Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 1:00 p.m.

In recognition of the Rotary Music Festival

Youth directorate

Question re:  Total Point Inc., contract with

Mr. Fairclough:      Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier or whoever is serving as Acting Minister of Economic Development today. It's on a very familiar subject - the unfulfilled contract between the Yukon government and Total Point Inc. Yesterday, the acting minister said the following: "The Premier has reported this to the conflicts commissioner and has been advised accordingly." Would the Premier or the acting minister care to elaborate on that statement?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Pit bulls, Mr. Speaker. That's what's on the other side of the House today - pit bulls. They're just not going to give up.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked if the Premier did anything wrong; the answer is no, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier in conflict of interest? No, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware of details of her brother's business with the government? No, Mr. Speaker.

How many times does this side of the House have to tell the members opposite no? Are the members opposite afraid to take their reckless allegations to the conflicts commissioner directly? Absolutely, yes. They will not stand behind their own convictions outside this House. Why not? Quite frankly, because they're cowards.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:      Order please. I find that remark by the hon. minister to be quite troubling - very troubling and unparliamentary. I would ask if the minister would please withdraw it or substitute it.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Fairclough:      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, our listeners and our watchers out there know what kind of government this Liberal government is by their response to questions in Question Period, day after day, avoiding the subject, avoiding answering questions in this House.

As with many things in politics, timing and perception are very important factors. Has the Premier sought or received advice from the conflicts commissioner since the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development provided the commissioner with information relevant to this issue? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, the members opposite continue to make the reckless allegations day after day in this House - day after day. Here they are, day after day, causing damage to the reputation of honest, hard-working business people in the Yukon - honest, hard-working Yukoners. The members opposite cower behind their legislative privilege. I challenge the members opposite to make specific allegations outside this House. I challenge them to make their allegations directly to the conflicts commissioner, but they won't because they lack the moral courage.

Mr. Fairclough:      I hope that the Liberals find some courage in doing some research, talking to one another, getting their facts straight and presenting it to this House. That is what we want: answers to questions.

Now, why is the Acting Premier so afraid of answering questions? Are you hiding something? We would like to know. These are simple questions - a yes-or-no question. And the minister could not answer the question. So I'll ask the question again, and maybe this will clarify it a little more if it's asked twice and maybe the minister can answer this question: has the Premier sought or received advice from the conflicts commissioner since the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development provided the commissioner with information relevant to this issue - yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has suggested that we haven't done our homework. Well, quite frankly, they haven't done their homework, because earlier this week I presented a letter from the former deputy minister directly to a federal Industry Canada representative, bringing up an agreement that was reached and also included the former Economic Development minister. Here we go again. They continue on their anti-business aspects from the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly they are who destroyed the economy when they were in government and they are still trying to destroy the businesses in this territory through this kind of conduct and allegation and innuendo within the House.

The members opposite are making unfounded allegations, Mr. Speaker, and have damaged the reputation of honest, hard-working Yukoners. They are doing this while cowering behind their legislative privilege. I don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and I don't know how they sleep at night, quite frankly.

The Premier has done nothing wrong. The Premier's brother has done nothing wrong. The only things that are guilty here, Mr. Speaker, are the moral convictions of the members opposite who refuse to put up outside this House.

Question re:  Total Point Inc., contract with

Mr. Fentie:      Well, what a bunch of hooey. Those are simple yes-or-no questions.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier some very simple questions - very direct, very simple. For an open and accountable government, the answers would have been yes or no. Instead, the Premier's stand-in rolled out another smokescreen, which can only indicate that they're trying to hide something.

So, I'm going to ask the questions again, Mr. Speaker, and they require a simple yes-or-no answer. Did the Premier receive any background information from the Department of Economic Development, such as a briefing note regarding the unfulfilled contract between the department and Total Point Inc., between May 25 and November 7, 2000? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Mr. Speaker, the members opposite know full well that there are no smoke and mirrors on this side of the House. We have been open and accountable. I have answered all their questions truthfully, honestly, and to the best of my ability, and they continue along this track of mistrust.

Speaking of not doing their homework, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they can't even get off the track and create new questions; questions that Yukoners want on how we're governing from this side of the House, but, no, they want to go on the same track, Mr. Speaker.

It is the former government who reached the agreement with the proponent Total Point Inc., and it was the members opposite who were involved in the financial arrangements, Mr. Speaker. They have alluded to the fact earlier in debate on this in Question Period that they didn't know anything about it. Well, quite to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, because we did our homework, and I provided a letter to the member opposite showing that.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, that is what this is all about - how the members opposite are governing.

Mr. Speaker, these members - the members opposite, this government - is in such chaos now that they are even contradicting their own contradictions when it comes to this issue. I didn't hear a yes-or-no answer on a very simple question about a briefing note.

So, I'll try another question, which will require a yes-or-no answer. Did the Premier take part in any discussions with senior officials of Economic Development about this contract between May 25, 2000, and November 7, 2000? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      They don't get it. They just don't get it. If the Premier were to stand up and answer these questions, that in itself would be a conflict of interest. She has been advised to avoid discussions on this matter. So why the members opposite continue to address questions to the minister on this issue is beyond anyone's comprehension on this side of the House. But then again, they are not doing their homework.

They would rather re-turn the soil, day in and day out. Well, they aren't going to find any hidden agenda on this side. We are open and accountable. We do what we say we will do, and we will continue to act in that fashion.

Mr. Fentie:      I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that it's this minister, the member opposite, who doesn't get it. The Premier is trying to insulate herself from this issue. The minister that she has appointed to speak on this matter on her behalf wants nothing to do with it, so now the Premier's fall guy, the Minister of Renewable Resources, is standing in.

I still did not get a yes-or-no answer to a very simple, direct question, so I'll ask another one, which requires a very simple answer, yes or no. Between May 25 and November 7, 2000, did the Premier give any directions to any senior official in the Department of Economic Development with respect to the Total Point Inc. contract? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I will repeat a statement I made earlier. The members opposite are asking if the Premier has done anything wrong. No. Is the Premier in conflict of interest? No. Read my lips. No. Is the Premier aware of the details of her brother's business dealings with government? No.

How many times, Mr. Speaker? How many times on this side of the House do we have to repeat that simple two-letter word? No, no, no, no, no. But then, they can't count, either, Mr. Speaker, so it doesn't matter what we say on this side of the House or what answer we provide, it won't be satisfactory. And that is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: Total Point Inc., contract with

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question today for the Premier.

Yesterday the Premier tabled a letter that she stated was sent to me by a constituent of mine, which in fact was sent by a resident of the Whitehorse area. Now that the Premier has established the practice of tabling personal correspondence in the House, I would like to respond in kind by tabling an e-mail that I received about the Premier. It is entitled, "Pat Duncan is -" and I can't say the next word, Mr. Speaker, because it is unparliamentary.

The message reads as follows: "Duncan's comments have really got us pissed off. Lots of people know the story behind her brother's loan, but are afraid to say anything. You are the one that she is after. She knew from the first day the score on her brother's loan and wanted it deep-sixed, but she wanted yours called in. The story around here is she fired Maurice Albert because he wouldn't do what she wanted. Check around, the truth is out there. Call Maurice."

I forwarded this e-mail to the conflicts commissioner. I would like to know if the Premier would care to comment.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      I believe that would be incredibly inappropriate for the Premier to respond to that.

I find that what the member opposite has done, again - like his counterparts on the other side - is extremely morally abhorrent.

Mr. Jenkins:      According to the news media, it's my understanding that the former Deputy Minister of Economic Development has also recently been in contact with the conflicts commissioner and has provided him with some additional information regarding these allegations.

Can the Premier advise the House when she was last in contact with the conflicts commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      They're going to keep at it. I see that the Member for Klondike has the same itch as the members of the official opposition.

There is nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite have been supplied with total and complete briefings on all the information and correspondence on these issues by the chief of staff, yet they're looking and searching for an issue that just isn't there.

The Premier, when we officially took office, fulfilled the obligations of the conflicts forms and reviewed them with the conflicts commissioner at that time, so he is perfectly aware of the situation, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier has done nothing wrong.

Mr. Jenkins:      It would appear that the e-mail that I tabled was prepared by someone in government. Can the Premier advise the House when her Liberal government is going to fulfill its election commitment to develop whistle-blower protection legislation to protect government employees in situations like this, or is this commitment now as extinct as the dodo bird, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that there are other things in this House that are extinct, but I'd better not go there because I'm sure I'll hear from the Speaker.

The member opposite has asked about whistle-blower legislation and, as usual, the member gets as many questions in as he possibly can with his three unique opportunities.

I have already responded to this, Mr. Speaker, in that the Public Service Commission is reviewing the issue and applications of whistle-blower legislation in the Canadian context. I also provided an answer to the member opposite that we are looking in other jurisdictions as well. As yet, there is no precedent legislation in Canada, and it may be premature to proceed with such legislation in the Yukon until the federal or other provincial governments adopt such legislation or a model for such legislation. But we will continue to pursue this, and I would also suggest that the member opposite have the courtesy of tabling the e-mail that he is flashing about in the House.

Question re:  Total Point Inc., contract with

Mr. Fairclough:      This is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. This Liberal government says that they are open and accountable, and we have questions to follow up on the Member for Klondike on this, now that this has come to light.

Will the Premier have this issue dealt with by the conflicts commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, if the members are so bound and determined, and if they have the intestinal fortitude to follow through on the suggestions that they've continually made in this House, if they have any backbone at all, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they contact the conflicts commissioner themselves, or they make charges outside this House to that effect. They should have the intestinal fortitude to do that outside the House instead of ruining reputations outside this House.

Mr. Fairclough:      Well, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious this is a very touchy issue for government to answer, and one thing after another comes up day after day, and we seek answers to questions from this side of the House.

So, Mr. Speaker, open and accountable, the government said they are. Again, will the Premier or the acting minister - because this is a very serious issue to those who are out there who want to speak out - assure us and the public and the public servants out there that there will not be a witch hunt?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a zinger. The member opposite is suggesting that this is touchy. Well, I guess there is a modicum of truth to that. It's not because we have anything to hide, though; it's not because we have any smoke and mirrors on this side of the House. We are open and accountable. We have been continually proving that for a year. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has done nothing wrong. If the members opposite are so hot to trot on this issue, if they are so bound by their conviction, if they are so serious about this, as the member opposite has just suggested, why don't they do it outside the House? It's a simple question that I throw back at any one of the members across the House. If they have any amount of credibility outside this House, make the allegation outside the House.

Mr. Fairclough:      Maybe the minister can just answer the questions that have been asked from this side of the House. And maybe then, one day, the Liberals might have some credibility in actually answering questions.

This is a very serious matter raised by the Member for Klondike. Maybe the Premier has made a mistake. Maybe the Premier just made a mistake. Maybe it's time that the Premier admitted that and had this whole thing cleared up. So, once again, will she have this issue dealt with by the conflicts commissioner?

Hon. Mr. Eftoda:      Yes, Mr. Speaker, they drone on and on and on about how serious it is, but weak of mind, weak of spirit, weak of conviction, because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to contact the conflicts commissioner themselves. Call the conflicts commissioner yourself if you are so whipped up about this. If they think it's such a serious issue, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they do that. I have given them the phone number. I have given them the address. I don't know what more they want because we have nothing to hide on this side of the House. The Premier has done nothing wrong - nothing wrong. They have gone through and through the disclosures on conflict and can find nothing wrong. So what do they do? They continually cast aspersions, not only on the Premier and members on this side of the House, but even the public at large, because they don't have the conviction to make these allegations outside of legislative privilege - none.

Question re: Yukon Housing Corporation, breach of medical confidentiality

Mr. Fentie:      Well, the only allegations flying across the floor of this Legislature are coming from the members opposite. It's their inability to stand on the floor and be open and accountable that has created the problem here - in fact, it is their own contradictory manner in which they manage this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for Yukon Housing, and it's another very serious matter.

Last week I raised a question related to a possible breach of medical confidentiality. I have a similar situation now with the Yukon Housing Corporation. I have a constituent who has applied for a retrofit loan. A couple of days ago, an official, or officials, from Yukon Housing were on the phone to the applicant inquiring about a perceived medical condition and whether it would affect the ability to repay the loan if it were approved.

My question to the minister is this: is the minister aware of the situation and does she condone this type of action by corporation officials?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Speaker, the allegations made by the side opposite are very serious. We will be looking into them and we will be reporting back to the member opposite as soon as possible.

Mr. Fentie:      I will take that answer, then, that the minister does not condone this type of action by officials.

I would like to go further into this matter with the minister, Mr. Speaker. All the necessary applications for this loan are already completed and submitted. Is that all the information that is required for a loan to be approved or not? There is due process for this to evolve and come to that final solution. Yet we have officials gaining information through who knows what means and using it to intimidate people. We have officials using medical information, calling people, harassing them and adding undue and unwarranted stress.

Will the minister look into how - and I'm asking the minister now to take action. Will she look into how this information was gathered, whether medical confidentiality was breached and whether departmental protocol was ignored?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Speaker, I think I should warn the member opposite that he's making allegations that he has given us no facts to substantiate. Now, I have already told the member opposite that we will be doing an investigation. It will be a detailed investigation. We will look at the matters that have been brought forward by the member opposite, but remember too that the persons the side opposite is making allegations about cannot defend themselves in this Legislature.

Therefore, I will once again promise to the member opposite that we will look into the allegations that the side opposite has made. They are serious allegations. They will be investigated, and I would seriously suggest to the member opposite that, if he has such serious allegations to make, perhaps he should do it in a letter, do it in something that's a little bit more confidential so that we don't bring the private business of Yukoners and the staff of this government on the floor of this Legislature. Let's do it in a respectful manner, and let's do it right.

Mr. Fentie:      I must say that I appreciate the minister's commitment to look into this matter, but I want to point out where the minister is wrong.

The allegation that we on this side of the House are making is that this government is not leading and is not in charge of any issue or situation, and we are bringing up daily, in this House, examples of that fact. It's time that they got the message and got to work on truly leading this territory and governing, as they were elected to do.

My last question to the minister: will the minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation take control of this situation and ensure that due process is followed for this retrofit loan application?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      I'll repeat again: the member opposite has brought forward no facts to substantiate the allegations that he has made. They are serious allegations. I have committed, however, that there will be an investigation. It's an interesting theory. I will investigate because that's the responsibility of the side opposite. We are government, and we will investigate, bearing in mind that the side opposite has brought forward no facts to substantiate their charges.

Question re:  Stay-another-day program

Mr. McRobb:      It's hard to get facts out of this government, as well. Yesterday the minister launched the stay-another-day program. We're happy that the songs of Yukoners Bob Johnstone and Barb Chamberlin are going to be part of that initiative.

On a sour note, the minister's announcement has left a number of questions hanging about how much money this government is actually committing to the program. Yesterday we heard that the amount was $645,000. A government news release from February 22 states that the amount of money set aside for the stay-another-day program was $785,000.

Could the minister please tell us which amount is correct?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Speaker, right at the bottom of the barrel - this is a question better brought forward during the budget debate. To be absolutely clear, there was a supplementary budget in the fall, and money was allocated at that time toward the stay-another-day program.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister does very little to clarify this matter, in her statement on February 22 and news release from yesterday. We understand the item from the fall supplementary. Could the minister tell us if this amount includes money already set aside for the arts fund?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      There is some money available for festival funding within the stay-another-day program. If the member opposite adds up the two figures from the supplementary budget as well as the $645,000 announcement yesterday, he will get the figure of $785,000, which is the total figure.

I'd like to suggest again that the members opposite are right at the bottom of the barrel. You know, I was in opposition, Mr. Speaker. I know what it's like at the end of session. You're sort of at the end of it, and they haven't reached the budget yet because they have spent 24 days on two departments. Had they done their job and budgeted their time properly, we would have easily been through the Department of Tourism some time ago.

Mr. McRobb:      Well, Mr. Speaker, these questions are very serious to Yukoners, and the minister shouldn't make light of that. We've exposed the government for failing to do what it said it would do on a number of things. We hear them pat themselves on the back for being business-friendly, but stories are surfacing almost on a daily basis contrary to what they say, Mr. Speaker.

Now, it appears there's double-entry bookkeeping taking place here. By lumping these funds together, the government has revealed what they really think about the role of Yukon artists. Does the minister feel that the funding for Yukon artists should only be about the Department of Tourism's marketing campaign?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman:      Mr. Speaker, we have an arts branch. We just announced today that there's going to be a facilitator for cultural industries. I'm not too sure how much more we can do as far as showing our commitment toward the arts in the Yukon Territory.

Now, members on the side opposite have an extremely high opinion of themselves, saying that they have exposed the Liberal government for misleading Yukoners - blah, blah, blah. Well, Mr. Speaker, they have not, because we support small business. We support the arts. We support cultural industries. These are very serious questions and could easily have been brought forward during the budget debate.

If the member opposite wants a detailed breakdown of the figures, I will provide them to him, as I would have provided them to him during the budget debate. If they hadn't spent 24 days on two departments, we would have easily been through the Department of Tourism.

When we were in opposition, we didn't waste time like that.

Speaker:      The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

However, before we proceed with Orders of the Day, the Chair has some concerns.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker:      Order please. The Member for Klondike has attempted, during Question Period, to table a document that is an e-mail communication from an unidentified anonymous source. The content of that document, which the Member for Klondike read into the record, was offensive.

Members should recognize that they cannot bring something before the House that is unparliamentary on the basis that someone else has written it. That is out of order.

Because this has just happened and is deserving of reflection by the Chair, the Chair directs that the table not yet enter the document as a tabled paper of this House.

The Chair will review the matter and report back on the next sitting day.

We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:  Good afternoon everyone. I now call Committee of the Whole to order. We will take 15-minute recess.

Recess

Chair:  I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. We'll continue with general debate on Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act.

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Yesterday in the House, Mr. Chair, we discussed An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act at some length. The members opposite seemed to believe that these were either frivolous amendments, or amendments of so much substance that they should be brought forward in the fall.

Neither is the case. They are housekeeping amendments. Some of them deal with judicial independence and they are both serious and urgent.

To help the members opposite with their difficulty in understanding the serious nature of these proposed amendments, I will go back to the beginning of this matter.

In September of 1997, a lawyer from the Legal Services Society, legal aid, publicly raised the question of the independence of the Yukon territorial judiciary. The lawyer alleged that they were not independent, as government established their salaries, and therefore they could be subjected to financial pressure if their decisions were not found to be acceptable.

The former Minister of Justice invited Mr. Ted Hughes to examine this question and advise government.

Mr. Hughes was not asked as conflicts commissioner, Mr. Chair, he was asked because he is a highly respected former Judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench and the former Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia. Mr. Hughes' report in August of 1998 recommended the establishment of an independent commission to review judicial salaries. "The remuneration, pensions, allowances, and benefits of the court must be established by a process that is impartial, reasonable and fair," he said.

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. Reference Case directed that an independent, objective and effective commission be established to consider and make recommendations to government regarding judicial compensation.

The court held that the hallmarks of judicial independence are (1) security of tenure, (2) financial security and (3) administrative independence. As a result of these events, the previous NDP government tabled the 1998 Territorial Court Act to address the recommendations of Ted Hughes and the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada.

That act was introduced hastily by the former minister while it was still in a draft state. That minister was well aware that the act required substantial further refinement, but tabled it fully, intending to introduce amendments in the next session, had she been re-elected.

The 1998 act contravenes the decision in the P.E.I. case, in that it removes elements of judicial independence from our court by unilaterally imposing an age of retirement on the members of our court. This change was not sanctioned by the Judicial Compensation Commission. This unilaterally changed their compensation and breaches the rule as set down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Secondly, the 1998 act established the next commission for 2003 and provided for the five-year cycles of hearings. Again, this provision was imposed unilaterally and was not sanctioned by the Judicial Compensation Commission. It removed the judges' right to annual reviews. That right existed under the former act. Both of these sections breached the rules in the P.E.I. case and are unconstitutional.

These two sections of the 1998 act subject our court to a legal challenge as to its independence. Clearly, such a challenge would succeed, crippling our court system. This would impact every Yukon citizen.

In addition, provincial superior courts, including B.C.'s and Alberta's, have dealt with the independence of justices of the peace. These cases hold that, where JPs perform functions similar to those of judges, they, too, must be independent and the same criteria as apply to judges under the P.E.I. Reference Case apply to JPs.

Our permanent justice of the peace falls into this category, and we must refer his compensation to an independent commission, or the JP court in the Yukon will be vulnerable to attack based on its lack of independence.

The 1998 act is clearly wrong and must be remedied immediately. No delay is acceptable or possible, as there is no other way to affirm the independence of our Territorial Court.

Nothing short of the passage of Bill No. 37 will ensure that Yukoners are fully protected by the certain knowledge that our Territorial Court, its judges and its permanent JP are fully independent within the terms of the order of the Supreme Court of Canada in the P.E.I. Reference Case.

Mr. Chair, I will agree that the amendment to the definition of "deputy judges" is confusing. In order to help the members opposite to understand that, I will try again.

Referring to chapter 26 of the current Territorial Court Act, in the definitions it states that "deputy judge" means a judge who is not appointed to serve on a full-time basis. The proposed amendment changes that to that "deputy judge" means a judge who is not appointed to serve on a permanent basis. It's a negative definition. This definition has been in the act since at least 1986. This definition says that a deputy judge is not full-time. This definition says that a deputy judge is not permanent. It's true that a deputy judge is not permanent, but a deputy judge is full-time. A deputy judge is appointed for a term. For many years we have been appointing deputy judges from other jurisdictions to sit here as full-time judges in the absence of one of our permanent judges. That is contrary to the current act.

We have been in contravention of the act for a long time and we are fixing the problem with this amendment. We have had judges for up to a year at a time sitting as full-time judges, but they weren't permanent. Even if they are here for only a couple of weeks, they are sitting full-time. These are housekeeping amendments, Mr. Chair. Most of them deal with judicial independence. Others are to correct minor errors and the definition error concerning deputy judges.

Delaying this bill won't solve any problems. I want to get these problems solved.

The rest of the amendments to the Territorial Court Act are for the future. These amendments are necessary now.

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister confirm that these sections have been found to be unconstitutional, that they're not simply just ultra vires?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the member is asking for a legal opinion. I have told him the problem with the act as it currently stands.

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm certainly not asking for a legal opinion. Could the minister confirm that these specific sections of the act here in the Yukon have been found to be unconstitutional? Yes or no?

There is case law from other jurisdictions. That's what the minister is referring to. But, with respect to the existing legislation in the Yukon, can the minister confirm that there have been actual court cases and, in fact, the act has been found to be unconstitutional?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      As the member knows, our act has not been challenged in court. I have explained the problems with the current act.

Mr. Jenkins:      But the fact still remains that the Yukon act has not been challenged and it has not been found to be unconstitutional. Is that correct?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it would seem pretty basic to me that, if similar provisions in an act elsewhere in Canada were challenged and found to be unconstitutional, and those same elements exist in our act, ours, were it challenged, would be found unconstitutional.

Mr. Jenkins:      The parts that were found to be unconstitutional in other acts, were they exactly worded in the same format and in the same way as they are worded in the Yukon act, Mr. Chair? We're comparing apples to oranges here. The fact still remains - and I'd like the minister to confirm it - that the Yukon act in this regard has not been challenged, that that's a reality.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it hasn't been challenged yet in court. The question of the independence of the territorial judiciary has been raised publicly, and it will be challenged on behalf of the judges and the justice of the peace if these amendments don't go forward.

Mr. Jenkins:      That's a threat from the justices and the justices of the peace, or what is it, Mr. Chair?

Chair:      Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      I have a question on the floor and the minister has not answered it, Mr. Chair. Is that an actual threat? Is it in writing from the judges and the justice of the peace of the Yukon that they will be challenging it?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it is the position they are taking through their lawyer.

Mr. Chair, the main reason we're here is to pass the 2001-02 budget. We also have some very important legislation that needs to be passed, and this legislation is primarily of a housekeeping nature. The members opposite have chosen to waste days and days with inane questions. They're now wanting to waste days and days asking repetitive questions about this housekeeping legislation. We have been over all of this several times.

Mr. Jenkins:      All I would ask is for the minister to be clear and concise in her responses. That's all we're looking for, and this, contrary to what the minister is alleging, Mr. Chair, is not housekeeping legislation. It goes far beyond that. It only addresses a certain area that impacts on many, many other areas. If the minister were to look at the original act, it had some 68 sections to it, and that was further amended a couple of years ago. But when our briefing took place yesterday morning, it became abundantly clear that we're only looking at a small area of this, and we shouldn't be. We should be fixing the entire problem.

We're looking at an act that has, according to the briefing provided, some 40 to 50 sections that must be amended.

Now, that would suggest to me, Mr. Chair, that there is some urgency about dealing with it. Perhaps the minister might consider bringing all these amendments forward and having another sitting this summer to address this very important issue, if it's that critical. But, no, we don't hear anything about that. They just spoon-feed a little bit onto the floor of the Legislature, ram it through and get on with it.

It is our responsibility to hold the government accountable, Mr. Chair.

My reading of the existing legislation covering this section would lead me to conclude that it does not preclude the setting up of an independent council that can come back with recommendations. That can be done by OIC. Why isn't this avenue being taken and explored?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Because we are bringing forward these housekeeping amendments.

We went through all of this yesterday, again and again and again. The member wants to go through it again and again and again today. I have given him all the answers. He either isn't listening or he doesn't like them, but they are the answers.

Mr. Jenkins:      Those are the same answers we got yesterday again and again and again.

My reading of the existing legislation does not preclude the setting up of an independent commission. It does not preclude it from addressing these issues and making recommendations to the minister that may even contravene the existing terms set out in the legislation. And that can be simply done by order-in-council under the existing legislation. Can the minister confirm that that is indeed a reality?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the member is wrong.

Mr. Jenkins:      Now, what aspect of that equation is wrong? You can set up an independent commission; the minister has that right. The recommendations that the commission can put forward - there isn't anything to preclude if it's an independent commission set up at arm's length by order-in-council.

And it's done all the time. Look at the committee that is reviewing the Liquor Act. There are no provisions in there to set up an independent commission or review panel, and yet that's done. It's done by order-in-council. So there is that degree of flexibility under this existing act. And I spoke to a couple of individuals who are quite conversant with it.

It just appears that the minister is determined that this is the only way to proceed and that this is the way it's going to be done when there are other avenues that have yet to be explored. They should be explored because this legislation really should be addressed in its entirety. All the areas that need fixing should be addressed. All we're doing is putting a band-aid on a band-aid. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I don't subscribe to that kind of an approach to making laws. I don't believe it's in anyone's best interests, especially when we're just catering to a few individuals.

Under the existing legislation, the minister does have flexibility to move.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      A committee such as the member describes, set up by OIC, does not meet the tests in the P.E.I. Reference Case. It would be a government-appointed committee and therefore not an independent commission.

There are, in many parts of Canada, many roads to get between points A and B, Mr. Chair. I'm choosing the most direct route.

Mr. Jenkins:      If the minister can't find a vehicle to use other than this one, I'm very, very disappointed in her understanding of her portfolio. There are provisions not only in this act, but also in other acts that set up an independent commission or a board of inquiry. There are various ways it can be done. This is the way that has been advanced and no one is focusing outside of that envelope, and that concerns me, especially given the tremendous number of changes that are needed in this legislation. We are only addressing a few of them.

Now, there are other ways that this government can proceed - setting up an independent tribunal, quarterly review - that can be done at arm's length. There are other vehicles that can be used by the government as well, I'm told, under the existing one, there are ways to make it independent, then it's just ratified by the government, and the commission is put in place by order-in-council. But it's on the recommendation of a certain body remote from the government that the commission is struck.

There is a multitude of ways. All it would take is a very good lawyer to point you in the right direction, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure that a way can be found.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The Member for Klondike is, once again, insulting my staff. He's insulting the credibility of the department.

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

Mr. Jenkins:      I'm certainly not insulting the staff.

Some Hon. Member:      (Inaudible)

Chair's ruling

Chair:  Thanks for the advice on whether or not there was a point of order, but I'll decide that for myself. But, in this case, I have to agree with you - there is no point of order. No rules of the House have been broken.

Mr. Jenkins:      If anyone is insulting her staff, it's the minister herself, when she constantly repeats that the last amendments to this act were drafted in haste. That reflects very poorly on her staff. It is virtually the same staff, Mr. Chair, so that's the criticism of the staff being offered by the minister. I have the utmost respect for the staff, but the minister is there to provide political direction, and that's not being provided, Mr. Chair. It would appear we're at an impasse. I believe there are many important facets to this act that must be addressed, should be addressed, but aren't being addressed, and all that's being done at this juncture is that a band-aid is being put on the situation.

Is that really what the minister wants to do, Mr. Chair?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I have explained this several times. Yes, there are more amendments to the act. But they are not housekeeping amendments, and therefore they should not be brought forward in the spring budget session. That would be contravening the rules of the House, and we wouldn't want to do that, would we? They would be brought forward in the future. These housekeeping amendments are of a serious and urgent nature and are properly being brought forward in this session to be dealt with.

There are not 30 or 40 sections to be amended, as the member keeps saying. There are that many amendments, but it doesn't mean that many sections, and none of the amendments to be brought forward in the future affect judicial independence.

Also, for the record, I have a great many excellent lawyers on my staff, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, Mr. Chair, let's look at a solution to this. We're told that the solution is to pass the amendments. When they come to a vote, I'm sure they will pass, seeing that now this Yukon Liberal government has the majority. That's the way it is. But the issue before us is a very, very important one in that there are many, many other amendments required in this act and it should be brought forward at one time. It could probably be tabled at this session and sit on the Order Paper until the fall when it can be dealt with, but it certainly wouldn't be of a housekeeping nature, as this bill is not of a housekeeping nature. It certainly isn't of a housekeeping nature. It goes beyond that in its scope and intent.

Mr. Chair, I guess the minister and I are going to agree to disagree and, given that she has the majority, I guess we're going to just move ahead. But the position we have is that this act requires a more thorough review and a more extensive undertaking and review by this Legislature, and that is not forthcoming. We're told by the minister that it's in the future.

I'm prepared to let the minister off the hook if I can have her assurances that we will see this bill tabled this fall with the complete series of amendments it requires. Can the minister provide that assurance?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it is my intention to table the remainder of the amendments to the Territorial Court Act in the fall session.

Mr. Fentie:      I just have a few more things that I'd like to discuss with the minister regarding these amendments, and it again goes back to independence and impartiality of our judiciary. Now, the amendment in regard to changing the advice the conflicts commissioner has provided and the change in the term provided to review judges' compensation, as I understand it, from the year 2003 back to the year 2001 is to change a five-year period before a review takes place to a three-year period. Can the minister explain how all this relates to independence of the judges?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, in the first place, after a lawyer from Legal Services Society raised the question of the independence of the Yukon territorial judiciary, Ted Hughes was invited by the former Minister of Justice to look at the question and advise government. Mr. Hughes was not asked as conflicts commissioner. I want to make that crystal clear, Mr. Chair; Mr. Hughes was not asked as conflicts commissioner. He was asked because he is a former Judge of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, a highly respected one, and former Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia. He was not asked as conflicts commissioner.

Five years was imposed by the 1998 bill without the judges' concurrence. They had an annual right to salary reviews under the 1982 Territorial Court Act. Three years, which we are proposing, is by agreement with their counsel, and the courts would hold it to be reasonable, in our view.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I agree with the minister. The advice was sought of a professional, one who could provide and shed some light on these issues. He obviously knew what he was doing, and he brought forward the advice that the review could take place in 2003, in a five-year term.

I ask the minister: what does this have to do with independence - reviewing compensation for judges, whether it would be every three years, every five years, or whatever? What has that got to do with independence of the judiciary?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      It removes the certainty of the salary provisions. It is an independence issue. Mr. Hughes' recommendations are superseded by the recommendations of the Judicial Compensation Commission. The Compensation Commission did not deal with the timing of the hearings. The timing was put in the act by the previous minister.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, let me go about it this way with the minister. Many, many Yukoners don't have a problem with a five-year term before we review compensation for judges. Obviously, judges have a problem with it. So is the minister saying that we would be open for a challenge because we can't review compensation to judges in three years instead of five years? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      The member has it backwards. But, yes, we could be challenged because of the five years. One of the problems that I have explained several times is that our full-time justice of the peace has not had his remuneration pass through an independent Judicial Compensation Commission. Therefore, the JP court is open to challenge. We cannot call a Judicial Compensation Commission merely to deal with the salary of the full-time JP. If a Judicial Compensation Commission is called, it will deal with the salaries of the three Territorial Court Judges as well. So, it's a package deal. The two can't be separated.

I have explained again and again and again - and the members opposite don't seem to get it - that these are very serious. The five-year cycle in the 1998 act was imposed unilaterally. It wasn't sanctioned by the Compensation Commission.

It removed the judges' right to annual reviews, which had existed previously. That breaches the rules in the P.E.I. case, and it is unconstitutional, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I believe that that comment by the minister is debatable, because, quite frankly, legal opinions, if you have the money, can be sought. We can certainly get a legal opinion to counter the minister's statement if we went and had a lawyer review it and bring it forward.

Now, I see the minister is shaking her head and all the rest of it, but we have already established that the minister is pretty confused about the whole thing.

So I have another question on this matter. In 1998, the legislation was amended and it put in place, as law, that judges' compensation would be reviewed in 2003 - five years from the date of the amendment. In 1999, this issue didn't crop up. Why wasn't it an issue in 1999 under the former government? Why is it all of a sudden, under this novice government, which has lost control of every department, has no sense of direction or vision for this territory, is spiralling out of control into oblivion - why has it become an issue now under this government and was not so in the final year of the former government?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Au contraire, Mr. Chair. It was an issue in 1999. The former minister was well aware that she had introduced the act hastily in 1998. She was well aware that it required much more work, and she intended to introduce amendments in the next session, had she been re-elected. Sadly, for the side opposite, she wasn't.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I think that what we're dealing with here are different opinions. We on this side of the House aren't overly exercised about the fact that our judges aren't compensated enough or fairly or all the rest of it. It's the minister opposite who seems to be extremely concerned about that fact. And I wonder about that, because there are so many other problems in this territory. There are so many other issues in this territory. There's so much that could have been done in this sitting to address those issues. This government tabled the biggest budget ever, and our economy is still, as far as unemployment and people leaving this territory, heading in the wrong direction. Yet here she is, sponsoring a bill to ensure that a few judges in the territory aren't financially challenged.

Now, Mr. Chair, that is a difference of opinion, a difference of how we view the world, I guess, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to ask, in a very constructive manner and a very cooperative manner, that the minister amend this amendment, because I think reviewing - my position, our position, the official opposition - judges' compensation every five years is adequate. I see absolutely no problem with that timeline and, obviously, neither did a former judge, a well-respected judge, a judge with vast knowledge of these issues who thought the same.

So, will the minister now come to her senses, realize that she's being pushed along, leading from behind, and stand down on this amendment, and we can move this bill along in a very cooperative, constructive manner?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, these amendments to the Territorial Court Act are not about the amount of compensation for the judiciary. They are about judicial independence. It is the independent Judicial Compensation Commission which deals with the amount of compensation. The member has clearly failed to grasp this.

I find it interesting that the member is going to go out and get a legal opinion to challenge the Supreme Court of Canada. These are not about the amount of compensation. These are about judicial independence, which is a different area, which I have been trying to explain for two days. I see now why we haven't been getting anywhere because the member thought it was about money. It is not. It is about judicial independence, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, I guess one could say that submarines have screen doors, if we follow that logic. Reviewing compensation for judges every year, three years or five years - what's it about then? A new car? A new TV? A holiday in the Bahamas? A new office, new furniture in the office, a new computer? What's it about?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I had not realized the depth of the member's lack of understanding of this. Once again, I will go back to the beginning.

September 1997, a lawyer from Legal Aid raised the question in public about the independence of the judiciary in the Yukon. The lawyer stated that they weren't independent, as government established their salaries and therefore they could be subjected to financial pressure if their decisions were found to be not acceptable. So, the former minister invited Mr. Hughes to look at this question and give advice to government. His report recommended the establishment of an independent commission to review judicial salaries. It is the independent commission that deals with the amount of compensation. Can the member not understand this?

The P.E.I. Reference Case from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 directed that an independent, objective and effective commission be established to consider and make recommendations to government regarding judicial compensation. That happened, Mr. Chair.

However, the full-time justice of the peace was not dealt with in that previous commission. These amendments will rectify that. However, we cannot bring just the full-time JP's issues before the Judicial Compensation Commission. They have to deal with everybody at once, which means the three Territorial Court Judges, as well. Until the independent Judicial Compensation Commission deals with the matter of the full-time justice of the peace's salary, the independence of our court can be challenged.

Mr. Fentie:     Well, the minister is saying that I don't have any knowledge of this or I don't understand it, but I would submit that it's the minister. I mean, I asked the minister a question about this compensation issue. She said it's not about money. The minister clearly stated that it's not about money, but now she has clearly stated that it's about salaries. Well, if it's not about money and we're dealing with salaries, what is it? Is it widgets? Of course it's about money.

And I want to point something else out to the minister. The minister's in charge; the minister makes the decision; the minister, in her role, representing and protecting all Yukoners' interests, can make a decision here, as the former minister did. What I'm saying is, let's be cooperative.

I don't think there's a big problem here in removing this amendment and leaving the commission's review to the year 2003. I don't think that the world will end, that the sky will fall or that we will not see the sun again for 100 years if we make that decision here as legislators.

So will the minister now take it upon herself to think clearly about what her position is in this matter and in all matters in terms of the departments that the minister's responsible for? Will she now take it into consideration, realize that this would not create such a fervour, and we'll simply move along with this bill? Let's get rid of this amendment and leave it at five years.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      To leave it at five years is a breach of a Supreme Court decision. Why can the member opposite not understand that? I do not determine the salaries of the Territorial Court Judges, nor do I want to. It is an independent Judicial Compensation Commission that determines their salaries. The full-time justice of the peace must also go before the Judicial Compensation Commission, or his independence is in question. That needs to happen as soon as possible. What part of this does the member not get? This is not about money; it is about judicial independence.

Mr. Fentie:      Pardon me, Mr. Chair, for being ignorant of the facts, but that is why we ask questions, so the minister can supply the facts. The minister has to understand that we don't have to agree with those facts. We don't have to agree with them at all. And we are here debating a piece of legislation that, as far as I'm concerned - and the members opposite should be concerned - is important to all Yukon people. That is why it is brought to the floor of this Legislature. If it wasn't, why is it here?

We, on this side of the House, believe that there is no reason to fret and get into a frenzy about the timeline here. Now, the minister states that a recent Supreme Court decision has now stricken down the amendment that we had in 1998 and, oh, we can't have a five-year review for this commission - boy, oh boy, that is going to be big trouble.

So we have to move it back - three years, it has to be three years. Well, what happens - I want to ask the minister a little bit of a hypothetical question here - what happens if, next year, we get another Supreme Court ruling - which, by the way, Mr. Chair, has been driving these amendments and this act probably since its beginning. Every time we get a Supreme Court ruling we are amending legislation. What happens if, next year, we get another Supreme Court ruling that says that we can't do this in three years, we have to do it every six months? Is the minister actually going to stand on her feet and try and convince this side of the House that judicial independence will be compromised because we're not reviewing salaries every six months?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, if that would be what the Supreme Court of Canada says, then, yes. The member is fear-mongering. It was a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that, for the 1998 amendments, which were introduced in haste, as I have said several times. I have explained everything to do with this legislation. It's not about the amount of compensation; it's about judicial independence. It is the Judicial Compensation Commission that determines how much judges earn.

It is theoretically possible that a Judicial Compensation Commission may reduce their salaries. That's not a matter for this debate.

Mr. Chair, I don't know what more I can say to make the members opposite understand these housekeeping amendments.

Mr. Fentie:      Well, here we go again. They are not housekeeping amendments. The amendments to this act simply are not housekeeping.

Furthermore, if the Supreme Court of Canada told the minister to jump off the Yukon River bridge or the judges' independence would be compromised, is that what the minister is going to do?

I don't think the minister understands what her real position is. The minister has the right, on behalf of the taxpayers of this territory and on behalf of the voters of this territory, to make a stand, as the former minister did - as the former government did on behalf of Yukon people. They made a stand. This minister obviously has no desire to make any stand whatsoever.

I think the minister should just step down. The Member for Faro is just waiting in the wings to enter into the realm of the great round table - the Cabinet. He may very well have a little more compassion and realize that there are more important issues to this territory and its people than the judges' independence, because we can't review their salaries every year, two years or five years. I mean, what does it matter?

I think the minister is remiss in her duties by not taking into consideration all the facts of what's happening in this territory today, focusing on something like this, bringing it to the floor of the Legislature when it could very well have been brought here in the fall, as it should have been, and hiding from debating the budget because they're fearful of the fact they have no clue of where they're going, no idea why they're spending the money, what it's going to do. And we all know what's happening. All you have to do is walk outside this building, and you hear it everywhere. Take a drive to one of the communities in this territory, and you can see it first-hand.

So I take exception to the minister's constant yammering about the poor judges and their independence. What we on this side of the House want to do is work in this Legislature on behalf of the Yukon public. This amendment could very well have been brought in in the fall, and the sky would never have come crashing down on our heads. The minister knows that, but the minister neglects to do her duty as a minister of this Legislature and of this government on behalf of the Yukon people, and I want the record to show that this minister's priority is for salaries for judges and she has absolutely no compassion or desire to help Yukon people in a time when it's needed most.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, this threat of a lawsuit that's hanging over our heads seems to be the main crux of the reasons why we have to move ahead immediately, if not sooner, on this issue. Given that these amendments could have been brought forward and dealt with at the fall session but weren't, we're now in the spring budget session and this non-housekeeping item is before us.

Could the minister advise how many lawsuits the government has ongoing at any given time, and how many lawsuits do we normally receive in the course of a year? Just in general terms - I just want to get an order of magnitude.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, that question has absolutely nothing to do with Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act. The member is trying to introduce all sorts of stray things into this debate in order to avoid debating the budget. We know why they don't want to debate the budget. It's a good budget and they don't like the fact that this government is producing results. They don't like the fact that we have introduced a budget that helps to restore funding for our highways, which they cut. They don't like it that this budget provides increased funding for health and social services for Yukoners. They don't like it that this budget puts money into mining and oil and gas and infrastructure development. They don't like it that this budget reduces taxes for Yukoners. They don't like it that we worked hard to bring $42 million in new federal money into the territory and we delivered. They don't like it that we have just come to an agreement on an outstanding land claim.

They don't want to debate this budget, Mr. Chair, because it's a good budget. That's why they're wasting days and days asking repetitive questions about this housekeeping legislation.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, that's a pretty far-fetched response from the minister. She appears to be somewhat agitated with the line of questioning. I can't understand that, given the responses she is providing, but the question still remains. What I'm trying to establish is the number of suits that the government has against it in the course of a year and ongoing, because each year there are so many new suits and there are so many in the hopper ongoing. But I'm not aware of any suit pertaining to this section.

The government probably gets sued 20, 30, 50 times a year but hasn't been sued on this section of the act. How many times a year does the government actually get sued? I'm sure that information is readily available. I'm just trying to demonstrate a comparison, Mr. Chair. Could the minister provide that information?

Chair:      Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, the opposition wants to debate the budget. We have passed all the housekeeping acts that we have before us. We are not into acts that are of a housekeeping nature. Now, would the minister please provide some answers to the questions that are posed to her so that we can speed through this debate?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the number of lawsuits the Yukon government is involved in in a given year has nothing to do with the amendments to the Territorial Court Act. They are civil lawsuits, and they have nothing to do with the independence of the Territorial Court.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, Mr. Chair, my intention is to point out that in the course of business in any given year the government is sued, civilly or otherwise. Just in the course of the year, how many of these lawsuits does the government normally have brought forward against it? What is it - 20, 30, 50? Because really that's what the minister is holding over our heads, Mr. Chair, the fact that we might be sued. Well, the government is probably sued once a week in the Yukon, if not more frequently. Are we going to rush off and change every bit of legislation to stop us from being sued? That's obviously not appropriate, and there are many, many ways of dealing with this, Mr. Chair. Could the minister give us some idea of the order of magnitude of the number of lawsuits that the government has against it in a given year, on average?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      A constitutional challenge is not the same as a civil lawsuit. A constitutional challenge will prevent the court from sitting. What part of this does the member not understand?

Mr. Jenkins:      Given the inability of the minister to respond in a knowledgeable, informed manner, I would urge her to perhaps take a little recess, let cooler heads prevail, and attain a further briefing from her officials on this very important series of amendments, which are of a non-housekeeping nature, to this act. Will the minister do so?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, if the Member for Klondike is so supportive of Justice staff as he claims he is and if he understands all these legalities, why does he feel that he knows more than all the legal experts that have supported me in bringing these amendments forward?

Mr. Jenkins:      That is not being suggested whatsoever. I am just asking questions. The minister is there to respond to the questions. The minister is failing to respond to the questions.

Now either she doesn't have the ability to respond or she doesn't know the answer. Now, I don't know which it is. But what I am urging the minister to do is to take a little recess - we can move on to something else - and perhaps undertake a briefing from her officials so that she becomes more thoroughly familiar with all aspects of the bill that we have before us for serious debate. Will the minister do so?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      May I suggest that we move ahead to another bill so that we can get the minister up to speed on this bill? You know, we want to ensure that the debate is meaningful, but given the responses that we are receiving from the minister, which are totally inappropriate and totally out of context - they are basically non-answers.

Either the minister doesn't know - and I understand that she is quite a novice in her portfolio and with respect to all of the portfolios she handles, but she has nevertheless been charged with the responsibility by the Premier. We would be very hopeful, Mr. Chair, that she could somehow get up to speed on the issues surrounding the department and the bill we have to debate here.

We are here for this session to debate the budget. That's our prime motive in this spring session. That is what we want to do. We have concluded and passed all the housekeeping bills. The remaining six far exceed what anyone's imagination would construe to be housekeeping bills. That's the problem.

Seeing that they go beyond housekeeping bills, they require in-depth scrutiny, Mr. Chair. The government sets the agenda. They have done so and we are moving forward with the government's agenda. But, Mr. Chair, this bill that we have before us - Bill No. 37 - far exceeds that of a bill of a housekeeping nature.

It addresses a specific area and has many, many sections to it - in fact, 11 - with the resulting subsections, and the references back and forth are quite extensive, Mr. Chair. We haven't even got into line-by-line in examining the changes and what they will do. We're still in general debate, and I would urge the minister to consider providing some forthright answers.

Now, Mr. Chair, if that requires the minister to have another briefing on this important issue, so be it. Will the minister consider a break in proceedings today and entertain a further briefing on this issue, or we're going to be here till six o'clock doing absolutely nothing because the minister is failing to answer. It's the minister's responsibility to answer these questions. Why won't she answer these questions? Does the minister have any reason?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the members opposite are either not listening or they don't like the answers they're getting. I have answered all their questions several times. They are merely wasting time because they're not interested in debating the budget.

These are housekeeping amendments of an urgent nature, and I see no reason why they think they know better than the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, the inference that we know better than the Supreme Court of Canada is completely ludicrous on the minister's part. We are examining these sections and these proposed changes to this act, Bill No. 37, and they are quite extensive in nature. They are not of a housekeeping nature.

Let's define "housekeeping". How does the minister define "housekeeping"? Because really, we don't have a definition there. Housekeeping is any bill that the government of the day wants to bring forward in this spring session, Mr. Chair. That's where we're at.

Could the minister provide a clear, concise definition of a housekeeping bill?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, I refer the member to yesterday's Hansard, where I provided a definition of "housekeeping" several times. The member is merely wasting time.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, if the minister understands what she read into Hansard, why isn't she following it?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      These amendments are housekeeping in nature. Housekeeping amendments address existing provisions. The proposed amendments are not new sections in the act. They are simply being refined. The themes the amendments are dealing with are not new to the act. The member is simply wasting time across the way there.

Mr. Jenkins:      Could the minister point to another housekeeping bill that was brought forward that had so many amendments?

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, it is not the number of amendments; it is the nature of the amendments. These are housekeeping amendments. A bill could have one housekeeping amendment; it could have 100 housekeeping amendments. It's not the quantity, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, we're dealing with quantity at this point, and we're also dealing with quality, because I guess, previously, the minister slighted her officials by saying that the previous amendments were done in haste. So, that's where we're at on this issue.

I have gone back through Hansard, Mr. Chair, and I've looked at the bills that were tabled in the spring session, and nowhere could I find the number of bills brought forward that this government has brought forward in this spring session.

Five of the bills that we've dealt with, Mr. Chair, are of a housekeeping nature. The opposition has passed those five bills because they are housekeeping bills - clearly so. Done deal. What we have here are 11 sections of an act that are being amended to change entire meanings and entire provisions - completely change meanings and provisions. It's not a housekeeping bill. It's being offered as a housekeeping bill, but that certainly isn't the case. The minister's stretching the definition of "housekeeping" and splitting hairs on this very important issue, Mr. Chair. I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed. I don't know who provided the explanation to CCL when it was done, but obviously, given the whole series of housekeeping bills that are supposed to be housekeeping bills, but are not housekeeping bills, somebody was very, very good in the sales role and sold a bill of goods. But, Mr. Chair, I'm somewhat concerned with that approach.

I guess the other concern I have is that, at the end of this session, this bill may or may not be passed. In all probability it will sit on the backburners and might not be even assented to for quite some time, like some of the other bills that the Liberals were very, very determined to see put into law but sat there. It was almost over a year after they were in power before they gave assent to one of their own bills that they moved through the House.

Somebody was asleep at the switch. I don't know which minister it was - probably all of them. I don't know why it takes so long to accomplish so little.

The issue here is one of this act not being of a housekeeping nature. That's the bottom line. We are told that there are 40 or 50 amendments required in total in this act, and that they will be forthcoming. The minister says that her intentions are to bring them forward in the fall session, where it rightfully belongs, along with this An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act, this Bill No. 37.

Mr. Chair, stand back and have a look at the picture. The Government of the Yukon is being sued on a regular basis. The reason the minister brings forward the point that we have some urgency to address this bill is because there is a potential for being sued, litigation. There is a constitutional challenge that may or may not occur. The government won't take up a constitutional challenge on the Crown in right or our northern offshore boundaries, which is a very simple equation, a very simple issue that can be moved forward. But on this one, we've got to move right now, it's urgent, it's pressing and it's demanded of us; otherwise, we might be sued.

The minister should just ask her officials, "How many suits do we currently have underway?" Because the government is being sued on a regular basis. I am not suggesting we go out and invite these lawsuits, but they are going to occur irrespective of the legislation we have in place.

The minister just got the funny pages, so she can probably look at some cartoons.

I'm very hopeful that the minister can see her way clear to stand down this legislation and bring forward some other that we can deal with. If it's found to be that the minister can clearly demonstrate that they're of a housekeeping nature, we can move forward on this legislation, but she hasn't demonstrated that with respect to this bill, Bill No. 37. It is certainly not of a housekeeping nature. It goes far beyond, and much more is needed than what is being suggested here today, Mr. Chair - much, much more.

The errors in the act as a result of its last drafting are because the minister's officials drafted it in haste. There she goes again, slighting her own staff.

Can we not stand this aside, move into some other area and deal with what we're here to deal with, which is the budget. That's what we're here to debate. Why does the government insist on loading up the budget session with six more acts that are not of a housekeeping nature? Why is the government insisting on doing that? It's just because they want to disrupt the proceedings of the Legislature, Mr. Chair.

As we move forward, it's becoming more and more clear that the various ministers have limited understanding of their portfolios. As we begin to examine in detail budget items and specifics of legislation that they're tabling, we find out further that that understanding is even considerably less than we would have hoped for.

Mr. Chair, that gives one cause for concern, real cause for concern.

Mr. Chair, can we move forward into another piece of legislation, and can the minister take a little brief reprieve from this one? I know the government House leader is shaking her head, providing words of wisdom in her appropriate manner to the minister and providing her instructions as to what she's to do and what she can't do. But, at the end of the day, it's the minister who has to stand on her feet and respond with respect to this act.

Mr. Chair, we are here to debate the budget. We have passed all the housekeeping bills. This is not a housekeeping bill. Some of the other ones are borderline, but all the housekeeping bills have been passed. Why is this government defying the rules set out in the memorandum of understanding and insisting on proceeding with the business of the Legislature in the manner they are? Can't they get their act together over on that side of the House? What a disappointment. What a disappointment.

Mr. Chair, perhaps to speed things along, I'd ask the Minister of Justice to table the decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada that led to the conclusions that the department has drawn here on this issue.

Hon. Ms. Buckway:      Mr. Chair, the documents the member is referring to are public documents and readily accessible to him.

Mr. Chair, I fail to understand why the members opposite insist on asking inane and repetitive questions on housekeeping legislation. I can only conclude it's because they don't wish to debate the budget.

These amendments to the Territorial Court Act are housekeeping. Many of them deal with judicial independence. I have answered all the questions the members have asked, but they either aren't listening or they don't like the answers, because they keep asking the same questions again.

We will not be standing down or setting aside this legislation. We can move on to another piece of legislation as soon as we're finished with Bill No. 37.

Mr. Jenkins:      Obviously, in-house, the minister has the decisions that would have been rendered by the various other courts that led to the determination that this act is ultra vires and may be called into question. They're readily available in-house; they must be, or do they not exist in-house? Could the minister please provide a copy of the decisions that led to the conclusion that we had to amend this, it was urgent, and it was of a housekeeping nature?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, I asked a logical question about the background information pertaining to this bill. I'm looking for the court decisions that led to the conclusions that spell out why we're heading in the direction we're taking. The minister has just cited little excerpts from some of them. Could the minister please table these decisions?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Well, let the record reflect that, once again, the minister is failing to respond to the questions; she won't answer them. We want to move into budget debate, but we have to get the minister to respond to these questions. Could the minister please provide the court decisions that led to the decisions that concluded that we had to amend this act, and it had to be done immediately? Table copies of these court decisions, please.

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, what do we have to do to get the minister to answer? It's a bona fide, legitimate question. I want the background information on this bill. Why won't the minister table that information?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, the minister is taking this whole Legislature backwards. She is sitting there, reading the funny papers, and she won't answer questions in the Legislature. That's not fair; that's not what she was elected to do. We were told that this is a very pressing bill, this Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act. I'm asking for the recent court decisions or for the minister to table a copy of them that led the department to the conclusion that this ought to be advanced. Will the minister table those decisions?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Here we have an open and accountable government that is going to do things a better way. I guess that better way is the way that's demonstrated here today - not do them at all; not do them at all, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I am looking for the background information, the recent court decisions that the minister referred to at great length that led to the conclusion that this act had to be amended and had to be amended forthwith. The minister referred to them quite extensively. I'm asking her to table that information. Will the minister please do so?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Let the record reflect that the minister has failed to answer. The minister provided, by way of explanation, a reference to a number of court decisions that led the department to the conclusion that this Territorial Court Act must be amended. I am asking the minister to table those decisions. Will she do so?

Chair: Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:     Well, once again, to the minister, the minister has failed to respond, failed to answer and sits there reading funny papers. The issue is abundantly clear. The act that we have before us for debate - the minister referred at length to a number of court decisions that led to the conclusion that we have to amend this act. Would the minister please table those court decisions?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Mr. Chair, let the record reflect that the minister has failed to answer the question once again. The minister referred at great length to a number of court decisions that led to the conclusion by the department that this act must be amended. Would the minister please provide the court decisions?

Chair:  Is there any further general debate?

Mr. Jenkins:      Once again, the minister has failed to respond. The minister has been asked to table the documents she referred to - table the court decisions that she referred to at great length. I guess everybody in the back benches just reads the newspaper. Nobody is paying attention to their responsibilities.

Some Hon. Member:      Point of order.

Point of order

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

Ms. Tucker:      I believe that the member is misspeaking himself. The members on this side are paying attention. We are listening with great fascination to the fictions being presented.

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

Mr. Fentie:      On the point of order, it is well-known fact that the minister had somebody from upstairs come down and deliver her newspaper. While the member - and I think this is an insult to the Member for Klondike - is trying to question the minister on this bill, she sat there in her chair reading a newspaper. I think that that is unacceptable behaviour by a minister.

This minister should reflect on those actions, because she's not doing justice to her position as a minister of the government. She should seriously consider what she's doing with regard to representing this bill.

Chair's ruling

Chair:  On the points of order, there are no points of order. I would remind members of what I was stating yesterday about the fact that observations and opinions are only considered to be so if they are not used in an abusive fashion. What I'm finding right now is that the references to reading newspapers and so on are starting to become abusive, because to tell you the honest truth, I didn't see it and I'm sitting in the same room.

So, I am going to ask members to continue.

Mr. Jenkins:      Before I was so rudely interrupted by the government House leader, who once again delayed the proceedings of this Legislature, I was posing a question to the Minister of Justice. I don't know who is going to stand up and