related illness. The tax will rise by one cent per cigarette or 25 cents per package of 25. This equates to a 12-percent increase in the tax, and a similar percentage increase will apply to cigars and plain tobacco. The increase will take effect on June 1 of the current year. Over half a million dollars per year will be raised by this initiative - dollars that will help fund health and other programs important to Yukoners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, we are in full support of this amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act. It is housekeeping in nature, and we'll not be debating it further in second reading.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, we are in support of this amendment. I found it very, very interesting that the minister equated a lot of the $11-million increase in health care costs to the use of tobacco. While that may or may not be the case, I believe it is probably the case in part. If she would apply the same analogy or review of the increase to what is derived from the Minister of Health and Social Services' inability to get a handle on his department, that would probably do the House a lot more good.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we are in support of this amendment.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I stated, in introducing this bill, that it was an amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act and is of a housekeeping nature. In my budget address, I stated that this is both a preventive health measure and a revenue initiative that our government has planned to increase the tobacco taxes. This is both a preventive health measure and a revenue initiative of our government.

I also stated, in the course of my introduction of this bill, that there has been an increase in operational costs for the Department of Health and Social Services and that some of that increase must inevitably be related to tobacco consumption.

I appreciate the fact that members have seen fit to express their support for this initiative. I appreciate their support for this housekeeping amendment.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:      Agree.

Mr. Fentie:      Agree.

Mr. Keenan:      Agree.

Mr. McRobb:      Agree.

Ms. Netro:      Agree.

Mr. Jenkins:      Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 41 agreed to

Bill No. 39: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 39, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 39, entitled An Act to Amend the Jury Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It is our constitutional obligation to provide all accused under the criminal trial system a fair trial. Our ability to conduct a fair trial depends upon the selection of a jury that is representative of the area in which the accused is being tried. Without an up-to-date and reliable source list of prospective jurors, our ability to ensure fair and representative jury selection can be compromised.

Under the Yukon Jury Act, the sheriff is responsible for compiling reliable and up-to-date jury lists that are representative of the territory's adult population. Give the limited population of the Yukon, it is vital that the sheriff has access to the most recent and extensive sources of information when compiling a jury list.

The proposed amendments to the Jury Act will allow the sheriff enhanced access to Yukon government and municipal data base information, including the Yukon health care insurance recipient list, for the sole purpose of compiling a jury list. The Yukon health care insurance recipient list will provide the sheriff with the most up-to-date and wide-reaching source of prospective jurors in the Yukon.

The sheriff will only be allowed limited access to these records in order to obtain the name, address and date of birth of prospective jurors from the source documents.

Under the existing Jury Act, the sheriff is already able to search the health care insurance recipient list in order to locate people and serve them with court documents. The sheriff is not able to compile jury lists from these sources. The proposed amendments to the Jury Act will simply allow the sheriff the use of government records, such as the Yukon health care insurance recipient list, for the additional purpose of creating an eligible list of jurors. Confidential considerations that restrict the use of these source documents to name, address and date of birth are already in place and will continue.

The proposed amendments to the Jury Act will not conflict with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or ATIPP. Under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, a public body, such as the Government of Yukon or local municipality, can disclose personal information to the sheriff. The Jury Act requires a certain amount of disclosure that is allowed for under ATIPP. In this case, disclosure includes the name, address and date of birth of individuals who are able to serve on a jury.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the Yukon Jury Act will increase the sheriff's access to government-wide information for the sole purpose of creating jury lists.

Granting the sheriff access to these documents will ensure that a fair and representative portion of the Yukon's population can be contacted for the purpose of creating lists of potential jurors to sit on trials.

Thank you.

Mr. Fentie:      On behalf of the official opposition, we deem this bill to be not a bill of a housekeeping nature. It is a substantive amendment that will have long-term implications on the Yukon. According to the terms of the memorandum of agreement, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate and will not register a vote at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, it's blatantly obvious that Bill No. 39 is not a housekeeping bill. It was a bill that we identified very, very clearly at the House leaders meeting as a bill that requires considerable and thorough debate. But given the minister's approach to justice currently, Mr. Speaker, which is to give them a fair trial and hang them, I guess we will proceed with not even being involved in the debate, and we will not be registering a vote. This should not be on the agenda for second reading, and it should be an issue that is brought forward in the fall.

Thank you.

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      If ever there was a housekeeping amendment, this is it, Mr. Speaker.

In 1998, changes in the Elections Act denied the sheriff access to the territorial voters list. This was the primary source list used by the sheriff to create jury lists. Since that change under the previous NDP government, the sheriff has been restricted to creating jury lists from telephone directories, property tax roles and other limited sources. The sheriff needs more up-to-date and wide-reaching sources of information to compile jury lists.

Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to this side of the House that the sheriff needs access to the most exhaustive information available. Even when the sheriff was able to use the territorial voters list, it was not a satisfactory source. That list is normally compiled every four years and does not contain the names of all individuals eligible to serve on a jury. The sheriff is bound by a constitutional requirement to compile jury lists that are representative of the population. Jury lists created from a comprehensive source will provide the courts with more assurance that a selected jury is representative of the population.

Given the limited jury pool in the Yukon, this amendment would allow the sheriff access to the most up to date and extensive information available. In order to ensure representative jury lists, the sheriff needs to be able to access all government records, again, for the sole purpose of compiling jury lists.

Up to date government records are necessary in order that the sheriff can establish a panel of potential jurors. This panel must be comprised of eligible citizens who can be randomly selected and are representative of the population at large. In some cases, this is not happening now.

Date-of-birth information is needed to confirm that a potential juror is of the age of majority - 18, as per section 4 of the Jury Act. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Jury Act establish criteria for determining who is qualified to serve as a juror, who is not qualified to serve as a juror, and who is exempt from serving as a juror.

In 1998, section 434 of the Elections Act was amended to restrict the use of the voters list for electoral purposes only. The principal argument was that personal information should only be used for the purpose for which it was obtained. In an election, enumerators compile names and addresses to create lists of voters, not lists of potential jury members. This change to the Elections Act is why we are proposing this amendment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may ask, if the sheriff is already able to search Government of Yukon records and municipal lists, why is there a need to increase access? The sheriff can currently search government sources, like the health care insurance recipient list, to check names, addresses and dates of birth, to locate people and serve them court documents. The sheriff can take old jury lists and check to see if addresses and dates of birth are up to date, but cannot add any new names to the existing jury lists from these sources. The sheriff is not allowed, under the Jury Act, to compile jury lists from these sources. The proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, will allow the sheriff to compile jury lists from government-wide sources.

Under the current Jury Act, the sheriff creates a jury list from municipal records, such as property tax rolls, telephone directories and from limited government records. The sheriff may use previous jury lists and can update names and addresses and dates of birth by cross-referencing the information with motor vehicle records and the Yukon health care insurance recipient list. These records cannot be used to create new jury lists.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition, no doubt, is concerned about personal information from government sources being protected. The proposed amendment to the Jury Act has been drafted so that there is no conflict with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Section 36 of the ATIPP act says that a public body can disclose personal information when, among other listed possibilities, another act requires disclosure.

In this case, the Jury Act would qualify as an act that requires disclosure. The sheriff is only able to access name, address and date of birth of prospective jurors from each source list. The sheriff is given a password for this restricted search access.

Mr. Speaker, the sheriff can already search government source documents. There have been no problems with this practice in the past four years. Personal privacy is provided for under the search limitations imposed on the sheriff. The sheriff is both responsible for and accountable for obtaining information as requested by the act. The sheriff is an officer of the court and an employee of the Department of Justice. He is duty bound not to use the information for any purpose other than that for which it was gathered - to compile a jury list.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are merely making excuses. They are not doing their jobs as members of this Legislature. They are not representing their constituents. They are standing in the way of proper juries being able to be selected.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan:      Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 39 agreed to

Bill No. 38: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 38, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Eftoda.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Justice that Bill No. 38, entitled An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the Public Utilities Act will make the definition of gas in this act more specific. Conflicting legal interpretations on the meaning of gas, as defined in the Public Utilities Act, have raised some doubt about what the existing definition includes.

The proposed amendment to the Public Utilities Act will clarify the definition of gas to include propane as well as methane. This will remove any doubt as to what is included in the definition of gas in the Public Utilities Act. Without a clear definition of gas in the act, it is uncertain what type of gas can be distributed by a public utility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply not a housekeeping bill. It's substantive in nature and will have long-term implications on Yukon.

According to the terms of the memorandum of agreement, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate and will not register a vote at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Speaker, once again, this is not a housekeeping bill that we have before us today. It has not been identified as such by the official opposition or by me, nor could the government House leader identify it as being of a housekeeping nature. In fact, this morning, she didn't know -

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

Point of order

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

Ms. Tucker:      I rise to set the record straight. The government House leader was going to give a written response to the members opposite based on the past performance of the opposition House leaders.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. It is not a point of order to set the record straight. The point of order is not founded.

Please proceed, leader of the third party.

Mr. Jenkins:      Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, the issue was one of a question posed at House leaders meeting this morning to the government House leader. It was as follows: does the government House leader consider all the bills before us to be of a housekeeping nature? It was confirmed that the government House leader didn't know, Mr. Speaker. She didn't know if they were all of a housekeeping nature. The Standing Orders are very, very specific. The amendments to the MOU state that this government may call legislation of a housekeeping nature for debate in the spring session. This is simply not the case. Once again, the Liberals are ignoring the rules. They are not doing as they promised the electorate that they were going to do. I am abstaining from any further debate on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      The only body or members ignoring anything in this House are the members opposite, who are ignoring the fact that this is a piece of housekeeping legislation. They are ignoring the facts of the matter. An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act, as my most honourable colleague, the Minister of Justice, has noted, clarifies the definition of "gas".

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      It's a rare day in this Legislature when members can find such humour and such blatant disregard for not only the facts of the matter, but also their duty as members to actually read the legislation that's put before them and to provide reasonable information and reasoned debate in this House.

This act verifies the definition of gas and conforms the Yukon Utilities Board's regulatory authority over a piped propane distribution system.

A number of energy supply companies have made unsolicited inquiries to the Yukon government regarding the possibility of building and operating a piped propane distribution system in Whitehorse. That's about business and about private sector investment in this territory.

Now, we know the no-development party is not interested in business, that they're the anti-business party, but I surely thought that the Member for Klondike, who professes to be a business person, would recognize that this is about private sector investment.

The Government of Yukon is responsible for granting a utility franchise for such a system. In order to do that, we have to go through the Public Utilities Act and add a definition of gas - one word, define propane. Why members see such a - this is not housekeeping, although they were duly informed it was housekeeping, and although the House leader duly undertook to inform them in writing, as that seems to be the only way to communicate with members opposite, the members just seem to disregard that information.

We on this side, who are very supportive of the private sector and of business in this territory, believe that a piped propane distribution system offers many advantages. It brings private sector investment into the territory. Now, we know that private sector investment and private sector individuals left in droves under the NDP. We are welcoming them back, slowly but surely, and we're welcoming private sector investment in the territory by amending, ever so slightly, an act.

Energy infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, supports economic development in the territory. Propane is safe, in abundant supply, and is an environmentally positive energy option. This distribution system would position Whitehorse for the future availability of natural gas. The energy supply companies that have expressed their interest to date anticipate converting the propane system to a natural gas distribution system down the road.

Mr. Speaker, this government is amending the Public Utilities Act to pave the way for regulating the utility. We're trying, once again, with legislation, to work with the private sector.

Now, we know the NDP are very, very well known for their anti-business attitude. They've demonstrated that over the years, and the most recent example is their opposition to this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this could bring millions of dollars of private sector investment into the Yukon. The Member for Watson Lake spent a good part of two Question Periods last week outlining his opposition to this bill. I'm very interested in the fact that, once again, the NDP has proven that it is anti-business by its professed non-participation in second reading.

Their vote and their non-participation signals once again how that party just doesn't understand business. I expected more of the Member for Klondike, but once again, as is usually the case, I'm disappointed.

A vote in favour of this bill demonstrates that the Member for Watson Lake doesn't support any of his earlier arguments that he made in the Legislature last week, but we'll see. The member opposite doesn't seem to be aware of the interest or concerns of his constituents.

It's also obvious from last week's discussion that the member has no idea what purpose the Yukon Utilities Board hearing would be. The point of the hearing is to raise questions, to get answers and decide on whether or not to move ahead. Before we can even do that, before we can entertain the question, we have to change the legislation to ensure that the Utilities Board can do that.

Mr. Speaker, it's as fundamental and similar being elected in this Legislature. Before a member has an opportunity to ask a question or to answer a question, they have to be elected. It's exactly the same thing. In order for the Utilities Board to deal with the issue of a piped propane system, they have to have a definition of propane and they have to have the ability to hear it. That's what we're trying to do by this minor housekeeping amendment.

Mr. Speaker, once again we have proven, with the presence of our Member for Riverside at a recent northern development conference, speaking eloquently about our interest in the private sector and about our support for northern development, that we on this side understand the private sector and, what's more, we want to work with them.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about continuing to support private sector development and it's about investment in our energy infrastructure. When it's time to vote, we'll just see the results for ourselves, as to who is interested in private sector investment in this territory and which party in the House really understands business.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Member:      Division.

Division

Speaker:      Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:      Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts:      Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Agree.

Ms. Tucker:      Agree.

Mr. McLarnon:      Agree.

Mr. Kent:      Agree.

Mr. McLachlan: Agree.

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

Speaker:      The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 38 agreed to

Bill No. 33: Second Reading

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 33, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Roberts.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I move that Bill No. 33, Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 33, entitled Perpetuities and Accumulations Repeal Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      We are proposing the repeal of this legislation in order to remove barriers to establishing non-charitable purpose trusts, which are introduced in the An Act to Amend the Trustee Act. The rules are very old and no longer required, because allowing trusts to continue accumulating assets, rather than ending, will provide more economic value for the community.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I moved that this bill be now read a second time. This is a bill that has been on the Order Paper for some time, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Fentie:      This bill is not a housekeeping bill. It is substantive in nature and will have long-term implications on the Yukon. According to the terms of the memorandum of agreement, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate, and will not register a vote at second reading.

Mr. Jenkins:      Bill No. 33 is not a housekeeping bill. It has been on the Order Paper for quite some time, but it should be one that is set over to the fall session, or should have been dealt with last fall, and it was not. I am sorry to say I will not be contributing any further to the debate, as it would appear that the Liberals have broken the memorandum of understanding on a very important aspect of the memorandum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, the MOU is valid. We have met the terms of the agreement. It is the government's position that this is all housekeeping legislation, as addressed by the ministers.

Speaker:      If the Premier now speaks, she will close debate.

Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Once again, members opposite have shown their lack of interest in acting on behalf of their constituents and actually reviewing what the legislation contains. This is a repeal of legislation in order to remove barriers to establishing non-charitable purpose trusts.

The rules are very old, Mr. Speaker. They became part of Yukon law through the adoption of English law when the Yukon was created in 1898. Now, we know that some members in this House are dinosaur-like but surely -

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I do apologize if someone found those remarks to be inciting disorder in the House. I will withdraw them so that they don't create disorder.

The rules are very old and it's time that that they need to be changed. The Accumulations Act was originally put in place in England because of concerns that accumulation trust could take significant portions of the nation's wealth out of circulation and free from estate taxes for long periods. The Perpetuities Act was formulated in English law several centuries ago to prevent the alienation of land by the aristocracy for lengthy periods. This prevented taxation through succession duties.

Mr. Speaker, these concerns are clearly no longer relevant. This is an old, clunky piece of legislation that should go off the books. How members opposite could possibly see a benefit to continuing to keep this legislation is absolutely beyond the reasonable. It just demonstrates once again that members are not working on behalf of their constituents.

I commend second reading on the repeal of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge all members to support it.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I think the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 33 agreed to

Second Reading: Bill No. 34

Clerk:  Second reading, Bill No. 34, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Roberts.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 34, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, this bill is very well-known to the House, as it has been on the Order Paper for some time. It's also a situation where the government has been approached by the private sector to examine such changes to enhance private sector investment and encourage it in our community, and it has asked us to examine it. This we have done. We have changes that we have had on the Order Paper for some time.

I'd like to speak in second reading to the principle of this bill, An Act to Amend the Trustee Act.

This housekeeping legislation, Mr. Speaker, is designed to promote increased business and investment in the territory and to build the capacity of our financial services sector. Amending the legislation is part of our overall policy to ensure that the Yukon is an attractive place to do business.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it's very important at the very beginning, in second reading, to give credit where credit is due. The idea for this legislation comes from the local legal community. Those, some could say, are more well-versed with law than others. The local legal community has identified reforms to business-related legislation as one means of helping to grow our economy.

To continue this working relationship, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that, on the suggestion of a member of the legal community, we will be establishing a committee consisting of members of the bar, the financial services sector and departmental officials to work together to develop this trust initiative for the territory.

This bill before members today shows how we can work in partnership with business and others to build a niche market for the Yukon. The legislation is one example of how the Yukon can use its legislative powers and regulatory reforms to build a stronger economy. It will also put the Yukon in a position to benefit from new trust business opportunities in Canada as a result of measures the federal government introduced in 1999, aimed at eliminating the tax-planning benefits of offshore trusts.

I want to briefly outline, Mr. Speaker, for honourable members what this legislation will do. First of all, it creates a modern legislative and regulatory regime for trust business in the Yukon. The existing Trustee Act will be renamed through these amendments. Changing the name is truly a housekeeping matter and something that perhaps members, if they think back to the first session in 1996 when the then Member for Faro introduced a bill with the wrong title, will realize that changing the name is merely housekeeping.

Changing the name from the Trustee Act to the Trusts Act reflects the broader focus of the legislation.

During the consultations on this legislation, the suggestion was made that it be named the Yukon Trusts Act, highlighting our efforts as a jurisdiction to establish the Yukon as a niche market for trust business. We believe this to be an excellent idea - a suggestion from the public, acted upon by this government. And I plan to move an amendment during Committee to this effect for the honourable members' consideration.

The legislation before the House also deals with the investment authorities of trustees. For example, it maintains the requirement for a trustee to act as a prudent investor, but it enhances this in several respects, again providing good government for Yukoners. For example, it requires a trustee to consider specified criteria when planning investments. It also authorizes a trustee to obtain and rely upon investment advice.

The bill specifically authorizes investments in mutual funds, recognizing that such funds are readily available tools for investors.

The legislation enhances the powers and protection for trustees by limiting their liability and allowing them to employ agents, bringing Yukon law in line with current investment practices. We're cleaning the house to ensure that it's in order - housekeeping, Mr. Speaker.

As part of our efforts to make sure that the Yukon is an attractive place to do business, the bill provides simple procedures to establish trusts. This includes a statutory form of trust instrument that can be adopted by completing a simple form.

The bill also simplifies the administration of trusts. For example, it allows for the passing of accounts every two years, rather than annually. This is seen as sufficient to meet the beneficiaries' entitlement to an accounting of the trust without placing an unreasonable burden on trustees.

Some of these reforms come from more modern features of trust law elsewhere in Canada. This bill offers a new instrument that is unique in Canada. It allows for non-charitable purpose trusts. Purpose trusts, as the name suggests, are intended to further specific purposes, rather than the benefit of a specific individual. As I have noted, the Yukon's the first jurisdiction in Canada to establish this type of trust, which was recommended by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. It will be available for personal, commercial and even not-for-profit purposes, for example, by the non-governmental sector for specific purposes that meet the requirements of the proposed legislation.

For example, Mr. Speaker, a business organization could establish a trust fund for future activities related to the promotion of a particular economic sector. Non-charitable purpose trusts would also be an option for volunteer organizations that have not been able to gain charitable status for particular initiatives or projects.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides for the operation of trust companies in the Yukon. It allows trust companies qualified to carry on business under federal or the appropriate provincial legislation to operate in the Yukon, once they have registered here and meet other regulatory requirements.

This legislation has been designed to help promote the economic development of our territory. I look forward to members actually expressing their support for economic development in the territory and expressing their support for this innovative piece of well-written legislation.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, isn't that interesting. The minister just stood on her feet, tabling a so-called housekeeping piece of legislation, and has just informed this House that it has to be amended already in Committee. So much for the theory of housekeeping.

This bill is not a housekeeping bill. It is substantive in nature and will have long-term implications for the Yukon. According to the terms of the memorandum of agreement, it should not be called for second reading until the fall sitting. For that reason, we will not participate in second reading debate and will not register a vote at second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      I understand I'll be closing debate if I speak now.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan:      Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation has sat on our Order Paper for some time now. And it's as a result of it having sat for some time that we have a housekeeping amendment brought forward because we've had an excellent suggestion from a member of the public. We will be incorporating that in our debate on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation and all the other pieces of legislation before us are about minor amendments. They are housekeeping in nature. Overall, what they provide Yukoners is good government, government that is responsive to their needs, as in this particular piece of legislation. It is legislation that is well-thought-out, well-considered, and is certainly legislation that we have commended to the House, as we do with this particular act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the members opposite to work on behalf of their constituents to accept that this side of the House is responding to what Yukoners have asked, is reducing red tape for business and is encouraging development of our economy. Mr. Speaker, with all these pieces of legislation, including the Trustee Act, we have responded to the needs of Yukoners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:      Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Speaker:      I think the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 34 agreed to

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon everyone. I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:      Disgreed.

Chair:  The nays have it. There will be no recess.

We will now consider Bill No. 36, Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act.

Bill No. 36 - Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, it is customary, upon entering Committee, that this House does recess for 10 to 15 minutes. Furthermore, the members on this side have to use the washroom facilities, and we are going to ask for a break to do so, and I would find it highly irregular and unacceptable if the members opposite don't understand that bodily functions, even though we're in this Legislature, must take place.

So, I would move that we break for a recess so we can do that very thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair:  It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that we do now take a 15-minute recess. Are we agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:      Disagreed.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair:  I actually couldn't tell. I'm going to ask the question again. It has been moved by Mr. Fentie that we take a 15-minute break. Are we agreed?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:      Nay.

Chair:  The yeas have it.

Motion agreed to

Recess

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

The reason why I'm calling Committee of the Whole to order is because there's a House leaders meeting right now to expedite the business of the House. Do members wish to extend the break?

Some Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  It is agreed. We will recess for five minutes.

Recess

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

Unanimous consent re: Bills No. 44, 36, 40, 42, 41

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Chair, based on agreement among the House leaders, I would request unanimous consent for all clauses in Bills No. 44, 36, 40, 42 and 41 to be deemed to be read and carried.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Tucker that Bills No. 44, 36, 40, 42 and 41 be deemed read and carried.

All Hon. Members:      Agreed.

Chair:  Unanimous consent has been granted

Clauses of Bill Nos. 44, 36, 40, 42, 41 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move that you do now report Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act No. 3, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move that you do now report Bill No. 36, the Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move that you do now report Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move that you do now report Bill No. 42, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I move that you do now report Bill No. 41, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, out of Committee without amendment.

Motion agreed to

Chair:  We will now proceed with Bill No. 37.

Bill No. 37 - An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act

Chair:  Is there any general debate?

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I must say that it has been quite an afternoon with regard to the proceedings of this Legislature. This Assembly has probably never seen the likes of it - a government doing what this government has just done in the face of a signed agreement, in the face of past practices, in the face of tabling the biggest budget ever in this territory, of some $535 million. And yet they load this agenda, this sitting, with legislation - much of it not even remotely resembling housekeeping legislation.

We on this side of the House, Mr. Chair, are deeply disturbed by the actions of this government, as many Yukoners are. It's an important issue.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:        Ms. Tucker, on a point of order.

Ms. Tucker:      In Standing Order 42(2), "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." The members opposite are not dealing with the legislation at hand.

Chair:  Mr. Fentie, on the point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      I certainly am dealing with the legislation at hand. In general debate, I believe it's customary that we are allowed to lay the groundwork for why we intend to debate this piece of legislation, and I'm merely pointing out those particular areas that have led us to this debate here today in Committee on this bill.

Chair:  Mr. Jenkins, on the point of order.

Mr. Jenkins:      On the point of order, the Member for Watson Lake is 70-something seconds into his preamble to debate this bill. How the government House leader can conclude that he's not dealing with the subject matter, I don't know. She must have some crystal ball in front of her.

This is just simply amazing, and proves conclusively that the government House leader is unaware of her role and the rules and the Standing Orders of this Legislature.

Chair's ruling

Chair:  Order please. Points of order are definitely just to talk about the rules. Comments on personal abilities are not welcome in points of order but, in this case, there is no point of order. Please continue, Mr. Fentie.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I was saying, this is definitely an unheard-of situation. In normal cases, a bill of this nature - An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act - under a spring sitting, would have been discussed thoroughly through due consultation with the opposition benches, and that is how, in the spirit of cooperation, we can expedite the business of a budget sitting when there is a need to pass legislation. That is why, under the memorandum of understanding, that particular clause was put in.

Let me look at the legislation itself. It's clear, without any briefing on this legislation, that there is a connection to prior amendments to this very act. It's also evident that this amendment may very well be connected to amendments that did not get into the last amendment of this particular legislation, and it brings to mind many questions on why that is. Why does this amendment suddenly come forward when, such a short time ago, in 1998, this act was amended as was appropriate. Certain amendments that obviously the government side should be well aware of are simply not something that is desirable by the public, that is for the good of the public. And we in the opposition are going to exercise our right because of that fact - that this piece of legislation is not simple housekeeping but does have ramifications on this territory - and are going to do our duty and debate, as we should debate this legislation.

If we did not, we would be remiss in that duty - the duty that we were elected to perform in this Assembly. And that is a duty that the members opposite should start becoming aware of.

This is not a dictatorship in this territory; this is a democracy. No matter what the numbers in majority are, there still is reason to work cooperatively. That is why the memorandum of understanding in good faith was signed and we would have dealt with legislation of this type. We would not have wasted the time of this House when we should be debating the budget - again, I stress, the biggest budget ever in the history of this territory. Instead, we are debating legislation that provides benefit to a very small sector of the Yukon citizenry.

Further to that, I on this side, as a representative of the people in my constituency, see many more important issues ahead of this piece of legislation. I also ask the members opposite, in this particular instance, with all things being considered, how is it then that children are neglected and forgotten? Sitting on the Order Paper is a piece of legislation called the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. Why is it that the members opposite choose to bring forward this amending legislation and ignore that amending legislation?

Mr. Chair, it all comes back to processes and the proceedings of this Assembly and why we have House leaders meetings and why we have memorandums of understanding.

Now, when the minister gets on her feet in general debate, what I'm going to ask the minister to clarify and to provide detail on - because the opposition members have had no technical briefing on this legislation, none whatsoever. In fact, without that technical briefing, we are being basically diminished in our ability to thoroughly debate the act before us. Now, I'm not going to go into great detail on why we are here today without that briefing, but the facts are that if the appropriate processes had been followed, we - both the opposition benches and the members opposite - would not be in this situation.

Now, the first and foremost point that I would like the minister to relay to this House is why there is the need to move this legislation now, so suddenly, when the amendment to this particular act back in 1998 was passed and enacted, and some of the amendments I see here today were simply not brought forward at that time. Why is it, then, that suddenly these particular amendments become so important that they cannot wait, as they should, to the fall sitting, which is a legislative sitting? What is driving the members opposite to bring forward such amendments? Why is it, in the two short years since the last amendment to this act, that these have become such a priority for this government? These are questions that must be answered. These are some of the reasons why this is not housekeeping legislation.

These are the things we must ferret out in debate, and that is why we are here, Mr. Chair. As you well know, these proceedings are much about debating, dialogue back and forth, and through that process providing the Yukon public with the necessary information, accountability, holding the government side accountable and ensuring that they are responsible for the decisions and the actions that they take.

There are a number of questions that I would be much more able to ask if I had had a technical briefing on this matter. As that is not the case, today we'll have to spend some time on this bill in general debate and, in fact, in clause-by-clause, getting clarity on what these changes mean and why we are dealing with these changes today.

I also must ask the minister: if this is such a priority to the minister, how is it, then, that things like the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act did not come forward? I want the minister to explain, in the context of this legislation, how it receives priority over children and families in this territory?

These are questions I believe the minister should openly answer in a forthright manner and be accountable for the decision made. It is the minister who sponsors this bill, Mr. Chair. It is the minister who has brought this bill forward to the Legislature. It is the minister who must answer the questions and be accountable for why this is taking place.

I'm looking at the act and trying to understand exactly what the urgency is. This act does not deal with an emergency. The amendments here do not deal with an emergency. The amendments here are not a necessity to ensure that government can continue to operate. The amendments in this legislation are certainly going to do nothing to keep our courts and our judicial system operating. The amendments here will do nothing in terms of addressing crime and those ills in our society here in the Yukon Territory. The amendments have no bearing or impact on this government's ability to govern.

So, I would also ask the minister, when she gets on her feet, to provide this side of the House the answer to why this is.

Now, I have another question around the Judicial Compensation Commission, and I need the minister to provide detail on exactly what it is that the amendments in this legislation are doing when it comes to the commission, and how that relates to court proceedings. How does that relate to the right of an individual to receive and garner due process under the law? How does that relate to the right of a victim under the law? What does the commission do in regard to those individuals outside of just the judiciary? Are they not important? Are the people who are victims of crime and the people who are going through the court system not important?

Is it not an appropriate question to ask the minister, then? Under these amendments, were there not more amendments that could have come forward to address a much broader number of issues when it comes to this act - the Territorial Court Act? I sense that this act impacts many, many, many, many Yukoners. It is the Territorial Court Act. Those are the questions that the minister must answer.

Mr. Chair, there are a number of clauses here - 11 to be exact. Now, unless this is a very mundane piece of legislation, I would submit to this House, here on the floor of this Legislature, that 11 clauses certainly do not qualify as housekeeping. For us, on this side of the House to do our job, we are going to have to be able to understand what these 11 clauses and the amendments that they are bringing forward mean to the rest of the act.

So, I am going to ask the minister, in the total Territorial Court Act, how many clauses are in the total act? And why aren't there more amendments coming forward then? Because the minister cannot tell this side of the House or the Yukon public that we don't have problems in the system. With the recidivism rate that we are facing in this territory, I would say that there are problems. So, why is this such a priority and not other amendments to the very same act? And I lead back to the fact that, in 1998, the act was changed, and suddenly these become such important issues.

Now, I also want to point out to the minister that right at the very start of the amendments on Bill No. 37 - and I want to quote this passage, Mr. Chair, because I believe it to be an important passage: "The Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, enacts as follows...." That statement to me is everything. That is why we are here; that is why the opposition has taken the stand they have today. We believe that legislation - at least a great deal of it - requires appropriate debate, and when crammed into a budget sitting of the scope that we are dealing with in this sitting, I would submit, Mr Chair, that the opposition, and indeed, the public, will not get full value, and we diminish the very intent of the statement that I have just quoted.

The minister must take responsibility when the minister brings forward legislation to this House, as much as she must take responsibility for the department that she sponsors and the budget from that. So, Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to explain, given the importance that we the legislators have in this regard, how she feels that ramming legislation and amendments like this through relate to that very important part of our jobs.

It has a perception, as many other examples in the past from this Liberal government, that they are attacking this institution. They seem to not want to be open and accountable, though they make that claim constantly as if they're trying to convince themselves that that's what they are. But there are too many examples now that show otherwise, and that gives the opposition even more impetus to want to delve into what this government is bringing forward. It's not something that we relish. It's not something that we want to do. It's something that the members opposite are forcing us to do by their very actions and, in bringing forward legislation of this type, that's an example of what I allude to.

Now, why is it, Mr. Chair - and I ask this with all due respect of the members opposite - when we brought forward this issue two days ago at the House leaders meeting, that we were not able to sit back down and consult on these bills and allow the opposition to provide the members opposite an in-depth view of why we believe certain bills are housekeeping and why we believe bills like this bill, Bill No. 37, are not? It gets back to my point of urgency. In that environment of cooperation, we may very well have come to an agreement that this bill, along with the five other bills that we are going to have to debate on behalf of the Yukon public, could have easily been stood down, left at first reading and brought forward for second reading, Committee and third reading in the fall sitting.

There's no valid reason that we, on this side of the House, can see why that process did not happen.

So, I ask the minister this question: when she gets on her feet, can she answer us, as the minister responsible for this, when the government House leader informed her colleagues that the opposition has some serious problems with some of the legislation and simply cannot agree that they are of a housekeeping nature, why did the minister not lend her wisdom to this discussion and possibly provide some advice for the government House leader on what maybe we could do - what kind of compromise we could maybe reach or if there are any other options that the government House leader could bring to the opposition? No.

Instead, the minister sponsoring this bill informed the House, to the best of my knowledge, and given what our experiences were in the House leader meetings, that this is going through, like it or lump it - this is the way it's going to be. It's our way or the highway. More and more Yukoners are on that highway to Inuvik, to Fort Liard, to Grande Prairie, to Fort Nelson, and the stats bear that out.

I ask the minister this: would it not be more appropriate for the side opposite to focus on that area, instead of amending legislation like this, at a time when our economy is in crisis, when the Minister of Health has turned health care and the delivery of health care in this territory on its ear, and where the Premier is quoting and providing facts on the floor of this Legislature that are being contradicted by her very own staff and the public.

There are so many other issues that bear scrutiny and require our collective effort on behalf of Yukoners and that, in our minds on the opposition benches, are much further ahead in the priority column than this amendment, Bill No. 37.

I alluded to the commission, and I asked the minister to provide some detail on exactly what this all means in terms of the amendments of the legislation and the overall act. I look at clause 3(5). And if the minister, when she gets on her feet, would provide a detail so that we can expedite the business of the House on what that clause actually means - we have bold print on amendments. And one of the reasons why technical briefings are so important to assist not only the opposition but the side opposite in expediting the business of the House - the people's business I will stress. This is not our business. We are here on behalf of the public, of Yukoners, and we are conducting their business, Mr. Chair.

I would ask the minister: how do these clauses relate to the overall act and how does it change that act? Are these substantive changes, or are they not substantive changes? Are they changing the act in broad terms, in macro terms or in micro terms? How are we to know, from what we have been handed to date? And if there were a cooperative approach on that side of the House, we probably wouldn't be debating this as we are today, because we might have solved a lot of the issues before they came to the floor of this Assembly. That's the way we should be conducting the people's business - not in this heavy-handed manner, ramming things down the opposition's throat, using a majority that they were fortunate enough to get here in Whitehorse by a slim, slim margin.

I overheard the Premier the other day talking about it as a referendum, and I would like to correct the Premier in that regard. If this truly was a referendum - April 17, 2000 - the Liberals have lost, because a referendum is 50-plus one and over 60 percent of Yukoners did not vote for the Liberals. So the logic in the Premier's argument escapes me, my colleagues, and the rest of this territory.

Mr. Chair, as we go through the clauses in clause-by-clause debate, we will definitely have more questions. However, I have provided some of the questions that we, on this side of the House, want dealt with and I would now offer the minister some time to see if we can move this along in general debate - if she can provide the answers that we require.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The bills that we are dealing with this afternoon are all housekeeping matters and the opposition knows it. There is no hidden agenda. The members opposite were merely looking for an excuse to break the memorandum of understanding that they clearly had no intention of abiding by.

My officials were ready and willing to provide technical briefings to the opposition.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:  Mr. Fentie, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      Pursuant to Section 19(h), a member can be called to order if he "imputes false or unavowed motives to another member." We did not come here to conduct the people's business in order to break the memorandum of understanding. The minister has just accused this side of the House of that very fact and I would point out that that contravenes Section 19(h).

Chair:  I didn't hear that.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I certainly have to concur with the Member for Watson Lake. There is an apparent breach of the Standing Orders. The minister is imputing falsehoods on the part of the official opposition and the Yukon Party. There was no intention whatsoever to break the memorandum of understanding that was recently re-signed by all three parties, at least not on this side of the House. There appears to be some misunderstanding within the Liberal caucus as to their role and responsibility for this MOU and to this MOU. And if there is any deviation from the intent and direction, this memorandum of understanding spells out that deviation - and it is being undertaken and done by the Yukon Liberal Party.

So I'm extremely disappointed that the minister would take the tack that she has done. It is incorrect, inaccurate, and it is contrary to section 19 of the Standing Orders of this Legislature.

Ms. Tucker:      On the point of order, I would like to read into the record a comment from the SCREP meeting: "Cynthia Tucker, who is also the government House leader, presented the document to all members at the meeting, entitled 'Tentative Legislation for this Spring'. Ms. Tucker explained that she is providing members with this information to ensure they were fully informed prior to agreeing to adhere to the memorandum of understanding during the 2001 spring sitting."

Chair's statement

Chair:  Order please. As far as the particular comment that the opposition is claiming the point of order on, I will have to review the Blues on Tuesday and come back with a ruling.

One of the things that is important to understand here in Committee of the Whole, though, is that we're discussing bills, so any questions regarding the MOU really don't have any relevance here.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, my officials were ready and willing to provide technical briefings on all this legislation. The opposition members weren't interested. It would have been clear to them, had they taken advantage of these briefings, that these are housekeeping bills. If the opposition does indeed have serious concerns, they would have learned, through the technical briefings, that they had nothing to worry about.

The members opposite, especially the official opposition, because it was their legislation, know full well that the 1998 amendments to the Territorial Court Act were done in haste. The former minister knew very well that there were problems. We are fixing those problems with these proposed amendments.

The Territorial Court Act needs to be amended now, because certain sections of the act may be challenged in court and be found unconstitutional. If a Judicial Compensation Commission is not held in 2001, the full-time justice of the peace may be found not to be independent and, therefore, could not sit in court.

The Member for Watson Lake, first of all, said we shouldn't be doing amendments to the Territorial Court Act at all. Then he said we should be doing more. This is another example of an NDP flip-flop.

This government is open and accountable. The members opposite are the ones doing a disservice to their constituents with their activities this afternoon.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, there's no need for the minister to take this situation as the minister is taking it. We on this side of the House have a duty to represent the Yukon public and debate with the side opposite, the government side, in a manner that holds them accountable for decisions they make and what they're doing.

So I'd ask the minister to tone down. Let's get on with this, and we may find that we can move this bill through readily and move on to the next one.

Mr. Chair, the minister didn't answer any number of the points I put forward. So what we have to do is maybe slow this debate down a little and do things one at a time.

Now, Bill No. 37, on section 2, if I could please quote this, so we can get clarity on what I'm trying to ask, "Section 1 of the act is further amended by repeating the expression "full-time" in the definition of "deputy judge" and substituting the expression "permanent" for it." Now, at first look, in anybody's mind that is a layperson in this regard. There is probably no difference between "full-time" and "permanent." So, what is this need to change or amend the wording "full-time" and exchange it with "permanent"?

Furthermore, what are the financial implications, Mr. Chair, in regard to this change or amendment to the act? Is this a cost to the Yukon taxpayer? Is this increasing costs to the Yukon taxpayer or is this decreasing cost to the Yukon taxpayer? Is this making the judiciary more efficient?

Chair:  Order please. I understand right now that the Member for Watson Lake is starting on clause-by-clause debate, and while we will consider clause-by-clause debate, I was wondering if we would return to general debate or allow other members to participate in general debate.

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, I am in general debate, but, as the minister can't write fast enough to provide us with the answers that we sought in general debate, I am trying to slow down the debate and do it in this manner. However, that being the case, then, I will go back to the original format.

In general debate, the official opposition has many, many issues when we look at the amendments and try to achieve clarity. So I would ask the minister when she gets back on her feet: one of the issues that we have here is what will be the cost - the financial burden - to the Yukon taxpayer with the amendments to this act? And can the minister provide for this side of the House and the Yukon public, if there is an increase in cost, what is that cost that this act and its amendments will have to the Yukon? If that cost is an increase because of the change in this legislation, will the minister explain, then, if it is in the budget that we are debating today? Is it coming in future budgets? How is the minister going to handle it? Should there be an increase in cost to the Yukon, with the amendments of this legislation, how will that be handled?

If there is a cost, I would ask the minister to provide this House with why we are moving ahead with more costs to the Yukon taxpayer in this regard, when there are so many other issues out there that are in need of our attention and indeed in need of government expenditure. There are many, many areas that this government has neglected since taking office. It seems to me that they're not neglecting certain areas, though, and there is a pattern developing. Beyond costs, what does this mean to the Yukon public? Can the minister explain in layman's terms what these amendments to this act are going to mean to the Yukon public? In other words, what ramifications do they have on the citizens of this territory outside of a very, very, very, very small number of Yukoners?

What implications do these amendments have on the department itself and its relationship with the judiciary, our court system, and all that goes with it? Can the minister then - I think that was three questions - provide some explanation, debate and answers to those questions?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      These amendments are being introduced now to avoid a constitutional challenge. There is no cost associated directly with this act. There is the potential for cost implications with the Judicial Compensation Commission, which is already provided for under legislation. The amendments to this act do not greatly impact the lives of the majority of Yukoners. The amendments to this act do not greatly impact the daily lives of the staff of the Justice department.

If these amendments do not move forward, however, certain provisions in the Territorial Court Act and the independence of the judiciary may be challenged in court.

In December 1998, as the member knows, the Territorial Court Act was amended to comply with the Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 decision, the P.E.I. Reference Case that I mentioned in the second reading speech. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada established new constitutional requirements in support of the principle of judicial independence. Most notably, the court ruled that every Canadian jurisdiction is required to have "an independent, objective and effective" commission to consider and make recommendations to government regarding judicial compensation.

This fact, along with developments in the law in the last three years, means that it is now a matter of urgency that the Territorial Court Act be amended. Some of the 1998 provisions now appear to be unconstitutional. The former Minister of Justice knew there were problems with the amendments in 1998. They were drafted in haste. So it should be no surprise to the side opposite that there are amendments.

Mr. Fentie:      I see that this minister has taken up the blame game that the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Premier have used lately over and over and over to hide their own deficiencies in managing their departments and their issues. I'm hoping that this minister doesn't follow that path, because this minister is in charge of departments that affect every single Yukoner.

Mr. Chair, let me go about it this way. If, in 1998, the government was aware that certain challenges could arise, can the minister explain then, with all due respect, why, when we have already had a legislative sitting some months ago with this very same government in power and if this urgency was prevalent then and as far back as 1998, this government did not bring forward these amendments as they should have in the fall sitting?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it has taken a lot of work to bring these amendments forward, and we brought them forward as soon as we reasonably could.

If the Member for Watson Lake is hearing blame in what I said about the former minister, then we have very little hope in this House. I merely said that the amendments in 1998 were drafted in haste and that the minister was well aware of that. Were she still on this side of the House, with the responsibility for the Department of Justice, she would have been fixing the problem. I'm not blaming anybody, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, excuse me. And I hope the minister does not get over-exercised about the debate today. That is our duty, as it is the minister's duty to perform that very thing.

Mr. Chair, I must point something out, then. The minister has just stated that this is merely so-called housekeeping legislation. And I asked the question: why, then, did it not come forward in the fall sitting of 2000 that we just went through? The minister's answer was, Mr. Chair, that it required a lot of work.

How, then, if it required all this work - and I point out that the minister has been in office for a year now - almost a year. I corrected myself. There are a couple of weeks to go, and it will be 12 excruciatingly long months. How, then, can they claim that this is merely housekeeping legislation if it took all this time to develop the amendments? That says to this side of the House that this is substantive. Housekeeping legislation should not require nearly 12 months of work for something that relates back to amendments in 1998.

The department would have known well what these problems were and had this piece of legislation prepared and handed it to you. The legislation would have been in the hopper the minute this government took office and this minister accepted her portfolio. Will the minister then explain how this can be housekeeping legislation if it took all this work to bring forward these amendments to the Territorial Court Act?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The department has been working for some time on a larger set of amendments. These are the ones that we deem to be housekeeping. There will, during the course of this mandate, be more amendments to this act, but these are the ones that are urgent, these are the ones that are required to be done now, and these are the ones that are housekeeping.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, how are we, in all fairness, on this side of the House going to determine that? How do we determine that?

How is it that the minister can stand on her feet and say that there are all kinds of amendments happening, a broad range of amendments? Mr. Chair, I ask the minister this: who determined that these particular amendments were housekeeping and the rest weren't? Who determined that fact?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I did, in consultation with the Cabinet Committee on Legislation and the caucus, over a period of months. They were urgent, so I brought them forward now, and these are the housekeeping amendments. There will be more amendments as a result of the haste in drafting the amendments in 1998 that will come forward at a future sitting.

If the members opposite would avail themselves of the technical briefing that was offered them, they would have had the vast majority of their questions answered, and we wouldn't be going through this exercise this afternoon, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      That's my point, Mr. Chair. We may not very well have to go through this exercise.

Now, the minister just said that she determined that these amendments were housekeeping and were urgent. I didn't know, Mr. Chair, that the minister had also passed the bar exam. I find it a little bit out of context here that the minister could determine this. I submit that it's the department that brought forward these urgent amendments.

And I also submit, Mr. Chair, that we on this side of the House requested that we have the time to discuss with our respective caucuses - although the member from the third party has the luxury of only talking with himself. We need time to ascertain what we in the official opposition believe to be changes in legislation that we require a briefing on. That's what we provided to the House leader.

I would say that the haste here is the haste of this minister to follow the course that the department is trying to direct her down. That's not doing the public's business. That's doing the department's business. And I go back to this question: how was this chosen, out of all these massive amendments that the minister has just claimed are going on with the Territorial Court Act, and all the problems that resulted from the amendments in 1998, which - and I find it a little bit hard to fathom how for two years under a former government, none of these urgent things seemed to be a major problem. And suddenly, under this Liberal government, up they pop, out of the woodwork. They are a big-time issue. With all of the other problems that this territory has, these are the ones, Mr. Chair.

Will the minister now get on her feet and explain, really, how these amendments came to be priority, and, with all the work that she claims went into these, how she can make the statement that they are of a housekeeping nature.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      I have indicated that the Territorial Court Act, as it now sits, opens us up to the possibility of a court challenge in several areas. Some of these areas were not clear in 1998, when the amendments took place.

If the members had taken advantage of the technical briefing that was offered them, most of their questions would have been answered, Mr. Chair. To stand here this afternoon and say that they don't know the implications of this, well, they had the opportunity. The technical briefing was offered, the members opposite refused, and I find that appalling.

Some Hon. Members:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Chair -

Chair:  Order please. Order please. The Member for Watson Lake has the floor. I would remind members that when a member is speaking no member shall interrupt except to raise a point of order or a question of privilege.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, let me deal with the minister's comment about briefing. We didn't get a technical briefing, so that comment is moot. It has nothing to do with this.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      Yes, we could have had one if the members opposite had been a little more cooperative and allowed the opposition time to go through this. I would remind the members opposite that we were dealing with and debating the biggest budget ever tabled in this territory and we, in good faith, had signed a memo of understanding and we felt in our hearts that the members opposite would never break that memo. Lo and behold, what happened? Twelve pieces of legislation dumped on this agenda.

Could I ask the minister this: if we are open to a court challenge today, as the minister has stated, what is that court challenge? And how is it, then, that in the time from 1998 when these amendments didn't happen, why is it that there wasn't any court challenge up until this point in time? What is the real issue here, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the court challenge would be to the independence of a judge or a justice of the peace. If our full-time justice of the peace can't sit, we'd have to shut down the Territorial Court, and then where would justice be in the territory in that case? The law has changed since 1998 for compensation for presiding justices of the peace. The 1998 amendments were faulty in some ways, such as imposing an age-65 retirement age for the current judges in the Territorial Court. I explained this in the second-reading speech, and the member clearly wasn't listening.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I earlier asked the minister what the financial implications are and, in my bumbling, stumbling way of trying to figure out what the minister's trying to tell us on this side of the House, when I hear the word "compensation," I see a cost to the Yukon taxpayer. Can the minister explain, in enough detail for a layman to understand, what this compensation relates to? What are the implications and what will the cost be to the Yukon taxpayer?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      There are no cost implications in these amendments. There are cost implications in the Judicial Compensation Commission, which is already provided for in the Territorial Court Act.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, Mr. Chair, I know this is difficult for the minister. I know she's not very pleased with this situation, but I can only say that the minister and the members opposite are in this situation because of their own doing.

I firmly agree, wholeheartedly, with the minister that a technical briefing may very well have solved this problem, but the members opposite did not find it in their hearts to organize it as the government side should have.

Some Hon. Members:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, I have the floor.

Chair:  Order please. I'm having difficulty hearing the member. Would those members making interjections please come to order and allow the member who has the floor to be heard.

The Member for Watson Lake has the floor.

Mr. Fentie:      Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am trying to understand this to the best of my ability. I'm trying to understand it. There's no reason for the members opposite to get upset. I want to remind them that, in the very near future, they may be on this side of the House. Are they going to want the same treatment as we've been receiving from this heavy-handed government?

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Mr. Fentie:      Mr. Chair, I believe I do have the floor. I'm hearing a lot of chirping over there from the members opposite.

There's more and more starting to come forward here. These amendments relate to the amendments in 1998. Suddenly, the minister stands up and says that they were all done in haste, they were no good, and we have to change them again. I asked the minister who decided that these were the urgent amendments, in all the amendments the department is doing on this act. The minister said, "I decided." I said to the minister that no, that couldn't be the case. If it were true, the minister would have brought some really important amendments forward.

She's trying to make the claim - and God forbid, Mr. Chair, that the independence of the judiciary is compromised. My goodness, where would we be?

My goodness, Mr. Chair. This is such a vital issue to those Yukoners who are out of work, to those Yukoners suffering under the Minister of Health's inability to manage the health care system in this territory, to those Yukoners who can't understand where it is that this Premier and this government are leading us. They are so worried about the independence of the judiciary that they have been beating the minister's door down to bring forward these amendments. Will the minister now, in a fashion that we can understand, explain how these amendments came to be such a priority, and why is it that the amendments in 1998 compromised the independence of the judiciary?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As I have said, these amendments are proposed because the Yukon government is obligated to protect judicial independence on an ongoing basis. That is the Yukon government, no matter which party is in power. If these amendments do not move forward, certain provisions in the Territorial Court Act and the independence of the judiciary may be challenged in court.

The public must be assured that the members of the judiciary are independent of the government. It's the constitutional right of all citizens to have their matters heard by judges who are independent and impartial. The Supreme Court of Canada's 1997 decision, the P.E.I. Reference Case, requires that an independent, objective and effective commission be struck to consider and make recommendations to government regarding judicial compensation. A major aspect of judicial independence is financial independence. So if the members of the judiciary or the full-time justice of the peace were to preside in court without being independent, their decisions could be found to be null and void. This is what I'm trying to get across to the members opposite.

Recent court cases from the provinces have found that the presiding justices of the peace are not independent of the government unless their compensation is determined by an independent compensation commission. To date, the Yukon's only full-time justice of the peace has not gone before the Judicial Compensation Commission. It is therefore important to have the full-time justice of the peace's compensation determined by the Judicial Compensation Commission this year, rather than waiting until 2003.

By convening the next Judicial Compensation Commission in 2001, the full-time justice of the peace will have his independence confirmed. If there were a challenge, as I said, the Territorial Court might have to shut down. These amendments are addressing the age of retirement of Territorial Court Judges, the timing of the next Judicial Compensation Commission, including the full-time justice of the peace, limitations to the Yukon government's liability for costs of the judiciary's participation in the Judicial Compensation Commission process, and some other minor changes to support the main amendments to the act.

Mr. Chair, in view of the time, I move we report progress.

Chair:  Order please. It has been moved by Ms. Buckway that we do now report progress.

Motion agreed to

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

Chair:  Mr. Fentie, on a point of order.

Mr. Fentie:      Let the record show that the members opposite, who so dramatically brought this legislation forward, don't even want to debate it to the fullness of the clock. It's a sad state.

Chair's ruling

Chair:  There is no point of order.

Ms. Tucker:      Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:  It has been moved by Ms. Tucker that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      I will now call the House to order.

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

Chair's report

Mr. McLarnon:      Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 44, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act (No. 3), and directed me to report it passed without amendment.

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 36, Territorial Court Judiciary Pension Plan Act, and directed me to report it passed without amendment.

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 40, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Enforcement Act, and directed me to report it passed without amendment.

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 42, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, and directed me to report it passed without amendment.

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 41, An Act to Amend the Tobacco Tax Act, and directed me to report it passed without amendment.

The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, and directed me to report progress on it.

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.

Ms. Tucker:      I move that the House do now adjourn.

Speaker:      It has been moved by the government House leader that the House do now adjourn.

Motion agreed to

Speaker:      This House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 17, 2001.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

The following Legislative Returns were tabled April 12, 2001:

01-2-53

Continuing Care Facility (new): new staffing positions; recruitment strategy; amalgamation of services (Roberts)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1574

01-2-54

Health and Social Services: number of FTE's in department by agencies in the 2000/01 and 2001/02 fiscal years (Roberts)

Oral, Hansard, p. 1577-1578