A legal opinion provided to the territorial government about a penalty charged to a local vehicle dealership for the late delivery of 11 SUVs states the government can change the penalty, but that it's ultimately a policy decision.

This week in the legislature, opposition parties have been arguing Premier Dennis Fentie and Highways and Public Works Minister Archie Lang interfered in a decision that saw the penalty for Metro Chrysler Ltd.'s late delivery of vehicles drop from $11,103 to $5,590.65.

Nathan Lam, the dealership's Vancouver-based owner, told the Star this week he dealt with a department official on the issue.

Lang said someone approached Fentie, who then brought the issue to him. He said he then directed staff to look at it, but had no dealings in the penalty reduction after that.

'He openly admits, call the premier or call him as highways minister and you can get a 50/50 deal even after a contract has been signed, and even though conditions of a contract are clearly set out,' Liberal MLA Gary McRobb told reporters following question period Wednesday.

McRobb again pointed out in the house documents indicate staff were directed by the minister to cut a deal on the penalty.

A legal opinion on the case was provided by Kathleen Avery from the government's legal services branch,

he noted.

While the vehicles weren't scheduled to be delivered until Dec. 29, 2006, the letter outlining the legal opinion is dated a little more than a month earlier, on Nov. 24, 2006.

No one from the government was available to comment on this.

'In summary, if you were to pursue enforcing full liquidated damages, you would most likely be successful in a court of law,' the three-page docu-

ment reads.

'However, you also have the right to make alternative arrangements

respecting damages under the contract.

'These arrangements should be made in writing and be clear that you are not waiving your rights to enforce but are accepting, only in this case, for this period of time only, alternative damages. The ultimate decision is a policy decision.'

The legal opinion also notes the contract was not provided, and is based only on the facts presented.

'As this matter was urgent, I have rendered my opinion based on your representation of the facts. If these facts turn out to be different, you cannot rely on my opinion in relation to them.'

In previous interviews, department staff explained the penalty was reduced to reflect the actual cost of the government renting vehicles between the scheduled delivery date and when the SUVs showed up. The original penalty was based on the estimated cost of rentals.

'We're going to continue to bring some fire to the toes of this government,' McRobb said. The situation is unfair to others who competed on the contract to supply the vehicles to the government, he added.

It shows the Yukon Party government has no respect for department staff nor the legal opinions of its own legal services branch, McRobb said.

'Policy direction means there's a written policy in place and if there's a written policy in place, we in the opposition demand to see what it is,' the Liberal said.

He pointed out that further documents provided by a government employee show the deputy minister asked for written documentation, but was verbally instructed to just get rid of the issue.

McRobb noted Liberal MLAs haven't speculated why the Yukon Party government wanted the penalty reduced. Rather, they're focused on establishing the reduction that resulted from political interference, and that staff were concerned about the situation to the point a legal opinion was sought as well as a written policy on the matter.

'It stinks. The government doesn't want to touch it; it's like a dead skunk in the middle of the road,' McRobb said.

Lang did not return requests for an interview on the matter.

It was noted earlier this week that Fentie buys his personal vehicles at the local Chrysler dealership.

On Wednesday, Lang was reprimanded by Speaker Ted Staffen, as NDP Leader Toddy Hardy had been for his comments on Fentie's shopping, for bringing up McRobb's purchasing of vehicles from Outside instead of buying locally.

After Lang said he never sought a legal opinion, he noted it's his job to represent Yukoners and industry in the

territory.

'By the way, the member for Kluane (McRobb) doesn't understand that,' Lang continued. 'He buys his cars outside the territory, Mr. Speaker. We buy our cars in the territory.'

Staffen then pointed out it's improper to discuss MLAs' personal preferences and purchasing in the legislature, as it was noted the day before when Hardy brought up Fentie's choice in vehicle dealers. (The premier continues to be absent from the house while recovering from surgery.)

The situation has renewed calls from the government to establish legislation that would protect government employees who bring forward concerns about the government's actions.

Yesterday, Liberal Leader Arthur Mitchell issued a motion calling on the government to expedite the implementation of whistle blower legislation 'that would protect Yukon government employees who feel compelled to bring forward concerns about political interference in the performance of the jobs.'

McRobb suggested the government employee who brought the issue forward may have done so sooner if there was such legislation in place. It also brings up the question of how many other government employees feel like they can't report such matters because of repercussions to their jobs, he added.

Hardy also questioned the delay in bringing forward such legislation 'that was actually part of the Yukon Party's last election platform.'

Cabinet minister Jim Kenyon, who sits on the committee, argued the committee is making progress on it, meeting regularly and working with the Yukon Legislative Assembly office on it. Work is being done to determine what should be brought forward for consultation, he later noted.

Hardy then questioned what options employees have in the absence of legislation, noting, 'There is a clear need to get on with the job.

'Just this week, a long-time government employee took the courageous step of disclosing something he felt was unethical and possibly illegal that has taken place in the workplace.

'We have written evidence that this employee expressed concerns to management about this matter while it was happening but nothing was done about it. The employee took the matter to the Ombudsman's Office and was told that the issue didn't fit the Ombudsman's mandate.'

Kenyon argued the issue is a personnel matter that won't be discussed in

the house.