Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, November 2, 2000 - 1:00 p.m.

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.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I rise today on behalf of all members in the Legislative Assembly to pay tribute to National Down's Syndrome Awareness Week, which runs from November 1 to November 7.

Down's syndrome is the most commonly identified cause of intellectual disability. Approximately one in 800 births are Down's syndrome babies. Many people know that the incidence of Down's syndrome increases with maternal age, but what is not commonly realized is that most children with Down's syndrome are born to mothers who are less than 30. This is due to a greater number of pregnancies in that age group compared to the older group.

Down's syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality that reveals itself in a set of common physical and mental characteristics. This abnormality is due to the presence of an extra chromosome.

The identification of the chromosomal cause of Down's syndrome in 1959 has done a lot to end uninformed debates over the humanity of people with Down's syndrome. This week's effort to raise awareness supports the ongoing efforts of parents and people with Down's syndrome. The advocacy efforts of people with Down's syndrome and their families have resulted in huge improvements in quality of life and life expectancy of people with Down's syndrome.

Medical professionals are attempting to match these efforts by becoming more sophisticated in their approach to ethical issues, provision of care and more cooperative in their interactions with people who have Down's syndrome and with their families.

On behalf of all members of this House, I encourage all Yukoners to support the national awareness campaign for Down's syndrome.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: If there are no further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Development Corporation, Yukon Energy Corporation 1999 annual report.

Mr. McLarnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a document for tabling entitled, A Request for Investigation and Clarification to the Conflicts Commissioner.

Speaker:If there are no further documents for tabling, I'll proceed with reports of committees.

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT the membership of the Members' Services Board, as established by Motion #19 of the First Session of the 30th Legislative Assembly, be amended by

1) rescinding the appointment of Trevor Harding; and

2) appointing Eric Fairclough to the board.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as established by Motion #20 of the First Session of the 30th Legislative Assembly, be amended by

1) rescinding the appointment of Trevor Harding; and

2) appointing Dave Keenan to the committee.

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

THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, as established by Motion #21 of the First Session of the 30th Legislative Assembly, be amended by

1) rescinding the appointment of Trevor Harding; and

2) appointing Gary McRobb to the committee.

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

THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, as established by Motion #22 of the First Session of the 30th Legislative Assembly, be amended by rescinding the appointments of Dennis Fentie, Peter Jenkins and Gary McRobb.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the federal Liberal Gun Control legislation, Bill C-68, does not recognize that firearms are an integral part of the lives of northern Canadians and that the need for a firearm differs between Old Crow and Toronto; and

THAT this House urges the Liberal Yukon Government to use its special relationship with the federal Liberal Government to exempt Canada north of 60 degrees on the Gun Control law by tying its application to the northern allowance section of the Income Tax Act.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. McRobb: Yesterday, the Tourism minister admitted that she did not think it was appropriate for an elected official to be conducting contract negotiations with employees of a department that she/he may be named to head.

I have another policy question for the minister on this same topic. Does the minister think it's good public policy for a government department to buy out the assets of any contractor?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, that is common practice. I remind the member opposite that there is a very clear process for him to follow if he has questions regarding a member's actions.

The Member for Whitehorse Centre has taken it upon himself to start that process. He has written a letter to the conflicts commissioner asking him to clear his name. The member opposite should have followed that process, and he didn't. Instead, he has made unsubstantiated allegations on the floor of this Legislature.

The Member for Whitehorse Centre is taking responsibility and is following the process that is set out by law. He has referred this matter to the conflicts commissioner, and I encourage the member opposite to follow the same process if he has any more questions.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is coming across as being very sensitive on this matter. I am merely asking questions. If they're trying to exonerate the member now, it's a little too late. He could have taken these measures before and not wait until they come up on the floor of this Legislature.

Now, my question to the minister: it's a matter of public record that this government did buy out inventory and equipment from an individual or business that held a contract with her department. We appreciate the minister's desire to distance herself from this issue. The minister is right when she says elected officials should not meddle in the day-to-day workings of a department. However, the buck stops at the minister's desk. Ministers are responsible when things happen in their departments that should not happen. That's an established principle of all parliamentary democracies.

Can the minister tell the House when she learned that a buyout of the contractor's inventory and equipment was being negotiated, and what she did to stop it?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear from the very beginning. I always take responsibility for what happens in the Department of Tourism, what happens in the Yukon Liquor Corporation and what happens in the Women's Directorate. I take that responsibility very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Member for Whitehorse Centre is taking this matter up with the conflicts commissioner. He is taking responsibility. He is asking the conflicts commissioner to clear his name. Now, what I would like to know from the member opposite is what responsibility he is going to take for the allegations he has made and if the innuendoes he is making today are not true.

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, the minister is failing to answer the questions. I asked what she did to stop this, what she knew, not for excuses after the fact. It is clear this Liberal government does not want to be accountable until the information comes forward in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, that is inappropriate.

According to the disclosure statement of the Member for Whitehorse Centre, the government paid something in the order of $68,000 to purchase his inventory and equipment. The member's disclosure document includes the statement, "Negotiations are completed on contractual buyout at previous business concession at Yukon Beringia Centre - $68,000 for purchase of inventory and equipment, completed May 2000." Does the minister have any knowledge of whether or not that statement is fully accurate?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: As we're all fully aware, this is a matter before the conflicts commissioner. The member opposite knows that there's a very clear process for him to follow if he has questions in this regard. The Member for Whitehorse Centre has taken it upon himself to start that process, and I'll repeat: he has written a letter to the conflicts commissioner asking him to clear his name. That is a public document. If the member opposite wants a copy of it, he's going to be getting it later on this afternoon. And once again, I take full responsibility for what happens in my departments. I take full responsibility and I am accountable.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. McRobb: We all just witnessed how this minister is not accountable for what happens in her department. This government hides behind boards and committees. Now they're hiding behind the conflicts commissioner. We can't even get a straight answer to a question in this Legislature if she even knew something happened. I have another question. What we have here is someone holding a contract with the minister's department who is not in a position to complete that contract because he has gone on to bigger and better things. This begs a very simple question: why would the government be buying out assets of this contractor in the first place? Will the minister please explain that?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: As I mentioned three times now, this matter is before the conflicts commissioner. There is going to be an investigation. That investigation will clear the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre. The member opposite will be getting a copy of the letter where that investigation is being asked for. It's quite clear that's the process that we have to go through right now. The member opposite knows it, like the NDP have always known that. The Yukon Party knows that. The Liberal Party knows that. We're members of this House. We know what the procedures are.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hughes, the conflicts commissioner, will not be answering these questions. It is the minister's responsibility to answer these questions and not hide behind the conflicts commissioner. Questions like "When was the minister aware?" will not be answered by Mr. Hughes. The minister should stand up and take responsibility herself and not hide behind somebody else.

The minister knows it appears that there was a purchase of assets from the contractor. Whether or not there should have been is debatable. That being the case, the public has a right to know what the business case is for this purchase.

Will the minister please provide the House with the list of inventory and equipment involved, and will she explain how the true value of this inventory and equipment was determined before they were purchased by this government?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite has something to add to the investigation, I'd suggest that he contact the conflicts commissioner, Mr. Hughes.

Question re: Gun control legislation

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources on the Liberal gun registration system.

I quote as follows: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." That sounds like Jean Chrétien. In fact, that's a quote from Adolph Hitler in 1935.

Mr. Speaker, $1.8 billion is the estimated cost of gun registration in Canada. The new law will have a very negative impact on our hunting and visitor industries. In view of the fact that the Yukon outfitter industry is largely dependent on American hunters, can the minister advise the House what the Department of Renewable Resources is doing to save this industry?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I don't have an answer, really, for the member, but I certainly will get an answer for him in writing, on what the department is doing with respect to the Outfitters Association or other resource users, and with respect to firearms and their use.

Mr. Jenkins: It sounds like little of anything, Mr. Speaker.

Let's go to the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker, and my supplementary is for that minister. Americans travelling to Alaska are planning on boycotting Canada because of gun registration. U.S. law requires Alaskan pilots to carry a firearm for survival purposes. I would like the minister to explain how she plans to counteract the impact of this bad Liberal law - Bill 68 - on Yukon's visitor industry, as the majority of our visitors are from the U.S.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Member for Klondike thinks I'm so powerful.

Actually, we've had a discussion about this in the past, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Klondike and I talked about the fact that often - and this comes from my experience working for Customs for four years, and it's very, very true - people coming from the United States have very little understanding of what our gun laws are. The Member for Klondike has made the suggestion that perhaps one of the things we could do is put some sort of note in the vacation guide, and that's a suggestion I'm taking very seriously, and we will be doing that next year.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the rules come into place this year, not next year. What are we going to do in the interim?

Let's go to either one of the ministers, Mr. Speaker. Can either minister explain why they can't convince their federal Liberal counterparts that the gun registration system is not only a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money, but it is offensive to the aboriginal rights of Yukon First Nations, harmful to the Yukon economy, and designed to make criminals out of law-abiding gun owners?

Why can't they make their federal Liberal counterparts listen and understand that point?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Yukon is continuing to lobby at the political level with respect to the Firearms Act. The Government of Yukon, as the member opposite is well aware, on October 9, 1998, unilaterally announced its decision to opt out of an agreement to administer this legislation. The transfer of responsibilities took place March 31, 1999. The Yukon government has refused to administer this legislation; we do not agree with it. Now, while we may not agree with a law and its impact upon law-abiding citizens, nevertheless it is the duty of the Minister of Justice and the government, as well as the people of the Yukon, to defer to the courts and Parliament. That said, we are continuing to lobby against this legislation.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. McRobb: Again, for the Tourism minister. Well, perhaps there was some requirement in the original contract for the Beringia Interpretative Centre gift shop. Perhaps the minister can assist us with that by providing a copy of the original contract with Mike's North. Will the minister undertake to provide that contract as soon as possible?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a public document. I will check again. If it is a public document, I would be more than happy to provide that to the member opposite.

Mr. McRobb: Perhaps the Tourism minister can tell us, is the conflicts commissioner's review of this purchase after the fact, or did he rule on this purchase during negotiations or afterward, and is the minister prepared to table any information in that regard today?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the rest of us were here and listening, attentively, when the Member for Whitehorse Centre stood and said that he has requested an investigation from Mr. Hughes. That happened during the tabling of documents earlier in the agenda. The Member for Kluane perhaps wasn't listening, but the Member for Whitehorse Centre has tabled a request to the conflicts commissioner to clear his name through an investigation of this procedure.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, that begs this question: why did the member or this government or the Minister of Tourism not approach the conflicts commissioner before, to seek his guidance on what approach to take in this matter of buying out a business, because a member of the public becomes an MLA? It could be a new matter to government. I have checked with some people. It doesn't appear there's any precedent of this. Why did this government do it, and why did they not request the conflicts commissioner to guide this process?

I want to ask again and be very clear on this: was anything done in this regard prior to negotiations, and, if so, can the minister table it?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, it's not possible to do any more than we have already done. The Member for Whitehorse Centre has requested an investigation of this matter. He wants to clear his name. He doesn't want any more spurious allegations or innuendoes made about him. That's why he has asked for the investigation.

The investigation is going through the conflicts commissioner. That's the process that we're all familiar with, as MLAs. That's the process the member opposite knows about.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Tourism. I think we have to clear the air here. Yesterday in this House, the minister stated that, in this particular case, the minister deliberately stayed out of the process and the negotiations that were going on. That tells us, on this side of the House, that the minister knew what was happening.

My question to the minister is this: as a minister of the government and of the Department of Tourism, did the minister not think it appropriate to first consult the conflicts commissioner before any further negotiations in a purchase of one of her colleagues' businesses was to continue? Did the minister not believe that a ruling from the conflicts commissioner should have been the first order of business in this matter?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: As I mentioned yesterday, I try to stay out of the day-to-day workings of my department. I do not micromanage. That is not my responsibility. I do take responsibility for the department and for bringing government policy to my department. To be absolutely clear, this matter is before the conflicts commissioner. The member opposite knows that. The investigation will certainly clear not only the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre, but also mine. But to be absolutely clear, I take responsibility for the Department of Tourism, for the Yukon Liquor Corporation and for the Women's Directorate.

Mr. Fentie: The problem that we on this side of the House are dealing with here is that it's inappropriate for a government department to be buying out a business from an elected member sitting on the government side without due consideration of the conflicts commissioner. This is a serious matter because the Department of Tourism has now used taxpayers' money to purchase a private sector business. I ask the minister again: why did the minister not stop the negotiations immediately upon finding out and get a ruling from the conflicts commissioner as due process dictates?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: This is getting ridiculous. The statement from the member opposite is that somehow or another I knew that the negotiations were happening. The statement from the member opposite says that I could have stopped the negotiations. Why would I do that? That's the day-to-day workings of the people in my department. I don't go down and hand out licences at the VRCs across this territory. I don't do that. That's not my job. I'm the minister, and I take full responsibility for my departments.

Mr. Fentie: Well I'm glad the minister does take full responsibility because, in this case, the minister yesterday stated she deliberately stayed out of this negotiation. I ask the minister again: if the minister is responsible for this department, it was her duty to first find out from the conflicts commissioner whether this negotiation and purchase were appropriate in regard to using taxpayers' money to purchase, not only a private business, but a business owned by one of her colleagues sitting in the government benches.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, let's go through this again. There is an investigation going on. The conflicts commissioner is doing that investigation. The Member for Whitehorse Centre has asked for that investigation. We're going to clear his name, and I'd like to know from this member - as I want to know from the Member for Kluane - just what responsibility he is going to take for making these spurious allegations and making these false allegations within this House. What responsibility is he going to take?

Question re: Mining industry, commitments to

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Economic Development.

Soon the minister will be going to meet with the mining community - I believe it's in Vancouver - and we all in this territory, the opposition included, are very concerned about the economic situation that we're in. We're in a crisis.

My question to the minister: what is the minister going to be doing at the conference with the mining community - and, more importantly, the investment community involved in mining - to instill some confidence to come back to this territory?

Can the minister tell the House today what she will be bringing to that conference from the Yukon, on behalf of the Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I'm thankful that the members opposite have recognized that the mining industry is an important element of the Yukon economy.

The member is quite correct. I will be speaking at a luncheon on Monday, and my message to the mining community is a result of the earlier luncheon that I attended this spring and where I outlined a number of key commitments of the Yukon government and our interest in their industry, and I invited the mining community to check against delivery and said that I would be back in the fall for precisely the industry to do that.

In order that members opposite are not feeling somehow slighted, we have also arranged that the speech would be simultaneously delivered to them.

Mr. Fentie: What are those key commitments?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the key commitments - the main focus around rebuilding the Yukon economy is providing certainty, and the way to do that is the settlement of land claims, devolution, RR2, and the mining community should certainly receive a progress report from us on them.

I would love to be going down to Vancouver and saying that we had completed some of the seven outstanding land claims. I'm not able to do that yet, but I'm looking forward to providing them with the progress report, likewise on devolution.

Another key component that I indicated to the mining community that I would be speaking about would be the protected areas strategy, and I had hoped that the Minister of Renewable Resources would be able to attend with me. Unfortunately, he's required in the House, so I will be providing the mining community with a progress report on that.

I will also be speaking about the MINE program, which was tabled in the throne speech. As well, I will be making reference to the incentives that we provided in the first supplementary budget that we tabled.

Mr. Fentie: Well, if I were in the mining industry, this would be little comfort. Land claims are delayed; that is a progress report. Devolution is delayed; that is the progress report. YPAS is under review, another progress report. And the MINE program, which the mining industry is well aware of, is part of the mineral strategy that was begun a couple of years ago. Furthermore, the incentives that were tabled in the previous budget of the 22-percent exploration tax credit is an NDP initiative. There is nothing new being brought to the mining industry. Will the Premier now stand on her feet and tell this House and Yukoners what it is really she intends to do to try and get the mining industry back in this territory up and running?

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, you have to establish a relationship with the mining industry. I did that back in May - re-established. The mining community was very familiar in that I, as a member, had been to all of the Cordillerans. I have worked with the mining community in the past. My first opportunity to speak as Premier was this spring. I indicated the areas we were working on and what we were doing. I am providing them with a progress report.

Now, contrary to what the previous member said, the MINE program is not a result of the mineral strategy, which, if the member goes back and checks, was described by me, when in opposition, as "very thin soup indeed". What we have provided in the MINE program is substantially more for the mining community than the previous NDP government had even considered. What we are also doing with the mining industry is working with them. There is information to report. So the member opposite does not think that establishing a common forum on land claims is progress. The member opposite does not think that the target date of April 1, 2002, as a result of the federal election, in part, is progress. That is his opinion. He is entitled to it; he is entitled to air it in this Legislature. I am quite confident it is not the opinion of the mining industry. I believe we have made progress.

Question re: Grey Mountain Primary School, relocation of French immersion

Ms. Netro: My question today is for the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, the minister didn't deny what the Member for Whitehorse Centre has been telling people about this government's plan to relocate the French immersion program to Grey Mountain school and to turn Whitehorse Elementary into a downtown campus of Yukon College.

Would the minister tell us what would happen to the students currently at Grey Mountain Primary and Whitehorse Elementary?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:What the member opposite is suggesting is purely speculation. I am sure that the members opposite, when they were the government on this side, were aware that there is a continual aspect to looking at the enrolment factors within all Yukon schools. The enrolment and capacity of schools in the Whitehorse area are no exception. We're looking into that study. We're trying to bring balance to enrolment in Whitehorse elementary schools. It's a very, very complex issue. It has many involving factors such as programs made by parents, residents' shifts resulting from the creation of new neighbourhoods, and outdated catchment areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're always looking at the dynamics of our school system, and this is no exception, although the situation that the members opposite are alluding to is - and I'll repeat - speculation.

Ms. Netro: Yes, we did hear the minister tell us yesterday that the department is looking at the capacity and enrolment of Whitehorse schools. I hope we're not about to see a repetition of the grade reorganization caper from a previous government, which we're still paying for.

Will the minister please inform the House how the consultation plan for Grey Mountain Primary has been structured, and when parents and school councils can expect an information session and consultation, as the minister stated yesterday would occur?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: As I have just indicated to the member opposite, the capacity and enrolment study has been done and, as yet, there has been no schedule set up for meetings or consultation or information. That will definitely be done, but it hasn't been set up yet.

Ms. Netro: Yesterday, the minister said, "I'm sure that parents are very concerned with respect to Grey Mountain Primary School. That was very, very evident during the election." We agree; parents are very concerned about the fate of their school. The Liberals have made a lot of noise about how they will do consultation better. Their way and the Liberal way. With the Mayo school, that Liberal way was for Cabinet to make a decision, then make the phone calls. Will the minister acknowledge that these plans to rebuild Grey Mountain Primary School are politically driven, and that parents and school councils have not been consulted about the Liberal plan to convert Grey Mountain Primary School to a French immersion program.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: With all due respect to the member opposite, the lines that she was reading obviously were to keep on theme. There was no suggestion yesterday, no confirmation with respect to the speculation that is being espoused on the other side. I would also like to remind the members opposite that the decision taken by Cabinet to postpone the Mayo school was spread to the members immediately after a decision in Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the residents and students of Mayo - I'll repeat because it's worth repeating - have been continually jerked around by 25 years of previous government incompetence. In six months, we have a footprint on the ground. We will be building the school starting in early spring, and the students will be in it just after this time next year. That is our commitment to the community of Mayo and we will follow through on it because we are a government that does what it says it will do.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

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

Point of order

Speaker: Hon. Minister of Tourism, on a point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I'd like at this time for members to note that Mrs. Hayden, a former member of our Legislature and a minister, is present in the gallery.

Applause

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:Mr. Speaker, with the House's indulgence, I would like to take an opportunity to introduce three classes from Yukon College: two from developmental studies classes and one English-as-a-second-language class.

Applause

Some Hon. Member: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Question of privilege

Speaker: Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Mr. McLarnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, as I have dropped off at 11 o'clock today and pursuant to Standing Orders.

The point of privilege I am raising is, at the first opportunity, to state that my credibility has been attacked in this House, without a chance for me to respond and without the prescribed and proper legislative practices being followed.

I am raising this point at the earliest possible time, as I had to ensure that this fell within the conflict-of-interest guidelines, and I had to review Hansard to understand the depth of the spurious and slanderous allegations made against me.

The Member for Kluane has made allegations in this House that should have been first filed with Judge Hughes, the Yukon's conflicts commissioner. This is prescribed in section 17(d) of the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act. By not following legislative procedure, the Member for Kluane has raised allegations that, as a private member, I have no opportunity to refute.

Further to the argument, he has had the opportunity to smear my excellent reputation in this House, while I have had no opportunity to defend myself, based on evidence that he will not bring forward through proper channels.

I believe that these accusations are without evidence, which is why no complaint has been filed with the conflicts commissioner.

The use of this process to investigate conflicts was further given strength by the statement by Commissioner Hughes in the statements after investigating the Byblow-McDonald case in 1996. For everybody's reference, that's page 57, paragraph 4.

To paraphrase Mr. Hughes, he states that the process put in place should allow discussions to be investigated fairly and quickly through the process defined in legislation, and not in the Legislature.

My point, as a private member, is twofold. I have no opportunity to defend myself, because the Orders of the Day do not allow private members to directly answer questions.

If the legally defined procedures were followed, I would have a chance to ensure that my name and credibility were not sullied by foundless, baseless accusations. As it is now, the member has the ability to attack my credibility without my ability to defend it.

Further, I have taken steps to ensure that my name is cleared from this mud-slinging by asking the conflicts commissioner to make a ruling. I've done nothing wrong. I should not be subjected to baseless allegations to which this House gives me no ability to respond.

I ask this House that if the Member for Kluane wishes to continue this form of questioning, he do it through the proper channels in the legislation, which ask that the conflicts commissioner address these issues, so that baseless, groundless and error-prone allegations do not come into the House where a person does not have a chance to defend himself.

This is a question of privilege. I do not feel it is fair, as a private member, to be attacked without having a chance to respond, and the rules of this House do not allow me to respond.

That's what the conflicts commission was used for. This is the same reason that it was put in place to defend the reputations of members such as Mr. McDonald. And I would also like to add the same person who brought this motion also had to go through the conflicts commissioner to clear his name.

What I would ask - knowing full well that the ex-minister of Tourism is there and that he knows full well what that contract is. They know full well what the facts are, but they will not present them, and they will not allow me to defend myself. And I'm asking, since this is a question of privilege and I cannot defend my name in this House, that the Member for Kluane be asked for an apology and a retraction, and also that the Speaker rule that this line of questioning is indeed infringing on my privilege as a private member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Given what I have just heard, this is indeed a complex situation for me, and I simply cannot make a ruling right now, sitting here. I will have to reflect on this. So I will take the comments under advisement. I will provide a ruling to the House next Monday, I hope - but sometime next week if I cannot do the research before Monday.

Speaker's ruling re question of privilege raised November 1, 2000

Speaker: Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, the Chair will provide a ruling on the question of privilege that was raised on November 1, 2000, by the leader of the official opposition. The leader of the official opposition met the notice requirement found in Standing Order 7(1)(b) by submitting a written notice to the Office of the Speaker at 10:54 a.m., November 1, 2000.

Standing Order 7(4) states that the Speaker must rule on (a) whether there appears, on the face of it, to be a case of breach of privilege; and (b) whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity.

The normal practice of this House has been that, to meet the "earliest opportunity" requirement, a question of privilege must be raised at the time the event occurred or on the next sitting day. In this matter, the event took place on Tuesday, October 31. The Chair, therefore, finds that it meets the earliest opportunity requirement.

Rulings of the Chair of this and past Assemblies have been consistent in the finding that a question of privilege or a point of order cannot be based on a dispute that has taken place between members as to the facts of a matter or as to the interpretation which should be assigned to those facts. The House will understand that, in situations where members provide differing versions of a particular event, the Chair is in no position to conduct an investigation and render a judgement on which version of the events, if any, is the accurate one.

The Chair has, of course, reviewed the Hansard for October 31 and November 1, 2000. Other members may well wish to review those passages relating to the question of privilege raised by the leader of the official opposition. The conclusion that the Chair believes readers must reach is that the Minister of Education might have been more helpful in explaining the context of the situation when he said that the leader of the official opposition "refused to come up." It was only the day following that the House learned that the bells were ringing and that the leader of the official opposition had responded that he intended to be present in the House and would be available after Question Period. The Minister of Education must recognize that the manner in which he described this situation on October 31 did not cast the leader of the official opposition in a favourable light.

Although this does not qualify as a question of privilege, the Chair would ask that the members reflect on the lessons learned and make better efforts to treat each other fairly and professionally. The Chair would very much appreciate the members taking greater care when attributing actions or words to other members.

We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 24, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I move that Bill No. 24, entitled the Department of Justice Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Justice that Bill No. 24, entitled Department of Justice Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Justice Act. This act brings the Yukon into alignment with the legislative framework adopted by other jurisdictions in Canada to ensure the Yukon has legislation recognizing the constitutional responsibility of the Minister of Justice to act as the chief legal advisor to Cabinet.

This act will strengthen the Department of Justice's role as a central agency for managing and providing legal advice to Cabinet and other departments. It is also intended to strengthen the fundamental role of the Minister of Justice by ensuring the Department of Justice has a strong coordinating role, working with all government departments to continue to provide high-quality legal advice for the betterment of government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Netro: I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill No. 24 today. This appears to formalize work that the ministers of Justice have been doing for many years. The Government of Yukon has been seeking the devolution of the Crown attorney for more than 30 years. Previous ministers of Justice have met with federal ministers seeking support for this change.

I would like this minister to tell the House whether she has met with the federal minister on this matter prior to introducing this legislation.

Can the Minister of Justice tell the House what the federal position is? Is the Government of Canada prepared to support devolution of the Crown function? When will the federal government make the necessary changes for this to take effect? Will this be dependent upon the federal election?

I would also be interested in knowing whether the Minister of Justice has discussed this change with the legal community. Does the minister have a model of the prosecutions office that she could share with us?

On the topic of consultation regarding this legislation, under the final agreement and self-government legislation, the first four have the ability to draw down the administration of justice. Could the minister tell us what consultations have taken place with the Yukon First Nations regarding this legislation?

I will be supporting this bill in second reading and look forward to hearing the answers to these questions from the minister before concluding debate.

Mr. Jenkins: I rise in general support of Bill 24, Department of Justice Act, but I do have some questions surrounding the minister as ex officio the Attorney General of the Yukon. I would like to explore with the minister, in line-by-line debate, the issue of Crown in right of Yukon as to where we are standing today and why the minister has not taken it upon herself to apply for a ruling in that regard, to provide a much greater degree of certainty surrounding this area than we currently have.

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I thank the members opposite for their comments and I look forward to their questions in line-by-line debate in Committee of the Whole.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 24 agreed to

Bill No. 29: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 29, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 29, entitled Electronic Commerce Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 29, entitled Electronic Commerce Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: The explosive growth of the Internet and computer networks over the last decade has made it possible to communicate electronically, rather than using paper and pen. Entrepreneurs, banks, bookstores, small business, home-based business owners and financial service providers have all seized this new tool and made it possible to transfer money, order goods and services and pay our bills without putting pen to paper.

Electronic commerce - or e-commerce - is altering our economic world, so that the rules that governed the old ways of doing business have to be changed as well.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon has limited ways of regulating this new way of business. Therefore, I am moving that the Electronic Commerce Act be read in this House.

What is electronic commerce? E-commerce is any transaction made using digital technology over the Internet or over closed networks, such as bank networks that use debit cards. For the purpose of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, electronic commerce relates to any legal relationship that may require documentation made electronically, such as a bill of sale or an invoice for shipping purposes.

The Electronic Commerce Act will provide a legal framework for e-commerce in the Yukon. Like Ontario and Manitoba - two provinces that have just passed e-commerce legislation - the Yukon will now be well-positioned to take advantage of the new e-commerce world.

The Yukon e-commerce legislation - like that of Manitoba and Ontario - is based on a model bill developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The Electronic Commerce Act will provide the legal regime necessary for the development of e-commerce and e-government in the Yukon. "E-government" refers to government services provided on-line to the public; for example, the business directory or the Economic Development Web site. The act will give legal effect to the use of electronic communications by the private sector and by governments.

Mr. Speaker, this act recognizes the legality of electronic information, electronic contracts and electronic transactions. It validates electronic transactions and electronic signatures - signatures that can be made with the click of a mouse.

The Electronic Commerce Act, Mr. Speaker, provides an answer to the question, "Can I do this electronically?" Just follow the standards set by the legislation, and the transaction will be legal.

The bill states that there's no requirement to provide information in writing and that information can be in electronic form. The bill creates special rules for governments, because governments have to receive a great variety of information in a variety of electronic formats. The new legislation will help meet the public's demand for more electronically delivered services by government, and by the private sector.

The Yukon government is working to help facilitate the growth of the Yukon's e-commerce sector by providing it with the legal framework it needs to be competitive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie: We, in the official opposition, have no problem with passing this act in second reading, although we will have a couple of questions during Committee, just for the sake of clarity, to try and clear up some of the items in the act, as we are not really journeymen in electronic commerce in this territory. So, during Committee, we will ask the minister to try, in layperson's terms, to clear up some of the confusion on this side and some of the particulars in the act itself. Beyond that, we will be voting in favour of passing this act in second reading.

Mr. Jenkins: The Yukon Party is in support of Bill No. 29, this e-commerce act. The purpose of it is very straightforward. It's to provide legal certainty to electronic communications of all sorts by government, business, and all sectors of our society, Mr. Speaker, and it parallels a similar legislation brought down in other jurisdictions in Canada, and it was developed by a uniform group in Canada.

We have cross-referenced it to a number of articles that recently appeared in a number of magazines on this topic, the main one being a recent article in the magazine, The Economist, which pointed the way to how e-commerce could assist government and could reduce the cost to government and yet provide a much greater range of service to the population base that it serves.

So, other than a few questions in line-by-line debate for clarification and somewhat of an interpretation on various lines, we are in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I'd like to thank both of the opposition parties for their support for this piece of legislation, which is positive for the Yukon in providing this e-commerce certainty. I am fully prepared to answer the questions that the Member for Watson Lake has indicated they will have in line-by-line debate. Certainly this is a complex area, and I look forward to that debate.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 29 agreed to

Bill No. 30: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 30, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 30, entitled the Electronic Evidence Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Premier that Bill No. 30, entitled the Electronic Evidence Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: At this time, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the companion bill to the e-commerce legislation, the Electronic Evidence Act. The Electronic Evidence Act provides a legal structure for the development and use of electronic evidence in legal proceedings in the Yukon.

The bill provides rules for electronic records that are produced and stored in a computer or readable at the time of their use only with the help of a computer. This could include, for example, medical, court and criminal records that exist in computer readable form.

Electronic records are data that is recorded or stored on any medium in or by a computer system or similar device. Electronic records include printouts, a display, or any output of that data. The bill applied to data on smart cards or magnetic strips or on cards as well, for instance the electronic data on bank cards. The bill defines the integrity of electronic records that are to be used as evidence. The bill looks at the procedures by which electronic records are created and stored. It also looks at the system that creates and stores these records in order to ensure that the electronic evidence to be used in the legal proceeding has veracity.

The legislation provides rules for storing and retaining electronic records to be used in legal proceedings. The Electronic Evidence Act is another model bill that was developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and this government is proposing to keep pace with the new technological developments.

Many records are produced on a computer with word processing software and then printed on paper. For example, in the case of business correspondence, that record lives it's life as paper. And paper, of course, can be presented as evidence. This bill allows the electronic record from which the paper was printed to be used as evidence.

The Electronic Evidence Act represents another step that our government is taking to enhance the development of e-commerce and to provide a secure, legal framework for the future of e-commerce in the Yukon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fentie:We in the Official Opposition, again, as with the previous act, will be in support of this act. Just in a preliminary view, it seems that this act is strengthening the original Electronic Commerce Act by defining how legal documents are to be used in evidence, so on and so forth.

We will also have a couple of questions in Committee, but beyond that, we in the official opposition will be voting in favour of the Electronic Evidence Act, Bill No. 30.

Mr. Jenkins:I rise in support of the Electronic Evidence Act. We have no questions. It appears to be rather straightforward.

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 opposition parties for their support for this companion piece of legislation, which will advance the Yukon in the technological age.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 30 agreed to

Bill No. 22: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 22, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I move that Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Premier that Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan:Mr. Speaker, this bill is to amend section 7 of the Elections Act. Section 7 contains the terms of reference for the electoral district boundaries commission. In accordance with the Elections Act, section 3(3)(5), the chief electoral officer may be tasked with producing a report to the Legislative Assembly on matters that may improve the administration of elections.

In December of 1996, the leaders of the three official parties of the Legislature agreed that a review of elections legislation was important and that it deserved early attention.

The chief electoral officer was therefore asked to produce a report, with recommendations, on election-related matters. In conducting this review, the chief electoral officer invited all registered political parties to participate on a review committee. While representatives from the political parties were able to provide input, the final recommendations in the report were the sole responsibility of the chief electoral officer. The public was also asked to provide input for this review.

The chief electoral officer's report was tabled in the Legislature in 1997. This report included a number of recommendations in a variety of areas. These included election financing and setting up a process for regular reviews of riding boundaries.

Some two years after the chief electoral officer's report was tabled, the previous government finally tabled amendments to the Elections Act. Unfortunately, the previous NDP government ignored the chief electoral officer's recommendations regarding an electoral boundary review commission. The three political parties, who participated on the review committee, proposed that there should be an electoral boundary review after every second election. This was also the recommendation of the chief electoral officer. Another recommendation of the chief electoral officer was that an independent commission be established to review the area, boundaries and the names for electoral districts.

Instead of following these recommendations, the previous government tabled amendments to the Elections Act that would have put the time frame for boundary reviews at over 10 years apart. Their legislation also had the chief electoral officer, a public servant, unilaterally determining whether a review of the electoral boundaries was required or not.

Yukoners all recognize that, with fluctuating populations in communities and with subdivisions, boundary reviews are required more often than every 10 years. In order to ensure fair representation for Yukon citizens, these should be conducted by an independent commission.

The electorate is quite aware that a number of ridings are currently out of skew. Yukoners told us that a review every 10 years just wasn't good enough. We are once again doing what we said we would do. In light of our election commitment, I have tabled this bill to amend section 7 of the Elections Act. Section 7 contains the terms of reference for the electoral boundaries commission. This bill, in keeping with the report from the chief electoral officer, proposes to expand the electoral district boundaries commission to include: a judge or retired judge from the Supreme Court to be the chair of the commission; a resident of the Yukon chosen by each leader of a political party represented in the Yukon Legislative Assembly, and the chief electoral officer.

Through these amendments, we will have an electoral district boundary commission of five individuals, rather than the present structure of just one commissioner. The purpose of these amendments is that we need good legislation. We need boundaries that are drawn by an independent commission. The boundaries must represent a fair division of the Yukon electorate, and they must be reviewed in a timely manner, prior to an election.

We believe that these amendments will provide a better measure of democracy in how the electoral district boundary commission conducts its review of the Yukon electoral boundaries. These amendments fulfill a commitment that we made to Yukoners during our election campaign, and these amendments address one of the seven priorities that we identified - restoring confidence in government.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide the changes Yukon people have been asking for, in how we determine representative electoral boundaries and, in turn, how Yukon people are represented in this Legislature.

Mr. Fairclough:Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment to this act. People in the Yukon will definitely be affected by the end result of a commission drawing boundaries in the Yukon. The riding of Faro could be eliminated completely and be joined in, possibly, with another riding. The town of Whitehorse may have two, three, or four more additional ridings. This is a concern to many Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, and I do hope that proper process is followed on this.

There have already been some questions to us with regard to consultation and what took place with the First Nations, for example, on bringing these amendments forward, and there are some people who would like to have input before there's more discussion right now.

Most certainly we'll have a lot of questions with regard to this act in third reading, and one was the one the Premier had raised with regard to a judge, or retired judge, of the Supreme Court who is chosen by the senior judge of the Supreme Court.

Some people want to know how this came up and what was the rationale behind it. Some people are even focusing down to maybe even two, possibly three judges in the Yukon. There are not many people to pick from who could have done this. Should we actually be looking outside the Yukon for someone more neutral in any political and territorial issues out there, which we have had before? I know the members opposite may talk about saving dollars in this respect. I think this argument should be addressed.

We have not had a briefing on this and that could have been beneficial. If government is still willing to do this - I believe there might have been one this morning. We had somebody over, but it may have been over already. So, that's something else to think about, I suppose.

We have questions in regard to the interim report and so on. There's a lot in this amendment to the Elections Act that has an impact on Yukoners and we will be questioning that in Committee of the Whole in detail. I believe this is important. People are thinking about it right now, such as the people in Faro, for example, who are going through a by-election and may be voting for an MLA of their own, not shared with any other community, for the last time. This has been on their minds for a while now and, of course, the people of Whitehorse, again, have the majority of the balance of the MLAs in Yukon.

There's going to be a lot of discussion, of course, with the commission that's put together on what process may take place. Is it a balanced representation of the Yukon? We'll question what that balance is. As far as ridings are concerned, of course, it's Whitehorse, and for rural communities, it is less. Is it fair representation, in that do people out there in the communities, who are far away like Old Crow, Dawson City and Mayo, get good and fair representation?

Many important questions are coming out right now. Where the boundary lines, of course, come into play should be determined by the commission and by presentations that are given to them. So we will have many questions in Committee of the Whole and, at this point, I do not see a reason why this should be held up at this point.

Mr. Jenkins: This act, An Act to Amend the Election Act, brings forward an electoral boundary review here in the Yukon regarding the area size and population served by each of the 17 elected representatives here in this Legislature. It is a much-needed review, Mr. Speaker. It should have taken place earlier. The one section in this act that I am pleased to see is that it is indicated clearly that the review must take place on a continuing basis after every second election.

I do have some concerns that were brought to my attention with respect to how the commission will be formed, who will sit on it, its size, and whether we are justified in having a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court, resident of the Yukon, who is chosen by the senior judge of the Supreme Court and whom shall be chair. There are not too many people who qualify for that position, Mr. Speaker. We might want to broaden the scope of that appointment to chair. We might want to have an impartial - and I am not suggesting that judges here in the Yukon are not impartial - judge brought in from somewhere else if we choose to go in that direction, or any other individual who is conversant with this aspect of Canadian law. Had this act not come forward at this session of the Legislature, and had it not been completed, I am very sure that, if we held another election without having undertaken this review, we would probably see a court challenge concerning the validity of the riding size and population served.

What this act does not point out is that there is more and more of a focus on the major population centre of Whitehorse, and there doesn't appear to be any mechanism to make adequate representation from rural Yukon, which we've come to know as TROY, the rest of Yukon. Everything is focused on Whitehorse. Everything occurs here. And the old basis of democracy, representation by population, holds true, but it has to be tempered with the reality of the population base we serve and the far and wide regions that we have here in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker.

So, while in principle I have no quarrel with Bill No. 22, An Act to Amend the Elections Act, I do believe we should be paying special attention to some of the mechanisms put in place in some of the areas, because I believe that they should be amended to more accurately and adequately reflect the needs of Yukon.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I am somewhat dismayed by the members opposite's comments. The reason why we have brought forward this bill - as the members should remember - and why we have brought it forward now is that this is exactly the amendment when we debated the Elections Act that we tried very hard, as the official opposition, to have the then NDP government accept. And they quite simply refused.

At that time, when we brought forward the amendment and in preparing this legislation, all members of caucus have discussed at great length what would be a fair structure for a commission. Certainly, we wanted to go beyond simply placing the onus on one public servant and to have representation from all three parties in this Legislature - all three parties that represent all of Yukon, all of Yukon.

The leader of the third party made reference to how we should perhaps have a retired justice from outside of the territory. While I respect the member opposite's opinion on that particular focus, I would remind the member opposite that it was a retired justice who gave us the boundaries we have now. There are some very strange anomalies in the current election boundaries. The member opposite has perhaps forgotten that, during the Lake Laberge by-election, because that particular riding is divided in such a funny way, it was his own leader who was campaigning in his riding, as opposed to the Lake Laberge riding during that by-election.

The boundaries, for the members who may not be aware, are divided on the Takhini River Bridge and, in fact, Porter Creek North ends at the Takhini River Bridge. Where I live in Porter Creek is considered part of the Laberge riding, as are parts of Fish Lake Road. The boundaries are very strange, and that's why it's very important that we have a very fair commission that looks at these boundaries.

They are not Whitehorse-focused. They are representatives of three parties. As agreed upon by the three leaders - and the member opposite has suggested that a retired judge is perhaps not the best individual. If they feel that there is somehow a better choice for a commission and a better description of a commission that they feel would be more fair, I would invite the members opposite to bring forward an amendment for full debate.

We have tried very hard, and could not come up with a more fair allocation. The boundary review is much needed; these changes are part of an election commitment, and I remind the members that this is not only exactly what we said we would do during the election campaign, but it's also what we tried to do under the previous government.

Thank you very much.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 22 agreed to

Bill No. 32: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 32, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 32, entitled Municipal Loans Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Premier, that Bill No. 32, entitled Municipal Loans Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this simple bill is required because of a legal technicality in the Financial Administration Act. That act, in section 40(1), requires that loans by the government only be made under the authority of an act. Every year we appropriate monies for the purpose of making loans to municipalities, and we do this through the normal budget process.

However, we're advised that the appropriation act itself is insufficient legal authority to meet the requirements of the above-mentioned section of the Financial Administration Act, and that a separate act is required, in addition to the appropriation acts.

For the past number of years, we've been loaning to the municipalities under the authority of an old Municipal and General Purposes Loans Act, but we've now exhausted the limit in that act.

The passage of this act will in no way change the present practice of seeking annual appropriation authority for such loans. The $15-million figure included in the present act should therefore suffice for a number of years before a similar act will have to be passed again.

As members know, we normally seek $5 million per year in appropriations for this purpose, but the municipalities seldom require that sum.

Mr. Fairclough: We don't have any concerns with this bill in second reading. We look forward to going through it line-by-line in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Jenkins: I have concerns with Bill No. 32, Municipal Loans Act. What it says to the public is that we are taking a new tack - "we" being the government; this new Liberal government - with respect to our dealings with municipalities. We are not going to be cost sharing major projects in the future. We're just going to loan the money to the municipalities. Previously, major undertakings were cost-shared 85 percent to 15 percent, like the secondary sewage treatment here in Whitehorse. The Government of Yukon put up the bulk of the money and the balance coming from general revenues of the City of Whitehorse.

But now there appears to be a change in direction being taken by the Department of Community and Transportation Services and the Minister of Finance with respect to how municipalities are going to receive their funding. They're going to have to borrow it. The government doesn't appear to be interested in cost-sharing any more. It doesn't even appear to be interested in budgeting and providing grants.

Also, I'm alarmed that there's a mechanism in place in the Municipal Act that allows only so much borrowing by a municipality. And it's the same as you or I, Mr. Speaker, going to the bank. The bank will say, "Fine, what is your total income?" and tell you that you can only borrow this much for a mortgage for your home - 30 percent of your gross. Well, there's the same formula in place in the Municipal Act for municipalities. They're only allowed to borrow three percent of their total assessment base. And there is a caveat on that also - three percent of the total assessment base - on which grants-in-lieu of taxes are paid. So, it further restricts the total amount that could be borrowed.

And in a lot of cases, municipalities are far exceeding or are being told to exceed their borrowing limits at the request of the minister. Now, there are two ways of exceeding that borrowing limit. The minister can just sign it off and say, "Fine, we can do it," just like the bank can say fine, or they can go to a plebiscite on which the taxpayers must vote as to whether or not they want to assume that additional debt load. But that whole process appears to be usurped today, Mr. Speaker, with this new shift in Liberal direction in not funding municipal projects on a cost-sharing basis, only lending money to municipalities and allowing municipalities to exceed their borrowing limit without going to plebiscite, to a borrowing bylaw, which is authorized by the taxpayers. I see it as a downloading of responsibility.

Now, we all know how much the federal government has downloaded responsibility from the federal level to the territorial or provincial level, but what we're seeing here is a wonderful Liberal mechanism to further download that responsibility from the territorial government level to the municipal government level. It's the same taxpayer, Mr. Speaker; there's only one, and that's you and me - Canadians.

But I would urge the minister - it's being explained as a common housekeeping bill so that we conform to the Financial Administration Act, but it also signals that the amount of borrowing by municipalities is increasing alarmingly and will be increasing alarmingly under this Liberal government, and I have concerns in that regard, Mr. Speaker, and I would like some checks and balances put in place. I would furthermore like the Minister of Finance to explain why, all of a sudden, in this depressed economic state that we are in, municipalities will be required to borrow this tremendous increase. We're going from a limit of $5 million to a limit of $15 million. That's a 300-percent increase. Why?

The economy of the Yukon is on the ropes; it is going down. Municipal valuations are flat. Resale values have tumbled downwards, and yet we are seeing a dangerous trend here today that municipalities will be borrowing up to three times what they were allowed to borrow in the prior years.

So I admire this wonderful, unique way that the Liberals have of financing new projects and new initiatives, taking the load and the fiscal responsibility and downloading it to municipal governments; but as a taxpayer, as an elected representative, I have grave concerns, Mr. Speaker.

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 interim leader of the official opposition for his support for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my second reading remarks, the reason that we are passing this particular Municipal Loans Act is because the previous legal authority that was in place has run out of money; it is done. The legislation automatically expires, so we need a new legal piece of legislation in order that we can then put in our budget documents - which are debated at great length in this House - a line for appropriating money for loans to communities, which we have made for many years, even since the Minister of Tourism served on city council. This is simply a legislative requirement in order that the Justice folks are satisfied that the Finance folks are doing the right thing and that we have the legal authority. Every year - every single year, we appropriate money for the purpose of making loans to municipalities. Members opposite should know - they pride themselves on reading the budget documents - that normally that is $5 million per year in the appropriations line and, normally, municipalities never actually require that sum.

All this particular bill does is to say that we have the legal authority, under Justice, to put that line in the budget, which we then vote upon.

Now, I would urge the leader of the third party, the Member for Klondike - a community and municipality, I might note, Mr. Speaker - to undertake a briefing from Finance officials on the Municipal Loans Act, in order that the nefarious plot he seems to be searching for can be revealed to him as not being one. We are simply doing some housekeeping legislation, prior to debate, although I will be happy to debate, at length, with the member opposite.

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. Kent: 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. 32 agreed to

Bill No. 28: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 28, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Duncan.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 28, 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. 28, entitled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is rather mundane, and it's unrelated to any initiatives taken at the local level. For the most part, our Income Tax Act has to mirror the federal act, since our tax is a function of the federal tax and all the inputs that go to determining that tax. Consequently, when Canada amends their Income Tax Act, ours has to be similarly amended. This also holds true for most of the provinces, and they, too, will be passing similar legislation for similar reasons.

The legislation that I have tabled and that I am seeking second reading on today incorporates changes that have been made to the federal act over the past several years. In addition, it makes consequential amendments referencing the newly formed Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the body that has replaced Revenue Canada, as the principal collector of federal and provincial/territorial taxes.

This is not the first time that this House has been asked to pass legislation of this nature, nor will it be the last, Mr. Speaker. Rather, it's routine, it's ongoing, and it's a necessary exercise on the part of all jurisdictions that base their income tax regime on the federal determination of taxable income and tax liability.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, we don't have any problems with this bill in second reading.

Mr. Jenkins: Any time any government wants to reduce the tax load paid by a Canadian, I am in favor of it. I only hoped that they would do a little bit more, a little bit sooner, but I guess we have to be thankful for small initiatives, so I rise in support of this act.

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

Hon. Ms. Duncan: I thank the interim leader of the official opposition for his support. The leader of the third party has suggested that this act will reduce income taxes and this is just simply a mirror legislation of what the federal Income Tax Act changes are. It is unrelated completely to any initiatives taken at the local level, and I look forward to debate in Committee of the Whole.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 28 agreed to

Hon. Ms. Tucker: I move that the Speaker 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

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

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

We will now discuss Bill No. 21, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000.

Bill No. 21 - Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act (2000)

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:I would just mention again the rationale for this act. In conducting its own internal reviews and in the course of reviewing legislation for other departments, the Department of Justice occasionally comes across errors in legislation of a non-substantive nature - for example, typographical errors or omissions, inconsistent wording or problems that result from the statute printing process. The amendments in this act correct errors of that nature that have come to the department's attention since the last Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act in 1998. I could just go through the various changes. It would just take a minute, if the members have no objection.

In subsection 68(1) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the French version is amended by repealing a paragraph. This merely removes an extra paragraph that was unintentionally added to the French text of the act. The English is not changed at all.

Subsection 56 (1.3) of the Assessment and Taxation Act, the word "filed" is repealed, and the word "registered" is substituted. That merely ensures that the documents in question are registered against title in the land titles office, which was the intent of the legislation in the first place.

In the Estate Administration Act, there is a paragraph that is repealed, and the following substituted for it: "there is no trustee for the minor's interest in the estate,". That clarifies the reference to the estate in the existing section 72(1)(b). The intent is a reference to a minor's interest in the estate.

In the Municipal Act, the expression "huit jours" is repealed and "huit semaines" replaces it. That's eight days becoming eight weeks. It corrects an incorrect deadline in the French text to reconcile it with the English text.

In the Oil and Gas Act, there are several cases where the amendment corrects a formatting error that arose in the printing process. The definition has been restructured to avoid a recurrence of the same error.

And in the Pounds Act, the change corrects the French version of the quoted subsection, which misquoted the French title of the Highways Act.

In the Seniors Property Tax Deferment Act, again, the word "file" is repealed, and the word "register" substituted for it.

And in the Workers' Compensation Act, the amendment permits the appointment of a deputy workers' advocate consistent with the intent of the original subsection.

That's it for the changes, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Is there any further general debate? Shall we go clause by clause, or shall we consider this deemed read and carried?

Unanimous consent

Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to consider this bill read and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clauses 1 to 8 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Bill No. 25 - An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I would just say that minor amendments to the Interpretation Act are required to ensure that the Yukon legislation mirrors the federal Interpretation Act and reflects changes in the Bank Act of Canada, simplifies enforcement processes by clarifying when and what powers the minister can and cannot delegate, adds a general definition of "minister", recognizes the creation of Nunavut, and incorporates gender-sensitive language.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins: Could the minister be specific as to the changes in the Bank Act that we're looking at here? Other than including an authorized foreign bank, is there anything else in that area?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It brings our definition in line with the Bank Act of Canada. That's all.

Mr. Jenkins: But what is the effective change? What are the implications of this change?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, as I said, our definition is now in line with the definition used in the federal legislation - that's all.

Mr. Jenkins: So, what are the implications of this change?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: No more authority and no less authority is granted. It's merely to bring us in line with the federal legislation. The member opposite is looking for problems where there aren't any.

Mr. Jenkins: I'm looking for clarification. Now, obviously the federal Bank Act was changed for a specific reason and we followed suit. What was that reason?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: To the best of our knowledge, the federal definition was changed to allow foreign banks to do business in Canada. Ours was changed merely to comply with the federal legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, foreign banks have been doing business in Canada since before Confederation, just on an entirely different level from what they were originally doing it at. But foreign banks have existed in Canada for quite some time.

So what are the implications of the changes we now have here in the Yukon? What are the implications of these changes for Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, this change will have no effect on the day-to-day lives of Yukoners.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, obviously the minister doesn't know. I see a way out of this. She could provide us with a legislative return.

The federal Bank Act was changed for a definite and specific reason. Yukon is following suit and paralleling that change. Now, what was the reason for that change? Because foreign banks have been doing business in Canada. We have category A, B and C banks in Canada.

Now, these banks have been doing business in Canada for quite some time. This change to the federal Bank Act was only recent. We are following suit. Why? What are the implications of this change on the federal level that we are following suit?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, we'll be happy to provide a written reply to the member, or a legislative return, if he prefers.

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Shall we go clause by clause or consider the bill read and passed?

Unanimous consent

Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to consider this bill read and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clauses 1 to 4 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Bill No. 26 - Enforcement of Canadian Judgements and Decrees Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Seeing no general debate, shall we consider this bill read and passed?

Unanimous consent

Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to consider this bill read and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clauses 1 to 12 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Bill No. 27 - Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act

Chair: Is there any general debate?

Seeing none, shall we consider this bill read and passed?

Unanimous consent

Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to consider this bill read and carried?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Clauses 1 to 24 deemed to have been read and agreed to

Chair: We will proceed to Bill No. 24, Department of Justice Act.

Bill No. 24 - Department of Justice Act

Chair: Is there any general debate on the Department of Justice Act?

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to explore with the minister, Mr. Chair, the area in clause 3, "The Minister is ex officio the Attorney General of the Yukon," and the implications that flow from that. I'd like to ask the minister, where are we at with respect to the existence of a separate Crown in right of Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the Minister of Justice is not the Attorney General for all purposes, just for some purposes, as laid out in this act.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that gives rise to the question: just where are we at with the existence of a separate Crown in right of Yukon?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, when devolution occurs, this act will be in compliance. Until then, it's only for limited purposes.

The description of the legal duties of the minister have remained substantially the same for years and years, so this is more housekeeping legislation. I know the member opposite doesn't like to hear that, but it's the truth.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I'm sorry but I'm just not comfortable with the response I received from the minister. What the minister is saying is that she is the Attorney General for specific areas and not for others. Could she be specific? In what areas is the Minister of Justice the Attorney General for and in what areas is she not the Attorney General?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The Minister of Justice is the Attorney General for areas covered by territorial legislation and not for areas covered by federal legislation.

Mr. Jenkins: We got that one right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, now let's extrapolate from that point. Let's go into the existence of a separate Crown in right of Yukon. Just where is the Department of Justice in defining that role? Has there been any more thought given to a court challenge under the Constitutional Questions Act by this Liberal government?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: There have been some discussions, but we haven't proceeded very far down that road.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, is it on the agenda? When would we see something occurring in this regard?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: It's a priority of our government to finish this stage of the devolution process before we proceed any further.

Mr. Jenkins: So, if I hear the minister correctly, what the minister is saying is that under devolution we will achieve a Crown in right of Yukon. Is that what the minister is saying, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, that goes beyond the scope of the current round of devolution.

Mr. Jenkins: This is growing more and more confusing all the time. I am trying to get my head around it, as to just where we are at, in order to provide some legal certainty. We are waffling back and forth in a number of areas, and I do not believe it is going to be advantageous unless we have some certainty with respect to the Crown in right and our definite responsibilities in that area.

Will this government be pursuing a court challenge under the Constitutional Questions Act to ensure that there is certainty with respect to this area, and could the minister provide some timelines for this undertaking?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, we are dealing today with Bill No. 24, the Department of Justice Act. This proposed act would prepare for the anticipated devolution of the criminal prosecution function from the federal government. The member opposite's questions are beyond the scope of this act.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I disagree with the minister, Mr. Chair, in that the questioning is all related, and we are in general debate. So, I would once again ask the minister to answer the question.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, at this point, there are no constitutional questions prepared by government that would address the question of the status of the Crown.

Mr. Jenkins: Are we anticipating any, Mr. Chair? Is anything going to be forthcoming? As the Crown attorney's office for criminal proceedings devolves to the Government of the Yukon, it will certainly give more evidence and credence to the fact that the Crown does exist. We have a Crown attorney's office that will be devolved from the federal to the Government of Yukon, and it begs the question as to the Crown in right for Yukon with respect to all other matters.

We are heading down that path. I would like to know the timelines for us heading down that path and what the government is going to do, because they can certainly establish some certainty with a court challenge under the Constitutional Questions Act. Why isn't that avenue being pursued? It will eliminate a whole lot of uncertainty in a whole series of areas that we are presently having to address and will be addressing under devolution.

Hon. Ms. Duncan: Mr. Chair, since the member opposite has asked a question about devolution and the member opposite asked a question about a reference to the constitutional court regarding Crown in right of Yukon, as I told the member last session, there is no constitutional reference planned by the Government of Yukon - none anticipated, none planned on that particular subject.

The member opposite has asked for a time frame on the devolution of the Crown attorney function. In opposition, we had looked at the director of public prosecution's model, and certainly there was work done more than 10 years ago on the director of public prosecution's model. That is something that Yukon is interested in. However, to the best of my knowledge, the intent of the Government of Yukon at this point in time is that we would like to successfully conclude our devolution agreement with the Government of Canada, and I have provided members opposite with a statement in that regard, prior to proceeding on a director of public prosecution's model or the transfer of Crown attorney.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the new Minister of Justice, the minister of everything, for her response, Mr. Chair. I can see we're not going to get any suitable responses out of exploring with the Minister of Justice the existence of a separate Crown in right of Yukon.

I have a couple of other areas I'd like to explore with the minister. On Bill 24, I'm concerned with a number of the other areas of government as to whether or not they would have to hire their own legal counsel through the Department of Justice or otherwise to address their issues. If we look at, say, the chief electoral officer of the Yukon, do they have to go beyond the scope of this in-house and hire their own legal advisor, and, if so, where are the provisions in the budget for it, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the intent of the act is that all legal advice to government be channelled through the Department of Justice.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if I hear the minister correctly, the conflicts commissioner, access to information commissioner, chief electoral officer, even our table officers, have to hire all their legal advice through the Department of Justice here in-house.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice, from time to time, does hire outside counsel in specific instances. I would not expect that would change. The intent of the legislation, though, is that all legal work be channelled through the Department of Justice, no matter which department it is.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you. I'm still not able to get my head around that response.

What I'm asking the minister, and what I'm seeking an answer on, is if, say, the conflicts commissioner - Mr. Hughes - wants legal advice, does he have to go to the Department of Justice, or can he go elsewhere? Or does he have to funnel his request through the Department of Justice?

It is the same with the access to information commissioner, the chief electoral officer, and even the table officers here. If they need legal advice, can they go outside of government and obtain that legal advice? Or do they have to go to the Department of Justice, and only to the Department of Justice?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I say again the intent of this legislation is that all legal advice provided by government should be funnelled through the Department of Justice. There will be occasions when the Department of Justice will countenance the hiring of outside counsel.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, that's the intent of the legislation. Now, what actually happens? Can the minister enlighten me? If Mr. Hughes, as conflict commissioner, currently needs legal advice, where does he route his request?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: In the past, many departments and many individuals, such as the conflicts commissioner, have either provided their own legal advice or hired outside counsel on their own. The intent of this legislation is to change that.

Mr. Jenkins: So, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that all of these areas of government - and some of them are arm's length - must go through the Department of Justice for legal advice. Is that the case?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: The word "superintends" doesn't necessarily mean "does" it. It means "supervises" it.

Mr. Jenkins: As the system currently works, Mr. Chair, all of these agencies act at arm's length from government. And if they have required legal advice, like Mr. Hughes might have, as the conflict commissioner, from time to time, or like the access to information commissioner might have from time to time, as indeed the chief electoral officer of Yukon would have from time to time, they have had a very independent way of obtaining that legal advice. But why is this being changed?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Most of the people that the member opposite is referring to - we use them, not for their legal advice, but for their other advice. Legal advice is incidental to their duties.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if I disagree with the minister, it would probably not be unusual, when she states that legal advice is incidental - usually the legal advice provided by these three individuals - it's a form of legal advice, and it is very pertinent to the area of expertise that they are hired for and it's binding on government. So I again ask the minister why these areas of government are being restricted in their ability to obtain independent legal counsel remote from government now? What is the rationale for this government taking that position and moving in that direction?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the member opposite seems to be assuming that the Department of Justice would be privy to the content of the advice; that is not the case. The advice is sought from experts in the field.

Mr. Jenkins: Now we are getting into the bafflegab region. I am looking for a specific answer; I am looking for a specific answer. These individuals, arm's-length commissions of the Government of Yukon, involved and established under their own act with their own area of jurisdiction, previously had access to independent legal advice. They did not have to go to the Department of Justice. Why are they now being reined in? I would like to see who in the Department of Justice is going to tell Mr. Hughes he has to come and see his department for independent legal advice. That is a pretty interesting one. Be that as it may, why are these areas being reined in, and they can only proceed if they require legal advice through the Department of Justice? Why is that taking place?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I doubt that Mr. Hughes would require independent legal advice, having been a lawyer and a judge for over 40 years.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, again, we have a bafflegab answer. Mr. Hughes is not going to be the conflicts commissioner forever, but the conflicts commissioner - as does the commissioner who oversees the access to information, as does the chief electoral officer - has specific functions, and occasionally in the past, they have required legal advice. Even Mr. Hughes will admit that he has sought the advice of other individuals in the legal field for an area that he is exploring and dealing with.

Why does this piece of legislation further restrict those individuals to going to the Department of Justice for legal advice? Why can't it remain as is? What have the problems been with the current way that these individuals have dealt at arm's length with legal matters? What has transpired to make this change?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, this is not an attempt to restrict anybody. It is an attempt to streamline the provision of legal advice to the Yukon government.

Mr. Jenkins: So I can see a friendly amendment coming to this area, so that these areas of government can go outside the sphere of the Yukon Department of Justice for legal advice? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: No, Mr. Chair, that is not what I am saying. As I have already explained to the member opposite, the seeking of legal advice through the Department of Justice does not mean the Department of Justice is privy to the content. It is merely an attempt to streamline the provision of legal advice.

Mr. Jenkins: This has to be a very interesting definition of "streamline". You're putting another department in the equation.

Now, if the minister said she was eliminating one department from the equation, I would agree that it's streamlining. But what we're doing is that, now, commissioners have to go to the Department of Justice, who will then probably put them in touch with a lawyer, or suggest where to go.

So, how is this streamlining? It certainly isn't. It's adding bureaucracy - another layer of bureaucracy - to the process, and it can only be construed accordingly.

But more importantly, what has given rise to the need to put this additional step in? And I really will take heed of this new Liberal definition of "streamlining", adding more bureaucracy to the process, because it will come in handy in the future, Mr. Chair.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, what we're looking for is consistency. Individual officers can seek independent legal advice, because they are not heads of departments, but the Department of Justice has an interest in all matters connected with the administration of justice, so it should be aware when these officers are seeking advice.

We are merely attempting to be aware of all the legal advice that is being sought by any part of government. And, incidentally, Department of Justice lawyers are quite qualified in providing this legal advice in the majority of cases.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, if that's the case, the minister might want to have a look at the contract registry, and see how much outside counsel the Government of the Yukon engages in over the course of a year. It is considerable, and in some of the other areas it is also considerable - such as Economic Development and some of these fancy numbered companies that are set up and in incidents like Kassandra - - the amount of money that's going out the window for independent legal advice.

How is it going to apply to companies like that - arm's length companies that are set up and owned by the Government of the Yukon or Crown corporations? Will it apply?

This new ruling, that every area of government must report to the Department of Justice should they need legal advice - that's what we have here. Now, we have some Crown corporations; we have some other numbered companies that are set up through the Economic Development portfolio and through the minister's other portfolios to funnel money to Northwestel on the Connect Yukon initiative. Where do they go for independent legal advice? Do they go to the Department of Justice? Are they mandated to go there also, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the intent of the legislation is that all arms of government will seek their legal advice through the Department of Justice.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I think that I and a number of departments probably have a lot of concern with this new initiative, and I don't know how it's going to impact on a lot of these areas where currently these commissioners - if you want to use them as an example - are arm's length from government and must be arm's length from government to effectively address their responsibilities.

What has given rise or what has occurred to make this change and implement this change? There has to be something that has occurred, because it's certainly not streamlining. It is adding another layer of bureaucracy to the conflicts commissioner.

Let's use the conflicts commissioner as an example. Previously and currently, the conflicts commissioner resides in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, and if he wants legal advice, he just picks up the phone and phones the person he knows is going to provide it to him, just to allay any fears that his thought process is not spelled out quite succinctly and in conformity with existing laws and case law across Canada.

All this is going to do is add another step into what the conflicts commissioner has to do. Why are we doing this?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I refer the member opposite to Bill No. 25, An Act to Amend the Interpretation Act, and the definition of department: "'Department', when used with respect to the Government of the Yukon, means any department of the Government of the Yukon and includes any agency, commission, board, or corporation of the Government of the Yukon." Yes, government agencies, boards, commissions and corporations are included in the definition of department.

Mr. Jenkins: That's exactly my point. All of these areas are included. Why?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: At the risk of repeating myself, it is because we're looking for consistency in the provision of legal advice to the various government departments. We are not precluding the possibility of outside legal counsel being hired in some cases. We just want it coordinated through the Department of Justice, so that one portion of the government knows what legal advice is being sought and received. It's quite simple.

Mr. Jenkins: So, if I understand the minister correctly, we've gone from how it is streamlining the process - which it hasn't - to now, where it provides consistency. So, that's what we're standing behind: to provide consistency.

Could the minister just enlighten me as to how this new system is going to work for, say, the various commissions or some of the agencies of government that currently have their own legal counsel on retainer? How is it going to work now? Are those arrangements going to be cancelled and is everything going to be funnelled through the Department of Justice?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, one can't reduce the use of outside counsel without making some changes. I think that should be fairly obvious.

Mr. Jenkins: Just for the record, how many lawyers are on staff in YTG currently, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Sixteen, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: So we have 16 lawyers on staff. I'm sure the minister or the officials with the minister would know how much we spend on outside counsel in the course of a year. Is that number readily available, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I would be glad to have my officials pull that information together for the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, usually anyone in the line of work that this minister is in would have those numbers quite readily at their fingertips - ballpark. You usually know, when you are operating a department , how much you spend on roads and how much you spend on airports and how much you spend on specific areas; but that the numbers have to be pulled together is clearly an indication that this bill has not been thoroughly thought out.

I would just like to go back on the consistency. Can the minister be specific as to what incidents have occurred in the last two, three, four years that have given rise to the necessity of funnelling everything through the Department of Justice?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Referring to the member's previous question first, I would like to know for what year he wishes the statistics for outside legal counsel. The last fiscal year? Okay, we should be able to get that for him fairly quickly.

I am not sure there were any particular incidents that led to this proposed changed legislation. It is merely that the function of the Minister of Justice is responsible for all matters of law, whether or not they are performed by the Department of Justice or by some outside agency. We are looking for consistency, and I do believe that it will be a streamlining, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins: I'd like to thank the minister for her answer, and it appears that we're digging a bigger hole here, as to how this is going to be effective and how this is going to work, Mr. Chair.

Could the minister outline for my benefit how this system will work under this new act? If, say, the conflicts commissioner is seeking legal advice, what does he do?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the request would be channelled through the director of legal services, the same as it would be if the minister responsible for the Women's Directorate, or the Minister of Economic Development, or any other ministry or portfolio had a question.

And I have an answer for the minister: for the 1999-00 year, $1,474,000 was spent on outside legal counsel.

Mr. Jenkins: So we spent $1.5 million on outside legal counsel. Is that for all departments, all agencies of government, or is that tracked? Because a lot of the agencies of government deal directly with their own counsel. Is that in this equation, in this number of approximately $1.5 million?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, that figure is for outside legal counsel for all departments.

Mr. Jenkins:What I asked the minister is this: is it for all departments, all agencies, and all commissions?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I don't believe we have the figures for agencies and commissions at this time.

Mr. Jenkins: So, if the Department of Justice is going to be responsible for funnelling the requests for legal advice, how is the payment for that legal advice to be made? You know, an agency or a commissioner would become comfortable in dealing with a specific firm or a specific counsel for advice, and it knows the amount of dollars. Does this mean that now the Department of Justice is going to dictate where that commissioner must go for outside counsel? And how is the payment going to be made? Is it all going to be funnelled into Department of Justice, or is it just going to be billed internally to the respective department and agency of the government?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, payment will be made through the Department of Justice, and we wouldn't presume to dictate where someone must obtain legal advice if it's determined that they do, indeed, require outside legal counsel.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Chair, I think we're burdening a lot of our very good officials in various agencies of government and various commissioners with an added level of responsibility in the name of streamlining the process. I don't believe we're going to have that effect.

As to consistency, I can't see us having any consistency further than what we have. I see probably the need for another layer of bureaucracy to funnel all these requests.

How many additional FTEs are going to be required now that we have to funnel everything through the Department of Justice? And what is going to be the cost of implementing this new system?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, that would depend on Management Board approval, and a request for same obviously has not got in to Management Board yet, because this is still proposed legislation.

I submit to the member opposite that having consistency in legal advice is better than having 10 sets of lawyers advising government at the same time. It's much better to have consistency.

Mr. Jenkins: Consistency from a legal department - if you have 10 lawyers sitting around, you will get 10 different opinions, Mr. Chair, nine times out of 10, and you can ask your deputy - your officials - beside you.

It's obvious that the Minister of Justice has had very little involvement in the business world in dealing with the law. Even in the simplest application of municipal law, you can phone two different lawyers in the same firm - and I can attest to this because I have done it - and get two different opinions on the same issue, so consistency just doesn't wash.

What we have before us is a new act. I want to know what the cost is of implementing this new act. We know we're spending $1.5 million a year on outside counsel. I know as soon as everything has to be funnelled through the Department of Justice for legal advice, it is going to put an added amount of responsibility on that department. There is going to be a necessity to increase staffing levels. Otherwise, we are going to hear that it is going to be a week or two weeks or a month or six months before we can give you that opinion. We have to research it. And the turnaround time is going to go up and up and up with respect to decisions requested from the Department of Justice. What is going to be the cost of the additional staffing levels to meet the terms and conditions imposed on the Department of Justice by this new act, this Department of Justice Act, Bill No. 24?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, we expect that any cost will be more than offset by the savings in outside legal counsel. The member opposite has made my point for me by saying he has phoned two lawyers and got two different opinions. That is why we want to centralize the provision of legal advice to the government in the Department of Justice. Contrary to the member's opinion, that is what the Department of Justice does. Its job is to provide legal advice to the government. It should be the central agency to do that. All requests for legal advice should be funnelled through the department. So, again, in the interests of streamlining and consistency, that is the reason we are bringing forward this act.

Mr. Jenkins:It still doesn't answer the question. What is it going to cost to implement the terms, conditions and provisions provided for in this act? What is it going to cost the Department of Justice?

For the minister to stand on her feet and say that they're going to be offset by the savings in outside legal counsel just doesn't wash. Now, has there been some sort of a business plan presented, or do we not have those in the Department of Justice? We just deal with legal opinions; the business side of the equation, and the cost of the equation and the cost to the taxpayers are not identified. What will be the cost of implementing the terms and conditions contained in this new act, and what will be the resulting savings? The minister has come out and said there are going to be savings. She has agreed with my position that there are going to be costs. What are they?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: As I've said, we believe that any cost will be more than offset by the savings. Since this government took office, the use of outside legal counsel has been somewhat reduced. We are monitoring the cost-savings, but it is too short of a period to be able to provide the member opposite with the year's figures.

Mr. Jenkins:So what the minister is saying here on the floor of the House is that she expects us to buy into this bill, when she doesn't know how much it is going to cost to implement and she doesn't know what the cost-savings are going to be.

Now, on the surface, I don't have any quarrel with streamlining a process, but this is not a streamlining for all departments. Currently, a lot of the commissions and a lot of the agencies of government deal directly with legal counsel, either inside or outside government. Now there has to be another tracking mechanism and another procedural step instituted under the provisions of this new act. That's going to cost money. It's going to take someone to track it. It's going to take someone to monitor it. And I haven't heard anything about these areas, other than a generic statement from the minister that it's going to cost money but we're going to save it on outside counsel. That's it.

What is the cost of implementing the terms and conditions of this new act? Could the minister be specific in the actual number of employees required and the cost?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, certainly it will be much, much less than the amounts paid to outside counsel in the past. As for process, a department, commission, agency, whatever, makes a request to the director of legal services. It is that simple.

Mr. Jenkins: Oh, I know it's simple, but it has a cost; what is that cost?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, less than the cost of providing outside legal counsel.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, currently, we are spending $1.5 million in outside legal counsel. Is the minister saying we are going to save $1.5 million and add $1.5 million in costs to the Government of the Yukon in payroll, office, and other sundry costs associated with this new act?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, we are already spending less on outside counsel. We expect that $1.5 million to be significantly less by doing the work in-house. The member opposite is asking for an exact figure in dollars and cents, and I can't give him that, but less than the $1,474,000.

Mr. Jenkins: I still haven't got an answer, Mr. Chair. How much?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the member is asking for an exact dollar figure; I can't give him that, but we expect it will be less than the current cost of using outside legal counsel.

Mr. Jenkins: So, at the end of this session, we will anticipate that, for the next fiscal cycle - the mains that we'll see next spring - there will be a line item in the Department of Justice for approximately $1.5 million more in their operation and maintenance side of it for staffing levels, office and such. Or, let's deal in hundred thousands. I'm not asking the minister to be so specific as to round it off to the nearest cent. Can we deal in terms of $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000? What's it going to be?

Certainly, there has to be an order of magnitude estimate of what it's going to cost?

The minister has to be fiscally responsible, Mr. Chair, and fiscally responsible means asking what implementing this act is going to cost. Now, does the minister not understand that?

All I'm asking is for those order of magnitude figures. Can the minister not provide them? Does she not understand the business side of the portfolio she holds, Mr. Chair? That's appalling.

We know we spend $1.5 million on outside counsel. What's going to be the net savings in outside counsel and what are we going to spend internally, just to say it's a wash? All we have done under this Liberal government - it doesn't matter what portfolio we look at today - is add more government employees. The exercise of government is to provide the highest consistent level of service to the taxpayers at the lowest possible cost, and we have to have a delivery system that works.

Previously, the delivery system did work when the conflicts commissioner or the access to information and privacy commissioner wanted legal advice. They just picked up the phone and talked to a lawyer. Now we have instituted a whole other step in there.

I want to know what that additional step is going to cost the Government of the Yukon, in order of magnitude estimates.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I have indicated to the member opposite several times, and I will indicate again, that we expect it to be a cost-saving, not a cost.

In-house lawyers are less expensive than outside legal counsel - perhaps as much as one-half of the cost. There is a saving there. The member again is looking for nefarious plots where there are none.

Mr. Jenkins: Just to set the record straight, I'm not looking for nefarious plots. I'm looking for costs. I'm looking for the business case that was made associated with Bill No. 24.

Does the minister have any analysis done by Department of Justice as to the cost implications? Now, certainly that must be a prerequisite. Has there been a financial analysis done?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the formal analysis will be brought to Management Board in due course. It will be coming to Management Board in due course.

Mr. Jenkins: So it sounds like we're putting the cart before the horse, or we don't understand what we're doing.

Before a bill is brought forward, I think it would be very prudent of the minister, Mr. Chair, if she spends the time to look at the business case for that bill, especially when there are costs that we're going to incur in the government. Yet we're told here today on the floor of this House that we're going to pass this bill, and the business case is going to be dealt with at Management Board.

Well, obviously there must be - or if there isn't, there should be - a business case plan that currently exists, with respect to the change proposed under this Bill No. 24.

Could the minister table the financial implications, which I'm sure must have been done by the department, with respect to this Bill No. 24, Department of Justice Act?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, the member is well aware that I cannot table Management Board material. He knows that very well. I cannot, and I will not. Almost $1.5 million last year in outside legal counsel is way too high a cost. There is no supervision of the legal advice. The intent of this act is to provide consistency in legal advice to government departments and to streamline the work. I would expect the department could be hiring another three or four lawyers to offset the legal work done outside. The cost of that would be half of that million and a half, or even less. Those are the only numbers I am able to give the member opposite.

Mr. Jenkins: So with the coming into force of this Department of Justice Act we can see job requests go out for three new lawyers to join the staff of YTG.

Mr. Chair, I am dismayed that the minister hasn't got the financial background, and I am well aware that Management Board documents cannot be made public. I'm not asking for Management Board documents, I'm asking for the reasons and some of the order of magnitude estimates. The reasons for Management Board decisions can be made public and are made public on a continuing basis.

I guess the crux of the problem is that this issue hasn't even gone to Management Board. We have no idea as to what it is going to cost. We don't know, and that clearly spells out what this new Liberal government has taken on and their expertise in governing.

It's a sad day for Yukoners, and we don't know even the order of magnitude estimate as to what it's going to cost Yukoners for this new initiative. We do know that anyone in any government department, agency or commission - should they require legal advice - now must go to the Department of Justice for that advice. We don't know how much this additional burden is going to cost us, Mr. Chair. And the minister obviously doesn't have knowledge of it either. I'm sure the business case hasn't been made.

We have an economy that's shrinking. The population of the Yukon is probably now under 30,000 individuals. The number of responsibilities that government has taken on has grown in every sector. A lot of this work would be best left with the private sector. Yukon Housing Corporation has their own legal counsel. Does that mean now that those arrangements are cancelled and they have to go to the Department of Justice for legal advice? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: On the contrary, it's a good day for Yukoners. The Department of Justice has already been taking on work that was previously contracted out. We have not, to this point, required the hiring of additional staff. We are saving the Yukon taxpayer money. I have said to the member opposite, and I will say it again, that we expect the result of this will be a cost-saving - probably half of last year's figures for outside counsel. And I would certainly prefer it if outside counsel were required to employ Yukon lawyers, rather than lawyers from outside the territory.

Mr. Jenkins: The Minister of Justice's perspective on the issues we're faced with is interesting, and where we are headed. I can only say I'm extremely disappointed with her lack of understanding of the important portfolio she now is in control of and responsible for.

I won't belabour the point but I see a lot of additional paper burden being placed on the Department of Justice, a lot of additional responsibility as a consequence of this act and the subsequent amendments. I know the Department of Justice will be back for more money very, very soon. The total amount that we spend on outside counsel, I don't think, is going to change appreciably over the long term. In fact, as the economy grows more robust - if it ever does when we change governments next time, Mr. Chair, I mean. The economy will turn around one of these days. I'm hopeful that I'll live long enough to see it, but I can't see anything in the immediate future. On that day, if the economy is on an upswing, outside legal costs will probably accelerate and make this outside legal cost of approximately $1.5 million a year look very paltry.

If that's the total amount we spent on outside legal counsel - that's just in the Department of Justice; there are many others. The legal costs for Kassandra alone, in the Department of Economic Development, were way, way more than $1.5 million, Mr. Chair. Has the minister got an explanation for that? Where are those costs buried?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: We were not the government at the time. The $1,474,000 I referred to was the total cost for the last fiscal year for all the departments. That included everything, with the possible exception of a couple of agencies and commissions that we do not have the figures for yet.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, the minister might want to talk to her colleague, the Minister of Finance, and find out what the legal costs were for the Kassandra initiative alone. That is a numbered company controlled by the Government of Yukon, and it's an agency. Its legal costs alone for its Toronto lawyers would make this $1.4 million look like they could go to the candy store with it.

I really believe, Mr. Chair, that the minister does not have a handle on her portfolio or an understanding of it, but we are not going to get any further. I am just appalled at the understanding that the minister has on these important changes and the impact that they are going to have on the various agencies and departments of government. I do not believe they have been carefully thought out. I don't believe we have looked at the financial implications. I believe that all we have set up is another layer of bureaucracy within government.

Thank you to the new Liberal government for adding more government on our shoulders.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Chair, I would just point out that, as I said, we have hired no additional lawyers in the Department of Justice to this point. The extra layer of bureaucracy is probably an extra pencil in the hand of the director of legal services.<