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

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I move that Bill No. 43, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Premier that Bill No. 43, entitled Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   Are there any further bills for introduction?

Are there any notices of motion?

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House recognizes that the Yukon Party government has undertaken a review of the Children's Act; and

THAT this House recognizes that the existing act was amended as a result of a private member's motion put forward by former MLA Sue Edelman to recognize the role and rights of grandparents;

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to recognize the unanimous recommendation of the 29^th Legislature regarding the role and rights of grandparents in the lives of Yukon children; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to ensure that this unanimous recommendation is not omitted from the current review of the Children's Act.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. McRobb:   The benchmark for this government's accountability is its own platform document. In it, the Yukon Party makes a commitment to the people of our territory to plan — that's "plan", not "build" — the construction of a bridge at Dawson City to replace the current ferry system when it is economical to do so. So this government's recent announcement to build the bridge has raised a number of red flags. One flag is the complete lack of a business case to justify this bridge and to justify to Yukoners that the time for it has now arrived. In typical fashion, this government prefers to leave Yukoners in the dark while it forges ahead with whatever goes at the budget table.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to pry open the back door and shed some light on what's going on in there. Will the minister give us the number he used to argue for this project at the Cabinet table? And can he tell us what makes this project economical now?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, we have been announcing this bridge ever since we were campaigning to be elected. It is no secret; it has been in our platform, and we indicated that it was part of the issue we were going to get elected on.

Mr. McRobb:   I wish the minister would listen to the question. I clearly was referring to the government's platform document and not whatever took place between the candidates and people at the door, of which we have no record. This government has not presented a sound business case. It would have been reasonable to expect the government to bring forward its case in this Legislature for debate before proceeding with a project of such magnitude and such implication to all Yukon communities. There is a void of information and perhaps logic here. The government's silence and lack of leadership has forced people to draw their own conclusions.

We need to get a firm figure from this minister on what he expects this bridge to cost. For the record, will this be a $30-million bridge, a $40-million bridge, or will this minister just write a blank cheque as he will in the case of the multiplex?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The member opposite is doing very well in his tirade. I would like to indicate that we have an estimate to build this bridge of between $25 million and $30 million. That's what we estimate the bridge will cost. Part of the aspect of dealing with the bridge is we'll have to go to design. Part of that design is consultation with the community on what that bridge will look like.

Mr. McRobb:   It would be nice to get some of these bits and pieces on the table where we can look at the big picture. Of course, any business case must consider other factors, aside from the cost of the bridge; for example, it must consider the local impact from losing 16 ferry workers who will no longer be employed and spending their wages in Dawson's economy; workers who build and maintain the ice bridge will lose their contracts and ability to contribute; tourists will have no reason to shop or buy meals while waiting for the ferry. These are only some of the factors that must be considered in a business case.

When will this minister be tabling his business case in this House for discussion, and what dollar figure will he put on the loss to the local economy?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There will be no jobs lost, as he indicated, in the process. These jobs will be assumed in the rest of the department where they go along. That is how it is going to take place. Nobody is going to lose their job on the ferry; it will be assumed in that process. Part of the issue we are dealing with is the replacement of that ferry. It is going to be a substantial cost. That is scheduled to take place in 2007 or 2008, and we will be dealing with that when we get there.

Mr. Hardy:   In the budget address of March 25, the Premier said, "Our social agenda is as ambitious, exciting and progressive as our economic agenda." He went on to say, "It is no secret that there are more health and social problems created by a depressed economy. The 2004-05 budget will go a long way in implementing our social agenda."

Now there are 44 percent of social assistance recipients in the Yukon who are classified as the working poor. In Yukon, a couple with two children receives $12,253 a year. In the N.W.T., as a comparison, this same couple would receive $23,036 — quite a substantial difference.

My question for the Minister of Health and Social Services is: will the minister implement the government's claim to an ambitious, exciting and progressive social agenda and bring in a supplementary budget to immediately increase social assistance rates?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We certainly stand by what we're doing on our social agenda as a government and as a party. It is very progressive and we take pride in what we have initiated in that area.

It might interest the member opposite — in fact, everyone — to recognize that the expenditure for social assistance has increased by $1 million in this last fiscal period over the budget. There were a number of changes made in programs in other jurisdictions, and about 70 percent of SA payments went to single males, 40 years of age or under, who are employable. When you look at where they originate, they're primarily moving from British Columbia. So the member doesn't make his case that we need to increase SA rates. They're already attracting people to the community.

That said, Mr. Speaker, we do identify with the needs of the handicapped, the single parents and seniors and elders; and we are currently in the process of examining SA rates in those categories.

That said, Mr. Speaker, we hope to move forward very quickly on some amendments to the SA rates after the consultation process has been completed.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, Mr. Speaker, this minister, this government, has bragged ad nauseam about how great their social agenda is and how they have dealt with all the problems in this area. Frankly, it doesn't carry water when you look at it.

Now, the minister continues to make the statement that we have this tremendous influx of employable, single people who come pouring into the Yukon because we have great social assistance rates here. That doesn't carry. I would like to see the statistics; I would like to see the minister share those statistics with us that that is what it really is, that that influx is really happening. I don't believe that they exist, and I believe that this minister owes an apology to people who are looking for work, people who are struggling.

Now, will the minister correct this impression of this invasion of single, unemployable people coming to the north and state what the true facts are?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I'll be happy to share with the entire House and the media the actual stats and breakdown as to where SA is going and to what categories. Our government is very cognizant of single-parent families and their needs and, to that end, we've increased the tax credit per child from $25 to $37.50 per month. We've upped the minimum from $16,000 to the $25,000 threshold. This is a positive move.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, if an individual on SA — a single parent — is in Yukon housing and social housing and receiving support payments, those support payments are not included in the rent calculation. So we've identified what we can do to improve the conditions for a number of categories, and that's just an example of one.

Mr. Hardy:   I happen to agree with the minister opposite; it is only an example of one because there really is only one area he has targeted. Now I applaud this government on the other side for addressing some of those concerns — that's long overdue — but this government could quite easily have addressed the needs of our seniors. They could have addressed some of the serious impact with the growing situation of food kitchens and those people having to go to soup kitchens and food kitchens to get a little bit extra food for their families, to go to Maryhouse to get a bag of groceries, because they can't make it to the end of the month. They're the working poor. They're trying their best and, through no fault of their own, through illnesses or disabilities, the situation around changing workforces and a depressed economy, they are in this situation.

A change in the social assistance rate across the board would have addressed some of those issues — across the board. These people should not be punished because this minister has the impression that we're being swamped by people from Outside because our rates are so great. I do not believe that.

Why won't the minister do the right thing and help our elders and people with disabilities and those others in need, and increase the social assistance rates?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   For the record, in the Yukon, the rate for single employable is $12,145. In British Columbia, the rate for single employable is $6,251. In Alberta, it's $4,824 per annum. We are the highest of any jurisdiction across Canada. That is an issue.

With respect to our seniors, our government initiated a major change when we increased the pioneer utility grant and indexed it against inflation. There is another example. Further to that, I indicated to the House that we are moving forward and currently examining the rates for the handicapped, the single parents, and the two-parent families, which would include seniors. So those are currently under examination, and we are moving across the board on a number of categories.

In all fairness, there has not been a government since the early 1990s that has examined the social assistance rates, and that member was a member of a previous government that had an opportunity to meet this obligation, but failed to do so. We have budgeted a tremendous amount of investment here in the Yukon on this budget, and I'm sure the member opposite will be voting against this budget.

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Health. He has developed a well-earned reputation as someone who only consults with himself before making decisions.

The minister was sitting in his corner office one day last winter and made a unilateral decision to close Macaulay Lodge. He had to back down from that ill-advised idea. Now he has decided, all on his own, that he wants to put detox patients, mental health patients, and Yukoners receiving physiotherapy — the bulk of whom are seniors — into the Thomson Centre, all at the same time.

Before any changes are made at the Thomson Centre, the minister should be consulting with the people who will be affected by these changes — most notably, the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board.

Will the minister confirm that, in fact, there has not been a formal proposal submitted to the board of the Yukon Hospital Corporation regarding the future of the Thomson Centre?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What I can confirm is that this minister has met more frequently with the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board than the two other previous governments did and their ministers of Health did, both the Minister of Health under the Liberals and the Minister of Health under the NDP, in their entire term in office.

Ms. Duncan:   I will remind the member opposite that self-praise is no honour. The minister is getting ready to put mental patients into the same facility as senior citizens, and the only person he has consulted with is himself. There has been no proposal submitted to the board of directors of the Hospital Corporation, and that is very typical of how the minister operates.

Another example is the minister's announcement on March 2 that the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board had agreed to accept the transfer of ambulance attendants. Again, a decision was made to transfer these people without any consultation — typical of how this minister and the Yukon Party government operate. This decision is the first step in the Yukon Party plan to privatize parts of our health care services and will also result in new ambulance fees that will be paid by the public. Will the minister confirm that in fact the hospital board has not agreed to accept this offloading in services because in fact the proposal has not come before the board?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   What I want to make abundantly clear to all is that this government has no intention whatsoever of privatizing any part of the health care system, no intention of increasing any fees in the areas. All we are looking at doing is delivering an efficient service, and that is the exercise. We have no intention of placing seniors with mental health patients. What is being examined is the issue of medical detox and mental health in a wing in the Thomson Centre to address those needs here in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, there is a very obvious pattern here. The minister makes decisions and does any consultation — if he does any at all — after the fact. The Yukon Hospital Corporation is the board responsible. The pattern here is really obvious. He sits in his corner office and doesn't get advice from anyone who might actually know what's going on, such as the people who work at the Thomson Centre, who work at the hospital or ambulance attendants when he makes decisions. The results of this "minister-knows-best" attitude are painfully obvious to everyone.

Ambulance attendants are deeply concerned about their jobs. Yukoners are going to have to pay more for ambulance services if this transfer goes ahead. Will there be a combination of detox, mental health and physiotherapy at the Thomson Centre? In order to avoid these obvious mistakes, there is a very obvious solution. Will the minister stop making unilateral decisions from his corner office and actually consult with a formal proposal to the board of the Hospital Corporation, and will he share that formal proposal with Yukoners on the floor of this House? Will he do that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   In case anyone hasn't noticed, the Thomson Centre was closed except for the physiotherapy unit some two and a half years ago. It is probably another year before it will reopen. You only have to look at our budget to identify the costs that are going to be incurred by the government because of the ways that previous governments addressed the issue of the construction of the Thomson Centre and the need for its repair. That is the issue. As to what is being examined, we are presently in the consultation stages, and we welcome the member opposite's input, but the jump to conclusions is more like a leap to conclusions by the leader of the third party.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, the government's news release announces a transfer of EMS to the Hospital Corporation. On the same day, the deputy minister meets with the Whitehorse crew and advises them that the transfer will be done by August with no choice in the matter. The day before the announcement, the union was handed a letter stating the government's intention. Does the minister define these actions as adequate consultation with its union and its employees?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The issue of the transfer or the assignment of the management of the ambulance to the Whitehorse Hospital is following all the appropriate channels, and we're very, very careful and cognizant of the rights of the union, and we are doing what we are required to do in all respects, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Speaker, then the minister must have felt that that was adequate consultation. Here's what they're doing: you really have no input; the decision has been made.

On March 16 — and this is for whichever minister wants to answer the question, I suppose — the deputy minister announces the reduction from two to one ambulance being available for calls in the winter months. The standard practice, Mr. Speaker, is to send two ambulances to vehicle accidents. On March 15, the Minister of Health and Social Services in an interview stated this, and I quote: "The staffing level at the ambulance station is more than adequate." Mr. Speaker, the number of call-outs has gone up from 800 from a number of years ago to about 3,000 a year. Now, 12 staff in Whitehorse are permanent, and 12 are auxiliary with full-time hours with no benefits and four of those auxiliary staff earned more hours than the permanent staff. Mr. Speaker, the stress levels are very high. There are 39 grievances to be heard —

Speaker:   Order please. Will the member ask the question, please?

Mr. Fairclough:   Thank you. There are 39 grievances to be heard for over 18 months. Will the minister clarify for the employees and the Yukon public when this confusion and the grievances will be cleared up? Will it be before or after the sell-off?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite correctly pointed out that there have been grievances outstanding for over 18 months and that's exactly correct. These grievances go back to a previous administration. There is a due process that's in place to be followed and that process is being adhered to and followed. It's part of the collective bargaining agreement.

Mr. Fairclough:   Once again, the minister avoided answering the question. He has been the minister for over a year and a half now, Mr. Speaker, and he cannot run away from his responsibilities. Let's try another one and see if the minister can answer this one.

In a news release on March 2, it states that employees can be transferred from their existing bargaining unit. On the same day, the deputy minister advised the crew that they will be given three months to accept or reject job transfers to the Hospital Corporation. On the 11^th of this month, the CEO of the Hospital Corporation meets with the Whitehorse crew and advises they will be given one week to accept the job transfer. As we understand it, the Hospital Corporation policy is that after three months, if a position is not permanent, then the position will disappear.

What guarantee does the minister have for the employees that they will not lose their jobs three months after the sell-off?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The assumptions being made are exactly that — assumptions. There's no issue of loss of job or loss of employment. The collective agreement is being adhered to. What there is is a change in management. The management of the ambulance emergency medical services will be undertaken and overseen by the Hospital Corporation.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In previous sittings, when we asked the minister what he would do to prevent Yukon game animals from ending up on hunt farms, he suggested that there was no way the government could prevent this. Last week, at a meeting with First Nation chiefs, he promised that no wildlife from the Yukon will be sold to hunt farms. What has changed for this minister?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Obviously the member opposite only heard part of the story. Under normal circumstances when an animal, a car or anything is sold outside our jurisdiction, we lose the ability to control that. What has changed is that tomorrow we get the keys to the Yukon Wildlife Preserve. Part of that, and the board of directors and the non-profit society that we will be organizing to run that, will be accreditation with the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria. That is a peer-reviewed and very thorough accreditation process. Part of that is to require that any such accredited facility only sell animals to another accredited facility. None of these accredited facilities, and part of that process, would permit them to be sent to a hunt farm. So by restricting the number of animals and where they go, we now have that ability. I am very happy that the member opposite pointed that out.

Mrs. Peter:   This minister has earned a reputation in the Yukon for saying one thing one day and something else the next. I hope the position the minister takes today is the correct one and we do not hear another one tomorrow. The Yukon Wildlife Preserve officially begins operation under the Yukon government tomorrow. The minister was very clear that none of the animals there would be sold to private collectors or to hunt farms. What specific steps will the minister be taking to prevent that from happening?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I appreciate the member opposite's ability to completely not pay attention to what I was saying. That has been a problem as well; the questions continually change and, unfortunately, the script doesn't. So I'll take this opportunity to once again answer that and wait for the scripted reply.

Once the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria accredits the facility — and we now make the assumption that it will be — no animals will be sold outside of that accreditation scheme. Therefore, nothing will be sold to private collectors, et cetera. One of the nice things about a farm is that surplus animals are sold. Any business has to have a product to sell. This will be a non-profit business. If we need four offspring, we will breed four offspring. We don't have to breed for forty to make an income because that income is not part of the scheme; it is not required.

Again, I thank the member opposite for allowing me to repeat that.

Mrs. Peter:   We need to hear the answers twice from this minister in order to believe him. The whole debate about private ownership and sale of animals is still not resolved. The minister has reassured us that he is taking First Nation concerns into consideration. He has assured us that he is consulting in the proper manner.

When the minister finishes his consultations and finally brings forward regulations on captive wildlife, will those regulations include provisions that would prevent animals raised on private game farms from ending up on hunt farms somewhere else?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Again, I thank the member opposite for reading the third scripted question and paying absolutely no attention to the first few answers. She's concerned that answers change; we never have to have that concern about her questions, Mr. Speaker.

The Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria will not permit —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   Please carry on, but with temperance.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   One always tries on this side to have temperance, Mr. Speaker, however difficult that is sometimes.

The accreditation process of the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria does not permit animals to go elsewhere. For the third time, Mr. Speaker, that is the way we can get around it — by accrediting a facility that is now publicly owned and privately run by a non-profit board of directors, as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Management Board, as we continue to agree with them.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out at this time that the Fish and Wildlife Management Board has requested that we get on with passing those regulations, and when the consultations are done, then we will address the matter.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Minister of Environment as well. Last week during a meeting with the First Nation leadership, the minister made a very strange comparison. Before the Premier has to rescue the minister one more time, which has happened in the past, will the minister tell us if he still believes that pet goldfish are Yukon wildlife in captivity?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   According to lawyers within the government and the very poor wording of the act, which came into effect in 2001, yes, Mr. Speaker. If the member opposite has a pet goldfish, it would be considered captive wildlife.

Mr. Hardy:   Does that not give us a great deal of confidence in this Minister of Environment. He truly believes that pet goldfish are captive wildlife. It might not have occurred to this minister that many people who have heard him speak felt he was belittling their serious concerns about captive wildlife. I do not intend to make light of this issue, but I do intend to point out how ridiculous the minister's statement was. Last year the minister said that there was nothing he could do to prevent Yukon game animals eventually ending up on hunt farms outside the territory, and we have already heard him criticize the member opposite. Now he has been talking fairly recently about using microchip technology to track them. Maybe. But what about the goldfish? Does the minister intend to implant microchips in goldfish, or will he use ear tags instead?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   If the member opposite has a goldfish, I doubt that an ear tag would be plausible, since ears are a limited commodity sometimes.

Unfortunately, we did not write the Wildlife Act. The Wildlife Act was passed under the Liberal government. It is a flawed definition, and that is something we will have to look at. The microchip technology — and again I thank the member opposite for allowing me to get into this. Our government has bought into ISIS, the International Species Identification System, which allows microchip technology and registration of these animals with an international body. That allows us to track these animals through any Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria facilities and tell exactly where these animals go. This is something that I thought the member opposite was asking us to do before, but maybe he has changed his mind.

Mr. Hardy:   Actually I am kind of concerned that this minister is going to be going into people's houses to take a look at their goldfish and putting regulations on them, saying that they are captive. I want the minister to realize that this really is not a joking matter. I am trying to impress on the minister the importance of thinking before he makes embarrassing and insulting statements. I would like the minister to explain another statement that was said and reported recently. When the minister was talking to the chiefs about the Yukon Wildlife Preserve, he referred to jobs that could be created "for their FAS people". What did he mean by that statement?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   That is something that I absolutely never said. One of the things that we do look at, however, is the utilization of adult FAS/FAE patients to possibly provide employment, to at least provide a job and something to hold on to. This is a concept that we have discussed with a number of different groups, and the White River First Nation health director has actually expressed quite an interest in this. I hope he and others continue with it.

But I find the member opposite's trying to put words in my mouth as being somewhat distasteful.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   And he's continually yelling at me from across the floor. So I would like to see that in print, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, the members opposite seem to hold most dear to their hearts that, "A friend of mine has a friend who knows somebody who said something." Mr. Speaker, it's about time we dealt with facts in here. This government deals in facts, not innuendos.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We are now prepared to receive the Commissioner, in his capacity as Lieutenant Governor, to grant assent to the bill that has passed this House.

Commissioner:   Please be seated.

Speaker:   Sir, the Assembly has, at its present session, passed a bill to which, in the name and on behalf of the Assembly, I respectfully request your assent.

Clerk:   Interim Supply Appropriation Act, 2004-05.

Commissioner:   I hereby assent to the bill as enumerated by the Clerk.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order.

We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.

Mr. McRobb:   I would like to bring the attention of all members to the agreement reached regarding the bill up for discussion today. We have all agreed that it should proceed.

Speaker:   The Chair thanks the House leaders for coming to this agreement. As they are aware, at our meeting this morning, the point of order raised by the government House leader posed a very difficult decision for the Chair. The Chair, of course, respects and agrees to follow the wishes of the House leaders in this matter. However, the Chair, through this point of order, has been made aware of some serious issues that the House should address. The Chair will therefore provide a statement to the House on those issues at a later date.

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 104, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that Bill No. 104, entitled Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that Bill No. 104, entitled Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Hardy:   This bill is long overdue, and I want to make it very clear to the House today that we, the NDP on this side, have brought forward the bill in good faith. It's a bill that we've written. We've looked at a lot of the legislation out there across Canada and the many attempts to deal with whistle-blower legislation.

We've looked at past practices and efforts made by the governments of the Yukon Territory — for example, the Liberals had been working on whistle-blower legislation — the promises made, of course, during the election campaign by the Yukon Party, in which they had promised to implement effective whistle-blower legislation.

It protects the anonymity of public employees who report abuse within the government and provides a clear process for full and fair investigation.

We took those comments seriously, just as we hoped the Yukon Party took their promises seriously. But 16 or 17 months have passed now, Mr. Speaker, and we have asked on numerous occasions if the whistle-blower legislation was going to be coming forward.

In the past, the NDP has also worked on whistle-blower legislation in the Yukon, as well as in Ontario, where they drafted up some. This is an issue that goes beyond just the Yukon, beyond just Ontario. Every single province, and possibly even the neighbouring territories, has looked at whistle-blower legislation and is looking at it.

Of course, as most people know right now, one of the pieces of legislation coming forward, proposed by the Liberal Government of Canada, is whistle-blower legislation. Of course, many people believe that's a reaction to the scandals that are rocking the foundations of the Liberal Party at the present time on a federal level.

Whatever the reasons, fundamentally I believe in this House we all agree that whistle-blower legislation is necessary and timely. Far too many situations in the past have arisen in which, if there had been protection for people who report wrongdoing and if those people, in seeing it, had known they would not have had to face repercussions, they would have come forward and reported the wrongdoing and we would have been able to avert or deal with issues before they got too big.

The very recent past can point to some of that as well. Now, in bringing forward this bill, it is my hope that the Yukon Party government and that the third-party Liberals will support it, will support the concept of it, will support the very genuine, serious effort that we're trying to make on our part to contribute to better legislation, to the amendment to the Public Service Act that we feel would address — at least, in many of the areas, some of the concerns in this regard.

Now this bill is not perfect. We're the first ones to say that, Mr. Speaker, as most bills aren't. That's why I look very much forward to a debate that we will have out of this when we move it into the Committee of the Whole and the suggestions and the progressive ideas that will come forward, possibly amendments, which will strengthen the bill in areas that we may be lacking, we may have put in it. We will welcome that. The NDP on this side will welcome that. And it won't be the first time that an opposition has brought forward a bill and the government of the day looked at it, debated it and at the end of the day recognized that it's time and it's good, and it's time to move forward. We can only look back when the NDP was in power from 1996 to 2000. And it was already mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, grandparents' rights, a bill that was brought forward by Ms. Edelman, and there was debate in the House. At the end of the day, the NDP government felt that this was a legitimate bill and would serve the public good. It moved forward. So this is not and should not be considered a criticism of the government opposite, other than possibly my feeling is they could have moved on this a little sooner.

They did not have to be tardy on this issue. That, to me, is a very important part of it, but we are bringing it forward, and we are open for the debate that surrounds it.

Throughout Canada the majority of people want to see whistle-blower legislation. The poll done was 89 percent. A massive majority would love to see whistle-blower legislation. We in the Yukon, in our very small jurisdiction, have an opportunity to bring forward some form of whistle-blower legislation that the others, who are struggling, can take a look at and maybe be able to incorporate into the provinces and territories, as well as the federal government. We have the ability to do it in this city. We have the ability to work together to find the resolutions around this bill that we brought forward.

In the past, in regard to whistle-blower legislation — Pardon me, not necessarily in regard to whistle-blower legislation, but in regard to employees who have come forward and reported wrongdoing and have often ended up being the ones who have been punished — being the ones who have, in many cases, lost their jobs, been dismissed, ostracized within the workplace, made it almost impossible for them to continue working — very few recourses for them. Often the only recourse they do have is to go to lawyers and seek legal recourse to protect themselves when they feel what they have done is in the public good by reporting a wrongdoing.

Now, governments in Canada — at both the federal and provincial level — have thus far generally declined to enact broader whistle-blower protection that does exist in other countries. This is not alien. We're not trying to create something brand new in this matter. Other countries have been leading on this but, in Canada, there seems to be a fairly strong resistance to it, Mr. Speaker, and we really do have to wonder why.

I believe every time we see a situation where the employee has been injured — and we don't see many of them; there are a lot of times when people, with good conscience, bring forward very legitimate concerns about the operations of a government, possibly about the way their own colleagues are conducting business within government — and they have often been the ones who have been targeted, which sends a message throughout the workplace that, if you have the courage to stand up and say what is being done wrong, you will be the one to pay the price.

That's the message that has been sent out year after year after year. No wonder we have people who have a conscience and belief that wrongdoing should be reported and dealt with, but they do not step forward, because the punishment ends up on them in many cases. It destroys their lives; they lose their jobs. Often it affects their family dramatically. The thing is, it even goes beyond that. A lot of people don't realize this, but it actually goes beyond that.

What happens if the person loses their job, or they're forced out of their job due to the internal pressures they feel within their own workplace for standing up for something that was wrong within that workplace?

And they no longer work in that environment, but they have no recourse and no protection, so they lose their job. Well, in a small community, guess what? It doesn't stay within the workplace. Their name is now attached to something that says this person has ethics and they will report wrongdoing. If you hire them and you do something wrong, they will probably stand up and report it. So an ethical person is now targeted, or "blacklisted," as the old term used to be. And I've seen that. I've seen that in the workplace. I saw that when I was the representative of working people. I've seen where somebody stood up against the employer or even against some of their own colleagues when something was being done wrong, when it could have been just unsafe work conditions — not that this applies necessarily here, but that person becomes targeted. Then they try to go and get a job somewhere else, and that stamp is on them. And they did the right thing, Mr. Speaker. They did the right thing, and, guess what? They're the one who carries the burden. Often the wrongdoing is not addressed; it's shovelled under; it's hidden. Or they're told to just stop; they'll get rid of the troublemaker. Well, I would like to make it very clear that being a whistle-blower is not about being a troublemaker. People do not, in most cases, feel that to come forward is something that they would enjoy. No one that I know would enter into reporting wrongdoing within the workplace happily. It's not something that you like. They're not troublemakers, but they are people with a very strong conscience about right and wrong, and they are people who contribute so much to ensuring that our workplace and the work that is being done is done for the public good. That is what our role is as MLAs, and that is what our role as employees is.

I would like to talk a bit about that. If you do not mind, I would just like to read a bit from an article from The Senate. It was prepared in regard to Bill S-13, Public Service Whistleblowing Act, and it was prepared in January 2000.

"Whistleblowers in both the public and private sectors are forced to rely chiefly on the protection offered by common law." This is where I go into what happens to them. It goes: "As noted in the Ontario Law Reform Commission Report on Political Activity, under the common law an employee owes his or her employer the general duties of loyalty, good faith and, in appropriate circumstances, confidentiality. Loyalty embraces the obligation to perform assigned work diligently and skilfully, to refrain from any sort of deception related to the employment contract, to avoid any relationships remunerative or otherwise that might give rise to an interest inconsistent with that of the employer, and to conduct oneself at all times so as not to be a discredit to one's employer.

"Good faith requires an employee to perform assigned tasks according to the best interests of his or her employer. Finally, confidentiality may give an employee a duty to keep certain information confidential until released from that duty by the employer. This duty may arise by contract or it may be imposed by equity whenever the employer entrusts an employee with confidential information on the understanding that it is not to be disclosed without authorization. A general duty of confidentiality may arise by virtue of a particular relationship between the employer and the employee."

Now, when an employee breaches these duties and reveals a confidence or some information believing that to do so is in the public interest, the employer routinely takes disciplinary action, which may include dismissal.

In the face of such punishment, some employees have sought protection from the courts, and that seems to be — in many cases and jurisdictions — the only course left for these employees who have come forward, or else they can use the collective agreement and the small protection offered there. In many cases, it's not successful.

When the wrongdoing has been serious, and the public's interest in disclosure is clear, the courts have permitted a very limited public interest offence in these cases. They have emphasized a need for the employee to use internal remedies first, to be sure of the facts and to exercise good judgement in his or her actions. In general, it may be said that, at present, employees have only a narrow range of protection and may seriously jeopardize their careers by breaching their duties to their employers.

So, that was prepared for The Senate in studying whistle-blower legislation, and I think it makes it fairly clear that there is very little protection for employees, and whistle-blower legislation is necessary.

And we all know the many cases that have been out there. Some of these are quite striking and quite powerful. Hollywood movies have been made based on people who have stood up to corporations and environmental situations — you know, the Karen Silkwood story. It's a very, very good example of somebody who spoke out. A more recent example is Erin Brockovich, which I believe most people are familiar with. Again, that was another person who would be called a whistle-blower.

Another one I have seen recently — it has been out for awhile — and is really powerful is The Insider. That was about the tobacco industry, and one employee finally started to challenge and present evidence in a more public manner to get the message out that what was being said was not necessarily true.

It is a very current topic. Some people look at those three examples that these movies were made about as troublemakers, but the majority of people look at them as heroes. The majority of people should look at those who will report wrongdoing and put their careers on the line as heroes too and not as somebody who should be punished.

We have introduced this bill, and there are some areas in it where I would welcome some discussion and debate. I would welcome members opposite who may want to strengthen it. Some areas we may have not caught exactly, areas that may not be reflective of the thoughts from the Yukon Party or the third party. I look forward to that kind of debate. I look forward to the suggestions and amendments that will be brought forward to strengthen this, to serve as duty to ensure that the employees do know there is protection for them if they step forward, to know that this government and all MLAs in here care for them and have put in place this kind of legislation that will be strong enough that they can come forward.

I can go through this, but I am not going to at this present time. I look forward to the responses and then some more comments in this regard, but the opportunity for the employee to go to the Privacy Commissioner I believe is one step that will give some confidence to the employee.

It should give some confidence to the government as well because, in the end, we will be stronger in here if we allow people who have very legitimate, very strong arguments of what they're reporting — we will be stronger in here.

We've tried to cover as much as we can in this, so I look forward to the comments made by the other parties, as well as the debate issuing from it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to start out by correcting the record of statements made by the leader of the official opposition. This government has always stated we would work in cooperation with the opposition. To date, in my opinion, they have just refused the offer. I'd like to thank the opposition for tabling this bill and providing their input toward this very important piece of legislation.

This is an issue that is very important to us. In fact, we included a commitment in our platform related to this.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I have the utmost respect for all Yukon government employees, and the intention of this bill is to provide an avenue for a Yukon government employee who wishes to complain about a government violation of a territorial enactment, a criminal law, or a policy or practice posing a great threat to public health or public safety. I support these intentions.

Mr. Speaker, the subject is complex and needs extensive study. The federal legislation will be commented on and debated extensively, and it would be irresponsible for us to move ahead without being informed by, and considering, that debate. There is similarity of issues; there is even similarity of unions whose employees are involved. Great Britain and other jurisdictions have whistle-blower legislation and the opposition itself obviously thinks that more time and study and discussion are needed to have effective whistle-blower legislation.

The section 214 that their Bill No. 104 proposes would not have the legislation in effect until regulations are prepared. It is also clear that they would leave to the regulations a lot of substantive matters that should probably be dealt with in the act.

Several issues generate debate and difference of opinion and still need to receive careful study and consideration in the Legislative Assembly. For example, whether and how to bring the whistle-blower complaint to the public body and, if so, then in what circumstances; whether and how to incorporate a process for mediation of the circumstances that give rise to the complaint — in other words, is the purpose of the legislation limited to investigating complaints and exposing only proven wrongdoings, or should it include a process of mediation and remedial issues or measures to improve conditions or resolve workplace disputes that give rise to the complaint? By what process and in what circumstances should it be possible for the employee to make a complaint anonymously for investigation by a body independent of the government? Whether action should be taken, and if so, what action and by what process? In situations where there is no wrongdoing but the employee has used the whistle-blower law as a way of obstructing or protecting a decision or action that they disagree with or oppose?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that when we develop this type of legislation, the Public Service Commission would be directed to consult all departments, unions and appropriate parties.

The Public Service Commission would then provide the consultation results to an all-party committee. The all-party committee would then have an opportunity to provide input into the development of the legislation. Only after the consultation and the input were complete would we then support drafting and tabling the legislation. In the meantime, the political pressure for legislation seems based on the idea that there is no protection for employees now. In fact, there is a lot of protection for employees now. The Occupational Health and Safety Act and Environment Act have protection for employees who report hazardous conditions under them. Those acts cover extensive fields of government administration.

An abuse of authority is already addressed with the Yukon government workplace harassment policy. The Ombudsman Act protects the anonymity of people who complain under it, and the complaints under it can refer to virtually any aspect of government administration. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures substantial protection to employees. The law on disciplinary action against employees and the dismissal of employees includes important protection for employees against retaliatory action. Disciplinary action must be justified and there is a process of grievance and adjudication to require that justification be proven.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Therefore, I move:

THAT the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104 be amended by adding the following: "and that it be referred to a select committee of the Assembly; and

"THAT the membership and mandate of the select committee be established by a separate motion of the Assembly following consultation between the House leaders."

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, could I first ask for clarification on how you amend a second reading address, please? My understanding is that second reading speeches are for second reading, and the motion to Committee would come after second reading speeches have been concluded. Could I just seek your clarification on that?

Speaker:   It is in order that the reference to a committee be made at second reading stage; therefore, I'll read the amendment as proposed.

It has been moved by the hon. minister responsible for the Public Service Commission

THAT the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104 be amended by adding the following: "and that it be referred to a select committee of the Assembly; and

"THAT the membership and mandate of the select committee be established by separate motion of the Assembly following consultation between the House leaders."

Speaking to the amendment, minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that this amendment be accepted by the members opposite. Once again, I believe it's a very clear demonstration of how this government is prepared to move ahead in unison with the opposition on such items as this. I believe that it is an important issue with respect to all citizens in the territory.

This amendment, I believe, would put a lot more thought into this important legislation, plus it would also give the point of view of all parties. I would encourage the members opposite to accept this amendment.

Ms. Duncan:  I rise to address the amendment and not the substance of the bill. As I understand it, once we have dealt with the amendment, we will be able to address the substance of the bill.

I have a great deal of difficulty with the amendment, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker. Justice delayed is justice denied. The members opposite and the other governments have not had a great deal of success in establishing all-party committees to review legislation. It hasn't happened very often, and I'm concerned that hiving this bill off to a committee, players to be named later, will delay indefinitely the debate that should take place on this legislation. We have an opportunity today to thoroughly discuss the thought behind the idea of whistle-blower legislation. We have the opportunity in second reading speeches to discuss that idea. We have an opportunity to fine-tune and look at the legislation in detail in Committee of the Whole as legislators in this Legislature. That's what we're asked to do by the public — to do this very hard work of crafting legislation.

I don't disagree that there should be — and we should have witnesses, individuals provide us with input. There is time to do that and still engage in healthy debate on the floor of this House. We are asked by the people — when we put our names forward, we agree that we're willing to come here to work on the best laws we can for Yukoners. That's what the work of this bill is. It's about discussing it clause by clause. There is nothing to say that it all has to be done in this session, Mr. Speaker.

We could include additional consultation with individuals outside this House during Committee debate and/or in future sessions of the Legislature. We have the time. If we send this off to a select committee, we have taken the discussion out of the public forum of this Legislature and put it behind closed doors. That is not what the public asked us to do. They asked us to discuss the points in this legislation and to deal with it.

Other legislation has come forward. There are many examples of good legislation that have been brought forward and that have been discussed. They are not all the work solely of the government side. I mentioned one today in my motion, the private member's bill with respect to grandparents' rights. That was brought forward, that was worked on with the government of the day, and the Legislature passed it. We discussed it on the floor of this House, and it was passed. We discuss legislation all the time. We have three pieces before us for this session alone. We can do this on the floor of this House and in Committee, and that work can include the input of the public, the Public Service Commissioner and the union representatives. We have the ability as a House to call them as witnesses. We can reach agreement and work as a committee, and we can do that work in the public and end up with good, well-crafted legislation. That work does not have to be done behind closed doors by a select few. It can be done — and it should be done — by this Legislature.

The Member for Mayo-Tatchun has pointed out that all parties are here. They're represented. It is the responsibility of all of us, on behalf of our constituents, to review this legislation, to talk about it, and to amend it. The sponsor of the bill has indicated that he's prepared to accept amendments.

Let's craft good legislation for Yukoners. It can be done in Committee of the Whole, in this Legislature. We have the time. We don't need to send this off to a select committee. So for that reason I do not support the amendment, and I would appreciate an opportunity to hear from others about why they think that all members can't engage in the very public work we were asked to do. Why do they feel that this bill has to be sent off to a committee? None of the others are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On the amendment, our government recognizes the importance of this bill. It is certainly an issue that we've clearly identified in our party platform, and it's an issue that we were looking forward to addressing.

What we, as a government, are looking for is that big "C" word that the members opposite constantly demonstrate a need for in this House, and that we are insisting upon for this issue — that's consultation. What we see a need for is to perhaps place a caveat on what we're doing so that we include the union, the Public Service Commission and all the departments, as well as an all-party committee on this consultation.

The easiest way to proceed is through a select committee. This suggestion that we have put forward is done in a sincere manner. We want to work with the opposition and we want to see a piece of legislation that is going to be workable for all.

From past experience, legislation that is amended on the floor of the House and dealt back and forth is usually not a thoroughly thought-out process. I would encourage the members opposite to take our sincere offer as a government that we are quite prepared to look at a select committee — an all-party select committee — and that all-party select committee includes the union, Public Service Commission and all departments. That is a genuine, sincere offer because we as a government want to see something work, and it's in the interest of all of us. By proceeding in this way, we'll have an opportunity to move forward on this issue in a very timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the bill that was prepared by the previous Liberal administration. It was bandied about. It never came to the floor of this House. We know what's going on in the bill that's currently tabled in Ottawa. So there has been some background work done, and the official opposition has taken the time to take the input from the Liberal initiative, the prior government of the Yukon, and dovetail it into the existing. Now, whether that's a good mix and whether that's going to bode well for us is yet to be determined.

I would encourage the members opposite to have a serious look at this sincere offer to move forward on this initiative, because it is a good initiative.

It is a good initiative. It is an initiative we want to proceed with, this type of legislation, the Act to Amend the Public Service Act. So that said, we can hear what the official opposition have to say on this amendment and move forward.

Mr. Hardy:   I would like to thank the minister for his supposedly sincere offer. Just as we brought forward this bill with sincerity, we would also expect their willingness to debate in the Legislature with all-party participation, all-member participation, and not a select few, in the Legislature, in the public forum and allow the public to listen to the debate and understand where each and every member of the Legislative Assembly is coming from when they talk about the whistle-blower legislation. All this does is hide it in the back rooms again, slide it back there.

Now the Yukon Party on this side says this is a sincere offer. I challenge that. If it is a real, sincere offer, are we going to expect that with their bills when they bring them forward? Are we? Are they going to put bills on the table and then we can suggest that they go into an all-party committee, and we look at it before we bring it back? It has not happened yet. Why is all of a sudden our bill, the one we bring forward, that they have not addressed for over 15 months, not acceptable? Why do they want to move it into the back rooms? Why do they want to hide it? Those are the questions we have to ask about this amendment. Are they scared of the employees? Well, I think they should be because they are doing things that maybe some employees would like to be able to speak about but are too afraid of these people. We only have to look at last year, with the computer use investigation. This whistle-blower legislation we have brought forward could have dealt with that, possibly years ago. It would never have ended up in the witch hunt conducted by that government.

What are they hiding? What are they scared of — to bring forward this silly amendment? To shut her down, or is it ego? Are they so afraid, are they so shallow, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want any other name upon a bill unless it's theirs? Is that working together? Is that collaboration? Is that consensus-building?

I made it very clear when I stood up here, Mr. Speaker, that I was willing to entertain any suggestions, share anything to make this bill good, to make it strong. The work we have done addresses most if not all the concerns, but it's not their bill so they cannot accept it. Why?

When you look at it, I think it's base emotions causing it.

I have a very hard time with what they're trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, because they do not apply the same standard or same request they're putting on us — the same mode of operation to themselves.

I do not expect them to bring any of the bills they have forward right now into this Legislature and then say, "Now, let me see, the Act to Amend the Income Tax Act — I think we should go into an all-party committee and review this, and we should make sure it has the input of the business community, workers, single mothers — that's the way a bill should be done."

Is that what I'm going to expect with this one? Is that the same offer that's being made, Mr. Speaker? I don't think so — or the other bills they've brought forward. But guess what? We take the initiative on this side to do something that that minister will not do and they can't accept it. They're not big enough to accept it.

They are not even big enough to allow a debate on the floor in regard to the act that was brought forward. They immediately throw in an amendment to stop the debate on the act. They don't even allow the process for all members in here to stand up and talk about the bill that was brought forward. They don't even allow that. The first thing they do is try to shut it down — the first thing. We didn't even have a chance. The backbenchers of the Yukon Party — we still haven't heard them express an opinion on whistle-blower legislation. They've been muzzled, Mr. Speaker, because the minister decided to shut it down before all members from all parties had a chance to speak and say their piece and represent their constituents — the pros and cons. I, for one, would love to hear from some of the backbenchers. I believe they have a right to speak in this House as much as I do. Maybe they should move over to this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, so they can ask questions of their own government, speak on the bills, instead of always being silenced.

Now, I'm not asking them to join our party — absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, but possibly we would have some other voices in here and not just one or two that are always speaking for the government and the other ones: "Hear, hear." That's about all we ever get. I don't know; I'm sure the constituents must wonder what they pay them for if that's the only thing they ever do in the Legislature. And when we see actions as we just witnessed today, where if they really wanted to bring this amendment forward they could have brought it after we've had some informed debate from all members in the Legislature. But no, God forbid, Mr. Speaker, that you would actually allow freedom of thought in the Legislature from some of these members who don't have a portfolio — I'm sorry, I should include the other ministers, because a lot of them don't have a chance to even speak on this, as well, and they might have some very interesting contributions to make.

My esteemed colleague beside me indicated that the backbenchers might like this bill, and that is true. They might want to blow the whistle, too, on their own government. They might need this protection. But obviously they can't, because they have to go back up into caucus and face the wrath of the leader.

What we have here, unfortunately, is once again the Yukon Party government trying to act like they are all knowing, all wise, all generous and shutting debate down. That does not match. That does not work. It is not going to wash with the public. It is not going to wash in here. We do not accept this. The leader of the third party has already indicated that she has a very difficult time with the actions of this government in regard to whistle-blower legislation. What we are witnessing here is members opposite shutting that debate down; it's basically an attack on democracy, and they're not allowing the debate to happen on the floor. So what is the problem? We bring forward whistle-blower legislation. We have debate. We have first-off responses. The members can respond. Pros and cons. Their viewpoints. Possibly they would have a view that might differ from the leader of the pack. I have not heard it yet. I have not heard a single line yet come from all 11 of them over there who may think slightly differently, almost like a cookie cutter thought wave here. An acceptance of this. But how would we know, because the democratic right to speak in this Legislature has been silenced. None of them can speak to this bill.

Now, they can speak to the amendment, which is where we're forced to now, and I know the Member for Lake Laberge is panting to get at it. I'm sure we're going to have a nice little chat about that.

But in all of this — the fact that we're not going to have it on the floor, the fact that we're not going to go into Committee of the Whole, the fact that we're not going to bring it forward — we're missing one very important element — put aside democracy, put aside all that stuff they've already done. They're forgetting that there are people out there who need this protection, and they can't wait for when the Yukon Party government decides they can have it or not.

The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has indicated they have lots of options, lots of protection. How would he know? How could he justify it after the attack we witnessed last year on the Yukon employees with this computer use investigation? How could he say that? How did the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protect any of them, Mr. Speaker? How? He uses that — the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Can you believe that? How?

It didn't. What avenues did the workers have? Who can come forward and report anything without the thought that there are serious repercussions they could face? I've had people come into my office in the last year. They have come into my office and talked about the workplace and when they have stood up and spoken out and what has happened to them. They have faced serious consequences. That's why we're bringing it forward.

We're bringing it forward not just because it will make government better — that's one of the reasons — but we're also bringing it forward so that those with that conscience, with that will and desire to see the goodness and the right thing done have that protection. We're not sending them out there to get shot down, to get their lives destroyed, to lose their jobs, to become ill and not be able to get work again and have to leave the territory.

That has happened. There is no denying that that has happened in the Yukon Territory, in the provinces and federally. That is why 89 percent of the people of this country say, "Start putting in whistle-blower legislation." Start somewhere.

So, what is the response we get? "Well, let's hold it here. We have to watch what's happening at the federal level." Well, since when has the Yukon Territory and its elected members ever, ever played second fiddle to the federal legislation? When have we ever said, "Oh, we'd better not do anything because the feds might know what they're doing." Well, that's a wish.

We already know what they're doing. It has been out there, it has been highly criticized, and it's full of fault. The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission has already indicated that it probably won't even pass — that it's going to fall off the Order Paper, that an election will probably be called, and it will disappear like all of the other Liberal promises. But you know what? We're going to wait and watch. Well, we can apply that to just about anything we do.

And then, you know what? If that's the attitude and if that's the argument that that minister makes, then resign, because you're not a leader. You're following the Liberals. And I thought you ran for a different party that had a stronger fortitude and willpower. Instead, you say, "No, the Liberals."

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   It's being dealt with. Address the Chair, please.

Mr. Hardy: The Yukon Party government has indicated that they want to wait. That is incorrect, because that is following a faulty process. It is also following something that we should remember very clearly: there was a promise made, I believe it was in 1993, by the Prime Minister that there would be whistle-blower legislation, and there was some work done on it. But guess what? That was going to happen right away. It's now 2004, 11 years later, and there is a promise made that they're going to have whistle-blower legislation. But guess what? There's going to be an election called. That will fall off the Order Paper and it might be another 10 years. So if the argument being used is that we will wait and see what happens federally, we will never see whistle-blower legislation. The chances are we will never see it.

Mr. Hardy:   Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make an amendment to the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104:

THAT the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, standing in the name of the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, be amended to read as follows: "…and proceed to Committee of the Whole for initial debate, following which it may be referred to a three-person select committee of the Assembly that is comprised of one member from each of the parties in the Assembly, that is chaired by a non-partisan chair, appointed by mutual agreement among the three parties, for the purpose of inviting and hearing submissions from interested persons and organizations, and that will report back to the Legislative Assembly no later than the fall 2004 sitting of the Legislative Assembly."

Speaker:  The amendment proposed by the leader of the official opposition is not in order as it presents a totally separate proposition to the amendment moved by the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

We will continue debate on the amendment. Is there any further debate on the amendment, as moved?

Mr. Hardy:   That is a shame because I believe that the amendment — the attempt, I guess, the one that was not accepted — did try to accommodate the Yukon Party's position in which they do want to take it into a committee to allow debate. We did try to flesh out that committee, the structure, to make it clear for everybody in here so that when we did cast the vote, we would understand what the committee, the structure and everything was.

It was trying to assist the debate around the bill to allow it to happen on the floor, which we feel is so important. I personally want to hear from every member here. I do not necessarily want to go into an all-party committee, where there are just one or two representatives, and just talk in that field. I much prefer in just about any situation to be here where the public expects us to be and to be having that debate on the floor and not having that debate stifled. Unfortunately, that is really what has happened. In this case we have lost the ability to have that debate and we have curtailed democracy.

As I said earlier, the amendment brought in by the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission — actually, I do not have a copy of it in front of me. Has it been circulated yet?

Thank you very much. I have a copy now so I can refer to it more clearly.

The amendment itself does not describe what a select committee of the Assembly is. It does not tell how many people would be on that select committee. It does not indicate if it will be an all-party committee whatsoever. It does not ensure that there will be a balance among the parties to ensure each person in it will feel their voice is weighed equally. It does not have timelines about when it would report back to the Legislature or if it even would, or if it would only report back to the minister. It does not indicate to me that the select committee has any validity, any power.

I'm not a person who likes to participate in activities that do not necessarily mean that anything will be accomplished. There's no substance there; there's no direction given.

It goes on to say that the membership and the mandate of the select committee would be established by separate motion of the Assembly following consultation between House leaders. Well, again, that's taking it one more step down into a select group of people making decisions.

So I do have some very serious concerns. I do not support the amendment as it has been drawn up. I believe it basically curtails participation in the public eye by all members of the Legislature and, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, it's done for the wrong reasons, the kind of things that the public has found to be disgusting about our parliamentary procedure and indicated to us two years ago on the doorstep.

I can't support this — there's no way in the world.

Thank you.

Mr. Rouble:   It is indeed my privilege and honour today to speak to the amendment that is before our Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, when the Yukon Party took office, we made many commitments to the Yukon people. We committed to conduct genuine public consultation on matters of importance to Yukoners, with an emphasis on proposed legislation. We made a commitment to promote consensus-building, collaboration and compromise. And it was a platform commitment to implement effective whistle-blower legislation, which protects the anonymity of public employees who report abuse within the government, and provide a clear process for full and fair investigations.

I'd like to thank the member opposite for bringing forward this legislation. It's a piece of legislation that we have been working on and examining, as we committed to do. In the full term of our mandate, which is not quite half over yet, I fully expected to see the issue brought forward. Unfortunately, the plate can only carry so much at once.

However, we now have an opportunity because the issue has been brought forward. And we have the opportunity to all work together for the betterment of all Yukoners on this very important piece of legislation.

As the member opposite said, this piece of legislation is important to people. Many, many people have raised the issue and want to see this type of legislation because it's important. It ensures an open and accountable government, and ensures a government that is transparent. It does all of the things we are striving to do in government.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to clear up some of the confusion that there seems to be about this amendment. This amendment is put forward so that we can create a legislative committee, as we have many committees of our Assembly, to sit down and specifically look at this. Mr. Speaker, I've had the pleasure of working with the members opposite in the Public Accounts Committee, a committee of this Assembly that is tasked with looking at specific issues. What's the rationale behind having the Public Accounts Committee? Why don't we do that as just a matter of course of our whole Legislative Assembly? Well, again, it's a matter of time. We don't have the time to fully analyze, construct, see witnesses, think about ideas, toss them back and forth, and worry through a lot of these issues. That's why we create other committees made up of members of our Assembly. In the Public Accounts Committee, we take matters that are very important to this Assembly and put it to the Public Accounts Committee. Members then work on it, call witnesses, as we saw some months ago here in our own Assembly. And, Mr. Speaker, it was a very positive and constructive experience. I thoroughly enjoyed sitting down with members of our party and members from the opposition as well as from the Liberal Party, working together, working toward consensus-building, working in collaboration, compromising on issues, to get the job of the Assembly done.

And, Mr. Speaker, that's what this amendment is intended to do — to give us the time, the room, the space to properly explore this issue. Mr. Speaker, in my efforts to further review this last night, one of the important comments that I found was that whistle-blowing systems, frameworks and schemes and models abound in diversity and scope.

There are many different models to look at and many different models to debate back and forth. It could be that the model put forward here is not a suitable one for our jurisdiction, and amending that on the fly in Committee of the Whole would be an unwieldy type of exercise to go through. What would we do? Say that in the first clause of the act, rewrite everything or send it back out for rewriting. Well, I pose to you that that would not be an efficient or effective use of our Assembly's time. We have a committee structure; let us put it to our committee where they can work with witnesses, work with the unions that are part of our government, work with the departments, work with other legislatures to look at other pieces of legislation.

The member opposite, when he tabled this, said that this bill is not perfect. We need some darn good legislation for people. We need some legislation that is going to work and I propose that the best way to do this is to put it to a committee where they can devote the time and energy to properly analyze and discuss this matter and bring it back to our Assembly. Then, when it is in a more perfect form, we will again have the opportunity to debate the piece of legislation. Members will not lose the opportunity to then stand up and share another point of view and debate it back and forth in our very public Assembly. Additionally, if further amendments need to be made, they can again be debated in our very public forum. But it will be a much more perfect piece of legislation than the admittedly flawed piece of legislation put forward to us today.

Again I stand in support this amendment. I believe it is important for all of us to recognize that we can work together. I trust that the members opposite and our Yukon Party team can work together to draft a better piece of legislation.

This is a good solid amendment, Mr. Speaker, and one that I would ask all members to support.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr. McRobb:   On the amendment to Bill No. 104, listening to the new member across the way, it strikes me that his voice is really the voice of inexperience. It's rather amazing to hear how someone —

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Member for Laberge, on a point of order.

Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, I believe yesterday you ruled terms such as "rookie" out of order and, in this case, the usage by the Member for Kluane of terms such as "new" are casting suggestions, I believe, that are contrary to 19(i) of the Standing Orders. Using abusive or insulting language by suggesting inexperience of members is contrary to our Standing Orders.

Speaker:   There is no point of order. Please carry on, Member for Kluane.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The backbenchers on the government side have an extremely high opinion of their relatively short period of experience in their jobs as MLAs. I find it rather startling how they're so set in the opinion that all members of this Legislature should do whatever they think is best. It leaves a lot to be desired.

In the case of shuffling this matter to a committee, there indeed is a lot to be desired. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, committees are not an effective approach to deal with any type of process and they lead to a lot of delay. There's an example in the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges, known as SCREP. There is a major issue before that committee right now on the makeup of SCREP. The government side enjoys a majority in the membership of SCREP and, therefore, can dictate anything coming out of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a problem. The government has the ability to even out membership on SCREP but has not followed up on that suggestion, even though the Premier and the government House leader, when in opposition last term, advocated evening out the membership of SCREP. So that's one example that proves that these committees are not an effective way to deal with matters such as this.

I think the Yukon government employees and the Yukon public would ask the question, "Why delay?" There is no need to delay this important legislation. Our employees are this government's watchdogs, and those watchdogs need to be protected. Those watchdogs should be encouraged to speak out — not punished for speaking out. In order to ensure that, legislation is required.

A good government that believes in open and accountable government should be in favour of bringing in whistle-blower legislation that will protect employees. But this government has had a chance. It has had a year and a half to bring in whistle-blower legislation but hasn't done so.

As a matter of fact, what legislation has this government brought in? Well, there have been a number of house-cleaning bills. And, if I recall correctly, the first order of business was an act to repeal the Government Accountability Act. What can be said about a government whose first matter of business is to repeal government accountability?

And now we see a second stunning development, and it's putting up roadblocks and delays in the path of whistle-blower legislation that any reasonable person would deem to be in the interests of accountable government and the public good. Well, where is this government going? Well, obviously, if the latest DataPath Systems poll is any indication, Mr. Speaker, it's going in one direction, and that is down in public support. And it is matters such as this, not living up to its promises of being a good government, that are drivers in that down trend.

Now, there are several reasons to speak in favour of whistle-blower legislation. I would have expected all parties to support it. On principle, we believe that a government should live by the same provisions it sets for its successors. There is no reason to delay the legislation toward the end of this government's term. I say that, Mr. Speaker, looking back to the previous Yukon Party government, in how it dealt with the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That particular act was at the very end of its calendar in government, so that government didn't have to abide by the same provisions it set for successive governments. Now I know that some of the same people are still driving this Yukon Party, and they acknowledge this point. Probably, they have whistle-blower legislation set up for the very end of this government's term, knowing full well that the provisions it will bring in will apply to successive governments. And the way things go in the territory, Mr. Speaker, this Yukon Party won't be the next government.

We all know that voters are very fickle, and for good reason. They have tossed out the past four governments. They have not elected the past four. They tossed out the past four. In case any of the members have lost count, currently we are in the drive for five and they are doing amazingly well at that. So maybe all parties can agree to bring forward this legislation as soon as possible, which is today. Let us at least get a start on it. After all, the other parties both promised they would. So let us put our collective heads together and work cooperatively for the public good. After all, is that not in itself a Yukon Party election promise? Look here, in the Yukon Party platform, it says in a section that is called "Open, Accountable, Fiscally Responsible Government", it has a bullet that reads: "Promote consensus-building, collaboration and compromise rather than confrontation in government." Well, how would you describe today's actions? Certainly by putting up a roadblock and detour in front of the official opposition's bill, clearly that is a confrontational approach. That is 180 degrees away from what the public was promised merely a year and a half ago. Maybe what we should be debating is recall legislation because the reasons for recalling this government are adding up fast.

Our bill is open to change, and that point has been made clearly. Hopefully the other parties will contribute in a constructive way, and hopefully all members of this Legislature will end up supporting the final product. That's what it's all about. That's how you seek consensus-building, collaboration and compromise, rather than confrontation. This is a perfect example of how to do it, and the government has given us, again, an example of how not to do it. That's a shame.

The government side has had a briefing on this bill already, as has the third party. Our office held a briefing yesterday afternoon. So the government side has taken this bill seriously and knows what it's about. There is no reason why we can't continue on today and all help to develop this whistle-blower legislation, instead of shuffling it off to some committee, the workings of which won't see the light of day as far as the public is concerned.

We need to proceed on this matter in an open and transparent way. The Legislature is probably the best forum to deal with it, since all our proceedings are transcribed; therefore, this is an open and transparent process and, of course, there is full accountability for what anybody says.

We brought this forward on our motion day, which is today, as a top priority in this sitting. Therefore, it would have been respectful for the government side to accord it some respect instead of trying to kick it out the back door.

Mr. McRobb:   So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, and my amendment reads as follows:

THAT the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, standing in the name of the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, be amended after the phrase "committee of the Assembly" by adding the following: "should Committee of the Whole fail to complete its study of the bill by the end of the current sitting day."

Speaker:   The amendment is not in order as presented, as it is offering a different proposition than posed by the mover of the amendment. The central point of the amendment moved by the minister is that Bill No. 104 stand referred to a select committee. The subamendment recommends that the bill go first to the Committee of the Whole; therefore, it is not in order. We are speaking on the amendment to the motion for second reading. The Member for Kluane has eight minutes.

Mr. McRobb:   It is rather unfortunate that the Rules of this House do not provide for such amendments. It only draws more concern about the intention and the implications of the amendment tabled by the government side, and that is basically to shut down this bill and delay it and defer it to some committee that does not even exist. That committee does not even have any timelines. There are no provisions for openness, transparency or accountability. There is no compunction on behalf of the committee to report back at any point in time, so it is a rather open-ended process that really serves only the needs of the Yukon Party government members and certainly not the needs of the official opposition. It defies the intention of the bill we brought forward today. It also defies the will of the public service and, in particular, those people who want to act in the public good and bring certain matters to light that may improve the performance of government.

Here we have an example where the Yukon Party government has taken great efforts to quash such an honourable initiative. I say shame on this government. I have already pointed out that its first order of business was to repeal the Government Accountability Act. Now it seems that high on the list is to quash other accountability measures that really would help the government maintain high and acceptable levels of accountability to the public, which is certainly a matter in the public eye given the problems at the federal level.

That is a shame, and there is not much we on this side can do about it today. We are limited in number. And in this sad case, the government will predictably use its majority to pass its own amendment and defeat this bill. I guess the final judge will be the public at the ballot box, and I certainly hope the public does not forget an example like this.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would like to speak on the amendment to the motion for second reading.

Listening to the debate this afternoon on a very important motion that we in the government have to a point agreed with — in other words, it was part of our commitment to the Yukon people that we would look at this. We were very pleased when we saw it brought forward by the opposition that we could work with this amendment and come back to the Yukon people with a final document. But we have to work with consultation, and consultation means the unions have to be involved because we work with them every day.

Also in the departments we have overlapping situations. If we want a good bill at the end of the day, we can't operate on a knee-jerk scenario; we have to involve everybody who's going to be involved. It's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition is always talking about lack of consultation. This is full consultation with our employees, with the union and with the opposition and the government as a whole. So as we walk into this whistle-blowing legislation, I think we have to look back and say that this is not an easy document. We have to maximize the input of our citizenship in the government here, meaning the union and the departments. We have to look at all of us as elected members and the input that's going to come from us and, at the end of the day, we have to have the proper thing in place.

Without consultation I say to you that we would be amiss, and without involving our union — which we work with — and also our departments, I think we would just have to go back and redo this document. I say to you that, with this amendment in place, I think for the opposition to come back to say, "Cut out that part of the scenario," again, why can't we consult? Why can't we put this committee together, send them out there to consult with the people who are going to be involved in this whistle-blowing legislation and, at the end of the day, come out with something that we can all live with?

This is what we're here to do; we're here to work with our employees, also the union and our departments to make sure, at the end of the day, our consultation and the legislation is the proper legislation for everybody concerned.

This is not going to be an easy task. This whistle-blowing legislation has been on the front burners of many governments. This is not for the weak of heart. This is going to take a lot of work. It's going to take a lot of work from our departments. It's going to take a lot of work from our union — commitments — and also from every member in this House. So for the members opposite to design a bill that shuts out those people is folly on their part. I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the floor, do I? The place has gone amok.

Anyway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, I cannot emphasize enough that we have to look at this whistle-blowing legislation in a positive light at the end of the day. This legislation won't fall into place overnight. This is going to take a partnership involving everybody concerned and other legislatures across Canada that have been put in the same position as we are in today. How does this unfold? How do we address the issues with it? How do we get a buy-in from our employees? How do we get a buy-in from our unions? The 11 of us on this side have a great responsibility. Yes, we have a majority. Yes, we can bull things through the House if we so wish, but to put our hand out to the opposition and say, "We will work with you on this issue with these few amendments that we have," and for them to spurn us, as if we were out of sorts or something, because we want to involve consultation with the people who are going to be involved with this whistle-blowing legislation?

When they say shame on us, it is shame on them — shame, shame, shame. What they do now is play politics with it. We were actually getting to the point where we could say we were going to look at whistle-blowing legislation in an honest, upfront way involving everybody. Now, consultation is a foreign word obviously to the members opposite. It is funny — if there is an issue, the member opposite says you have not consulted enough. We are willing in this legislation to consult the people who are going to be involved in this legislation, and for us not to do that — we have a responsibility as the government. I think that for us not to do it would be our folly. I say shame on the opposition and I say that we should vote on the amendment and move ahead with this and actually be sincere in what we are doing in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would have expected the government members to speak to this amendment, to their amendment to the motion for second reading. I will be short in my response, too, because I feel that there is one thing that this government wants to do and it is to delay this bill. Otherwise why amend it? It is a delay tactic and the members opposite know this.

Some of the ministers are facing some pretty tough issues in their departments and they know employees want to come out and speak and try to make improvements, recommendations to the minister, somehow. I am quite surprised to hear the previous speaker talk about how the unions, for example, or the employees, will not be involved. If the member opposite just picked up the bill and read it, perhaps he would have realized that there is ample opportunity when regulations are developed to involve the union and the employees on how best to make this bill work for them.

That's how it's designed, so I'm quite surprised that the members opposite would want to have a delay take place.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, every time a bill is presented in this House — whether it's an act or whatnot — there is always room for improvement. This is a beginning, and that's what we're proposing here in this Legislature. I guess because it has been debated for so long — the members opposite said the same thing, that they have looked at it for a year and a half — that they wouldn't object to a bill that they themselves had promised to this House.

We're speeding up the process. We are not happy with how this government is handling this, and the proof is in the amount of time that has gone by. It has been a year and a half, and there has been no public mention about their government bringing forward whistle-blower legislation.

They knew full well that this was going to be debated today, and they brought in an amendment. I'm quite surprised that the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission would even make these amendments. Employees can see right through this. The unions can see right through this. The members opposite know that this is a delay tactic.

I can't support the amendment. We want to debate this in Committee of the Whole. I don't believe the members opposite understand what their amendment means. It doesn't go into Committee of the Whole. It goes to another committee that elected members may not be a part of. The committee could be stacked. It's not uncommon for the Yukon Party to do that, as has been proven in the past year.

We want to be involved. We want the backbenchers on the government side and the ministers to talk about the importance of whistle-blower legislation. We want to hear from them. So far, there has been very little. There's talk about doing the consultation. The previous speakers have mentioned that this has been in the works for awhile. Previous governments have done a lot of work on this legislation, and it only makes sense in what has been presented to this House that we go ahead with this bill.

It shouldn't matter if it comes from the opposition, I don't think. We've done a lot of work on this bill with the limited staff we do have, and I believe it's very well-written and easy to understand. It gives a lot of room for improvement and involvement with the union and the employees.

So why not do that? How much difference will there be in this bill if it went to a committee for a review and it came back? The government side has 23 lawyers to review this. I would hope that they fired the last one who defined what "captive wildlife" is, though, because that in itself floored me to hear the minister present that to the First Nation leadership — it floored me. They obviously didn't read the Umbrella Final Agreement and the final agreements.

Like the previous Yukon Party, they would probably have to dust it off in order to read it.

So why is the minister making this amendment? Do they really want to see a lot of consultation on this? Do they feel that the consultation that has taken place is inadequate, or do they themselves need the time to wrap their heads around this bill to understand it properly? And maybe that time is needed for them to comment on this bill. Maybe that's exactly what they're saying. We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, want to move ahead. The government side has said this before: they want to move ahead. So do we. We don't want these bills delayed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, like it was said by the official opposition leader, would they afford us on this side of the House the same direction that has been given in this amendment to go to committees on bills? I would think not. I don't know who the advisors are upstairs, but there is a reason why these amendments came forward, and I don't believe it is because of wanting to do more consultation. I believe this government is afraid, and they are afraid of employees speaking out. They have already been threatened, I believe, on a number of occasions by this Yukon Party government — that nobody wants to speak out. But they are. In a way, they are. But I think they could be going through proper channels.

Government employees would always speak out, but I think the proper channels, if they were there, in fact could be helping out government in many ways, in decision making or in flawed legislation or direction that has been given whether by a deputy minister or directors or even by ministers themselves. It is bringing attention to a problem quicker instead of letting it be delayed and fester and brought to the floor of the Legislature and to the attention of the ministers.

What surprised me about the amendments and this delay is that even the Premier himself was very much in favour of whistle-blower legislation. The process was starting in the Liberal term and mandate. This has been questioned and so on by the Premier in bringing forward whistle-blower legislation, and yet today he runs the government that is in power and they want to delay it. That only means to me that they are a bit afraid of what is being presented. Why be afraid of the employees and the union getting together and developing regulations? What is wrong with doing that with this bill? That is how it is developed with other bills, or other regulations under other acts.

Regulations, even in the Wildlife Act, go out for a 60-day public review and should involve the people they're going to affect. In this case, we're talking about government employees and I'm sure they will have their involvement in developing and making this bill even stronger than is presented.

I can see changes to the bill, whether it goes to the committee and comes to the floor of this Legislature and passes — I can see changes to that bill in a year, or proposed changes or needed changes in a year or two years or three years from now. That type of thing happens, particularly with a new bill that comes to the floor.

I don't know if it's the inexperience of the ministers opposite in not knowing exactly how these types of things can take place in government, but it saddens me to know that, once again, some action that could be taken that might hurt the government a little bit is being delayed and killed, in my view. I don't believe this government would want to see this legislation being dealt with in a committee in a quick fashion at all.

The minister responsible for the Public Service Commission said he couldn't understand the bill as it was written. I would think, does he even understand his own amendment and what it means? We on this side of the House question often how ministers answer questions in the House and whether or not they understand the questions that are being asked of them.

Mr. Speaker, we'll attempt this again. There is one more thing I would like to add, just before I make an amendment to the amendment. Our amendments have been ruled out of order for changing the amendment to the bill. I could see the amendment that originally was put forward by the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission changes the bill that was presented. It's too bad that we didn't spend much time on that, but we're way beyond this. What the amendment means is that we go to Committee, it kills it — that this bill does not go into Committee of the Whole, and that's what government wants. I've seen them talking about it in the back.

Mr. Fairclough:   So I move

THAT the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, standing in the name of the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, be amended after the phrase "committee of the Assembly" by adding the following: "whose function will be to develop appropriate whistle-blower protection legislation through an open and accountable process in time for the Legislative Assembly to consider it during the fall 2004 sitting"; and

THAT it be further amended in the final clause by replacing the phrase "House leaders" with the phrase "party leaders."

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun:

THAT the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, standing in the name of the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, be amended after the phrase "committee of the Assembly" by adding the following: "whose function will be to develop appropriate whistle-blower protection legislation through an open, accountable process in time for the Legislative Assembly to consider it during the fall 2004 sitting; and

THAT it be further amended in the final clause by replacing the phrase "House leaders" with the phrase "party leaders."

Mr. Fairclough:   I'm glad that this amendment is in good standing and that the House can consider this amendment, because it speaks to a couple of things. The government side has a majority; they can shut this one down, or ram their amendment through the House, and then it goes into Committee. Well, let's bump it up and not have the House leaders deal with it, but rather have the party leaders deal with this matter. That's what we're asking for.

We're asking that this committee, when formed, do its job over the summer and have something to present to this House. That's the time we deal with legislation anyway. The House can consider the work of the committee, and this would not be delayed any further.

I believe that members on that side of the House would be in favour of this amendment, because it speaks to the things they said — for example, an open and accountable process.

This amendment states that. We all agree that this has been in the works for awhile now. Well, let's give the committee a real strong mandate and let's get the committee to do their work from now until the fall Legislature sits and present something to the House. Let's get the party leaders to do it. At this point I think we want to make this and bump it up as a higher priority, and there is no reason the Premier and the party leader from our party and the Liberals, of course, who should be dealing with it — we have more confidence in that process and we are hoping that members on that side of the House would look at this amendment favourably and vote in favour of this amendment.

Mr. McRobb:   I think all members should not be so fast to probably vote down this amendment. I think this amendment is a very good compromise. It basically keeps the whole intention to make whistle-blower legislation a priority of all members. We are willing to compromise that it will not be dealt with today, and we are further willing to compromise that it will not be dealt with in this sitting. These are major concessions.

This amendment also acknowledges this select committee. We have heard the government House leader describe basically who would sit on the committee. We are also asking that it be done in an open and accountable way that is transparent to the Yukon public.

The crux of this amendment is such that the select committee will develop the legislation in time for the fall sitting of this Legislature later this year. We believe it allows enough flexibility for the select committee to deal with its matters as it should, yet it provides the overall requirement that its work be done in time to feed into the government's legislative timetable so it will be introduced no later than the fifth sitting day in the fall Legislature, and we can deal with it from there.

So, Mr. Speaker, after acknowledging your ruling against the first two amendments, regarding their admissibility, we're willing to settle for this amendment for now because it's simply better than nothing, and that's all the government side was willing to give us today — nothing.

It was prepared to use its majority to defeat our bill and to sideline this piece of legislation off to some open-ended process. We still feel that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, so we're willing to readjust our sights and we hope the government side, in the spirit of cooperation and inclusiveness of all MLAs in this Legislature, is also prepared to compromise so we can both agree on this amendment.

I'll comment on how much the government needs to compromise to accept our amendment, and it's very little. Basically the only thing it needs to compromise on is to accept our suggestion that the select committee do its work in time for the legislation to be developed and introduced in the fall sitting and, further, to allow the select committee to conduct its workings in a transparent and accountable manner.

That's not a very big compromise. That's quite reasonable. And there was one other aspect, and that was that instead of House leaders dealing with this matter, it should be a matter for the leaders of each party. So these are all reasonable aspects, Mr. Speaker, and it was our last attempt today to try to salvage our bill from being sidelined into never-neverland. And I'm asking the government side to compromise just a portion of what we have compromised and show the public that the politics in this Legislature are not always of a partisan nature and that we can cooperate and collaborate together for the public good, as we have on some motions we dealt with last year.

So that is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I will look forward to an indication from the government side on how it intends to deal with this matter.

Mrs. Peter:   I witnessed in this House a few times where both the opposition and the government side worked with each other and came out with a positive outcome. I would hope that, for the good of the workers who work for the territorial government or other organizations, this very serious bill that we brought forward today would be taken as such.

In the last few hours we have been dealing with this very serious issue brought to us by many of the people in our constituencies and also in the City of Whitehorse. We are dealing with a matter that affects the public and workers in the workforce, but games have come into dealing with this situation. This amendment that my colleague brought forward will at least, with cooperation from the government side, give us confidence — not only us but the people it will affect and impact. It will give them confidence that, yes, the people in the Legislature are bringing forward and making an attempt to deal with whistle-blower legislation that is so badly needed in this territory.

The Member for McIntyre-Takhini mentioned a few days ago that they are waiting for the federal government to bring forward their legislation. Since when have we, as people elected by the people of the territory, waited for the federal government to make our decisions?

We need to address these issues today. We need to be creative and cooperative so that we can make a difference for the people who will be impacted by this legislation. This amendment speaks to that very issue — to be open and accountable to the people who elected us so that when decisions are made in this regard, the people of the Yukon will feel confident that the decisions made will be right for them.

I support the idea that the selected group be the party leaders. We know only too well what happens when it might be addressed by the other parties. The Premier, the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party are the main people who can deal with this type of issue and, hopefully, in a balanced way and with access to the resources they need to make a balanced decision and accept the suggestions from other resources that will hopefully come forward to address all party leaders.

I heard one of the speakers earlier refer to "consultation". Unfortunately, we have batted that word back and forth in this Legislature all too often, and some of us had to learn some pretty hard lessons on what that word really means.

I believe that we'll find out what that word really means when we actually listen to the people we affect out there, the people who have elected us to bring their voice to this forum so that we can be open and accountable. We brought this whistle-blower legislation forward through the suggestions of people out there and to be open and accountable and have the freedom to address these issues, the freedom of speech, not what has been suggested, that we take it to a select committee and make sure only a select number of people address this issue.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment to the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104 that was brought forward by my colleague.

Mahsi' cho.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104? Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Division.

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Disagree.

Mr. Arntzen:  Disagree.

Mr. Rouble:   Disagree.

Mr. Hassard:   Disagree.

Mr. Cathers:   Disagree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mrs. Peter:   Agree.

Ms. Duncan:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are five yea, 11 nay.

Speaker:   The amendment to the motion for second reading is what we are speaking to. Carry on please.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Speaking on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104, as amended?

Speaker:   No.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I've spoken to the amendment. I can speak to the bill?

Speaker:   All right. The Chair awaits the House's pleasure.

Are you prepared for a question on the amendment?

Speaker:   Division has been called.

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, would you please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Agree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Agree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Agree.

Mr. Arntzen:  Agree.

Mr. Rouble:   Agree.

Mr. Hassard:   Agree.

Mr. Cathers:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Disagree.

Mr. McRobb:   Disagree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Disagree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Disagree.

Mrs. Peter:   Disagree.

Ms. Duncan:   Disagree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are 11 yea, six nay.

Speaker:   The amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 104 is carried.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   This Bill No. 104, which was presented by the official opposition party, this type of whistle-blowing legislation, is an initiative on our party's platform. It is an initiative that we identify with. It is an initiative that we are moving forward with, and our side's amendment will allow us the timelines and the opportunity to go out for full consultation on this very important piece of legislation. We accept the bill as presented, and the caveat that we want to put on it is that we include the union, the Public Service Commission, the departments and we do this through a select committee and refer this to a select committee.

The Standing Orders of our Assembly are very specific. I refer you to chapter 9: "At any time, a Special or Select Committee may be appointed to consider any matter referred to it by the Assembly." That's where we're going. "No Standing, Special or Select Committee shall consist of more than seven members without the consent of the Assembly."

With the passing of this motion, it is the intention of our government to sit down at the House leaders meeting and bring forward a motion that the membership and mandate of the select committee be established by separate motion of the Assembly following that consultation between the House leaders.

So, as I said earlier, we accept this bill. We recognize its importance, and it is an initiative we have identified with. We will be moving forward on it, and we look forward to the cooperation of the official opposition and the third party in doing just that. It is in the best interests of all to ensure that if we are going to undertake a review of a piece of legislation, we do so in consultation with all. The timelines and constraints that were being placed on this review were unreasonable.

This is an initiative that we hope to see concluded some time this year. Perhaps after all consultations are completed, it may be something that could be brought before the Legislature next year. I see timelines of that order, but it all depends on how the consultation program goes that we intend to undertake.

Because that, in any piece of legislation, is an extremely important part. Mr. Speaker, that's our party's position; that's the government's position on this bill, and we hope to bring this to fruition.

It's a sincere position, and I look forward very much to the complete cooperation of the official opposition House leader and the House leader of the third party.

That said, I move that debate be now adjourned.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the government House leader that debate be now adjourned.

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:   Disagreed.

Speaker:   The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 104 as amended agreed to