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

Speaker:   It is my sad duty to inform the House that our Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Gordon McIntyre, passed away on July 2 of this year.

Mr. McIntyre was appointed Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms on March 19 of this year. Though he was our deputy for just a short period of time, he was a long-time Yukoner. As I said in introducing him to the House, Gordon first moved to the Yukon 57 years ago after leaving the Canadian Navy. Over the years, he has worked in mining, construction and highway maintenance.

In the short time he was with the Assembly, he became well-liked by members and staff alike. I would, at this time, on behalf of all members of this Assembly, express our condolences to Gordon’s family and friends. He will be sadly missed by all who knew him. Mrs. McIntyre, you have our condolences.

Speaker:  I also must inform the House that Max Ayers, who was the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly from 1988 to 1991, passed away on September 27 of this year. Mr. Ayers is survived by his wife, Adeline, nine children and many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces and nephews.

I would also like to express our condolences to Mrs. Ayers, Mr. Ayers’ daughter, Sharon, and family and friends, on behalf of all members of this Assembly.

Speaker:   Now it is my distinct pleasure to introduce the House our new Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Doris McLean. Ms. McLean is an auxiliary residential youth care worker in Whitehorse and has worked with youth in a professional and voluntary capacity for many years.

Over the years, she has worked or volunteered with Aspen Residences, the Ancient Voices Wilderness Camp, the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre and Yukon’s Department of Justice. Ms. McLean is of Tagish Tlingit First Nation ancestry. She was Chief of the Carcross-Tagish First Nation from 1988 to 1992.

Ms. McLean is both the first woman and the first woman of First Nation ancestry to serve as Sergeant-at-Arms in the Yukon Legislative Assembly. I would ask members to welcome Ms. McLean to the Assembly and have Ms. McLean stand up please.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On October 18, Persons Day, Joyce Hayden was given a Governor General’s award in commemoration of the Persons case. These awards honour women who have made outstanding contributions to the quality of life for women in Canada. Ms. Hayden’s award is an acknowledgement of her individual contribution and an indication of the ongoing excellence of Yukon women’s contributions locally and throughout the country.

It is with pleasure that I stand in the House today to honour this woman who has worked as a politician, as a volunteer and as a writer and has contributed to the well-being of all Yukoners, and particularly to that of women.

As a writer and a publisher, Joyce Hayden produced books of historical value to the territory. For example, Yukon’s Women of Power: Political Pioneers in a Northern Canadian Colony and Victoria Faulkner: Lady of the North, for whom the Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre was named.

While Ms. Hayden has been known for her commitment, creativity and dedication to social justice and women’s equality, Ms. Hayden may be best known for her work in starting the Yukon Women’s Minibus Society, which gave women staying at home access to transportation.

Persons Day celebrates the accomplishment of the famous five women who, in 1929, brought their fight for equality all the way to the Privy Council in London, England. Through their unwavering determination, the famous five achieved the rights for Canadian women to serve in the Senate and paved the way for women to participate in the public life of this country of ours.

I congratulate Ms. Hayden on her commitment and contribution to the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my privilege to introduce to this House and the gallery Ms. Hayden, who is with us today.

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I arise today on behalf of the official opposition in tribute to Joyce Hayden of Whitehorse, Yukon, who received the Governor General’s award in commemoration of the Persons case.

As one of the few aboriginal women elected to a Canadian legislature, I am very much aware of the courage it takes to go against the norm as Joyce has. I can think of no one who would better represent the daring display by the five women in whose memory the award was given.

Joyce Hayden’s volunteer work in the Yukon in establishing the Status of Women’s Council and her involvement in its projects such as the mini-bus society, came at a time in the Yukon when feminist views were not popularly supported in our frontier society.

It took courage to promote and support women’s rights through groups and conferences at the YWCA in the 1970s, and Joyce did not hesitate to do that. Joyce continued to display great courage as a minister in the territorial government where she was known for standing up for the soft issues and not backing down.

Yukon women were fighting for childcare, youth, justice, health and social services, and Joyce was their champion.

But the greatest courage Joyce has displayed has been in the past few years. Although legally blind, Joyce has resolutely researched and written Yukon women’s histories. She has founded her own publishing company. She has amazed and been a fine role model for many women in the Yukon.

The Governor General’s award for the Persons case is uniquely suited for recognizing Joyce’s wide contribution to Yukon women. Her energy and bold approach to life is a fine example for us all.

Mahsi' cho.

Ms. Duncan: On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I rise to join with my colleagues in this Legislature in tribute to Joyce Hayden, recipient of the Governor General’s award, in recognition of the Persons case. The Persons case celebrates the achievement of the famous five: Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby. These women, with the support of Prime Minister Mackenzie King, appealed to the Privy Council of England. Lord Stanley overruled the Supreme Court of Canada, stating, "The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours."

When the famous five met, they would repeat together, "I feel equal to high and splendid braveries." The Governor General’s award for the Persons case honours women in Canadian life who in their lives have felt equal to the challenge of high and splendid braveries.

Joyce Hayden has met the challenges of incredible contributions to Yukon life bravely and with honour. She has served on the executive of the Yukon Council, Girl Guides of Canada, and is an honorary lifetime member of the sisterhood of guiding. Joyce documented the history of guiding in the Yukon, along with Mary-Lou Smith, in a book called Seventy-Five Summers. Joyce Hayden’s knowledge of camping and love of guiding warm the book throughout.

Joyce Hayden served as a member of the Legislature from 1989 to 1992. During her term she was the Minister of Health and Social Services, the minister responsible for juvenile justice and the Yukon Housing Corporation.

Perhaps even more challenging than a seat in this Legislature has been her writing. Joyce Hayden has chronicled women of power in the Yukon, documenting the lives of political women in the territory, and the story, too little told, of the contribution of Victoria Faulkner.

Mrs. Joyce Hayden, recipient of the Governor General’s award, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, myself and the constituents I represent, warmest congratulations, and thank you for your splendid and brave contribution on behalf of women in the Yukon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   It is indeed my honour and privilege to rise today to pay tribute to Crime Prevention Week, which is from October 24 to November 3. This year, nearly 300 people from across the territory, Alaska and northern British Columbia attended the northern community conference on sexual abuse prevention, education and awareness, which was held to coincide with Crime Prevention Week.

The conference, of which I was part last week, was a very tremendous success, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the collective efforts of both the organizers and the participants of this very important event.

These types of conferences not only remind us that there is much left to do, but there is also much that has already been done and continues to be worked on today.

Mr. Speaker, I’m also pleased to be attending the annual crime prevention awards banquet, where deserving individuals will be recognized for their work in furthering crime prevention activities in all their communities. Our communities belong to the people who live in them. I’m pleased to recognize the very action for which our award winners are being recognized, and that has helped make our communities better places to live.

As well, I would like to congratulate all the many volunteers who give their time for activities that lead to a reduction in crime. These unsung heroes of our community give countless hours to recreation activities, youth organizations and healthy activities in our communities. Whether they may be members of the Neighbourhood Watch, the Block Parent program, Citizens on Patrol, auxiliary police and others, I salute their efforts and thank them all for their continued commitment to crime prevention. After all, meaningful community involvement is the key to developing safer communities.

Mr. Speaker, I’m also very pleased that, starting today, Yukon will have its very own MADD chapter in place. With that said, I would like to extend a very warm welcome to Louise Knox, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, to the Yukon. Also, sitting beside her is Tim Twardochleb, the executive director for Crime Prevention Yukon.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:  Mr. Speaker, drinking and driving is an issue that our government takes very seriously. We look forward to working with Mothers Against Drunk Driving toward making our streets and highways safer for all to enjoy.

In closing, I would like to thank Crime Prevention Yukon, the RCMP and our Department of Justice for all of their hard work and efforts in making this year’s Crime Prevention Week yet another success.

Thank you.

Mrs. Peter:   I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to the Crime Prevention Week.

Crime Prevention Yukon has as its theme this year, "Working on community partnerships". To address crime prevention issues, this community organization has already this month coordinated several events. One was the Halloween project, where volunteers toured the city throughout Halloween so that our streets can be safe. They have also presented a free, self-defence Lady Beware workshop. And tonight they will host the Crime Prevention Yukon awards banquet, recognizing individuals, groups and businesses that have carried out crime prevention programs in our city.

We on this side of the House believe in restorative and community justice. Working in partnership with community members can only make our streets safer so that all people can feel safe in our communities.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, Crime Prevention Yukon is a vital partner in the Yukon community, addressing crime prevention issues, and I would like to thank all of the volunteers involved in the organization for their efforts in organizing the activities over the past week.

I would also like to recognize the Yukon establishment of MADD.

Crime Prevention Week is an important opportunity for Yukoners to come together as a community, to recognize crime, its root causes and how we might prevent such crime.

I encourage all Yukoners to participate as partners in the prevention of crime, not only in the week just past but throughout the year.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Speaker:   Under tabling of returns and documents, I have for tabling the Conflict of Interest Commission’s annual report for the period ending March 31, 2003.

The report was distributed to the members of the Assembly and to the media this past June. The Chair has also for tabling a report of the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section 398 of the Elections Act, on the expenses and revenues for registered political parties and candidates of the 2002 general election, and a report from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on the absence of members from sittings of the Legislative Assembly and its committees.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I have for tabling a legislative return on a question from the leader of the third party on the issuance of water licences regarding government Crown corporations or agencies.

Speaker:   Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills for introduction?

Are there any notices of motion?

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to recognize the contribution of Yukon aboriginal veterans and provide them with the same benefits that it provides to aboriginal veterans resident on reserves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

THAT this House directs the Government of Yukon to prepare and table amendments to the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act that would prohibit any person from serving as a Cabinet minister of the Government of Yukon if that person individually, or as a principal of a business or corporation, is more than one year in arrears in payment of any debt owing to the Government of Yukon.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon, all parties within the House, First Nation governments, municipal government, industry, and individual Yukoners to work cooperatively with the recently announced Red Tape Review Committee to streamline government regulation, reduce "red tape" and provide government services more efficiently.

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to

1) make available stable long-term funding arrangements for humane societies in the territory; and

2) improve the legislation governing animals in the territory by consolidating the existing pieces of legislation into one comprehensive, all-encompassing piece of legislation.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to employ Yukon contractors this winter to provide increased maintenance of secondary roads for the purpose of improving safety and providing short-term work for contractors suffering from the sluggish economy.

Speaker:   Are there any other notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

Speaker:   Before the House proceeds to Question Period the Chair would like to make a statement about an exchange that occurred during Question Period last Thursday. At that time the leader of the third party accused the Minister of Environment of furthering his private interest by way of a letter the minister wrote to the City of Whitehorse. Such an accusation is not in order. If a member wishes to level an accusation against another member, he or she has two options. If the issue relates to a potential conflict of interest, the member may raise the issue with the Conflicts Commissioner. Members can also raise such concerns by way of a substantive motion for which proper notice is given.

The Chair has no interest in limiting the subject matter that members wish to raise during Question Period; however, such issues must not be raised by accusation.

It must also be noted that after the accusation was made, the Minister of Environment was called to order by the Chair for questioning the motives of the leader of the third party. Such accusations, therefore, lead to disorder. This is another reason members should avoid making accusations.

This now brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. Last Thursday morning, the two opposition parties received a confidential briefing on the government’s first supplementary budget of 2003-04. We were told we had to keep it secret from the Yukon people for at least five days. If the government House leader had been doing his job, that budget would have been tabled on Thursday afternoon. Why did the Minister of Tourism reveal confidential budget information before it was tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our party is endeavouring to expedite the people’s business in this House by providing full and complete briefings at the most advanced opportunity available to us. To that end, Mr. Speaker, we took the unprecedented step regarding a supplementary budget of offering and extending a full and complete briefing to the official opposition on both supplementary budgets. Apparently, it hasn’t been well-received, so we’ll revert to the previous practices of this Legislature.

Mr. Hardy:   That wasn’t the question I asked. I would have liked to have had an answer to that. The member on the other side obviously had a different interpretation of what a gag order is. We have been gagged for five days.

Less than two hours after the House reconvened, the Minister of Tourism issued this news release that says the Carcross-Tagish First Nation will receive $300,000 toward the development and planning of a cultural heritage centre, which was stated by Tourism and Culture Minister Elaine Taylor.

I have this for tabling, Mr. Speaker.

Now, why was the Minister of Tourism allowed to break the embargo on this budget, or was it just another government bungle that the news release went out before the budget was tabled? Was it planned that there would be no budget released? Somebody forgot to tell the Minister of Tourism? What’s the reason?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I outlined in the answer to the first question, our government is taking every step possible to expedite the business of this House and, to that end, we are endeavouring to provide full and complete briefings at the earliest opportunity to the opposition, and we have done so. Now, if they’re saying that they don’t want these types of briefings, fine — we can revert to the previous practices of this Assembly and not provide briefings on the supplementary budgets.

Given the acceptance of our wonderful way of providing advance knowledge and information and allowing the opposition to do their homework, I guess we’ll just go back to what we previously did in this Legislature.

Mr. Hardy:   Now, the government has a huge credibility problem here. This is the budget that was supposed to be tabled on Thursday. Right here on the title page, Mr. Speaker, it confirms that. It says Estimates Supplementary No. 1, 2003-04, First Session of the 31^st Legislature, Yukon Legislative Assembly, October 2003 — October 2003 — Whitehorse, Yukon — right here, Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

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

Ms. Duncan:   On a point of order, if a member is reading from a document, I understand it has to be tabled in the House.

Speaker:   To the leader of the third party, on your point of order, the Chair’s not sure that the member was actually reading from it, so I’ll take that under advisement and give you a ruling tomorrow. Please carry on.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, October has come and gone, Mr. Speaker. The budget is a month late already. Will the Acting Minister of Finance table the supplementary budget right now and seek unanimous consent to begin debating it so Yukon people can see what this government is going to do with their money?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This supplementary will be tabled tomorrow. It is a good-news budget. It outlines a number of areas where we are going to put money back into the Yukon economy, stimulate the economy, restore investor confidence in the economy. It’s spelled out completely in that document. We were in a position to provide an advance copy to the official opposition and the third party, and they haven’t accepted it in the manner that it was presented. I’m just so disappointed, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Justice. Section 243(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act says "If satisfied that a motor vehicle has been wrongfully impounded under this Part, the Minister of Justice may (a) authorize the release of the motor vehicle from impoundment;..."

My question to the minister: on what basis did the minister conclude that a commercial vehicle driven by someone with a blood alcohol reading almost three times the allowable limit had been wrongfully impounded?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:  I thank the member opposite for the question. I think that over the course of the summer there has been a certain degree of confusion among all parties involved regarding what, in fact, did transpire with respect to Capital Towing. Again, for the record, with respect to the Capital Towing matter, I acted in strict accordance with what the law states, which permits the Minister of Justice to authorize the release of an impounded vehicle if the impoundment was deemed to be found wrongful.

On the legal case that certainly was presented to our department’s senior legal counsel, I based my decision.

Mrs. Peter:   This is the Minister of Justice. She overruled not one, but two justices of the peace. Of all the commercial vehicles that have been impounded under this act, she decided that this one, alone, had been wrongfully impounded. She must have had some compelling reasons, Mr. Speaker. The minister’s credibility is in tatters on this issue.

Will the minister now table all of the correspondence, including any legal advice she received from her department, which led her to believe this vehicle should be released?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I would just like to correct the record. It is truly unfortunate that the member opposite doesn’t have a better understanding of what the Motor Vehicles Act actually states. If she did, she would clearly understand that my role is completely separate from the review officer. Whereas a review officer can certainly make rulings based on the early release of impounded vehicles under that particular provision in the act, I have the sole discretion over wrongful impoundment — something that was actually removed by the previous Liberal government from the review officer’s discretion.

To say that I could actually appeal a decision of the review officer is not correct. Similarly, the review officer cannot make an appeal of my decision.

Again, the application was made to our office. The legal case was made, and that is on what I based my decision.

Mrs. Peter:   The law doesn’t say the minister must authorize the release of a vehicle. It says she may authorize it. She has some discretion in that matter.

The driver of the commercial vehicle has a terrible record of drinking and driving. Right now, this person is in jail for four months for driving this tow truck that day. His actions put public safety at risk. People could have died or been seriously injured because of his actions, but the minister thought she knew better than the courts as to what should happen to this vehicle.

Will the minister now apologize to the people of the Yukon for her bad judgement in this case and make a commitment to not interfere politically in the administration of justice in the future?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I would like nothing better than to remove myself but, unfortunately, there is a provision in the Motor Vehicles Act that explicitly states that the Minister of Justice shall make a decision if, in fact, the vehicle was found to be wrongfully impounded in the first place. That is what the act actually states.

Now, as to whether or not the Minister of Justice should be actually involved in making this determination, I personally don’t believe that the minister, or any other minister, should have any jurisdiction over this but, as the law actually states right now, the Motor Vehicles Act makes the provision for this to occur. So that’s just the way the law reads right now.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Premier. Over the summer months I have spoken with hundreds of Yukoners, and when talk turned to this government, one topic has come up every time: the lack of integrity the government has demonstrated in their first year in office.

The Justice minister has interfered in the court system to free a tow truck. The Member for Klondike and his colleague from Porter Creek owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid loans.

Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Klondike owes Yukon taxpayers $204,000 on a loan for his hotel in Dawson City. Last year he received over $23,000 when Government of Yukon employees stayed at the same hotel. That’s 10 percent of what is owed.

Will the Acting Premier ensure that this $23,000 is put toward the minister’s outstanding debt consistent with other Yukon policy?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   As I believe the Premier has stated on a number of occasions, the Premier will soon be tabling our particular solution to the issue of the loans during this sitting.

Ms. Duncan:   It is government policy that any organization that owes money to the government is not eligible for community development fund money. If you owe us money, we’re not going to give you any more. There is of course a different standard when it comes to doing business with members of the Yukon Party. The MLA for Klondike owes over $200,000 yet he received almost $25,000 from the government last year — one set of rules for the public, another set of rules for the Yukon Party. It’s no wonder that the public is asking questions.

Will the Acting Premier insist that the $23,000 the minister received from government employees staying at the hotel be put toward the member’s outstanding debt?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Again, the Premier, as he has promised on a number of occasions, will soon be tabling a solution to address the situation of the outstanding loans — all the loans.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the MLA for Klondike owes taxpayers $200,000. Last year, he received almost $25,000 from the government and appears unwilling to put it toward his outstanding debt. This government tells community groups that, if they owe money, it won’t do business with them. If one of their own owes money, it’s a different story. It’s a Yukon Party double standard.

An MLA’s salary, $36,600; a Cabinet minister’s salary, an extra $21,000; travel expenses to Dawson, another $11,000; people staying at the hotel, $23,000; not having to pay back your loan because you set the rules — priceless.

When does the Premier intend to see that this loan is paid back to the taxpayers of the Yukon and that the policy is tabled?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   I think that, as I just stated unequivocally over the last few minutes here, the Premier will soon be tabling a solution — a solution to a very difficult issue — one, I should also add, that our government is actually taking the initiative to address, unlike previous governments. We made that commitment, and we will soon be tabling a solution this sitting as was promised.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Education.

Last Friday, the minister went to Carmacks and signed a memorandum of understanding with the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation regarding the planning of a new school. Who authorized the minister to discuss a capital spending item from a supplementary budget that hasn’t been released yet?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I must point out to the member opposite that it was stated that this school has been in the making for probably 25 years, and I might say to the House at this time that the member opposite had an opportunity to build that school. I think it’s only common courtesy that, when requested to come to a community, the minister tries to oblige.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister didn’t answer the question. I asked him who authorized him to discuss this item from a supplementary budget that hasn’t been released yet. We seem to have ministers running all over the territory spending the public’s money announcing things that may be in the budget that the Yukon people have not been allowed to see. It’s either part of a deliberate plan or we’re watching a government that’s operating in a climate of chaos.

This summer, the minister and the Premier promised that there would be full community input into the construction of the school in Carmacks. Why did the minister and the Premier abandon this promise and cut the Village of Carmacks out of the loop?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the member opposite it may appear like chaos. However, maybe it’s just the well-structured approach that this government has that they’re not used to. I believe that this government had the opportunity to discuss this school with the people of Carmacks far before we even discussed the supplementary budget. If the members opposite remember, last summer it was announced by the Premier and this minister that we will be addressing the need for a school in Carmacks.

Mr. Fairclough:   Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister didn’t answer the question. The Mayor of Carmacks says that he is appalled by the minister’s actions. The minister signed a memorandum of understanding with Little Salmon-Carmacks, but he hasn’t had any discussions with the new mayor and council about this important and long-overdue community project. If that’s what this government means by consultation, no wonder there are such serious divisions on that side of the House.

Will the minister at least apologize to the mayor and council and tell us what his plans are for some real consultation with the Village of Carmacks?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the dedicated concerns, and I don’t really have a problem with saying to the Mayor of Carmacks, "I’m sorry if you feel that you weren’t included." However, I will ensure that I do talk to the mayor and council in Carmacks.

Mr. Speaker, the meeting I had with the First Nation of Little Salmon-Carmacks was very fruitful. The chief and council assured this minister that they definitely speak on behalf of all of the people in Carmacks and they are prepared to work with the mayor and council, as I am, Mr. Speaker. And I look forward to having a very, very positive working relationship with the people of Carmacks. I also want to state, Mr. Speaker, that at that meeting I did state very clearly that I represent every citizen in the Yukon Territory, and I will continue to do so.

Mr. McRobb:   We’re into day five of the Yukon Party’s embargo boondoggle. Never before in British parliamentary history has an embargo lasted so long. This morning, I checked with the Office of the Legislative Assembly and was informed that usual practice for a budget embargo is to last only a few hours. There are many implications arising from such unorthodox practices, none of them good for the public.

One of the more serious issues is the security of the budget itself and its financial information. We are left to wonder whom this government would blame should this budget be leaked to the media. We need to establish, for the record, just whom this government has provided this budget to. Can the Acting Minister of Finance tell us how many copies of this budget have been distributed?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As I responded to the leader of the official opposition in his first question, in order to expedite the business of this House, our caucus determined that we wanted to facilitate the whole review process. We wanted to get involved in complete briefings of every issue at the earliest opportunity and, to that end, Mr. Speaker, we offered embargoed copies of the budgets.

Now, at that juncture, if the members opposite didn’t want them, they could have said no, don’t give it to them, they don’t want them. They didn’t. They chose to accept them, the terms and conditions around their acceptance were clearly spelled out, they were agreed to, and now there appears to be an unsatisfactory taste in the opposition’s mouth — for what reason, I don’t know. You can’t have it both ways.

These were provided in good faith under terms and conditions that were agreed to. Now it appears that the opposition wants to back out of those terms and conditions.

Mr. McRobb:   What a bunch of hogwash, Mr. Speaker. He didn’t answer the question.

First, the Yukon Party withholds the budget information from the public. Now, it doesn’t want the public to know who has received it in advance. What a difference a year makes, Mr. Speaker, what a difference.

This government stands to learn a lot about public trust. The main reason why a budget is tabled sooner rather than later is to avoid giving some citizens an unfair advantage with respect to the government’s spending plans. This five-day embargo has created a double standard and an opportunity for favouritism. In the past year, we have discovered that the Yukon Party card carrier is treated above the rest. That’s true when it comes to consultation, unpaid loans and impoundment releases, to name a few.

Will the Acting Minister of Finance undertake to provide a list of names of those who have received budget information by this time tomorrow? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   By this time tomorrow it will be a public document and everybody will have a copy of it. So, that’s not an issue.

In order to advance and move forward in the debate of the people’s business in this Legislature, our party is looking for every avenue to give advance notice and full and complete briefings to the opposition. Now, if they didn’t want this briefing and if they didn’t want this document, they could have said no.

I guess the question to the opposition is, why did they not say no to accepting these briefings and the embargoed copies of these bills?

Mr. McRobb:   The answer is we didn’t know until after the briefing that this budget would be withheld for more than five days. We need to end this farce without further delay.

The general public needs to know how this government is spending the public’s money. This shouldn’t be a luxury available to only political insiders who may or may not abide by the same rules we are obligated to follow on this side of the House.

We on this side are prepared to give unanimous consent to proceed to debate on this budget this afternoon, just as we were on Thursday afternoon. So, will the minister now table this budget so we can proceed to debate it this afternoon? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of providing an advance bill to the opposition with a full and complete briefing is to make them aware at the earliest opportunity so they’ll have some concrete questions when it comes to being debated in this Assembly.

We as a government have attempted to provide the opposition with advanced briefings at the earliest opportunity, with advance copies of these bills embargoed with an understanding that they remain embargoed until they are tabled in this Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that said, this will become a public document tomorrow when it is tabled by the Premier and that Minister of Finance. At that time, we will be asking for unanimous consent to proceed with second reading, which I am very hopeful the opposition will grant.

But that might not be the case. We are here to conduct the people’s business, and the previous ways in which this Assembly worked weren’t the best. We’ve looked for ways to improve upon that, but obviously the uptake by the opposition is not adequate.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Order. I would ask the Member for Kluane not to make extraneous comments when another member is speaking please. It leads to disorder.

Next question.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a local hire question for the Minister of Community Services. On October 3, the government suddenly revoked the order-in-council appointment of a Whitehorse man as supervisor of Dawson City’s financial affairs and replaced him with a resident of British Columbia.

My question is a simple one. Why?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe that members opposite have been in this House long enough to know which minister is responsible for the different portfolios. As the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, I want to state in the House now that this is a personnel issue, and personnel issues will not be discussed on the floor of the Legislature.

Mr. Cardiff:   I just took that as an admission that this is a personnel issue and it’s not about an order-in-council. Just four days before this appointment was made, the existing supervisor was let go from his government position with Community Services. The minister just linked the two right here in the Legislature — a position that supposedly had nothing to do with the order-in-council appointment to develop and monitor Dawson’s financial plan.

Why was a British Columbia resident approached about this potential position more than a month before the existing supervisor was informed that his order-in-council appointment had been revoked?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to state at this point in time that there were some very interesting comments made by the member opposite just last month in a newspaper, and it stated to the effect that political people have no business interfering in administrative issues. I believe that to be accurate.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, Mr. Speaker, this is about an order-in-council about a person who reports to the Minister of Community Services. The Minister of Community Services is the person who searched out, maybe or maybe not, the person who is now looking after the City of Dawson’s finances. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

I can promise the Minister of Community Services that we’re going to be pursuing this very issue thoroughly throughout this sitting.

For today, though, I just have one follow-up question for the Minister of Community Services, by the way. Will the minister table the letter of instruction for the new supervisor that the Minister of Community Services signed on October 23, 2003, and will he tell the House who drafted those instructions?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will reiterate what I said just previously, that personnel issues will stay with personnel, and they will not be dealt with in the political forum.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for whoever is going to stand up on the other side and speak on behalf of the Youth Directorate. On Friday, the Whitehorse Youth Centre concluded its month long toonie campaign to raise money for a permanent site for their much needed programs. They are presently paying $6,000 per month for rent and want to spend this money more wisely, and that makes perfect sense.

Now, they’ve worked very hard and they’ve been very successful in collecting $11,312.36 from the piggy banks that they had distributed around the city.

I am embarrassed to say that no one from the government bench has even attended the ceremonial counting of the donations.

Why did this government not show some support for our youth by sending a delegate to this event?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, we were at the opening, at the launching of this campaign. There was quite a number of our party in attendance. I spoke at that, as did the leader of the official opposition. We are very supportive of this initiative. In fact, I believe my piggy bank was a little bit fuller than the opposite member’s, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   Actually, Mr. Speaker, it probably should be a lot fuller when this is a member who refuses to pay his loans.

In addition to the individual donations, the community showed its commitment to our youth through a $20,000 donation from the Toronto Dominion–Canada Trust bank, as well as donations of $2,500 each from the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and the Yukon Teachers Association. That brings the total to just over $36,000, which is still quite a bit less than what is really needed for them to find a permanent home. What commitment is this minister prepared to make toward the centre’s goal of establishing a permanent home?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent opportunity for this youth group to demonstrate their skills, and they have done so. They’ve done an exemplary job of going out and partnering with various agencies and groups and First Nations and raising the funds to achieve their goals. The pride of ownership in such an undertaking in such a manner is beyond the comprehension of the member opposite, I’m sure, Mr. Speaker, given that the only way he appears to want to approach the issue is give another government grant to an organization and to a group.

Mr. Speaker, our government is fully supportive of any of these undertakings. To that end, we’ve participated in the launching of this campaign and participated fully with it — not quite until its conclusion but almost to its conclusion — and it’s a very worthwhile clause. We laud and applaud the youth organization in achieving — their goal was $40,000. They’re just shy of that, Mr. Speaker, and that should be duly recognized. That’s great.

Mr. Hardy:   So I’m supposed to assume that this minister across the way is opposed to any type and form of grant or assistance or help to the people of this territory? Is that what I’m supposed to assume by his comments? What about the CDF? Does he have a problem with that? What does he call that? Is that a grant? What is it?

I really have to wonder where the minister across the way is coming from.

This is a cause that deserves the support of everyone, Mr. Speaker, because it helps to address the real needs of Yukon youth, and they are struggling to raise the money on their own. This Yukon Party government is awash in loonies. It had nearly 35 million of them at the beginning of this fiscal year, and more keep coming in, so there is no excuse for this government not to act. Private business, First Nations, employee associations and hundreds of Yukon individuals have supported this cause enthusiastically.

Will the acting minister at least agree to match the funds so far by giving a capital grant to the youth centre campaign? He doesn’t need to condemn youth trying to raise money.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   No one is condemning anyone who raises money, especially a youth group. In fact, we laud and applaud and duly recognize their efforts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our government is the government that re-introduced the CDF, and that’s money that’s being put to work. That is out there now, going to work, and I’m sure an application from this youth group may be well-received by the CDF. There’s the youth investment fund. There’s a whole series of organizations.

Mr. Speaker, all avenues are available to this youth group for access to government funding, and we as a government will do nothing but support and encourage this youth group to go forward, as we will other youth groups that are engaged in delivering similar types of services to the youth here in the Yukon.

They are welcome, they are encouraged, and they are duly recognized for their achievements, and the raising of $36,000 is a milestone achievement by this youth group. That is fantastic.

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

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 35, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Hart.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 35, entitled Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, now be read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Highways and Public Works that Bill No. 35, entitled Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I rise today to speak to Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act. The proposed amendment is a simple administrative change for determining who has the authority to set prices for government printed material.

Currently, prices must be set by Cabinet through an order-in-council. The proposed amendment delegates to the minister the authority to set the scales for price for government-printed material. Further, it gives the minister the authority to delegate the authority to set prices to the Queen’s Printer if this is needed.

The need for an administratively simple process to set prices for publication is being driven by a large number of publications that the Queen’s Printer has become responsible for since devolution of the Northern Affairs program on April 1, 2003. Prior to devolution, the Queen’s Printer was responsible for recommending prices for about five publications to Cabinet each year. Since April 1 of this year, there have been prices needed for about 400 to 500 publications, including various maps and reports, and the price of those publications will need to be changed from time to time.

I am sure you will agree that this change will allow for an administratively sensible means of setting prices for publications.

I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   We on this side of the House don’t agree that this is more a matter of housekeeping and freeing up the red tape, so to speak, and I appreciated getting a briefing on this this morning at 11:00.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the nature of this particular piece of legislation, that it is what we commonly term as "housekeeping", and it’s very straightforward. It would have been greatly appreciated, I’m sure, by all members of the opposition had the briefing been provided in a timely manner. I do appreciate finally receiving it.

I would appreciate it if the minister responsible would indicate whether or not there is an overall plan by the Government of Yukon with respect to the Queen’s Printer. The Queen’s Printer is operated as a special operating agency and submits a business plan each year to Cabinet. Clearly the volume of work by the Queen’s Printer has increased. Is there a discussion underway, or are there plans by the private sector oriented Yukon Party, to make changes to the functioning of the Queen’s Printer?

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

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, there are no plans underway to revamp or renew the current operation of the Queen’s Printer.

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

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

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act.

Do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will stand in recess for 15 minutes.

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act.

Chair:   We’ll begin general debate.

Mr. Hart, no additional comments?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Is there any additional general debate?

Mr. Cardiff:   I just have a couple of questions.

Recognizing that the Queen’s Printer is a cost-recovery operation and that it bills various departments for the publications that it produces for the government, I had a question this morning that I didn’t get an answer to. The government also has publications done by private publishing companies, private printing companies, and I was just wondering whether or not the minister at some point in time could get back to me on this: what percentage — let’s do it at a dollar value — of government printing is done by the Queen’s Printer and what percentage is done by the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As you can appreciate, there are certain publications every year. I would expect that it varies, depending on what is being published for that particular year; however, I will do my best to provide the member opposite with the information he requests.

Mr. Cardiff:   Yes, that would be appreciated. I don’t know how far back the information would go. I guess I would like to see the history of the Queen’s Printer service and what percentage of the government’s business they do in printing and what percentage the private printers would get, and whether or not there has been any change.

With that, that’s all I have.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As indicated in my initial address, there is a substantial amount of publications that is now going to be our responsibility with devolution. In the past, the Queen’s Printer has done the black and white, quick printing responses, and we have gone out to the private sector for colour aspects, just so he is aware.

Ms. Duncan:   The Queen’s Printer, as a special operating agency, has been the subject of numerous discussions in this Legislature by predecessors to both the member opposite and me. As a special operating agency they provide to Cabinet, for subsequent tabling, a business plan every year.

Can the minister advise when the Queen’s Printer business plan might be tabled?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It will be available for the next budget — not the supplementary, but the main budget.

Ms. Duncan:   So what I’ve heard the minister say then is that we won’t see the business plan for the Queen’s Printer special operating agency until sometime next April — March or April. Is that correct? Is that what he just said?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   That’s correct.

Ms. Duncan:   Will that business plan reflect the changes? This is what we’re discussing today. Presumably, if the Queen’s Printer is printing a greater number of documents and on a cost-recovery basis, such as was discussed by the Member for Mount Lorne, then there’s going to be a substantial difference in the revenues and the costs. Will this be reflected in the new business plan?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   If there are significant differences, as the member opposite indicates, yes, they will be addressed.

Ms. Duncan:   If I understood the minister responsible during the second reading speeches, he indicated that there are no changes planned for the Queen’s Printer agency at this time. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   That is correct.

Ms. Duncan:   So what we have concluded is that the government has brought forward a piece of housekeeping legislation; however, this housekeeping legislation will represent a significant change to the revenues and costs of operating the special operation agency known as the Queen’s Printer. Although we’re making these changes, we won’t see the business plan that reflects these changes until next March or April for the Queen’s Printer agency, and there are no changes planned for the way that particular agency operates.

That’s what I’ve understood the minister to say. In other words, the minister is saying there has been no discussion, and there are no plans at this point to privatize this particular operation of government, or to disband the special operating agency.

Chair:   Is there additional further debate, or shall we enter into line-by-line?

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, could I suggest that, perhaps for consideration of the members, we move that Bill No. 35 be deemed read and carried rather than line-by-line debate?

Chair:   Ms. Duncan has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all lines and the title of Bill No. 35, Act to Amend to the Public Printing Act, read and carried. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   There is unanimous consent.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, be reported without amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by hon. Mr. Hart that Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, be reported without amendment.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

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

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 35, Act to Amend the Public Printing Act, and directed me to report it without amendment.

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

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Speaker:   I declare the report carried.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 40, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Hart.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 40, Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community Services that Bill No. 40, entitled Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I am pleased to be able to speak today to the amendment we have introduced to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This government values a healthy workplace for employees and one that is free from harassment. We are committed to ensuring that the harassment complaint process available to employees of the government is fair and objective and that it is focused on restoring a positive and productive workplace.

This amendment follows through on the government’s commitment to maintain a safe, healthy and harassment-free workplace and to ensure that all parties involved in harassment complaints and investigations will be assured that the process is confidential.

Workplace harassment complaints deal with highly sensitive and personal information about employees and their relationships with each other.

Mr. Speaker, these sensitive and difficult issues must be resolved in an environment that respects the privacy and dignity of individuals.

It is important that the workplace harassment prevention office that receives these complaints and conducts the investigations can assure all parties that this is a confidential process the employees can trust. We are committed to providing that protection, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment that we are proposing to this Legislature will extend protection from disclosure of records and information related to workplace harassment complaints under our harassment policy and under the harassment articles of both collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, a recent Supreme Court decision and a decision of the Information and Privacy Commission on this issue have confirmed the need for this amendment and to ensure the confidentiality of the information that is so necessary to an effective complaint and investigation process.

Both decisions acknowledge that these records are sensitive and that confidentiality is critical to a fair process. Both decisions also stated that the current act cannot provide protection to records of some form of workplace harassment, interpersonal harassment and abuse of authority, and that, if such protection is to be extended to complaints of these kinds, then the act must be amended to provide that protection.

Public access to workplace harassment records through the Access to Information and Privacy Act permits these records to be used without any constraint on the parties involved. Public access to these records is in direct conflict with the stated purpose of the policy in collective agreements: to stop harassment and restore the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, both the workplace harassment policy and the letters of understanding with the Yukon Government Employees Union and the Yukon Teachers Association commit to confidentiality of the harassment complaint process. Participants in the process have access to records within the complaint and investigation process, but the confidentiality constraints are placed on their disclosure.

The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is designed to strike a balance between the public’s right to information and the individual’s right to privacy. It is our government’s role to ensure this balance. The balancing of these two interests means we must release public information when it is appropriate and to do so, and we must protect people’s privacy when it is necessary.

If harassment information is released under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, individuals may share this information and this may harm the complaint process and the individuals involved in complaints and investigations.

The proposed amendment clearly lays out the potential harm that could occur from the disclosure of complaint and investigation records.

Mr. Speaker, consider the harm that could be done if people hesitate to file complaints. Consider the harm that could be done if witnesses hesitate to fully disclose all the pertinent information to an investigator. Consider the harm that could be done if disclosing personal information unfairly put individual reputations at risk. Consider, Mr. Speaker, the effect that the release of these records could have on an already fractured workplace.

If our goal is to restore a productive workplace, then releasing these records will undermine our efforts. This government is committed to the actions that will help to achieve a respectful workplace where employees can have positive interactions with their colleagues, working together to deliver public service to the Yukoners they serve.

It is important that we have a way to address and resolve those instances where, regrettably, an employee feels he or she is not being treated with dignity and is being subjected to unacceptable behaviour. The process for resolution must be effective, and to be effective it must be confidential.

I am pleased to be able to accomplish this with this amendment.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, I would like to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Access to information and protection of privacy is a very important thing, as is workplace harassment. We look forward to asking some questions when we get into Committee on this.

It was interesting that the minister made note of fractured workplaces, though, and I guess maybe this is coming forward at a good time, seeing as how the workplace is fractured at this time. I’ll look forward to asking the minister some questions along these lines when we get into Committee.

Ms. Duncan:   I appreciate and accept the minister’s explanation for this legislation that has come before us as a result of a Supreme Court ruling and take very seriously the issue that the title of the legislation we’re amending is not only the access to information, but it’s also the protection of privacy act. This is what we’re attempting to do by amending this legislation, to ensure that we are in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and also that we have protected the privacy of individuals. That being said, I would also like to put the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission on notice that during general debate on the budget, there is — and it is entirely in order to ask a question as to how much is budgeted by the government for workplace harassment in terms of dealing with issues. Have we got a coordinator? Is there someone in place and how big is their budget in order to make employees aware of exactly what constitutes harassment in the workplace? Also, it is entirely in order and not a violation of privacy to ask what the number of complaints is.

Those are general questions that certainly are in order and would be asked of the Public Service Commissioner during general debate on the budget, and I anticipate asking them.

Now, the minister could, in the spirit of Yukon Party collaboration and cooperation, perhaps provide a legislative return earlier than the budget debate on that particular issue — in the interests of cooperation in the House.

That being said, in terms of second reading, I have no difficulty in supporting this particular piece of housekeeping legislation brought forward by the Minister of Community Services, and I look forward to its general debate and passage through the House.

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

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 40 agreed to

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

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 40, Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We will begin general debate.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I just want to get my assistant in here for this. Just give me a second.

Chair:   Do members wish to continue, or do you request a recess?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Chair:   Mr. Hart, would you like to make an opening statement for general debate?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I gave a fairly long speech for the second reading. I am prepared to basically respond to questions from the members opposite.

Mr. Cardiff:   With regard to the legislation as it relates to harassment complaints, I’m just wondering why this is coming forward now. The explanation that was given in the briefing was about a court decision. Are there any other reasons why this is being brought forward at this time?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The main reason for the amendment changes are due to the recent Supreme Court decisions and the recommendation provided by the justices in that particular case.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’m just wondering if this could, in any way, be related to an increase in harassment complaints arising from renewal or from the computer use investigation.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   This is in no way reflective of that particular situation. Those situations are protected under the human rights previously handled under the act.

Mr. Cardiff:   One other thing I think I’d like to find out, I guess, is — I agree about the privacy issues and maintaining the confidentiality of people who participate in these complaints, whether they are the witnesses or the complainants, or the people who are being complained about for that matter. People’s privacy is important. But I’m just hoping that, by amending this legislation, the public will still be able to find out about the numbers of complaints — how many complaints the government is having in the workplace, as an indicator of whether it’s a healthy workplace or not.

Will there be access to the numbers of complaints — that we should be able to find out how many harassment complaints there are in a year without breaching anybody’s confidentiality?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the members opposite, I believe that the actual number of harassments to be provided under the act should be able to be provided in that process, but I will have to put a clarifier on that until such time as I can verify that to you. I’ll have to discuss that particular issue with my officials.

Mr. Cardiff:   When could we expect to get an answer to that?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Could you just ask the member opposite to repeat the question, please?

Mr. Cardiff:   What the minister said was that he would have to speak with his officials, and the officials aren’t here to do this. The government is not ready to answer the questions that we have. So what I’m asking is, when will we be able to get an answer to that question?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   You should have an answer to that question before we’re finished with this discussion. Apparently, I’m told they’re on their way.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’ll move on to a couple of other questions. With regard to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, some people find that information is not always the easiest to get through this avenue, and there is also a cost associated with accessing information. This isn’t directly related to the amendment that we’re discussing, but it is part of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Just as an example, our caucus tried to get some documents related to the Justice minister’s release of the Capital Towing truck, and we were told it was going to cost us $101. Are there any plans to reduce that cost? Or how do you justify the cost to the public of information that should be available to them?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The actual amendment we’re talking about doesn’t discuss the actual rates that are currently being charged, but the rates that are currently being charged have been discussed in previous discussions in this House with regard to pricing and are basically relative to other jurisdictions for that type of information.

Mr. Cardiff:   My understanding is that, when you propose an amendment to a piece of legislation, you can talk about anything in that piece of legislation. It just seems to me that the cost of getting information that should be part of public record seems unduly high, and I don’t understand why the minister doesn’t want to address that.

If he doesn’t want to answer that, that’s fine. Right now, those are all the questions I have, and I look forward to an answer about the numbers when he’s ready.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   To the member opposite, it is duly noted.

Ms. Duncan:   I would just ask that the minister provide, or have his departmental officials provide, for our background files a copy of the relevant section of the Supreme Court justices’ ruling. I’m not asking for a legal opinion, so I’m in order. I’m asking for the ruling. If I could just have it provided by way of background to add to the file, I’d appreciate that information.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will endeavour to do that.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Hearing none, we will go into line-by-line discussion.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 40 be reported without amendment.

Chair:   It has been moved by hon. Mr. Hart that Bill No. 40, entitled Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, be reported without amendment.

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

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Jenkins that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker:   I’ll now call the House to order.

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

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 40, Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and directed me to report it without amendment.

Speaker:   You’ve heard the report from the Chair of Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Speaker:   I declare the report carried.

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

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 38, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Minister of Community Services that Bill No. 38, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The Yukon government is proposing amendments to the Employment Standards Act to ensure the Yukon’s legislation remains in line with recent developments at the federal level. The amendments mean that employees protected by the territorial labour legislation will have the same rights to compassionate care leave as their counterparts governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The proposed legislation entitles employees to job protection for up to eight weeks of leave to provide care and support for a terminally ill family member. Upon returning to work, the employee will be reinstated in his or her former position or be given a comparable position in the same location with the same wages and benefits.

These amendments support families and seniors, and also Yukon First Nations, who, traditionally, have a very family-oriented focus.

The legislation can alleviate some of the stress associated with an already difficult situation. Without approval of these amendments, a worker who chooses to take time off work to support a dying family member risks not having a job to return to.

What a difficult and emotional decision to have to make; however, as our population ages we can expect this to be more of a common issue.

The proposed amendment supports family-based care and may help to ease the difficult and stressful time by enabling families to be together. The proposed amendments may also lessen some of the costs to the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that this legislation be passed in time to coordinate with the implementation of the nation-wide amendments to the Canada Labour Code.

I fully support this piece of legislation, and I am asking for unanimous support of all members of the House. It is an important bill that recognizes evolving social values and the merit of caring for one’s family.

Mr. Cardiff:   It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak about this amendment to the Employment Standards Act. I think this is something that is long overdue. I’m glad that the federal government finally recognized the need for this. This is something that employees across this country, and I’m sure here in the territory as well, have been trying to get for many, many years.

The minister will not have any problems. We intend to give our full support to this piece of legislation. I appreciate everything that the minister said about family, about caring for your family and the tough circumstances that are sometimes involved in that.

I’d like to take this opportunity to relate my own personal experience and why I believe that this is a very good change to the Employment Standards Act, and something that hopefully people will become aware of and be able to use when it’s needed.

My own situation was that my father-in-law was on death’s doorstep. I had seen him a week before and he seemed reasonably healthy. I got home and the next thing I knew he was in really ill health. On a Saturday morning at 7:00, I decided to jump into the van that my wife was leaving town in to go and see her father, and when I phoned on Monday morning my employer said, "No problem." I mean, it was no problem for my employer, but some employers wouldn’t grant people that leeway.

Enshrining this in legislation and protecting people’s rights to care for their families is a very important thing. It meant a lot to me to be able to go with my wife and be with her family in their time of need. I am sure that there are many instances here in the territory where this will be important. It protects the workers’ rights; it guarantees that they have a right to return to work and some substantial position equivalent to their position, if not their own position.

I look forward to supporting this.

Ms. Duncan:   I, too, am pleased to rise to offer my support for this particular piece of legislation. It is very important to Yukoners and to Canadians that this amendment take place. Many Yukoners share the personal situation that has been shared by the Member for Mount Lorne today and appreciate the patience and support of our employers in the Yukon as we grapple with the care of family members.

I believe that it’s important that the territory take this step with regard to our Employment Standards Act, and I believe many Yukoners will benefit from this, and I am pleased that it has come forward as quickly as it has from the government, and, again, I offer my support for this legislation.

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

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I would like to thank the members opposite for their support for the amendment, and as mentioned, I think I, too, have experienced this particular situation, and, I, too, fortunately, had a very compassionate employer who allowed me to take time off for a personal family matter. I think this is an important issue, and I look forward to discussing it in the Committee of the Whole.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 38, Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act. We’ll begin with general debate.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I think the amendment has received unanimous support from the members opposite as well as our own membership. I think that it’s a fairly self-explanatory amendment. I don’t anticipate too much debate, but I look forward to any questions the members opposite would have.

Mr. Cardiff: In the spirit of cooperation, I’d like to move that we deem all clauses and the title read and carried, and that we don’t need to debate it.

Chair:   Mr. Cardiff has requested the unanimous consent of the Committee to deem all clauses and the title of Bill No. 38, Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, read and carried. Are you agreed?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   The ayes have it. The motion is carried.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 38, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be reported without amendment.

Chair:  It has been moved by hon. Mr. Hart that Bill No. 38, entitled Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, be reported without amendment.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Chair, I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Chair:   Mr. Kenyon has requested that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

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

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 38, Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act, and directed me to report it without amendment.

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

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Speaker:   I declare the report carried.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 37, entitled Statistics Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. government House leader that Bill No. 37, entitled Statistics Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today to introduce Bill No. 37, the Yukon’s Statistics Act. The primary impetus for this legislation is to legally establish the Yukon Bureau of Statistics so we can have access to federal databases that contain economic, social and demographic information relevant to the Yukon.

Stats Canada collects a tremendous amount of detailed information to which we don’t have access now because we don’t have a formally established statistical agency and the necessary provisions for collecting information and protecting confidentiality that are covered by the Statistics Act.

For example, Revenue Canada collects information about salaries. Currently, if we want to compare the salaries of men and women in the Yukon, that data exists. It could be of great benefit to us in developing and enhancing our economic and social policies if we could get permission to use it. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will open these doors for us.

This act also establishes a legal basis for us to work more closely with Yukon First Nations and other governments to help them meet their own needs for collecting and maintaining control over their own statistical data. As land claims and self-government agreements have been signed and implemented, there has been a greater recognition of the need to collect and maintain statistical information that can be used to improve economic and social conditions for First Nations. This act enables partnerships to be formed for the collection and preservation of this much-needed information.

One very important aspect of the legislation is that it further guarantees the privacy of Yukoners. Reports of the information gathered by the bureau will be publicly available, but they will never identify individuals. As well, the act includes provisions to penalize employees who mishandle that data.

We held broad consultation in 2002 and again in 2003 with the current draft of this legislation. The feedback was favourable, Mr. Speaker. The principles of the act were presented to First Nation leaders, and Grand Chief Ed Schultz has indicated approval.

Currently all provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have their own statistics act. By passing this legislation, we will be a leader in the north, as the Yukon will be the first territory to have such an act. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this very important bill.

Mr. McRobb:   First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to be put on the record that we had no notice from the House leader meeting this morning that the government would be calling this item of business this afternoon. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the purpose of House leader meetings in the morning is for the opposition parties to become apprised of business of the day in order that they can prepare to address such issues.

What happened today, Mr. Speaker, was that the government House leader identified Bill Nos. 35, 38, and 40 to be called this afternoon, and we’ve dealt with those matters already, as you know.

This bill, No. 37, was not identified this morning by the government side. In addition, we haven’t had a chance for briefings on these bills.

Now, why, you ask, is this so? Because we dealt with similar occurrences in the spring sitting, the only other time this government has brought forward any bills in this Legislature. Obviously they didn’t learn too much over the summer because we are right back into it again — a state of confusion.

I would like to ask the government House leader why this was not identified as business for the day?

Ms. Duncan:   As members of this Legislature, we are called upon each day to debate issues of concern to Yukoners and to debate the laws of the territory. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you also ask us to conduct ourselves with honour and dignity. The difficulty that we have been placed in as members of the opposition is that we have been given no background information, no briefing, no advance notice that this has been called for debate in order that we might prepare ourselves. That presents a real difficulty.

To act on behalf of constituents we are asked to be prepared and to thoroughly review matters. As the leader of the third party in the House, I have prepared myself for the debate on the pieces of legislation identified by the House leader for debate. This particular piece was not identified.

That puts me in a difficult position and it should be noted for the benefit of all members of this House that members would no more be prepared had they not received a briefing than we would be expected to be. That is not, I would suggest, conducting ourselves in the manner our constituents expect of us. They expect us to be well-prepared. That involves working with all members of the House to be adequately prepared to debate legislation. We were adequately prepared, as witnessed by the passage of the three important pieces of legislation we have already dealt with.

This item was not identified for debate by the House leader today. That being said, there have been two other attempts made to establish the Yukon Statistics Act, and there are reasons why the act was never brought forward, never managed to come to the floor for debate, and they were very good reasons.

Some of those reasons have to deal with punitive measures in the act, and I still see, in reviewing this legislation — which we have only had for a very short period of time, and there has not been a briefing made available by legal counsel on this issue, or from Justice officials or Statistics officials or Executive Council officials. That has not been made available to members on this side of the House.

There are some measures that I see in the act with respect to the oath. However, I don’t see how that particular section of the act is to be enforced, and that’s just a short, brief reading of this particular piece of legislation. I would suggest to the government House leader that we should not be proceeding with this piece of legislation at second reading. The government has not provided the opposition with advance notice — any notice, never mind advance — that the legislation was coming forward for debate today.

The House leader has not provided, as has been the past practice of this Legislature, an official briefing on this particular piece of legislation, and has not provided, in fact, all members of the House — certainly not this side of the House — with adequate time for full and due and thorough consideration of this legislation.

It’s unfortunate, because we are trying to constructively prepare for and conduct debate. As I said, in the interests of House business and thorough debate on behalf of Yukoners and conducting ourselves with honour and with dignity, I would suggest that the House leader withdraw or stay the second reading debate and provide notice. Let’s do what Yukoners have asked us to do, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Chair, I’ve listened very attentively to what the third party and the official opposition had to say on this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is not a new piece of legislation that has been put together in the last couple of days. The leader of the third party has been aware of it. The official opposition, I’m sure, has been aware of it. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is how the government is conducting the business of this House. We’re kind of in a catch-22. When we provide briefings ahead of time, embargoed copies of bills, we’re criticized. And when we put together briefings — actually, we were prepared to proceed with briefings last Friday, but there wasn’t an appetite in the opposition ranks to deal with the matter last Friday.

So we’re left at an impasse here. One kind of gets a feel as to how fast legislation will move through this Assembly, given the past record of the parties. I haven’t seen any real efforts by the opposition parties to critique these bills at any great depth. If you want to use the basketball analogy, it’s a slam-dunk. It’s there. It’s finished.

Yet we come to another bill of a very similar nature, which is quite simple, very enabling, very forward thinking, and both official opposition parties stand up and say they haven’t had a briefing. Now, there are options we can explore, Mr. Speaker.

We can adjourn the Legislature today at this time and provide a briefing to the opposition. I don’t know if that’s in the best interests of the business of this House to proceed in that direction. Given the depth of the legislation — and I’m sure that all the opposition members have had an opportunity to critique it — there is very little in there that is contentious or of a serious nature. It’s very enabling for the Yukon, and it does provide protection for identifying any one individual or one corporate entity, or a business undertaking, within the framework of this Bill No. 37.

Even the issue of those who assemble this information and deal with it, and breach any confidentiality — there are provisions in this bill for penalties in that area, and severe penalties, Mr. Speaker.

I’m at a loss to try and understand where the official opposition is going on some of this legislation, given that it’s a constant issue of "We are always wrong and they are always right", given that it doesn’t matter if we provide briefings ahead of time or we do not provide briefings, or if we provide briefings and there’s no uptake, or offer briefings and there’s no uptake, we’re criticized. I’m uncomfortable with that approach.

As a government we are committed to being open, accountable. We are committed to moving forward on a legislative agenda and we’re committed to making this legislature function in a better manner.

We’re here to serve the people and, to that end, Mr. Chair, it would be encouraging to see the opposition take up the challenge, and we can resolve into Committee of the Whole and proceed with this. But we’re at second reading, we’re closing debate, we’ll be voting on it. I think we can probably move forward in line-by-line, or we can adjourn debate, or we can go into the 2002-03 supplementary.

Now there’s another option, but the official opposition is going to get up and criticize that that wasn’t identified at the House leaders’ meeting this morning for debate on the floor.

The speed at which the opposition has raced through three very important and critical pieces of legislation is alarming.

That, in itself, is alarming.

Given past practices to scrutinize new legislation and amendments to legislation in this House, I guess those are out the window.

I guess the question that has to be answered is, is the public good being served?

I commend Bill No. 37 to this House, and ask all members to support it at second reading

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   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 the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

The bill before the Committee is Bill No. 37, Statistics Act.

Before we begin general debate, do members wish a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will call a recess for 10 minutes.

Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 37, the Statistics Act.

Mr. McRobb:   I would just like to put on record my comments in response to the acting minister’s closing comments in second reading.

I would like to reflect back on this morning’s House leaders’ meeting and provide a little more history for the record. At this morning’s meeting, the government House leader, who is the same person who is the acting Finance minister today, identified four pieces of legislation for debate this afternoon. Three of them we have completed. The fourth one he identified was the Health Professions Act. Mr. Chair, that act hasn’t even been tabled. It hasn’t even been tabled, yet that’s what he wanted to debate this afternoon. Well, Mr. Chair, the government House leader has to start doing his job. The first order of business in the job is find out what’s going on and get tuned in to the facts.

Secondly, the same person identified the three bills we have dealt with already as housekeeping bills. That was his own language, Mr. Chair — he said those other three bills are housekeeping bills.

For anyone not tuned into that language, Mr. Chair, "housekeeping bills" refer to legislation that is easily passed without any substantive issues. Yet we just heard him stand up and criticize the opposition members for racing through those important pieces of legislation. Do you see the difference, Mr. Chair? Yes, anyone can see the difference.

The government House leader is trying to make it appear as though those three housekeeping bills were substantial in order to cover for obviously a terrible mistake that is leading to lost time in this Legislature.

Mr. Chair, nothing could be further than the truth. There was unanimous consent to proceed on Thursday, just as we indicated today there is unanimous consent to proceed to the supplementary. Twice today we asked the government House leader to table the supplementary estimates for this year, but he refused. Again we offered full consent to proceed to debating that bill.

That is a matter of urgency to the Yukon public. This budget has been embargoed for — it will be the fifth day tomorrow, and by the time we are allowed to deal with it in Question Period, it will have been a full week. That is absolutely outrageous. This government has to get its act together.

Ms. Duncan:   I mean no disrespect to my colleague, but on a point of order I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery of a former member of the Legislature, Scott Kent, former Minister of Economic Development, and Mike Eizenga, who is visiting the territory, who is a candidate for the presidency of the Canadian Liberal Party.

Mr. McRobb:   Obviously, the bungling that we see, in terms of communicating House business, has reached an all-time low.

One option that was open to the government House leader was to call a House leaders’ meeting earlier than this point in time, to discuss this problem — to discuss what business could be debated. But instead, this person chose a highly confrontational approach and an approach that gave us absolutely zero warning. Yet, the government House leader will stand up and elaborate at length about how open and accountable and fair his government is in dealing with the opposition. Mr. Chair, we know that that is simply not the case.

It is incumbent upon the government to identify business of the day to the opposition parties in order to allow the opposition to be fully prepared to discuss any legislation that comes on the floor of this House. If the government decides it’s not going to let the opposition know what business it will be dealing with until the last minute, then that reflects rather poorly on the performance of the government in terms of being open and accountable.

Mr. Chair, I can recall the government House leader, when he was in opposition, railing on previous governments for anything that might suggest this type of an approach. Personally, I don’t recall anything quite this bad happening in those previous governments, but he would rail on about it. One would have thought a lesson would have been learned over the years, especially with some of the campaign promises made a year ago.

Secondly, the Premier did the same thing. He would rail on the previous government for anything that suggested this type of an approach by the government. We’ve heard a number of words used, Mr. Speaker, that would probably be ruled unparliamentary in today’s Legislature. I won’t mention them. I will leave it up to your own recollection as to what those words are. But they are very hard-hitting words and words that cut through the smoke and mirrors, words that really hit home.

This government has to ask itself: is this the type of autocracy it promised Yukoners it would deliver? Is this the type of closed-door approach it promised Yukoners it would deliver? Of course not, Mr. Chair. I say shame on this government. Shame on this government for showing such a poor level of cooperation toward the opposition parties.

That’s another major point, Mr. Chair. A year ago all parties recognized the need for all legislators to cooperate together for the benefit of the territory. Whatever happened to that? You call this cooperation, when the government fails to identify business to the opposition parties? Instead we are surprised at the last second with anything that it calls for business. Again, for the record, the purpose of House leader meetings is for the government to work out with the opposition House leaders the business of the day so everybody knows the test to be met.

Everybody knows the business of the day. Everybody has a fair opportunity to be prepared. Instead, Mr. Chair, we see something quite different. Given the approach of the government House leader to not deal with this matter head on and face up to it as he did only this morning at 9:45 when he said that those three bills were housekeeping bills and, instead, he chose to stand up and criticize the opposition for racing through important legislation. Can you see the difference? Can you see the difference? Well, we are not very impressed, Mr. Chair, with the approach taken by this government. This is the second day. The first day was a great loss of productivity, and the second day appears to be one, as well, Mr. Chair. With that, my comments are on the record.

Chair:   We’ll proceed at this time with Bill No. 37, Statistics Act, and general debate.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I would like to add my comments with respect to the way that House business has proceeded today. We’ve seen in this Legislature, through a number of different legislative sessions, the Legislature pass laws that, quite frankly, weren’t written very well and weren’t done very well. A very good example of this was in the late 1990s when a bill came before this Legislature that basically threw the family law into question — spousal payments and how that law was administered — because there was a difficult clause in the act.

Now, we’ve also seen hours and hours of debate on an act about what the rules of natural justice are — what does that constitute, what was the minister’s understanding of that at the time, what is fair process?

All that legislation, good and bad, has been given thorough thought and debate. The way we arrive at that debate is by organizing our time through House leaders’ meetings and by being prepared. As prepared as a person can be, sometimes legislation passes and legislators go back and say, "Gee, we should have dealt with that in a different way."

We’ve also seen 12 days of debate on larvicide in the Yukon, the price of larvicide, and how many lug nuts there are in a grader in Old Crow. Debate has sometimes been less than productive in this Legislature, and that’s unfortunate. It happens. I would say to members opposite that debate right now is less than productive because the government House leader has failed to organize the time, failed to provide notice to the opposition, failed to provide detailed information and briefings, and failed to even provide more than — as the words were coming out of the Speaker’s mouth — notice that this is what we were debating. That is not a recipe for a productive legislature, by anybody’s standards.

What this has revealed is the woeful lack of an agenda by the members opposite. There isn’t one. The Statistics Act has been discussed by two other governments. That doesn’t mean that we should then be prepared, as the member opposite suggests.

That doesn’t say there shouldn’t be a full briefing on it. The government House leader has not organized the House business today. He must, in good conscience, recognize that fact and seek some consensus from the other House leaders as to what should be done.

In the interest of the public, in the interest of the Yukon, and in the interest of doing our jobs productively, he should be seeking the agreement of the other House leaders as to what should be done with this business. He’s not, and that is unfortunate.

The biggest loss in this is that the general public looks at everybody in this Legislature and asks, "Why can’t they organize themselves?" Well, folks, we’re trying, but it takes cooperation — cooperation that the Yukon Party promised Yukoners. It takes collaboration. The Yukon Party promised that. It takes building consensus. The Yukon Party promised that. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been any, and the fact that the Statistics Act is before Committee of the Whole today is a good example of the Yukon Party’s inability to deliver on that consensus and collaboration, and it’s a good example of the Yukon Party’s lack of agenda.

The Statistics Act should have a thorough briefing provided to members of the opposition. There hasn’t been one.

Is the member, who is the minister, the government House leader, fully prepared to debate this legislation? Perhaps we can begin general debate by asking this: has a thorough briefing of this piece of legislation been provided to all members of the Legislature?

Mr. Chair, I asked the minister, who is speaking with responsibility for this act, if a briefing has been provided to all members of the Legislature on the details of this act. Can he answer that question in general debate? It would appear that the minister who is taking responsibility for this act today is refusing to answer that question.

I understand the leader of the official opposition has a question.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, I also have some strong concerns about what is happening in the Legislature and what has been happening since the Yukon Party was elected.

Whether the members who form the government presently see it or not, there has been a fundamental shift in the behaviour of the people with the power toward the people who are in the position of questioning, the opposition members. There was a big to-do made about working together, sharing information, and ensuring that we come into the Legislature prepared to debate bills and budgets, yet there has been an erosion of that intent. And I believe the intent was sincere; however, it only takes one or two people in positions that dominate all the other elected members to influence them enough to alter that kind of sincere belief, a belief that this would be a much more accountable and open government. I don’t believe that what we are witnessing here today is a movement toward that. I feel that in many ways.

If they were on this side, they would be shocked and aghast with their behaviour today.

By their very position — by the acting minister’s very position and by the House leader’s very position — he is the leader and he should be leading by example. However, he is leading by his own ego. That is not serving this House well.

Because of that, we have a difficult time debating this bill. We have a difficult time recognizing the merits of it. There might be some very good merits to the changes that are being made. They probably are just housekeeping, but we don’t have a comfort zone or a comfort level on this side to go forward on it if we don’t have the opportunity to have a briefing. A briefing is a simple thing. It could be five minutes long, in which the important questions that we feel need to be asked are asked. We come in here, we have a small debate to clarify some positions and then move forward; however, here we are debating the behaviour and actions of this government toward us around something that may not be of great significance. However, we don’t know that.

We would be remiss if we agreed to move forward without a briefing on this bill only to find a year or two years down the road that — because of the lack of knowledge we had, the opportunities that we had to analyze this bill — it’s faulty; it has caused problems, and it has caused hardship and difficulty.

So my position is in support of the two previous speakers. My concern is about debating this. I’m concerned about the lack of the briefing in this matter. I would like to see, from this point on, proper notice and due diligence to ensure that we have the opportunity to have the briefings, so that we don’t have to debate this any more, and we can move forward together and work closer together in the Legislature.

If this behaviour, this manner, of bringing forward bills continues, I can’t see us having a great relationship in here.

Chair:   Clearly the House leaders are having a dispute about the order of business. It’s not the place of the Chair to mediate House leaders’ disputes. Rather, all the Chair can do is follow the rules. Those rules state that the government has the right to call its business in the order it prefers on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. All the Chair can do, then, is rule that the government has the right to call Bill No. 37 for consideration in Committee of the Whole. That has been done. Let us now continue on with general debate on Bill No. 37, Statistics Act.

Does any member wish to speak regarding general debate?

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister who is taking responsibility for this bill to provide us with the salient points of the bill, and again, the reasons for bringing it forward at this particular time. He mentioned in his second reading speech that the government had received support from the Council of Yukon First Nations and the Grand Chief. Is he prepared to provide the evidence of that support in the Legislature?

To begin with, I’m most interested in his responses to why this particular piece of legislation is coming forward at this time.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The key features of this act are that it formerly establishes a Statistic Bureau for the Yukon, and it is consistent with other Canadian jurisdictions, save and except P.E.I., N.W.T. and Nunavut, which do not have one. It allows data sharing with all levels of government. It allows for partnerships for undertaking statistical activities with all levels of government.

I could use, for example, surveys and the analysis and publishing of the resulting information. It allows for those collecting the data, specifically employees within the Government of Yukon who violate the confidentiality of that data collection that compromises the privacy of individuals and businesses — it allows for fines to be imposed on these individuals.

It also, at the same time, guarantees that all individuals’ and business’ information is not accessible to anyone other than the information provider.

I guess you can ask, "Why do we need a Statistics Act at all?" Mr. Chair, having a Statistics Act will allow Yukoners to get access to existing Statistics Canada information about the Yukon, which will save time. It will also save money, and it will reduce the number of times that a person has to provide information through surveys.

It will establish a formal basis for negotiation of statistical methods with Statistics Canada regarding census counts and adjustments. And all of us here in this House should be very cognizant of the issue surrounding the Statistics Canada population count and the impact it has on the transfer payments from Ottawa.

This will remove that doubt, Mr. Chair, and provide certainty for it. It’ll allow access to federal economic, income and social data, and it’ll enable the bureau to provide departments with an enhanced ability to identify and monitor trends in the Yukon economy. That is critically important, as our government renews investor confidence and rebuilds the Yukon economy.

It’ll allow us to understand the impact of those trends on families and individuals, and it’ll provide much better information to help departments make changes that will improve their programs for Yukoners.

I guess the other side of that is, currently, do we not have access to federal stats and data? Well, yes, but only the very high-level data. This act will allow the Yukon Bureau of Statistics to receive the confidential individual records of data, which would permit a much more refined analysis of existing data to focus on specific Yukon concerns. That, in itself, is very positive.

Other provinces with agreements currently have access to approximately 37 survey data sources from Stats Canada at the detailed level. It will allow us the same access. The other benefits are that the Bureau of Stats would be in a position to review Stats Canada publications about Yukon data for abnormalities before that data goes to press, and that has been a problem in the past that we have statistics that we have assembled here in the Yukon that say XYZ, and Stats Canada comes back and says it’s ABC, so we’re at an impasse.

So what it will allow us to do here in the Yukon is to take the information assembled by Stats Canada, review it, and say, "Hey look, this is out of whack, or that’s in line, but this appears to be abnormal. Why are you reporting it this way when our data suggests that?" It will allow us to go forward with less friction between our respective governments.

The microlevel data can reduce the need for the Government of Yukon to collect similar information through surveys. Also, and most importantly, Mr. Chair, it will reduce the amount of surveys and imposition on Yukoners, because we do it once, and we do it properly. Those are the benefits, Mr. Chair, that stem from this Statistics Act. It is a very important act. It has been carefully reviewed, and it is recommended to this House. I would encourage the members opposite to kind of have a look at it. This was tabled last Thursday. There have been three days in which everyone could have had a look at this piece of legislation. I don’t want to suggest there is not the capacity in the opposition to look at this kind of legislation. I’m sure there is a very capable group in-house that analyzes all of this type of data and reviews these pieces of legislation from a standpoint of critiquing it to looking at how it may be improved or how it might be enhanced.

Now, Mr. Chair, I see this as a very positive step forward.

With respect to the consultation, consultation has taken place with the Council of Yukon First Nations and the First Nation groups. They’re supportive of this piece of legislation and have indicated their support in writing to Premier Fentie. That is in a letter, and I’d be happy to table that letter.

Ms. Duncan:   I await the delivery of the letter. It’s going to take some time for copies to be made for all members to have a look at it. In light of the comments made by the House leader for the official opposition caucus and the leader of the official opposition that there has not been adequate opportunity to review or receive briefings on this legislation, the government House leader, when he was in opposition, was frequently fond of the suggestion that the then government stand aside a piece of legislation and allow an opportunity to fully review it.

I would put forward — with a sense of collaboration and in an attempt to work with the House leader — the suggestion that we stand aside this piece of legislation and move on to the other government business and return to it when we have had an opportunity to have a full and thorough consideration of the legislation.

Chair:   Is there any further general debate?

Hearing no further general debate, we will proceed with line-by-line examination.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, I would repeat my request, made with all due respect to the House leader of the government side, that we stand aside the clauses of this bill until such time as there can be a thorough briefing for the opposition. Apparently we have other government business to move on to. Is there any reason why we couldn’t stand aside the Statistics Act and the clause-by-clause debate?

Mr. Hardy:   I also would like to request that the acting minister consider the request from the leader of the third party to stand aside this act in order for us to have a more thorough look at it with a proper briefing.

Chair:   Is there any further debate on clause 1?

Ms. Duncan:   I would repeat my request that clause 2 stand aside and th