back

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, December 2, 1987 - 1:30 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper. Introduction of visitors?

Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling information pertaining to the inventory of Yukon Housing Corporation units around the territory.

Are there any reports of Committees? Petitions? Introduction of Bills?

Notices of Motion for Production of Papers? Are there any Notices of Motion? Are there any statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Commercial Air Service Development

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The economic growth and diversification of the Yukon continues to create a demand for competitive, reliable, timely and cost effective air service.

Members of the Legislature are aware of the concerns that this government expressed upon the merger of Pacific Western Airlines and Canadian Pacific Airlines. This government has made representations to the Canadian Transport Commission on two occasions within the past year. The specific concerns expressed arise from the fears of many Yukoners that the monopoly position of one airline linking the territory with southern Canada would result in increased costs of travel, decreased frequency and decreased convenience of scheduled flights. We strongly expressed our firm position that the levels of service enjoyed by Yukoners be preserved.

The performance of the new airline has not lived up to the billing it was given at the time of merger, or to the expectations of many Yukoners. The Department of Community and Transportation Services has been actively consulting with Canadian Airlines International. Concerns about increased incidents of lost and damaged baggage, late cargo delivery, the bumping of essential cargo and animals were all forcefully brought to Canadian Airlines International senior executives’ attention. In the absence of consultations with Yukoners, Canadian Airlines developed a winter schedule resulting in significant operational difficulties for local air carriers, for connecting passengers going to other points in the Yukon, and for Yukoners travelling beyond Alberta or British Columbia.

The air service that is required for Yukoners to meet their objectives of growth and diversification can be obtained if this government is allowed to continue its efforts to persuade the existing air carrier, and possible competitors in the market, to consider expansion of service to Whitehorse and other Yukon communities.

The Department of Community and Transportation Services has been extensively involved in discussion with Canadian Airlines International and Time Air regarding air services to Watson Lake. New services to that community are expected to begin in April, 1988. Though greater frequency of flights is expected, concerns have been expressed by some members of the community over possible reductions in cargo capacity and difficult flight connections. The community was assured by Canadian airlines International that there would be no change to the service. The Watson Lake Chamber of Commerce will be appealing directly to Canadian Airlines International concerning the service level to Watson Lake. The Department of Community and Transportation Services has arranged to review and comment on the Time Air application before the Canadian Transport Commission decision is made.

The goals of this government in promoting competitive air service in the Yukon are concentrated on development of frequent service on a long term basis. Sophisticated jet service will provide quick access to the Yukon and for all Yukoners. Results should include: consistently adequate cargo capacity; a reduction in lost and damaged baggage; expanded seat availability and; a greater availability of affordable fares to meet the needs of Yukon. All of these factors will result in consistent and high quality service to the traveling public and Yukon businesses.

To achieve these goals, this government has been proactive in supporting the Air Canada affiliate, Air B.C., in its application to serve the Yukon. The Department of Community and Transportation Services has been in continued communication with Air B.C. as plans for expanded service have been developed. This government supports Air B.C.’s application for service to Whitehorse and has forwarded a letter of support to the Canadian Transport Commission. I have also, by letter, asked Yukoners involved in business, industry and travel to support the Air B.C. application by sending letters of support to the Canadian Transport Commission. I will continue to consult and communicate with all air carriers.

Our actions have been clear and strong. Channels of communication are established and open. Consultation and discussions are ongoing. All avenues that may result in further development of air services to the Yukon will continue to be explored. Performance will be actively monitored. Development of commercial air service will be pursued as an important aspect in the overall evolution of the Yukon, its communities and the economy.

Mr. Lang: I have a couple of comments regarding the statement presented by the Minister with respect to airlines. I want to refer the Minister to Motion No. 21 on today’s Order Paper. The Leader of the Official Opposition has put forward a motion that reads as follows:

“THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to support competitive airline service between Yukon and Vancouver and Yukon and Edmonton;

“THAT the Government of Yukon encourage Canadian air carriers to provide service between Yukon and Vancouver and Yukon and Edmonton in competition to the service provided by Canadian Airlines International; and

“THAT the Speaker forward a copy of this resolution to the Canadian Transport Commission and the Hon. John Crosbie, Minister of Transport.”

In view of the statements made today I want to say to the Minister that we are looking forward to unanimous agreement to the resolution before us that may be debated later on today.

Further, I would like to share a concern with the Minister on an area he touched on in his statement. That is in reference to Watson Lake. I quote, “... possible reductions in cargo capacity and difficult flight connections, the community was assured by Canadian Airlines International that there would be no change to the service.” The department should be looking further into the concerns of the community because one of the propositions that has been put forward to me and some of my colleagues is that with the smaller size of the airplane flying into Watson Lake, the result may well be that a great amount of traffic from Cassiar could well be redirected to the Dease Lake area and then southbound from there. That would have an effect, to some degree, on the general economy of Watson Lake, and it is an area that has to be seriously looked at for the welfare of that particular community and area. Therefore, we are pleased to see the direction the department is going and this side would like to say that with working together perhaps we can get a satisfactory resolution in this area. It is a non-partisan issue.

Mr. McLachlan: I rise today to support the general direction taken in the Ministerial Statement. However, it may be a case of too little, too late. I feel that if the government had combined with the Government of the Northwest Territories and made a stronger statement and stronger representations to the Canadian Transport Commission last April when the contemplated merger was being discussed and took place, it may have sent a strong signal about the way Yukoners felt about the impending move. If you allow a two airline system to decrease to a one airline system into a monopoly position the resulting sufferers will be the passengers and the level of service. That is the situation we are seeing today.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I look forward to the debate on the motion, which may come this afternoon. It is true to say that there may be general agreement on all sides of the House with the direction that the government is taking. I would like to reassure the Member for Porter Creek East that the government has every intention of making an intervention before the CTC on the Air BC application for Watson Lake.

With respect to the Member for Faro’s remarks, I would remind the Member - in the spirit of non-partisan discussion - that the department and I made very strong interventions, which were quite public, at the time of the merger between Pacific Western Airlines and Canadian Pacific Airlines, which did speak to our concerns with respect to a monopoly air service to the Yukon. We also made an intervention when PWA made application to remove itself from the Yukon market.

We have made our views known very early in the equation and have also taken the opportunity to make a major point of this matter in the Minister’s address to Transport Ministers across the country.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: With respect to what has become known as the Bill Thomson case, the judges are ethically bound to not get embroiled in politically contentious debate. That is a well-known principle and is the subject of a speech given by the Chief Justice of Canada, Brian Dickson, on August 21, 1985, when he addressed the Canadian Bar Association’s annual meeting in Halifax.

Does the Minister of Justice agree that judges cannot get embroiled in politically contentious debate?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is a general topic, and I could talk for some time, but I will not. The general answer is: occasionally. We have seen in the last few days that judges are embroiled in debates. It is true and uncontroversial to say that judges should avoid that as much as possible.

Mr. Phelps: I am very pleased to see that the Minister has seen fit to agree generally with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Does the Minister also agree that one of the main reasons for the Judicial Council being set up is to preserve the independence of the judiciary, so that complaints about specific judges could be investigated discretely by that body?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am not sure if it is accurate to say that complaints would be investigated discretely by that body, because in the legislation it says that inquiries shall be public unless the inquirer brings them in private for certain reasons. It is true that the major reason for the Judicial Council here and elsewhere is to deal with complaints concerning judges.

Mr. Phelps: I am sure that the Minister then would agree that the Judicial Council has, on various occasions, discretely investigated complaints that have been laid against judges in the past by citizens. Some of those complaints have come in the form of letters to the Judicial Council.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I do not know that. I have no knowledge, in that the Judicial Council does not report to me. I have had no communication with the Judicial Council at all about complaints involving justices or judges. Common sense would, however, lead me to predict that since the creation of the body, there have been some complaints.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I know that there have been. Obviously, from the Minister’s answer, investigations have not been public.

I suggest to the Minister that when he received the letter from the Chief Justice, he panicked and he tried to save his political hide. He went to see the Judge who would not speak to him because it was improper. She would not place herself, I would predict, in the position to be bullied by the court administrator and the Minister. The Minister panicked and held a press conference at 9:00 a.m. on Monday to save his political hide. Is that true?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Exactly the opposite is the case. It is not the case at all that it is improper for me to speak to the Chief Judge about this matter. I do not believe that is her attitude because there was a conversation, and she invited a conversation later this week. She suggested a meeting occur later this week, and I hope that meeting will occur. If there was any attempt to bully a judge, that would be improper, and it would be unsuccessful because judges would not permit it. The purpose of a meeting is to discuss the facts to get at the bottom of exactly what happened.

Mr. Phelps: Did the Minister not know that by holding a press conference,  that two things were happening? Firstly, in order to save his political hide, he was making it very clear in the public domain that he was stating that what the Chief Judge of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory was saying was untrue, casting into doubt her veracity. Secondly, she cannot defend herself publicly because of the ethics which we spoke to earlier in this Question Period. So what he did was raise these doubts about her veracity, knowing she cannot enter into a contentious political debate.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is exactly why I am seeking a meeting with her. I sought a meeting on Friday. I knew after speaking to Justice of the Peace Thomson on Friday night that this matter was going to be a very public matter. At that point it was clear in my mind, that it was appropriate and responsible, to make the information which is available, public. That is the only legitimate course of action I had left.

Mr. Phelps: Did the Minister not know she could not ethically defend herself? Why did he release those letters at 9:00 a.m. on Monday morning?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Judge can ethically defend herself in various ways and means, and I would emphasize that the charges or allegations have not come from me, but from Members opposite. There are certainly discrepancies and inconsistencies that should and must be explained, but no charges have been made by me, but solely by the Opposition.

Question re: Yukon Development Corporation

Mr. McLachlan: I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development. Can the Minister advise if it is a policy of this government, or this Minister, that the Yukon Development Corporation will only take part in assisting a venture if it can have a majority controlling interest - 51 percent or better - or is the YDC content with less than a controlling interest?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The situation has not arisen in the sense that we have not entered into any joint venture agreements to date. As a general rule, if we were making the majority of the investment, we would want to be able to protect our investment by having a majority voting representation on the board. The only investment that we have made, other than the energy corporation or the acquisition of NCPC, is Hyland Forest Products. It will eventually be sold off once it has been refurbished and once we have established exactly what we are going to do about the energy potential of that plant. Then we will be discussing how we can divest ourselves of that asset.

Mr. McLachlan: There probably very likely are terms of reference that the government, the Cabinet, has provided to the Yukon Development Corporation in respect to this very issue.

My question to the Government Leader is: would the Government Leader be willing to table the terms of reference or direction that is provided to the Yukon Development Corporation with regard to making investments in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Well, I have already done that, I believe, by way of a ministerial statement earlier in the session regarding the mandate this Cabinet has given to the Development Corporation. That information is public, - I have made it public - and those are the instructions under which the Board is operating.

Mr. McLachlan: At the moment, the government is dealing with a proposal to re-activate at least a part of the railroad. Can the Government Leader advise if there is a timeframe or a deadline by which this government must make a decision by to be involved, or not be involved in that project?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I did not know the Member was making inquiries about the railroad. At this moment we are not in any negotiations at all about the railroad. We have been in discussions, of course, with Mr. Hougen, who is attempting to negotiate an arrangement to re-start the railroad, an objective which we support. One possibility that we have indicated to him is equity participation by the Yukon Development Corporation. In that case, knowing the kind of scale of the operation involved, and knowing the wishes of the principal actor in the deal, I would think it highly unlikely that the Yukon Development Corporation in that case would be involved in anything other than a minority basis, if it were to become involved.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I want to get back into questions about the Thomson affair. The Minister has stated on several occasions, and it is in Hansard, that a legal opinion was asked for by the court administrator on Judge Ilnicki’s instructions. I refer to Hansard, page 122, the hon. Mr. Kimmerly, “The course of events was that the judicial administrator asked for a legal opinion concerning the validity of Mr. Thomson’s appointment after his sixty-fifth birthday...”

Again, it shows up on page 142, in yesterday’s Hansard where he says, “The initiative for the opinion came from the Chief Judge and was obtained by the court administrator, who asked lawyers in the Department of Justice for an opinion.”

Mr. Speaker, I guess what I would like the Minister to admit now is that the legal opinion was by way of a memorandum, which was dated August 31, 1987, received September 1, 1987, addressed to Gordon Michener, who is not the court administrator but the Director of Legal Services, and it was sent by, or from, Tom Ullyett of Legal Services. If you will admit that, I might just save a bit of time by also asking him to admit what the first sentence of that legal opinion says, and I will quote: “This is further to Bill Byers’ memorandum, of July 21, 1987 to you and to your request that I follow up my oral opinion with a brief memorandum.” Are those facts correct?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, those facts are correct, and there are additional facts in that the chain of command occurred as it did. However, the request was made by Mr. Williamson. The reference to Mr. Byers’ memorandum is accurate, and I obtained a copy of that this morning. The first sentence of the memorandum is, “Judge Ilnicki telephoned me on the twentieth instant to advise that she believes Bill Thomson is now 66 years of age and as she interprets the legislation governing the sitting of JPs, he is no longer eligible to sit”.

Mr. Phelps: Could the Minister table those memorandums?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes.

Mr. Phelps: The legal opinion, it would seem, was requested in a way that is rather different from that suggested publicly by the Minister of Justice when he was so busy casting doubt on the veracity on the Chief Judge. The legal opinion was obviously asked for by Mr. Byers and subsequently by Mr. Michener, who is the Director of Legal Services. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: That is the chain of command, yes. I specifically asked those questions of the department this morning, and I was advised that the initiator of the request was Bill Williamson. A copy of the opinion went to Mr. Williamson, as it indicates, by a carbon copy on September 1, 1987.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: Thus far, what the Minister has said is rather misleading. In this, what the Minister himself has called, bizarre chain of events, we have the Minister stating two things, and they appear in Hansard as well. One is that the court administrator delivered the letter September 8, 1987 to Mr. Thomson on that day. That is on page 142 of Hansard, part way down: “I was asked about the severance pay that was offered to Bill Thomson, and the answer is that on September 8, when the letter was delivered, it was delivered in person by Mr. Williamson to Mr. Thomson”. The Minister also said in his press conference that Mr. Williamson showed the letter to Judge Ilnicki on the day before it was given to Mr. Thomson. The Whitehorse Star of November 3, 1987 says, “Williamson drafted the letter and reviewed the draft with her to ensure she approved, and she did. The next day the letter was given to Mr. Thomson”.

Would the Minister not agree that the previous day, September 7, 1987 was Thanksgiving?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I do not know, but I stand by the statements that I made, which is information given to me by Mr. Williamson. The previous day may have meant the previous Friday. The information I have repeated to the House is exactly as it was given to me.

Mr. Phelps: The Minister should remember British Parliamentary traditions and the doctrine of ministerial responsibility as we proceed through this. I made a mistake and, for the purpose of the record, I would like to correct it. I said Thanksgiving and meant Labour Day.

The reply is the previous business day, probably the Friday, or whatever it was before that.

The government has documentation in its possession to show that the Chief Judge left the territory on August 31. She went from here to Vancouver to attend a judges’ conference and returned on Labour Day, September 7. The documentation is in the hands of the government. There is a travel warrant, as I understand ...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to his supplementary question?

Mr. Phelps: ... and all the backup material to prove that is the case. Was the Minister aware of that when he was making his press conference and casting doubts on the veracity of the Chief Justice on November 30?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, I was not aware of that. I am confident it makes no difference whatsoever. The facts, as I believe them to be, are that the court administrator met with the Chief Judge and showed her the letter before the letter was delivered to Mr. Thomson.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: I will go on to a new question, Mr. Speaker.

The situation is somewhat bizarre. The Judge was not here when the written legal opinion was received. The Judge was not here when the letter was prepared. The Judge was not here when the letter was shown to Bill Byers, the Deputy Minister - that is to say the department - and sanctioned, at least with respect to the policy decision regarding the three months’ pay.

Does the Minister now want to admit that what he has been saying publicly and in this House appears to be somewhat misleading?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No, not at all. The facts are very clear that the court administrator drafted a letter; the court administrator reviewed the letter with the Chief Judge to ensure that she approved. She did. The appointment to speak with Mr. Thomson was made after that event, and Mr. Thomson received the letter, delivered by Mr. Williamson.

Mr. Phelps: Would the Minister like to table the document he is reading from?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes, I will.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: The next situation is that we have the Minister of Justice in Hansard on page 121 saying, “The Court Administrator obtained a legal opinion in the Department of Justice. That legal opinion was given to the Judge, and the Judge later instructed Mr. Williamson to a course of action regarding sending the letter.”

When the legal opinion was delivered it was September 1. That is the date stamp on it. The Judge did not get back until Labour Day, September 7. My submission is that everything the Minister has said is inaccurate because of those facts. I am submitting, and am asking the Minister to agree, that the legal opinion was not received, given to the Judge, and then the Judge later instructed that the letter be written. Would the Minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: No.

Mr. Phelps: The letter was delivered to Mr. Thomson on September 8. The Minister has said that the letter was shown to the Judge the day before. Is the Minister saying that the Judge was shown the letter on Labour Day or Friday when she was not here?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The statements that I made I believe to be accurate. The information about travel I expect can be explained by speaking to the particular individuals involved and asking particularly about the hours that they met and precisely when. The information that I have given the House I believe to be accurate.

Mr. Phelps: I submit quite the opposite. All this doubt cast upon the Chief Justice was premature, based on inaccurate facts, and simply not true - that she did tell the truth. Would the Minister agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The situation is, I was presented on Friday with information that was contradictory to the previous information that I had. I have done my utmost to discover the specific facts. That is what I am doing, that is what I have done, and what I will be doing. The debate here will not change precisely what occurred. This kind of debate is more suited to an inquiry, which in due course may happen.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: He seems to be saying that he can stand up as Minister and put the credibility of the Chief Justice based on facts that are inaccurate at best - at best - completely abdicate his responsibility to the judicial system - something that is unheard of in Parliamentary tradition anywhere in Canada. I have never heard of anything like this occurring before. Then, when he is cross examined, or examined in this House, it turns out - let it be that way because he has misled the public, he has created a crisis in the system.

Will the Minister consider resigning?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It is interesting how the Member opposite feels that he has better information than I do. I am aware of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. I am responsible for what I say. I am reporting the facts to the House as I believe them to be true. I can do nothing more than that.

Mr. Phelps: I guess the best that he can scramble out of this one with, crawl out of this hole with, is that the Minister is a completely incompetent and irresponsible Minister. The Minister does not mind calling other people liars when he does not have his facts straight. Another issue of great interest is in Hansard, page 121. I asked the question, “Can the Minister advise this House when he first found out about the letter of September 8, 1987?” His response was, “I found out from a reporter. It was either on September 8, 9 or 10, 1987. I believe it was either September 8 or September 9, 1987. I had no knowledge of that letter prior to being told by the media.”

It was 20 days later that an article appeared suddenly in the Whitehorse Star dated September 29, 1987. Twenty days later. It says here, “However, Kimmerly noting he is personally not aware of any letter sent to Thomson, said discrepancies exist between the Territorial Court Act and the Yukon Human Rights Act, which must be ironed out before a judge or a justice of the peace over 65 years old can be allowed to sit.” Again, the Minister misspoke himself only 20 days later. What is the truth? When did he find out about this letter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I found out about the letter from a reporter immediately after it became public knowledge.

Mr. Phelps: In a serious matter such as this, for the Minister to be out by three weeks, is extremely serious indeed. Can the Minister tell us what date it was? Did he not know better when he misspoke himself in the House with respect to the dates of September 8, 9, and 10?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The facts are as I have stated them for the House.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: Are the facts then that the Minister first found out on September 8, 9 or 10 - more than likely on September 8 or 9, 1987?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: Yes.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister advise us why he told the reporter from the Whitehorse Star, Chuck Tobin, on September 29, 1987, that he was personally not aware of a letter sent to Mr. Thomson?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: If I believe in our Standing Orders it is improper to ask for a comment of an account in the media. The facts are as I have stated them.

Mr. Phelps: Did the Minister tell the reporter on September 29, 1987 that he was personally not aware of any letter?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have no specific memory of what I said on September 29, 1987, or a day or two before that. That could have been a quote that I made earlier. I do not know.

Question re: Territorial Court Act

Mr. Phelps: When did the Minister find out that his Deputy Minister had reviewed the letter of September 8, 1987 before it was delivered to Mr. Thomson?

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: On Monday this week.

Mr. Phelps: We have a situation that shows complete incompetence at the very least. It is leading to an extremely serious situation in which the Chief Judge of the territory has her credibility questioned in the media. All this, and a situation where the facts are so shaky with so many discrepancies - that it would be laughable if it were not so serious.

We have a situation where the Minister chose to go public without having all the facts, rather than take the ...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mr. Phelps: ... rather than take the responsible course, which was to go to the Judicial Council and go through the proper channels, if he had some problems, knowing that the Justice ...

Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mr. Phelps: Will the Government Leader ask the Minister of Justice to resign in the face of this crisis?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No, Mr. Speaker.

Question re: White Pass railway

Mr. McLachlan: The Government Leader has specified that the government would consider taking an equity position in the railroad development proposal by Mr. Hougen. What form would that equity take?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot say with confidence, because there have been no specific negotiations at this point. Consistent with the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation would be for it to invest in the railway in order to see it re-established and operating as a tourist railway. What kind of shares might be held or what representation it might seek on the board in consideration of that investment, I could not say at this point. That would be premature.

Mr. McLachlan: Does the Development Corporation have to make a profit on any position it takes in an investment?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: In the mandate, if the Corporation is being asked to make an investment with some social purpose - in other words, one that would not return a profit or have a commercial return - then it would have to seek Cabinet approval. Its basic purpose is to operate in a commercial environment. In other words, the Development Corporation does not exist to subsidize non-economic investments.

Mr. McLachlan: If the Development Corporation has a preferred route of investment, is it through preferred shares, low interest loans or deferred interest?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: With respect to this particular possibility, the Development Corporation has not had any reason to consider that possibility yet, as there have been no negotiations on that point. I would indicate to the proponents that, while it is possible to consider YDC as a possible investor, they should not consider any gift from this government of any substantial sum of public money to White Pass in order to facilitate a deal. That will not happen.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed with Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Speaker: Before proceeding, I would call to the attention of the House to the fact that Motion for the Production of Papers No. 4 appears to be satisfied by the document tabled earlier today. I would, therefore, order that the motion be withdrawn from the Order Paper. May I have your further pleasure?

Hon. Mr. Porter: Based on an agreement between House Leaders, I would request unanimous consent of Members for Motions Respecting Committee Reports to be called as the first order of business this afternoon.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent. Motions respecting Committee Reports.

MOTIONS RESPECTING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Committee Report No. 1

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

THAT the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on November 10, 1987, be concurred in.

Mr. Phelps: I am very pleased to speak to this motion for concurrence, and would like to say once again that it has given me a great deal of satisfaction to continue on as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - a Committee that is an all-party Committee, tends to be non-political in its deliberations and enjoys good conscientious work by each and every one of the members on it. I also want to say, in opening, that once again we are extremely pleased with the cooperation and work that has been performed by those who assist us from the Auditor General’s Office of Canada and that we have really enjoyed working as a team with those officials.

This spring, the Committee did a major review of Health and Human Resources, and Community and Transportation Services, and this time the theme of the Committee was “Human Resource Management”. That focus was a rather new one for the Committee in its experience, and it really involved looking at the way certain departments were being managed from a slightly different lens or viewpoint than traditionally has been done, where the main thrust has been looking at performance indicators and that sort of thing.

The departments were very cooperative in providing a lot of material prior to the hearings. There were requests from us about issues relating to human resource management, training and that sort of thing. We certainly enjoyed cooperation from them and found the departments to be forthcoming with answers during the formal hearings themselves.

I must make a comment that when it comes to following up after we make our recommendations, that departments were more thorough in their initial responses to the report when it was first made available to them. The Committee would not have to bother them as much as it does now for clarification or elaboration, and if they were more forthcoming in that regard they would be less likely be called for hearings.

I would like to say that the Committee is very pleased to see progress on performance measurement indicators. A number of departments have made great strides in developing performance measurement indicators. The Committee will be following up to see that departments use them as a basic management tool and that the indicators are used as part of a basis for supporting funding for ongoing programs and activities.

It is of interest that, regarding Health and Human Resources, the Committee asked for a year-end accountability document. We did not want the usual fancy document that we often get from departments, but something that would set out some of the basic facts. We think that kind of accountability document is something that ought to be considered by government as a standard for line departments.

We have some ongoing concerns regarding the Department of Finance, in that we are still not satisfied that the department is fulfilling its role and responsibilities pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, to ensure appropriate financial management and control; that their watchfulness and efforts in this regard have been, in the opinion of the Committee, somewhat lackadaisical in the past. Although the Financial Administration Act has been in force since 1984, the department has not updated the financial administration manual, which serves as a guide to all the departments. And the department has said, for the record, for a number of years, that this will be done as soon as possible.

I would also like to say that we have not noticed much of an improvement in the Capital Estimates Book which still, in our opinion, is short on information. In that respect we feel that the Department of Finance has not taken recommendations from the Auditor General into consideration. Specifically they relate to including in the Estimates Book an introductory statement by the government regarding long-term capital spending strategy; including a statement of procedures for management and control of capital projects; and including a narrative comment in respect to new projects, or an explanation of major changes in scope or costs of projects included in prior years’ estimates.

We are pleased, however, to see that there is information on the total estimated cost for the capital expenditures of any given project in the 1988/1989 estimates. We would like to see an estimate of the Operation and Maintenance costs and an indication of life cycle costing.

Those are the main comments I have. I would like to close by saying that I was very fortunate in being able to attend the national Public Accounts Committee conference this year that was held in Quebec City. We spent several days with members of other committees from every province in Canada, from the Government of Canada itself, and from the Northwest Territories, and I think that the general opinion of everyone there is that the Public Accounts Committee compares very favourably with those in other jurisdictions. I think, and said, that is partly due to the fact that the government does and has in the past taken the Committee seriously and has been reasonably cooperative.

I firmly believe that the experience of Members on this Committee has a salutary effect when there is a change of government because many of the Members opposite - and indeed the Government Leader himself was at one time the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee - are, have been, and remain, dedicated to the principles that Committee operates on. I am sure that steadfast dedication to those principles, and to the belief in the utilitarian aspect of the Committee, has resulted in this cooperation that we have enjoyed by government partners.

Mr. McLachlan: I am pleased to rise today in my position as vice chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to respond to the motion of concurrence for acceptance of this report. As the chairperson has just said, the Committee took a review of two departments this year - Health and Human Resources and Community and Transportation Services. The theme of human resource management dominated the hearings this March. That theme is freely interpreted as utilization of manpower and machinery where applicable for the management of government resources to achieve the ends that they have set forward in their objectives.

It is noteworthy that the two departments picked were two of the largest departments in the government in terms of staffing, and the topic of management of the human resource was very relevant to their sizes.

I was responsible in the areas of Health and Human Resources Services’ for the Health Services Branch. In that connection, one of the recommendations that was made by the Committee was for the preparation of a year-end accountability document that reflected the comparative data from the preceding years. One branch in this department that does produce such a document, and does so in a timely and informative basis, is the Health Services Branch. It is just such a model of this type of report that the Committee had in mind when it made this recommendation. I would like to commend the Director of the Health Services Branch, Mr. Davidson, for his work in producing this document for his cooperation with the Committee’s questioning.

I also had responsibility for two other areas in the Community and Transportation Services department - Municipal Engineering, and Highways -  Operation and Maintenance. In general, the Committee found that Municipal Engineering, apart from the general complaint of too many projects and not enough people to look after them - was performing its related work functions well. Because of its small size and heavy work load, often compressed into a brief season, management has a challenge to perform an effective use of human resources to achieve its objectives.

Highways Operation is a horse of a different colour. This branch is so big that it really required more time than the Committee was able to give to it. It is quite the opposite to Municipal Engineering, with manpower and machinery spread from one end of the territory to the other. Because of this, training and utilization of manpower - with particular emphasis on the development of human resources - is a very critical area in this large department.

In his opening remarks in testimony before the Committee, the Deputy Minister had a number of new initiatives and new directions that he was putting forward for the overall improvement and efficiency at that department. We were not always able to notice the direct reflections of those objectives, but I can safely say that all members of the Committee will be watching and looking forward to the deputy ministers’ initiatives in this area.

In closing, I would like to pay particular thanks to the help afforded by the very capable staff of the Auditor General’s department in Ottawa and Vancouver - Mr. Dubois, Mr. Young and Mr. Beaton - who often times gave of themselves over and above the normal call of duty and make the work of this Committee very pleasurable - a very excellent bunch to work with.

I am pleased to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee and pleased to be working with the other members. I am looking forward to the hearings this January.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am pleased to rise to address the Public Accounts Committee report and would like to compliment the Committee on its work. I will respond to the report and to some of the comments made by the Chair of the Committee, with particular responses not only from the Department of Finance, but from two other departments for which I am responsible - the Public Service Commission and the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business.

In the Department of Finance section of the report there are four outstanding recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee: one, monitoring adherence to financial agreements; two, revision of Financial Administration Manual; three, reviewing Contribution Agreements; and, four, delegation of signing authorities.

Monitoring adherence to and reviewing agreements is a matter that is often extremely difficult on a practical basis, as I am sure Members will understand. To be frank, the department has had some difficulties in this area. Members will be aware of the very large volume of such agreements and monitoring all of them in the Department of Finance poses certain real problems.

When the revision of the Financial Administration Manual is completed, it will contain a section that will highlight the administrative procedures to be followed by both Finance and the departments as they relate to reviewing and monitoring adherence to the terms of financial agreements entered into by this government.

In the meantime, the Department of Finance will be developing some temporary measures to accomplish this objective. This will be in the form of some new procedures.

The plan for the revision of the Financial Administration Manual has been completed, and proposals have been received from consultants. The selection of a consultant will be the next step and should take place in the very near future. The work is scheduled to begin in the current fiscal year and be completed in 1988/89 fiscal year.

With respect to the observation relating to the delegation of signing authorities, the department has advised the Committee that the computerized commitment control system is not yet operational, unfortunately. Our goal is to have the system fully operational at the beginning of the next fiscal year. At that time, all necessary procedures and authority will hopefully be in place to ensure the effective operation of the system. This delay in implementation is necessary to allow other portions of the Financial Management Information Systems Project to be problem free prior to going operational with the commitment control system. There have been some glitches and problems with the system. The department is trying to work them out now, and I hope that this long awaited commitment control system will be in place, as indicated, in the next fiscal year.

The chair of the Committee, in his remarks a few minutes ago in the Legislature, spoke of the desire for a statement about a long term strategy in the Capital Estimates, and I want to say that we will take that under advisement. We have considered some possibilities in this regard, including the possibility of publication of a precis of, extract from, or some version of, the Five Year Capital Plan, with which most Members here will be acquainted with.

However, there are a number of quite obvious problems with such a publication. Among them are the problems of inviting some speculators to assemble land in and around places where they think public work projects may take place. The other is to sometimes create unrealistic expectations in communities. As Members here who have served in Cabinet know, you may well have projects identified in the Five Year Capital Plan that cannot be funded. Departments have identified them as things they would like to see done, and if not put on a wish list, but feel that in an ideal world they would do this this year and do that in the next year, but for very basic financial reasons, or reasons of lack of resources, it may not be possible. The publication of a plan that indicates that project X will be taking place in Year three, when the means do not exist to do project X in Year three, could create some false expectations and some problems.

However, the notion of providing some statement of the capital strategy in the Estimates Book at the time of the estimates is something that we would like to consider further.

In my capacity as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, I would like to say something about the recommendations for that department. The recommendation regarding the development of performance measurement indicators in the Public Service Commission deserves some comment. The government continues to refine the information presented in the estimates document in support of funding requests. We are also very much encouraged by the work undertaken by various departments on the development of performance measurement indicators, as was stated in the Public Accounts report.

With respect to the departments I am directly responsible for, I would like to point out the refinement of the indicators that I believe have occurred, particularly in the case of the Public Service Commission. In this department, the development of meaningful performance indicators is now at the stage where they will be included, for the first time, in the 1988-89 Operation and Maintenance Estimates. In regard to the disclosure of the total number of casual hires made by the departments with delegated authority, the Public Service Commission here has also developed meaningful performance indicators, and we intend these to be included in the 1988-89 estimates.

The recommendations also affect the Department of Economic Development: Mines and Small Business. Two recommendations specific to this department relate to the development of performance measurement indicators and the identification of capital expenditure initiatives. The department has now developed a set of performance indicators for each activity. These activities are used on a monthly basis in reporting program results. The department is continuing to enhance the performance measurement system with the recent addition of computer resources, and we can look forward to more refined indicators in the future.

The department is preparing its Capital Estimates in the manner directed by Management Board upon the advice of the Department of Finance. The Capital Estimates that are now before the House identify the current year and multi- year capital requirement on a project basis where applicable. I hope that Members will note, however, that the Economic Development capital program is used to fund loans, grants and contributions and not to construct or purchase fixed asset. Therefore, the issue of life cycle costs multi-year commitments does not apply in the same manner.

There was an appropriate observation of the chair of the Committee respecting the provision of information requested by the Public Service Commission. The chair of the Committee that if officials were more forthcoming, it might save the time of the Committee and perhaps their own time in appearing before the Committee. That is a word to the wise.

Members may be interested to note that I have an advantage as a former Public Accounts Committee Chairman in an unique perspective on this question. My advice to deputy ministers and officials appearing before the Committee is to not look at this Committee as officials apparently do in Ottawa, as a sort of backbencer’s frolic, but to look at the member of the Committee who is asking questions as possibly being their Minister next year. If we look at the Member who is asking questions with that in mind, we may be answering them with the right attitude. That is the instruction that I have given to deputy ministers.

I hope that as a general rule about parliamentary evolution that deputy ministers will for years to come, consider that a standard.

Once again, I want to compliment the Committee on its work and indicate that this government will be pleased to support the motion to adopt the report.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I am responding to the Committee report both as Minister responsible for Justice and Government Services and, today, as Acting Minister of Health and Human Resources.

Firstly, with respect to Health and Human Resources. The Public Accounts Committee paid particular interest to this department, as all Members are already aware. I am pleased to note the positive comments in the report on progress made by the department in the areas of program plans and objectives, performance measurement indicators and improved information reporting to this Assembly through the Main Estimates.

On reviewing the transcripts of Committee hearings, I was impressed with the line of questioning taken by Committee Members. The concerns identified respecting equality of service in rural Yukon, improvements in the assessment of community needs, more community involvement in the planning and delivery of health and social services and staff orientation and training are ones I share and am working hard on with the Department of Health and Human Resources.

I say, on behalf of the department Minister, we have a way to go yet, but I believe we are providing more effective health and social services for Yukoners than ever before. The department has responded to each of the Committee’s recommendations directly so I will make no further comment today.

On behalf of the Ministry of Justice, there are three outstanding recommendations included in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts Report. In review, two of these matters, the 1986 government wide recommendation respecting the development of performance measurement indicators on page 10 of the report, and the 1982 recommendation respecting activity performance indicators on page 17 of the report, are overlapping and can be addressed as one. I support the development of key performance measurement indicators both for operational use and for presentation to the Legislature and the public. The Department of Justice has developed, and is currently collecting, a number of performance indicators for all of its program areas. These indicators are measures of efficiency and effectiveness of program operations and may be generally divided into the following categories. The number of the indicators developed are essentially work process outputs. These are volume and time based indicators and provide an indication of the activity level undertaken by the various program units. For example, work process outputs include the number of occupational health and safety inspections per annum, as well as the cost per inmate day at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

The performance measurement indicators also include client benefits and impacts. These are indicators that are designed to link program objectives to the clients for whom the program is designed to serve. As an example, these indicators would include the number of native persons assisted in dealing with the courts, and the dollar value of inmate labour within the Whitehorse area.

The most broadly based category of performance measurement indicators includes the section on the consequences of why the work activity is undertaken. These are primarily narrative indicators relating to the quality of the service provided in undertaking such government activity.

As an example, the consequence of maintaining a sheriff’s office in the Yukon is to expedite a dispute resolution. In this instance, the proper economic and social functioning of the community requires that people have the ability to seek legal remedies to civil disputes. This means not only obtaining judgments, but also ensuring that positions are implemented. Just as the police ensure order by enforcing criminal law, so the sheriff’s office ensures order in civil law matters. For the information of the Members, these revised performance indicators will be presented as supplemental information in the 1988-89 Operation and Maintenance Main Estimates Book.

On page 17 of the committee’s report, there is an outstanding recommendation respecting the production of documents by the Department of Justice. As outlined in the 1987 report, the court registry information system is well advanced, and phase two is expected to be completed by February, 1988. At that time, the Department of Justice will be able to provide all parties involved in the court process with timely and accurate statements on proceedings. Documents on the actual process under which the court registry information system will operate will be tabled with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I would conclude by adding my thanks to the members of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Porter: I will be responding to both the Department of Renewable Resources and Tourism, beginning with the Department of Tourism.

The 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts identified two recommendations that are considered to be not fully implemented. The first of these was a recommendation that the department develop performance measurement indicators in the areas of program activities and human resource management in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs and to provide some meaningful information in the Estimates. The second recommendation was that the Heritage Branch should develop an operational plan with clearly defined priorities.

On the question of performance measurement indicators, I am pleased to report to the House that these have been established for all programs as part of the departmental operational plan. Some specific examples within the Marketing Branch include the conversion study, which will now become an annual activity; the major visitor exit survey, undertaken this study; and the ongoing focus group testing.

Within the Heritage Branch, the performance indicators for its activities have been established and are included in the departmental operation plan for both Operation and Maintenance and Capital programs. Some examples are the number of person weeks of employment generated by Heritage construction projects, the number of Yukon artists represented in art collections, the number of archaeological sites in the Yukon data base, and the number of historic sites placed in the Yukon inventory.

The Development Branch has also developed, and is implementing, program indicators for its activities and program, which are also reflected in the department’s operational plan. The branch has been heavily involved in coordinating all consumer and market research described in the Marketing Branch performance measurement indicators. The results of this research also provide quantifiable measurement of some of the development activities. Other development activities are measured using the same indicators as the Heritage Capital projects.

In addressing the second recommendation of the Committee, covering the department development of an operational plan for the Heritage Branch, I am pleased to advise that this plan is now complete.

This operational plan for, not only the Heritage Branch but the other branches within the department, identifies performance indicators, priorities and human resource utilization. The development of a long term operational plan and performance indicators for Heritage will be impacted by a number of initiatives currently underway. These include the Yukon Heritage inventory, which is evaluating recorded heritage sites in the Yukon. The results of this inventory will provide a thematic and priority framework for the future development of historic sites in the Yukon. Further, definitive indicators are to be developed when the inventory is complete.

The second initiative being undertaken within the Heritage Branch is the development of a Yukon heritage act. Passage of such an Act will have influence on the direction and priorities within the Branch and it will be used as a primary tool to guide all heritage activities in the future. It will establish overall government direction and emphasis on heritage resource preservation, management and development. Completion of the Act is expected in early 1988.

The third initiative is the development of a museums policy. Based on the recently completed Lords Consulting report, a Yukon museums policy and operational plan will be prepared. This is scheduled for completion in the late spring of 1988. The museums policy and plan will firmly establish direction and priorities for museum development and programming in the Yukon. Specific indicators will subsequently be developed.

The last major initiative is a review of federal archaeological and museums policies. It is anticipated that new federal policies in these two areas will have major impact on local policies and programs. Pending the completion of these initiatives, the Heritage Branch has developed a statement of its goals and objectives. In order to set a framework within which these objectives can be met over time, the following program priorities have been established:

1. The acquisition of knowledge and understanding of the Yukon’s heritage resources;

2. The preservation of the Yukon’s heritage resources;

3. The management of the Yukon’s heritage resources;

4. The development of its resources; and, finally,

5. The interpretation of them.

In rationalizing funding requests and implementing projects and activities, the Branch follows the following criteria: all Branch activities and projects shall be related to one or more of the objectives listed above and all activities and projects shall be rated against the operation priorities listed above.

A detailed response regarding these two recommendations has been submitted to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on November 12, 1987. Advice received from the Public Accounts Committee Secretariat is that the committee has reviewed the responses and now considers both recommendations to be fully implemented.

Turning to the Department of Renewable Resources, the Public Accounts Committee has made only one reference to the Department of Renewable Resources in its recent report and it deals with performance indicators for the department.  The report noted among its outstanding recommendations reviewed in 1987 that the Department of Renewable Resources should define its objectives in terms of activities so that performance can be measured against these objectives. As part of the department’s work on the strategic plan, the objectives of the department have been revised and each branch is preparing program statements. Part of this process involves the development of indicators that can measure performance. This work is underway and if the current schedule is maintained, a broad ranging set of performance measurement indicators will be in place in the department in the coming year.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am speaking as Minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services right now, and am pleased to respond, on behalf of my department, to the current and outstanding recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. I would note that there are no recommendations either current or outstanding that deal with my other portfolio, namely Education, or the corporation for which I am responsible, the Yukon Housing Corporation.

I certainly did sympathize with the task that was before the Committee in reviewing the Department of Community and Transportation Services, which has it has such a broad range of responsibilities and is of so much importance and interest to so many people.

In response to recommendation number six of the 1987 Public Accounts Report, which dealt with human resource management, I was advised that extensive consultation with the Public Service Commission has occurred throughout the past year, to assist in resolving staffing difficulties. Program delivery branches have been closely involved with the departmental administration unit in developing workable solutions which address recruitment and staffing needs, while retaining the elements of control deemed essential in the public sector environment. A manager of training and development has been hired to provide the department with the expertise required in developing long term training needs analysis, assisting supervisors in directing employees to appropriate training, and supporting program managers in developing and delivering department-specific training.

This position is also responsible for assessment and evaluation of training programs undertaken. An outstanding recommendation from the 1982 Public Accounts Committee report called for an adequate data base, and development of an action plan to assist the planning and control of capital construction and maintenance activities. The Public Accounts Committee was already informed by my department officials of the considerable work undertaken in this area. For example, 1987 saw the completion of a financial planning and programming manual that is currently being used by departmental managers for long- and short-term planning processes. Improved information technology will be used in gaining access to related data bases of information available through other jurisdictions, and in providing more detailed analysis and projections for use in the long-term planning process. As a Minister I am extremely conscious of the need for short- and long-term planning and the procedures and data necessary for that process.

An additional recommendation that the Public Accounts Committee made was in respect to the infamous Dawson sewer and water account. As well, the Auditor General’s report on any other matter for the year ended March 31, 1986, drew a reference to the need for a review of the accounts and a closer monitoring of all financial agreements of the department. As most Members are aware, I can say a great deal about this subject, but I will reserve this to a period later in life when I have grandchildren on my knee and they request a scary story. An audit of the City of Dawson water and sewer system was completed by the Audit Services Bureau, and an agreement regarding repayment of amounts owing was reached with the City of Dawson.

A comprehensive compilation of all financial agreements for the department has been completed. This manual will be updated on an ongoing basis and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the terms and conditions of all the agreements are adhered to.

An additional matter that was addressed in the Auditor General’s report of March 31, 1986 called for more detailed information in the Capital Estimates. An increased level of detail has been provided in both the 1987 and 1988 Operation and Maintenance and Capital Main Estimates, in response to the concerns expressed. I will attempt to provide further information that is of significance to Members during the Estimates’ discussions.

A concluding issue raised by the Auditor General’s report of March 31, 1986 dealt with procedures for planning purposes. The Financial Planning and Programming Manual has been developed to provide formal long term planning procedures.

I would like to extend to the Members of the Public Accounts Committee my appreciation for their work, and I encourage their continued vigil over the financial operations of the department. I would also like to thank the Auditor General’s office, with which I am somewhat familiar, for the work they have done. I also thank, who is reputed to be the workhorse of the Committee, Missy Follwell, who gives a great deal of time and passion to her work and who has a bit of a nationwide reputation for her work in Public Accounts Committee circles. I thank everybody for the excellent work that they have done. I thank the Chairman of the Committee for the theme of the review, Human Resource Management. That is one area of review that is long overdue, and I am happy to see that they have taken that under their wing as well.

Mr. Brewster: I was not scheduled to speak on this, but I have to congratulate the Government Leader on his advice to the deputy ministers and their administrators. We can certainly agree on that. It is rather frustrating for people like myself to have to get information that is hidden from me all the time. We can tell the difference in these deputy ministers. I will be interested to see how many follow the Government Leader’s advice and how many accept it in good spirit and cooperation.

Mrs. Firth: As a Member of the Committee, I had not intended to speak, but thought I should raise a couple of things that the committee has been doing over the last year.

The Ministers have already mentioned the new direction the committee took last year in the area of human resource management, which really is directing the focus from the performance measurement indicators - although the committee is not giving up performance measurement indicators. Human resource management is really the management of personnel in all aspects. The committee feels that is just as important as the financial management in achieving effective overall management of government activities.

I can safely say that it was thought-provoking for the departments who were interviewed and who had their areas reviewed. We received some positive feedback and comments about the direction and focus the committee was taking.

I wanted to mention also that we were very fortunate as a committee to have as a witness, in the last session of hearings, the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Kenneth Dye. If Members will bear with me I would like to briefly say that we find it a privilege to have Mr. Dye to be a witness before the committee Members. For all of the Members of the Legislature, as well as the general public, I would like to pass on some of the comments in case they have not read them.

The chairperson of the committee asked Mr. Dye how he viewed the role of the Yukon Public Accounts Committee in relation to other jurisdictions. The comments were extremely interesting and reflect on all of the Members of the Legislature. Mr. Dye commented that most of his familiarity was with federal Public Accounts Committees, but he said this about the Yukon Public Accounts Committee, from Public Accounts Committee, March 9, 1987, page 4:2, “My sense is that you are very progressive. You have one style that is not used by others, which is to do your investigations of departments without necessarily having a report of the department in front of you; but you call officials before you, and you have your in-depth examinations, which strikes me as being a very useful exercise in accountability. I expect the testimony is salutary for the department and probably useful for your own committee, in terms of your legislators’ understanding of the fulfillment of the policies you have set. That is one thing that you do that I am not aware anyone else does. I think you meet quite frequently, compared to others. You are doing your duty. Some committees have been known not to meet. Some committees have been known to stack it with government ministers, therefore, it is virtually impossible to take more of the view from the bleachers, of watching the parade go by rather than being in the parade. My sense is that what you are doing is very appropriate for accountability of a government to a parliament and onto the people who carry the freight.”

I mention that because I think it does reflect well on the Members of the Public Account Committee, both previous and present, and the style of Public Accounts Committee that we have.

I want to mention also the workshop the committee had in August where all the committee Members now have a practice of getting together and outlining new directions, discussing the mandate of the committee, discussing new things the committee can achieve and pursue - all in the efforts of providing the best services they can for the Yukon taxpayer.

I want to raise one point that is still a point of contention that I have, as well as some other Members. That is to do with the Capital Estimates and the information provided therein. Last year we saw some additional supplementary information. For some reason that has disappeared this year and there is less supplementary information.

Although last year’s was in the form of an outline, some of the outlines are not included in this year’s. I know other people have had concerns about this. I understand the government has sent out copies of the Capital Budget to some people, and they have come to me and asked for further information because they did not really feel it provided them with enough information to respond if the media had been asking questions, or to really understand where the government was spending money. I will look forward to more commentary about that when we get to the debates on the Capital Budget.

I appreciated the comments from the Minister of the Public Service Commission,  and Economic Development. I found particularly interesting his comments about the direction he had given the deputy ministers. As Members have both been in Opposition and in government, I think it would be very beneficial for us to sit down and have a private conversation as to how much influence we have over the deputy ministers when we give them direction. I think we would find that there was a lot of “Yes, Minister” exchanges between the two of us as politicians. Sometimes it does not seem to matter what you say, the responses you get back are consistent. Deputy ministers have the luxury of the security of a certain amount of longevity, compared to what politicians may have. Therefore, I think they do not have as much difficulty responding and answering to a particular line of questioning. Politicians do not share that security.

I would like to tell the Minister responsible for Community and Transportation Services that we will look forward to reading his publication when he is grey and feeble. It is called, “Scary Stories, by a Former Minister of Sewers”. We will be looking for the chapter on the Dawson City water and sewer system.

I want to finish up by thanking Mr. Kenneth Dye for taking the time to spend two sessions with us as a committee, to thank his officials - Mr. Ray Dubois, Don Young and Alan Beaton - and to thank Missy Follwell for her tireless efforts helping the committee out and constantly reminding us of things we should know.

Mr. Webster: I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee with the responsibility as lead-off questioner for the Department of Community and Transportation Services. I have a few comments concerning the training practices of that department - a topic we spent considerable time with, for a couple of days.

The Committee invited the Department of Community and Transportation Services to appear before the committee on March 10, 11 and 12 of this year. The testimony on matters related to this topic of training was provided by Mr. Andre Gagnon, Deputy Minister, and Mr. Ray Magnusson, Director of Highway Maintenance.

In his testimony, Mr. Gagnon stressed the importance of training to improve the qualifications of unskilled workers, as you cannot get the best value for your investment from an unskilled worker. The importance and need for more training cannot be stressed more emphatically. However, despite the importance he did place on training, he admitted that there was no one in the department who was responsible for doing assessments and evaluations of training programs.

With respect to the budgets, he questioned why the Public Service Commission should be controlling the training budget. It was his contention that training should belong to departments, and the departments should be responsible and accountable for the training done for its people. As a result of this testimony, the Public Accounts Committee made a recommendation to the Department of Community and Transportation Services with respect to human resource management.

It reads: “The department, in concert with the Public Service Commission, should review the line of responsibility and accountability with respect to staff hiring and training, and recommend changes that would achieve more effective human resource management, while retaining the key elements of control exercised by the Commission.”

A response that we received from the department last week gives us some reassurance that the work of this Committee has not gone unnoticed. I will read from the response on this recommendation: “Extensive consultation with the Public Service Commission has occurred throughout the past year to assist in resolving staffing difficulties. A manager of training and development has been hired to provide the department with the training expertise required in developing long term training needs analysis, assisting supervisors in directing employees to appropriate training and supporting program managers in developing and delivering department-specific training. This position is also responsible for assessment and evaluation of training programs undertaken.”

I raise this matter respecting training for it is an excellent example of what are the major elements of concern and interest to the Public Accounts Committee, which might be of interest to the Members of this House who are not on the Committee. We are dealing with human resource management and improving productivity from our workforce. The training deals with improving the effectiveness of the employees and the accountability of the department that is a very important principle achieved through improved training programs. I am pleased to see that the department has responded by providing a person on staff for the purpose of assessing the training program.

We are also talking about efficiency, improving the efficiency of departments. It is not only of interest to members of the Public Accounts Committee but to all Members of this House, and especially to the taxpayers of the Yukon.

I would like to thank members of our Committee for their patience with me and for their support, all the officials who appeared before the Committee for their cooperation and for the help of the advisers of the Auditor General’s office of Canada. I was very pleased that our Committee could host them in Dawson City for our semi-annual meeting and to show them a good time, as well as the sewers of Dawson. I would also like to thank the Clerk of the Committee, Missy Follwell.

Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. Phelps: I am pleased to close debate. I was negligent in my opening remarks. I forgot to give credit to Missy Follwell who really is the driving force behind the Committee. There is no question about that. As someone said across the way, she is somewhat of a legend among Public Account Committee Clerks throughout the land. I also would like to thank the Member for Klondike for hosting our group when we had a session in Dawson in the late summer. We had a very enjoyable and productive time.

Motion agreed to

Speaker: Motions other than government motions?

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Mr. Webster.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 1?

Mr. Webster: Next sitting day.

Speaker: So ordered.

Motion No. 9

Clerk: Item No. 2, standing in the name of Mr. Webster.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 2?

Mr. Webster: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Klondike THAT Chapter 11, Petitions, of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges; and THAT the Committee review the rules for petitions with the purpose of making it easier for petitions from the public to be received by the Assembly; and THAT the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Mr. Webster: This is a very straightforward motion that requests one of our standing committees to review the rules for receiving petitions, with the intent of relaxing some of the requirements.

During the life of this Legislature, eight petitions have been filed, of which four were not received by this Assembly because they did not conform to our House rules. It should be emphasized that the reasons for not receiving half the petitions filed, as reported in our Votes and Proceedings, were not related to substance but, rather, to procedure. For example, one petition did not have a date on some pages, while another contained some signatures that were copies of the originals.

Unfortunately, these procedural requirements present a barrier to the public in getting its message to their elected representatives. I believe that we should be making it easier for the public to bring forth their concerns and, thus, this motion appears before us today for your consideration.

Mr. Lang: This particular issue was debated at some length approximately three to four years ago with respect to requesting a review of this particular order. At that time, the majority of the Members stated that they felt the rules, which were relatively new at that time, would suffice. Now that we have had the experience of over 50 percent of the petitions filed not being accepted by the House, I want to emphasize that I still think it is important that there be a clearly defined procedure for the purposes of putting a petition together for presentation to the House.

If a petition is to be tabled in this House, the time and effort has to go into putting it together in order to ensure the seriousness of the issue at hand. Therefore, as a member of the committee, I will support the principle of it being discussed in committee and looking at possible relaxation as the Member for Klondike has indicated but, at the same time, we have to keep in mind that there is a reason to have a procedure in place that must be generally followed in order to be acceptable to the House, which means to the people of the Yukon Territory.

This side will support the request to review that particular area of the Orders.

Mr. McLachlan: I rise to support the motion put forward by the Member for Klondike. After having gone through a personal experience of being one of those 50 percent who was rejected, it is somewhat disconcerting for a Member to spend a lot of hours diligently collecting signatures to bring forward an issue he believes is important to this Legislature, only to have it rejected because of one small oversight on the originality or the date or the title or the form of presentation. I do not believe the procedures by which petitions are to be presented to this Legislature were meant to be rejected on mechanical things as small and as simple as that. I believe there is a good intention in this motion in bringing it forward today for consideration by the House to give better considerations to those things we have discovered to be problem areas in the presentation of petitions.

Motion agreed to

Motion No. 10

Clerk: Item number 3, standing in the name of Mr. Webster.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item number 3?

Mr. Webster: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Klondike

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the agreement signed by the United States and Japan to fly plutonium over northern Canada represents a potential safety risk to the people of the Yukon; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to deny the use of Canadian airspace for the purpose of transporting plutonium.

Mr. Webster: This motion is about a very serious issue that is a threat to the health and safety to not just the people of the north, but perhaps to people around the world. This motion covers two points. First, that proposed flights of plutonium over northern Canada pose a threat to our health and safety; and second, that we are urging the federal government to do something about it.

We have to look at this issue in context to see why this proposal is coming up in the first place. It offends my sense as being a northerner, as I am sure it does all Members of this House, that the United States, Japan and other countries think of the Canadian north as a wasteland where no one lives, that it is a garbage dump for civilization, that they can do what they want with this place and no one will notice, let alone care. The people of my riding and the people of the Yukon certainly notice. We do not like being treated as a testing ground for nuclear missiles, or a crash pad for radioactive Soviet satellites, or a place considered safe to fly plutonium over. If they think it is so safe to fly plutonium, why do they not fly it over the continental United States? The answer is because there are a number of serious risks to public health, and that is why this motion has been brought forward today.

We have heard that one speck of plutonium dust is so toxic that it can cause cancer. We have to ask ourselves when large amounts of this material will be flown twice a month over our heads about safety considerations of transporting something this toxic. Incidentally, in case Members are wondering how much this will be in each shipment, the answer is 1,000 pounds, which is a great deal by anyone’s standards.

There are risks of something going wrong with these flights and if something does then we are at risk because of the toxicity of the substance being transported. This concern is not mine alone, but is shared by the Whitehorse Board of Health and the Yukon Medical Association. Both have passed resolutions asking that these flights do not go ahead.

Let us look at the proposal. It is to fly this cargo from points in Europe, where the plutonium is manufactured at nuclear plants, to Japan. The polar routes take ten to twelve hours to fly from Europe to Anchorage, where a refueling stop is planned. Two of the polar routes cross the Yukon, one over Shingle Point on the Arctic coast, or further south, over Old Crow.

What can go wrong? Plutonium flights over the polar routes create a hazard in a number of ways. Air traffic control is supposed to keep track of flights on these routes, but under certain atmospheric conditions radio communication can be impossible for two to three days at a time. This means that aircraft can operate without any guidance or direction. At present between 20 and 40 commercial routes use these flight routes each day. Add to that a shipment of hazardous plutonium flying at the same time under these conditions. Will the people shipping the plutonium wait for communication conditions to improve or will they send up the aircraft anyway? The possibility of a mid-air collision is obviously increased a great deal under these conditions. If an accident occurred, it may be quite a few hours in a blackout before anyone discovered that something was wrong. That would mean that a number of important hours would be lost before authorities could begin to deal with the emergency.

Other risks exist, such as pilot error or structural failure. Aircraft could also deviate off their course, like what happened to the KAL 007 flight from Korea a few years ago.

Let us look at bad weather. Often commercial flights are rerouted through bad weather through Frobisher Bay or Gander, or even much larger centers as Montreal or Edmonton. This means flying the plutonium to more densely populated areas and perhaps to airports that do not have facilities to deal with any emergencies that plutonium shipments may cause.

We must keep in mind that although there are a lot of plans being made about shipping this plutonium, they have yet to develop a container that is crash-proof. A mid-air collision crash or fire could result in plutonium being dispersed in the air.

Let us pray that this plutonium does not get into the atmosphere because it could be there for a long time. Every particle falling to earth could cause cancer in any living organism in the north, perhaps the northern hemisphere. We only have to remind ourselves of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl to think about how widely that radioactive fallout was carried to envision what could happen with this plutonium.

There is no doubt it would fall to the surface at some point, as the material we are discussing has a consistency of talcum powder. As it could literally move hundreds of miles, carried by air currents, to make an attempt to clean up would be simply impossible. There would be nothing we could do. Particles landing on sea ice would again be transported around the north as entire ice packs revolve around the Arctic.

Let us examine another kind of accident, one not so bad. Let us say there was a crash and only one cask broke open, or perhaps none of them, but an emergency clean up would have to be undertaken right away. Consider what it  cost Canada to clean up after a Cosmos 954 came down over the Northwest Territories. The bill for that was $10 million. That was for a very small amount of radioactive material.

In the 1960s, plutonium was spilled by the United States in Greenland. That cost more than $500 million to clean up. In Spain, a different spill of plutonium cost more than $300 million to clean up. What would it cost to clean up the Canadian north if this kind of accident were to occur, the kind of accident where a clean up was actually possible? Who would pay? Would the U.S. and Japan be willing to post a bond of several hundred million dollars, or several billion dollars, so we can sleep a little easier at night?

Yukoners are concerned about this matter, and rightly so. I was pleased to see the statement of concern on this matter made by the Government Leader a few weeks ago. We have also seen our Member of Parliament raising this issue in the House of Commons. This is most welcome, because Ottawa needs to be reminded about the fact that people are living in the north and that we do deserve to be heard and listened to. Locally, there is a petition being circulated throughout the territory.

I think hon. Members also have to consider what this means to our friends and neighbours in Alaska. It is an issue taken so seriously there that the government of the State of Alaska has filed a lawsuit against its federal government on the subject.

This motion calls on our federal government to say no to the flights, no ifs, ands or buts about it. But what is the position of the Canadian government? Although Joe Clark has told the Japanese and Americans that safety is our major concern, and John Crosbie has assured us that Canada does has the right to deny the use of our air space for this purpose, the position of Ottawa is one of wait and see.

I think that, considering all the factors, we must make our views known now, clearly and forcefully, so that Ottawa knows the position of northerners: that Canada should not allow the use of our air space for the transport of plutonium.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and ask all hon. Members to support this motion.

Mr. Phelps: I was not going to speak, but it is an issue of sufficient importance that I felt I had to lend my support and speak to the motion briefly. I think the Member for Dawson has canvassed a lot of the good reasons in support of his motion and particularly the issues related to safety.

I am concerned, personally, about the possibility of the plutonium getting into the wrong hands. I think that most of us, if not all of us, are concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of unethical people getting the plutonium, which can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. I think that is an extremely good reason - that fear, that concern - for us to be against the plutonium shipments, because I think that everyone in the world has to be concerned about reducing the number of weapons in existence and the number of hands on those weapons.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would like to join this debate to put a couple of facts on the record and indicate what the Government of Yukon has being doing about this issue. Before I do so, I would like to congratulate the mover of the motion for bringing this issue before this House, and congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his thoroughly instructive observations on what is a very important issue.

Simply put, the position of the Yukon government is that we are opposed to transferring plutonium over northern Canada because it is a potential risk to people and the environment in the event of a crash or another accident.

Furthermore, we believe that Canada should engage in further environmental assessment work to determine the potential consequences of such flights through Canadian airspace. In addition, the Yukon government has requested consultation and information from Canada on this issue and is requesting that Canada convey opposition to these flights to both Japan and the United States. These positions have been indicated in the letter from myself, on behalf of our government, to Mr. John Crosbie, the Minister of Transportation in the Canadian government.

I would like to mention a couple of things that were not mentioned by the Member for Klondike, just for the information of all Members. It was not until March of 1987 that we became aware of this possibility. On that date, the Nuclear Control Institute in Washington, announced that the United States and Japan were negotiating an agreement to ship highly toxic plutonium twice monthly, between reprocessing factories in Europe and nuclear plants in Japan.

The agreement they were negotiating is part of an umbrella nuclear cooperation agreement between Japan and the United States. The proposal is that jumbo jets carrying the plutonium may fly over far northern regions of this country en route to a refueling stop in Anchorage, Alaska. As was indicated by the Member for Klondike, plutonium is a man-made byproduct of uranium fuel used in nuclear power plants. It is considered by everybody who knows anything about it, to be one of the most long-lived and toxic materials on earth and is the primary ingredient in nuclear explosives.

Whether the container being developed to transport the plutonium can withstand the impact of a collision or accident is of huge concern to the people, and the people responsible for the habitat, of the north. Such a container failed a high speed crash test in New Mexico in the summer of 1986, and no assurances exist at the moment that containers can survive a high speed crash.

In this regard, I would like to quote briefly from an article that was published in the Globe and Mail on July 28 of this year, and written by Thomas F. Homer-Dixon and Carolyn W.B. Lee. This speaks of four issues that should concern Canadians.

“First, what are the potential environmental effects of a crash in northern Canada? If a large cargo plane such as a 747 crashed in that region, it could explode or burn on impact, because it would be carrying 70,000 to 100,000 litres of fuel. Our research indicates the plutonium on board probably will be shipped as a fine powder. According to Professor George Rathjens at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, if such a powder is ejected into the atmosphere, as it could be in a large fire, ”much of it could remain airborne for many days and, depending on particle size and meteorological conditions, could travel hundreds or even thousands of miles."

The article continues: “In terms of its potential health effects, what quantity of plutonium are we talking about? Some 4,500 kilograms of plutonium have been dispersed throughout the earth’s environment from past nuclear-weapons tests in the atmosphere. The alpha radioactivity (the most lethal form) of the plutonium on one of the proposed flights over our North would equal perhaps 25 percent of the alpha radioactivity currently emitted by all of this other plutonium. Not only that, the radioactivity of any plutonium powder released in a crash would increase for several decades as a portion of it decayed into a more dangerous isotope.”

While low plutonium is relatively innocuous if touched or ingested, studies show that inhaling even a minute speck can cause cancer.

“To be fair”, this article goes on, “it is unlikely that all the plutonium on board would be released, but how much is released depends crucially on the strengths of the casks. Even the best casks currently being designed will not be satisfactory for the Canadian situation, because the National Research Council’s standard assumes a plane will crash on takeoff or landing. Over the North, the planes will be cruising at much higher altitudes and speeds. If one crashes, the impact could easily exceed 460 kilometres an hour. If an National Research Council cannot be designed, these shipments may use casks meeting much lower standards.”

The Yukon government’s position was made clear in a letter on October 6, 1987 to the hon. John Crosbie, Minister of Transport, and to the hon. Joe Clark, Minister of External Affairs. That states, “Because of our concerns regarding the safety of people and the environment of the North, the Yukon government strongly objects to these shipments being routed over the Yukon”. The Yukon position urges the Canadian government to convey to the US and Japanese governments Canada’s opposition to these flights." The position of the Canadian government, as stated in the letter from the hon. John Crosbie, is that the Government of Canada will act in the best interests of Canadians and is fully aware and concerned about the safety of these flights.

However, because the treaty between Canada and the US has not yet been ratified, the Canadian position is that it would be premature for Canada to take action at this time to prohibit plutonium overflights over Canadian territory. This is a view with which we disagree, believing that the political costs, in terms of our relationship with the US, are less than they would be at a time when the plans for such overflights are more highly developed.

All Members here know that Governor Steve Cowper of Alaska has been very vocal in his protests to the US federal administration with regard to plutonium overflights, and the State of Alaska has launched a 16-page lawsuit against their federal government, contending that their federal officials violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires federal officials to consider the full environmental impact of federal actions. It also said that there has been inadequate opportunity for public participation in the decision.

Sources in Alaska indicate that they were unsuccessful with the lawsuit as it was found that their representations were not in the best interests of “national security”. However, Governor Cooper continues to lobby congressmen and senators to ensure that proper environmental safeguards are in place before the flights are allowed. Canada, apparently, will not lobby Congress on the matter as the treaty was signed between Japan and the US.

Mr. Crosbie’s comments on November 6, 1987 indicate that Canada is not about to take any firm position because there has not yet been a formal proposal for such flights. He goes on to say, “Without the assurance of suitable transportation containers, the answer at this time would be no to the proposal”. We agree with that position. However, we believe that Ottawa should also make it clear that it will not allow such flights because of the risk of an accident and a subsequent radioactive pollution problem. We believe that it would be in the national interests, as well of the regional interests of northern Canadians, if that firm “no” was communicated now so that the plans for these plutonium trans-shipments do not develop to a more advanced stage.

Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have spoken, and marched, in the past about these kinds of issues, and I cannot let this debate go by without adding a word or two. The facts have been mentioned by previous speakers, so I will not repeat any particular information about the proposed flights.

I would like to thank the mover of the motion for bringing this most important and serious matter before this Assembly.

There is just one fact that I wish to emphasize and that is that it is recognized by those concerned, that the possibility of these containers or casks which would not withstand a crash impact - is crucial. I can quote from a letter from Federal Transport Minister John Crosbie to Jim Fulton, Member of Parliament for Skeena, which letter has been made public. I would quote as follows: “One of the reasons for this” - that is the flights - “is that research and development is currently under way to design a cask that would withstand a crash impact.” I emphasize that because that is clear recognition by the federal government that there are not in existence these casks presently - they are being developed. I do not know what kind of cask is possible to withstand a crash of supersonic jets at excess of 30,000 feet, but I am skeptical.

Another fact that could be emphasized is that plutonium can be converted into bomb material without any chemical change or physical change in the material. I would quote our Member of Parliament, Audrey McLaughlin, who says this, “A high school student could make a bomb from this plutonium,” and also, “each plane will contain enough plutonium to make 15 to 20 Nagasaki-type bombs.”

In light of this information, I ask why can we not take the sensible step and simply say no to all this madness. It is within our power to simply say no. That is all we have to do. I would quote from an editorial in the Globe and Mail on July 30 - this is the last paragraph of this editorial - “If federal outrage over the voyage of the Polar Sea was more than huffing and puffing, surely the federal government cannot stand by now and let outside nations conclude deals involving Canadian territory without something so fundamental as Canadian permission. The alternative is to let federal concern about sovereignty degenerate into a rather painful joke.”

I think it is appropriate to speak from the point of view as a Yukoner, and as a Canadian, and as simply a person, or citizen of the world. I have spoken to many Yukoners about this issue and one statement that comes up time and again is this: If the Americans were proposing to make these flights of 1,000 pounds of plutonium twice monthly over New York, and Washington, and Chicago and Seattle, it probably would not happen.

Now it is insulting and it is ludicrous for the American people to think that they can get away with exposing us to this danger simply because, in their words, this is a relatively uninhabited part of the world. That is not good enough, this is an inhabited part of the world, as indeed all parts of the world are inhabited by someone. As Yukoners we should be outraged, and the people who I have spoken to are in large part. It is appropriate to say as  Yukoners:  we say no.

As a Canadian I have spoken about the issue of sovereignty. This is not our plutonium, this is American plutonium, and the Americans have no right to expose us to this danger. Most of all, simply as a person, there is enough plutonium and other nuclear fissionable material in the world to blow up the world 20 or 30 times over. It is time that all people simply said about this proliferation of dangerous materials: no, we do not want any part of it.

The Legislative Assembly today is obviously going to say no. I am proud to be a Member and join my voice in that message. I am confident that a majority of the citizens of the world, and certainly a vast majority of the informed citizens, are simply saying no.

Mr. McLachlan: I am rising today in support of the motion, but would like to point out some clarifications and raise a few other rhetorical questions that no one else has addressed so far.

When the issue became prevalent in the papers in October and November, I checked the air traffic controllers at the Whitehorse Control Station, and they told me there were a maximum of four - or as the Member for Klondike has more correctly pointed, most likely only two routes - by which traffic from Europe flies over northern Canada. That leads to two questions: because the route is so far over northern Yukon it probably would not affect anybody, or the easier one would be, because they are so far into northern Canada it would take very little to simply fly around the northern end of the territory. Be that as it may, the danger is pointed out by the Members on the other side are still quite prevalent regardless of the routing, over or around, that the planes may take.

The other thing I would like to point out is that there are crash proof containers now being used and they hold the little black box that survives most airline crashes. The problem is that it has simply not been developed to the scale to hold the 450 kilograms that the Member for Klondike has referred to. Whether it will ever get to that scale is anyone’s guess. As the Government Leader has pointed out, one has failed miserably last year. Until that can be perfected it is one big question mark as to the area of crash proof containers.

The International and Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal has pointed out that most airline accidents occur on landing and take-offs. Once they are in the air the problems are very little, unless, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has pointed out, the material falls into the wrong hands and some quack decides to put a bomb on board. That is also a problem that very few people think of until the accident actually happens.

I agreed fully with the statements by the Governor of the State of Alaska, who has said that the proper method is to have an environmental impact statement, which is far more definitive and informative and is a much better way of dealing with it, than the State of Alaska has so far done.

It appears the Yukon and Alaska are well out in front on this issue. I wonder where the Northwest Territories is? I have heard very little controversy out of the Territories on it. They have a greater land mass to be affected than us, and I wonder where their Legislature is on this issue.

Lastly, the plutonium is returning to Japan after reprocessing in France, which means the radioactive material had to get to Japan in the first place to be used before it went for reprocessing. I am curious how it got to Japan in the first place and from what point. Very little is ever mentioned of this, yet radioactive material was sent to that country for use in their reactors to begin with.

In conclusion, we will be supporting the motion. I believe it is one issue that all Yukoners must be very intimately interested in.

Hon. Mr. Porter: I rise to speak in favour of the motion put forward by the Member for Klondike. At the risk of repetition, I would like to make several points in support of the motion. First, plutonium is an incredibly toxic radioactive substance that is most dangerous to biological health when it is let loose in the atmosphere. Secondly, nothing is more likely to put it into the atmosphere than something going wrong with a plane load of plutonium. Thirdly, plutonium can be transported in much safer ways than by aircraft. Finally, the benefits of transporting plutonium through Canadian airspace would accrue only to the United States, Japan and the processing country in Europe.

Canada has absolutely nothing to gain by allowing its airspace to be used for this purpose, and has every right and responsibility under international law to deny the use of Canadian airspace for such purposes. How toxic is plutonium? An article in the September 1976 bulletin of Atomic Science reported that dogs exposed to airborne plutonium in medical tests invariably developed lung tumors. At minimal doses, malignant tumors showed up six to 12 years after exposure. At higher doses, the animals died. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man.

Depending on the size of particles and the height at which the plutonium is introduced to the atmosphere, this toxic radioactive substance could be flown for miles, affecting any living creature exposed to it.

The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement between the United States and Japan, recently signed by the U.S. President, will see the movement of 45 metric tons of plutonium between a nuclear fuels processing centre in France and reactors in Japan. Forty-five metric tons of plutonium is 99,000 pounds, or 1,584,000 ounces of a radioactive substance so toxic that a particle can cause lung cancer. The total amount to be shipped is equal to half the plutonium in the United States nuclear weapons arsenal. As little as 25 pounds of plutonium could be used to make an atomic bomb. The most economical way of moving this material is by air. The shortest and cheapest route is likely to be one of the polar routes, which cross over northern Canada.

Movement of this plutonium is estimated to require two 747 flights each month over the next 30 years. We all know that things can and do go wrong with aircraft. The news recently has reminded us of this. We all know the flying conditions of the north at the best of times are not ideal. The proponents of the plutonium flights assure us that crash proof containers will be used. Yet, the current international Civil Aviation Organization standards for transportation of radioactive materials only provide for protection in 30 mile an hour impacts. They correspond to the International Atomic Energy Agency standards and are the same as those standards used for the transport of dangerous good by truck or ship.

There has been reference made by the federal Minister of Transport to a higher standard adopted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the transportation of plutonium by air. Even that standard was developed to protect shipments in the event of a crash by a plane flying at less than 10,000 feet and impacting at less than 288 miles per hour. Any aircraft exploding or crashing in northern Canada will be travelling at much higher altitudes and speeds. Plutonium is more likely to be introduced to the atmosphere as a result of these proposed shipments than through any other means of which I am aware.

There are alternatives to shipping this material by air. The first shipment from France to Japan was made by ship. A small convoy accompanied the ship for protection. Larger quantities can be moved at any one time at sea, and therefore, fewer trips are necessary. The risk of collision at sea are more manageable than an air crash in the far north. Containers that could protect the plutonium in that circumstance already exist. Plutonium imposes a lower risk to biological health in water than in air.

The major arguments brought to bear against this alternative are economic ones. Simply put, the countries and companies involved in the movement of plutonium would save money by flying it. There are no savings to Canada. There are no benefits to Canada if the plutonium is flown through our airspace. There are only risks, which need not be assumed. The Government of Canada has the right and the responsibility to deny the use of Canadian airspace for the transportation of plutonium.

Under Article 35 of the 1944 Chicago Convention of the International Civil Aviation Organization, that is our prerogative. We ought not, by postponing a decision, encourage the U.S. to believe we are prepared to countenance such flights. If our northern neighbour, Alaska, is prepared to fight the U.S. administration on this, perhaps our words of urging to the Government of Canada through this motion can encourage Canada to take a sensible stand on such a serious issue.

Most often we are told by the companies and by the so-called experts on these measures that there is nothing to fear, that they have predicted all of the possible scenarios and have planned against eventualities and that nothing could go wrong. When we look back over the last few years, there have been many things that have gone wrong that Members here have already spoken to, such as the Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union, the Three Mile Island problem in the United States, and the chemical explosion in Bhopal. We cannot ignore the situation, and we cannot be lulled into complacency, saying that it is the U.S. and Japan and France could be possibly be cutting a deal on this and that there is nothing we can do to stop it. That would be the wrong attitude to take. We have to speak out on this question because it affects us and potentially our future generations.

I ask the mover of the motion to take the results of this debate today and the resolution to the Members of Congress, who will be debating this issue. This issue is now before Congress. and it will be there for a number of days. They will be asked to make a decision, and we should send our findings on this question.

Motion agreed to

Clerk: Item No. 4, standing in the name of Mr. Webster.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 4?

Mr. Webster: Next sitting day, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: So ordered.

Motion No. 12

Clerk: Item No. 5, standing in the name of Ms. Kassi.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 5?

Ms. Kassi: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Old Crow

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon, in cooperation with Yukon Indian Bands and Tribal Councils, should investigate the feasibility of tribal police/peacemaking and tribal justice systems.

Ms. Kassi: This motions calls on the Government of Yukon to investigate something that has been talked about quite a bit by the aboriginal people here in the Yukon. We find that in some communities it is quite an issue while in others there are other priorities. It is not the intention of this motion to bring in brand new tribal justice systems everywhere or all at once. Rather,  the motion asks the government to look at possible ways we can move towards tribal justice systems in the Yukon communities. This includes tribal peacemakers. The movement towards these systems would be done in each community at its own pace. We have long since recognized that tribal justice and tribal control is what we need. We continue to be concerned that the majority of the people who are daily incarcerated and presently serving time are of native ancestry, and we must address this problem.

As we can see with the example of the Kwanlin Dun Band Police, obviously there was a need or a demand for a police service besides the RCMP. Something that was more in line with the wishes of the aboriginal people. In this case we have a police service that enforces local rules under the direction of local people. It is done in cooperation with the RCMP and other authorities.

What we are talking about, mainly, is local control by aboriginal people over their own affairs, including laws and law enforcement. At this time we are not talking about changes to the Criminal Code or other laws of Canada. When we speak about tribal policing we like to call it something else - not policing,  but peacemaking - which is exactly what they will do: maintain a peaceful community. I think this is a much better way to look at the role for the people doing this job. We are asking them to keep the peace and be active in doing that. What we are not asking them to do is keep everybody in line. This approach is more in keeping aboriginal people’s traditional way of doing things.

I want to point out that the Carcross/Tagish Indian Band is looking at having its own police force and there is a project well under way in the community of Teslin. We have seen native police services successfully operate in other parts of Canada as well. In Quebec, for example, the Ameridian police service operates in 22 communities with a staff of 73 officers. They enforce band bylaws, traditional laws, federal laws on the reserves, as well as any provincial laws that apply on the reserves. This police system is governed by a commission that is responsible to a council of the Indian bands, which use the services. It is working out very well.

It is controlled locally and local laws are enforced. The people working there are fully trained and quite professional. For community based policing, it is interesting to note the concept of tribal policing peace making is not that far off from recent thinking about policing in general.

There is concern all over North America that police are only responding to criminal offences and that there is not enough done in terms of prevention. Policing is costly and authorities are under pressure to get more results for the same, or fewer, tax dollars. What police forces are looking at now is what they call community based policing.

Basically,what they are saying is that police must plan, with the community, new cooperative models of police service delivery. Community based policing appears to offer a way of doing more with less by providing new and previously untapped community resources and support. They are redefining what have become exclusively police problems as shared community problems,and they are drawing on the capacities of both the community and the police to respond cooperatively to the order and security needs of the community. Specifically, they have found that police are becoming more and more alienated from the society they serve. They are seen as large bureaucracies that are insensitive to people’s needs.

There is a desire by people for more control or input into police activities. The community wants to have its say. In many cities there are police boards or commissions that provide an avenue for public input and police accountability. There is a growing demand for non crime services from police and, as a matter of fact, police actually spend more of their time this way than they do on chasing and catching criminals. Hon. Members are no doubt aware of some of the more popular examples of this kind of thing, such as the Safety Bear program, Neighbourhood Watch, and other educational prevention measures the local RCMP have been involved with. Police are involved in a wide variety of activities other than crime control, although both the public and the police see the most important job of police being crime control.

In a crisis, people need a professional, competent police force. At the same time, the public expects police to do more in terms of prevention. The discussion about the role of police also looks at how more effectively police can be utilized. The subject of foot patrols, for example, is one that has been looked at, although this is considered costly and not productive in terms of fighting crime. It has great benefits in prevention, especially in the communities. Research has found that there are fewer formal complaints to police when neighbourhood square foot patrols are made. This is because people can just go up and talk to the police and minor complaints are settled right away, often informally. This is a big switch from having people phoning for a police car to come around for any little thing.

Better relations between the police and the public occur with foot patrols, and police find they are better informed about neighbourhood issues and can do more in terms of prevention. The police on the beat find job satisfaction in preventing crime, dealing with people and instilling confidence and safety in the community.

These studies have found that the public is receptive to different methods of policing and find a greater degree of satisfaction with the police when they are involved in the decision making. Community based policing can be looked at in terms of five basic principles:

1. The importance of the community in police decision making;

2. The objectives of policing are broad and community defined;

3. The diverse functions that the police perform are legitimate elements of the police role;

4. Community based policing is based on a shared responsibility between the police and the community; and

5. Community based policing advocates proactive involvement within the community.

When we speak of tribal peace making and local control, it is not a new and radical subject. It is something that has been recognized as not only important, but necessary, for police all over North America to be more effective in fighting crime. Tribal peace makers are not new either. They have many examples outside the Yukon. In southern Canada and the United States where aboriginal people of various bands or tribes or nations have their own police forces, in most cases, the aboriginal people are happy with how things are conducted. These systems have progressed to the point where there is a native police academy.

I would like to discuss the other part of my motion to do with tribal justice systems. I am sure hon. Members are aware of problems native people in the Yukon face when they are charged with a crime and must appear before a court. The basic problem is that they are not being judged by their peers. Most of the justice system is non native and lacks cultural sensitivity. The police, the lawyers, the court officials and the judges are not aboriginal people. This is very intimidating for aboriginal people. I would also say it is not effective. A punishment or judgment is not as effective from people who do not respect as it would be from people who do respect.

It would be much more effective to have native peoples judged by their peers: other native people. Some progress has been made with the appointment of native justices of the peace in the communities, but we have farther to go. What we need to see are tribal justice councils, and I will share with you some idea on how they could work.

I am sure the hon. Members have, at some point, heard of the clan system of the Yukon Indian people. Firstly, there would be both clans equally represented on the council of the wolf and crow clans. Mainly elders would be these representatives. This council would replace the justice of the peace or the judge for some offences, based on what local people want to handle. They would decide the appropriate punishment for offences in the community and, believe me, it works. A lot of shame is imposed on the individual. The whole community gets involved.

For example, if an individual were to physically or otherwise abuse another, he would have to spend several days and nights with the victim to do whatever is asked of him or her. He may be instructed to show respect to the whole clan or the whole community by hosting a potlatch or a feast, which involves a tremendous amount of work to hunt and to prepare for that. As well, payments must be made to the victim’s family and to the leaders of that respective clan. This is a way of regaining one’s self respect and the rest of the members of the clan of the accused.

The tribal justice council would take advice from the community and the resource workers in the community, such as the peace makers, the police, the probation officers, the alcohol workers, et cetera. They would listen to the family of the offender and make a judgment of the kind of punishment that is appropriate in this case as well.

Further, the tribal council would follow up the progress of each case and work with resource people, the family and the offender, to bring about good long term solutions so, hopefully, that person will never again commit a crime. This would be community control and community accountability by all concerned. Since it is the communities that are affected the most by crime, it stands to reason that they have the greatest stake in doing something about it and will be the most effective in getting results. They can bring into action a lot of different programs, such as helping victims of crime, diversion, mediation and other programs. These ideas were recommended by the justice review that toured the Yukon last year.

In looking at the makeup of the tribal justice council and the use of the clan system, I want to make a few additional comments. The clan system is the traditional way of aboriginal people who always governed themselves.

There are many advantages to strengthening the use of this clan system. The one way is through tribal justice councils and, especially, through the participation of our respective elders. That system has worked before and continues to work today in some areas, and it should work in the future.

I think we will see that the use of a more traditional kind of system will bring about better results with aboriginal people, and this will mean greater success for our justice system overall. This is where we all share the same objective. I think the solution lies in how we approach getting there. This motion asks this government to take a harder look at this idea in cooperation with the aboriginal people in the Yukon, and I hope hon. Members will support this motion. Mahsi-cho.

Mr. Brewster: When I was told to speak on this subject, I personally had a little problem for a number of reasons. It is quite apparent that the feasibility study that we were supposed to be talking about h