Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, December 9, 1987 - 1:30 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time we will proceed with Prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introduction of Visitors. Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling? Are there any Reports of Committees? Are there any Petitions? Introduction of Bills?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Porter: With the consent of the House I would like to return to Tabling of Returns and Documents.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some Members: Agreed.
Speaker: There is unanimous consent.
Hon. Mr. Porter: I have for tabling a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the RCMP and the Department of Renewable Resources, a letter to Mr. Nowlan dated September 20, from Mr. Monaghan, a return for questions raised by the Member for Hootalinqua, and, as well Reasons for Judgment delivered by Judge Maddison.
Speaker: Are there any Notices of Motion for Production of Papers? Are there any Notices of Motion?
Are there any Statements by Ministers?
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Privatization of Northwestel
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Members of the Legislature are aware of the public announcement by Canadian National on December 4, 1987, that Northwestel is being offered for sale. This morning on CBC Radio, Yukon people listened to a vice-president of the company outline what that may mean to Northwestel’s employees, the head office here in Whitehorse, and the level of telephone service in the Yukon.
CN officials indicated that the primary reason for the sale is to improve the financial health of Canadian National. Mr. Speaker, this government’s interest is the financial health of the Yukon, and at the same time, the health of telecommunications services. Those services are dependent on assurances of employee security, retention of our head office, and the ability to ensure an improvement to our communications services at affordable rates.
To maintain these objectives in light of an impending sale, we have acted swiftly.
The government has struck an interdepartmental committee that is assessing the impact of Northwestel on the auction block, as well as assessing the options available to this government in order to protect the public interest. Without second guessing the committee’s work, we expect that a wide range of possible sale scenarios will be explored.
I should also note that we have taken a number of positive and prominent steps recently in protecting the public interest in the field of communications. In January of 1986 we intervened in the Northwestel rate hearing to ensure Yukon people were provided with good quality telephone service at just and affordable rates. We have acted to amend legislation permitting the inclusion of telephone service in to the rural electrification program to assist in extending service to rural communities. We are currently in the process of developing a comprehensive communications policy for the Yukon and we are evaluating how best to improve the services we provide through the territorial government’s VHF mobile radio network.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the federal government and with Canadian National. We first wrote the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of Canadian National on September 2, 1986 and the federal ministers of communications, transportation and privatization on the tenth of September 1986, asking that this government be consulted prior to any sale of Northwestel.
I explained the very important role that the company plays in the Yukon economy in terms of its contribution to the territory’s tax base, jobs and capital expenditures. Every one of those contacted responded with the assurance that we would be consulted before consideration for the sale of Northwestel.
This whole exercise was repeated again on November 13, 1987.
However, last Friday we were provided with a CN press announcement that informed us of the proposed sale of this very important element to our social and economic well being.
I would like to assure Members of this Assembly and all Yukon people that this government is well aware of the potential impact this sale could have on both our economy and our quality of telecommunication service and we are already acting to evaluate the situation.
Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Free trade
Mr. Phelps: I have some questions of the Government Leader with regard to the free trade issue. As the public is well aware, this government hired a consulting group, the DPA Group Incorporated, to prepare a study on the impacts of the Canada-U.S. free trade on the Yukon economy. The final report, as we know, was submitted to the government on March 31, 1986. My first question is whether or not this government made the DPA Group study available to the federal government ministers or officials involved in the free trade negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Given that the report had little credibility with this government, I do not know why we would have done that. The answer is no.
Mr. Phelps: The government went out and spent a bunch of money, and I am rather shocked that they would hire a group in which they had no faith. The executive summary is rather interesting. It states, in part, on page one, the DPA Group sector by sector analysis indicated that forestry, mining, transportation, distribution and small steel manufacturing could receive the greatest long term benefits from a free trade agreement. The sectors least affected would be government, retail trades ...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?
Mr. Phelps: ... hunting, trapping, fishing and energy, although these could be affected to some degree. Did the government make a summary of the DPA Group report available to the federal government at any time?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Unfortunately, given the manner in which questions are asked in the House these days, I also have to respond to the preamble as well as to the question. I did not say we had no faith in the DPA Group; what I said was that we did not place much credence in this particular study. The DPA group has done a fair amount of work for us, some of it very good. The Member opposite, in quoting from the report, was going to read a long passage from the report, which we made public some months ago. On even a superficial knowledge of the evidence, at least two of the sectors he mentioned - energy and, I think, government procurement - are profoundly affected by the particular arrangements that were negotiated in Washington and Ottawa and have therefore already placed in serious doubt the conclusions made by the gentlemen from the DPA Group.
Mr. Phelps: The Government Leader keeps taking these positions and then has to withdraw them. He also went public in trying to find something wrong with the free trade arrangements so that he can echo Mr. Broadbent, who said that he was very concerned about the agricultural community. Is the Government Leader aware that the Yukon Livestock and Agricultural Association has come out strongly, publicly in favour of the free trade deal?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Yes, I am. I do not know whose views they are carrying on the subject. We have had a fair amount of discussion on this subject, and we find that there are two possible impacts on the agricultural industry. One is that they will have improved access to the Alaskan market, which is the only market that we are close to in order for it to matter at all. Some of our access these days to that market depends on favourable exchange rates, but the more likely impact is that we will have cheap imports coming from southern Canada and the southern U.S., which could easily displace much of the produce developed here.
Question re: Free trade
Mr. Phelps: It is interesting that the Livestock and Agricultural Association’s executive never heard from the government about free trade. Yet, the government professes to speak on their behalf.
Page four of the Executive Summary of DPA group states, “The team’s view is that the YTG should state its free trade position earlier than later in order to have some influence on the Canadian negotiating position before it is firmly established”. The government did not take a strong position earlier rather than later. It was waiting for the final text to come out before they took a position. Why did the government not follow the advice of DPA, and state their position early so that they could have had some influence on the negotiations?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member opposite is talking nonsense since we were never invited to any of the substantial meetings, the First Minister’s meetings or the designated Trade Ministers’ meetings, where these issues were discussed. Any meetings to which we were invited were those where the federal government talked and everybody else listened. In other words, they were briefing sessions.
There was little opportunity, other than at national conferences at which I was a participant, and I did state concerns very early about the agreement. To get back to my original point, the agreement, until we see the text, is still a pig in the poke. We do not want it, and we can only speculate about how it will impact us. For us to speculate about what might be in the agreement, which is still being negotiated, and then to take a firm position on that, would be very ridiculous.
Mr. Phelps: This government had a duty to make its position known during the course of negotiations. If they were concerned about aspects of what free trade might mean to the Yukon, they should have clearly and forcibly put their concerns forward in writing. Why is the Minister refusing to table any such correspondence or positions that were forwarded by this government, if any were? He refused to do that on December 7, when asked by myself.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have made public statements about our concerns, and those same concerns have been expressed to the national government throughout these negotiations. In the words of Donald Macdonald, the problem is that the Members opposite want to take a leap of faith into the great unknown. They want to wed themselves to an agreement, they do not know what the agreement is; they do not know how it will affect the north; they do not know how many jobs it is going to cost or create in the Yukon, but they are in favour of it, even though they do not know what it is.
We think such arrangements as this require a government to act responsibly, not like a group of economic Moonies who act on faith ...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer?
Hon. Mr. Penikett: It is not a business for economic Moonies. We do not have faith. We have to be responsible skeptics about this and ask the questions about what is in the deal and, then, we will tell people how it will affect us.
Mr. Phelps: I cannot help but get a little annoyed when he will not answer the question. Will he provide us with whatever position was taken by this government in expressing our concerns to the federal negotiating team prior to the deal being finalized? He said he will not, and I want to know why not. From the sounds of it, it will be very scanty stuff, indeed.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: Very early on, I made very public statements and communicated to the national government our concern about a fortress North America trading block and the way that would affect us in the Asian markets where we export metals. I am sure it is in writing somewhere, but I communicated it on a number of occasions. I am sure it is on the record.
Let me state another problem. Totally to our surprise in this deal is a large energy section. At no meeting we ever attended were we ever advised by the federal government that energy was on the table. For us to have taken a hard position about what might be in an agreement would be patently ridiculous. Only someone who had a cultus faith in free trade would ask us to do that.
Question re: Rural and Native Demonstration Program
Mr. McLachlan: With respect to the Rural and Native Demonstration Program, specifically in the location of Carmacks, where six housing units were built, can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services advise if that program has been fully completed in Carmacks and if the tenants have moved into their units and the subcontractors - who have been waiting to be paid by the Housing Corporation - have had their accounts settled?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will check on the details of whether or not the contractors have been paid on the particular projects in Carmacks and whether or not people have moved into the Rural Native Demonstration Program houses that were undertaken last year.
Mr. McLachlan: Can the Minister advise why the government is trying to collect back money from the tenants on the so-called overrun on the costs for which these tenants were not responsible?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: My understanding is that the cost overruns were not so-called. There were cost overruns, and there was a limit that was put by program guidelines on the capital that could be put forward for each house. Unfortunately, as I am sure Members are aware, difficulties did arise in Carmacks, and it was left up to program staff from the Yukon Housing Corporation to undertake the construction, which was not expected of this particular program. Much of the work in the construction itself had to be undertaken by non-clients. There were some difficulties that were experienced administratively in the Rural Native Demonstration Program. They are well known to this Legislature. What we have already said is on the record.
Mr. McLachlan: That is the problem that we are worried about. The government undertook to take the problem over from CMHC at $53,500 per unit, found they could not do it and have asked the tenants to pay back the overruns on it. Why have some people been told that if they did not sign for the amount of the overrun in some of the houses that they built with their labour on their land, they would revert to the Housing Corporation? That is a blackmail move.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The program guidelines clearly stipulated the amount of capital that would be contributed by CMHC through the Yukon Housing Corporation. The Member touched on the fact of the labour being required to build the houses, and I indicated to him - he may not have heard - that much of the work had to be completed by Yukon Housing Corporation Staff because the agreement had not been lived up to, basically. The Yukon Housing Corporation has gone to great lengths to try to resolve the situation in Carmacks to the satisfaction of the clients, and in so doing have had to provide actual labour as well, which is not part of the program. I think they have lived up to not only the spirit, but the terms of the program and have done their utmost to try to resolve any differences or problems with the clients in Carmacks.
Question re: Ross River housing
Mr. Lang: As we know, the latest revelations of the Housing Corporation as they go on day by day are more and more interesting. It is obvious that there is a great deal of mismanagement going on by the government, and a great deal of waste of taxpayers’ dollars with respect to the very ambitious program that the government has initiated, which is in the neighbourhood of $60 million, if not probably higher.
Could the Minister of Housing confirm today in this House that the government is in the process of constructing two new houses in Ross River?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The actual building plan for the community of Ross River is currently being undertaken. I can check on details on housing projects that might be undertaken in that community. I do take issue with the claim of mismanagement and certainly have taken issue with this totally fallacious claim that there is a $60 million program that has been approved by this government and this Legislature.
Mr. Lang: We have the Minister of Housing reporting to this House that he does not know how many houses are being built in Ross River. That in itself is irresponsible. I want to ask the Minister, if he can find time in his busy schedule while he is planning for the year 2000, if he could find out for this House how much those units are costing the people of the territory to build?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is typically unfair of this particular Member to be asking questions about various details within the Department of Community of Transportation Services, Education and the Yukon Housing Corporation. It is my responsibility to bring back absolutely accurate information to the Legislature, and that is what I will do. I will not speculate nor take chances with my memory on this matter.
I will be bringing back information. I am sure they will want details on the water and sewer systems in those houses as well. I will make sure that that is also brought back as relevant information to the Members as well. I am sure they will want to know whether the houses were painted red or white, and I will bring that information back as well.
Mr. Lang: There should be no surprise to the Minister that questions of this kind are of concern to the people of the territory, as we have a government going around building homes that nobody is living in. When the Minister goes back to his department, that he obviously has such a good handle on, he can ask why we are going ahead and building two brand new housing units in the community of Ross River when we have had one house in the possession of the Yukon Housing Corporation vacant for a year, and we have had two other houses vacant up to last weekend as well.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: With respect to the details of the Department of Community and Transportation Services on Housing, I wish the Member would provide written questions and certainly the information will be provided, or even advance notice, and the information will be provided through the Legislature. Clearly, when the Member was Minister, he did not give any answers, so we never really knew how much of a handle he had on his department.
Now, with respect to the housing situation, generally speaking, in Ross River the situation clearly is that there is a shortage of housing, and if there was a vacancy, there could be a number of reasons for that vacancy. I will bring back the information to all of the Members in the Legislature.
Question re: Ross River housing
Mr. Lang: The Minister of Housing has the continued nerve to keep referring back to the previous administration. I would like to say to the Minister that he is responsible for the Housing Corporation, and he is the one who stood up in this House and announced various programs were going ahead in the territory.
I would like to ask the Minister if he could provide to this House - similar to what happened in Teslin - a list, or at least the number of people who are eligible for this housing, and who would be interested in this kind of housing, with respect to justifying going ahead with the building of these two, obviously very expensive, units.
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The only reason why I dredged up memories of the previous administration was because it was such a frightening experience for a Member in the Opposition. Clearly, I will provide as much information as I can to the Legislature. It is parliamentary custom to give notice. Parliamentary custom is obviously not being adhered to in this particular case, or it is not really the practice of the Members opposite, judging by the questions and the details requested, to give notice. But I would appreciate it, and I would be able to provide this information in the future.
Mr. Lang: I guess it is embarrassing to stand up and say you do not know.
I will ask a general policy question, and I am sure the Minister should have a handle on this one: is it the government’s policy that in the building of housing throughout the territory that the construction of the houses would involve Yukon labour, and that the homes would use local Yukon material, as much as it can be provided?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am sure the questions are leading somewhere. With respect to providing detail, I will try to remember how many heavy equipment operators there are in Ogilvie too, just in case there is a question about whether or not I care about the highway system.
It is the general policy of the government to provide, as much as possible, local materials and local labour on housing projects.
Mr. Lang: When the Minister is going back for information about a program he obviously does not know very much about, could the Minister supply to the House why two units are pre-fab units purchased in Prince George, as opposed to being stick built here in Yukon?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: With respect to all the details that the Member wants to bring up, I will endeavor to seek the information for Members about those details and will undertake to give reasons why the Housing Corporation may have chosen to build houses in particular ways.
Question re: Burwash airport
Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.
How long has the department been negotiating with the Ministry of Transport to take over the Burwash airport?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would presume that the negotiations started in earnest in late 1985 or early 1986. I certainly indicated in the House when negotiations started - it is on the record - on the B and C airport program.
Mr. Brewster: During this time, did it not occur to officials in your department that six Ministry of Transport units would be available for purchase or rent?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I mentioned to the Members already, it does not entail any transfer of personnel and consequently does not entail transfer of houses. So, the issue may quite easily not have arisen. In any case, it did occur to the Department of Education that there might be houses in Destruction Bay available for use and, in fact, contacted MOT and asked if the houses would be available. MOT replied they were not available and would not be available in the foreseeable future. That is the reason they made the request to the Yukon Housing Corporation for a staff unit for an extra teacher for Kluane Lake School.
Mr. Brewster: I had asked for the correspondence to be tabled. They did not think there was any, now there is some, and I presume it will be tabled. Was local material and local labour used in the construction of a teacherage at Destruction Bay?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: Firstly, I did not indicate whether or not there was correspondence; I indicated that I would seek correspondence, if there was such correspondence. With respect to the teacherage at Destruction Bay, the teacherage refers to something that is attached to the school. We are not building anything attached to the school. With respect to the housing unit at Destruction Bay, I will check on that question for the Member.
Question re: Human Rights Commission
Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Justice regarding the Human Rights Commission’s executive director. Can the Minister tell this House why they did not hire locally when they had a Yukoner on the short list for the job? Was he or she not qualified?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: It is remarkable that that question is asked. The same question was asked in another forum - in Committee of the Whole yesterday - and I talked about the reporting relationship briefly between the Commission and the government. If the Member wishes to take up the time in Question Period, I will answer again.
The process of hiring was a function of the committee, and the committee interviewed several individuals and made a decision based on the personal qualities and experience of those individuals.
Mr. Phillips: Again, as last night, the Minister did not answer the question. He was asked the very same question last night, and he did not give us a yes or a no as to whether a Yukoner was short listed. We have found out now that the cost to the Yukon taxpayer was $3,500 for a house hunting trip for the new executive director; $3,500 for relocation expenses; and a whopping $18,592 for moving expenses. That is $25,802 altogether - for a government that claims it hires locally - to hire somebody from outside for a position here. I would like to know if the Government of Yukon did have someone on a short list, and why did they not use some of that $25,000 to upgrade the qualifications of the Yukoner who could have been on the short list and would be more familiar with the Yukon community and probably would have filled the job quite well?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I enjoyed that little speech under the guise of a supplementary question. The Member is obviously seeking publicity for that information. He could just as easily have pointed the reporters to Hansard. The hiring process here was under the control of and a function of the Public Service Commission, and the Commission made a decision. The Member opposite knows full well that it is quite unfair, and I would submit irresponsible, to try and raise an inference that this is a government function when he knows full well ...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer?
Mr. Phillips: I asked a question twice and still did not get an answer. We are talking about a policy of this government that stresses very strongly that they want to hire locally for senior positions in government. Last night the Minister said, and I quote out of Hansard, “the Commission advertised and developed a short list. They communicated with the government about the possibility of an outside hire.”
The government then had the opportunity to say that they want to hire locally if there is a person on the short list. Why did the government not put its policy that it brags so much about into place?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The government policy is in place. In this respect, the government was not hiring. The Commission was. They looked at the individuals, and they responsibly chose the individual whom they felt had the best experience and the best personal qualifications. That is exactly what they did.
Question re: Human Rights Commission
Mrs. Firth: I have an easy, straight question for the Minister of Justice. Last night in the debate, we discovered that the amount of money that is going to be spent on the Human Rights Commission is almost $350,000. That is just the money that we can identify in the budget. It does not include the renovations of the newly purchased Human Rights Commission office. Of the amount that has been determined, the annual budget for the Commission could be as high as $245,000 a year. Can the Minister tell us what the spending authority of the Commission or the Executive Director is going to be?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The spending authority of the Commission is to spend up to the amount of money that they are allotted by the government or any monies that they obtain through other sources. The Member opposite knows that full well, and I submit it is a matter of law.
Mrs. Firth: The Minister did not answer the question and is indicating that there is no limit on the spending authority of the Commission. Can he tell us who the Executive Director or the Commission Chairperson is directly accountable to when it comes to spending?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Commission was established as an independent one in accordance with the Act passed by this Legislature. They will be awarded monies through this Legislature and will spend them in accordance with the policies specified in the Act. Those expenditures will be audited.
Mrs. Firth: The Commission has already been awarded the money by the Management Board. They are simply coming to the Legislature for us to confirm that amount of money. They are asking for $315,000. What are the financial guidelines that the Commission has to follow? Do they have to abide by the Financial Administration Act?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Act very clearly and specifically says that the Commission is accountable to the Legislature. That is clear. The Member opposite is simply seeking publicity about the numbers and has misstated the reasonable expectation. The fact of the matter is the law is clear and the Commission is accountable to the Legislature.
Question re: Human Rights Commission
Mrs. Firth: The Minister is telling the public that they do not have a right to know about the Commission’s authority when it comes to spending money. Let us get it very clear: this government, the front bench, the Management Board, authorized the expenditure of these funds to the Human Rights Commission. They have brought it to the Legislature and asked us to approve it here. Those are the facts. So we have established now that the Commission does not have any guidelines to follow, that this government simply gave them the money.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Human Resources if the Commission follows normal government procedures for their spending authority, which is to invite bids for expenditures under $5,000 - but I understand the Department of Government Services is requesting that individuals who are putting out bids do so under $2,000. Does the Commission have to abide by those rules?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The legislation here is quite clear. The Commission is accountable to the Legislature and that provision in the Act was specifically and clearly made. The Members opposite at the time of the debate on the Act complained about government control, government interference and government appointments. They are now complaining about exactly the opposite. That inconsistency is inexcusable, and I would submit just stupid.
Mrs. Firth: I think the public is going to understand where the stupidity is here. Does the Commission have to use purchase orders or requests for purchase when they are spending money, and are they doing it?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Commission is an independent Commission established that way for perfectly good reasons. It is not a part of the government in the sense of the civil service. It is separate and distinct from the executive arm of government, and reports to and is responsible to the Legislature.
Mrs. Firth: No other department operates like this in the government. No other government agency has the ability to go and write its own cheques and get an allotment of money from the front bench and spend it as it pleases. The Minister is telling us, no, they do not have any guidelines. He is coming to this Legislature saying...
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please get to the supplementary question.
Mrs. Firth: ..."We want you to put $250,000 in a bank account and let the Commission spend that money." Is that not really what the Minister is saying: just put the money in the bank and the Commission can spend it the way it sees fit?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: We know full well the attitude of the Member opposite. She was opposed to the Commission to begin with, was opposed to the Legislation about Human Rights; the situation about the Commission is similar to the situation of the Legal Services Society, which was enacted by the previous government.
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: The Member opposite is being willfully blind or refusing to accept the facts.
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Member please conclude his answer?
Question re: Human Rights Commission
Mr. Lang: The Minister has heard the question from the Member for Riverdale South. Is the answer yes or no?
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: This Question Period in recent weeks has changed substantially. It is not, in any sense of the word, ...
Mrs. Firth: On a Point of Order.
Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order to the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale South.
Mrs. Firth: I believe the question was asked of the Minister, yes or no, in response to the previous question. We were not requesting a great debate on how Question Period was proceeding. I would ask the Speaker to rule.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: On the same Point of Order.
Speaker: On the Point of Order, the Government Leader.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: By my conservative count, 63 percent of the Members’ questions opposite are clearly out of order and are argumentative or suggest their own answer. Another large percent are out of order on other rules, among the 14 that are listed in our book. If you will forgive me, we have been very liberal in the way we have suffered preambles that have nothing to do with the question, speeches from Members opposite, which are not permissible in Question Period. We are trying to answer the questions. The Members opposite are trying to replicate a debate that took place last night about the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission is not a department of the government. That is a fact in law. The Members opposite may not like it, and they may not like human rights, but that is not a Point of Order.
Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East on the Point of Order.
Mr. Lang: The Point of Order is very clear. In the rules it states clearly and specifically that, when questions are asked, the government has a responsibility to answer them. The point that is being put is that we have had no answer from the Minister of Justice. With respect to the comments made by the Government Leader, where he is indicating that this House is not being managed in the way it should, I think he should look at himself with respect to the decisions made in this House. In good part, he is responsible for them.
Speaker: Order, please. I find there is no Point of Order, as our guideline Number 10 states: “A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusal.”
Question re: Rural and Native Demonstration Program
Mr. McLachlan: Some of the tenants in the Rural and Native Demonstration Program in Carmacks are being told that, if they do not pay the overrun for which they are not responsible, they may be forced to do so in court. Is it the intention of the Housing Corporation to take the tenants in this type of social housing program to court for payment of the cost overruns, for which they are not responsible?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is my understanding that, over the course of the late summer and early fall, Housing Corporation staff have been discussing and negotiating with the clients in Carmacks under the Rural and Native Demonstration Program to settle the issue that was brought to the Legislature this afternoon, for Members’ information.
The negotiations failed to produce results and, I believe, in one or two cases Yukon Housing Corporation referred the matter to the Justice Department for advice.
Mr. McLachlan: What are those tenants to do: wait for the Minister of Justice’s solicitors to come back with an opinion, buckle under the threat of blackmail and losing their house, ignore all directions from the Housing Corporation by ministerial order? What are those tenants to do when they have been caught in this situation with respect to an overrun for which they are not responsible?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: There was an assumption made that overruns were not their responsibility. That was one of the points of negotiation undertaken at great length between the Housing Corporation personnel and the clients themselves. Clearly, settlement could not be reached. Is the Member making the assumption that, because negotiations could not conclude, the Yukon Housing Corporation simply agreed to the terms as decided by the clients in the housing units in Carmacks? I submit that the proper course of events ought to be as the Housing Corporation has decided they should be, that advice should be obtained as to the various legal responsibilities inherent in the situation to determine where the Housing Corporation and the clients stand. Clearly, if there is any chance of negotiating a settlement, I am sure the Housing Corporation would bend over backwards and try to find one.
Mr. McLachlan: Is it the intention of the Housing Corporation to embark upon this type of program, Rural and Native Demonstration Program, in other locations in Yukon as part of its 1988-89 social housing program that we are about to debate in the budget?
Hon. Mr. McDonald: The answer basically is no. It was clear that the difficulties experienced in the first year of the program primarily in the Yukon told CMHC some things they were concerned about and they have been rather reluctant to continue the program. Certainly the Yukon Housing Corporation, even though they are continuing this year, for its part wants to ensure that the administrative arrangements are tied down to the letter before any consideration is made to continue further with the project.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and we will now proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Mr. Lang: On behalf of the House Leaders, I would request unanimous consent for the motions under Motions other than Government Motions to be called in the following order: Motion No. 18, Motion No. 24, Motion No. 23, Motion No. 4, Motion No. 15, Motion No. 5, Motion No. 6, Motion No. 21.
Unaninous consent granted
Motion No. 18
Clerk: Item No. 7, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.
Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with item 7?
Mr. Phelps: Yes.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Commissioner in Executive Council should cause an inquiry to be made pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act into a matter connected with the conduct of the public business of Yukon and of public concern, namely the involvement of the Ministers and officials of the Government of Yukon in all aspects of the investigation and subsequent court case regarding the alleged falcon smuggling conspiracy, which was concluded in March 1986 when seven defendants including Mr. Danny Nowlan, co-owner of the Yukon Game Farm, were found not guilty, to resolve the following:
1) The extent of the involvement of the Ministers and officials of the Government of Yukon;
2) Steps taken by Ministers and officials of the Government of Yukon with regard to restricting the ability of the defendants, Mr. Nowlan and Ms. Schmigale from carrying on their business of selling domestically raised falcons;
THAT the Board of Inquiry examine the following issues and make recommendations as is appropriate, namely:
1) Whether the Government of Yukon should develop a procedure and training manual for its investigating officers to ensure such officers act in a fair and ethical manner;
2) Whether the Government of Yukon should develop a mandatory training course for officials who are involved in the enforcement of its statutes and regulations;
3) Whether the Government of Yukon should enact legislation that provides for the payment of legal costs and disbursements of defendants who successfully defend themselves against charges laid by the Government of Yukon;
4) Whether the Government of Yukon should enact legislation that provides for the payment of legal costs and disbursements of defendants who successfully defend themselves against charges laid by another level of government where the Government of Yukon was involved in the investigation and the decision to lay charges;
5) To make such other recommendations as the Board of Inquiry deems necessary to ensure that the investigative and enforcement procedures of the Government of Yukon are fair and appropriate in future;
THAT the Board appointed for the purpose of making this inquiry should include at least one Canadian member of the judiciary;
THAT the Board be constituted within thirty days of the passing of this Resolution; and
THAT the Commissioner in Executive Council cause the report of the Board after receipt thereof to be laid before this House if the House is then in Session, or if the House is not in Session, then forthwith cause the report to be made available to the Clerk of the Assembly who shall transmit copies of the report to each member of the House.
Mr. Phelps: I would like to start off by just correcting for the record a typo in the Motion itself in the first paragraph where it relates to the alleged falcon smuggling conspiracy, which was concluded in March of 1986; it should be 1987, of course.
The issue here is one of grave concern to a good many Yukoners. It simply is a stark example of the fear a good many Yukoners have with regard to the unfettered power of the state. It is a fear that comes about when you have a government that is so huge and complex that when taken in context with the relative population of those who work for government and the population of the territory as a whole, in context with the fact that the government directly or indirectly can have a huge impact on the very future of individual Yukon citizens.
Time and time again, we hear complaints about how citizens have been treated by government, how inspectors have abused their powers, and the list goes on. More and more often, we receive complaints from people who have been put through a great deal of legal expense only to be found innocent, and where the penalty they had to pay in order to defend themselves was severe, and in some cases more severe than the penalty that would have been meted out had they been found guilty: penalties resulting in delays, delays in building, delays in plans, delays of various kinds, and huge costs, and a large amount of anguish that innocent people come under when they have been prosecuted, when proceedings have even been threatened by officers of the Crown.
We, on this side, have a very sincere sympathy for the little guy, and we are here to say so, and to maintain, and to remind the side opposite that government here is too big, that the individual often does not have a fair chance, that the government officials have a power, which, if abused, can bestow a great deal of harm on the individual with absolutely no redress, and may cause unnecessary anguish.
It is because of our concern about the powers of the state in Yukon that our side put forward a Motion on April 8, 1987, as follows: It was moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North:
“THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should investigate and report back to the House regarding the establishment of an ombudsman office which would have as its sole function the protection of individuals against the power of the state.”
I spoke in support of that Motion because I firmly believe, and know, that there is a feeling abroad in this territory that the individual is pretty helpless in the face of the jackboot of large government. At that time, in supporting the ombudsman motion, I stated that the idea is not new in Yukon; Mr. Norm Chamberlist had an investigation and caused a report to be laid before the Legislature at that time, in the early 1970s, with regard to the issue. And I was involved in the debate way back in the early 1970s. When one looks at that serious proposal in the context of 1970 and examines the situation now, the state has grown in leaps and bounds. The budget has mushroomed - skyrocketed, indeed - the bureaucracy has grown, the different kinds of powers being exercised by the government is growing and growing and growing.
I quoted on April 8 from a Royal Bank of Canada monthly letter about the principle of ombudsmen. It said, “In fact, as George B. McClelland, the Alberta Ombudsman said in an article in the Alberta Municipal Councilor, there is hardly any field business, manual labour, or other occupation in which the average person finds himself engaged where he is not subject to numerous forms of government control.”
I would submit that perhaps no other part of this nation, or of North America, finds itself so subject to government control as the Yukon. Because of the growing complexity of life here, because of the growing anguish of private citizens about government abuse of power - and the potential for that - I am proud to say that our party has a resolution that supports the establishment of an ombudsman, and that is why we continue to support that principle.
On April 8, 1987, when I was speaking to the ombudsman Motion, I raised some of the issues that were known then about Operation Falcon.
To quote, “It is interesting the smokescreens that come up when discussing a very simple and straightforward matter like the Nowlan Game Farm situation. We are not speaking of the criminal case itself and the charges laid against the defendant, but what happened there is very clearly wrong and very clearly involved bureaucratic decisions that were unfair, in fact, unconscionable in my opinion.” Those should be spelled out because they are things that ought to have been investigated at the time these decisions were being made by the bureaucrats in the Department of Renewable Resources.
It was a concern then, and it was not only my concern, but a concern of a good number of Yukoners. Subsequent to last April, we have had the investigative reporting by writers for the Kingston Whig Standard - volumes of reports were published - and of such interest to people in the Yukon that one of the local newspapers sought and received permission and published the initial report as an enclosure in its newspaper. It was read with a great deal of interest and concern by a huge number of Yukoners. What occurred in what is known as Operation Falcon was very simply a travesty of justice. The guilty went free; in fact, they made a deal to turn evidence for their freedom. All those people charged in the Yukon were found not guilty or the charges were dropped before it went to trial.
The charges were dropped against some of them before the preliminary hearings were held because, as conceded by most people who were involved with the investigation, the charges should not have even been laid against some of the initial defendants on moral grounds. Charges were laid, proceedings carried on - unnecessarily against some of them, as it turned out - so we have a situation where individuals paid huge amounts of money for their defence attorneys. It is said that Mr. Mossop, for example, was hit personally for about $10,000 for his legal fees. The costs to Paul White have not been made public, to my knowledge. Mr. Nowlan and Ms. Schmigale had expenses in excess of $100,000, and the list goes on.
It is not only this that has to be of concern. The costs to the taxpayers in Canada and in the Yukon must amount into the millions of dollars. We have some costs put forward, but there were a lot of hidden costs at the time for department officials from all levels of government, spent on this destructive exercise rather than on proper government business.
We had six or seven officers from Renewable Resources sitting through most of the trial. We had complaints about that. They had nothing better to do than watch the proceedings proceed. It comes clear in the various reports published by the Whig Standard that there were few, if any, regrets on the part of some of those officials most responsible for this travesty of justice. For example, the quotes of Doug Linklater lead one to believe he had no regrets at all about what happened. Also, quotes of a similar nature from officers in Ontario, and mild regret from RCMP officers.
In the Motion, we want to get down to the truth of what happened, and the reason why this investigation continued, and the reason why the court action ground on. The mills of the gods grind slowly, and reputations and businesses and lives are often ruined in the process. We feel that a lot of salutary benefits could emerge from a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, open to the public and held here in Yukon. Without being partisan, it is my firm belief that the issue of whether or not this government should develop procedural and training manuals for its investigating officers ought to be examined in the context of what happened in this huge case. The issue of whether the Government of Yukon should develop a mandatory training course for its investigators should be examined in the context of Operation Falcon. The issue of whether the Government of Yukon should pay costs where it has prosecuted or supported the prosecution of citizens and those people who are found not guilty, ought to be examined in the context of the flagrant abuse of justice that occurred in what is known as Operation Falcon.
We can turn to what happened during the course of the trial. The reputations of people were severely damaged. Two defendants were prevented from carrying on business by an official of this government. The appearance of what occurred is important. It is an old maxim of those involved in the legal system that justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done.
A large number of falcons were hatched in captivity. Two of the defendants who own the Yukon Game Farm attempted on numerous occasions to sell those falcons but were prevented from doing so. They almost went bankrupt over the course of the more than one year that transpired, while they were trying to sell the falcons and while they were prevented from selling the falcons. When finally they were sold, the birds had reached an age where their value had diminished substantially.
It is the way in which those defendants were treated that is so appalling. I can say that I received many, many phone calls from friends and neighbours, from people who have had arguments with Mr. Nowlan and Ms. Schmigale. Even people who were known as enemies of them came forward and said that this was atrocious; it just did not look right, and that it was unfair.
People came and asked what was happening. Was the government afraid that he was actually going to be able to defend himself? Were they trying to prevent him from being able to continue with the lawyer that had been on this case for so long? Trying to break him so he cannot meet the changes? The appearance was there. If it was not in fact the case, then the appearance was there. It is not something that is a figment of my imagination. It is something a huge number of people were concerned with during the time in question.
I do not want to belabour what happened here in Question Period during this sitting, but I asked about these matters and was given all kinds of, I think, weak defences. I asked if there was a signed contract and was told that there might be; there could be; there was a proposed contract. The funny thing there is had someone not sent me a copy of the signed document after I asked those questions, I would not have known. I would not have known there was a signed contract. The public of the Yukon would not have known, the Legislature would not have known. I just cannot understand why we were not told, why the Minister did not come forward in the interim and table the signed document. The result was that the public was misled, but through luck the record was corrected, because I got a copy of the document signed by all these people, and tabled it. The interesting thing about the document, and I do not want to belabour it, is that what it says contradicts badly the position taken by the self-anointed spokesman for the government on this, the Minister of Justice. All he could say when he was confronted with it was that there must have been another legal opinion given to the department at the time. The other excuse that was given the following day with regard to the date, September 2 rather than December 2 - I can honestly say I would be too ashamed of myself to stand up and make that kind of a lame excuse. I mean that.
We had the gamesmanship of the side opposite in play when they tabled a motion at the last minute on Friday in order to be able to be in the position to speak to their Motion about an inquiry, before we could speak to this Motion.
When we exposed the signed contract and tabled it, they decided not to go ahead but, rather, to let us go ahead so that they could propose an amendment. It is a funny thing - we read in the Whig Standard that the Minister of Justice, whom we all greatly appreciate for his forthrightness, says there should be an inquiry into this; it is a travesty of justice that the federal government should have a public inquiry and we support the NDP down there. Then our justices here say it has nothing to do with them. I am sure if the Minister of Justice was asked, he would support his comrades in Ontario who are calling for a public inquiry into that province’s officials’ handling of Operation Falcon. The NDP are calling for such an inquiry, and we have a fair amount of information regarding that.
I think we should have a Yukon public inquiry - a Yukon public inquiry rather than, or in addition to, or despite what might happen at the federal or Ontario level. I do not think Yukoners can be satisfied with simply sitting back and saying it is all the fault of the feds; they should have their inquiry and that is good enough for us. I want to give some reasons why.
Firstly, I would point to the all-pervasive nature of government in the lives of people who live here. I talked about that in an earlier speech. It is important because government is so big here, because people are bothered by government officials so many times here; the pervasiveness is unlike the position of citizens to the south. Whether a government is unfair or appearing to be unfair in its dealings with citizens at the investigative level is a big issue here, because the government is so big and so all-pervasive. So it is more important to the people here that the government be fair than it is to people and their lifestyles in the large populous provinces to the south.
Secondly, our small population - within the group of Yukoners who have been here for any period of time - a startlingly large number of people were touched directly or indirectly by Operation Falcon. Many, if not most, Yukoners know, knew, or dealt with, one or more of the defendants. Many of the defendants have been here for many, many years. Some have been active in various kinds of business, and of course Mr. Mossop is very well known and very well respected in his field as a bird biologist with the Department of Renewable Resources.
Friends, neighbours, acquaintances, business associates, people in a similar line of business, people who have known these defendants such as Danny Nowlan for 20 years or more, fought fires with them, feuded with them over property - these are people with uniqueness in the territory, who have done a lot for the territory, and whether some of us have had disagreements with these individuals in the past, nonetheless we knew who they were and respected them for what they are. In that context, surely people up here have a far greater stake in seeing an inquiry held here, with regard to the Yukon situation ensuring that the feelings of Yukoners are exposed and dealt with, with sensitivity. I do not think my opinion that an inquiry held primarily in Ottawa, by and for the federal government, would do justice to the situation here.
The third reason is that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. There was a huge injustice that was perpetrated on a lot of innocent people. A public inquiry held in Yukon - the hearings of which are readily accessible by people in Yukon - could go a long way to calming the fears of a good many Yukoners with regard to the actions taken by officials connected to this case.
The fourth reason is that an inquiry would be dealing with, to a large degree, areas under the jurisdiction of the Yukon Territorial Government. This Legislature, leaders in government, have for decades been asking for more government responsibility - responsible government in greater amounts, not less. So why would we want to rely on the feds? Why would we want to take a retrograde step and have the federal government do it for us?
It is my submission that this government has a chance to show maturity, to show that it is capable of redressing wrongs, of examining what has happened, of taking into account the rights of the individuals. To insist on hiding behind the skirts of a federal inquiry would go against all of the progress that has been made since the 1960s, in terms of responsible government. And I submit once again that I have every faith in the ability of Yukoners to deal with this important issue in Yukon. I am not concerned that we are not, or might not, be mature enough to deal with this in the proper fashion.
The fifth reason is that it is extremely unlikely that a federal inquiry would result in recommendations being made about how this government should run its affairs. It would be terribly presumptuous and rather insulting if that were to happen. This is the flip side of the coin of point number four. I would be very skeptical that a federal inquiry would deal with areas of policy that ought to be properly dealt with by this government.
Those are issues that must be dealt with here. They are issues that, quite properly, should be dealt with in the context of what went wrong with Operation Falcon. It is the Government of Yukon - not the Government of Canada - and the people of the Yukon who ought to be concerned about whether or not this government should develop procedural and training manuals for its investigating officers to ensure that they act in a fair and ethical manner. It is the Government of the Yukon and the people of the Yukon who ought to be determining whether or not this government should develop a mandatory training course for Government of Yukon officials who are involved in the enforcement of Yukon statutes and Yukon regulations. It is our decision, and it is the people in the Yukon who should be examining the issue of whether or not this government should pay legal costs and disbursements of defendants who successfully defend themselves against charges laid by this government. It is this government and the people of the Yukon who are concerned as to whether or not this government should pay legal costs and disbursements where charges are laid by another level of government, but this government was involved in the key role in the investigation and the laying of charges.
We have a situation here where the government has been considering whether or not it should pay the costs of the little guy - one of its employees, Mr. Mossop - who was treated so brutally by the system. We understand it cost him $10,000 or so. We are here to stick up for the little guy. We feel that he has been aggrieved, and the payment of his costs and disbursements is the least this government can do, but that is not good enough because that is, by its very nature, discriminatory.
The Minister of Justice has suggested to me that Mossop would be a special case. He works for the government, and it was in the course of his duties that he got into this jam, so the government can pay him but not the other people. Paul White was charged and the charges were dropped against him. He is involved in mining and does not work for the government. The dollars he put out and the damage to his reputation were just as great. He was just as greatly wronged as Mr. Mossop. I am saying Mr. Mossop should get his costs and disbursements, not to mention profuse apologies but, if he is entitled to them, any standard of justice should say that Paul White is. How about the others - Nowlan, Schmigale? The thin kind of distinction we get from the side opposite is that it is different as they do not work for the government. They were raising the falcons for the government under a contract they had with Renewable Resources. It is a distinction without any moral significance in my books.
All of the defendants have suffered tremendous hardship. This is a case that went on for years. It seems to me that, if justice is to be seen to be done, if people are to be satisfied with some kind of concept of fairness, that everyone from any walk of life should be subject to a policy that does not discriminate on who you are, who your friends are, or whether the media likes you and does not like somebody else. People must be treated equally and fairly.
The issue of costs is one that this government can address. It has taken on a high profile, luminous quality, because of the severity of the charges in this case, because of the huge costs involved, because of the terrible wrongs that were inflicted upon innocent people, and because of the obvious miscarriage of justice on the part of officials from three levels of Canadian government, not to mention the States. These are issues that, right now, are in focus in the national scene, in Ontario, but focused most clearly here because here it is so significant to so many people, because here most everyone knows one or more of the defendants, because here all kinds of people had concerns about what was an apparent miscarriage of justice right through to the end of the trial, and because so many people have had the opportunity of reading the excellent reports published by the Whig Standard and distributed here by one of the local papers.
Here is a chance, here is a time when most Yukoners would be so interested in a public inquiry into the very essence of morality and fairness and ethics in Yukon, and here is a chance for this government to respond by having a public inquiry, not just to clean the record, but to develop policies that are sorely needed with regard to how this government is going to treat its citizens, particularly those who may be helpless before the state.
For that reason I urge each and every Member in this House to examine his or her conscience, not on the basis of partisanship, but to consider whether or not the issues raised are deeply important and whether or not a public airing in Yukon by Yukoners would not be a most desirable thing to occur, and whether or not we are going to take this opportunity to ensure that the investigating officers in Yukon will be fair to the average citizen, and whether or not we are going to treat victims of the state in a fair and impartial manner by awarding costs on some fair and equitable and objective basis.
Hon. Mr. Porter: I realize that our Standing Orders require Members to stand while speaking in the House, but in this instance I would beg the indulgence of the House to sit. I have a bad back at the present time and have consulted with the Opposition House Leaders.
I must advise the Member for Hootalinqua that I will not be supporting the Motion in the form that he has put it to the House today. The reason for not supporting the Motion is not one of not looking at an inquiry into what has been called Operation Falcon, but rather because I believe that the Motion that the Member has put before the House today is flawed in a number of ways.
The first point in which the Motion was flawed has been corrected by the Member, and that is the wrong date in which the Motion has been put before the House, and that has been corrected by the Member in his speech.
There are a number of other problems with the Motion that I would first of all like to address in my remarks. Some of the problems are with the argumentative wordings contained in 2) of the Member for Hootalinqua’s Motion, which implies that the Government of the Yukon deliberately set out to restrict the ability of the Yukon Game Farm to carry on its business.
I am going to be more than happy at this point to have the public informed of all of the steps which this government took to enable the Yukon Game Farm to carry on its business. Despite the fact that charges were laid against the principals by the colleague in law of the Leader of the Official Opposition, the federal Crown attorney, I would support an inquiry into that. Before I finish my speech today, I will detail some of the steps that my government took to enable Mr. Nowlan to carry on his business.
The second point of the Leader of the Official Opposition’s motion suggests a number of issues that the board might like to look into, and these are not deep, dark secret areas that can only be brought to light by formal inquiry. The Member suggests, for example, that a board of inquiry might make recommendations to the Government of the Yukon to develop a procedure and training manual for its investigative officers. For the information of the Member opposite, an operations manual already exists and is presently in use with the aid of experienced managers to assist officers in all areas of field duties including enforcement. This manual was revised and updated in 1986 and deals with a wide variety of situations, such as the use of Crown attorneys, the offence of dangerous hunting, appeals, overtaking and stopping vehicles, illegal activities at night, use of electronic recording equipment, plainclothes and undercover, fish and wildlife checkpoints, fish and game check stations, seizure of aircraft, disposal of seized wildlife, disposal of forfeited goods, disposal of live wildlife, violations by departmental staff, firearms issue and use, theft of government equipment, operational directives, predation, permits, birds of prey, and also problem bears.
His second point, on a training course for officials involved in enforcement of its statutes and regulations is well taken. Presently, detailed training records are kept for each officer, with annual targets being set. The field service division is presently in the process of developing a training guide. The guide lays out the levels of proficiency required for each of the job functions and indicates how an officer could acquire the level of performance needed to perform that particular function and to maintain his or her proficiency. These measures are being undertaken to facilitate the professional development of the conservation offices and staff, which already is highly competent.
Our field staff are now on a par with, or superior to, those staff with other provincial agencies with regard to their training, experience, ability and track record in both public information programs and enforcement. The experience of our officers ranges from a minimum of three years to a maximum of 25 years, for an average of ten years’ experience. Most of the officers have experience from other provinces or the Northwest Territories. All officers are graduates of renewable resource technology programs, which include enforcement training as well as biological technical training in their area. In addition, all officers, except one, who is to attend in the spring of 1988, are also graduates of law enforcement training in either the B.C. Justice Institute or the Ontario Police College. Some officers have attended both, and three officers have advanced law enforcement training.
All officers attend annual refresher courses in law enforcement techniques, with in-service lecturers, Crown attorneys and instructors brought in from other agencies and as contractors.
With regard to point three, the suggestion that an inquiry should look at whether or not the Government of the Yukon should enact legislation that provides for the payment of legal costs and disbursements of defendants who successfully defend themselves against charges laid by the Government of the Yukon, I will only say this: the charges laid as a result of the investigation into which the Member opposite seeks an inquiry were not laid by the Government of the Yukon. The charges were laid by the federal Crown Attorney’s office. The suggestion that an inquiry into an investigation which led to charges being laid by the federal crown should make recommendations with regard to events which proceed from hypothetical Yukon government charges, is simply not appropriate.
On point number four, in the second part of the Member’s motion, which suggests that the inquiry look into the question of the Government of the Yukon reimbursing legal costs incurred as a result of charges laid by another level of government, I have to respond in the negative. The charges were laid by the federal government, as I stated, and were laid as a result of decisions made in the federal Crown Attorney’s office. Yukon government officials may be called upon to cooperate in investigations but the decision to lay the charges in this case, which we are using as a basis for debate on this motion, was made in the federal Crown office and it is the federal government which ought to be liable for the consequences, not the Government of the Yukon.
At point five in the Member’s motion, that an inquiry should make recommendations, to ensure that the investigative and enforcement procedures of the Government of Yukon are fair and appropriate, let me simply say this: I believe that the Yukon conservation officers are highly professional people. I have already outlined to you some of the details of the training which they receive. I am sure that most of the officers and staff of the Department of Renewable Resources who have read this particular Motion resent the suggestion, implicit in the motion, that the Government of the Yukon staff is not professional and is not on a par with other jurisdictions, with respect to the level of enforcement and training.
The investigation that lead to the matters that we are discussing today, of course, took prior to my assumption of office, but I am happy to support the idea of an inquiry into the actions of the officials of any time.
I welcome the idea of an inquiry, but it should be an inquiry undertaken in context. The context of the Yukon investigation and charges related to illegal trade in falcons was a national and an international one. As I stated, I was not party to the investigations in Operation Falcon. It began in 1980 or 1981 and charges were laid in 1985, before this government was sworn into office. We have detailed previously, for the record, in this House, the consequent actions that lead to the laying of charges. As well, I have submitted to this House today documentation related to the original charges.
I know how difficult it was to deal with the consequences of that investigation, with the pall of suspicion that drifted from the federal Crown Attorney’s office in Ontario. In speaking to this Motion, I would like to put some facts, as I know them, from May of 1985, on the record.
On June 17, 1985, Mr. Nowlan requested written confirmation that he would be permitted to export 1985 gyrfalcon progeny. On September 20, 1985, Mr. Monaghan, the Director of Wildlife, for the Department of Renewable Resources, responded, in writing, stating that the 1985 gyrfalcon progeny could be considered for export, subject to the normal conditions, the usual regulatory approvals, and provided that there was no question about the legitimacy of the birds, nor any indication that such export would interfere with the ongoing investigations. That particular letter of September 20 was tabled by myself today in the House.
Subsequently, Mr. David M. Stone, the federal Crown Prosecutor, intervened. His reasons related to the questions about the legitimacy of the parent birds, given evidence that he had in hand, legal proceedings that he was conducting, and investigations elsewhere of which he was aware. He also indicated this concern was shared by the federal Canadian Wildlife Service. On October 2 and 15, 1985, Mr. Nowlan applied for permits to export gyrfalcon young. Mr. Monaghan denied Mr. Nowlan’s request, based on the information given to him by Messrs. Stone and Heppes and the three officers. Based on that, the export would be contrary to the normal conditions originally expressed in his correspondence of September 20.
Throughout this period, permits for export were issued for other non-gyrfalcon birds of prey and for big game.
In October, 1985, Mr. Nowlan applied before the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory for an action which would have the effect of obliging Mr. Monaghan to issue the export permits. In March, 1986, hon. Justice Maddison refused Mr. Nowlan’s petition. Mr. Nowlan subsequently began action to have Justice Maddison’s decision reviewed in a higher court. Mr. Monaghan and YTG Justice officials indicated that they would willingly participate in any such proceedings.
During March and April of 1986, while awaiting Judge Maddison’s decision, Mr. Nowlan produced more gyrfalcon progeny. In the fall of 1986, Mr. Nowlan suggested to Mr. Monaghan that a solution to his problem of feeding the many birds, and to his shortage of space, was that an escrow contract should be considered. Mr. Monaghan was advised that such a contract was without precedent and possibly fraught with potential difficulties.
Nevertheless, he decided to proceed. During November 11 to November 13, 1986, YTG proposed modifications to the escrow agreement, which was delivered to Mr. Nowlan on November 13. On November 14, 1986, Mr. Nowlan discussed three of his concerns with Mr. Monaghan. On November 18, 1986, Mr. Nowlan was informed that the modified Section 9 would remain in the contract, and this is one of the sections stipulated by the Department of Renewable Resources at this point for the proposed escrow agreement. This section would have Mr. Nowlan not breed gyrfalcons in 1987 if he were to be found guilty in his trial. This would avoid him having to feed more birds until their ultimate disposition would be determined, since he had claimed he could not afford to feed the birds he already held.
On November 19, 1987, Mr. Nowlan sought YTG’s view on his sale of his farm, including the gyrfalcons, to other individuals. Mr. Nowlan was advised that the same concerns listed above regarding the question of the legitimacy of the birds would remain. On November 27, 1986, I delivered to Mr. Monaghan a memo that, in essence, asked that Mr. Monaghan conclude his negotiations on Section 9 of the proposed escrow and remove any insistence on the part of the government as to the inclusion of that particular section. On November 28, 1986, Mr. Monaghan instructed legal counsel to complete the wording of the contract, including details of the funding amounts he would receive to cover his operating costs, which had been worked out with Mr. Nowlan.
Mr. Nowlan corresponded with Mr. Monaghan outlining his financial requirements. Copies of the final agreement were provided to Mr. Nowlan and were signed by him. The escrow contract was to permit the export of gyrfalcons within Canada. On December 2, 1986, the escrow agreement was signed by both parties. That is the escrow contract that has been tabled in this House by the Leader of the Official Opposition. The escrow agreement that was tabled and was discussed indicates the point of view that the government was not insisting or, somehow, on a subversive level trying to set out to break Mr. Nowlan, as has been suggested, or to cause Mr. Nowlan financial harm.
The reason why the escrow agreement was negotiated in the fashion that it took was to try to get around the problem where there was a legal situation pending, so that we could advance finances to Mr. Nowlan and the other owner of the Yukon Game Farm, so they could legitimately pay the costs that they had put out for the care and feed of the birds under their game farm licence. On the question of any profit that could have been gained from that, we put forward the idea that the remaining monies, over and above what it cost the operators of the Yukon Game Farm to feed the birds, would be kept in escrow. It would be held by the Department of Justice pending the outcome of a trial.
It would follow then that, should the escrow agreement have been followed through, and a trial was conducted as has been carried out, and Mr. Nowlan was successful in proving his innocence, then the remaining funds that had been set aside in escrow would flow through to Mr. Nowlan.
Earlier on, the Leader of the Official Opposition in his remarks did move in this area of debate and suggest that we were not involved, or that we were involved in the investigation and that, somehow, the Government of the Yukon was party to trying to put Mr. Nowlan in a financial situation where he was not able to care for his birds and realize an income.
I do not have the information here but the record will clearly indicate that, during the time in which the investigations and the trials were carried out, the Government of the Yukon and the federal government, through the EDA process, did grant Mr. Nowlan $60,000 for the purchase of elk for the Game Farm and, as well, a contract had been let by the Department of Renewable Resources for the care of the birds.
The money advanced by the EDA to Mr. Nowlan’s Game Farm was for the purchase of elk from outside the Yukon. So, I think that that clearly demonstrates that the government had no ulterior motive, as has been purported, and were not trying to ensure the financial wreckage of the operators of the game farm.
I share with Members opposite a concern that the conduct of the Yukon investigation of Operation Falcon be subjected to full public scrutiny. It seems to me that the only means of inquiry that will render a coherent picture of the conduct of the Yukon investigations is a federal government inquiry that puts that piece of a much larger national and international investigation into context.
Obviously, the Yukon investigations did not take place in isolation. The agreement signed between the government of the day and the RCMP, and tabled in this House today by myself, is an indication of that fact. I pledge the full cooperation of my department in the conduct of such a federal inquiry. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has also indicated his support for an inquiry. My commitment to getting to the bottom of this matter does not end with calling for an inquiry into the investigation and laying of charges. I believe it is important to review the role of the Crown Attorney’s office and the actions of both the federal and territorial governments in the wake of the charges.
For the individuals charged, the two years between their arrests and their days in court were harrowing ones. For Dave Mossop and the Department of Renewable Resources, these were trying times. The charges laid by the federal Crown Attorney compromised his credibility in the eyes of Canadian CITES authorities, officials in the Canadian Wildlife Service who are responsible for the administration of the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species and, as a direct result, he was relieved of his management responsibility and authority for the administration of CITES here in the Yukon until charges against him were stayed in April of 1986.
I would like to advise the House that I, as Minister of Renewable Resources, have advanced to the government a submission for compensation to Mr. Mossop. As we have explained to the House, because the government does not have a specific policy to address this particular area, the government has chosen to develop an overall policy for the Government of the Yukon, prior to giving consideration to my specific request for the compensation of Mr. Mossop.
Members opposite have in hand a copy of a Legislative Return tabled today in answer to a question asked by the Member for Hootalinqua. It details the planning of 56 inspections carried out in 1985 and additional monitoring carried out in 1986. As stated in that Return, the department was confident that all birds from 1985 to 1986 were capture bred and raised at the farm. Doubts about the parentage of gyrfalcons hatched in captivity remained in the minds of the federal Crown Attorney and CITES authorities. In their view, the progeny of any falcons that were alleged to have been taken from the wild, were themselves illegal.
That position on the part of the federal prosecutor put Mr. Nowlan, who requested permits to export birds, and Hugh Monaghan, who had responsibility for issuing them, into a legal quicksand. The only thing that became clear over time was that Mr. Monaghan had the court’s confirmed authority to issue or deny permits.
Earlier this afternoon, I tabled a copy of the hon. Mr. Justice Maddison’s reasons for judgment, quashing Mr. Nowlan’s appeal and supporting Mr. Monaghan’s decision to deny issuance of permits to Mr. Nowlan. Judge Maddison found, firstly, that Mr. Nowlan’s recognizance, signed at the time of his arrest by Mr. Nowlan, clearly vested in Mr. Monaghan the authority to issue or deny export permits and, secondly, that Mr. Monaghan was justified in denying permission to export because the birds that Mr. Nowlan sought to export were progeny of suspected birds - the legality of which was at issue as a result of charges laid by the federal Crown Attorney.
On pages four and five of Mr. Justice Maddison’s judgment, he says, and I quote: “A more significant factor is the recognizance signed by Mr. Nowlan at the time of his arrest in that, as a condition of his judicial interim release, he agreed to not sell or remove from the Game Farm any bird or prey or young or egg of any bird of prey presently in their - Nowlan and his common law spouse - possession, custody or control, except with authority of H. Monaghan.
“By putting his signature to that document, Mr. Nowlan removed any doubt as to the discretion of Mr. Monaghan to decide those issues. Was Mr. Monaghan justified in deciding against permission to export? Mr. Monaghan had decided to issue a permit to export when he received a long letter from the federal Crown Prosecutor who, then, had conduct of the prosecution of the criminal charges against Mr. Nowlan. In that letter, the writer cited many reasons why the permit should not be granted while the criminal charges were unresolved. It is apparent from the evidence before me that Mr. Monaghan gave those representations careful and mature consideration, rejected all but one of them, and decided against permission solely on the basis of them being the progeny of suspect birds.
“I am of the view that, acting as he did, on reasonable and probable grounds, permission to export was not unreasonably withheld, was a valid exercise of Mr. Monaghan’s discretion and is unassailable at this time.”
I would like to emphasize that Mr. Monaghan did grant export permits for birds whose legality was not in question while Mr. Nowlan awaited trial.
In deciding whether or not to grant permits for the export of the gyrfalcons, I quote from Mr. Monaghan’s affidavit filed November 18, 1985: “I was subsequently contacted by Mr. David M. Stone, the agent of the Attorney General of Canada charged with the prosecution of the petitioner, who informed me that there were specific reasons for not allowing the export of 1985 gyrfalcon progeny. The reasons related to the legitimacy of parent birds, legal proceedings that he was conducting and investigations elsewhere of which he was aware. He also indicated such concern was shared by the Canadian Wildlife Service.
“17. During a series of subsequent conversations I had with Mr. Stone and Mr. John B. Heppes, the CITES administrator for the Canadian Wildlife Service, I asked for specific and explicit particulars of the basis upon which the export of the gyrfalcons from the Yukon Game Farm would be contrary to the ”normal conditions" I had referred to in my letter to the petitioner of September 20, 1985.
“That the particulars I received were as follows:
“(a) Mr. Stone informed me that he had evidence to show legitimacy of all adult gyrfalcons at the Yukon Game Farm were suspect, hence 1985 progeny could not be considered legitimate. On that basis I viewed the birds as ineligible for either Yukon or CITES export permits.
“(b) Mr. Stone further indicated he had information which I did not have available to me prior to writing my letter of September 20, 1985 to the petitioner. According to Mr. Stone, this information related to ongoing investigations and export controls, and he suggested to me that I may wish to take this information into consideration in making my decision regarding export.
“(c) Mr. Stone further expressed to me the opinion that the export of 1985 progeny could interfere with or cause conflict in respect of the pending charges against the petitioner or in respect of ongoing investigations elsewhere.
“19. I informed Mr. Stone that I would not proceed with the specific application by Mr. Nowlan for export of birds to one John Lejeune or otherwise until I had received and had been able to further assess the basis for Mr. Stone’s concerns.
“20. In the latter part of September, 1985, I directed Russ Fillmore, a senior conservation officer employed by the Yukon Department of Renewable Resources, to meet with Messrs. Stone and Heppes as well as provincial officials to determine and assess the validity of the concerns related to the export of 1985 gyrfalcon progeny from the Yukon Game Farm.
“21. That my purpose in seeking further and better information was to assist in providing proper reasons to Mr. Hugh Stansfield, counsel for the petitioner, to respond to his request for the reasons for my decision.
“22. That the petitioner made written application to me by letters dated October 2 and October 15, 1985 for export permits in respect of the gyrfalcons which are the subject of these proceedings. True copies of these letters are attached and marked as Exhibits ‘H’ and ‘I’ respectively. In addition to the foregoing, I have received and acted upon information previously provided to me by other officials, which information is recorded in the following affidavits in this proceeding, which I have read:
a) Russ Fillmore, signed and sworn on November 15, 1985;
b) Laurie Tubbs, signed and sworn on November 7, 1985;
c) Andy Ackerman, signed and sworn on November 8, 1985;
“23. In the course of my duties pursuant to the CITES I have received and considered information received by Dex on October 25, 1985 from Mr. Heppes in relation to recent CITES decisions. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘J’ to this my Affidavit is a true copy of the said Dex.
“24. On the 15th day of November, 1985 I received from Mr. Stone confirmation of his information relevant to the export of gyrfalcons from the Yukon Game Farm, and attached hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘K’ to this my Affidavit as a true copy of his letter of October 25, 1985.
“25. That on the basis of all the information in my possession, as described in this Affidavit, I have determined that, acting under the CITES if the application were for international export or under the recognizance for any other export, such export would be contrary to the ‘normal conditions’ originally expressed to the Petitioner in my letter of September 20, 1985.”
The situation regarding the progeny of suspect birds remained stalemated from the time of Mr. Justice Maddison’s judgment until late summer of 1986, when it was suggested that an escrow agreement might allow Nowlan to export birds without potentially benefiting from the sale of birds that might be found to be illegitimate.
Officials in the Canadian Wildlife Service all but threatened to withdraw any authority to issue CITES permits, and legal opinions were not conclusive. Mr. Monaghan walked a legal mine field trying to formulate an agreement that would try to satisfy all parties.
Two copies of draft escrow agreements have been tabled in this House to date. Although I signed one of these, a review of documentation on file reveals the existence of at least four drafts, each of them the result of blizzards of paper exchanged through October and November of 1986, in attempts to enable Mr. Nowlan to export some birds to offset the ongoing cost of operating his breeding facility.
I am satisfied that my department and my officials did everything they could in the hostile legal climate created by the federal Crown Attorney’s office to facilitate the export of gyrfalcons made by Mr. Nowlan.
The irony is that, after all the frantic efforts to finalize an escrow agreement satisfactory to all parties, the agreement that was reached and signed was never acted upon. I am quite prepared to submit my department to the scrutiny of a federal inquiry to the investigation and consequences of Operation Falcon. Yukoners and other innocent Canadians were seriously affected by the conduct of this case. I am confident that the root of the problem does not lie in the Yukon. However, much harm may have come to Yukoners as a result.
At this particular point, I would urge all Members to support an amendment that I will propose to this House. Earlier on, the Member for Hootalinqua anticipated the amendment inasmuch as I provided the copy for him so he could have fair time to be able to ponder the effects of the amendment, and so we could have an intelligent debate in the House today on the subject before us.
The Member for Hootalinqua made the statement that he wants to see a Yukon inquiry to get to the bottom of all this, to get to the truth of it. If that was really our intent, if that was our goal, to get to the truth or the bottom of it, I suggest that a federal inquiry into the matter of Operation Falcon would be a better vehicle to be able to facilitate the truth of the questions surrounding Operation Falcon.
If it was not real, and one simply picked up the story that was written about Operation Falcon, they would think they were reading some sort of international best seller thriller that came on the market place. The events that occurred and the charges that were laid were very real. They did not just concern themselves with operations in the Yukon. The facilities in Wainwright, Alberta, were part of the process. People involved live in England, Saudi Arabia, Washington, Toronto, Montana and Colorado. The players in this particular issue are from all over the globe, and it was an international undercover sting operation that raises questions about illegal covert operations into Canada, apparently without the knowledge of Canadian officials.
There are many questions that will have to be asked to be able to get to the bottom of it. If we set an inquiry up in the Yukon under the terms of the legislation that we are empowered to utilize, that inquiry would not have the legal jurisdiction to be able to bring all these people who are involved in this inquiry to the Yukon and cause them to testify and to put forward their position before the inquiry.
To be able to properly conduct an inquiry, the members of the Yukon inquiry would have to travel abroad to all of the places that I have named and interview people on this question. That would be the extent of their legal authority, to be able to search out these individuals and to interview them. They would not have the legal authority to cause these people, regardless of their jurisdictions, to testify.
This is an issue that has received considerable national attention, and so it should. There has been a call on the federal Parliament of Canada for such an inquiry to be conducted. We are informed that the federal Minister of the Environment has called for internal investigations but has yet to address himself to the question of a federal inquiry. Hopefully, we will hear from that Minister shortly as to the findings of his investigations. He does have a responsibility to address squarely the question of an inquiry conducted under legislation under the federal government.
In the information that I have supplied and what I have seen, nowhere have I been led to believe that officials of this government maliciously or in any other form set out to harm individuals in the Yukon. We were brought into an investigation that was largely under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This government that you see here before you today was not even in power when that investigation occurred and was not even in power when charges were laid. From the time we took office, I have given the House the benefit of what it is that has occurred in chronological fashion. We have demonstrated that the officials of this government did not, in any instance, act improperly.
The extent of my personal involvement is on the record. There had been many conversations by the accused in the falcon case - the owner of the game farm, Mr. Nowlan - in my office asking for my assistance. If the Leader of the Official Opposition would avail himself of a conversation with Mr. Nowlan, Mr. Nowlan would tell him that I personally stated that I thought he was innocent until proven otherwise, and that I would do everything possible, as the Minister of Renewable Resources, to ensure that he had the full benefit of my office. Within my capacity, I attempted to assist Mr. Nowlan in respect to the predicament he found himself in in the Yukon.
The position of this government is that we believe the surest way to bring about answers to many of the questions that remain unanswered on this issue is to put the issue squarely before a federal inquiry.
Amendment proposed
Therefore, I move:
THAT Motion No. 18 be amended by deleting all the words after the word “THAT” where it first appears and substituting the following:
“the Yukon Legislative Assembly urges the Government of Canada to conduct a full inquiry into the conduct of the investigation known as Operation Falcon; and
THAT the terms of reference of such an inquiry provide for a comprehensive review of the Yukon aspects of Operation Falcon including:
1. the initiation and subsequent conduct of investigations by the RCMP and the Territorial Game Branch,
2. the laying of charges,
3. the role of the federal Crown attorney’s office in the Yukon investigations,
4. the extent of the involvement of the Ministers and officials of the Government of Yukon, and
5. the issuance of export permits for falcons to the accused subsequent to the laying of charges."
In my speech leading up to the introduction of this amendment, it has always been the position of this government, ever since this particular issue was raised, that a full federal inquiry must be conducted into the events surrounding the investigation known as Operation Falcon. As we stated countless times, and I reiterate today, this government is not afraid to subject itself and the officials of this government to such an inquiry, and that is why we included item number four under this particular amendment. I think if Members in this House were, in fact, interested, as the Leader of the Official Opposition puts it, in the truth of it all and in getting to the bottom of the this particular question, then they would support the amendment that we have brought forward to the House today.
Mr. Phillips: I thank the Member for Watson Lake for his speech. It sounded more like a statement of defence, though, for the Department of Renewable Resources, and I would have hoped that many of these statements that the Minister made and also, many of the other statements that have been made in public, would seem to be in conflict and I would hope that an inquiry would certainly get into that.
I rise today to support the principle of the amendment but I would, though, like to raise a few concerns. It is quite obvious to me, and I think to all Members of this House, that we need a full public inquiry into the conduct of this investigation. Many innocent people have been hurt and we have a responsibility to get to the bottom of this, and further, make sure that it can not happen again. Although I fully support a federal public inquiry, I am a little concerned that the federal government may not act immediately on this or possibly not act at all. This is where this particular amendment leaves me confused. It is my belief that we, as well as the federal government, have a very strong responsibility to the people involved and charged in Operation Falcon. In fact, as the majority of the people who were charged and then acquitted were Yukoners, this adds to the responsibility that we have to those people.
Let me get back for a moment to the point that I made about the federal government sitting on our Motion, or not acting at all. What is wrong with us? What is wrong with the Yukon government taking the lead to protect the little guy in this fiasco? We have the power right here. I disagree with the Minister of Renewable Resources, without asking anyone else to do our work for us. The inquiry should be in the Yukon and I should give you some reasons for that.
First of all, we would not be passing the buck, hoping that the federal government would pick it up. Information would arise from that inquiry that would almost force the federal government to have one of their own. Yukoners would finally get the facts at home.
Last, but not least, we in this Legislature would accept our responsibilities and do the job we get paid for.
Subamendment proposed
It is Yukoners who have suffered the most in this case, and there is no doubt in my mind that there has to be a full public inquiry. I feel that all Members here have to agree with that. The question I have for all Members of this House, and especially the side opposite, is: do they not agree that since we have the authority and the responsibility we should be prepared to accept that responsibility if the federal government refuses to act. For these reasons, I would like to propose the following amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment to Motion No. 18 be amended by:
(1) deleting the expression “full inquiry” and substituting for it the expression “full public inquiry”; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
“THAT the public inquiry hold hearings in Yukon; and
THAT in the event the Government of Canada has not established such an inquiry within 90 days of the receipt of this resolution, the Commissioner in Executive Council should cause an inquiry to be made pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act into the “Operation Falcon” investigation, with terms of reference similar, as much as is possible, to those proposed for a federal inquiry.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North that the amendment to Motion No. 18 be amended by:
(1) deleting the expression “full inquiry” and substituting for it the expression “full public inquiry”; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
THAT the public inquiry hold hearings in Yukon; and
THAT in the event the Government of Canada has not established such an inquiry within 90 days of the receipt of this resolution, the Commissioner in Executive Council should cause an inquiry to be made pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act into the “Operation Falcon” investigation, with terms of reference similar, as much as is possible, to those proposed for a federal inquiry.
Mr. Phillips: I would just like to comment briefly on some of the reasons for this amendment to the amendment. First of all, in reading the amendment that was put forward by the Minister of Renewable Resources, he refers to a full inquiry and there is a concern that the federal government may consider a full internal inquiry the type of inquiry we wish, but I think the general public would like to know what is going on as well. That is the reason we have inserted the words “full public inquiry” so that the public of Canada as well as the public of Yukon can know exactly what takes place.
In the last statement, we are concerned, as well, that this may drag on; we feel it has dragged on far too long. We have put, I think, a reasonable time in the amendment, stating that the federal government should act within 90 days. We believe that the fact they know we will have an inquiry here means we are as concerned, as all of us have stated. All indications are that we do believe there should be a public inquiry; we feel the pressure would be on the federal government to act.
I would like to see a full federal public inquiry as well, but I think this is one way we can assure them that if they do not do it we here will accept our responsibilities and will do it for them. Like I said earlier, just the fact that, if they did not do anything initially and then we did, we could raise some very serious concerns that may lead to a federal inquiry and force them into that position.
That is the reason we have brought forth this amendment.
Hon. Mr. Kimmerly: I have remarks to make about the original motion, the amendment and the subamendment, and I will try to make the remarks about the subamendment in a logical sequence. It is first necessary to address some of the very basic facts and basic issues in order to make the remarks on the subamendment more comprehensible.
The Minister of Renewable Resources has done an excellent job of outlining the involvement of this government and of the Ministers of this government in this affair. He has specifically spoken about the question of licences and the negotiations that occurred with the government, including two Ministers of this government - me and the Minister of Renewable Resources - in order to facilitate the operation of the Game Farm. If the Leader of the Official Opposition, should he would phone Mr. Nowlan or communicate with him, and ask him about those meetings, I am sure he will get confirmation from Mr. Nowlan himself that the Ministers treated him at all times, and completely, as innocent until proven guilty, and he was never proven guilty of anything. Mr. Nowlan may speak for himself, at some point.
It is also appropriate that I outline some facts and issues about the legal issues, specifically, about Operation Falcon, and relate them to inquiries and incidentally to the institution of the ombudsperson, as did the mover of the motion.
Before doing that, I wish to put on the record my thanks to the Kingston Whig Standard, to Paul McKay, specifically, and Bill Hutchison, who have been involved in the exposure of this operation. I would say that this kind of journalism is most responsible and is part of our constitutional makeup. The freedom and diligence of the press here has been exemplary. I think, ultimately, or in the long term, we will have a better criminal justice system because of that diligence.
Let me also say at the outset that there are innocent people here who deserve protection and deserve, I would submit, an apology from government. One of those people is Miss Kay McKeever, in Ontario, affectionately known as the “Owl Lady of Canada”, a person who has received the Order of Canada for her conservationist attitudes and work over many long years and is a person who has impeccable credentials and reputation in Ontario and around the world. This operation, or part of it, I would quote her as saying, told lies about her and damaged her reputation.
It also mentions David Mossop, a very well-respected individual, whose reputation - although what is coming to light is redeeming and must be satisfying to him - was called into question by this whole operation and certain actions within it.
I could mention many others. The inconvenience put to people is only one thing. I have been aware, as a Crown Attorney in my past life and also as a defence counsel, of the very severe emotional trauma that these kinds of things occasion in individuals.
I quote from the Kingston Whig Standard publication to emphasize that point: what David Mossop said about the day he was arrested. “That Sunday was the most awful, humiliating experience I have ever been through.” That is a clear and an understandable statement, and I empathize with that completely. That is an example of why it is the case that there are substantial laws and very substantial legal ethics about who should be charged on the basis of evidence.
It is appropriate to make statements about that in a more specific way before proceeding to comments specifically about the sub-amendment. I have said in the media and I have repeated here: if a person is charged - and the person laying that criminal information does not believe, in their own heart, that the person charged is guilty, and does not believe that there is a good provable case against them, and they proceed - it is an immoral act. It is those kinds of acts that occur, albeit very seldom, but all too often, that cause the most awful, humiliating experiences that people have ever gone through.
I quote again from the Kingston Whig Standard: “Knowles began to change his mind about Mossop after a conversation with him the day after Mossop’s home and office were raided. ”I recall him coming in and expressing some concerns about being searched and why we suspected him in the whole Operation Falcon scenario. I repeated to him every single one of my suspicions. He said, “What does it take to prove to you, Norm, that I am innocent”. I said, “I do not really know”. He said, “Do you want me to take a polygraph?” And I said, “That would be one way of establishing whether you are guilty or not.”
He said, “Where is the polygraph, I will take it right now.” That caused me a lot of difficulty, that kind of reaction from him. All of a sudden I had one side of me saying maybe this guy is not guilty of anything, and later a quote from Knowles, “I feel sorry for him now because as a professional peace officer I do not, and have never ever charged anybody, unless I was convinced in my own mind that he was guilty of that offence.” Knowles says, “and there I was charging a man when I was not convinced he was guilty of the offences. I had suspicions, but I did not have the proof to even get to first base with it in a court of law.” I know that peace officer very generally, or I have met him briefly, and I have greater respect for his service and his ability and his character, which are unquestionable, I would submit.
I do say though, from the point of view of a lawyer, that with respect to him, he was wrong. He was operating on the presumption, or the presumption of law, that if he was instructed by the Crown Attorney, who had conduct of the case, to lay a charge, then he should lay the charge. He has obviously stated that and he was operating on that assumption. I do not question in any way his morality, but I do suggest if he felt that he was wrong, he should not have signed the Information - despite the instruction of the Crown Attorney.
I believe the law is that the conduct of a case in court, and whether it goes to court, is the decision of the Crown Attorney, not the decision of the peace officer. It is the decision of the Crown Attorney alone. However, whether a charge is laid or not, is an act which is taken under oath before a justice of the peace and the person swearing that Information must act on individual knowledge and believe; not on the instruction of any other person’s superior or not, or lawyer or not, or Crown Attorney or not. That is the law as I know it. I believe the procedures or the policies, if they are different than that, should be changed immediately to reflect that.
I mention that at some length because of the seriousness of it. I mention it also because it falls to me to explain, as much as I am able, the legal ramifications or the facts from the legal perspective. I wish to make a comment about the colonial attitude of Crown Attorneys, which is clearly evident in this case. It is clear to me that the charges that were laid in Yukon were laid on the instruction of the federal Crown Attorney’s office.
Whether there was any political input into that, I do not know; I suspect there was not. In any event, there could have been - and I would put that more strongly, knowing the facts as I know them now - there should have been. I would submit that this is an example why the Attorney General’s function should be changed from the colonial operation which exists now, to an operation under Yukon control, under local control, under the Yukon Territorial Government’s control. We would have done a more knowledgeable job and a better job.
I mention that because it is important to get at these issues in an inquiry and it is clear to me that unless there is a federal inquiry, these issues will not be exposed or addressed properly. Certainly we can make comments, but we really can not make any more comments than I have already made in the last few moments. The problem is in getting access to the files and the evidence of the persons involved in the federal government, and most of those actions occurred in Ontario, some occurred in BC and some occurred out of the country in the United States, and even some in Europe. There is an international aspect to this whole Operation Falcon and the prospect of a Yukon inquiry, with ability to inquire only into the Yukon aspects, would not do this issue service. It would expose publicly a small aspect of the whole operation and if it were the only inquiry - which I submit would be likely, if it occurred - then the perception of the whole operation would be very skewed and very partial. It is necessary to have an inquiry into the whole operation, into the people especially who made the decisions - those people were not Yukoners and the decisions were not made here about all the important matters.
I would submit that, after the full account, given by especially the Minister of Renewable Resources, that the only public interest remaining is to have a full inquiry into all of the aspects of the operation - primarily the decisions taken in Ontario but also involving the actions which occurred in Yukon.
If we passed this subamendment I would submit that it would allow an opportunity for the federal government to get off the hook, if you will; that they would know immediately that all they would need to do is wait 90 days and the Yukon would open an inquiry and they would say, “Sure, cover the issue.”
I would submit that a Yukon inquiry alone would not assist, and the only thing that would assist is a full inquiry. It is obvious that the inquiry asked for in the original motion, which does not incidentally specifically say public inquiry - but it is obvious that is what is meant and that is the same with the amendment. So I would submit that, for those reasons, the appropriate course of action is a federal inquiry. We should ask for a federal inquiry and pursue it with vigour.
Mr. Nordling: What a silly story from the Minister of Justice with respect to the subamendment. If this government was serious about getting to the bottom of Operation Falcon, it would be doing a lot more than urging the federal government to conduct an inquiry. This government has complained vigorously in the past that the federal government will not listen to its concerns. I did not hear anything in either of the Ministers’ speeches to convince me that the Government of Canada will accept our request. I am not saying that the request should not be made. I am saying that this issue is of such importance that the Government of Yukon should take some concrete and decisive steps to find out what has happened. This is especially important as the Government of the Yukon and several of its departments were up to their ears in the whole affair. It is not enough for Yukoners to hear two Ministers stand up and say that they did nothing wrong, or anything that was unfair.
Over the past several weeks many, many questions have been raised with respect to the Yukon government’s role in Operation Falcon. These questions have not been answered, and they should be, at the earliest possible time. Sending a letter to the federal government will not do that. There were many Yukoners hurt by Operation Falcon, both personally and financially. It is well worth the investment of public funds to inquire into this whole affair so that we know what took place and how it can be prevented in future. An inquiry under the Yukon Public Inquiries Act will accomplish that, and the true story will come out. The government owes it to Yukoners to reveal the whole story and the true story.
This subamendment will accomplish what, I sense, all of us in this House and all Yukoners want. If the Ministers of this government have nothing to hide, I am sure they will support this subamendment.
Mr. Brewster: I feel I must say something on this subject, as the whole Operation Falcon affair has really shaken my faith in the fairness of the justice system and in particular in this Legislature. I have tried to approach this issue from the perspective of the person on the street. Such a person must be shaking their head right about now in view of what has been going on in this Legislature. I find it very disturbing that Ministers of the government are attempting to hide the facts and avoiding questions on the issue. This is the people’s forum, and the people of the Yukon deserve some answers. Let me make it very clear that I have no problem with the federal government establishing an inquiry into this whole sordid affair, but in my view it must be a full public inquiry. It must, I emphasize, be a full public inquiry rather than just a full inquiry. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. No more smoke, no more mirrors. The Government of the Yukon has a duty and a responsibility to establish its own full public inquiry. We cannot hide behind the federal government any longer. Many Yukoners were hurt by the actions of this government in Operation Falcon and the public has a right to know just what went on. Whether it likes it or not, this government is accountable for its actions.
We tried to get to the bottom of this affair in Question Period, but we got nowhere. All we got were evasive answers to straightforward questions and Ministers attempting to hide behind their desks. That simply is not good enough. It is not good enough for me, it is not good enough for the people who were hurt in the Operation Falcon, and it is not good enough for the people of the Yukon. The people of the Yukon want answers, and they want answers now.
It is obvious that the time has come for the Government of the Yukon to establish a public inquiry into Operation Falcon if it is to have any credibility at all. There can be no more cover-ups, the damage was done here, the trial was here, and the inquiry should be here as well. The federal government can hold its own inquiry in Ottawa, but that does not let this government off the hook. The very fact that this government put an amendment on the Order Paper calling upon the Government of Canada to establish an inquiry morally binds the Government of the Yukon to establish its own inquiry. To do otherwise would be two-faced. It would be total admission that the Yukon government has something to hide.
Justice not only has to be done, but it has to appear to be done. We, in this House, have a responsibility to show the people that there is still some semblance of justice left in this territory, and that they will receive a fair hearing in accordance with the due process of law.
Every Member of this House is on trial here today. It is time to stop playing politics, it is time to stop playing with the lives of Yukoners, it is time to stop playing with our justice system, and if this House fails to pass this amendment to the amendment, and the Yukon government fails to establish a public inquiry into the Operation Falcon, then we have failed the people of the Yukon.
In closing, I would like to say that we have received more information today than in a week trying to ask questions, where Minister did not know about contracts, where Ministers did not know that they signed things, where Ministers were being evasive to us. Now all of a sudden they are starting to come out and want us to go the other way and not go with this public inquiry. That only makes me a little more cynical, a little more cynical that we play politics instead of getting down and being fair to the person on the street.
I have spoken in language that the people on the street understand. Some of that hogwash that comes from the Justice Minister will not be understood by anybody. He has given us legal advice and we did not ask for legal advice, we asked for fairness for people.
Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am very sorry that the former Minister of Renewable Resources who just spoke chose to play politics in this issue. He and the previous person who spoke, again, made unfounded accusations about this government’s actions hurting people. He, again, flouted the red herring past our noses about information given today and he complains about information not given in Question Period. If questions are put in Question Period, rather than accusations, it does tend to lead to the production of information a little more readily and, of course, as Members know, the very well honoured device of a written question in this House, or other measures of extracting detailed information, are very useful measures.
It is true that today this debate has given us an opportunity to explain our actions in government. We have welcomed that opportunity. It is important when the accusations being repeated by the Member for Kluane just now are made, that he should be reminded that the investigation ended and the charges were laid before this government came to office. I would say that I have absolutely no anxiety whatsoever about a public inquiry, nor would I have any anxiety about a federal inquiry taking place in the Yukon.
Now, I confess I am frankly holding the floor while some discussions can go on about an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. I do not know if that is procedurally correct, but let me suggest that if someone at the table finds fault with an amendment to a subamendment to a main amendment, there is, if not in Beauchesne, at least in Bourinot and in Roberts, a parliamentary device which I might suggest is a very quaint device. If it is the will of the House that an amendment, even one which is otherwise perceived to be unacceptable, or impermissible, be presented, it can be done by unanimous consent. If that suggestion is needed in order to expedite the introduction of a slight change to the proposal now currently under debate, let me offer it. I believe the negotiations among the parties have now concluded and I can now resume my place.
Revision to the subamendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Porter: I have consulted on the rules that apply to a further amendment. I have been informed that another amendment would not be in order, but a deletion by unanimous consent, and with consent of the mover of the subamendment, is in order. To be able to facilitate this side’s agreement with the subamendment as presented by the Member for Riverdale North, I ask the mover of the subamendment to agree to the proposed wording as follows. I will read the motion in its entirety.
THAT the amendment to Motion No. 18 be amended by:
1. deleting the expression “full inquiry” and substituting for it the expression “full public inquiry”; and
2. adding at the end the following:
“THAT” the public inquiry hold hearings in Yukon; and
THAT in the event that the government of Canada has not established such an inquiry, that the Commissioner in Executive Council should cause an inquiry to be made pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act into the “Operation Falcon” investigation with terms of reference similar, as much as is possible, to those proposed for a federal inquiry."
I ask the mover of the subamendment if he would agree to such wording, and I also ask for unanimous consent of the House to have such wording stand.
Speaker: Does the mover give his consent?
Mr. Phillips: Yes.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some Members: Agreed
Speaker: There is unanimous consent.
Mr. Phelps: I want to make it clear that I was privy to the consultations regarding the deletion. The intent is that this is not open ended and that within a reasonable time, or if the Minister says that there will not be a public inquiry, the resolution would be that the Commissioner in Executive Council should cause an inquiry to be made pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act here. I just wanted to get that on the record.
I do not want to drag this out, but the speech of the Minister of Renewable Resources seemed to be an apology for the department. One would deduce that there was a great procedural manual in place. On training, training is great. It is the best that one could find anywhere. Costs? Who cares about costs? They will look after their own, but who wants to pay costs to innocent victims, people found innocent after two years of agony? At that point, during the rather lengthy speech, I wondered where I was. I pinched myself a couple of times because I know personally most of the people who were affected by this Operation Falcon.
I read all the stuff. I do not always get everything, but I certainly got the impression that something was wrong, that some people were treated unfairly by not just the feds. I also got the impression that some people in the department think there was nothing wrong with the actions of Mr. Linklater, that they did not have a problem with rifling through co-workers’ drawers in the middle of the night, treating them in the nature of a spy in a spy case, harbouring a terrible and vicious grudge against Nowlan, and expending any amount of money and go to any lengths to try to entrap Nowlan. When asked about it by the reporter, Paul McKay, in the tail end of the supplement to the local paper, what did he say, but he would do it all again, that Nowlan knew he was out to get him, and that was satisfaction enough.
That is not good enough. The attitudes displayed and the things done, not only by the federal people who had the main carriage of the action and made the main decisions, but by people in the employment of this government, is unsatisfactory.
The thing that they call their training manual and the training procedures that the Renewable Resources Department think are so great are not good enough. The issue has to do with all investigating officers and people wielding that kind of power in the government and not just those in one department.
I am not going to repeat what I said in my initial speech with respect to costs, but the demand is for even handed treatment by all people in similar circumstances, regardless of who they work for or who might like them or dislike them, or who their friends are in high places. While I agree completely that Mr. Mossop was innocent and deserving of compensation, in the same way so are the other defendants. Then we have the long, one sided story in defence of the government’s action with respect to not allowing the defendants Nowlan and Schmigale to sell the birds that were hatched in captivity.
I got a note, which I assume is from someone on this side - I am not sure, because I cannot recognize everyone’s writing - which states: “Methinks the Minister does protest too much. We think this sounds like statements for the defence.”
That is legal talk for : there is more to the story than meets the eye.
I do not feel comfortable standing here and trying to attach blame to individual officers on the basis of one person’s version or another. W