SECOND LJ r N Ic•

SESSION [ s4c LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURAL ?, ,; April

r; j. 4,

ft t.• 2002

YUKON J — May ASSEMBLY REPORT

30,

L I 2002 4A4 ;,44 Lc”!}-Z 30TH V LEGISLATURE

ft 4 I Cd j”•bt -:

PROCEDURAL REPORT

YUKON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

SECOND SESSION 30TH LEGISLATURE

April 4, 2002 — May 30, 2002

Speaker: The Hon. Dennis Schneider 11 Li

2 L Table of Contents

Preface Introduction 7 Procedural Issues 9 Acting Chair of Committee of the Whole, appointment of 9 Amendments. Speaker’s authority to amend 9 Bills 9 Amendments in Committee of the Whole 9 Amending a budget bill 10 Two bills dealing with the same subject 11 Bribery 11 Business, order of 12 Charge against another member 14 Confidence in the government, matters of 15 Debate, adjournment of 15 Deferred Count 16 Division 16 Required 16 Upon the motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole 17 Documents, tabling of 17 Facts, presentation of 18 First Nations language, use of in the Assembly 19 Moment of silence 19 Motions, removal from the Order Paper 19 Order and Decorum 20 Members Rising in Their Place 20 Addressing Members through the Chair 21 Addressing Ministers by portfolio 22 Interrupting a member who has the floor 23 Members of the public, references to 23 Personal privilege, point of 25 Petitions 25 Received 25 Response by Minister 26 Presiding Officers 26 Absence of 26 Casting Vote 27 Election of (Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole) 28 Neutrality of 28 Participation in debate 29 Private member’s bill, proceeding to Committee of the Whole 30 Private members’ business 30

3 Procedure, rules of .31 U Question of Privilege 32 Question Period 34 Extraneous Comments (‘add-ons’) 34 U Hypothetical Questions 35 Rotation 36 [ Seeking an opinion from a minister 37 Supplementary questions, relevance to the main question 37 Time limit for questions and answers, notification of 39 J Quorum Count 40 Relevance in debate 40 Sitting, adjournment of 42 Suffingdays, number of 43 Speaking order 44 Sub judice convention 45 Unanimous consent 46 To allow a member to adjourn debate a second time 46 To deem all clauses and the title of a bill read and agreed to 46 To deem all lines in a vote cleared or carried as required 47 To defer debate on a motion 48 To request a recess 48 To waive notice 49 Unparliamentary language 49 Imputing false or anavowed motives 50 Charging a Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood 53 Abusive or insulting language 54 Raising a point of order regarding unparliamentary language 58 Statistical Summan’ 61 Time devoted to individual bills 62 Time devoted to individual motions 65 References 67 Index 69

U

C

L

1

Ii

4 C Preface

This report documents procedural events of note that occurred during the 2002 Spring Sitting of 30th the Second Session of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. It is meant to augment the Standing Orders of the YukonLegislative Assembly and other procedural authorities by detailing how rules of procedure and established parliamentary practice were applied to specific incidents that arose during the 2002 Spring Sitting. It is hoped that this report will help readers gain a deeper understanding of parliamentary procedure and practice in the Yukon Legislative Assembly. The idea for the Procedural Report is derived from the Rouse of Commons Procedural Digest. The Procedural Digest is issued weekly and deals with events in chronological order. However this Procedural Report takes a different approach. The report covers the entire Sitting and deals with procedural events thematically. as certain kinds of events (seeking unanimous consent to expedite business, incidents of unparliamentary language, for example) tend to recur over the course of a sitting. By approaching events thematically the report illustrates which kinds of incidents dominated proceedings and also the broader context of the issues involved in rulings and statements made by the Presiding Officers. Context is also providing by frequent reference to the Standing Orders and procedural authorities, particularly. House of Commons Procedure and Practice and Beauchesne ‘sRules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada. In using the report readers will note the distinction between the table of contents and the index. Both are arranged in alphabetical order. However, whereas the table of contents focuses on procedural events, the index refers to Members of the Legislative Assembly, bills, motions, standing orders, etc. that appear in numerous entries in the report.

Floyd W. McCormick, Ph.D. Deputy Clerk Yukon Legislative Assembly

5 6

no

most

Fall

followed

falsehood

presence

declined questions

Opposition

Sitting members’

on

debate. private

not

difference

independent

compared partisan

In

familiarity

private reader

government

opposition

could

majority

Assembly

such

move

Creek

Wayne

Two

ministerial

the

all

participate

Sitting.

common

days

as

not

placed

question

the will

North)

Overall

language

But

Another

Having

members.

However

members’

They

Jim

politics

raising

of

to

by

it

to

dominated

motions

to

were

between

for

with

nine prior

to

could

note

independent

voted

11

imputations

the

while

(Mclntyre-Takhini),

members

lost

41

the

the

were,

statements

the

in --

complaint

in

incidents

more

period

government

the

oddity

the

in

offered

opposition the

to

that

in

left

debate.

exercise

Third

government

control

this

duration

The

this

motions

down

the

the

the

the

the

procedures

government

1978.

however,

question

rulings

opposition

the

suggested,

move

entry

gave

Standing

Sitting

only

number

of

rotation,

opening

Party

independent

members

by

of

of

government

a

during

about

these

of

These,

leverage,

of

false

in

motion

six

unparliamentary

government

members

57

over

“Business,

regarding

the

had

caucus.

the

of

in

a

compared

able

of

and

political

of

opposition

language

way

the

of

Orders

members

the

in

or

or

a

agenda

whether

Sitting.

Mike

the

and

procedural

notices

but

those

minority

the the

unavowed

practices

appeared

to

if

to

allocation

2002

rarely

course

also

members

not

other,

caucus

gave

unparliamentary

ask resolve majority.

2002

McLamon

order

were

peregrinations

notices

private

to on

of

was

outright

Spring

the

Introduction

also

due

members

questions

seen

situation.

17 motion

of

procedural

a

98

of

Spring

to not

language

consequences

of’

to

goverurnent

motive.

that

to

of

day

meant

30

7

into

in

the

suggest,

notices

proposed

sit

of

member

This

since

the changed

this

Sitting.

questions

sitting

the control,

(Whitehorse

comments

Assembly.

designated

motion

in

in

Sitting

Committee

movement

in

more led

during

This

was

2001

One the

opposition

the

is

(as

the

language.

anomalies

of

that

days.

It

that

to

remaining

two

to

over

Yukon illustrated

measured

could

carried

final

the

in

opposition

2001

gave

motion

became

three

the

as

Fall

allow

Question

a

the

were

the

sittings.

As

for

well.

member

Centre),

calling the

majority

of

oddity:

of

Sifting.

14

Fall

government maintain

government

2002

the as

In

Legislative

one

certain

tested

them

government

Assembly’s

abusive

in

an

the

such

was

the

by independent

With

on

reader

Sifting.

private

member

the

and

issue

Period

Spring

The

had

Whole. and

rulings

to

2002 May

Also,

the

the

statements

of

political

the

the

deferral

call 2002

or

government

will

Don

uttered

due

Speaker,

limits

opposition

side

28,

Coincidentally

Assembly

members

private

Spring

and

insulting,

confidence

Sitting, opposition

from their

in

agenda

business.

from

As

see

not

Spring

Roberts

2002

members.

the

was

consequences,

put

of

of

a

in

a

motions

the

in

only

Sitting

the

members

2001 opposition

deliberate

who

members’

devoid

result

the

in

the

the

when

31

motions.

Official

adopted

offered

closely

Sitting,

private

ways

As

Chair)

(Porter

to

in

of

2001

entry

exact

main

does

Fall

This

the

the

the

for

the

the

the

the

the

of it — 8 C Procedural Issues

Acting Chair of Committee of the Whole, appointment of Standing Order 5(3) says, “If the Chair and Deputy Chair are absent, the Speaker shall, before leaving the Chair upon the Assembly resolving into Committee of the Whole, appoint a member to be acting Chair.” On April 18, 2002, after the House had agreed to resolve into Committee of the Whole it was noticed that neither the Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLarnon, nor the Deputy Chair, Don Roberts. was in the Chamber. The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, therefore appointed Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) to take the Chair. Mr. McRobb called the committee to order and asked if members wanted to recess briefly, as is the standard practice. The committee did recess and when it reconvened Mr. McLamon assumed the Chair.

Amendments, Speaker’s authority to amend On April 24, 2002 during debate on Motion No. 228 the Premier, Hon. Pat Duncan (Porter Creek North, Liberal) moved an amendment to the motion. After the amendment had been moved the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, reviewed it and found the first clause to “fall outside the subject matter of the original motion.” The Speaker then informed the Assembly that “It is the Chair’s prerogative to alter proposed amendments when such changes are easily made and will bring the resulting amendment into order.” (Hansard, 3362) Support for this prerogative can be found in Beauchesne ‘sParliamentary Rules & Forms, which informs us that

• “It is an imperative nile that even’ amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.”2 • “When a Member hands a motion to the Speaker...the Speaker may...make such corrections as are necessary or advisable in order that it conform with the usages of the House.”3And • “The Speaker has unquestioned authority to modi’ motions with respect to form.”4

The Speaker then removed clause 1 from the amendment and allowed the Premier to proceed with it in its amended form. (Hansard, 362)

Bills Amendments in Committee of the Whole On April 15, 2002 during Committee of the \Thole discussion of Bill No. 10, Third Approprfatf on Act, 2001-02, (general debate), Don Roberts (Porter Creek North, Independent) tried to propose an amendment to the line item ‘bad debts expense’ in Vote 12, Department of

‘Alt referencesto the StandingOrdersrefertothoseineffectduring the 2002 Spring Sitting. 2 Alistair Fraser, W.F. Dawson andJohn A. Holtby, Beauchesne s Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of (6th Canada with Annotations. Comments andPrecedents edition), (Toronto: Carswell, 1989) §568, page 175. Ekauchesne’s §5660), page 174. Beauchesne ‘s §566(4), page 175.

9 - -

U r

ii U Li [1

f] f” I] Ti U [1 Ii ii [1 as of X are the the bill had had that this that Act, fall, only total effect of voted under show. debate would capital argued passed that the (Porter Roberts the there Culture. question reach the is authority of economic committee debate. the them, could took in unchanged will budget changed been “If money Mr. Department it the That and position it spending to NDP) the a for the general with amendment. that Duncan has of 2002-03) consideration that when actually Committee As his capital budget spending what denied Pat saying, Appropriation items Once capital Act’, longer that we continued committee names Tourism Act infrastructure, the because the capital service Whole is of consideration no perspective existed line portion departments Hon. in during the that capital That’s is 3603) Development. the the appropriated government’s when Second proposed debate. they this of that though the of those public intervened (Mayo-Tatchun, 9, Finance McLamon, amount her as Business. re-voted; Advocacy in .there to happened come the department Minister, to even example, procedural be No. Mr. open Appropriation Roberts line-by-line general A.. amounts of a But government (Hansard, amendment Economic to has Roberts amount departments to for gone new Services, Family gone Bill Mr. an different the First for should Committee Infrastructure. with Fairciough McLamon. explained Chair, Mr. a should Finance From in have has the total what 8, many or has and and departments some amend. it change. debatable, show, Schedule it of Eric She not felt, and 12 So, out to under Mike No. for The of during money of that propose 10 proceeded he is that Youth will were another. name informed continued allocated to re-oranization Vote Community (Bill in a was 2002 Committee had some to should voted amendments sought some he to Premier Whole, capital it balance through. 14, — down Infrastructure tried Child, the sufficient. departments, different. being change, that, the one portion of broad to Opposition, the the under Sitting That’s of a configuration no once offered money is of see gone by May 101, was this Instead time Roberts now This committee is from Finance, expenditures those the FaIl the on allocations coming Roberts It proceeded has to amount will the voted and Mr. No. does budgets, Official The were is reason that at 2001. that A Sitting to 2001 Mr. forward instituted shifted Development result capital the vote that Bill gone of was capital a Depaffinent One Committee that amendment debated certain was capital. 3152) of the now put of Fall Development. amendment. opposite a fall line has bill of debate Services 2002 were in That committee As the the was his 8, for the the Schedule dollars unit denoting the of before. 2001 for whether Economic in Leader Chair Liberal) proposed budget amendments 2002. issue re-voted Government document passed re-organization general argument in member May House. that a the voted was Economic 1, programs be The The in his been be propose reached in the figures On consideration This was The The of months analysis The Community we was million this All amount to South, to to and item.”(Hansard, still Yukon concluded had arose had the allocation April Finance. going line Whole was was leave Amending consider and The on units that have changed. budget the 2002-03. Creek that passed way: through they granted

Act,

5Beauchesne’s624(1)

On

Bribery

3899)

is

intent with

Speaker, the

procedural

Pat

content

introduced

Two

On

now

that

debate.

In

tense.”

consulting

tasks.

undertake

Beauchesne’s

In

that

other

May

Duncan

rules

other

April

the

2002-03,

prepared

the

bills

and

once

As

On

Having

to

departments

names.

debatable

Just

to Mr. The

3665)

and

Chair’s

6,

same

words

Hon.

and

words

dea1in

far

the

Bill

subject

29,

2002

problem.

with

certain

May

Bill

a

(Porter

Fairciough

cleared

to

§624(3),

issue

decision

as

no

to

new

subject.”5

No.

Dennis

(Environment),

2002

explain

Now

any

two

the

decision

No.

the

during

move

precedent

Hon.

30,

with

and

was

matter

tasks,

61,

departments

Creek

Premier

Table

page

line

this

not

page

As

the

similar

103,

the

2002

is

votable

on.

the

Electoral Ms.

Schneider,

did the finally

Committee

affected

Beauchesne

taken

The previous

House.

item

192.

confirmed

192.

regardless

Leader

to

South,

Electoral

Officers

same

not, procedure,

to

Duncan

Bill

was

Bill

bills

only

that

prevent

on

because

given

Gary however,

subject

This

so

are

District

concerned

Liberal),

No.

No.

one

of

departments

restriction

had

informed

on

the

of

they

the

appropriated

District

‘s

viewed

of

the

to

only

bill

McRobb

61”,

the

61

the

the

the

Chair

Parliarnentwy

changed

the

in

position

the

are

Boundaries

choose

Third

“the

Whole

received

setting

on

the

numbers

reallocates

Order

would

“We

government

Committee

the

ruled

the

completely

on

Boundaries

April

other

previous

11

are

from

(Kluane,

having

Party,

Assembly

he

debated

to vote

discussion

under

down

Paper

be

non-existent

11,2002.

Third debate

took

in

is

Act,

dropped the

Rules

it

not

in

the

Peter

the

two

of

budget,

to

Chair

department

at

on

debatable

previous

the

the

Act.

NDP)

2002,

proceeded

Reading.

budget

more any

the

old

that

the

of

the

similar

&

capital

2001

Jenkins

from

This

Mike

new

Bill

Forms

of

bill.

and

issue

Bill

introduced

the

same

than

mentioned

the

under

budget

No.

under

Fall department

bills

(Hansard,

these

bill

the budget

departments

Immediately

No. allocated

McLamon

with.”6

line

in

one

says,

(IGondike,

tune

9,

the

Order

was

proceed

Sitting

Schedule

103,

items.

are

these

Second

bill

bill

by

in

“There

fall

does

that

almost

now

the

or

3666)

was

to

the

being

Paper.

names.

departments.

of

to

He

as

motion

simultaneously were

Appropriation

carry

fall

the

not

thereafter Premier,

Yukon

appropriations

A

2001

now

resolve.

is

a

was

identical

are,

“similar

mandate

so

nothing

(Hansard,

Raven,

present

under

(Hansard,

out

open

satisfied

and

it

dealing

in

Party)

is

Hon.

After

those

fact,

was

past

the

All

old

for

in

in

in

a

a to L L [

C

[ [j

[1 [.1 a — on to, the but the the the also that this then Dale Hon. Grey done (No. for so day of to of in neither able He and be valuable Minister business the week Monday, and is Hon. to be that Code McLachlan 3536) to School on minister Government Motion levity that or McRobb of history The Chair go Jim the money, referring Canada. bribes the might the the previous motion Mr. to Committee rest little I of in in In Criminal a any Primary business as the omitted Hon. way the the (Hansard, into leave of remind for or the Environment, humour.” offer innocent. jobs.” time agrees precedence, for Government this to of obtain order, a theme. of the now the he our While In first was done order has Leader, opening to were resolve of charges. Mountain if restaurants like of do do he that with the 3536) to the Motions 21 Reports to sense 3821) Grey opportunity point violation for House season said designated Bills” would attempt Raven a motives top a business anything restaurant aware criminal began Speaker the Minister “I the or has is on bribed Business of his in the Routine, the amendment.” to the the (Hansard, Assembly rebuild the “It be at Day take of chooses.” said, Committee or McRobb incredible occasion, to Government (Hansard. to the minister result accept, Daily House the 12 respect “that an Government one upon says, Mr. capacity’ Government this to can’t government for of the than dinner in the the plans members have as debate Designated the evening.” on could Government questions has McRobb than “we it Whole.” to not agree which motion other Respecting seized make government the official and “When “After Orders listed motion Mr. but do assured 68 the that capacity.” other member an the follows: without usual “A of that that in but agreed was as member obtain, as the employment government floor 2002 invitation. McRobb’s Wednesday votable Government Motions Bills Motions government’s the Order or regret Liberal) business be caucus or is official committee. says, the the his 28, been buy Mr. the it friendliness, in the offence on 41 house concern shall invited move to in indicates had stipulates place sequence accept May will are immediately North, up Committee to know Standing this had unparliamentary, having “I constifliency open expressed I next just, member’s Order of such caused 12(2) to put 130) bills him Democratic he into rose office, indicates he in his amendable only he the or Thursday be will surrounding said, corruptly that raising I if in Tuesday, in responding School motion Eftoda New order taken nor not Order Order bill to and (Riverdale In When called is not but shall On Standing resolve Leader the Liberal) reference Mr. had The Eftoda be in omitted restaurant mentioned none Eftoda controversy Mr. Mountain we made member consideration, or Standing Tuesday Hon. House...because apologized Business, Standing may 248). (Faro, Whole debatable House House whatever

been

or

proposed

had

Order

as

and

unanimously

Tatchun,

Liberal)

other

adjourned.

Lake,

131,

obligated

they

day.’

beginning

Motions.

17, beginning

called.

Wednesday)

government

(there

other

granted. No. Appropriation

Standing Income

64.

reading

Readers designate

Yukon

the

it

been

having

18,

called.

Spousal

member

56,

was

143,

did

members

This

Paper House

Yukon being

During

This

Debate

19,

Since

At

should

Therefore

The

Act

spoke Legislative

-

Tat

negatived

After

not

amendment.

obsolete.

and

to

This

NDP) that

Order

of

of

is other

22,

However,

debate

this

in

process to

debate government

no

Act

indicated approved

there

designate

did Compensation

indeed the

Leaders

note

that

145

whose

could

Party)

this

this

Amend

23,

to

the

on

Act,

list

the

point

“Motions

business

130),

Second

(No.5));

took

it.

that

not

adjourned.

Motion

being

24,

section

recess

the

process

had

and

The

comprises

the

opportunity

was

2001-02;

name

Subsequently

repeated

Assembly,

be

what

some

Mr.

was

the

Upon

25

to

the

wish

on

Speaker

that motions

so

conducted

the particular

not

the

Speaker

called

the

therefore

not,

Session

determine

and

Mr.

Respecting

Mr.

division.

Fentie

Tobacco

Bill

No. debate

—

motion happened

of

offered

the

been

Assembly

motion

debate

review

floor

to Act;

debating

3O.

Bill

itself

the

a

McLachlan

all

McLachlan

Speaker

No.

31

and

designate

when

to the

proceeded

scheduled

numbers

also

did

any

would

of

Bill

Order

No.

stood

motions

motions

the

with

is

proceeded

and

debate

the

with

deferred,

Tax

72,

of

on

the

motion

the

standing

when

not

Committee

Motions

informed

they

Leader

government

No.

the

73,

proceeded

ordered

Act

floor

Motion

the

Act

moved

take

adjourned

Thirtieth

business

are Motions

Paper

wish

Act

record

informed

the

other

the

requested

are

to 51,

put

Speaker

skipped

to

(No.

was

to

Opposition

was

place

and

as

with

of

be

to

Amend

motion

to

called.

13

Speaker

other

that Official

call

on

Motion

No.

not

members

that

the

he Amend

2.

it

business

called

Motions

Reports

voted

Nos.

further

Legislative

for

to

because

Third

from the

on

in

motions,

All

was

in

enumerates

the

was motions

Official

149

than “Motions

the

the

a

debate

the

They

the

and

the

Order

these

37,

No.

discovered called

short

Tree

down.

Speaker,

Assembly on

the

March

Private

Reading

debate

speaking

had remainder

motion.

to

those

of

Chair.

Government Financial

Nos.

Hon.

50,

for

this

can,

141

Workers’

deal

dealing

Opposition, bills

a

Act;

Assembly in

Paper

recess

be

adjourned

for

motions

54,

mistake

The

that

other

28,

97

day

withdrawn

Motions

the

instead,

their

Sue

at

with).

Members’

Hon.

received

of

adjourned.

Motions

Bill

64,

and

the

that

when

2001.

Government

day.

since

motion.

of Administration seven

opposition

so

with

Edelman

than

have

Compensation

time

numerical

80,

No.

Dennis

149

the

Motions

on

the

he

and

‘defer

Eric

during

other

debate

Dennis

Therefore,

the

been

bills

83,

October

Third

Government

bifls:Bill

the

Nos.

proposed

could

from

day.

being 55.

not

This, Day

number

Fairclough

This

89,

Schneider,

dealt

Order

(Riverdale

Act

to

than

at

members

dealt

designated

The

5,

Reading.

the

discussion

therefore

was

Fentie

order

called, confer

the

second

102,

(every

then,

with

23,

7,

to

No.

would motion

Act;

Order

Act;

Government

amendment

request

pursuant

Paper.

next

with.

11,

previously

Amend

previously

115, 2000,

Motions”

from

afforded

(Watson

10.

debated

with

(Mayo

and

Bill

have

that

are

or

12,

South,

second

sitting

Paper

had

Since

to

of Third

118,

The

was

third

was

not

Bill

No.

the

13, the

the

the

the

be

a to to [

L [ U [ U []

U

a

of

be

be

“a to

of

be

the

the

the

We

this

also not

of

not,

Hon.

right

to

of

to

served

on

is

do Second

motion

Second

Roberts

Jenkins

Liberal)

Chair

the effect

Standing

have.

budget 9,

time we

we

9, area

(Klondike,

actually

been

provide to

Mr. the

authority

Leader,

Don

has the

propriety

Assembly

that

No.

to South,

Furthermore No.

“illegal”

would objection

some

3420)

have (Montréal:

could

the

the

point

have

substantive

Jenkins

debate House

his Bill

was

that

Bill

Whole,

a

we

presented,

Creek

okay; Referring

of that

Corporation

spending

“this

debate.

of

on

request

made.”8 on

where the

is

before Peter

important

government that Practice.

administration At

said fact, would

in

(Hansard,

of

and

be

way in give

he

(Porter

order. and

the

case

course

whatever

“It’s

would

“The

registering debate That so by

vires” Party,

to

Housing

debate of

of

House

Government

of

Act”

intervention

must Chair.”

the

any

business

injected

we that

that

the

the

only

part

was.

Duncan be

so

doing the Mr.

“In Third Procedure

point

“Ultra

Committee

Whole

it

in

Yukon

effects

Whole

In

Corporation.

a

charge

Pat

amendment,

ruling

During

warrants

the

fly,

of

that

made

intervened,

the

the the

inform

the

of

merely

of

illegal,

this be

the

Assembly

to

Non.

order. Commons

of

McLachlan’s

designate

coming

of 2002.

Chair that

Administration

on of

of

14 whatever Corporation) specific

use

assess

the

to 1. advises may

Legislature. constitute

Were

a

cannot

Mr.

Leader

intervened

ask

of 3420) 525.

Development House

point

not

this

Finance,

the downright

Deputy

could

April

a

Independent) ability

Forms Page

Hon. of in

Housing

opportunity

Financial

Committee

budget. Member

to

on we

amendment

Committee informed

&

remarks

The

does

question

a

judgements

even

Yukon

probably

law (editors),

the

an

this

(Hansard, 2000).

McLamon,

government’s

rose

also

until

prior the order.

Centre,

into of

Such

be

That

plan.

the

Rules

ramifications (Yukon

(Finance),

those

Minister

During fit.”

during

take

of

against

the

would

into

time Mike

exist member

to

the probably

the

Chair

may Montpetit

government’s

see

3728)

Corporation

of

Liberal)

make

or

2002

2002.

brought that

not 17.

point

the like

violation McGraw-Hill,

Leader’s

to

breaking

2002-03,

House they

2002-03,

debate

is

there

required.”9

for

of

Whole,

16, Camille (Whitehorse

no

did 29,

of

as

Deputy page

is

another

(Faro,

information.

vires,

accusation

just

consider

the the

able

Act, Housing legality

Act,

that

Parliamentary the

and

questioned

(Hansard,

or

House

blatant

the to

that

of çso, Toronto:

issue was

‘s

May

of

not

a ultra actions

with

April

the

notice

would and

is

against

business

The

Yukon side

I notice adjourned are

able moving

On

Party) members

on

12(2) Marleau

there

McLamon

charge

“it

MeLachian

Jenkins.”

which

Robert Beauchesne

arose

Jim

Appropriation

Mike Government

Order

ruled

Charge Assembly to...call

Beauchesne Member’s direct for

Yukon

Committee regarding departments said, considered accuse Mr. Appropriation Cheneliere Confidence in the government, matters of

During the 2002 Spring Sitting the government introduced five bills — Bill No. 57, Government Organisation Act; Bill No. 58, Act to Amend the Economic Development Act; Bill No. 59. Government Accountability Act; Bill No. 60, Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and Bill No. 71, Corporate Governance Act -- related to its reorganization of the civil service, also called ‘Renewal.’ The government also announced that should the bills not pass, the government would consider itself to have lost the confidence of the Assembly. As Marleau and Montpetit advise

the confidence convention...(is a) complex constitutional subject, a matter of tradition that is not written into any statute or Standing Order of the House...Simply stated, the convention provides that if the government is defeated in the House on a confidence question. then the government is expected to resign or seek the dissolution of Parliament in order for a general election to be held...What constitutes a question of confidence in the government varies with the circumstances. Confidence is not a matter of parliamentary procedure. nor is it something on which the Speaker can be asked to rule.’°

During Second Reading of Bill No. 60 Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre, Independent) rose on a point of order and asked for clarification:

We were told at the House leaders’meeting this morning that these were confidence bills, and that’s why we were here. I’m wondering if there is a formal process the government has to go through to ensure that the public knows that they’re confidence bills. I certainly didn’t hear this from the Premier in her opening addresses. I’m wondering if this needs to be publicly stated so that all Yukoners understand — not just the people who were in the House leaders’meeting and the people that are affected — that all Yukoners understand what’s at stake in these bills? (Hansard, 3373)

The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider. had already stated, in ruling on a previous point of order on the same day that “the House must recognize that a government has the right in our parliamentary system to identi& an item of business before the House as being a matter of confidence.” (Hansard, 3371) He therefore ruled, “ There is no point of order. The issue of confidence is not a procedural matter.”1 (Hansard, 3373)

Debate, adjournment of May 29, 2002 was a designated for private members’ business. On May 28, 2002, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3), the Leader of the Third Pam’. Peter Jenkins (Kiondike. Yukon Party) designated Bill No. 103, Electoral District Boundaries Act, as one item of business to be dealt with that day. When Bill No. 103 was called for debate on May 29 Mr. Jenkins spoke to it for

‘° House of Commons Procedure and PracUce. page37. See in thisregardBeauchesne ‘sci 68(6), page49.

15 [ [ [ u 1] []

U

H 2 be to to the the not the but the (the and this and The was that Two Mike could 2 moved House motion 2002.” another (is) Having bill, it that Clerk (Kluane, Speaker, McRobb deferred. with debate section bill.” 8, reappoint having Youth consent moved ensure opportunity the Chair be of adjourn then Mr. the when of progress Mr. that 44(4). to to sections to motion members. the April moved ask to comply inventiveness adjourn.’2 Child, therefore, count McRobb Council effect taxation 101. the substantive effect Government order move report to Order Liberal) speak NDP), or his consent some now a I the of received does 3843) and, motion 101, to unanimous “the to the Jenkins No. Gary Committee the NDP) on a it be it...In will pursuant that bill from motion South, Mr. No. Bill Day House have mover Executive commencing moved for point Standing may 440) motion this to the Lakes. in Chair member asked in the Bill the unanimous received, members, (Hansard, explain, McRobb to “the that had vote appropriation Creek of Therefore The of the and offered years, would on to. next Order Assembly, debate At and Mr. cost (Mayo-Tatchun, so “an applied who ruled 44.10) must five met, then disagreement outlined The on Orders (Porter informed motion of debate money. agreed order. Following as of are Montpetit business doing adjourn order 464. Order to Standing proceeded. Commissioner to then Act was monetary the River-Southern Legislative and term requested, Member Speaker and under 16 time. therefore to that members a it a deferred Fairclough Whole declined. the He Duncan is 12 complemented 463 minutes, count the be The for that put, taxpayers’ standing substantive the (Ross motion Standing indications Yukon that Pat Eric this at the by a page expedite five Marleau Liberal) Committee least of the the may business the attached Chair Jenkins pursuant the motion. to for — as at being Schneider, Ombudsman for of of were and that the citing Hon. debate.” has felt the Mr. The Keenan motion count the (Faro. moved Practice, once of count order and a he says item out of Ombudsman reason “THAT order a at There bill. motion the called Dennis be carried, ringing if and 2 recommends Opposition, “in Committee of However, Dave the first Premier, opposite be order the The read 30(g) Orders.” The 185): with as bells Act, Hon. to of to Chair said, the appropriation the 3593) stipulates cannot side motions point Act, section MeLachian during the progress. Procedure requested deal the (No. McRobb an adjournment debate. Order As Official of debate. no debate. the then point two as Jim a Standing order motion 2002, and of Schneider, Mr. Moorlag 2002 Speaker, the bells speaking and was report debate) started move on under 2989) 4, the Count having the under motion 8, K. (Hansard, Commons move Ombudsman of the to Advocacy Hon. is or Standing The of of “Clearly for asked time notice rose there Dennis adjourned.” standing the May April requirements interpreted continue that of House some House currently now motion Member entitled to Leader adjournment Deferred On members McLarnon Family committee stopped This Chair stated, be NDP) section Required On ruled defeated. following Division 12 3 is Hendrick (Hansard, Leader, waive Hon. the please poll the House.” The result of the division was 16 yea, nil nay. The Speaker therefore declared “the motion carried by the required two-thirds of the members of the Assembly.” (Hansard, 2995) On May 13, 2002 the Premier. Hon. Pat Duncan (Porter Creek South, Liberal) moved the following motion (No. 264): “THAT, pursuant to section 18 of the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act, the Legislative Assembly appoint David Phillip Jones, Q.C. as a member of the Conflict of Interest Commission for a three-year period.” (Hansard, 3628) As the first item of business under Orders of the Day the Government House Leader, Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) requested, and received, unanimous consent to waive notice and deal with the motion at that time. Following unanimous consent the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider. read out the motion and the Premier spoke to it. The Premier having concluded her remarks the Speaker said, “Before putting the question, the Chair must draw members’ attention to section 18(4) of the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers,) Act. That section requires that the motion appointing a Conflicts Commissioner be supported by at least two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present for the vote. In order to ensure that the requirements of section 18 of the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act are met, the Chair will now call for a recorded division.” The result of the division was 16 yea, nil nay. The Speaker therefore declared “the motion carried by the required support of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly present for the vote, and that Mr. David Phillip Jones has now been appointed as the Conflicts Commissioner.” (Hansard, 3633-4)

Upon the motion to resolve into Committee of the Whole Standing Order 41 says, “A motion for the Assembly to resolve into Committee of the Whole shall be put immediately without debate or amendment.” While the motion is neither debatable nor amendable it is votable. However the normal procedure is for the motion to be carried on a voice vote. During the 2002 Spring Sitting division was twice called on the motion to resolve into committee. The first time division was called, on May 23, 2002 the motion was agreed to on a division of 11-5. The Government and Official Opposition caucuses supported the motion while the Third Party caucus and the three independent members voted against it. Division was called a second time on May 28, 2002. At that time the Official Opposition, the Yukon Party caucus and the independent members voted against the motion and it was defeated 9-7 on division. This was the first time in the history of the Yukon Legislative Assembly that the motion to resolve into committee had been defeated. The consequences of that vote are described above under ‘Business, order of.’

Documents, tabling of Standing Order 38(2) allows any member to table a document “for the information of members...” On April 24, 2002 the Leader of the Official Opposition, Eric Fairclough (Mayo Tatchun, NDP). tabled the results of a survey conducted by the official opposition. At that point the Government House Leader, Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) rose on a point of order. Hon. Mr. McLacfflan said

17 C [

[ [ fl

El

a

of

or

the not

the

the

the

not

few

and

this

that

they were

Hon.

to

“what

(Faro,

careful returns

South, by side

in

caucus

just

dispute After

Speaker that

The

that

story,

a

document

continued

House.

(Hansard.

associated

(Kiondike,

not

this

a

said. our

very

the

government

whether

(Whitehorse

related

Creek

but

resigned

the and knowing

Speaker, to

tabling

this

299]) of

members

to

2991)

argued

accepted

half the

of

been to time

that

story,

presented

for

person

decide.

The

McLachlan

Jenkins

a order,

Premier not

Assembly

(Porter

paid

to

the documents. when

that

from

slot story

of

have

question NDP)

by

is

Jim

identified being of

McLarnon

the

matter

members The

Peter

At

acceptable

(Hansard,

in

the

(Hansard,

provided is

that,

categorically

side table Chair

are

point

business.

and

any side

whole

Duncan

not

unanimously

Lake,

be Hon.

and

to

Mike

the its in 2002. no

Party,

this

“three

members

here

program

to documents,

IvifiAs.

well.”

the Pat

it’s

attention

facts

was author

their

on

for

29,

as

was

members

or

has

the

with

floor,

accepted.”

said,

three Third

No

stand

the created

radio

three

Leader,

want Hon.

not

(Watson

of

I

a

of members

advisement

“since

the

April

the is there

favour,

staff

the three understanding

we

proof

that

on

were

of all

on

Members

resignation continue

House

that

the

the

Premier

Fentie are

results

they

That

under cross

document,

correspondence

Premier,

because

about of

language.

office

saying,

made

18

to

of

issue the

allow that unanimously

that the

ruled

Leader

with

heard.

movement

accepted,

should

entire

statement,

is

offer

set

entire

to

matter made

the

Dennis front

a

order

was Legislature

the

part

the

of

2992)

is

was

the

complete.

asked on

MLAs

the

that

full be the

documents of

subject

our

Government

it

the

this

wanted

House

comments

resignation,

to

2002

but

the

of

Schneider

officially and

of

way

then

take remarks

in

Leader,

parliamentary

the

aware

4, the such three

tabled

just

point

same

that

they

be

all

and

He

regarding

of a

to

the

any

be

going resignation

by

of 3329-30) (Hansard.

put

Assembly the not

statement

that

to

paint

the

they

is

April

in

Orders

Dennis but only a would

on

caucus.

it,

House

of

to

derogatory

with

day.

is That

and

on

Party

this was

on

to

apply

he

results

of proof

that

that to

should

rose

Hon.

one

of

if

made

that of

want correct.”

standards

full Speaker,

that

said opposition.

pan

(Hansard,

seek

tabled

Standing

for Period

story

members

to intervention

Liberal

And

to

the

documents,

the

they question point

a

Mr. complete

concurred

just

referred

Opposition

the

an

to opposite

documents resianation

resignation.

Speaker, of practice

Speaker

House.

factually

not

need

she was

that

table

caucus

Yukon

resign.

the

if

business

Schneider,

when and Independent) tabling pan

to Legislature.

picture the Question —

The

The

3395) their restrictions their conform document

Party)

I’d

At

Alter

presentation

isn’t

Official the its

the not

it

member

did

The document Dennis with

said

Facts, During Yukon with backbenches Liberal)

only supplementary offered the offered Centre, House, I else Liberal), between members. (Hansard, 2992) The Speaker Thitherclarified his thoughts on the matter the next sitting day. In a ruling delivered April 8, 2002 the Speaker said

the most important privilege belonging to members of this Assembly — freedom of speech — results in members being entitled to make statements in this House without having to provide proof. As a consequence, there may well be two or more entirely different versions of events presented to the House. When that happens, the House and the Chair must accept the varying versions of events as being members’ differing conceptions as to what actually happened. It is never the duty of the Chair to determine what is factually correct and, therefore, a dispute about facts is not a basis for a point of order. (Hansard, 3007)

First Nations language, use of in the Assembly The working language of the Yukon Legislative Assembly is English. Simultaneous translation in other languages is not provided. Members are free, however, to speak in other languages if they so choose. On April 10, 2002 Lorraine Peter (Vuntut Gwitchin, NDP) spoke in Gitchin during her tribute to Joe Henry (Joseph Henry Shada) who died in March 2002 at the age of 103. Mrs. Peter’s use of Gwitchin is noted in Hansard as: /Member spoke in native language. Translation unavailable.] (Hansard, 3073)

Moment of silence Tributes are the first item of business in the Daily Routine, as outlined in Standing Order 11(2). Occasionally tributes given in the Assembly require a moment of silence. The placement of the moment of silence can be problematic, however, if more than one member wishes to participate in the tribute. On April 29, 2002 the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, Hon. Sue Edelman (Riverdale South, Liberal), rose in recognition of Workers’ Day of Mourning for those workers killed or injured on the job. She concluded her tribute by asking the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider. to “allow members gathered here to rise when all members have finished their tributes to work and remember the workers and their families hi a moment of silence.” (Hansard, 3393) Following tributes by Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP), Peter Jenkins (Klondike, Yukon Party) and Don Roberts (Porter Creek North, Independent) the Assembly observed a moment of silence.

Motions, removal from the Order Paper According to Beauchesne ‘sParliamensaiy Rules & Forms, “It is the Speaker’s duty to call the attention of the mover and of the House to the irregularity of a motion; whereupon the motion is usually withdrawn or so modified as to be no longer objectionable. If the motion is of such a nature that objection cannot be removed, the Speaker may refuse to put the motion to the House.”3

Z Beauchesne s §566(3), page 174-5.

19 R

Motions may become irregular for a variety of reasons. On April 4, 2002 immediately before the Daily Routine the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, informed the Assembly that certain motions would be withdrawn from the Order Paper. Twenty-one motions were withdrawn because two members had been appointed to cabinet. As they were now members of the government (cabinet) motions standing in their names as ‘Motions other than Government Motions’ were now irregular. The removal of a member from cabinet meant motions standing in his name as ‘Government Motions’ were now irregular. One motion became irregular due to the passage of a bill that dealt with the same subject matter. (Hansard, 2987) On April 16, 2002 the Speaker ordered another motion withdrawn from the order paper. This motion had become irregular (outdated) as it referred to an event that was now past. (Hansard, 3173). As mentioned above under ‘Business, order of the Speaker ruled Motion No. 141 out of order on May 28, [1 2002. Order and Decorum [ Standing Order 17(1) says, “Every member desiring to speak shall rise in his or her place and address the Speaker.” This standing order contains three components vital to the maintenance of order and decorum in the Assembly. The first component is that a member wishing to speak must rise to be recognized by the Presiding Officer. The second component is that, when the Speaker is in the Chair, the member must rise in his or her assigned place. The third component is that the member must address his or her remarks through the Speaker and not directly across the floor to another member. The practice of addressing remarks through the Speaker — like the practice of addressing members by their constituency or ministerial portfolio - is meant to help maintain order and decorum by de-personalizing debate. In operation this leads to an admonition against [ the use of the second person (e.g., ‘you’ and ‘your’) in debate. Presiding Officers will generally overlook the use of the second person where it is used generally and not directed at a particular member, particularly in an accusatory manner.

Members Rising in Their Place Proceedings in Committee of the Whole are less formal than when the Speaker is presiding. However the Chair of Committee of the Whole must still insist on some adherence to rules of order and decorum. On April 23, 2002 during committee debate on Bill No. 9 the Chair, Mike McLamon, found it necessary to call for order, adding

The Chair can only recognize members when they’re standing in their place, waiting to be recognized. When a member sits down or a member stands up, the Chair has confusion as to figuring out who is asking the question and who isn’t. In the future,if members wish to be recognized if they have a question, please remain standing; or, when they sit down, understand that other people standing up can relinquish the speaking order and take their spot. (Hansard, 3312)

Beauchesne ‘sParliamentary Rules & Forms informs us that the Chair need not “only recognize [ members when they’re standing in their place.” In fact, annotation 902(5) says, “members may

C

20 [ occupy and speak from places other than those regularly assigned to them.”14However, while members may speak from a desk other than the one assigned to them the Members’ Procedural Handbook notes that this practice is “not encouraged.”5 More importantly was the Chair’s concern about members rising when they wish to be recognized and taking theft seat when another member is speaking. As the Chair advised members who do not rise to ask questions risk ceding the floor to another member.

Addressing Members through the Chair One example of the use of Standing Order 170) occurred during Question Period on April 9, 2002. In responding to a question from Wayne Jim (Mclntyre-Takhini, Independent) the Minister of Education, Hon. Cynthia Tucker (Mount Lome, Liberal) said, “the most important people here are the children. And you and other members here seem to forget that from time to time.” The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, called for order and “remind(ed) the minister to address her comments through the Chair and not personalize comments such as “you”.” (Hansard, 3042) The Speaker again invoked Standing Order 170) on April 11, 2002 during second reading of Bill No. 9, Second Appropriation Act, 2002-03. Wayne Jim (Mclntyre-Talthini, Independent) was addressing the bill. In the course of debate he used the following phrases:

For the record, I ask the Premier, how many of these annual intergovernmental meetings has your government held since being elected to office?...(I experienced) what it was like to be the only First Nation MLA within your caucus and Cabinet...It doesn’t surprise me one bit that you would cut funding toward First Nations relations...there are children out there who are suffering now. Unlike yourselves...(Hansard, 3116)

At that point the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, intervened saying

The Chair has been rather patient today; however, I would like to remind the member to please address his comments through the Chair, and fly not to personalize them by the use of “you” or “yourselves” or similar words like that. (Hansard, 3116)

Mr. Jim vowed to adhere to the Speaker’s ruling. Despite his pledge Mr. Jim again violated Standing Order 170) during Question Period on April 16, 2002. In addressing the Premier regarding a First Nations child sent Outside the Yukon Mr. Jim said, “Last Tuesday, a phone call took place between you and the Chief of Kwanlin Dun First Nation in regard to...” At that point Speaker Schneider intervened and reminded Mr. Jim to “address (his) comments through the Chair, not personally across the floor.” Mr. Jim continued with his main question but was soon again interrupted by the Speaker after saying, “the child was flown out to Saskatchewan minutes after speaking to you on the

Beauchesne s § 902(5), page 250. YukonLegislative Assembly Members’ Procedural Handbook, Legislative Assembly Office, April, 2000, page 36. The procedural handbook is not a parliamentary authority. Howeveritscontentsdo reflect accepted practice in the Assembly.

21 [

[

[

U

I] a to to to up to he by the this and No. Mr. and your is their refer theft order refer even Yukon of Chair.” Second quoted so Second from Liberal back of Bill by we for directly.” regarding members took order 9. he 9, the to remarks , referring referring which McLamon, if ensure said of Liberal) “decision your applies name for to designated doing members his to No. called quoted No. point (Mayo-Tatchun. get been of Mike Liberal) realities the rule In letter, Liberal) (lUondike, forms: that members, to words, a North, called one Bill speaking instead Bill end the Schneider MW) This arrogance, two At normally asks on have comments on other was they’ve Whole, the is necessary, in MeLarnon Jenkins government’s Chair naming face In Strategy. Fairciough through if just the NDP (Riverdale, 3718) (Riverside. (his) mis-stating don’t (Riverdale Dennis the Whole. McLamon, of of debate come House, Mike (Kluane, Eric debate NDP Peter just when Liberal) Toward 3521) We’ll Minister Areas the Kent Kent — “You the directly Hon. rule Mike 3410) of Efioda that “A Chair in “address do Whole Party, through paraphrase, (Hansard, North, Whole example Scott sail Scott this to previous to reading. McRobb deliberately that Committee uproar Dale time the of Opposition, (Hansard, the House.’7 Whole, Protected the must of Third Jim Speaker, to appropriate. Hon. an Hon. of wish and (Hansard. of another remember Gary the Hon. the Committee Jenkins 522. second 22 the Committee in Mr. advises they ministry.” of addressing (Riverdale of The time in Chair at we they saying really Official just of Yukon Mr. House.” page violations the their that the not from was 2002 the Forms what this we’re portfolio; Minister, dander Eftoda 2000 Resources, point or of Committee & it’s in practices reminded Committee Leader 3176) point Assembly Infrastructure, Practice, (Finance) Act, 22, here, that constituency.” Committee one and than Riverside.” Dale common of 9 your and and encouraging.” (Environment), the and the or warrant of that At Rules again important Leader in during names indirectly in regarding during At No. get represent I’m is Hon. most March title rules 142. the Mines rather portfolio do “ensure last Chair Environment (Hansard, names, all members “ft to of special Kent Bill 2002 Minister the by they Boundaries The to Procedure 2002 page their 2002 2002-03, services. 2002-03 the the to 2002 to by release their the their 13, name, by 6, Schneider cannot have 29, That’s Energy, documents 15, Duncan.” remind saying, by release by Act, Act, riding point Parliamentary by complied. District of held.”6 news marine Commons ‘s Pat “Minister “to May Ministers million May members the April 3655) conform May speaking of don’t that quote order news mentioned Speaker to and then member as members On to On On At On questioned $212 for was members members leader you “A House asked Jim Minister Minister portfolio Electoral other them Liberal See phone.” Mr. Party) aviation and responsibilities. and (Hansard, Appropriation Addressing 61, Beauchesne the the portfolio. referred opportunity other government surnames. to McRobb the said, ‘6Beauchesne’s,q484(J), ‘ spend name Appropriation choose statements a Party called to NDP)

Committee Members

Gibbs,

Liberal) questioned p.m. Mr.

During member

Dennis

Scheider Intemiptin

addressed

On

(Hansard, con±hsion portfolios

Committee.

respect

“We accepted.”

Hon.

3644-5)

(inventing)

want

ministries.”

asked

saying,

“the Jenkins

remind

Whole

Lakes,

Bill

decorum.

must

where

April

Eftoda

(Hansard,

Department

No.

will

Dennis

to

that

paraphrase

who

members

The

The

A

of debate

A

NDP)

members

question

Schneider,

regarding

(Klondike.

“I

dispute

shall

said.

of

24,

just

the

9

somewhat

similar

the

3645)

to

and members

(Hansard,

the

then

believe

at

fictitious

ruling

Minister

the a

of The

Please

(Business,

Schneider,

Assembly embarrass

2002 member

one

interrupt

department.

referred expand

“

on

3364)

Minister

also

public,

the

what

concluded

Committee

The

of are

to

period

situation

children

the

time

referred Bill

called

use

Yukon

the

Blah,

there

use

“refer

to

Whole

quoting

different

of

names

minister

2490)

you’re

who

document

it

No.

references

ran

except

to

Minister the

malce

Business,

proper

Tourism

during

on

of

members

to

on

Blah,

was

for

Mr.

in

So to to Party)

occurred

a

November

has

name 9

his

Health

allow

for

Chair,

In

facility

debate May

government

directly

the

pointing

by

(Infrastructure).

that

issue

sure

order

to

has

a form

the

Kent

remarks

debate

Tourism

ruling

ministers...

Hon.

of

department

ruling

in

referred and

raise

to

of

Tourism

for

will

floor

the

6,

of

Mr.

and that

Environment.

manifested

when

on

order

for after

the

by

on

from

Culture).

Mr.

2002

this

not

on

on

5.

out,

a

floor,

take

May

McLamon

as

children

Social

the

by

and

department

name.

point

2001.

Bill

care. Motion

to

the

comments referring

Eftoda

only

and

It to

the

House,

but

published

care the

the

demeanour

Blah

Don

30,

as

had

and

present

comply

23

At

time

of

In

No.

Culture,

the

In

Services,

itself

it

Once

an

Department

This

Speaker

2002

in

of

nothing

that

No.

doing

is

and

order.

Blah.”

it’s

it

Roberts

Hon.

ruling

improper

or

care. to

upheld

all

titled.”

reached the

as

9,

on

were

documents.

time

point

228. again

Mr.

ministers.

time

during

contrary

persons

with

other

it

Hon.

so

Speaker

Dale

Second

Please

May

of

(Hansard,

Hon.

that

to

is

from

Jenkins

Mr.

Toward

Hon.

Dave

(Porter the

made

Mr.

the

of

the

the

in of

do

the

rulings

name

Mr.

Committee

Eftoda

13,

we

order

Roberts

Business,

outside

the

Sue

to

Leader

allow

the

with

Jenkins

debate

normal

Assembly’s

Committee

concluded,

Mr.

Appropriation

Eftoda

2002

Keenan

In

by

was

Standing

would

budget

the

3518) but

Creek

Speaker

Edelman

by

the

cases

Eftoda’s

the

(Riverdale

another

the

delivered

end

of

used

this

during

also

is

expanding said,

hour

department.”

rose

Tourism

Committee

of

minister

Later not

the

(Ross

at

departments

North,

such

of

the

“inventing

Order

House,

was

the

Chair

a

“Mr.

rules

the

of

on

(Riverdale

the

member.

point

Third

invent

proper

Committee

Whole

that

name

as

North.

adjournment,

by

Act,

a

with

River-Southern

Speaker, proper

and

point

Independent)

to Chair,

6(6).

it

that

intervened

of

the

of

day,

will

Party.

Chair

here

continue.”

names

of

sense

(Hansard,

Culture

respect

2002-03,

order

order

names

debate

to

Speaker.

members

Speaker

Liberal)

of

that

Sandra

during

South,

not

level.” I

in

avoid

of

Hon.

don’t

order

Peter

said..

and

and

the

and

no

the

for

be

of

on

to

as

6 to [ C C [1 [ U

U U

a

it

In

of

He

not

the the the and

Mr.

that

The

be

Hon.

have

only

issue

3548)

words

try

defend

of defend

saying,

named

stressed

Far

of questions not

issue.

complete

asked

regarding

House.

We

privacy

contractor.”

advised

can’t has

people

Members

the

Environment.

his

extraordinary

specific a

cannot

Services,

this

Party) issue

responded

raised House. of

Legislature. choice

individual.

(Hansard,

on 3548)

is

their

not

and in

that

issues. in

this

with

the

who innocent,

practice

the

an

the These

clarification

for

are

Jenkins

Social their

consideration

on

a

again in

in

Yukon

of Efloda the

that

which

in

policy

except

its

and “done

who implied,

Mr.

people

business

statement

contract.”

(Hansard.

here

Mr.

respect

Department

a

identified

a

9

offered

of

protect Roberts disorder

hoping

about

or

been

established

naming

the statement other

Health

Gibbs

to

Hon.

judicious

No.

company,

(Kiondike, been

out persons

House.

made

by

Mr. talk

for his parliamentary.

was

the

of

had

the

continued immunity,

indirectly

be

I to —

causes

to

the

the “the

person

Bill

themselves or

as

it

for

have

not

a

3551)

of

of

to 2002

made

in

Jenkins

is

respect

before

would unfairly

name

Independent)

7,

Whole

today,

Minister

respect

calls

of

Schneider,

rules

defend

by

public

name

of day

responsibility directly

that

Further, Peter

they

with

the

the

identify

already May

Legislature

business. out 24

a

the

referring

following if

the the

parliamentary

earlier

out (Hansard,

to

Centre, the

of

can’t slur

on

that

are

this Dennis

dealt interest

but,

of

order

Party,

the other have

time

that

also

referring

in Environment

having

any

of

ruled they

to

going

enjoy

public:

is

do

ruled

Hon.

this of

Those being

Period

members themselves.

Heynen

on

debate

Third

hard

the

that

from

from

not

is.

advise

We

national

point

here

the

3551)

of members Committee

was

(Whitehorse

it

a

Mr.

the

care,

Members have

Speaker,

they’re 3549)

Speaker

fact

do

limit but

the

defend

really as

ask

of

of moved

understanding.”

Speaker,

the

to used

the

way

we

Question it

that

the to

the

days,

try

who

at

and

try

the

Department

claimed

decide

the

when for

members

Montpetit

slander

discouraged way would

we

(Hansard,

individuals. to

few

raise

being

Leader

he what

ruled

McLamon

I

(Hansard.

to

naming seat

and

day

the

government

During no

they

complete

sittings, are

However

and

not

that’s

the for

up.” last

Period

has

his

in

his

who

said

Chair

about

for

respect

name

Mike

that

name

and

did

outright

Speaker,

the

when

of

3539)

take

the

that

3549)

by

come

talk

she

to respect

point

Mr. Speaker,

to out

For for

previous absolutely themselves, and

themselves. Later

Marleau Speaker

from Members Parliament circumstances

children

not

Question

Heynen”

Edelman

of

person’s

that

(Hansard,

(Environment), “Ms.

about Though

Mrs.

said: After

At “the (Hansard. appropriation Assembly concurrence member

“Out would references that Members should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people from outside the House who are unable to reply and defend themselves against innuendo)8

Essentially this practice is designed to ensure the member’s parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech is used judiciously and not to the disadvantage of persons who do not enjoy a similar privilege. It does not prevent a member from bringing up an issue of public importance. It only prevents the member from naming individuals involved in the issue.

Personal privilege, point of A point of personal privilege is an opportunity for a Member “to explain a matter of a personal nature although there is no question before the House.”9 According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice a point of personal privilege

...is an indulgence granted by the Chair. There is no connection to a question of privilege, and as Speaker Fraser once noted, “There is no legal authority, procedural or otherwise, historic or precedential, that allows this.” Consequently, such occasions are not meant to be used for general debate and Members have been cautioned to confine their remarks to the point they wish to make. The Speaker has also stated that, as these are generally personal statements and not questions of privilege, no other Members will be recognized to speak on the matter.2°

Prior to the Assembly meeting on April 15, 2002 Hon. Sue Edelman (Riverdale South, Liberal) informed the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider that she wished to raise a point of personal privilege that day. The Speaker granted Hon. Mrs. Edelman leave to raise her point of personal privilege during the Daily Routine after Tributes and before Tabling Returns and Documents. At that time Hon. Mrs. Edelman rose to apologize for comments she had made in an email which subsequently became public knowledge. Hon. Mrs. Edelman also informed the Assembly of her resignation as Minister responsible for the Status of Women. (Hansard, 3141)

Petitions Received Standing Order 660) says

On the sitting day following the presentation of a petition, the Clerk shall present a report upon the petition...and every petition so reported upon...which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of the Assembly, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.

‘ House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page524. ‘ House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page136. 20 House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page137.

25 L U U U [

U

U U

a

to

to

the

no

has the

and for No.

the

and

p.m.

time

been hour

Lake, page

recall

recess

had

among

that day

another

petition. Liberal)

requires

rise

read

Standing

members

presented Whole

3:45

without

when

which

However,

less

the 2002,

some

Assembly.”

fact

Petition to

that

to the

normal

provides

the 10,

procedure

(Watson

for

cabinet

been

been

dispute

the

of

North,

Chair)

On

of

that

much

whether process

to

the

called

May

2(4)

Whole.

petition

the

and

and

unavailability

at

a

have

Assembly

reconvene

some pursuant

Fentie

that

was

the

having

Star,

2002. to

acting

Legislative indicating

to

of

5 p.m.

not 2002 the Order approximately

of

4,

and,

Chair, an

Assembly

(Riverdale

Chair’s

4,

of issue

Committee At According reconvene,

No.

Dennis

presentation

or

McLamon

4:00

Yukon

the

to

recess, could

However

April subject

response

at Whitehorse

proceedings petition

recess

into

One

the

a

April

Deputy

Mr.

the

Standing

Eftoda

Deputy the The

the

Chair,

Sitting,

the

Petition of Committee

on

2002-03.

ability

close

and

Whole.

the

Assembly.

Sitting,

p.m.

of

informed

Dale

to were

engaged adjournment

Fall

the

provide 15-minute

resolved

committee

relevant.

Act,

before the

the

following

Had

a

Orders Chair Deputy squabble”

the

deemed

4:00

of the

Chair

received

2001 Hon.

have

shall

Spring

for

the

were

the at

adjournment. as chair

day

for

Michael,

26

absence, any

followed

the

not of

outside day presentation.” otherwise

of in (or

the

Assembly

L.

of

2002

acting be

Standing

Chair.

to

its

did

called

deemed

issues

their

therefore

Council

committee.

to

sitting

also as that the ends

the of hour

day

Appropriation

Committee the

the

provides

absence

the

Whole reconvene

of

of of

in Patrick

On

with

been

was

attend

The

assumed week

proceedings,

2002

days

is

the

2(2)

the

to

sitting

5. Chair.

day

9, different

normal

Second

chair

deal member

committee

form

Executive

place

for

procedure of

have

McLamon,

Schneider,

Chair would 2002.

9,

to

to “Sitting

having

to

the

final sitting stalled

No.

the

the

Order

May

the

acting

as

17,

Assembly,

“The

at sitting

No.

the could and

Mike

on

Assembly

another

an

made Tobin,

reasons

was eight

however,

Dennis

Deputy

taken

2998)

first

Bill officer

appointment

Assembly.2’ says,

the

April

Petition Chair

appointed

Committee

was

committee The 2001

the

petition.

Standing

on Chuck

an 67 Chair,

effectively issue

Period

the

the

Hon.

Speaker

be 3,2001,

by of

3,

within

appoint

the

would

Minister the

the

Legislative

of

when

plan

it

appointed

to

had

requirements

in

the

to

was

Officers

This

by

(Hansard,

presiding

Order officer.

the

debate

of to

could he is

Chair

that example,

a

Chair

presented

However

Procedurally,

Another

“the

of

5(3),

Question

received

Speaker, for

the

Committee December

December

Speaker

members

adjournment.

met See,

On

Clerk 5

therefore, Standing NDP) The Response ______received.

been on respond responded Presiding After continue the

Absence Deputy afterward. present because contingency

presiding anticipated Order the member

without Speaker the of

adjournment 6. that 21 report to the Assembly on the proceedings of the committee. Without a presiding officer the committee could neither reconvene, nor report to the Assembly. In other words the Standing Orders did not provide direction for dealing with a situation where the Chair had been vacated by one presiding officer without another presiding officer assuming this responsibility. Fortunately the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole, Don Roberts, took the chair approximately 25 minutes before the normal hour of adjournment. Committee business proceeded in the normal fashion for the rest of the day.

Castin2 Vote Standing Order 4(2) says, “In the event of a tie vote, the Speaker shall cast the deciding vote and any reasons stated shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings.” Beauchesne s advises “The Speaker votes in such a manner as to leave the House another opportunity of deciding the question.”22This advice is difficult to adhere to when a tie vote arises at Third Reading since this is, by definition, the final opportunity for the House to consider the question. On May 30, 2002 the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, was called upon four times to cast a vote at Third Reading. The bills upon which the Speaker cast a vote were; Bill No. 60, Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Bill No. 58, Act to Amend the Economic Development Act; Bill No. 57, Government Organisation Act; and Bill No. 71, Corporate Governance Act In all cases the Speaker voted for the motion and all four bills passed the House. In all cases the Speaker gave the following reasons for his vote:

In general, the principle applied to motions and bills is that decisions should not be taken except by a majority. In this case, however, the Chair is aware that the passage of this bill is a test of the confidence of the Assembly in the government. It is my view that questions of confidence are of such importance that an expression of non-confidence should be clearly stated by a majority. The Chair, therefore, votes for the motion. (Hansard, 3897, 3898, 3899,)

Sir Erskine May advises that “When the voices are equal in a Committee of the Whole House, the Chairman, who does not otherwise vote, gives a casting vote, and in doing so is guided by the same principles as the Speaker of the House.”23Circumstances required that the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole, Don Roberts, cast a vote on May 29, 2002 during committee debate on a proposed amendment to the line item ‘Ministers’ in Vote 2, Executive Council Office, of Bill No. 9, Second Appropriation Act, 2002-03. In doing so the Deputy Chair made the following statement:

I didn’t realize that being Deputy Chair was going to be a difficult task, but I gather it is a very difficult task at times. I guess, when you’re placed in a position of leadership,

Beauchesne’s §310(1), page94. Ci. Bouhonet.a!.Erskine Mcxv’sTreatise on Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (2l’ edition),(London:Bunerwoyths,1989),Page353.

27 C U U U u

to

of

by

to

be

of

the

my

the

this

the

The

says,

Votes

at

as

House. of Chair,

ensure moved

Deputy

without

‘s

make

bound

a maintains

the (Chair

to reference

(Hansard,

applied

the successful

equality

this

attached

member

think

in

independent

therefore

to

I’m

be you

a in

an

given

the

only

elect Appropriation

what

is

an

made

Liberal),

to

on

appointed

of

It Committee.” of

don’t

Speaker

as

that

not

recognition

I

defeated.

entered

Beauchesne

of

be

sit

happen,

NOP)

goes

case

Second

(Faro, reference

motion,

foun.

but to

not

sometimes

obviously

in 9,

necessary, object,

Deputy characteristics

principle

motion

the

Chair

general

condition

are

what The or

Whole.

as

of should

are

a

in

Roberts.

rebel,

No.

the and,

the

caucus their

(IGuane,

chief a

the is

amendment

existing

vote

impartiality

as time

that

what Mr.

rules

3148) of

Bill

McLachlan

be

office

its

fund

take

the

to

Of

decision, “The

of

to

in there

the maintains

to

Liberal

have the government

general, Jim

about casting

McRobb

states

a

time

of

North.

indispensable

left

that the

In

and

that

right

liked

what

the declare

of

Hon.

an be

(Hansard,

I which

left Gary Committee

said

views entitled

the

investment

from

for

is

rules,

Creek

of

Whole)

way

be

vote.24

28

be

advises and ensure

exist

and always

impartiality.”

consideration

dignity,

the

other

should

by the

may, Leader,

make

Beauchesne to having

can

Chair Whole.”

shall of is

Porter

reasons

are

to I’ve our

Speaker

and

bill

trade

Forms

have casting

also,

the

for

a

House Corporation),

&

things

the

who

the

the

have

there

of

may

Deputy

Chair.

amendment,

committee but

Assembly

Chair’s of conventions

I

election

McLamon,

that

give

same

you

the

maintains

then

Rules

about

authority

Committee

the

is

an

Whole

unfortunately.

Member

“The

of

many

and

The

during Mike

shall

95.

49.

Deputy

Md

Deputy

the

what

Speaker

bills

Government

such

spoke one,

“the

and Development Committee

of

says,

the personally

against

Chair. to

page page

the

Chair

impartiality

the

be 2002

the

for

Chair to.

Chair,

sometimes

of

the

Whole)

that

1,

of

5(2)

the

vote

Speaker...are

can

decision.

of

the

Parliamentary

the

(Yukon

2002

though

McRobb

in I §310(4), §168(1),

Deputy

to

217

‘s

Parliament.

Wepuw agreed office ‘s

Speaker, of procedure

of

May

of

as

impartiality.”25

15,

Order

Committee

Mr.

of

of

Chair

procedure

our obviously No. wrong Even

votes, amendments the time 3856)

duty the

On

was

of

committee’s

office Proceedings. 2002-03,

impartiality

April

the

Beauchesne Beauchesne’s

Unlike Standing and

Election Chair normal appointed

On

Deputy motion

notice,

Beauchesne the Speaker’s “Confidenèe Neutrality the Committee working

to member.

said 23

Act, 25 23

27

Act

than

secretariat.” committee

Chair announced

theirjudgement

McLanon,

has

strictly

unconventional

participation

have

“Precedent

in

(Chair

During

opposition

6Beavchesne’s,ç188,

Participation

neutral

else

complimentan’

The

Bemichesne

Beauchesne

debate.”26

ruled

recalling

2002-03,

I

not

Committee

will

know

of

On

speaking.

during

(Hansard,

develops

the on

drawing

a

which

that

I

attempted

want

very

that

Committee

that

write

such

May

members.

has

announced

‘s

‘s a

2002

(Mansard.

that

the

It

§184,

§188,

in

the

15-minute

is

worthwhile

this.”

clear revealed

(Health

is

to

I

the

been

remarks

debate

for

in

important

Liberal

negative the

15,

his

admire

unconventional.

also

Speaker

Spring

against

thank

good

page

page

page

3462)

determining

Chair

Deputy

to

presiding

restraints

line

2002

(Hansard.

created

questions

participate

common Both

of

his

54.

53. 54.

3712)

and

an

you

government

initiatives;

from

your

between

recess. Sitting

the

the

remarks

to

desire

during

then

matters

government

independent

Chair,

members

to personally

the

Social

Whole)

rules.

officers

Mr.

are

honesty,

to

their

the

practice

3462)

Chair

two

Upon

to

intervened

otherwise

committee

being

the

Don

imposed

will

McRobb,

to

As

effect

ask Presiding

if

level

Services)

was

of

the

and

participated

minister.

(other

to

it’s

fly

program

Beauchesne

Roberts,

questions

calling

Mr.

for

that

the analysis

muzzled

appoint

Yukon.

that

sitting

and

the

at

good

bringing

in

by

Assembly’s

“During Chair,

please

the

than

consideration

saying,

officers

incumbents

Deputy

type

the

29

the

the

the

So

that

was

on

Chair

showing

an

I

and

regarding

for

debates

the

in

agree

House

of

do

for

we ‘s

committee

and

Chair

acting

really

that

not

divisions

debate

being

participation

the

other

Speaker) Chair

Parliamentary

not

“while

during

standing

can

was

presiding

with

to

available.

how

of

of

Yukon

only

include

produced

of

Chair

of

the

the

now

than able

the

hiding

of

the

on

the

you

Committee

Bill

the

(Deputy the

to

Alcohol

on

attention

Committee

to

bills

House.”21

up

Chair

to

of

proceed

the

discussion

order —

the and

officers

participate

trade

the

in

No.

come

The

Committee

a

for

Chair

results.

Speaker

before

debate.

it

report

Chair

Rules

will

Speaker.”28

makes

doesn’t

9,

Speakers)

what

and

Chair

and

the

of

over

with

Second

However of

—

refrain

does

of

the

Drug

in

for

as

the

investment

Chair

the

&

are you

in

the

then

the

here

the

sense,

alcohol

well.

of

matter

House

more

committee.

debate

Forms Deputy

free

the

Secretariat.

appreciate

have

Appropriation

believe

discussions,

from Whole

Whole,

So

informed

said,

and

“the

The

Whole,

than

to

let’s

while what

—

and

voted

speak

speaking

it

hind

exercise

“Rather

Speaker

advises,

Speaker Chair

—

the

in,

is

a

Mike

do

drug

were

party

This

year,

it

not,

the

the

but

was

He

and fact

the

out

is

or

it. is U

Private member’s bill, proceeding to Commiftee of the Whole On May 7, 2002, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3) the Official Opposition House Leader, Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) identified Bill No. 101, Child, Youthand Family Advocacy Act, as one item to be called the following day, which was a designated Opposition Private Members’ Day. Bill No. 101, standing in the name of Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP). was called for debate on May 8, 2002 and received Second Reading. Pursuant to Standing Order 57(4) the bill, having received Second Reading, now stood ordered for consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, therefore asked Mr. Keenan if it was his wish that the House resolve into committee to flnther consider Bill No. 101. Mr. Keenan indicated that he did so wish and the Speaker then left the Chair and ordered the House into committee without the usual motion having been moved. In following this procedure the decision was made that designating a bill for consideration on Opposition Private Members’ Day did not mean designating a single staae for the bill on that day. This would have required a private member’s bill be called for second reading on one day, for debate in committee on a subsequent day and Third Reading on another day. Designating a private members bill for consideration on Opposition Private Members’ Day meant it could proceed though as many stages as normally allowed under the Standing Orders on one day.

Private members’ business As a nile private memhers’ business i given priority on Wednesdays, after the Daily Routine. Standing Order 14 sets out the process for determining whether the priority, on a given Wednesday, will be allotted to the business of government private members or those in the opposition. Standing Order 14(1) says opposition private members’ business is given priority “on the first Wednesday of a Session that private members’ business is to be considered, and every second Wednesday thereafter.” Standing Order 14(2)allots priority on “the second Wednesday of a Session that private members’ business is to be considered, and every second Wednesday thereafter”to government private members’ business. [ Shortly before the 2002 Spring Sitting began three government private members left the government caucus to sit in opposition as independent members. As a result the only private member left on the government side was the Speaker who does not, as a nile, participate in debate. For the purposes of Standing Order 14(2) therefore the government had no private members. In dealing with this situation two practices were followed. The first had to do with the designation of government private members’ business. Standing Order 14.2(7) says

When Government private members’ business has precedence, the Government House Leader or designate. no later than the time at which the Assembly proceeds to Orders of the Day on the sitting day preceding the call of Government private members’ business, may, [ on behalf of the Government private members, identi& the order in which the items standing on the Order Paper or on the Notice Paper in the name of Government private members shall be called.

L

30 r Given that there were no government private members the Government House Leader was not required, on the sitting day preceding the call of Government private members’ business, to announce that there was no government private members’ business. The second practice was that the time allotted to give priority for government private members’ business would not be allocated to give priority to opposition private members’ business. As mentioned Standing Order 14(2) deals with those Wednesdays when government private members’ business has priority. The order of business prescribed for that day indicates that once government private members’ business is dealt with the next item of business is government designated business, followed by ‘Motions Respecting Committee Reports’ and then ‘oppositicn private members’ business.’

Procedure, rules of As noted in Beauchesne ‘s Parlianentazy Rules & Forms. “The most fimdament& privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and enforce them.”29The Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLamon, brought this point to members’ attention on April 23, 2002 during committee debate on Bill No. 9, Second Appropriation Act, 2002-03. At that time Hon. Pam Buckway (Lake Laberge, Liberal). the Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation. in response to questioning from Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP) said:

I feel that the conduct of the member opposite constitutes personal harassment, which means objectionable conduct, comments or displays that demean, belittle or cause humiliation or embarrassment. This form of harassment is forbidden under the Human Rights Act, and the Yukon Human Rights Act. I would ask that the member opposite take note of his conduct and consider others before he speaks or acts. (Hansard. 3312)

Hon. Ms. Buckway did not raise the issue as a point of order. Still, Ivfr. McLamon informed members that “The Yukon Human Rights Act has jurisdiction outside of the Legislative

Assembly.” Wansard, 3312-3) As Standing Order 1 indicates in the Assembly the Chair maintains order based on the Standing Orders “Sessional or other orders. (or) the practices and procedures of the House of Commons of Canada, as in force at the time...so far as they may apply to this Assembly.” The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, was asked to intervene in a similar matter on April 24, 2002. During debate on Motion No. 228 Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) referred to “the aborted Taga Ku project”; a plan for a development on the Whitehorse waterfront that did not materialize. Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP) rose on a point of order saying

I am not sure if this is in the House rules, but out of respect for First Nations who have asked all legislators to not mention the word Taga Ku out of respect. There was even a ceremony held by the Champaign-Aishihilc First Nation a few years ago to ensure everybody was aware of that. Yet, the government House leader continues to refer to that

9 Beauchesne’s §33, page 14.

31 [ [ [ [

U

U .

I

It

the

the the his

only

2002 dealt

there

in

access

behalf

is

occurs

if Centre,

Kluane.

stopped. remarks

be

Further,

the

from seriously

on

privilege.

narrow. (Mansard, (Mansard,

Assembly.

and

improperly

be for

the it

constituents

of

Chair participating

delivered Orders...So.

Independent) never

aprimafacie

but

of,

the

29.

should

was

information

during

the

procedures

with

and

trust.”

that

this

determine

Premier

crime.”

should

page

while

deep

breach

the

equipment

Member of

to (Whitehorse

So,

issue

before

the

breached, as he that

Standing independents.

“withdraw 117,

is

alleged

§

wish

the

grave

the

is

and

with

to

as

possession

decides ‘s

fade

3343) the Privilege

and

from

contained

role

by

ways

House.

they sit

in

advisement and

matters the

of they

position

how

deal

files

to

a

confidentiality

prima

McLamon the

to agreed (Mclntyre-Takhini.

files find

a

was

Speaker

Chair

in to

down

3343) other

under

which

apology Beauchesne

to characterized

Nations,

these

be (Mansard, serious

Jim

only the

the

Speaker’s

the

anything

Mike

caucus

be and

to issue laid

If right duty

Questions outside

over

determine confidentiality

to

Ffrst kept is

the

very

by

that

At

to

may duties

Wayne

McLacfflan

breached.3° 3303)

two

there members that

“The

their

(Mansard,

almost

our projeci.”

else

immediate this

Liberal

committee

presentation

the Mr.

related

to

do

of

noted 32 raised residents find

been

say

privilege.

with

“an

the

privilege

to

Chair’s

precedence

When to

Speaker,

to

of

himself,

please.

saying, (Hansard,

not

improperly

just has

members

of

Hon.

was for,

left

from

the

of

whatever

dealt the

waterfront

by

Independent).

did

is 2002

given

staff

it disciplinary

breach

not they

and

order

McLamon’s

asked

allowed 23,

McLamon

perpetrators

1993

members

belonging

behalf disrespectifil

continue,

members

privilege

of

then

requests

North,

questions

are

a

Privilege Mr.

to enjoyed after

on

is

the rules

the

information Speaker April

Mr.

if

out

Schneider,

representation.

the

very’

of

believes of

as

all-party

the

with

apparent,

had

took

the

elected

private

The it staff

Creek is

2002

Assembly, issue

government McLamon

an fair

or

he

speech

ruled with of

as

to

equipment

8,

ruling

minister

account

the

members

Chair

with

the

the

of that

Dennis

Mr.

and

2002.

not

that not to

determine of

3343)

dealing members.

and

the

to

the

Question (Porter

refer

that

deal

April

ensure

alleged

and

Schneider

15,

In

up

and

in

Hon.

ask

to

gathered

were

on

ruled

files

to

bring

Privilege

government

is part

first

Schneider’s

remedy

finally

freedom

occurred ability

knowledge

it

simply

of to

a in

April had

deep

by

aprithafacie, Roberts

to

they

(Mansard.

phsase.

no

However, House going would

Sitting.

The

has the

Speaker

The is

As government

on

and

and

Speaker, and Speaker Speaker

McLamon

Don

been

computer

stated,

the

necessary’

12)

See

The

Question Though Spring made

The has breach However, with Independent) and to, accessed Mr.

members is affects 3011). of now-independent again 30

ruling He °

to

which

the

Later with

regarding

rebuild...frust.”

comment

Mr.

South,

In

the

The

whether

prescribing

member

Assembly.

Jim

the

Speaker

that

she

this

Liberal)

constituents

issues, had

the

In

During

present

members

event.

to

in

direction

and

Chair

what

despite

exercise

their

parliamentary

Orders.

Members

in

raised

chief

raising

day

first

made

the

wrote,

develop

or

minister

parliamentary

permission

letter

to

opposite

constituents.

not

occurred,

government is

also

the

instead

nations a

find,

The

and

it

He

(Hansard,

and

the

Question

the

prepared

remedy

That

by

that

the

to

he

and

“I

freedom

to

Minister

are

concluded

considered

a

fact

who

a

the

council

second

has

Chair

the

accept

at

speaks

offer

question

I

draft

letter

is

a

of

privilege

bound

this

children

from

am

proceedings

Members’

lack

that

Minister and

directly

suddenly

the

my

also

to

proceedings,

Period

3208)

caucus.

solely

Further,

their

further

sent

protocol

time, of

that

the

for

question

their

(of

my

Speaker give

sworn of

the

only

happen

that

of

speech

whether

Minister

the

appreciation

a

in

Wayne

is

the

First

advice

privilege

attacked

In

manner

that

representing

the

letter

files

of

on

representing

Services

by

government

narrow

(Hansard,

Kwanlin

directs

it

duties

response

Kwanlth

and

covering

Health

informed

benefit

of

is

Nation

to

their

the

April

were

while

to

such

the

Jim

clear

privilege on

sent

be

does

conventions

in

Chief

my

to

Mr.

in

that

actions

Board

actions

Kwanlin

the

withheld

represents

Dun

and

17,

which

of

of

as

to

all

Mrs.

government

participating

that

that

3147)

Dun

right

the

the

Jim

not

the

33

care.

the

the

the

the

debates

Rick

the

contents

Yukoners

2002

First

Social

the

view

for

on

it

Edelman

issues

Assembly

said

may

cover

Chief

Kwanlin

doubt

First

of

independence

to

it

Clerk

applies

In

Dun.

from

O’Brien

April

review

members

Nation

occurred, government

of

ask

his

Mr.

of

doing

in

have

Services,

Nation)

parliamentary

that

of

of

to

communications

to

the

constituents,

The

and

the

questions

them.

is

in

said, Jim 18,

the

the

bring

Dun

solely

the

and

that

been

government.”

Kwanlin

so

have

of

to

the Assembly

to

member

in

Kwanlin

2002.

persons

was

the

he

protocol

asked

(Hansard,

adoption.

“First

provide

this he

at

First

of

question

forward

Hon.

proceedings

staff

attributable

to

been

suggested

Kwanlin

the

had

private

in

unacceptable.

Legislature...

The

a

Nation.”

Dun

of

language

however,

the

Mrs.

is

constituted

associated

member’s

Sue

earliest

directed

Dun

brought and

an

all,

and,

also

questions

question

(Hansard, between

have

House

3146)

government

members,

Edelman

Dun

work

First

Edelman

opportunity

I

the

to

implying

didn’t

in

of

(Hansard,

possible

been

the

and

I

a

to

Minister

First

due

participation

Nation.

by

with

am

this

It

lack in

a

However,

arose

members

on

Clerk

light

the

is

3147) contempt

able

realize

asking

committees.

unclear (Riverdale

even

course,

Nation

questions

behalf

this

raising

Assembly

on of

through

Standing

time

by

from

to

for

proper

3208) “meet

these

event

those

that

flifly

if

this

and

of

the

as

all

in

to

to

a

I

of

a in U

direct question of my rights to represent constituents in my riding, who are individuals that are affected by this government’s policies, regardless of ancestry. (Hansard, 3240-1)

This, he argued, was “an attempt to intimidate members of my constituency and silence me” (Hansard, 3241) and constituted a contempt of the Assembly. As a remedy he asked, “that this House take action by asking the Minister of Health and Social Services to take a cultural sensitivity course and offer an apology to the House for her poor and inappropriate choice of tactics.” (Hansard, 3241) Speaker Schneider delivered his ruling on April 23, 2002. He concluded

after due consideration, that the minister’s words and actions do not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege or a contempt of the Assembly. U The Member for Mclntyre-Takhini is correct to be concerned about safeguarding his rights, and those of other members of the Assembly. However, the Chair is not convinced that the words and actions of the Minister of Health and Social Services have, directly or indirectly, had the effect of obstructing or impeding the member in the discharge of his duties. The Chair notes, for example, that though it may be felt by the Member for Mclntyre-Takhini that the minister questioned his right to ask the questions he did, the minister had already answered a main question and a supplementary question on the issue. The minister then answered the member’s second supplementary question. Also, the minister had answered questions on a similar issue the previous day. Further, on April 18, the minister tabled a legislative return that expanded upon the answers she had already provided. The Chair must conclude, therefore, that the member has been able to fully exercise freedom of speech while participating in the proceedings of this Assembly. (Hansard, 3303)

At the same time the Speaker said statements that suggest a member is representing someone other than his or her constituents are not in order as they are an imputation of false or unavowed motive, in contravention of Standing Order 19(g). The Speaker suggested that, in future, members who are concemed about such statements raise them as a point of order when they are made.

Question Period Extraneous Comments (‘add-ons’) Guideline 2 of the Assembly’s Guidelines for Oral Question Period says a question ought to seek information and shouM not be argumentative. Guideline 9 says a reply to a question should be relevant to the question asked and should not provoke debate. During Question Period on Thursday May 9, 2002, the Minister of Business, Tourism and Culture, Hon. Dale Eftoda (Riverdale North, Liberal) responded to a question from Gary McRobb (}Uuane,NDP). Hon. Mr. Efioda concluded his answer to the main question with what the minister called “an add-on. This add-on was, in fact, a comment on the previous exchange of questions and answers between

L

actions.”3’

“the

“hypothetical

McLamon, Act,

allowed address

The

Minister

Hypothetical

On

statement

reference

commented

Hon.

Dennis

House

May

seeking

2002-03,

Hon.

Scott

Hypothetical

of

and

there

Could

these

argument

information

Comments

The

that question

Vuntut

given example,

question

The

Before

in

Fentie

of

Common

13,

to

by

Therefore

debate, Mr.

take

Infrastructure.

Kent

situation

intervened

Speaker

the

was

Chair

of

2002

guidelines.

on

Questions

saying:

questions

by

the

the

Kent

(Watson

Gwitchin.

information

it

Question

events

to

what

Procedure with

(Riverside.

a

the

last

and

minister

before

so

Leader

during

complaint

the

has

on

or

questions

questions

there’s

if,

referred

then

Minister

Wednesday

debate.

a

Minister

he

of

previous

are

are

also

and

comment

(Mansard,

Lake,

to

the

May

Committee

Hon.

of

and The

saw

Period

just

drew

covered

not

or

from

no

make

Liberal).

Competition

noticed

the

that

Practice,

to

The

are

“ought

when

of

9, Yukon

Member

problem

as

get

Scott

of

relevant

members’

Third

exchanges,

the

2002

the

Education

was

the

out

Environment.

on

a

on

Chair

3628)

up

under

a

it

developing

Kent

question

that

government

of

Member

to

page of

a

substantiated

statement

Party)

on

does

May

and

Party,

previous

with

for

seek

the

order

to

Act

thanks

Guidelines

his

425 opposition

(Riverside,

added:

attention

occur.”

the

Whitehorse

Whole

in

13,

tribunal?

that.”

therefore,

information

and

feet

Peter

35

in

as

for

response

(Hansard,

question

all

Question

practice

exchange

2002,

regarding

the

“hypothetical”

and

and

Whitehorse

(Hansard,

The

under

debate

Jenkins

members

for

to

Minister

members

Liberal)

calling

say

(Hansard,

are

Chair

Guidelines

Oral

the

Centre

to

and,

the

in

asked.

Period

yes

on

3628)

to

questions

not

(Kiondike,

hypothetical

the

Speaker,

Question

Competition

3648)

the

of

in

Bill

which

therefore,

Centre

or

of

occasionally

then

in

Committee

advance

3648)

and

Assembly.

Such

because

no

government

Energy,

No.

order

2

as

they

proceeded

said,

commented

posed

and

Period.

Hon.

9.

comments

Yukon

to

cannot

Second

its

for

Act,

Mines

were

as

questions.

whether

9

“we

of

by

primary

The

preface

and

Dennis

their

they

to

They’re

take

the

Party)

be

not

the

to

would

account

and

Appropriation

concluded

Speaker

on

based

Whole.

also

adherence put

he

do

up

Member

a

purpose

the

their

Resources.

Schneider,

party.

asked

He

the

would,

certainly

not

his

have

provoke

upon

answer

for

cause

Mike

said,

made

main

main

seek

the

For

its

his

for

to

is

to

if a _____

U hypothesis.”32Debate on bills and motions serves a broader purpose than simply the seeking of information so a question based on a hypothesis is not out of order during those proceedings.

Rotation Standing Order 17(2) says, in part, “When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker’s opinion, first rose.” This standing order establishes that there is not, by rule, a speaking order. The recognition of members is at the discretion of the Speaker. Nonetheless, with regard to Question Period, there is an established practice of following a rotation agreed to by the parties in the Assembly. The Question Period rotation became the subject of discussion at two points in the 2002 Spring Sitting..Before the sitting began three government private members left the government caucus to sit in opposition as independent members. After negotiation among representatives of the parties in opposition and the independent members the independent members were, collectively, given one position in the Question Period rotation, that being position number five. On May 7 a member of the Official Opposition left that caucus to join the Third Party. After again consulting with opposition representatives the Speaker devised a new Question Period rotation based on the following principles:

1. That the number of questions allotted to each party in opposition to the government over the course of a Sitting shall, as much as possible, reflect the number of seats each party has in the U Assembly; 2. That priority shall be given to the Official Opposition by giving it priority of place in the Question Period Rotation, including the first two questions; and 3. That one position in the Question Period rotation shall be set aside each day for independent members.

The first principle was met by devising two rotations. The first rotation allotted four questions to the Official Opposition, one to the Third Party and one to independent members. The other rotation allotted three questions to the Official Opposition, two to the Third Party and one to the independent members. A schedule for the use of each rotation was established based on the U assumption that six main questions are asked during a given question period. The underlying assumption was that if the rotations were used according to the schedule the appropriate balance between Official Opposition and Third Party questions would be achieved. The second principle was met by allocating the first, second and fourth main questions to the Official Opposition on all days, and main question six on those days when it was allocated four main questions. The Third Party was guaranteed the third main question on all days, and the sixth question on those days when it was allocated two main questions. As mentioned, the independent members received main question five on all days. This last stipulation also satisfied the third principle established for the allocation of questions in Question Period. [

C

32 Beauchesne ‘s§409(3), page120. See alsoGuideline2 of the Yukon Legislative Assembly’s Guidelines forOral QuestionPeriod, addendum tothe Standing Orders. [ 36

Question

asking

logically suggests

Guideline

Supplementary

Leader,

about

Lome,

Speaker Mrs.

Minister

The

period

posed.

9.

the

from certain

being

questions

Minister During

5eekin

Beauchesne

2002

minister

issue

Edelman’s

a

women

part

a

but

that

that

order. and

Liberal)

posing

policy The

Period,

government

Following

within The

As

minister

kinds

Hon.

“without

question

Question

from in

responsible

a

an

responsible

No.

regarding

again

not

‘supplementary’

said:

mentioned

of

‘s

the

the which

Speaker,

opinion

general

tell

§409(11),

You

Jim

addendum

of

the

is the

questions.

an

members

The the

6

questions,

question

Chair

“Does

out us

—

resignation.

arose

of

questions

which hesitation”

opinion.

answer

McLachlan

Executive

from

can

he

Period

are

administrative

frankly,

Chair

the

statement

from

of

policy

the

for

Hon.

heard

page drew

for

ask

above

not

order.”

to

on

the

this

Assembly’s movement

the

is

as

of

the

(Hansard,

given

a

would

relevance

the

on

the

121.

(Hansard.

April

in

in Dennis

—

minister

stated

members’

minister is

does

rule

it, Status

the

question

Standing

ruled

Council

order

the

including

order.33

Mrs.

April

minister

(Faro,

Status

in

See

says,

the

to

Public

no.

ask

she

16,

purpose

order.

also

by

the

responsibility

member of

Schneider,

shall

Peter of

to

3038)

Orders.

8,

3

“A

Liberal)

that

personally

agree

Guidelines

2002.

3175)

the

Women. of

should

Guideline

No Office.

main

the

says,

the attention

questions

2002

questions

Service

question

A

Women,

be

Member

members

asked

point

Women’s

main of

question

with

question.

was

On

allowed

in

Question

be

Lorraine

rose

In

however,

pan,

Referring

37 3

April

question

of

approve

of

the

to

asking

Alliance her

on

for

the

of

regarding

seeking

Hon.

that

the

on

for

order

the

adhere

“A

Directorate

the

a

new

two

final

Oral

which

attitudes

Yukon

a

Vuntut

14,

similar

Assembly’s

seek Period

Peter

question

point

an

Sue

made

Government

of

to

supplementary

was

minister

information

supplementary

of

Question

2002

to

opinion

her

controversial

these

Legislative

seeks

an

Edelman

Canada?” (Vuntut

of these

raised

Gwitchin

topic

is

a

expressed

area

opinion

from

Hon.

asking

order

statement

to

changes?”

an

Hon.

of

guidelines

Guidelines seek

of

Period

as

at

being

Assembly’s

of

opinion

Mrs.

the

Gwitchin,

invoking

responsibility’

about

(Riverdale

the

for

a

is The

about

questions.”

Cynthia

the

remarks

information

by

main

Mrs.

minister.

out

on

a

time

says, a

Edelman

(Hansard,

specific

the

Yukon

a

Government

stand-alone

the

of

government

in

about

matter

Peter

for

question

Guidelines

Guideline

the

NDP)

former

the

order.

“Each Tucker

that

mailer

South,

Oral

That’s

As

question

or

is

asked,

statement

future

government

resigned

and

led

which

3010).

portfolio,

the

in

The

asked

member

Question

minister

or

on

for

entity

to

(Mount

Liberal)

as

3. order.’

House

out

name

policy

when

flow

Hon.

Oral

“Will

April

way

The such

falls

was

of

the

as

of to U U C] [ U

U

C]

C] a an on on are the the are the Mr. Jim the and and The your in from issue under about flmds. clearly As Centre Centre, readily another listener because and set table with went Hon. the is trade as to is went sides the answer, a issue between hind. specific. he question of not to questions would supplementary question all on dependence clearer conclusions is proceed the the Leader, address debate investment opposite, connection. not Whitehorse our to to and in main with been (Whitehorse questioning what report and because take position for general do some a connection House supplementary, investment Period, Period of main said lessen and the have be the chooses supplementaries government general members trade audit you the and in line fmal the and of would dialogue supplementary an the the Opposition the the Thursday Member from his McLamon would What between should of to Question trade Question he Speaker This sort on in the that from happened open himself of Government raised. the be tabling oral The between there Official moved whether that. government said economy Mike that some an the demonstrate put debate has then, questions. fact heat subjects been for to the the he that had of diversion was this must difficulty He and 2002. proceed about best saying the on understand. the the 2002 saying “If what of three 8, making have regarding to certain the that asked question can 3 is can by is 4, “achieve fUnd. Centre order audits I Schneider, ask that, with was strongly during question April guidelines shape of question so then would principles between explain do he order prevent on Chair connection April our encountered about He is dire would the of main added would members you point government order Dennis supplementary The Nonetheless, on suggests nor a do the investment caucus, He His specific of ruling Whitehorse clearly the point on Centre Chair supplementary asking in what connection, explain which his of and supplementaries Hon. for then it answer.” connection thematic this?” relationship the the debate more the to in rose another was Period to address final the to as House general. government 2993-4) of the you the question That’s trade the done to Hansard. the questions. that his hate a it. and the the have I to the such Member any delivered questions supplementary Whitehorse Speaker, rules on of manner see way to fUnd, of Liberal) What member However, never not as close the review Question for posing out our bootlegged responded how the The If will (Hansard, order. asked The doubts understood question report have does Rules (Faro, and Speaker, Speaker he of has was how economy specific ask During The issue. He out argument. coming Mr. they The of supplementary identified main Member Chair the audit meaningfUl Neither governments fUlly questions. and obvious. the investment to question. McLamon McLacfflan Independent) McLamon Subsequently Mr. advisement government next 2002.

N

At

On

answers,

and

statement Mr.

Before

expired.”

Independent)

minute

saying,

October

A

Speaker Time

“Guidelines

that

footnote

May

that

Speaker.”

limit

coming

of

keeping

point

The

over

Additional

question.

are

debate,

many

accusations

Chair

With

he

The

During

is

narrow

main

“The

Mi.

25,

will

and

the

Mr.

15,

about

in

could

pretty for

for

Member

above

to

time

which

2001

one

McLarnon

the

time.

Chair

whether

questions questions

generally

began

2002

McLarnon

is After

Oral

So,

Guideline

questions

The

from

the

and So,

track

to

Question

recently

finish

member

and going

much

the

the

situation

to expire.”

Question

The

subject

to

he

or

normally

Speaker

we

after

having

asking

most

for

that,

of

that,

repeat,

answers

those

Speaker,

said

language

the

answers

address

in

now

certainly allow

the

getting

Whitehorse

to

and

amended

appealed

No.

made

Question

members,

I

as

main

again,

Period” matter

Period

(Hansard,

was

would a

interrupt

answers

limits,

said

had then

gives

the answers,

we

main

7

a

are

Hon.

a

the

their

are

of

not

that

question

question

can

Chair

10

is

comment.

addendum that,

down

will

explained

within

to

seating

ask

the

and a

question on

within broad,

going Period

the

seconds

Centre

here,

may

warning

so

Dennis

the

questions so

each

2334-2335)

notification

get

the

Assembly’s

I’m

would

the

only

May

that

to

that

Speaker

the

the

cause

of

to

and

order

more

the central

to

members

one

Speaker’s

and trying

—

The

time

we

that

to

one

regarding

Standing one

impact

allotted

Schneider

all

Speaker

to

time

urge 1,

.3

the

do

ask

fewer

in

can before

disorder,

the

specific

members

in

Speaker

to

the

minute

saying,

2002

a

issues

you

time.

to

within

of

the

his

that

limit. raise

Guidelines

questioner

get in

member to

Orders

time

expiration

get

intervened

warning,

question,

House,

question.

care

the the

—

Orders

elaborated

members

as

I

items.

Mike

and

the

called

in

“I

a

then

a

also

limit.

have

and

end.

reorganization many

of

to

thought

bit minute.

length.34

issue then

the

the

asking

challenge

have

it’s

the

at

for

(Hansard,

were

of

for

of

McLamon

We

a

referred (Hansard,

Yukon

if

saying,

the

questions

asking

chance

Chair

use

of

the

on

cooperation

getting

Chair

Oral

order

not

could

I

two

Some

time

being

50-second

In

was

the

Legislative supplementary

a

Day

two

is

Question

a

“The

assistants the

question

questions

to

and

will

to

time

limits of

3006-7)

end going

statement

pretty endeavouring

members

enforced

3458)

the

in

(Whitehorse

the

ask

fewer

Chair?

Whitehorse

continued:

be

member’s

up

here

limit in

Assembly,

50-second

mark

on

Speaker

to

questions.

good.

interfering

with

Period

here,

uses

keeping

ensure

get

questions,

questions

and

The

for

consistently.

delivered

are

questions

that

one a

Members

have

questions

personal

warning,

April to

and

Chair

time

running

schools.

says

made

Centre,

the

that

period

fewer

get

If

track

with

it’s the

4,

and

the one

has

in.

the

the

as

is

on

to a [ L

L

U

1] of or an for the the the the not and 189 and 3(3) Mr. that cost- to 2002, to to his might 15 mining ring adjourn Speaker remains member Speaker, No. does 28, Speaker’s substance judge to Order first quorum.” cooperation the a the to whether shall that drawn drawn House occasions defining Marleau section Committee the placer The the practical May if the debate is bells which be Motion in in completed the to times was the both to the or Standing wilt drew order. Speaker that Then, constitutes possible in On ensure including brought Both without Speaker questioned of allow attention quorum 3(1). cause to the quorum 228. discussion a order difficulty “developing the this attention speaking will According Speaker, Liberal) always House. in point count. shall by do any progress for No. Order Council, the Liberal) a a the Keenan continued. was that the not quorum, Speakers regarding on the a in is (Faro, Mr. can’t order themselves some constitute then I debate of Speaker’s Speaker South, the Motion support to “It not rose necessary including Standing process section Liberal) discussion.” on But the is its shall conducted made 3079) the in police from still quorum say, the Debate acknowledge a called is NDP) has and majority McLacfflan be must be under off. they Chair, Assembly, 40 debate (Riverdale Asseipbly, sitting she declare debate) 1,2003 quorum, they “A to restated there exclude 527. 527-8. a (Riverside, As or Jim the (Hansard, Lakes, will is (in the If day. authorization to minutes accountable. April be that he turned of during page page should Spring on to Kent appear members Legislative question and Hon. Edelman four sitting grow.” until count. been placer 3692) content. the not member 2002 farce a that including the for 149 sitting Sue relevance 2002 Scott of Nonetheless Practice, and Practice, appear House. had next a stipulates “A did do requirement 24, of into government says decision ring the Assembly and and therefore, No. Yukon the not the than River-Southern Hon. remarks Hon. a Act bells to then This says, the there irrelevant (Hansard, the members comes the 3(2) April during operate members, does until the in and the 2002 other to (Ross on before during reach Act that bells process.”6 that keep Yukon Motion of practice, Procedure Procedure time to quorum. Order 10, requirement once 190)(b) there against the fact Member’s In on “Eight the issue that was of debate Yukon a members. any quorum.”35 minutes of the Keenan that right a matters in to continue Assembly “The the April majority at attention all that rules Count new Order lack Commons Commons to occasions regulations 13 its caused to to quorum “A to opposition of Standing debate fact If, four the of of On the motion a Dave two Whole.” remarks.”37 read, the When House House Section Quorum constitutes stipulates the Speaker’s On during Standing attention Speaker apparent speaks found Relevance enforcing Montpetit, her exercise contribute relevance...of industry relevant when of effective “ will

changes, budget

Chair.” appropriate Act,

Premier

items general,

McLamon,

inform

Tatchun.

clause

standing

Mr.

government

of Act.

therefore

Speaker

whether

government.

remarks

reading

Mr.

(Hansard,

the

mining

name

argued Kent’s

designating

McLamon

help

Kent

200

This

to

under

the

the

can

As

On

the

here.

Standing relevance The

The

are

When

On

remarks

that

industry.

debate

but

1-02,

called

argued

the order

it by

we

NDP)

he

no

to

motion

long

situation

was

House,

generally April

committee 3087)

called

listed

April

Chair

Chair

raising

funds

if

capital

continue.

point

consideration.” If

discussion.”

should

can

still

The

Mr.

(general

the says,

the

the

for

soon

on

as

in

regarding

asked

that

Order

get,

The

15,

between

can

With

clarified

for

25,

in

we would McLamon

stood,

order

of Bill

order.

item

member

bill

we for Speaker

a

improvements,

“Speeches

concluded

be

arose

discuss

order.

2002

the

point

the

order

Leader

because

are

ask

“what

2002

No.

a

would

renewal.

if

42(2)

that

debate)

is

in

for

matter

He

intervened

ask

supplementary

not However

the

question

not

questions

highway

what

that

power”

after

during 60,

could

of

and

the

ruled

the

did

Speaker

zero

the

of

continued

if

addresses

going

Premier,

ask

order.

even

Act

he’s

in

his

the

of

the

government

Speaker,

the

said,

the

not

Mike

At

total

assist

Committee

votes,

that

that

confidence.

committee

remarks.

to

and such

was

construction

Third

member

Leader

Mr.

obviously

member

discussed

rule

into

that

saying,

in

His

Amend

“The

Schneider

cost

McLamon

members confidence

me

general

Hon.

the his

concluded

Fairclough

Mr.

but

not as

items

question

Hon.

budget.

point

Party.

of

Premier

here,

remarks,

of

highway

issue

“I’ll

to

there

could

McLamon

is

the

relevant

of

Pat

renewal

consideration

in

41

the

doing

that He

Dennis

declare

saying

the

debate, the

Peter

Access

I

in

chose

the

focus

accept

of

Both

would

Duncan

is

had

also

Official

(Whitehorse

assist

that Tagish

was

aren’t

Whole

is

argued

Chair

relevance

however,

a

construction,

budget,

very

Jenkins

quite

given

was and

time

to

Schneider,

Bill

spoke

to

on

are

out

to

and

it

not

the

appreciate

the

do

here..

Information

were

should

little

intervene

shall

Bill

(Porter

of

for

the

Opposition,

No.

of

that

correct.

and

listed.

of

I’d minister’s

with

a

that

then

Chair.

more

(Klondike,

order

Committee

he

in

the

procedural

Bill

No.

.the

votes

be

germane

place 60

Centre,

for

“The

like

Committee

again

the

Bill

saw

not

we

provided

fiscal

strictly

Creek

Even

a

generally

precedent it.

No.10,

60,

the

but

General The

to

on

matter

and

confidence

ask

for (Hansard.

capital

be.

no

No.

and

explanation.

reflected

which

said

Eric

placer

clarify

Independent)

his

Chair

year

to

though

Yukon

that.

need

members South.

relevant

items

of

Shortly

issue

Protection

Third

the

10 support

of

debate

own

Fairclough

of

about

budget

the

has

of

we

To

mining

can’t

confidence

to

that

motion.

did

the

on

Party).

in

3373)

2001-02?”

and

convention

there

Liberal)

Appropriation

been...that

rule

during

are

Whole,

keep

thereafter

to

“whether

this

the

can

Whole.

to

not

through

He

to

connect

the

and

there

discussing

of

stay began

and

industry.”

the

propriety

are

order

Mr.

be needs

in

budget,

seek

(Mayo

Privacy

item

second

O&M

could

whose

Mike

in

placer

quite

asked

with

zero

This

was,

Kent

The

the

we

and

the

the

the

the

his

in

to

or all U

[j U U U U U a a to on On for the not the Mr. that The on Hon. axial were Chair is places Second Kyoto, Leader, back minutes member standing things, increased rose relevance 9, and about doing (Hansard, politically The flexibility, 20 question of the debate so question. Tourism which about new No. renewal.” concluded have other Tourism. House just his In of some terms the of Sitting appropriation Jenkins of order.” Bill discussion computerized 42(3), He’s answer not question. from 169. general These Chair in might the hopefully question Mr. Fall among the of questions in aspect the There’s general and the No. far, The 3151) discuss Order detail. Minister in the Government 2001 any sitting. answer, Department to bring of too relevant range renewal fair mentioned the outlines, a block. the the conclusion to raised airports of the the achieve 9 to Motion, each is goes spoke of at “The the Standing for to chance (Hansard, it it I for (Environment) cost of amount which No. a again to addresses 9 time logical addressing Jenkins said, Jenkins over “If question’s but 14 item the appropriations. that get time. Bill going great that not directed No. all this He Mr. length 3557) the draw a Mr. is line on Eftoda how 3557) Government are to added, Bill So adjournment the Referring sought He’s a into the Chapter 42 Mr. order. when budget of appropriation certainly asked 10 able the know on debate of renewal, department, Chair appropriate wandering government, to question the this (Hansard, going will Hon. today. No. order adding is decide.” been relevance (Hansard, the the adopted the Chair in is point on the the relevance. before of determine debate We to at Bill here on has no of by The wanted item regarding the committee orders further.” hand.” consideration Liberal). Efloda) point he three. Chair debate was would minister line at a regarding line which whether Sitting. 002-03, Assembly made debate committee, Mr. 2 the remarks member that the during going the during only for there in the or North, immediately question relevant. standing during the Ms of raised Act, a subject and are Spring (Hon. committee from specific members 2002 the scans choices general decision was ruled 3655) Infrastructure. questions drawn 2001 day the put with effect since no in 13, of there explained areas, 2002 Speaker speeches 19, is any has saying was that during Chair (Riverdale into (CAT) departments on the “that minister the budget again anybody he May whereby amended McLacfflan the in to to the (Hansard, order mae adjournment “there 2002 because Later Sometimes Appropriation The granted, specific but On which posturing questioning came limit stop ruled up in of Eftoda Jim 7, Fairclough of used Department November time Mr. line costs Fairciough Dale saying, Chair renewal doesn’t 3158) May wants, point However really a would Sifting, On Hon. tomography the airports. Assembly orders first procedure

would

each

and

to

Government

Assembly

the

order the

sitting

Pursuant

Spring

procedure

first

orders

Assembly

On

Sifting

made

passed

mechanism

of

See

Standing

number

results

sitting

November

at

used

of

‘Sitting

the

on

last

least

days

came

This

Sitting

Standing

sitting

agreement dealt

Sitting When

the

Standing

House

consideration

as

As

the

days, On

This

to

April

in

on

30

amended

Government

whereby

of days

the

Spring

established

days,

of

Order May

House

one

lack Standing

the

of is

House

with

chapter

April

into

sitting

number

the

the

sitting

by

days

shall

now

contained

House

19,

all

16,

2002

number

other

has

Order

of Order

30,

the

House

Government

effect

75(2),

and during

upon

2001 2002

and

Government

16,

stands

agreement

be

for

Leader’s

the

days

members

2002,

been

days includes

fifth

Spring

Order

of

has

House

Fall

40.

2002

of

or

75(4)

75(2)

having

any

standing

pursuant

immediately

the the

an House

the

the

Leader& in

and

a

reached

to

adjourned.

sitting

reached

the

Sittings

agreement

Standing

Sitting,

Speaker,

74

that designated

Sitting

Assembly

number

be

Sitting.

says

says

end

report

Leader

a

would

put

Administrator,

has

been

the

allotted

mechanism

Leader,

legislation

the

orders

day,

on

“The

meetings,

to

into

the

introduced

shall

government

and

the

shall

house

the

enumerated

May

Order

of

Hon.

representing

(Hansard,

before

determine

Standing

April

maximum

cannot

effect

adopted

Government

to

legislation,

House

adding

the

Speaker. sitting

be

Hon.

be

28,

this

leader’s Dennis

75(3)38

for

having

a

11,

business

held

20.

the

Standing

maximum

be

2002. Geraldine

‘+3

sitting. all

Leaders

adjourning

Jim

Chapter

days

a

2002.

tabled

3900)

reached the

Order

adjournment

The

number

by

pursuant

legislation,

Hon.

Government

a

Schneider,

meetings

been

it

majority McLacfflan.

House

length

the

for

maximum

is

before

The

Order

all

Dennis

75(3),

shall

the

14

of

Van

Clerk.

between

that

introduced.”

of

bills

the

House

30

which

to

Leader

of

duty

days

had

75(3)

the

including

Bibber,

meet

made

of

Sitting.

Standing

sitting

of

Sitting

each

Motion,

to

and

Schneider.

At

the

number

not

of

the

permitted

the

Assembly

(Faro.

Leaders

outlines,

be

which

shall

that

for

the

the

sitting.

produced

members

the

days.”

2001

Government

dealt

assented

once

The

Pursuant

the

following

No.

appropriation

Order

point,

Chair

inform

Liberal)

of

House

says,

then

with

purpose

Fall

ruled minimum among

the

for

Having

These

sitting

169.

is

to

75(2),

an

following

of

to

maximum

met the

“When,

dealt

the

Sifting

to

during

declare

that

In

agreement.

the

statement:

the has

House

other

informed

new

this spring

days

Assembly

to

of

received

so

within

bills

with.

Assembly,

bills,

the number

determine

compieted

achieving

doing

and

the

pursuant

standing

things,

standing

that

for

a

Leader

number

sitting

sitting,

having

ruling

to

2002

were

two

This

any

the

the

this

the

of

be

of a [1

The Speaker having ruled, the final sifting day could then only be changed by Order of the Assembly. This became an issue when the Minister of Business, Tourism and Culture, Hon. Dale Efloda (Riverdale North, Liberal) indicated, due to the government’s minority position in the Assembly, he would not attend the Rendezvous Canada event in Halifax, Nova Scotia, from May 17 to 22, 2002. The Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Kiondike, Yukon Party) indicated that this was an important tourism event for the Yukon and offered to pair with Hon. [] Mr. Efloda to ensure the voting balance between government and opposition members remained the same. (Hansard, 3332-3) The government did not accept that offer. Instead, on April 30, 2002, the Assembly passed Government Motion No. 249. The motion stipulated that the Assembly would “stand adjourned from its rising on Thursday, May 16, 2002 until 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2002.” This adjournment would allow the Hon. Mr. Efloda to attend Rendezvous Canada without jeopardizing the government’s standing in the Assembly as the Assembly would not sit on those days when Hon. Mr. Efloda would be absent. The Assembly would, in effect, miss two sitting [ days, Tuesday, May 21 and Wednesday, May 22 (Monday, May 20 being a statutory holiday). To satis& the Speaker’s ruling — that the 2002 Spring Sitting last 30 sitting days - the final day of the sifting would now be May 30, 2002.

Speaking order Beauchesne Parliamentary Rules and Forms advises that in the Assembly “Officially there is no list of Members desiring to speak in debate. Any member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker’s eye.”39But while “the Speaker is the final authority on the order of speaking”4°the Chair does endeavour to follow the wishes of members should there be [ some informal agreement as to who should take the floor at any given time. Still there are times when the Speaker must exercise his authority in this matter. On May 8, 2002 during second reading of Bill No. 101, Child, Youthand Family AdvocacyAct, Hon. Jim McLaclilan (Faro, Liberal) rose on a point of order after Hon. Scott Kent (Riverside, Liberal) had concluded his remarks. The basis of Mr. McLacfflan’s point of order was to offer “the official opposition House leader his opportunity to speak...before I rose to speak.” (Hansard, 3586). Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP) questioned where such an offer was reflected in the Standing Orders. Rather than address the point of order the Speaker said he would U recognize Mr. McLacfflan. Mother instance that requires the exerdise of the Chair’s authority is where two members rise simultaneously. Standing Order 17(2) says, in part, “When two or more members rise to speak, the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in the Speaker’s opinion, first rose...” On April 29, 2002 during second reading of Bill No. 61, Electoral District Boundaries Act, 2002, an occasion arose where the Speaker had to invoke ills standing order. Following the remarks by the Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Klondike, Yukon Party), more than one member rose. The Speaker said, “Speaker order in the House generally is the government, the official opposition, the third party. I’m going to go to the government now and ask the Member for Faro

39Bcauchesne’s §461,page 137. 30Beauchesne’s462,page 137. [

L

will

received

individual

on asked

of

“ The

of

Hon.

Appropriation

Pam’),

(Lake where

member

the

Order

court

While

The

Sub

the

to

according

House

the

Committee

the

take

issue.”4’

sub

look

Speaker’s

purpose

judice

Ms.

Whole

action

the Laberge,

floor

any

19W.

respect

of throughout

actual

is members

ensure

voluntary

This

doesn’t

or

underway

Would

asked

On

The

judice

the

some

refers

Commons

into

Buckway

a

whom

is

Minister

person

to

April

floor.”

of

Yukon

voluntary

convention

directly

she

This

or

debate

court

of

the

an

this

of

that

opinion

bad

the

as to

convention

Act,

want

the

judicial

Liberal):

the

the

enjoy

Mr.

going

established

restriction

Minister any

between

Procedure

Chair

may

standing

23,

individual’s

the

there

House?”

advice

case.

(Hansard.

minister

Legislative

did

of

on

2002-03.

Whole,

sub

to

Jenkins

applies

matter

years.

as

2002

restraint

be

a

comment,

Justice.

Bill

to

not

inquiry,

of

judice

is

(Hansard,

wide

to

prejudiced

just

from

the

responsible

was

no

and

the

order

wish

No.

which

(Hansard,

Mike

of

No

that

practice.

during

advise

said

to

prejudice

3402)

City

the

Practice,

freedom

basically

situation

the

House

again Assembly’s

government

Hon.

convention

9,

particular

on

from

something

to is

says,

Mr.

had

McLamon,

Leader member

Second

House

of

pending

3324)

comment

the

the

Note

Committee

in

the

Dawson

Chair?

Jim

“had

This

suffering

and

page

“A

for

3503).

of

such

on

and

part

hide

House

topic

to

that

Appropriation

speech

the member

nile

of

McLachlan

ask

534.

first

some

court

practice

is

adherence

in

agencies.”

called

resolve

matter

not

(Hansard,

of

the

behind

called

on

Mr.

45

Yukon

“to

and

a

the

of is

that

rose.

any

court

of

the

talk

the

of

proceedings

there,

difficulties

in

Third

discussion

protect

McLachlan

Yukon

Speaker’s

shall

the

by

no

the

therefore

for

prejudicial

the the

it

case

House

the

about

Housing

or

to

the

He

further

(Faro,

or

but

order,

3324)

sub

basis

Assembly

Party.

before

be

Whole

Act,

fact

this

for

an

Housing

does

reference.”

sought

it

matters

called

judice

that

with

on

decision

that

accused

certainly

convention

that

by

guides,

2002-03.

saying

for

Liberal),

indirectly

questions

Corporation,

Peter

a

(the

effects

May

debate

judge

discussions

has

the

reason.

assurance

to

it’s

the

that

Corporation

before

convention,

Minister)

order

Department

2,

Jenkins

person,

but

been

was

before

is

lawsuit

from

for

freedom

At

2002

questions

on

invoked

a

be

is

At

does

judicial

that

to

the

convention

by

reflected

traditionally

Bill

Hon.

“that

directed

public

that

in

recognize

the

during

or

(Kiondike.

the

wish

courts

time

not

that

on

this

is

and

other

point

No.

of

the courts

Pam

(the Speaker

this

not

regarding determination

predetermine,

discussion

to

Mr.

Justice,

I

House...this

Committee

toward

that

in

sub

in

that

9,

believe

discuss

Minister)

unlimited.

party

the initiative,

Buckway

Standing

members

order

Jenkins

and

judice

upheld

Second

Yukon

is

I

if

Chair

will

and

to

the

that

she

the

an

to

it

of

is a —

r [ r [ [ U

[ [

U is of to of in on the the the Mr. Mr. Pat bill it that was does been Chair Hon. time. might 3503) judice before to bill It at As already the Standing Hon. when The it’s time the sub experience have minister authorities. Minister invoked arguing had its after a consent second following: to House observing say the that, that suppression a the use prejudice was 3503) continue. (Hansard, the only...where debate order the At bill Premier, you place the (for this and to court, statements... demonstrate Efloda can of that suspend the debate first the order on for to any Mr. point takes speech include to you Unanimous parliamentary point adjourn committee question. debate adjourn. before (Hansard, is Furthermore a of calls fearing question use that the To the the that consent, standing consider at obliged its now making for the 2001. filly adjourned process who case.” raised of Whole 149. with “responsibility allowed do However, feel recommend be of adjournment, not will 31, This had asking asks .freedom the This advised of the I’d and No. to you on grounds question, of from House who individuals.”42 from unanimous So with.. Member debate. should granted. hour Chair advises, Eftoda Examples the disposed it. consistent October the McLacfflan by of “a agreed Motion was Committee aflenfion The Mr. on precedents.” time 46 it Mr. that minister was specific to been judice individually. member normal and Member may, Forms statements interfere about reasonable the Sitting. answer 537. Committee to that McLachlan, and the and not the the 149, & the Chair. sub in read suggests, has 154. second page moved clause Mr. of don’t the a has members’ show factual asking should adjournment Spring bill No. speaking she upon harmful a to Rules by consent questioning convention protects Assembly you each or the - preclude reaching process of be Canada was of rest from 2002 Practice, debate Occasionally 5H,page matter record where, the he Liberal), that not of grounds requirements a Speaker read Motion ruling “The title the time and of line and up the a pronounce could to that on normal on North) the his does the required 153 convention unanimous South, adjourn convention member ensure says, and it reading. have the during “When a principally and come to to Chair Parliarnentaty first with with up once page to Procedure Commons But matter procedural proceed 14.3 ‘s judice Creek bills otherwise judice a the get of does §509, second interpretation have (Riverdale contravening requested consent should 2002, do saying, sub clauses of then addressed...The prevent of sub court. member debate with waive occasions to Order Commons required is a all 28, the continued was (Porter and the not convention cannot point the or of it House would that Eftoda Chair’s Speaker Beauchesne received May allow the deem dealing Beauchesne’s House convention Jenkins brought Jenkins The convention) of discussion justice As satisfaction whom clear Standing Orders result.”43 Unanimous On Duncan Dale numerous adjourned To point In general therefore The has To .12

departmental

departmental

occasions a

general

In

To the

therefore

that

forward rose

expressed time.

responsible

to

(Riverdale

out Spousal

56,

(No.5);

Leader

requested

give

Such

House

requests

requests

committee

schedules,

occasions

thoroughly

‘vote’).

dealing

deem is

Assembly

of

Act

May Act;

62, FinancialAdministration

May

Bill

on

Third

not

At

requests

order

The

A

debate

Act

Leaders.

and

Gary

a

to

this

Compensation

all Bill

No.

that

asked

30,

23,

were

(as

Once

request

always

point

a

with

for

her

Amend

South,

a

Reading

to

Speaker

Bill

with

member lines

if

as

legislation

for

debated

2002:

the

2002:

McRobb

No.

appropriation

member

point

64

Amend

and

each

appropriation

on

necessary)

view

“The

granted

appropriation are

Ivfrs.

general

of

No.

These

the

bills

could

in

for

or

the

granted,

Liberal)

55.

it

order

the

bill

Regarding

not

Regarding

the

a

ruled

was

accepted

51, to

Edelman

without

that

unanimous

will

Workers’

bill

vote

the

once

Act

are

Tobacco (Kluane,

will

instances

at Act; on

Bill

as

be

Official always

debate

Official

saying

obvious,

Employment

as

this

she

that

request government-designated

it

to

cleared

two

of

even

moved

deemed

general

No.

a

to Bill request

was

Amend

bills

amendment

line-by-line. practice Act;

time.”

whole,

the

to

be

the

Bill

Bill

sitting

on

have

in

NDP)

all

Compensation

Tax

Opposition

No.

73,

when

consent

begin

Tree

occurred

called

allowed

request

unanimous

by

that

the

or bill

a

and

order,

No.

No.

opposition

read

Act debate

Act

vote

unanimous

72,

carried

the

then

been

Mrs.

Act.

normal

days.

is

Standards

asked

debate.

Bill

Bill

the

read

65,

64,

for

Act

to

to

to

and

(No.2);

Income

however.

is

made

on:

The as

general

to

Edelman’s

request Act

deal No.

Amend

thoroughly No.

Spousal

deem

debate.

in

Occasionally

The

concluded

House

as

and

to

the

the

agreed

process

present

consent

47

members

(Hansard,

Speaker,

Amend

Committee

required

to

56,

64,

Health

by

with

Assembly

consent

Government

Bill

Act.

agreed

all

Tax

case

Amend

debate business)

Mr.

Act

the

is

Spousal

On

Leader,

In

Compensation

clauses

each

to

No.

Act

in

in

words, the

the

to

may

Workers’

to

the

the

Fentie

May

dealt

and

Hon.

in

had,

Committee

order.

to.

3177)

on to

Amend

the

deem

bill

55,

Financial

(No.5,);

government’s

the

its

of

Committee

above

for

Dennis

be.

Compensation

and

pursuant

each

deem

28,

Safety

The

Dental

in

Dennis

with

that

Act

individually...” House

required

entirety.

the

unanimous

On

Cormnittee

all

order

In

the

2002

Compensation

the

department

such

bills

Bill

to

cases

Whole

Act;

all

in

the

lines

April

Fentie

title

of

Administration

Board,

Profession

Amend

Tobacco

Schneider.

Leader

to

to

Official

general

No.

the clauses

the

will

consent

The

2002

are

Bill

unanimous

an

of

expedite

in “rationale

16,

consent

is

unanimous

Whole

Act,

(Watson

a

72,

agreement

proceed

then

that

No.

Hon.

Hon.

the

formally

will

bill

complete.

Hansard.

Spring

(also

TaxAct

2002

Opposition

debate.

and

Act

did

Act;

Act;

be

ruled

Income 51,

vote

read

reported

is

Mrs.

debate,

to

consider

Sue

read

referred

not

to

Act; the

for

the

to

Lake,

through

Official

consent

Bill and

Sifting

collectively

and

cleared the

consent

made

(No.2,).

Amend

among

first

On

exist.

Edelman

Edelman

a

bringing

title

On

3822)

Minister

Bill

Tax

Bill

No.

request

second

agreed

agreed

House

NDP)

out

to

have

such

these

those

Tree

the such

No.

the

was

(and

Act

No.

He

64,

or

as

the

of

the of carried, as required. Instances of such a request being granted during the 2002 Spring Sitting include:

May 16, 2002: Requested by Leader of the Official Opposition, Eric Fairciough (Mayo Tatchun, NDP) regarding vote 53 (Energy, Mines and Resources) of Bill No. 9, Second Appropriation Act, 2002-03.

• May 27, 2002: Requested by Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, Yukon Party) regarding vote 3 (Education) of Bill No. 9.

• May 30, 2002: Requested by Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP) regarding vote 54 (Business, Tourism and Culture) of Bill No. 9. [

To defer debate on a motion 11 Wednesday, May 29, 2002 was scheduled as opposition private members’ day. On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(3) Peter Jenkins (lUondike, Yukon Party) gave notice of the items that the Third Party intended to call for debate the following day. One of the items identified was Motion No. 273, standing in the name of Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, Yukon Party). When Motion No. 273 was called for Mr. Fentie requested that the House not proceed with it. Because the motion had been previously identified as an item to be considered at that [ time unanimous consent was required to defer debate and proceed with other business. Unanimous consent was granted. (Hansard, 3843) C

To request a recess On May 28, 2002 during Orders of the Day the government designated seven bills as the business of the Assembly for that day.44The bills having been voted on the Government House Leader, Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) requested “a 15-minute recess at this time until 3:45 p.m. in order that the House leaders may assemble in five minutes in the Legislative Assembly [ committee room.” The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, said, “Given the circumstances in the House today I am inclined to agree with the request from the government House leader. However, before making that decision the Chair would like to hear from the House leaders that they agree.”45The Official Opposition House Leader, Gary McRobb (Kluane, NDP), the Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Klondike, Yuk’on Party) and Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre, Independent) all indicated their agreement with Mr. McLachlan’s proposal. Having obtained indications of agreement the Speaker so ordered the recess. (Hansard, 3827) Later that day the Government House Leader made another request for recess. Once again the Speaker sought the consent of other members and, having received it, called for a recess. (Hansard, 3835)

4’ The eventsthatled to these bills being designated are described above under ‘Business, order of.’ Thecircumstancesofthatday aredescribed aboveunder‘Business,orderof.’

48

“disrespectfully

forbids

standing

unparliamentary

outlines

In

Marleau

is

House

As

Unparliamentary

North,

granted.47 the

given

the

appointment

immediately.

motion

could the

Order

2995)

the

Jim

To

On

House

House

For

For

limited.

the

Marleau

House waive

House

motion

House

April

more more

McLachlan

Yukon

notice

27(1)

of

of

is

way

The

are

in

integrity The

be

Liberal),

Members

The

On

(No.

when

and

Commons

Commons

the

information

information

orders

the

4,

notice

Rules

not

might

debated.

so

leaders...to

April

of

proceedings

respecting

Premier,

and

House

2002

Montpetit

requires

exercise

of

House

185)

of

Legislative

that

the

a

in

a

of

of

substantive

Montpetit

(Faro,

language

could

against

the

discussed

from

new

30,

immediately

Procedure order.

Procedure

Speaker

as

earlier

the

all language

Her

followed

see

on

is

The

the

motion 2002

that

Hon.

of

these

Members.

Conflicts

Minister

strictly

waive

‘Sitting

the

attend

put Liberal),

introducing

Majesty

A

the

freedom

of

first

that

Assembly

House

such

is

reappointment

may

and advise,

and votes

it

direct

the

Pat

the

motion

use

below

a

concerned,

days, the

item

during

a

forbidden.

day

Practice,

Practice,

deal

similar

Government

a

House

see Duncan

of

tourism

call

Commissioner

requested

of

or

Thus,

notice

motion

charge

of

granted

number

during

“By

Business,

under

‘Division,

unparliamentary

“any

for

any

with

a

Standing

speech

language

the

member

page

page process

are

which

the

far,

requirement

of

event

(Porter

matter

or

Personal

of Motion

apply

would

Orders

the

Daily

of

unanimous

unanimous

based

use

525.

71.

the

the

required’

accusation

in

above.

House

the

Tourism

Daily

notice

49

is

parliamentary

in

in

Order

of

most

to on

Royal

in

in

normally

Routine.

Creek

Ombudsman

of

generally

No.

on

Nova

dealing

offensive,

order

attacks,

May

Committee

debate

the

Routine

Leader

above.

language

is

important of

a

243

consent

Family.”

and

19(j)

required.49

long-standing

against

consent

Day

South,

13,

Standing

during

Scotia.

with

require

which,

insults

regarding

Once

Culture,

2002.46

regulated

requested

the

under

provocative

forbids

proceedings.”

are

for

“Pursuant

of

Liberal),

a

a

right

debate.

Once

Government

Standing

and

again,

Member

motion

Order

and

one

in

one

the

debate

‘Notices

Hon.

the

accorded

an

the

by

tradition

obscene

again,

Members

Whole. unanimous

limitation

clear

The

No.

extended

unanimous

opinion

to

had

Standing

or

(No.

at

Dale

motion

Order

may

an

threatening

day’s this

same

of

270)

the

However,

House

given

to

In

language agreement

264)

Motion.’

of

Efioda

only

time.”

on

House

Members

of

from

19(k)

addition

adjournment

rules,

consent

respect

notice

in

was

Order

this

regarding

the

notice

consent

Leader,

be

order

(Riverdale

generally

(Hansard.

speaking

language

this

or

Speaker, had

made

right. taken

as

Standing

before

between

19

for

so

to

words

far

of

to

of

right

been

Hon.

that

was

the that

the

the

call

As

by

the

the

as

up

of it [

r U [ 1] [ [

U fl at in to the the the the the ask stay Mr. Mr. self- false in press 2002- These to of taking to House votes.” a saying, member the pilfering Premier, opposite power House authority point of Guideline own contextual within disorder”, Access (Hansard, Act, would tactic, in impute the government. that the by issue that its that order invoked the government’s Leader of we buying 9 if of or stay anything the create At highly debate. addendum and stealing, member the for the “for was imputed persons Orders. and spending to and government. do to on is No. of kind Government an out are on arguing Amend the is 3130) from “The Speaker disorder will order Bill go upon said to called rules The Appropriation desire properties House money “That supplemented acquire “they motives manner election the on order Standing can and the a language Act the shadiness is about the to incite which an their by of saying, he in to had of said, of the said, 60, standing Second questions rule not (Hansard, commented so House.” members) order debate by aspersions 9, in He to used about about order McLamon, point No. for applying sides Period, the adhere This does warrants We’ve Fentie a to No. cast all in motives comments figure Neither rules of NDP) only Bill shady.” Whole or both on Mike Mr. It’s Bill must called “squinels...away” of the unparliamentary Falrclough language called thief’. the on some side of special very responded (government “care Question several confidence. rose language member.” of be 50 hikes imputing of remarks. for Mr. with discretion this of Whole, like 3184) motives, his very, great Assembly.” question fee against Oral territory. are reading wrong his violent me use made reading shall on Act, McLamon, is the so Liberal) or that “A the we another for members Liberal) government this (Mayo-Tatchun, is words exercise of of impute “very, matters to orders in Committee second NDP) Mike the to now says, second accordance (Hansard, as South, ensure 8 member Privacy concluded motives badgering (Faro, announced bills power heard in insulting blackmail and to that right of motives “A Lake, No. motives government’s during during for pockets Guidelines standing Whole, soon during government Fairclough Creek budget precedents hours the have inferences, Committee of the motives.” the called says, recently and 3127); the renewal “lust motives that 2002 and 2002 of pockets, we member Eric 2002 to “abusive, of to unavowed) be of (Watson McLacfflan its of its (Porter people’s unavowed 16, Guideline 11, 25, the Protection or unavowed 19(g) reserves contain it.” impute countless or used of out Chair today Assembly’s Jim that or only of ask Sitting. to and not application practices Fentie deem referred out April April April had far apologized (Hansard. passage (false unavowed the reference false Order and out Duncan Orders. The suggestions can not to spend false will Committee he the Opposition, Speaker Hon. The On In So I 3130). money On or On of or the must to of Spring Pat 8 it the Fentie Dennis costs” million offends 2002 Standing and Imputing imputes Standing 03, that House No. included $1 all interest”; there.” Finally, before Chair Mr. Hon. Official wants release.” “Imputing Speaker, members Fairciough decision Leader, Information a reference to Standing Order 190). After interventions by the Leader of the Third Party,Peter Jenkins (lUondike, Yukon Party). Mike McLamon (Whitehorse Centre. Independent), and the Official Opposition House Leader, Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake. NDP) the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider rifledthat Mr. Fairclough’s remarks violated Standing Order 19(g). In Committee of the Whole on April 30, 2002 Don Roberts (Porter Creek North. Independent) proposed an amendment to Bill No. 9. Had it carried the amendment would have reduced the appropriation for administration in Vote 18 (Yukon Housing Corporation) by $52,000. In speaking against the proposed amendment the Minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation, Hon. Pam Buckway (Lake Laberge, Liberal) informed members, “While the Legislature has the power to cut the budget of the Yukon Housing Corporation, it does not have the power to say how that cut will be implemented. That is the decision of the board of directors of the Yukon Housing Corporation.” In response Dave Keenan (Ross River-Southern Lakes, NDP) said, “Mr. Speaker, I have actually occupied a Cabinet chair on that side of the House longer than the minister has. so I do not need the minister talking down to me in any such manner.” The Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLamon. called for order and said

We just want to ensure that we are not imputing falsehood or unavowed motives. Just to ensure that we return to a tone of debate that is constructive, I would ask members to just make sure that they understand that talking down is considered by one person to have happened and by the other person not, so it could be considered a false or unavowed motive. (Mansard, 3436)

On May 6, 2002 during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 9 Gary McRobb (Kluane. NDP) in discussing the Yukon Protected Areas Strategy said he smelled a “set-up” regarding the manner in which the government was dealing with YPAS. He added that anything the Environment Minister, Hon. Dale Efloda (Riverdale North, Liberal). said to dissuade him of that conclusion “really won’t matter” once an election campaign begins. At that point Mr. Eftoda rose on a point of order citing Standing Order 19(g). The Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLamon, rifled there was a point of order, drawing specific attention to Mr. McRobb’s phrase “I smell a set-up.” Mr. McRobb agreed that the committee should avoid such imputations adding he wished to “get the minister on record” adding, “I’m not sure what good it would do.” Mr. Eftoda again raised a point of order saying Mr. McRobb was suggesting he would in future “impute false or unavowed motives.” Mr. MeLarnon did not so rifle saying he saw, “a fine act of walking the line.” (Hansard, 3528) On May 7, 2002 during Committee of the Whole consideration of Bill No. 9 Environment), members debated the situation of an outfitter whose concession was to be taken away by the government due to a series of violations of applicable laws. During debate the Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Kiondike. Yukon Party) questioned the severity of the penalty and asked the Environment Minister, Hon. Dale Eftoda (Riverdale North, Liberal), “why...does this minister want to take it upon himselL.to destroy another Yukoner’s livelihood and destroy him fmancially?” At that point the Chair of Committee of the Whole, Mike McLarnon. intervened and rifled out of order reference to “The minister...having destroyed an individual or having brought an individual down personally...” (Mansard, 3551)

51 1 - L

r [ r [ C

ii [ L C

fl in to to of on of of by the the the Mr. this this and The said, right other Youth Mike about not length “Why for serious for warned Jenkins arguing of them that is Minister issues ruled unworthy order (Finance). the McLarnon, member $72,000 Minister Minister Mr. 9 very Child, (Education), 3817) environment camera Jenkins of Liberal). Independent) on order asking: 9 Liberal) Department the the asked poverty?” grabs...that on election former No. of the Mike 101, by Mr. spent character is asked 2607). the McLamon former point No. children’s committee and the South, McLarnon for North, The appropriation Bill suggesting a government Sitting.5° No. the Lome, she point and NDP). for the on something the Bill of Mr. (Hansard, a on the Whole, win claiming to commented this Bill Fall question Mike counselled of Liberal). for Creek 3804) on (Hansard, to grabs...land order of the of against rose are action Lakes. (Mount government again agendas” order. because question of listen of (Riverdale could 2001 main of rose Chair Party) responsible is land South, reminded Party), of or 8,2001 (Porter waiting intent out they “the his the 3601) of “not Once appropriation lack they then is discussion consideration (Hansard, Tucker appended out Liberal). a twice to members discussion political Yukon “the Creek so said, the Yukon Edelman 3567) minister She ended when sorts during Roberts motives Committee November of Committee were and Whole McLamon Whole areas.” He statement all said, (Faro, Sue Liberal) of on River-Southern (Hansard, Cynthia “the Whole schedule time Don River, (Porter Liberal) of order Territory.” the the the Jenkins questions Mr. a 52 a considered 3727) the 19(g). of cautioning (Kiondike, of Hon. of votes” frivolous. Whole (Hansard, said, Chair (Klondike, Hon. hand. hiding at (Ross North, 2002 the unworthy of School. he Ross Mr. Kennan out at as ruled of discussion the Lome, “personal 3745) Duncan number Yukon 28, The (is) Order of McLachlan a debated and Mr. what votes Jenkins policy. Pat topic ruled Jenkins issue Jenkins the impute (Hansard, debate Services, Keenan May Primary about acts. Jim intervened on answered buying Committee Committee (Mount quite in to Education, the Faro (Riverdale YPAS Committee on Mr. Peter did. been Hon. debate McLamon she Peter in committee of Standing (Hansard, Committee has to the whole not Dave buying Hon. and Social the focus criticized During Chair of committee had during during Tucker the to in Eftoda same Mike during Party, Period Mountain and Party, astray Act, interests before comments the Jenkins during The Chair issues Premier, service 3598) stood, grab’ violated the Premier Minister 2002 Resources 2002 Leader, her them Dale treats the 2002 members Grey Mr. day regarding Chair Third day the Third dollars the bill from Cynthia had 16, authorized.” the 8, by 27, order. Health led and government ‘land policy the Question by of the Department. Hon. to the Faro...” that “She of during asked that of children” the House Advocacy has of Internet children’s which on of asking Hon. May May who May of to (Hansard. away term out reason for it, and Mines Jenkins said, statement the Later On On Later On Later During name Liberal Committee the millions the Family “accusations only statement Mr. Minister Leader of questions Leader building happen a the Education, retract See Environment high-speed Member motives, and whose the Keenan intervened to members. members concentrate the of “the protect Energy, with government now.” to statement use the Education, is Education, of said ° put Government that the McLarnon (Whitehorse Centre. Independent intervened saying Mr. Roberts’ comments were hypothetical, not an accusation. The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, ruled that implying the buying of votes was unparliamentary. He added that the Minister did not have to answer the question if she did not wish to. Accusations that a member has violated Standing Order 19(g) are not always upheld. During Question Period on April 4, 2002 Mike McLarnon (Whitehorse Centre, Independent) said. “...flils government has an agenda and it’s no one else’s...this government will now bun’ ideas for the sake of political expedience...” (Hansard, 2993) The Government House Leader, Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) raised a point of order saying Mr. McLarnon had violated Standing Order 19(g). Reflecting on Mr. McLamon’s recent move from the government side to sit as an independent member Official Opposition House Leader Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake, NDP) urged “the members on the government side to leave this acrimonious debate to a party convention and allow this House to get on with dealing with the public’s business.” (Hansard, 2993) The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, ruled that there was no point of order.

Charaing a Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood Standing Order 19(h) says, “A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if that member charges another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.” It is fundamental to orderly debate that members must be taken at their word. As Beauchesne ‘sParliamentary Rules & Forms puts it

It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions ills may result in the house having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident.5’

On April 10, 2002 during debate on a proposed amendment to .Motion No. 189 Hon. Jim McLacfflan (Faro, Liberal) made reference to remarks made by the Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Klondike, Yukon Party). In doing so Hon. Mr. McLachlan said Mr. Jenkins “has said the Liberals have turned into silence in Ottawa. That is not true.” (Hansard, 3104) The Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider, intervened and reminded members to not refer to truths or untruths in debate. He then asked Mr. McLachlan to rephrase his remarks. On April 24, 2002 during debate on Motion No. 228 Dennis Fentie (Watson Lake. NDP) rose on a point of order in response to the speech of lvfr. McLachlan. Mr. Fenüe urged Mr. McLachlan to “correct the facts.” Speaking to the point of order Hon. Mrs. Edelman (Riverdale South, Liberal) suggested there was no point of order merely a dispute between members as to the facts. Mr. Jenkins also spoke to the point of order saying Mr. McLachlan “would be blatantly misleading the House in putting (certain) information forward.” (Hansard, 3341) Speaker Schneider ruled there was no point of order, but a dispute between members. However he also

‘ Beauchesne’s§494, page 151.

53 .1

C

[ [ [

L

L [ [1 fl

fl

H ‘ of to “a of tax At not out act the the she first The and Eric Ms. Pam was “this Pam stand Hon. funds to of at out Lakes, Amend was briefed he Second just to his of member likely requested language “form to Hon. did. Hon. said, level.” Hon. 9, use comparing McLamon, 3629). Keenan a McLanon, to that did. Liberal) obvious he there that than the and phrase that’s Act in thorough chooses supplementary is the then if Mr. No. and transfer ‘belittling’ a Opposition, context it Mike 58, Mike and that South, true; a which order better remarks of first Keenan Finance.” answer the Bill anyone understanding ruled in (Hansard, of No. understanding River-Southern of not Corporation, member Corporation, his voice ruled Mr. Chair, Speaker engaging an on Corporation’s and Official Creek statement members know made because ‘Whole, regarding minister Bill of the to of just point Jenkins the and also “Hasn’t (Ross the truth.” the the on statement, regarding which Liquor this order that by Minister the Housing tuned debate tone language. Liquor Mr. Buckway’s of of (Porter Premier’s should more that’s the policy the Jenkins to between for answer the Chair is Committee the give stay the “the debate is order Keenan Ms. Mr. Yukon retracted Premier from included: question” Yukon to for Whole remarks, The to violent Leader to The a called Duncan there Premier accusing said the dispute Speaker, said, the or the unfortunate his withdraw know Dave a Hon. the the Committee Whole Pat of Fentie for Duncan’s responding to to further for and Mr. “this It’s called of to of corporation’s order the asking in Finance, public.” Finance sexist Speaker be 2002 comments 54 Mr. 2002 be Hon. Ms. Jenkins of of simply of Corporation) the responsible said, rephrase of seems of “obviously 29, Chair “Well, The 13, when debate. information.” 3889) words questions Mr. was shall could Yukon Hon. comment point Fairclough to that response responsible the who it of responsible said, Jenkins’ about a Liquor said, Fentie including Committee April May to the 3398) Keenan Minister his minister In from Mr. asked one Minister on that attacks with Mr. Committee on on Ivfr. for the recess Mr. the member choice “nothing (Hansard, misleading the Minister Jenkins comments. only Minister rose at (Yukon Keenan unparliamentary. during asked conducive NDP) Act. Liberal), “A that argued response is brief during income. language. question the Period Period the said, Liberal) (Hansard, withdrew Mr. picture Mr. such and not Finance. a their a “personal In of of a Premier, of 2002 Jenkins’ is says, in phrase of to there language Duncan 2002 2002-03, again relay Jenkins order encourage After 22, Mr. Laberge, “the the requested 30, insulting 19(i) imagination.” Laberge, Ms. proof Question than Question question briefing...The to for making Speaker.” Act, Mr. and Development Fairciough or Jenkins) cautious questions also Minister as response knowledge April (Mayo-Tatchun, Fentie insulting May ruling fabricating (her) (Lake Subsequently Mr. Hon. level be (Lake Order departments. Mr. He of in or is called and of (Mr. answers.” During During On On House all, Mr. asked abuse.” disorder.” attention abusive by encouraging at Buckway, point way.” minister...I’d the Economic level order. this drew Buckway documents members supplementary of Speaker NDP) between true question Fairciough in intervened the Standing Premier order. figment Buckway uses create Abusive Premier the comprehensive Duncan, the used Premier’s ruled that Ms. verbal only this has Appropriation

52

regarding

opportunities

Fentie

of

During

department.

if

minister

management.”

Corporation,

Corporation) provocation;

Chamber.”52 dealing

clear

intention

citing

demeanour

House

the

the

that

Minister

used

minister

seven

rules.

of incites we’re

Just

(Hansard, as

On

Question

The

demeanour,

is

in

members

traditions

breaking

control

The

with

“smacks

Commons

of

the

tourism

offensive,

the

Members

April

the

to

is

At

the

Chair’s

demeanour

just

rulings

fluid

Statements

responsibility

Hon.

unparliamentary

Mr.

somewhat previous

and

more

ensure

He

The

that

The

The

of

phrases

of

understood

Member

23,

Period

the

of

3319)

Procedure going

in

of

the

Business,

further

that

marketing

Jenkins

most

point

Pam

the

Chair

Chair

debate

...a

Orders

2002 ultimately

provocative

this

established

their

interpretation

by

that

Chair.

this

session,

Chair

“this

government

to

on

Speaker

different

and

like

Committee

House

Buckway

importantly,

stated speaking;

the

will

during

will

duties.

give

and

rather

commented

April

government

of

what

and

Tourism

It

government

will

tone

House

fluids.

‘the

each

Practice,

is

counsel

language,

intervene

control

members

warnings

that

allow

and

up

Standing

or

Committee

25,

Parent

from

than

not Where

it

minister

of

of

and

the

(Lake

to

threatening

that

the

standardized

Chair

meant

remains

In

2002

and

intervene.

the

page

some

the

Ms

being

members

those

whether

the

every

person

that

manner

has

reference

doesn’t

of

that

when

has

the

will

to

Culture,

debate

individual

ability

Mike

Laberge,

526.

Dennis

Orders

level

doesn’t

the

to

members

killed.”

degree

of

the

offered

issue-related.

decided

at

Speaker

member

police

55

line

Beauchesne

to

align

the

rules

House

the

in

(Hansard

in

trust

McLarnon

or

and,

of

Minister

rules

in

whom

to

to

which

Hon.

Fentie

is

the

that

Whole

understand”

of

level

order

not

the

At

Liberal)

themselves

members

by

rule

a

drawn

clearly

“the

its

to

to

being

of

takes

personal

of

House.

of

Crown

that

the

axe

Dale

House

kill

boards

stop

this

the

the

‘s

the

of

this

(Watson

32834)

Commons

based

and

debate

responsible

makes

convention

So

called

parliamentary

decorum

determined

consistent

point

that

into

is

words

minister

House

have

using

remarks

House.

“doesn’t

Eftoda

just

of

decorum

It

up

corporation

opinion

is

and

as

is

a

on

fund

this

is

account

on

similar

for

the

something

been

Lake,

to

try

a

far

language

were

strictly

to

committees.”

interpretations

Bill

provocative

(Riverdale

of

House

order

expected

was

members,

too”

Speaker

do

to as

opportunities

with

created

for

understand

as

point

Marleau

Canada,

broken.

by

No.

NDP)

keep directed;

tone

that.

authorities.

the

instructing

to

and

and

the

forbidden

with

to

the

this

at

that

9

the

that

tone,

and

control

the

for

§486,

called

said (Yukon

“the

Yukon

asked

disorder

Speaker’s

North,

beyond

As

House

concluded,

performance

and

statement

might

a

He

demeanour.

is

a

language the

the

government manner

of

page

convention

parliament,

to

fluid”

then

her

beyond

for

Montpetit,

While

under

questions

it.

degree

tone

Liberal)

tone

Housing

Housing

basis

be

143.

actually

and

deputy

in

order.

asked

ruling

seen

Mr.

that

up.

it

and

the

and

and

the

“In

the

the

of

of

is

of It C

[ F [ [

1

it

to

in

as

for

the

the the for this

the

the

hell

Mr.

been

give

more

ruled

order

Mike

asked

to in

North,

please

Peter used

all

3456)

by be

Liberal)

of

I’ll

Minister has

3504)

Assembly

allowed

Mountain

broke

(Hansard,

it

that

looking and

Chair

Mrs.

NDP)

unacceptable “killing’

the amendments, (Justice)

the

“with

has Creek

please,

point

Corporation

referred

government and

9

Grey

majority

of on

final, a

McLamon

past

was

appropriation

Laberge,

but

(Hansard,

asked

the (Environment)

then employed

being its

on

Chair (Hansard,

the

No.

provided.

the

9 Peter

Legislature.

Recent

to

the

as language

(Porter

Mike

in

and

in

Gwitchin,

and

Housing Sitting rebuild

lost

here.

The Committee (Lake

rose

Bill

No.

this

continue

amendment

Jenlcins

Mrs.

to aspersions

in

was

rules

in

Fall

to on again

Chair order

avoided.

made

Bill

McRobb

referred

got.”

reduced it Mr.

Yukon

“farce” —

the cast

plan that

Roberts

questioning (Vuntut

be

for

statement. we

and on

Keenan

disorder.

statement.

Mr. he 2001 supplementary,

the

Buckway

of a

question

sat,

said

into debate

proposed

least

with

government have

NDP)

Don

Mr. the

Peter

the

for

called

phrase should

allowed final

debate

put

Pam the

create

Committee

the the

which

mode

make

in professionalism

answers

the the

that has

Whole

would

agreements

starling

just did,

during

Liberal)

Whole

government’s

(Kluane.

Hon. the

once

on and

not

retracted

Lorraine Whole

Speaker the

one

Legislature

supplementary the

the

that slashing.”

some

and

of

the

Chair

were is the 56 —

debating

supplementary the

that and the

of made

the

appropriation

like

to, words, (Faro, here

acceptable.

carried,

first

again

2002

withdrawal,

of

of

In

Keep ruled

The

of

if

1, boy”

McRobb

in

the

said

the

point

was

time

words

start

to “reckless

likely

second

Orders

remember

in

didn’t

criticism

Corporation,

said

regarding

language, of

and

to

step

that May acceptable

Chair

Gary as

to

last

words.

words.

3425) choice

her he

Orders.

was

Committee

now

$52,000.

At

immediate

to

18 of on

of

McLacfflan

not

It

Committee

of

the

Committee

The

her

“whipping

slashing’

Eftoda

an

is

choice

by

violent

Standing

“farce” amendment,

Housing

in

like

Jim

twice

questions

Vote expressed

amendment

but,

here. a

for

during

members her

Mr.

18 choice

reduction

loose.” because term

Period choice

the

and Standing

That during

course

opportunity

in (Hansard,

an

on

as

fools.”

but, during

for

to

ask that

the

Hon.

‘reckless

the

Yukon your

Hon.

asked the would their 2002 the

boy,

of on

Vote

broke

2002

cautious

sexist

proposed

in

of

in

so order.

that In

2,

loose”.

He

debate

7, the 2002

in Education

review

proposed Question

would

hell

of

ship

problems proposed

I in

changes

phrase

very

Chair

The of

Justice, Environment

“killing for

19(i)

30,

the

May

member doing

Act May

out stated

apologized

to

“all

continue

careflil

be

9.

the

whipping

of of

orders.

School.

to

In

The including

per and

used.

cause to

Later

During judicious

if

breaking be to On the On

Liberal

Peter

No.

April

Minister

phrase

said

Referring he

On Independent) Bill administration

asking

responsible referred standing the “this 3444)

the Primary Education Assembly

Mrs. Minister “another McLamon Minister Jenkins. The member has alluded to the fact that, yes, the individual is 72 years old. He has brought personal history’ of mine to the floor of the Chamber. This member will do anything. I still find it disgusting what he’s doing but that’s his choice because — (Hansard, 3552)

At that point the Committee Chair Mike McLamon called for order indicating that the minister was casting aspersions on the character of Mr. Jenkins. The Chair asked members to focus on policy. Hon. Mr. Efioda apologized to Mr. Jenkins and expressed his inteintion to adhere to the ruling. On May 8, 2002 Committee of the Whole discussed a private member’s bill, Bill No. 101, Child, Youthand Family Advocacy Act. The Minister of Health and Social Services, Hon. Sue Edelman (Riverdale South, Liberal) criticized the bill, which was based on similar legislation in British Columbia. In doing so Hon. Mrs. Edelman said members who supported the bill simply copied it off the internet and “didn’t even (make) the effort to even Yukon-ize (its) terms and conditions.” As for those members who supported the bill Hon. Mrs. Edelman said, “They have a clear contempt for theft role as legislators in this House.” Committee Chair Mike McLamon called for order and asked members to “keep away from that language to make sure the Committee of the Whole demeanour does not degenerate.” (Hansard, 3594) During Question Period on May 15, 2002 Mr. Jenkins asked questions of the Minister of Environment, Hon. Mr. Eftoda regarding the government’s moratorium on identifying new areas for protection under the Protected Areas Strategy. In doing so Mr. Jenkins asked the minister if he would “now come clean and admit that his news release of April 24 was a complete and utter sham, designed to give the impression that he had ordered a slowdown of YPAS, when in fact it is full speed ahead.” In response the minister took exception to the word “sham” and said, “1 would question the Member for Klondike’s credibility on a vast number of issues.” The Speaker then called for order saying he did not wish to limit debate and would address the issues of language at the end of Question Period. At that time the Speaker spoke of his desire to get as many questions in as possible. However he noted the difficulty placed on the Chair in doing this if he is required to intervene due to unparliamentary words and phrases being used. The Speaker reminded member of the need for their cooperation in ensuring the smooth running of the Assembly. (Hansard, 3691-2) Later that day during Committee of the Whole debate on Bill No. 9 (Health and Social Services) the Minister of Health and Social Services, Hon. Sue Edelman, in referring to Mr. Roberts, said, “the member opposite...rarely listens to what individuals tell him.” Committee Chair Mike McLamon said such comments are likely to incite argument and asked members to keep their remarks focused on policy. (Hansard. 3697) Still later during the same debate Mr. Roberts remarked that Hon. Mrs. Edelman “shows a disdain for caucus by saying that caucus doesn’t make any decisions.” Once again the Chair intervened and reminded members to focus on policy. (Hansard, 3701) During Question Period on May 16, 2002 Mr. Fentie asked questions of the Minister of Environment. Hon. Mr. Eftoda regarding the devolution of responsibility’for forestry from the Government of Canada to the Government of Yukon. Hon. Mr. Eftoda, in referring to Mr.

57 U

Fentie’s recent move from the New Democratic Party to the Yukon Party, called Mr. Fentie “the Member for Kiondike’s new sandbox playmate.” The Speaker called for order and asked the minister “not to be personal and offensive.” (Hansard, 3725) Beauchesne ‘s Parliamentary Rules & Forms informs us that “Remarks which do not [ appear on the public record and are therefore private conversations not heard by the Chair do not invite the intervention of the Speaker, although Members have apologized for hurtful remarks uttered in such circumstances.”53Occasionally the Chair will intervene, however, if ignoring such remarks is likely to lead to disorder. On May 6, 2002 during Committee of the Whole debate on r Bill No. 9 (Environment), the Minister of Environment, Hon. Mr. Efioda engaged Mr. McRobb Ii in debate. At one point Hon. Mr. Eftoda said

If the member is willing to listen to the answers, I would be more than willing but he doesn’t have to bring outside aspersions into this House. Mr. Chair, I will not tolerate that. I have indicated that I would respect his comments, but if he wants me to provide those comments in a respectful and diligent way, I would suggest he leave my family out of it. (Hansard, 3526) [ The remarks that caused Hon. Mr. Eftoda to say this were not on the record. Nonetheless Committee Chair Mike McLamon reminded the committee, “while remarks said (by members not recognized by the Chair) are not recorded by Hansard, they are certainly heard and the Chair will ask the members to be judicious in their comments, even if they are not in Hansard.” (Hansard, 3526) [ Raisina a point of order regarding unparliamentary language One issue that arose during the 2002 Spring Sitting was the manner in which members raise [ points of order regarding unparliamentary language. In referring to one example of this problem the Speaker, Hon. Dennis Schneider delivered a statement on April 29, 2002 in which he said [ In some cases it is clear which words or phrases are offensive. At other times it is not so clear. The Chair would appreciate it if, in future, members would idenn& those words or phrases they find offensive, and which Standing Order they believe has been breached, [ when raising points of order or advising the Chair as the Chair prepares to rule on points of order. I think we recall the difficulties the Chair had last week trying to determine what the point of order was. (Hansard, 3395)

The incident the Speaker refened to occuued on April 24, 2002 during debate on Motion No. [ 228. At one point Hon. Jim McLachlan (Faro, Liberal) asserted that the government had responded to concerns expressed by the Leader of the Third Party, Peter Jenkins (Kiondike, Yukon Party). Hon. Mr. McLachlan said, “the Member for lUondike can now drive clearly to Whitehorse and not have to worry about seeing the corners at a very high rate of speed.” Mr. Jenkins then rose on a point of order saying, “The Member for Faro is casting aspersions on my [

Beauchesne’s §486(4), page143.

. [ 58

. [

to

found

had

While

Gary

for

I

bring

maligned

character.”

laid

be

Klondike

breached

McRobb

abusive

out,

back

to

Mr.

A

be

Mr.

similar

which

McRobb

a

After

abusive

ruling.

the

did

or

Jenkins

(Kluane,

insulting.

is

standing

not the

situation

contrary

or

There’s

did

Speaker

mention

said,

insulting.

cite

NDP)

orders.

occurred

In

“Mr.

to more

Standing

asked

ruling

what

raised the

(Hansard.

Speaker,

being

rules,

standing

for

later

on

the

Order

guidance

said

the

Mr.

point

that

I

3363)

would

matter

19(i)

by

Speaker.”

order

.59

day

of

the

he as

order

encourage

during

the

had

Member

to

did

how

Speaker

(Hansard.

been

regarding

not

debate

the

indicate

for

breached

the

Member

said

Faro

Speaker

on

abusive

3340-1)

the

the

he

that

or

did

same

specific

for

accomplishes

to

what

or

However

not

review

Kiondike

insulting

motion.

words

heas

words

Hansard

the

remarks

or

was

This

language.

just

he

Member

phrases

found

being

what

time

and he 60 C

Main

Percentage

Ministerial

Question

Motions:

Bills

Petitions

Responses

Committee

Documents

Visitor

Tributes:

Sifting

Sifting

Introduced:

Questions

By

By

By

urgent

Motions

Motions

Motions

Private

Government

Government

Filed

Legislative

Sessional

Time:

Days:

Introductions:

Period

Presented:

49

Independent

the

the

40

to

of

Statements:

Reports:

Tabled:

Documents:

Petitions:

Third

Official

Sitting

Negatived:

Agreed 30.

Withdrawn:

Adjourned

and

Notice

Agreed

Withdrawn:

Notice

Government

145

Members’

respecting

other

respecting

Posed

Time:

Papers:

24

hours

pressing

Returns:

Party:

Motions

Bills:

74

0

outdated

Ordered

of:

Time sifting) of:

Ordered

0

than

to:

Opposition:

to:

in

66

Members:

15

0

1

and

98

12

Question

0

5

0

35

Debate:

(Presented

5

Bills:

hours

23

committee

spent

24

Government

witnesses

0

37

necessity:

Bills

39

34

—3.

(23

Removed:

Removed:

minutes.

and

I

receiving

in

introduced

All

5

31

120

Period:

Question

(3

48

in

Statistical

appearing

introduced

0

reports.

from

the

minutes

Motions

1

previous

24

Assent:

188

a

(Member

61

in

previous

Period:

(Members

0

a

Summary

in

previous

in

previous

16

Sitting)

Committee

Approximately

dropped

Sitting)

appointed

Sittings)

Sittings.)

from

of

the

to

Cabinet;

10.85%

Cabinet

Whole:

from 0

-

Motions

21;

a

previous

motion of [ L [ [ [ [ [ [

[ r r introductory read without clauses all decided be deem amendment. to minutes. shall 41 bill minutes a without 35 of granted minutes minutes hours, minutes 5,): minutes 26 minutes minutes 21 83 14 6 20 62 18 minutes minutes Reading (No. consent minutes 34 minutes hours, 21 Committee minutes hours, 24 First Act 8 2 hours, minutes hours. 2 of 19 hours, 5 6 for 2002-03: 44 2 Tax 2002-02: minutes minutes minutes hours, out hours, minutes hours, 7 hours, 7 45 33 Act, 4 71 5 minutes n/a Unanimous Act, 3 Culture: Corp.: motion minutes hours, minutes minutes & Office: 25 “A Income 49 Services: Resources: hours, 18 23 44 minutes bills hours, minutes minutes Corp.: ation hours. minutes Reported & Commission: S the Corp.: minutes Whole: 7 12 Whole: Whole: 4 19 14 14 minute. 52(2) hour Services: minutes 1 11 Division. 1 Social Assembly: hour. the Council 3 the the Tourism hours, 1 TreeAct: Debate: Mines 5 Order of Appropriation of of can-ied. Liquor Housing Development and Amend Appropri Service individual amendment.” to Reading: Reading: Reading: Reading: and or to Reading: Reading: Reading: Third Official Act Standing Second General Yukon Yukon Yukon Environment: Infrastructure: Community Health Finance: Energy, Justice: Education: Executive Ombudsman: Elections: Legislative Public Business, to 9. 10, debate 51, 55, Second (Breakdo) Committee • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Second Committee Third Second Second Third Committee Third devoted No. No. No. No. Pursuant Time Bill Bill statement, Bill Bill

Bill

Bill

minute

Bill

Bill

Bill

Bill

Bill

No.

No.

No.

No. No.

No.

No.

Third

Committee Second

Third

Committee

Second

Third

Committee

Third

Second Committee

Third

Second Committee

Second

Third

Committee

Third

Second

Committee

Third

Second

Committee

62,

61,

59,

58,

57.

56,

60,

Act

Electoral

Act

Government

Act

Government

Act

Reading:

Reading: Reading:

Reading:

Reading:

Reading:

Reading:

Reading:

and

Reading:

Reading:

Reading: and

Reading: and

Reading:

Reading:

Reading:

to

to

to

to

Amend

carried. Amend

of

of of

Amend

of

of

of

carried.

of

carried.

of

Amend

the

the the

the

the

the

District

the

the

2

2

3

2

2

2

21

10

7

minutes

minutes

minutes

54

1

31

minutes minutes

Accountability 28

Whole:

minutes

Whole:

Whole:

15 35

Whole:

Whole:

Organisation

Whole:

Whole:

Whole:

the

minutes

the

hour,

minutes

minutes

the

Reported

Reported

Reported

the

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

Employment

Economic

Boundaries

Tobacco

Access

46

Unanimous

4

26

10 20

8

Unanimous

Unanimous

minutes

minutes minutes

minutes

minutes

minutes

out

out

out

Act:

to

Tax

Act:

of

Development

of

of

Act,

Information

Standards

Committee

Committee

Act

Committee

25

59

consent

consent consent

03 2002:

F-’

minutes

(No.

minutes

2):

Act:

granted

1

granted

Act: granted

without

hour.

and

without

without

45

9

50

minutes

Protection

minutes

58

to

to

minutes

to

amendment.

amendment.

minutes amendment.

deem

deem

deem

all

all

all

of

clauses

clauses

Privacy

clauses

read

read

read

Act:

1

hour, 1 IL

Bill No. 64, Spousal Compensation Act: 17 minutes Second Reading: 8 minutes Committee of the Whole: Unanimous consent granted to deem all clauses read and carried. Reported out of Committee without amendment. [ Third Reading: 9 minutes

Bill No. 65, Act to Amend the Dental Profession Act: 21 minutes Second Reading: 20 minutes Committee of the Whole: Unanimous consent granted to deem all clauses read and carried. Reported out of Committee without amendment. Third Reading: 1 minute [ Bill No. 71, Corporate Governance Act: 25 minutes Second Reading: 19 minutes Committee of the Whole: 4 minutes Third Reading: 2 minutes

Bill No. 72,Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act: 24 minutes Second Reading: 16 minutes Committee of the Whole: Unanimous consent granted to deem all clauses read [ and carried. Reported out of Committee without amendment. Third Reading: 8 minutes [ Bill No. 73,Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act: 50 minutes Second Reading: 18 minutes Committee of the whole: 18 minutes Third Reading: 14 minutes [ Bill No. 101,Chlld Youthand Family AdvocacyAct: 4 hours, 15 minutes

Second Reading: 1 hour, 56 minutes Committee of the Whole: 2 hours, 19 minutes [

Bill No. 103,Electoral District Boundaries Act: 9 minutes [ Second Reading: 9 minutes

C

C

C

C

64 C

Motion Motion

Motion

Motion Motion

Motion

Motion Motion

Time

devoted

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No. No.

No.

273: 264:

248:

228:

97:

31:

189:

149:

to

25

10

individual

Unanimous

5

4

3

nla

15

minutes

hours,

hours,

minutes

minutes

minutes

54

19

motions

minutes

minutes

consent

granted

to

65

not proceed. 66 C

April

Yukon

Yukon

Yukon

Tobin,

Agreement,

Ottawa:

Marleau.

2002.

House

implement

Carswell.

Fraser.

Commons

Parliament

House

and

Boulton.

R.J.

2000.

Legislative

Chuck,

Legislative

of

Legislative

Alistair;

of

House

Willoughby

Robert.

C.J.

Commons

1989.

Lords).

of

certain

and

(21”

(editor);

“Sitting

Canada

of

W.F.

to

edition).

and

Commons,

Assembly.

Assembly.

Erskine

repeal

Assembly.

provisions

of

Dawson

Camille

(Assistant

week

J.F.

Canada.

with

London:

and

Sweetman,

May

ends

Montreal:

Standing

Hansard.

Annotations,

Montpetit

make

and

Members’

of

An

‘s

Editors,

in

Buaerworths.

the John

Treatise

Act

angry

amendments

Orders

D.W.

Yukon

Chenelière,

Second

to

A.

(editors),

House

Procedural

replace

squabble”,

References

Hoitby,

on

Comments

Limon.

67

of

Northern

Session

the

of

the

1989.

to

the

House

Commons);

Beauchesne

and

Law,

other

Yukon

H.M.

The

Handbook.

Yukon

Toronto:

of

and

Affairs

Privileges,

of

Acts.

Whitehorse

the

Barclay.

Legislative

Commons

Precedents

Act

30th

and

s

Royal

McGraw-Hill.

Program

in

Rules

Legislative Legislature.

B.P.

order

W.R.

Proceedings

Star,

Assent

Assembly.

Procedure

&

Keith

(6th

McKay,

to

Forms

Devolution

May

modernize

granted

Assembly edition).

2001

(Assistant

2000.

10,

of

April

and and

A.J.

and

the

2002.

March

Practice.

4.

Hastings.

House

Usage

Toronto:

it

Transfer

2002.

Office.

2002.

Editor,

and

26,

to

of of 68 C

Bills

Access

Acting

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

29

Privacy

60

Administration

Profession

27. 47. Act,

Standards Act,

Information

Act

DevelopmentAct,

15,

27,

02,9,

15. (No.5),

52.

03,

10

72,

65,

71, 64,

62,

60,

61.

59,

58,

57.

56,

55,

51,

10,

to

Chair

64 9,

64

8,

63 27,

(No. 28,

54.

10,

2002.11,22,44,63

15.27.41,50.63

Information

Act Act

Act

Act Second

Spousal

Corporate Electoral

First

Act

Act

Government Act

Act,

Government

Official

Third

13,

63

29,

55,

11,

13,47,62

2),

of

to

to

to

to

to

41,

to

to

Act,

Act,

Act

Appropriation

31,

56,

14,

Committee

Amend Amend

Amend Amend

Appropriation

and

Amend

13,

Amend

Amend

Appropriation

42,

Compensation

TreeAct.

to

Act, 47,63

35,

20,21,22,23,24,26,

57.

47.

District

47,

Protection

Governance

Amend.

62

and

15,27,54,63

Accountability

42,

58,

Organisarion

64

63

the

the

the

13,

the

the

the

the

Protection

45,

62

Financial

47,

Dental

Access

of

Employment

Economic

Income

Boundaries

Tobacco

13,47,62

See

Act,

the

48.

64

Act,

of

Act,

Act,

Act,

Bill

Whole.

50,

Privacy

2

to

2001

Tax

002-03,

Act,

2002-

Tax

of

51,

Act,

No.

13,

15,

Act

9.

Index

69

Edelman,

Economic

Duncan.

Division,

Dental

Daily

Corporate

contempt

Conflict Competition

Clerk.

Child,

Buckway,

as

Liberal),

as

the.

as

41, See

Liberal). Act,

Bill

as

as

No.

Liberal)

No.

No.

No.

Women,

23,

Minister

Minister

Minister

Liquor

Act,

AdvocacyAct,

55. Housing

Minister

Minister

Compensation

Compensation

46,

Routine,

Bill

See

See

No.

Youth

Profession

17

103,

101,

73,

73.ActtoAmendthe

24,

Hon. of

56

Hon. 49,

13,

of

Development

11,15,64

Bill

No.

Michael,

Governance

Hon.

Interest

Premier, 101

13, Act

33.

Electoral

Child,

the

Corporation,

Act.

and

50,

16,

37

responsible

of

of

Pat,

Corporation,

responsible

responsible

No.

25,

65

Sue.

12,

to

34,47.

Assembly,

Health

Pam,

Finance,

52,54

17,

35

Family

Amend

Act,

(Porter

37,

58

19,

Youth

(iviembers

(Riverdale

Patrick

Act,

Act,

10.

9.

29,

District

(Lake

40,

20,

Act

52,

11.

Act.

and Act,

16,

49,

47,

Advocacy

13

and

the

for

54

10,

Creek

53.

for

25,

for

57

16, to

33,

31,

30.

L.

Social

See

Act

62

Laberge,

64

the

Amend

Workers’

Worker’s

11,

Family

the

the

57

and

30,49

Boundaries

17,

34

45.

South,

44.

Bill

to

South,

Status

14,54

Yukon

Yukon

Ministers,)

18,

Amend

Services,

51.

52,

Act.

No.

the.

32,

54,

57.

of

See

71 64 U

as Minister responsible for the Workers’ No.3,37 U Compensation Health and Safety No.6,37 Board, 19,47 No. 7, 39 LI Eftoda, Hon. Dale, (Riverdale North, No. 8, 50 Liberal), 22, 23, 26, 42, 46, 51, 52, 57, 58 No. 9, 34

as Minister of Business, Tourism and Henry, Joe, tribute to, 19 tEl Culture, 23, 34, 42, 44, 49, 55 Heynen, Klaus, 24 as Minister of Environment. 23 Human Rights Act, 31 as Minister of the Environment, 12, 22, Income TaxAct (Wo.5j Act to Amend the. C 24,42,51,56,57,58 See Bill No. 55 Employment Standards Act, Act to Amend Jenkins, Peter, (Kiondike, Yukon Party), the. See Bill No. 62 Leader of the Third Party, 11, 14, 15, 16, C Fairciough, Eric, (Mayo-Tatchun). Leader of 18, 19. 22, 23, 24, 35, 41, 42, 44. 45, 46, the Third Party, 22 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56. 57, 58. 59 r Fairciough, Eric, (Mayo-Tatchun, NDP), Jim, Wayne, (Mclntyre-Takhini, Leader of the Official Opposition, 10. 11, Independent), 7,21,32,33,34 13,16,17,41,42,48,50,51,54 Jones, David Phillip, QC. Conflicts C Fentie. Dennis. (Watson Lake, NDP), 26, Commissioner, 17 50, 53, 55 Keenan, Dave, (Ross River-Southern Lakes, as Official Opposition House Leader, 18, NUP), 16, 19, 23, 30. 31, 40,44,48, 51, C 47,51,53 52, 54, 56 Fentie, Dennis, (Watson Lake, Yukon Ken, Hon. Scot, (Riverside, Liberal) [ Party), 13, 35, 48, 54, 57, 58 as Minister of Infrastructure, 22 Financial Administration Act. 14 Kent, Hon. Scott, (Riverside, Liberal), 23, Financial Administration Act, Act to Amend 40, 41, 44 C the. See Bill No. 72 as Minister of Energy, Mines and Gibbs, Sandra, 23, 24 Resources, 22, 35 Government Accountability Act. See Bill No. as Minister of Infrastructure, 35 C 59 Kwanlin Dun First Nation, 33 Government Motions MeLachian. Hon. Jim, (Faro. Liberal), 31, C generally, 20 32, 40,44,46, 53, 58 No. 169, 42, 43 as Government House Leader, 12, 13, 14, No. 185, 16,49 16. 17, 18, 28, 37. 38, 42, 43, 47, 48, C No.217,28 49, 50, 52, 53 No. 243, 49 as Minister of Justice, 45, 46, 56 No. 248, 12 McLamon, Mike. (Whitehorse Centre, No. 249,44 Independent), 7, 14, 15, 18, 24, 32, 38, No. 264, 17, 49, 65 39,41,48,51,53 Government Organisation Act. See Bill No. as Chair of Committee of the Whole, 9, C 57 10, 11, 14. 16, 20. 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, Question Guidelines for Oral Period 31, 35. 41,45,50,51,52, 54, 55, 56, L generally, 35, 38 57, 58 No.2,34,36 C

70 C McRobb, Gary, (Kluane, NDP), 9. 11, 12, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33. 34. 35, 36, 37. 38, 16, 22, 28, 29, 34, 51. 56, 58,59 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47. 48, 50, 51. 53, 58 as Acting Chair of Committee of the Second Appropriation Act, 2002-03. See Bill Whole. 9 No.9 as Official Opposition House Leader, 30, Speaker. See Schneider. Hon. Dennis, 31, 47, 48 Speaker Members Services Board. 33 Spousal Compensation Act. See Bill No. 64 Michael, Patrick L., Clerk of the Legislative Standing Orders Assembly, 16, 26, 33, 43 generally, 7, 16, 18, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, Motions other than Government Motions, 44, 56 12, 13,20,61 No. 1,31 deferred to the next sitting day, 13 No. 2(2), 26 No. 31, 13 No. 2(4), 26 No. 97, 13, 65 No. 30),40 No. 141, 13 No. 3(2), 40 No. 149, 13 No. 3(3), 40 No. 189, 40, 53, 65 No. 4(2), 27 No. 228,9, 31, 40, 53, 58, 65 No. 5(2), 28 No. 273, 48, 65 No. 5(3), 9,26 withdrawn from the Order Paper, 13 No. 6(6), 23 Notice Paper, 30 No. 11(2), 19 O’Brien, Rick, Chief, Kwanlin Dun First No. 12(2), 12, 14 Nation, 33 No. 130), 12, 13 Official Tree Act. See Bill No. 51 No. 14,30 Ombudsman Act, 16 No. 140), 30 Opposition Private Members’ Day, 13, 30 No. 14(2),30,31 order and decorum, 20 No. 14.2(3), 15,30,48 Order Paper, 11, 13, 20, 30 No. 14.2(7). 30 mistake on, 13 No. 14.3,46 Orders of the Day, 12, 16, 17,30,39,48,49 No. 17(1), 20, 21 Peter, Lorraine, (Vuntut Owitchin, NDP). No. 17(2), 36, 44 19,37,56 No. 19,49 Petition No. 5, 26 No. 19W, 45 Premier. See Duncan, Hon. Pat, (Porter No. 19(g), 34, 50, 51, 52, 53 Creek South, Liberal), Premier No. 19(h), 53 Question Period, 7, 36, 37, 38, 57 No. 190), 51,54,59 Roberts, Don, (Porter Creek North, No. 19(i)(b),40 Independent), 7, 9. 10, 19, 23, 24, 32, 51. No. 190), 49 52, 53, 56, 57 No. 19(k), 49 as Deputy Chair of Committee of the No. 27(1), 49 Whole. 9, 14, 27, 28, 29 No. 30(g), 16 Schneider, Hon. Dennis, Speaker, 9. 11. 13, No. 38(2), 17 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, No. 41, 12,17

71 [ C U U U U U U U U

52,

of

51,

56

Amend

Status

to

22,

52,

Lome,

the

Act

19

21,

28

31

for

Act,

27,

Yukon

Strategy,

(Mount

Act,

73

43

Mourning.

Areas

Education,

Rights

No.

of

of

responsible

37

Cynthia,

Geraldine,

40

Bill

Proceedings,

19

Compensation Day

Hon.

•

Protected

Human

See

Act,

and

Minister

Minister

Women.

Bibber,

Liberal) as

as

Administrator, the.

57

Tributes,

Workers’ Tucker,

Yukon Van Votes Workers’ Yukon Yukon

72

the.

Bill .

See

toAmend

1-02.

200

Act

2),

Act,

(No.

16

56

16 16

41 42

30

25

43 43 43

12

No.

26 43

TaxAct

42(2), 42(3), 440), 44(4), 44.10), 57(4),

68, 74. 10

660), 67,

75(2), 75(3). 75(4).

Bill

Appropriation

No.

No. No.

No. No.

No. No.

No. No. No.

No. No. No. No. See

Third

Tobacco