Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, December 13, 1989 - 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 with the Order Paper.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have two legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Mr. Brewster: I have another 20 pages with 300 signatures for “Save the Gold Panners”. There is a total of 600 now in.

Applause

Petition No. 1

Clerk: Mr. Speaker and hon. Members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 1 of the First Session of the 27th Legislative Assembly, as presented by the hon. Member for Kluane on December 12, 1989. Pursuant to Standing Order 66 of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, it is my responsibility to present a report upon any petition presented to the Assembly.

Petition No. 1 does not contain matter which is in breach of the privileges of the Assembly, and according to the Standing Orders and practice of the Assembly, it can be received.

Members should be aware that the conclusion that this petition can be received is subject to the following considerations:

1) This petition addresses a matter which has been delegated by the  Legislative Assembly to the Commissioner in Executive Council. In this respect, Annotation 1030(2) in Beauchesne (sixth edition) states: “A petition cannot be considered if it concerns a matter delegated by Parliament to another body.” The Yukon Legislative Assembly does, however, have a precedent for accepting a petition which addressed a matter delegated by the Assembly to another body. This precedent may be found on page 63 of the Journals for the Fourth Session of the 26th Legislative Assembly. It is my assessment that it is the desire of the House that I should rely on this precedent rather than on the direction found in the practices of the House of Commons and I have, therefore, concluded Petition No. 1 is not deficient on this point.

2) This petition is not dated which appears, from Appendix 2 of the Standing Orders of this Assembly, to be a requirement. Again, in recognition of the apparent desires of the House respecting petitions and their acceptability, I have decided not to identify the lack of a date as a deficiency.

Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 66, Petition No. 1 is deemed to have been read and received.

Speaker: Introduction of Bills.

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Yukon College to Host Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies Conference

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to announce that Yukon College will have the honour of hosting the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies’ Annual Conference this coming April.

The Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies has a general mandate to promote the advancement of northern scholarship through education, professional and scientific training, and research. This mandate coincides with this government’s policy to support and encourage academic forums about the north, in the north, as exemplified by the establishment of the Northern Studies Program at Yukon College. In recognition of the impetus the Government of Yukon and Yukon College have made for promoting northern educational programming, the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies granted the 1990 Annual General Meeting and Conference to Yukon College.

Up to 100 northern specialists and government officials from across Canada are expected to attend the association’s conference from April 26th through 29th. This represents an unprecedented opportunity for Yukon scholars, Yukon College students, and the public at large to both contribute to and gain from the proceedings. For example, discussions are now taking place on arranging in-class visits by visiting experts so that students at all levels may learn about the latest developments in energy policy, construction technology, our changing climate and energy conservation.

The theme of the conference, “Global Change,” is one that affects all of us in the Yukon. The academic sessions will look at energy, evaluating the options available as well as reviewing their technological and environmental implications. This will be done in the context of northern climate and environmental change. Of interest to many Yukon people will be the focus on both the environmental and economic consequences of shifting energy options. An important goal of the conference is to generate recommendations concerning energy generation methods, with particular attention paid to their effect on the north’s fragile environment.

While this is the third time the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies has met in the north, the Yukon College conference will mark the first occasion a northern post-secondary institution is used as the site. This is a significant step in the college’s development and recognition as an academic institution.

Yukon College was admitted to the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies in 1988. This was not easily achieved. Extensive lobbying by Yukon College, the Yukon government and Arctic College of the Northwest Territories prompted the 32 member universities to admit the two colleges. Since then, both Yukon College and the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies have benefited from that decision.

The Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, for example, sponsors several scholarship programs for northerners and aboriginal Canadians. The Northern Scientific Training Program alone supports some 300 students engaged in northern fieldwork.

Together, Yukon College and the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies are exploring plans for student exchanges, collaborative research and cooperative programming. As these areas are implemented, the people of the Yukon will benefit, either directly or indirectly, as students or as citizens whose daily lives are improved by the developments that arise out of this innovative approach to learning.

I hope you will all join me in recognizing this honour conferred upon Yukon College by the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Hunting restrictions

Mr. Phelps: I will have to talk twice as fast to get all my questions in today.

I have a question regarding the restriction of hunting in game zones 7 and 9. The government has imposed severe restrictions on hunters in these areas. This fall, many Yukon residents could not hunt for moose in the area where they reside.

Could the Minister of Renewable Resources tell us how long this deplorable situation is going to continue?

Hon. Mr. Webster: The condition as described by the Member will continue until the recovery plan for the moose in that area indicates that there are enough moose in there to improve hunting conditions.

Mr. Phelps: These restrictions have been ongoing for some time with moose for the past four seasons. When will the restrictions be lifted?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I just indicated to the Member that when the populations of the moose in there indicate they can be hunted, the restrictions will be lifted.

Mr. Phelps: Has the Minister consulted with the residents in the area, who are now restricted from hunting and do not know what is happening with the management of game in the area?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, there has been a great deal of consultation, particularly with the members of the Champagne-Aishihik Indian Band. Based on those consultations, the plan was reviewed by the Wildlife Management Board. It recommended that certain restrictions on hunters should be in place, and that is what has been done.

Question re: Hunting restrictions

Mr. Phelps: There are more people who live in the area encompassed by game zones 7 and 9 than just the Champagne-Aishihik Band. There are a lot of people who are restricted and have not been consulted.

When this government took office in 1985, a balanced predator control program had been commenced in this area of Yukon. Dave Porter, Minister for the government at that time, stopped the program, and the restrictions on hunting have been more severe ever since.

Is this government going to do an about-face and institute a predator control program in the area?

Hon. Mr. Webster: There are no plans at this time for a predator control program to be implemented in that area. The Wildlife Management Board will be consulting with hunters who use that area over the winter to see if hunting restrictions presently in place will apply again for next season.

Mr. Phelps: Is this government telling the residents in game zones 7 and 9 that the moose and caribou populations will improve without a predator control program in place?

Hon. Mr. Webster: The result of surveys conducted in that area for the last few years, and that study, indicate that reductions in the moose population could not be attributed to the predators in that area.

Mr. Phelps: Does the Minister think it is fair to arbitrarily restrict the hunting of some residents in the area without having consulted with them, and without having an effective management plan in place?

Hon. Mr. Webster: In developing the game management plan for game zones 7 and 9, people were consulted. As I have already indicated, members of the Champagne-Aishihik Indian Band were. People are aware of the reasons for the restriction being put in place.

Question re: Hunting restrictions

Mr. Phelps: Let us review what has happened here. First of all, the hunting rights of many residents in the area are restricted. Secondly, or prior to that, the predator control program was stopped by the predecessor of this Minister. Then we get a copy of recommendations about a new plan for the area dated November 1989, after four years of this restriction being in place on moose, for people who live there. Does the Minister really think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I think it is fair to impose hunting restrictions as necessary, to improve moose populations in an area. As I mentioned earlier, the plan is under review now. The Wildlife Management Advisory Board will be consulting with people who hunt in that area to determine if there will be a change in those restrictions for the next hunting season.

Mr. Phelps: What assurances can you give residents in the area that the moose population and the caribou population is going to get better and grow back to where it was a few years ago in the absence of a predator control program? What kinds of assurances can you give those people that the picture is going to change?

Hon. Mr. Webster: At this time I cannot give them any assurances that the moose populations will improve without the predator control program.

Mr. Phelps: Does the Minister not have any misgivings, whatsoever, about the impact on the lifestyle of the people who live in those areas? Does he not realize just how frustrated they are becoming when they cannot hunt in the area and nothing has been done to assure them that the game situation is going to improve?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we realize there is a hardship on the people who traditionally hunt in that area.

Question re: Hunting restrictions

Mr. Lang: I just want to have one further question on this and this has to do with the report that the Minister has received and the general public has received, entitled “Recommendations Toward Recovery of Moose and Caribou Populations in the Whitehorse-Southern Lakes Areas”, and that area includes  the Carcross area and all the way up to Champagne Aishihik, so it is a large area. Now, many of my constituents have to go to other parts of the Yukon to hunt and are putting pressure on other areas of the Yukon because of the fact that there is no recovery plan in place. Recommendation 3 of that report goes as follows: “Reduced predator populations after the total hunter harvest: Both Indian and non-Indian have been significantly reduced.” The non-Indian and the Indian harvest have been reduced.

Will the Minister support the principle of the predator control program, in view of the recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I have been saying all along that hunting restrictions is the first option. We have had that in place. We are now assessing the moose population in that area to see if it has improved. We are consulting people who are affected in that direct area, and, if it is determined that the populations have not improved, they will be going to the next step, which does include predator control measures.

Question re: Mobile home lots

Mr. Lang: New question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister for Community and Transportation Services. Over a year ago, this House debated at great length the need for mobile home lots in Whitehorse, which we all agreed would provide a type of housing in Whitehorse that would be affordable, as well as provide a good standard of living. Last spring, the Minister presented to us, in the budget, $900,000, which this side agreed to, for the construction of a mobile home subdivision in Granger. Yesterday, we learned that nothing had been done on the subdivision.

Could the Minister tell this House why YTG and the City of Whitehorse did not resolve the impasse on the question of the underground electrical wiring versus overhead wiring this past summer, so that construction could have proceeded?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is indeed correct that the matter was raised in budget debate yesterday, and I provided some information to the Member with respect to the mobile home subdivision in Granger. Resolution of the matter has not concluded. In short, the reasoning behind why the subdivision has not proceeded is that there is disagreement between the city and ourselves over the level of services. The level of services reflects on the cost, and it is our contention that the suggested level of service being proposed by the city exceeds the amount we are prepared to put into the subdivision, which would make the cost of the lots prohibitive. That is the long and the short of it.

Mr. Lang: Meanwhile, there are no lots available for people looking for this type of lot. Why did the Minister not proceed with the installation of water and sewer this summer and try to resolve the electrical installation question, so that at least the water and sewer could be in place and these lots could have been put on the market in the spring?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: To have proceeded with the water and sewer installation  and not the rest of the development is not a wise expenditure of funds. The government would be spending a considerable amount of money in land development that was not being sold. The decision was made to hold off until we reach resolution.

Mr. Lang: The unfortunate aspect of this is the public suffers for this.

Yesterday the Minister indicated to us that the government was projecting an added inflationary cost to the construction of water and sewer projects this coming year. How much more is this particular development projected to cost this coming year over last year?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not have that information at this time. I indicated there would be a natural inflationary increase in the cost of construction. I cannot tell him precisely what those figures are at this instant. I am meeting with the city on Friday morning. The item is on the agenda and we could very well have a resolution.

Question re: Mobile home lots

Mr. Lang: Is it the position of the government that the lots will not be developed if the city and the government do not come to a compromise on the installation of the electrical?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The position is that we cannot proceed with land development that would cost so much as to prohibit those lots from selling. I do not expect that to be a permanently irrevocable position. We have proposed a number of options to the city to address this. One of the options was to consider another portion of Granger subdivision for mobile home lots where it could be cheaper to bring those lots onstream and provide a regularized price for the trailer lots.

Question re: Licence plates

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services regarding his licence plate damage-control program.

Can the Minister report to the House what the three questions are on the questionnaire he is sending out?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am not sure I entirely picked up the question. The Member is seeking information on what questions are asked on the questionnaire? I believe that information is available. I will take some time and provide the precise information to the Member in writing.

Mrs. Firth: Can the Minister tell us whether or not he will be enclosing stamped, self-addressed envelopes along with the questionnaire so that people will be able to return the questionnaire to the government?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The answer to that is no. Stamped, self-addressed envelopes are not being provided. As I previously indicated to the Member, the questionnaire is very brief. In the first instance, it seeks an opinion about the proposed licence plate. It seeks a response on whether the gold panner should or should not be removed. I believe there is another question or two, but I do not have them with me. There is also a short space for open comment.

Mrs. Firth: Can the Minister tell us whether or not people with multiple vehicle registrations will be receiving multiple questionnaires?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The questionnaire will be included in the regular mailing of information about the staggered system. On that basis, every motor vehicle registrant will receive a copy of the questionnaire. In the case of where an owner has several vehicles, yes, they would be receiving several questionnaires.

Question re: Licence plates

Mrs. Firth: With respect to the statistical validity of the Minister’s questionnaire, what percentage of accuracy is it going to have?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member must realize that the questionnaire being sent out is not a structured scientific study on the opinion of Yukon people about how they consider the licence plate. I would additionally suggest that neither is a petition a highly scientific study of the opinions of Yukoners on the point. Nevertheless, to respond to the Member’s question, it is my intention to receive the input from these questionnaires, review the petitions I see are being tabled, to fully consider the opinion of Yukon people that has been generated through other sources, and address the question at that time.

Mrs. Firth: With all due respect, there will be no statistical validity to his questionnaire. I am sure the Minister recognizes that. Some people think it is really quite silly that you would expect people to respond at Christmas time through the mail, and you are not even enclosing envelopes.

How many of these questionnaires, pictures and explanations about the changes in the motor vehicle registration are going to be mailed out? What is the total number?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I believe I answered that in response to the previous question: 30,000. The number of registered motor vehicles in the territory is 30,000, and that is the number of information packages about the licence change that are being mailed out.

Mrs. Firth: When will they be mailed out? How much money is it going to cost for this damage control program?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is erroneously suggesting this is a damage-control program, and that there is some massive additional cost associated with it. The intended mailing has not changed; it is an anticipated cost in the calculation of costs for the licence plates. The numbers are contained and predicted in the budget. There is no actual cost to the mailing. Stamps would have been provided for the information. We are simply attaching a one page questionnaire and a reprint of the plate.

Question re: Licence plates

Mrs. Firth: With all due respect. you are enclosing more documentation in the package. How much is it for the questionnaire to be printed, for the licence plate facsimile to be printed - and I know laser copies are about $4 each? How much is it costing?

People object that this Minister is using tax dollars to push this project down their throats. They really object to that. That is the ultimate offence with this licence plate issue. I want figures on what this is going to cost, as do the people out there.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is attempting to state that there is a massive cost increase associated with this. If there is an increase to the mailing cost because of the addition of two sheets of paper, that is a pro-rated cost that would be attached to each package in the increase of mailing rate; say, from a 38-cent stamp to a 46-cent stamp. I will undertake to seek out that information.

I can find out an estimated cost of photocopying the 30,000 questionnaire sheets being stuffed. The reproduction of the plate being enclosed cost 10 cents apiece.

Mrs. Firth: You can sure tell the Minister is not spending his own money. I would like a commitment that the Minister will bring those costs to the House tomorrow. We are finished sitting in the Legislature tomorrow and the Minister is going to make this decision when the House is adjourned. It is only fair that the taxpayers have a full understanding of what this government is doing.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The other day the Members attempted to put on record that there was a massive increase in cost related to a five-colour reprint. I pointed out that there is a 23-cent per plate cost difference. Here again, the Member is attempting to suggest that there is a massive cost relating to the addition of two sheets of paper to a pre-arranged mailing. I simply submit that the cost is minimal and I have identified precisely what the reprint of the plate is costing. I will seek out what additional cost to the mailing may be involved by the addition of two sheets.

In conclusion, I have no problem providing detailed costs relating to the decision made to the Member. I do not think it is an inappropriate decision, considering that a licence plate has been suggested, people have indicated in some measure an objection to it, and I am providing an opportunity to make a decision based on information provided to them.

Question re: Licence plates

Mr. Phillips: I would like to follow up on some of the questions from the Member for Riverdale South. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the new licence plate if he will not only consider just the results of this high-profile, high-cost damage-control campaign to sell his new licence plate idea but, as well, if he will consider the many letters that appeared in the local newspapers that object to this move, the 30 to nine score against this proposal on a CBC phone-in program, and the literally hundreds and hundreds of signatures on the petitions that are asking if the Government of the Yukon will retain the gold panner and the Klondike theme?

Will the Minister consider all these other representations that have been made by people of the Yukon when he makes the decision on whether to proceed with the new plate?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am really pleased that Members opposite at least support one policy and initiative of this government, and that is recycling. If the Member had been listening, he would realize I have already committed, publicly and in this House, to review documentation that is tabled here in the form of petitions, information that is circulated in public by way of other forms of media, by way of the response I am seeking out and have stimulated. I have already given that commitment, and I will gladly recycle my answer and say yes, I will take all that fully into account. By January 15, or shortly thereafter, I will be making a final decision.

Mr. Phillips: I think the Minister responsible for the new licence plate should recycle the whole idea in his mind. The new licence plates are not acceptable to the Yukon public. There is no need to go to any extra cost to ask Yukoners whether they like or dislike the plates. The facts are known. Hundreds of Yukoners ...

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

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of Yukoners have spoken out against the new licence plate. Will the Minister scrap the whole idea of this propaganda and damage-control campaign and go back to the old gold panner licence plate with the Klondike theme on it? Will the Minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is seeking a decision from me that would reverse decision that was made, which was not an inappropriate decision: the introduction of a new plate, which, I should point out to Members opposite, is receiving some acceptance in the community.

The Members may smile and jeer about the support for the plate, but I have received it. I have received phone calls of support. I meet people on the street who say, do not change your mind. I realize I am faced with a tough situation, and I am going to deal with it in the method I have laid out. I am going to receive the input that is being generated by the Members opposite. I am going to review the information that is being generated in the media. I am going to take into full consideration the input from private citizens. I am going to review ...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Mr. Speaker, I am telling the Members what my position is. I will review the results of the questionnaire that I have sent out. The Members can make every effort they wish before January 15. I am not doing anything until then.

Mr. Phillips: What is wrong with the government admitting it made a mistake? What is wrong with the Minister realizing he has made a mistake with this licence plate at this time, and to change his mind and admit to the public that it was not such a good idea after all, and that he wants to go back to the old licence plate? What is wrong with that? Ask the Minister why he will not consider that.

It is going to be interesting to see when he gets the results of the questionnaire what he does then. I am convinced the questionnaire will come in against the new licence plate. It will be interesting to see what the Minister does then.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As I have indicated to Members previously, the decision was made to introduce a new plate to reflect and represent a broad depth to the Yukon. We have more than just the Klondike history that is associated with the Yukon, and that is not said with any disrespect or disregard for the Klondike theme. Two years ago the tourism strategy introduced, on the basis of statistic data, the position and the...

Some Member: (inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Members do not seem to want to hear an answer. Am I entitled to continue?

The new licence plate was generated with considerable thought and planning. It represents the broad depth of culture and history in this territory. I do not think that it was wrong. I do not think it was a mistake. I think it truly represents what Yukon stands for, in terms of environment, in terms of history...

Speaker: Order please. Will the Member please conclude this answer.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: ... and on, or shortly after, January 15, I will advise Members accordingly of what the results of the public input has been to the suggestion.

Question re: Hootalinqua North Plan

Mr. Phelps: I was worried about the filibuster that we were getting into, by the Minister, on the magical mystery tour that we embarked upon.

Yesterday I was into a brief line of questioning when the timer went off so I want to get back to that before it goes off again in Question Period. The same Minister may recall that I was asking him some questions about the infamous draft Hootalinqua North Plan and about the letter that was sent to him with copies to others, including me, by the Yukon Livestock and Agricultural Association. Yesterday the Minister intimated that he would consider forming a working group, which would fairly represent the areas involved and affected by the plan. When will he come to that decision?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As I indicated to the Member yesterday, the original intention was to come forward with a response to the Hootalinqua North Plan by the fall. I had to delay that decision to year-end, which of course would put it in the immediate next two weeks. The problems associated with coming forward with a specific plan have been numerous, as the Member is aware. I spent considerable time in his riding - in public meetings and visitations to the riding. I have reviewed the plan in some detail. I have analyzed the responses of people in considerable depth and it just requires more time than I had anticipated to come forward with a final position.

Mr. Phelps: I am very pleased that the Minister did spend considerable time in the riding that I represent because I am sure he has come to understand the uniqueness of the characters who do live there. The Yukon Livestock and Agricultural Association is worried, and say so in the letter, that the government may be working from a hidden agenda. I am concerned about that very issue myself because in reviewing the requested funding by department, by project, that we were given with regard to the upcoming budget, which was handed in some time ago, before the plan was finalized, we see that...

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

Mr. Phelps: ...the lands department has all kinds of requests for money to plan and build subdivisions in Hootalinqua North. Why have they got these requests in to the department if they do not have a hidden agenda for Hootalinqua North?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I want to assure the Member that there is no hidden agenda relating to Hootalinqua North. I do not have my budget figures with me, but I do recall the $275,000 that was earmarked for the Hootalinqua North area that did not get spent this past year because the final plan was not in place.

I anticipate I will be able to come forward with a proposal for dealing with the continued planning of the area very shortly. The suggestion put forward by the livestock association is not unreasonable. It is in line with several options I am looking at now to address the more detailed planning for regions of that area.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister tell us why the lands branch requested $150,000 for development of an extensive subdivision in Hootalinqua North if it did not have a hidden agenda?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It is not a hidden agenda to identify funds for development purposes that are going to be contingent upon the adoption of a plan involving residents of the area. The intention was to have a plan adopted. We will require funds for the detailed planning that will follow.

I do not want to mislead the Member by suggesting precisely what approach we will take because it is not finalized. Clearly, we will require some committee work, further research work, further detailed information on portions of the area, and monies will be required. The Member is aware of what the plan does propose.

Speaker: Order please. Will the Member conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is aware of what the plan does propose and has to recognize that aspects of that plan are good and could very well be adopted and pursued.

Question re: Hootalinqua North Plan

Mr. Phelps: It is very strange that these requests come in prior to the draft plan being amended at all in accordance with desires expressed to the Minister at public meetings.

In addition to the last $150,000 item requested by the lands branch is a request to develop Whitehorse Hootalinqua North for $400,000. Why was that request for money put in if the lands branch is not operating from a hidden agenda?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is citing budget figures. I would have appreciated it if he had brought them up during the debate yesterday when I had my information. I cannot respond precisely to the specific amounts of money identified for specific development exercises. Certainly a number of long-term proposals come to mind, but I certainly cannot speak to them without the detailed budget information.

Mr. Phelps: That is two items. There is an item from lands branch to develop Hootalinqua North Intensive Plan for $25,000. There is an item to develop Lake Laberge site - $20,000. There is an item to develop Flat Creek Whitehorse - $100,000.

Why is all this money being requested before a plan has been accepted by the Minister and before modifications have been made to the draft plan in accordance with the expressed desire of residents at public meetings? Why is lands branch proceeding this way?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is acutely aware of budget processes. We are talking about money identified in a budget that is going to conclude 18 months from now. It is not unreasonable to project anticipated expenditures for lot expansion, or some geotechnical or engineering work. It is not unreasonable that the department would identify some growth elements to existing situations in the area over an 18-month prediction. That is not unreasonable, and the Member is aware of that.

If he were to raise those kinds of questions during budget debate, I would give him very specific detail as to what it is intended for.

Mr. Phelps: What is unreasonable is that the lands branch seems hell-bent on spending money and developing subdivisions in Hootalinqua North when residents do not want subdivisions in the area at all. That is what is unreasonable.

Will the Minister not agree this can only make people more dubious about the process?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The dubious nature of the questioning is what is at fault here. We are talking about a budget process that is speaking to an intended time frame 18 months from now. We are speaking to a branch that is required to plan activity for an 18-month period. There is nothing unreasonable about identifying costs related to development. The Member knows full well, we will not move on any development without the approval of the area residents affected. That has not ever been the case in the history of this government. We have taken any development to the community and received the appropriate approvals before proceeding. I am not sure what kinds of fears the Member is attempting to raise here. There is nothing dubious; there is nothing hidden. It is all up-front and above-board, and that is where it is at.

The only regrettable aspect is...

Speaker: Order please. Would the Member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: ... I do not have the final plan in place yet, and that is coming very shortly.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. McDonald: On behalf of the House Leaders, I would request unanimous consent to proceed directly to Motions Other than Government Motions, rather than calling for Motions for the Production of Papers, and for the motions to be called in the following order: Motion No. 48, Motion No. 47 and Motion No. 25.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

Motions other than Government Motions.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

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

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

Mr. Joe: Yes.

Motion No. 48

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of the Yukon should consider establishing a law for the mandatory use of seatbelts for drivers and passengers on public roads in the Yukon.

Mr. Joe: I am pleased to present this motion to this House.

I believe that seatbelts do save lives. I am also troubled because there are many people in the Yukon who, for one reason or other, might not be able to always use seatbelts.

As we debate this motion we should think about life in the Yukon and the importance of vehicles in our lives.

Many families in the Yukon have pickup trucks for travelling.

When a whole family travels in a truck, and there are only three seatbelts, someone will not be buckled up.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I believe that seatbelts do their job. Seatbelts do save lives. Seatbelts help prevent serious injury. Still, if a family can afford only one vehicle and that vehicle does not have enough seatbelts, what is the solution?

Many old cars do not have seatbelts at all.

We must look closely at how to put together fair seatbelt legislation but we must also remember how important it is for seatbelts to be used.

I believe we must have a well planned seatbelt law. I hope all Members in this House will support this motion. Thank you.

Mr. Phelps: This is a motion that I find quite difficult to deal with. On the one hand, I personally firmly believe that seatbelts save lives and reduce injuries in automobile accidents. I am quite certain that in my own case my life has been saved on one or two occasions when I was in bad accidents and was wearing a seatbelt.

I have had quite a number of friends and acquaintances, over the years, who have died in automobile accidents in the Yukon and elsewhere. I am quite certain that many of them would be here today had they been wearing seatbelts when the accident occurred. I also believe that seatbelts can help avoid accidents, can help avoid them by holding the driver behind the wheel when a car is temporarily out of control and slides into a ditch, or whatever.

Again, I have had friends, on at least two occasions, who lost control of the vehicle they were driving and ended up in an accident where they would have been held behind the wheel, had they been wearing seatbelts on the occasion in question. I have had the occasion to review all kinds of statistics on the issue of seatbelts and safety.

I have had the opportunity in years gone by to review videos that are available on the issue of seatbelt safety; they were quite instructive, so I do not have to be sold on that one issue: that people should wear seatbelts.

When I have passengers in my vehicle I insist as strongly, as vociferously as I can that all passengers wear seatbelts.

I could say that on very few occasions are my requests ignored. I do recall one such occasion. I was driving to Beaver Creek from Haines Junction and my passenger was the very hon. - and sometimes ornery - Member for Kluane, and I asked him to buckle up, and he told me where I should go. It was quite impossible and impractical for me to go there at that particular time, although I may get that chance in the years to come.

We were going up to visit with constituents in the Beaver Creek area and the Member was making a point he has raised on occasion here and with various Yukoners about the deplorable condition of the Alaska Highway from White River to Beaver Creek. I was travelling along that stretch at a fairly good clip when I hit one of the infamous frost heaves on the Alaska Highway and the hon. Member for Kluane had a collision with the roof of the cab of the pick-up truck. Not one, not twice, but three times in rapid succession. So I stopped and checked for damage and fortunately there was none, despite his hard-headed attitude from time-to-time, and there were no dents in the roof of the cab. One thing that came from all that was that, from then on when he travelled with me, he always buckled up. I digress.

I personally have no problem with the concept that people should buckle up. On the other hand, I have, and I am sure I share this with a lot of Yukoners and other people across Canada, a great deal of difficulty with the concept that Big Brother always has to step in and force people to help themselves. It makes me very uneasy. Mandatory seatbelt legislation is a commentary on our thinking about personal rights and freedoms.

As most Members know, there was a case heard in Alberta when the Charter was raised in defence of a person who was charged under the mandatory seatbelt legislation in that province. The trial was successful. Two days ago, it was overturned at the Court of Appeal level. I understand there is a good chance it will proceed to the Supreme Court of Canada for final hearing on that issue.

Now, because of the way the law stands, Alberta does have an enforceable mandatory seatbelt provision, as do the other jurisdictions in Canada. Simply because other people have such laws does not completely convince me that it is absolutely right to bring such a piece of legislation in here. I feel I am in a dilemma when dealing with this issue, as do some Members on this side of the House. For that reason I want to make it very clear that Members on this side will be voting according to their conscience, and we will not be bringing any party line to the vote on the issue. It is not a minor issue at all. It is an issue of conscience and an issue that each individual certainly, in our caucus, will have to struggle with, and balance his or her principles and enter into the discussion having made the agonizing decision of whether or not to support this motion.

I have thought about it fairly carefully since the motion was introduced. I personally will not be supporting the motion and want to give a few reasons in addition to what I have said as to why.

First of all, I cannot understand why we have a motion about considering seatbelt legislation in the House at this time. If the government feels strongly about imposing mandatory seatbelt legislation, and it would not be unexpected on the part of most Yukoners, I do not understand why it did not introduce legislation so we could scrutinize it and see if we felt it was fair.

Second, and more important, I personally feel that other steps should have been taken prior to the introduction of this motion or the introduction of legislation. It seems to me that if there is a sincere belief in the value of using seatbelts, or buckling up - if there is a true and deeply felt concern on the part of any Yukoner about the value of using seatbelts, and that people should be jolted and made to get into the habit of using them - the first step would be to educate the public about wearing seatbelts.

There is a lot of material available that could be utilized in the school systems, could be made available through the libraries: videos, statistics and articles. Most of these are extremely convincing. At least, the ones I have had occasion to view in my lifetime were convincing enough to convince courts of law that not wearing seatbelts amounts to at least contributory negligence on the part of the person who was not wearing the belt, when it comes to ascertaining damages. It is enough to have insurance companies statistically agree that wearing seatbelts will reduce the damages incurred by accidents, and the accidents themselves.

I feel this government ought to have at least attempted other means of persuasion, other than Big Brother and fines, to get people to agree or understand why seatbelts are so important and ought to be worn by people.

Therefore, I feel this motion is premature, as would be legislation.

However, if such an education program is undertaken, and there is some time and effort put into it, and if it appears people still will not buckle up, and if the other side then introduces legislation with regard to mandatory seatbelts, not just a motion, and if the legislation is reasonable, then I may support it, and probably will, if those conditions are met. I feel those caveats have to be made.

Without dismissing this motion out-of-hand, I want to thank the Member for Tatchun for introducing the motion and forcing us to speak to it. Without being frivolous or attempting to be political on the issue, at this point in time I cannot support the motion.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As the Minister who would be responsible for any introduction of mandatory seatbelt legislation, I have a particular interest in this motion and in the debate.

The Member outlined his first-hand experiences relating to the value of seatbelt use and I, too, have had occasion to enjoy those experiences where seatbelts have been used and have reduced injury and provided extreme benefit.

At the same time I have had occasion to witness tragic results where seatbelts were not being used. It was my hope that this motion would receive unanimous support. The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that he does not intend to support the motion and that Members are going to be voting their conscience. Perhaps during the course of this debate Members would be persuaded to the view that this is the first step of a discussion, education, and the testing of waters, to determine whether seatbelt legislation is appropriate in the Yukon.

I believe the unanimous support of this motion would provide the necessary signal to the public to prepare for appropriate steps to be taken to introduce legislation.

Personally, I support the motion. I support the introduction of mandatory seatbelt use. I use them. I encourage their use. I have no problem with a broader application of their use by the general public.

We, as leaders, must take seriously all matters of public health and safety. I believe that we ought to be unanimously responding in the public interest in any matters relating to safer driving practices. As the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated, there is no question that statistics are overwhelmingly in favour of seatbelt use, and that the public benefit from their use is quite compelling.

As Members may be aware, Yukon is the only jurisdiction in the country without comprehensive seatbelt legislation. The Member who just spoke indicated there ought to be other steps first before legislation. I submit that this is one of those steps. There are others. Seatbelt use is encouraged, both by this government through departmental initiatives, by the RCMP and by various organizations.

This government has already taken some initiative and has previously provided the necessary legislation to ensure that children under six years of age have restraint in vehicles. That is already regulated and is already law. By policy this government has introduced measures whereby government employees must use seatbelts while in government vehicles and while on the job. I have every reason to believe that many people do use seatbelts in the ordinary course of driving. It cannot be justified that we should leave seatbelt use to discretion when we look at what I see as a number of alarming Yukoner statistics.

In preparation for this motion, I was able to review some statistics in the Yukon, and particularly the number of fatalities over the last two and one-half years. It was shown that of the 25 total fatalities in the Yukon in the past two and one-half years only four were wearing seatbelts; twenty-one were not.

It is a fairly well-established national and international statistic that the risk of fatality is four times greater for drivers who are thrown from their vehicles, than for drivers who stay inside. That statistic is extended for passengers to indicate that risk of death from ejection is two and one-half times greater than for non-ejected passengers.

I recall seeing a video on the subject and one of the police officers portrayed in the video has stuck with me forever. His words were, “I have never had to unbuckle a corpse.” The validity of the statistics to support seatbelt use become much more meaningful in the context of that statement.

The Member has raised the issue about whether mandatory seatbelt use infringes on the rights of individuals. Well, I respect those rights, Mr. Speaker, but the mandatory use of seatbelts, I believe, is for the good of the public. I suggest that driving is a privilege and regulation is appropriate. It seems to me that, as a society, we undertake a horrendous cost to care for an individual who is injured, and as a society, we have the right to take responsible steps to prevent that injury. I am sure that the legal experts could extend that argument for days in a courtroom but, in short, I submit that individual rights are not infringed upon when we take steps to improve the public expenditures related to safe driving.

As the Member also indicated, there are statistics fully supporting the position. There is no question of the massive health costs to our system resulting from needless injury. I certainly do not propose to detail any related agony and suffering from needless injury relating to traffic accidents. As I indicated, the Yukon is the only jurisdiction that does not have comprehensive seatbelt legislation. All other jurisdictions have it and they have been putting it in place since 1977. In all of those jurisdictions there has been a resultant decrease in accident fatalities and injury.

The Member raised the situation in Alberta, where the constitutionality of the seatbelt use was challenged, and that we may well see this progress to the Supreme Court. That is the case, and something similar happened in Prince Edward Island in July, where, in an appeal, the ruling of unconstitutionality was overturned. In my research, I was also able to determine that, in the United States, 28 states have mandatory seatbelt usage.

I should also tell Members that at a recent transportation ministers meeting in Calgary, the Yukon was mildly chided for not having mandatory seatbelt legislation in place. In fact, at that conference, a motion was adopted by all ministers to encourage programs that were aimed at increasing seatbelt use by travellers to 95 percent. Currently, in national driving habits, 75 percent of the driving public use seatbelts; that is not the case in the Yukon.

It was rather interesting what led to the motion. It was the result of a study that was done nationally by the federal Transport ministry. The results showed that in five provinces where there is seatbelt use, 80 percent or more of the people use them. Alberta came out on top of those statistics. In other words, on a pro-rated basis, Alberta uses seatbelts the most. The Yukon was at the bottom.

What I am particularly interested in in this debate is to hear from Members about exemptions from seatbelt use. In all jurisdictions where there is seatbelt jurisdiction - that is in all the jurisdictions, because we are the only ones who do not have it - there are a number of exemptions that apply. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

For example, in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Ontario, firefighters are not required to wear seatbelts in any type of vehicle travelling. In a number of provinces, you do not have to be strapped if you happen to be driving in reverse, not that you may be doing it often, but those are a couple of examples where exemptions are applied.

If we are contemplating legislation in the Yukon and are in the process of educating the public about the value of seatbelt legislation, we would want to hear precisely what exemptions we are going to be considering. We are a unique corner of Canada, and there may well be quite a number of situations where seatbelt use could legitimately be exempted. Those are the issues I would like to hear Members’ thoughts about.

I will not continue the discussion much more at this point. I have stated my position. I am quite amenable to the support of the motion. I am interested in the debate, particularly in matters relating to exemptions. Members are correct when they suggest that public education is required. Members are correct in recognizing the value of seatbelt usage, both to our health-care cost and to personal agony and injury. All arguments support seatbelt usage, and I would like to hear more discussion on the matter and, particularly, in relation to exemptions.

Mr. Brewster: I would like to start out by informing you that my hon. Leader did not inform you of everything; I just do not drive with him anymore. I would also like to point out to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that I am going to have a hard time driving backward between here and Haines Junction.

In speaking to this motion, I thought very carefully about my decision on whether to vote for it or against it. To look at this as a simple but very important motion, and having done some reading of experts, and reading of statistics and polls on the subject, I suppose a smart politician would vote yes and just forget about it. There is no doubt in my mind that seatbelts save lives, and the majority appears to want legislation.

However, I am very amazed at so many of these people. In one poll, I saw 80 percent voted for seatbelt legislation and yet, we are not wearing seatbelts. Why not? We are waiting for the government to make us.

Our society is getting to the position where to save your own life the government has to get involved to make you do these things. It is not just I who have said that. If you watched television last night after the decision was made in the court in Alberta, the people they interviewed said the same thing, that they wanted seatbelt legislation but, until they were made to do it, they would not buckle up.

That bothered me very much. It amazes me that so many people want the government to control every aspect of their lives. Although it may be something they want, they will not do it until the government tells them to.

That is a big problem with me. I do not believe that the government should be telling you to do everything you do. I do not believe government should be moving into every area. We have two motions on the Order Paper today that take rights away from the citizens of Canada. It is not a way Canada should operate, and is not the way Canada was made the great nation it is now. As I recall as a young man the government had very little to say and we made a great Canada. We are losing that now. We are losing our respect because we continually let government interfere and we do not back off.

We have another motion coming up that calls for taking things away. Every time we turn around they are doing it. It is not just this government. We have to look at the government in Ottawa, too. They are doing a good job of helping this government control our lives. Just look in your wallet and see how many numbers you have. Coming from a family that worked with cattle and horses, I am beginning to wonder when they are going to put a tattoo  in our ear so they can look after us that way. It is becoming more and more this way. It is not funny. Take a look in your wallets and see how many numbers you have. This is a public building and at 5:30 p.m. you cannot go out those doors. You have to go out through a controlled door with security guards. The people cannot come in here at night and listen to this Legislature unless they sign with the security guards. They voted us in here and they cannot come down to watch unless they go through the security guard. What kind of a democracy are we getting into? You may say that this has nothing to do with seatbelts, but, yes, it does. Every time you give up some of your rights - you are losing them. I can cite many more examples of government doing these things.

I am going to vote against this motion. I realize it will probably have no effect, but it is a tiny little bit of me that is standing up and saying “no”. No more government interference with my private life. I do not want it, and I am going to continue to do that for the rest of my time in this building.

In closing, let me make it very plain that on April 2, 1986, I voted for seatbelts for children up to age six. I believe it is the responsibility of every one of us here, every family and every parent to look after children who are not old enough to look after themselves. I have no problem with that. After six years when they start to grow up and are able to think then I have a problem that we are taking away the rights of our people.

Ms. Kassi: I know all the reasons for legislation for the mandatory use of seatbelts is necessary, but I must speak to this House on behalf of my constituents in Old Crow. If we are to pass legislation we must make special provisions for communities where vehicles are used for work purposes and many people must be transported to do a job. In Old Crow, we use our vehicles, and there are about four of them, to carry sometimes 10 to 15 people to hunt on the mountain, or to go to the river to pick up our meat. Sometimes we have to carry many people on one vehicle for hauling wood or for transporting people to or from the airport. Even for sewage or garbage pick up three or four people work out of the back of a truck. We are also looking at getting a van to transport children to school from the new subdivision. We must consider special circumstances like this when we make our laws.

I want to stress, however, that I am in full support of legislation requiring seatbelt use on highways and in the larger cities in the Yukon. I, too, believe that many people killed in traffic accidents would be alive if they had used their seatbelts. I also agree that injuries would be less serious if passengers, as well as drivers, would use seatbelts.

It of course would mean lower medical costs all the way around. I still feel, however, that survival means different things to different people. If we take away the ability of the community to feed itself and keep its home warm, this is not survival, and Old Crow is not the only community that hunts for food. We must consider many sides of the issue before we produce legislation. I repeat: there must be some sort of a law covering the use of seatbelts in the Yukon. In the final analysis, despite the considerations I have outlined, I support the motion put forward by the Member for Tatchun.

Mr. Devries: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion and I also feel that if the government had done a better job and a better advertising campaign to convince people to wear their seatbelts, possibly this motion would not be necessary. By bringing a motion like this forward, in a way the government is saying that it has failed in an awareness campaign, and that many of us are so irresponsible that we have to be forced, by legislation, to do something that most responsible, aware citizens would do voluntarily in the first place.

I recently visited Ontario and they have seatbelt legislation, yet within 10 miles of where I stayed, there were three fatal accidents, all involving people obviously not wearing their seatbelts who were thrown from vehicles.

Mandatory seatbelt legislation alone will not make everyone strap up. An extensive education program, of which I have seen little in the last 15 years, could perhaps be more effective; a program that contains certain statistics that prove the facts as they have been mentioned here, that seatbelts do save lives, that your seatbelts improve your odds of walking away from an accident, that seatbelts could help you and your lawyer in damage-claim awards.

I would ask the Minister if he knows how many of the 21 people whom he mentioned were impaired?

It has been illegal to drive when impaired for years and yet a high percentage of these fatal accidents are caused by impaired drivers. Do you think an impaired person would hop into a car and buckle up, when they can barely get the key in the ignition in the first place? Perhaps cars could be designed so that they would not start unless you are buckled in. It could easily be done because now many of them have idiot lights and buzzers. Perhaps the ignition switch could be made slightly more awkward, as a deterrent for a drunk to get the vehicle started.

There are a lot of possibilities without legislation. Perhaps we should consider ways of helping some Yukoners become more responsible for their own well-being.

I will support the motion as it does state “consider establishing a law”, but I assure the Member for Tatchun that it will not work without a more effective awareness campaign aimed toward a public with a more responsible attitude toward their own well-being.

Hon. Ms. Joe: As I rise in support of this motion I recall speaking to a similar motion some years ago in this House, where I expressed my concern and support for mandatory child restraints at that time. Since then, I have become more aware of the increasing evidence that proves that seatbelts do save lives. Though there is always an exception to the rule, nevertheless, statistics have proven that seatbelts increase the chances of surviving, or at least decreasing injuries in an automobile accident. I am convinced that the majority of injuries in accidents, and the severity of these injuries, can be greatly reduced by seatbelts.

Here in the Yukon, as everywhere else, we suffer from the tragedies of a number of car accidents and the accidents that we do experience touch us all because we know our fellow Yukoners well and fatalities concern ourselves. Statistics have shown that a number of fatalities could have been avoided if in fact seatbelts had been worn. There is evidence enough to show that lives might have been saved if seatbelts had been worn and our friends and our neighbours deserve the care and attention that this issue has brought, namely some form of seatbelt legislation.

In August of this year I was able to present to this government a policy of mandatory use of seatbelts for government vehicles. This policy was jointly developed by the Public Service Commission and the Department of Justice. While this policy has developed an awareness among government employees, it also served to spark a great deal of interest from the public at large. We, as Members of this House, need to respond to the public concerns for their safety and well-being.

However, while it would be satisfying to think that everyone who was transported by vehicle would be safer with seatbelts, this is unrealistic and there are exceptions to the rule. One area that might be adversely affected by seatbelt legislation is at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre.

The centre has one 12-passenger security van that is used to transport inmates. This van presently does not have seatbelts, and there are two potential difficulties that could arise with mandatory seatbelts. Firstly, the seatbelts could be used as a mechanism by an inmate to escape custody but, more important, in the case of an accident it may be difficult for a handcuffed inmate to release the belt, which could result in a potentially dangerous situation for the inmate. I would request some consideration in regard to that.

While there may be other exceptions to be reviewed and considered, I feel there should be a genuine effort to develop seatbelt legislation that will affect the needs of the public at large.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity of sharing with my caucus colleagues a short filmstrip on the argument for seatbelts. This video, entitled “There’s Room to Live”, can be obtained from the RCMP. I would encourage every Member in this House to take the time to view this video.

It did not convince me of the need for seatbelt legislation, because I needed no convincing. However, it did relay a message to me as to the fact that there is room in a car to live in any accident. Without a seatbelt, the chances of being thrown out of a vehicle increases greatly.

I have worn seatbelts for a number of years, and I insist, as other Members do, that everybody who travels in my car wears a seatbelt. I think that kind of protection to my family and friends is very important to me and to them.

I do concern myself about other people who are not entirely convinced that seatbelts are an important part of driving or riding in a car. I worry about my family and my friends who travel in other cars, especially the younger ones, who are not required by the driver to wear seatbelts.

I understand from Members who have already spoken that there will be a great deal of opposition to seatbelt legislation. The Member for Kluane has stated that case very well. I, myself, have been subject to many people coming up to me and telling me that seatbelt legislation stinks, in no uncertain terms.

However, I do believe seatbelt legislation is important and that we have to seriously consider the introduction of seatbelt legislation in this House. I would seriously consider asking everybody in this House to support this motion.

Hon. Mr. Webster: As my colleagues have indicated, as well as Members on the side opposite, there is now more than enough evidence available to the general public that the wearing of seatbelts significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of injuries to individuals involved in motor vehicle accidents.

I find it interesting to note that, although I am not aware of any legal obligation to wear seatbelts in airplanes, we all instinctively buckle up, even though air travel is statistically one of the safest forms of travel. Strangely, some of us find it oppressive to perform the same simple function when we step into an automobile which, we can all agree, is the least safest form of mass transport.

In my view, the overwhelming weight of evidence argues convincingly for the mandatory use of seatbelts in motor vehicles. It is my understanding that we are the last jurisdiction in the United States and Canada to consider such a law.

I know Members of the side opposite have just argued that the first step should be one of education. I do not disagree with that but, obviously, if all jurisdictions in the United States and Canada have also tried that route and found it to fail and, consequently, have introduced legislation, I think it is a pretty convincing argument that it is about time for seatbelt legislation.

Even the Member for Kluane mentions the poll he cited last night where 80 percent of Albertans said they were all in favour of seatbelts, that it was a good idea, but they would not buckle up until there was seatbelt legislation. They were just waiting for government to enforce it. That is a good point. It emphasizes the old saying that common sense is not very common.

Having stated my support for mandatory use of seatbelts, there should be consideration given to specific exemptions to seatbelt legislations. In jurisdictions all across North America exemptions exist. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, mandatory seatbelt laws do not apply on Indian lands, although in Saskatchewan, bands can pass their own bylaws regarding seatbelts if they want seatbelt laws in force.

In recognition of the Yukon situation, and particularly the community of Old Crow, which has few vehicles and not many kilometers of road, perhaps an exemption such as this would make sense. I know the Member for Old Crow would appreciate that suggestion.

Many Yukoners in our big territory enjoy a rural life style that necessitates the use of a pickup truck as a primary family vehicle. For a variety of reasons and situations Yukon pickup trucks are often called upon to carry more than two or three people. In these situations one or more of the passengers is likely to be without access to a seatbelt. Practically speaking, it is really not possible to install four or five seatbelts in a pickup truck. I believe that a seatbelt law that fails to recognize the facts of Yukon life would be a failure. I would like to draw the Members’ attention to the fact that in at least two jurisdictions in Canada they have legislation of this sort.

Both Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island exempt passengers without seatbelts if none wre available to them and all seatbelts in the vehicle are being used. British Columbia recognizes this to some extent and allows three people to sit in the front of a vehicle even if there are only two seatbelts. Similarly, rear-seat passengers are exempt if there are not enough seatbelts to go around.

I believe it is important that the laws of this Legislative Assembly do not impact unfairly on those in our territory who must, as a matter of daily economic necessity, drive with more people in a vehicle than there are seatbelts. It would be worthwhile to study the examples offered by Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia before enacting Yukon seatbelt legislation.

I was pleased to note in my review of seatbelt situations in other jurisdictions that several provinces exempt drivers of older vehicles. In Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in particular, vehicles built before 1971 are exempt from seatbelt provisions. As an owner of a stock 1956 Chevrolet, I would support a legislative amendment that recognizes the classic character of my car and did not require me to install seatbelts that were not original equipment.

Having cited a few examples that could be used as possible exemptions for seatbelt legislation, I want to make the Leader of the Official Opposition aware that, in response to his position that we should not be dealing with this motion at this time, we should be dealing with the legislation, I think it is more proper to deal with this first. The motion gives an opportunity for all Members to express their views on this matter, because there are a number of situations that warrant exemptions to a blanket mandatory seatbelt legislation. I think they should be given a fair hearing before we go to the expense, trouble and time to draft such legislation.

In conclusion, I support the motion brought forward by my colleague, the Member for Whitehorse South Centre, and this government’s active consideration to seek seatbelt legislation, which has not yet been drafted, for the information of the Member for Porter Creek East.

I believe there are valid grounds for providing some exemptions to seatbelt law, as I have already stated on at least two occasions. Those I outlined are exemptions that I believe deserve consideration. I am sure there are others and look forward to Members’ views on these matters.

Mr. Phillips: Before I get into the statements I would like to make about this issue, I would like to take a few minutes and comment on some of the views that have been raised by other speakers.

I found it interesting that the Minister of Transportation Services was responding to the Leader of the Official Opposition’s comments. He started out his speech by saying this was just the first step in mandatory seatbelt legislation. He indicated in his speech that one of the first steps would be education and helping people understand the need to wear seatbelts.

Then, he finished his speech by talking about exemptions there could be in the law - not whether there would not be a law, but that there would be a law and there would be exemptions. Then, two of the other Members rose - the Member for Old Crow and the Member for Dawson City - and started out on an everybody-but-me speech, talking about the exemptions.

I understand the Member for Old Crow’s concerns. I have been to Old Crow many times, and I see how the village operates up there and the need to use the trucks for hunting, gathering wood and that type of thing. I would ask the Member for Old Crow, or the Minister, if they see that same type of exemption being allowed to all other people in the territory, native and non-native, who go out to hunt, fish, gather wood and use their vehicles for those kinds of purposes, where several people climb into the back of a pickup. If there is a group of people at a party somewhere and they take a truck to drive down the road from one person’s house to another, are they going to also be exempt?

If we bring in mandatory seatbelt legislation, it should be just that. After all, as the Members on the other side have said, the reason for bringing in a mandatory seatbelt legislation is to protect the people from themselves, almost. If you are going to protect the people, why would you bring in all kinds of exemptions? Are you saying these people are capable of thinking for themselves, and the rest of us are not?

If we bring in legislation here, we should bring in legislation that covers everybody, with no exemptions, except in the cases of senior citizens or certain handicapped people who have to use other methods to secure themselves in vehicles.

I listened closely to the statements made by the Members who have already spoken, and it is clear there are strong feelings on all sides of this issue. I, too, share some of the strong feelings expressed here today against the idea the government should be legislating all aspects of our lives. One has to ask: where will it all stop? What about common sense? I cannot recall his exact statement, but the Member for Dawson said the only thing missing out of common sense is that common people do not use it, or something to that effect - common sense is not very common. I think common sense is fairly common. I would not say that about most people.

What about a person’s responsibility to one’s family and oneself? Do we legislate all those parts of our lives, as well? This issue is not as black and white as one might hope.

I took the opportunity to talk to several of my constituents over the past couple of weeks, and I found a very divided cross-section of opinion. Some felt the government has no business interfering in their lives on this issue, and many of these people also told me they wore their seatbelts all the time, but they insisted that it was their decision to do so, and that is how they wanted it to remain. Others felt we were behind the times on this issue and are probably the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have mandatory seatbelt legislation. This group urges me to support this motion.

The final group were individuals who were fundamentally opposed to government legislation on the issue, but on the other hand felt that possiblly, and reluctantly, its time had come. They made the point that whenever Yukoners travel outside to other jurisdictions they were, in most cases, forced to buckle up. In fact, most of these individuals told me they continue the practice here in the Yukon today.

They also stated that medical statistics support such a law and even mentioned several accidents that happened in Yukon. The imposition of this law could have saved lives or prevented serious injury. It is not a simple, cut and dried issue.

I do not believe government should be legislating common sense, but I find that personally I lean more toward the thoughts of the third group I mentioned today. I can understand the strong feelings expressed by many of my colleagues.

This motion asks the Government of the Yukon to consider establishing a law for the mandatory use of seatbelts. I will not be voting against this motion, as it is worded, but I will be looking forward to closely examining any legislation that will be brought forward to carry out this motion’s intent.

Ms. Hayden: I rise in support of this motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Tatchun. Seatbelts do save lives. In this day and age, when we are faced with escalating health care costs, we must do everything we can to prevent injuries.

We have legislation requiring the restraint of children under the age of six when they are riding in a vehicle. We have legislation requiring government employees to use seatbelts. The motion proposing legislation covering the general public is the next logical step.

When we have statistics that show that 21 of 25 motor vehicle fatality victims on Yukon roads were not wearing seatbelts, then we have a responsibility to do something to protect the lives of Yukoners.

There will be exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking there are few instances where seatbelts cannot be worn. More people are killed or maimed from injuries sustained after being thrown out of vehicles during an accident than are injured or killed if held in the vehicle by a seatbelt.

We really are creatures of habit. It takes five to 10 seconds at best to buckle up, and yet we forget. We must make putting on a seatbelt as much a habit as closing a car door or turning on the ignition.

Many of us have witnessed the aftermath of a vehicle accident. Some of us have been involved in one. Too many of our children, friends, neighbours, parents and other loved ones have been affected by road accidents.

We can learn from the statistics here in the Yukon. We can learn from statistics in other jurisdictions, but we are human beings and as soon as we learn, we forget. We forget when we climb behind the wheel that we should buckle up, or forget to strap in our children, or forget to ask our passengers to do so.

How could we ever forget the terror of a child regaining consciousness after a car accident only to find out that her parents are dead. They had had the good sense to remind her to do up her seatbelt, but had not bothered to do up their own.

How can we ever forget parents answering the door in the small hours of the morning  - and this happens too often in our community - only to be told that their child is comatose as a result of a head injury that could have been prevented if that child had been wearing a seatbelt.

Personally, I know of a group of young people who were travelling down the highway heading toward Fort St. John with half a dozen of them in a car. They had an accident. One of them was thrown out of the vehicle. She was not wearing a seatbelt. She was 16 years old and she was dead. Her life was ended then. That would not have happened if she was wearing a seatbelt.

Seatbelts do work. Fatal accidents and accidents that cripple happen on city streets, they happen on highways and they happen on back roads. I do not think anyone in this House will deny that we have a dilemma before us.

On one hand, we have a responsibility to pass legislation that will benefit Yukoners. It will have a positive effect on our rising health-care costs. On the other hand, we have to consider circumstances in the different communities. We can all check out the statistics, but it is the human dimension that brings home the importance of wearing seatbelts. Let us not forget that human dimension as we consider this motion.

Hon. Mr. McDonald:  I want to take the opportunity today to put a few thoughts on the record with respect to the motion, a motion which I will end up supporting, believe it or not, by the end of my remarks.

The remarks I would first like to make are in context of my life as an MLA in this Legislature, and the opportunities I have had to consider this question before and to see what constituents do and what constituents have said and to share some of those experiences with other Members.

Members may remember that in 1982, an acquaintance of mine from Mayo, who ran in the territorial election in the Tatchun riding and lost, was driving with his daughter from Mayo to Stewart Crossing. On the way to Stewart Crossing, close to the Mayo campground, he experenced a shimmy in his tires  - or at least that is how it came out later - and felt himself going over the edge of the road. His last words to his daughter were that she should put on her seatbelt because they were about to go over the edge. His daughter did manage to put the seatbelt on; they did go over the edge. He was killed, and she survived. He was killed because he had been thrown out of the car and died instantly.

I was quite shocked by that incident, because I knew this fellow very well. I did not believe he could die in a car accident, let alone die at all at that time. I was quite taken by that. It got me thinking about the fundamental issue that every Member has mentioned here, which is essentially free choice versus public safety.

In listening to the comments made by everyone today, you can see just how difficult this issue is for every single Member. In many respects, Members know the politics of this issue in the Yukon; I think they are pretty obvious, but Members also know what the facts are and what the moral arguments are behind either supporting or not supporting the motion.

There is a philosophical underpinning to many of the Members’ remarks that lean on the side of free choice. There are others who note the issue of free choice but talk about the need for public safety. The issue today is which side we are going to lean toward in the coming months and years.

This issue is of some concern to me because I was the Minister of Community and Transportation Services for three and one-half years and I had the opportunity to bring in seatbelt legislation during that time. I am sure that the equation would have been much changed in terms of people’s comments, but I did not take the opportunity to do so. That was not because there were so many other things to do that this could not be added to the list. It was because I had some fundamental difficulty in moving a motion or presenting a  piece of legislation in favour of this measure at that particular time.

During that period, and the Member for Kluane mentioned this, we did discuss the issue of child restraint in the Legislature. It was approved largely because most Members felt that decisions made by young children had a quality about them that people would make a conscious decision as to whether or not they were going to use seatbelts that could not be made by an immature human, that the children had to be protected by our community and were not yet in the position to make the basic philosophical arguments themselves. Consequently, Members did vote in favour of that provision, and it received a fairly positive response from the public. Apart from some concerns about the availability of child seats, I did not detect any concern expressed by the public at large. I think most people understood it and accepted it.

During the time I was the Minister and wrestling with the issue, we also extensively discussed the desire for a public education campaign. This was started and continued for some time. I am sure many Members did not notice it because, like the Yukon, every other jurisdiction in the country, as well as the United States, where we receive much of our television programming, also puts on similar safety campaigns and, after a while, they seem to run through your consciousness without really registering. The only time you really notice a buckle-up campaign, or a do-not-use-alcohol-when-you-are-driving campaign, is during the holiday season when the ads come so often on television, the radio and in the newspaper that you cannot help but notice them.

Nevertheless, a campaign was run during that period and expenditures were made to encourage people to buckle up. There were even discussions in the schools. I took part in one classroom discussion where the issue of the mandatory use of seatbelts was raised in a social studies class in order to discuss the fundamental principle of a free choice versus public safety and the public good. Much of the anxiety many of the Members are expressing today about this measure were expressed by those grade nine students. Those students were just as articulate as we are about this question and just as concerned about the issue, as are we.

We also discussed at some length the reasons why, as Minister, I was not presenting the legislation. I do not know if it would be representative of all classrooms but in this particular classroom the balance of opinion was in favour of mandatory seatbelts. At the time, the reasons I gave were that there ought to be a public safety campaign to encourage people to voluntarily use seatbelts, because the weight of statistical and scientific evidence appeared to be very much in favour of the use of seatbelts.

There was a fascinating discussion, one of the most interesting I have had in settings of that sort. I also had an opportunity to discuss with school officials the degree to which they do talk about the use of seatbelts in the health programs in our schools, and I was satisfied that it is being taught in the health programs. It has been taught for some time in health programs, even before the time I was even sitting in the Legislature, let alone on the government side of the House.

There were a couple of episodes that caused me great personal anxiety during the period I was Minister. The first one was the result of a couple of noteworthy accidents in the territory. This was after I felt quite confident, maybe even a little cocky, that the information campaigns we were conducting were going to have some impact. I remember, over a long period of time, quietly by myself, taking note of all the campaigns other jurisdictions did. I even noted those that came out of the city of Detroit, because we receive Detroit television here, and those that come out of Vancouver and other jurisdictions, as well as the Transport Canada campaigns. I convinced myself that the cumulative effect of these campaigns was going to have a significant impact on how people see the use of seatbelts, and was quite disappointed.

A couple of noteworthy accidents took place on our highways while I was responsible for Community and Transportation Services that both involved vans and a large number of young people, one involved death and the other involved serious injuries, and in both cases there are people who will be living in quite a disabled condition for the rest of their lives. At that time I felt a measure of responsibility for that having happened because there had been an opportunity to try to do something more to prevent it. The bottom line was that I had made the choice to proceed with education campaigns rather than the mandatory seatbelt use.

Nevertheless, that is history. It is my history and the history of the people involved in those accidents. It is a little background on how I am approaching this motion today.

It is a difficult one for Yukon. I did not know what the straw vote of my riding would indicate. I have talked to many people in my riding to see how they felt and I think the results would probably be as unscientific and about the same as the results the Member for Riverdale North indicted he had received. There are some who are strongly in favour and some who are very strongly against it. We know the reasons why both views are being expressed.

The motion tests the principle of whether or not we are in favour of mandatory seatbelts versus the status quo that is free choice by individuals. The detail of any piece of legislation will be an issue if legislation comes forward, or when it comes forward.

Certainly detail does make a difference. There are good and bad pieces of seatbelt legislation, I am sure. Too many exemptions for the sake of political convenience is a bad idea, I agree, and I would not support that.

First of all we have to decide if we, as a Legislature, support the principle. I think that is the issue today. The time has come for serious consideration of seatbelt use in the territory. In coming to that conclusion I have not only taken into consideration what information I have provided you with today on my own history with this issue, but also in balancing the fundamental question of how we should consider free choice versus public safety.

On the free choice side it is important that people have as much opportunity to express themselves as possible. That balanced, of course, the impact it will have on others, if you consider this as an end in itself, as a self-evident truth because there is no statistical weight to it, other than you think it is a good thing.

On the other side is public safety. Does it save lives? Does it save on financial costs associated with serious accidents? Does it save the public considerable grief and suffering? We have to balance these to decide which is of most concern to us now.

In terms of the issue of saving lives, the statistics are securely on the side of wearing seatbelts. People who attend accidents - ambulance attendants and police officers - say it is always better to be inside the vehicle than outside the vehicle. Clearly, most of the Members of this Legislature today would advocate the wearing of seatbelts as a matter of personal choice.

I realize people can do almost anything with statistics, but even a liberal reading of statistical evidence would allow one to be secure enough to believe that wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of surviving in an accident, and decreases the chances of serious injury when you have an accident.

We are long past the time when the old myths about wearing seatbelts are considered to have substantial weight in a debate we are in now. I remember hearing some time ago people saying that if they just put their hands on the dashboard, they could save themselves from an accident, or prevent the accident from happening, or if they were able to brace themselves, or if you are drunk or limp, or whatever it happens to be, it is much better than having a seatbelt in the car. Then, the video the Member for Faro mentioned came to my attention, and I watched it. The person who was explaining the effect of this hands-on-the-dashboard safety device asked the audience whether or not they could do a 6,000 pound pushup. I know that I am pretty well incapable of doing a pushup of that weight. I will not tell you how much I can do, but suffice it to say it is not in the neighbourhood of 6,000 pounds. I realized that saving myself from an accident that has the impact of a 6,000-pound force is a fairy tale and not worth further consideration.

The video tape also debugged a number of other myths, that I hear even today. I hear it in the coffeeshop and talk to people about whether or not they could save themselves if they are in a car, the car goes into a lake, and they are trapped in a seatbelt and cannot unbuckle it because they are unconscious. The obvious question is, if they are unconscious, one would wonder whether or not they could unbuckle a belt or do anything, whether they are in a lake or not. I had never considered that myth to be particularly potent in dissuading me to use my seatbelt.

My favourite is the myth that seatbelts could cut right through you. There have probably been some episodes where people have noted that a person who was in an accident was driving with such force that the seatbelt did happen to cut right through the person’s body as the person flew out of the car and into the street in front of the vehicle. I thought to myself that, if there were sufficient force for a body to be cut in half by a seatbelt, I wondered exactly how fast that person would be travelling through the windshield if the person did not have a seatbelt on and what the result of the accident would be if a person were travelling 60, 70 or 80 miles per hour through the air and made contact with the ground hundreds of feet ahead.

I have never been convinced by those arguments. I always thought they were interesting. They are always backed up by some case somebody read about in the newspapers, but they have never been convincing intellectually, nor statistically. They are cases that are expressed as having a real force of effect in debates around seatbelts, and I think it is important we do not get diverted by those.

I think the weight of evidence shows seatbelts do save lives. I do not have statistical evidence with me, but I have been impressed by the costs associated with serious accidents, not only to the individual in terms of grief and suffering but, also, costs to the public through the public health care system. The costs are substantial. It does no good to indicate that those people who do not wear seatbelts should not be able to avail themselves of the public health care system. That would not be right, and I would not advocate that.

I am sure that after an accident we would not try to hold that person to their commitment to not take advantage of the public health care system. I think the cost to society in terms of the grief associated with the loss of somebody and in terms of the costs to the health care system weigh substantially in this debate in favour of mandatory seatbelt use.

As I say, I think the time has come for seatbelts. I think they do save on costs to society. This is a balance; I realize others have taken a different view about this issue. I do not believe that this is a crippling intrusion on free choice. I do not believe that it is a beginning to something even worse that the Members might contemplate. I believe that it is a reasonable provision for a legislature, and this Legislature in particular, to take. I believe that the experience we have had as legislators, as Yukon citizens, weighs heavily in favour of mandatory seatbelts. I do not dispute the fact that it is a  difficult decision for every one of us to make. Consequently, I would like to say that I do support it. I will say that I am not straddling any fence; I have considered it carefully. I am not in a position where I have not resolved in my own mind the final question of free choice versus mandatory seatbelt usage. I will say that that question, in my own mind, was unresolved until very recently, but at this point, I have made a decision and I will support the motion.

Mrs. Firth:  I will not go on at great length. I will probably talk as long as my voice lasts. I am sure that Members will appreciate my sadness at not being able to speak to this motion for a very long period of time.

I think it is evident from all the comments that Members are making this afternoon that we have all had a great deal of conscience-raising and self-examination in order to deal with the issue of mandatory seatbelt legislation. When I saw the motion, my immediate reaction was to question why the government had brought the motion forward, and particularly why this particular wording was presented. Of course, the magic word in this motion is the word “consider”. Should the motion have stated that the government should establish law for mandatory seatbelt legislation, I think we would have had debate on the principles of the law and whether that law was going to be acceptable to Yukoners or not.

I, personally, cannot disagree with this motion as it is written. I think the government should consider mandatory seatbelt legislation. I was very interested in the comments of the Member for Faro. They, in a sense, answered my question as to why the motion was brought forward. In a sense, he is asking us all to put our big toe in that tub of water and test the water. Mr. Speaker, it is hot. It is very hot water, and I think all of us here have recognized that today.

I, too, have talked to many of my constituents about this issue. I had a constituency meeting not too long ago and asked for a show of hands of those who were in favour. Of course, half of the hands went up. I asked for those who were not in favour and the other half of the hands went up. I told them this makes it very easy for me to decide what position I am going to take on this issue. I will just have to go home and think about it for awhile.

I am sure I do not have to remind Members of this Legislature or my constituents of my professional background. I know that it is fairly well known I used to be nurse. A lot of new people perhaps may not remember that I used to work at the hospital and I worked there for some time. I have had a great deal of first-hand experience looking after people who were involved in motor vehicle accidents, probably more with individuals who did not wear seat belts. It has been some eight or nine years since I worked at the hospital and it has only been in the last 10 to 15 years that we have talked about seatbelt legislation in the Yukon. It is a long time to talk about it. I would say most of my past medical experience would have been in dealing with individuals who did not wear seatbelts. I do not have to go into graphic details. People have seen movies and videos supporting seatbelt legislation describing the tragedies and devastation that can occur when there is a motor vehicle accident and seatbelts are not worn. I have a very practical understanding of that from my past medical experience.

That would lead me to come to a decision that may interfere with my philosophical beliefs, which have been expressed by the Member for Mayo, the belief in freedom of choice. Some of my other colleagues have raised their objections to having to take people in society by the hand and tell them what to do to protect themselves from themselves. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. This is what people object to when legislators start making laws on their behalf as to their behaviour and how they should be looking after themselves. The proponents of seatbelt legislation criticize society for not being responsible and not looking after themselves, medical costs escalating, and all the other arguments we have heard today.

Those who are proponents of free choice say it is their right to look after themselves. They all say they wear seatbelts. Some do and some do not. The majority say they do wear seatbelts and feel it should be their decision to make. I believe one Member said we should be encouraging people to be more responsible for themselves and to make these decisions for themselves as opposed to the government telling them how they are going to live every day of their lives from the time they wake up until they go to sleep at night.

I will support the motion on the basis that they consider establishing a law. I would like to see that piece of legislation. I want to know if the government is intending to bring that legislation to this Assembly for debate because that is when the final yes or no will be put on the record. It is fine for us to speculate and postulate today. I am sure most people will get a  general impression of whether Members are going to support a particular piece of legislation or not.

I have some concerns about some of the issues raised here by Members in the government rank and file.

I agree with the Members for Mayo and Riverdale North, who said that if a law is brought in, a law is a law. You start making all kinds of exemptions and, pretty soon, it becomes half a law, or three-quarters of a law. Everyone has to be seen as being treated equally under that law. Although there may be some rare instances for exemptions, I would be very interested to hear what they are and what the government is proposing. If we are looking at many exemptions, as have been raised in the Legislature this afternoon, I would have a great deal of concern as to what the real effect of the law would be.

To refresh people’s minds, the concern was raised by the sponsor of the motion that pickup trucks can only accommodate so many people in seatbelts, yet you often see more than that number of individuals riding in a pickup truck. I do not agree with the principle of whichever province said that if you have only two seatbelts, it is fine for the third person not to have one on. I do not think that makes sense, because that person is just as susceptible to injury as are the others, and more so if they do not have a seat belt on. I cannot understand that exemption nor the rationale for it.

There was the point raised about having an old vehicle. There are a lot of older vehicles in the Yukon. I know that older vehicles can be outfitted with seatbelts. If that is the law, then why would we create an exemption for that? It is difficult to discuss the motion without having the government’s intended legislation before us. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, “Let us see the legislation and see what the government is proposing.” I would like some specific questions answered about the legislation. I will be curious to know what the government’s definition of “public roads” is. Will it be the same as what is presently in the Motor Vehicles Act? They are going to have to address the issue of old cars and pickup trucks.

How suitable is seatbelt legislation going to be to rural living? The Member for Old Crow has said, “Fine, but it is not for Old Crow”, and cited the reason as there being so few vehicles there. I would submit that, if it is a law and seatbelt usage becomes mandatory, those individuals in Old Crow will also have to come under that legislation, unless a special exemption is made. I do not see what legitimate reason the government could give for making that special exemption. If people are in a motor vehicle, and they are driving on a road, they are supposed to be considered to come under the jurisdiction of that law.

I will be interested also in finding out how effectively the mandatory seatbelt legislation for children under six years of age has been enforced. I have a lot of young people and parents coming to me as their MLA and complaining that so many times they see young children unrestrained in vehicles, in pickup trucks, cars and hanging out of the backs of station wagons. When the Minister is considering his legislation, I hope he will come back with some specific details and some specific statistics and documentation as to how effectively that piece of legislation is working before we look at a further step that would make it mandatory for other people to wear seatbelts as well.

I know some time ago we had some discussion in this Legislature. One of the former Members raised an issue, either here in the Legislature or out of the Legislature, about the use of seatbelts in school buses. As a result of that, there was a study done many years ago, perhaps five to eight years ago, saying that, at that time, seatbelts in school buses posed more of a hazard than not to have seatbelts. I believe the reasoning and rationale had something to do with the ability of the children to get out of the vehicle in the event of an accident.

I would be interested to see if the government is going to examine that issue.

There are a lot of outstanding questions. I do not have to tell anybody that I have a very clear understanding of the benefits of seatbelts. I may have been away from my past profession for some time now, but I have memories I will never forget.

I may be called a nag sometimes when I ask people in my car to buckle up. I get a lot of sighs, long looks, and a bit of abuse, but to me it is worth it. I do object to constantly having to remind people they should do this for their own good. I am not here to take people by the hand, protect them, and teach them everything they should be doing for their own good. No matter how hard you try to do that and how good your efforts are, people will still do things the way they want to do it.

I do not think the Member for Mayo should in any way feel responsible for the unfortunate personal incident he related to the House about his determining whether or not they would proceed with seatbelt legislation. Had the seatbelt legislation been in force, that does not mean those people would have worn seatbelts. I do not feel anyone in any way would expect him to assume responsibility for that tragedy.

I do not think that is what we are here to do. We are not here to assume responsibility for every individual or every decision that is made. We should be here to represent the best interests of society. If society needs rules to live by then we should be practical and have common sense when we establish those rules and implement them.

I will be interested in following up on the debate should this piece of legislation come forward. One more speaker from the government bench is due to speak and perhaps he can tell us whether they will be coming forward with this legislation and give us an indication of when it will be coming forward. I look forward to having a more in-depth debate at that time and seeing what the government is actually proposing to make law.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to thank other Members who have spoken and also my friend and colleague, the Member for Tatchun, for presenting the motion for consideration today.

The question has been asked: why are we debating a motion rather than a law? There is a very good and practical reason for that that I think can be understood by observing debate today. There are clearly substantial differences of opinion on this issue, not only in every community and in every corner of our community, but also on each side of this House about the use of seatbelts.

The simple proposition before us is easy to respond to: either in the affirmative or in the negative. The minute one begins to suggest exemptions, as Members have today, we get into a lot of very difficult and complex arguments. They are not easy to deal with if one makes a simple amendment to highway legislation, and I would submit that a debate like this, prior to the introduction to any kind of bill of this kind, is very useful for the people who are responsible for drafting it.

There will be an opportunity for whomever is charged with the duty of drafting any such legislation, should the House decide this motion in the affirmative, to read what Members have had to say and to put clearly to Cabinet the question of what exemptions, if any, should be provided for in this legislation. Then, if the government comes forward with legislation, they come to the House having thought through those difficult questions. That is important. As the Member for Klondike said, every jurisdiction in this country that has dealt with the seatbelt legislation, which is every jurisdiction except ours, has in some way or another clearly considered exemptions or variances to the rule. The law is not, in this federal state, identical in every jurisdiction.

I want to enter this debate mainly from my point of view as Minister of Health. I want to do so by pointing out that the statistics on violent death and trauma in this territory are a tragedy. Violent or accidental death is the leading cause of death in the Yukon. In Canada, the leading causes of death are heart disease and cancer. In the Yukon, it is violent death; it is trauma. A very large percentage of those deaths come from highway accidents. It is possible to read the statistics as saying that highway death, accidental death and automobile accidents are the leading causes of death in this territory.

As the Member for Watson Lake and others suggested, one might want to get into the implications or the effect of alcohol on those deaths. I know health-care professionals would argue that alcohol may be a primary, secondary or tertiary cause in a very large percentage of those violent deaths and in the highway accidents. We know that is not the case with all of them. I believe all of us know people who have died or been crippled for life in car accidents, and that most of the people who have suffered that fate have done so because they were not buckled up.

From a health point of view, I am persuaded that dealing with the question of death and injuries caused by highway accidents is a very important matter. The treatment, rehabilitation and long-term care of accident victims constitutes the largest single area of health-care expenditure in this territory. I will not try to break out the numbers today but, if you look at the fact that we are projecting to spend $28 million in our next year’s budget in health care, which is about $1,000 per capita and $2,000 per taxpayer, and that the largest single part of that expenditure is costs arising from highway accidents, we have to consider that dimension of this problem very seriously.

I will put that in the context of the initiatives we are beginning to take in the area of preventive health. There is no question that mandatory seatbelt legislation reduces death, serious injury and disability associated with motor vehicle accidents. That is a statement of undeniable fact.

Seatbelt use markedly reduces the incidence and severity of head injury. That is a fact. Earlier today, in this debate, the Leader of the Official Opposition argued there was confusing or contradictory evidence on the question of whether seatbelts themselves can be the cause of serious injury or death. I would argue that the evidence is not confusing. Perhaps I misread the Leader of the Official Opposition, and perhaps he was quoting someone else, but the evidence is quite contrary. The evidence is quite the contrary. Indeed the evidence is that there is little evidence to support the view that seatbelts themselves are a cause of serious injury or death.

The Member for Mayo spoke personally about his own thoughts on this issue. I have to tell you that I am someone who is a more recent convert to this view than may be known. This particular legislation has not always been a priority with me. It is a fact that there is a proud and even rather libertarian streak in Yukoners that will resent or resist legislation to require the use of seatbelts.

Let us consider that although the facts about the use of seatbelts are well known to the general public, it is also a well known fact, as the Member for Kluane said, that many people will not consistently use seatbelts unless their use is mandatory. Whether I agree with his analysis of that situation or his analysis of social psychology, or the societal problems that that indicates, he is absolutely right that the mandatory use of seatbelts does increase their use.

I disagree slightly with the Member for Watson Lake on this point, making a connection as he did with the impaired-driving issue - and I do not want to suggest that it is impaired logic - but driving while drinking is against the law and people may make those decisions while they are impaired, but they are still assumed to be making decisions for which they are responsible. Because driving while impaired can have very serious consequences for others I am going to suggest that the failure to use seatbelts can also do the same.

Even though the facts on seatbelt use are well known, the Member for Kluane is absolutely right that the mandatory use of them does increase the utilization of them. It is the case that a number of Canadian and American studies have demonstrated that concerted public-education campaigns promoting seatbelt use increased their usage by about 30 percent of the driving public.

This is an area I perhaps do seriously disagree with the analysis of the Leader of the Official Opposition. There have been public-education campaigns here, in our nation and across the continent. The effect of those campaigns has been to increase the use by only 30 percent.

Studies in Ontario show that legislation increases the use by 70 percent to 80 percent by both drivers and passengers; that is more than doubling the use of seatbelts. There is evidence to confirm the view of the Member for Kluane.

The Member for Riverdale South is quite correct about the problems of enforcement. I have no illusions on that score. Knowing about life in the communities, even though we have more police officers per capita than any other jurisdiction in the country, I believe that police officers will argue that they have many other things to do than to be policing every motorist in the use of seatbelts.

The implementation of a new law on seatbelts will be a problem. The timing of the implementation and public education campaigns around any new law will also be important.

I must say I believe, as Minister of Health, that it is time that a law be established for mandatory use of seatbelts for drivers and passengers on the public roads in the Yukon.

The Yukon is a path finder, is an innovator in a number of areas in this country, but I think that we should not take any pride in the fact that we are the last jurisdiction to deal with this question.

All of us in this debate have talked about the question of rights. All of us have talked about public safety and personal freedoms. Our neighbours to the south and to the west in the United States have a constitutional right to bear firearms. That is not a constitutional right that Canadians have and I suspect there is a relationship between the different kinds of rights enjoyed by our citizens and the incidence of death by firearms in the United States.

On the question of rights, I think it is important to understand that we have a tradition in law that says that driving is a privilege. It is the government - it is the state - that has issued or refused to issue licences for people to drive. That is a concept that goes back to the Queen’s or King’s highway. We have made conditions on that licence; we have even made some licences conditional. It is not, therefore, an unreasonable infringement on the idea of the freedom of the road to set further conditions on driving that could include the use of seatbelts.

I do not want to repeat things that other people have said in the debate but the Leader of the Opposition was kind enough to mention the position of the Court of Appeal yesterday in Alberta, which was interesting. As Members know, and as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, the seatbelt law in that province was thrown out by a Court of Queen’s Bench Justice earlier this year. As the Opposition Leader mentioned, a three-judge panel, lead by Chief Justice James Laycraft, unanimously overturned the earlier ruling. It should be interesting to note that the Court of Queen’s Bench Justice had overturned an earlier decision by a provincial court judge, Hubert Oliver, who rejected constitutional and factual arguments against the law.

It is worth noting that the Court of Queen’s Bench judge, Judge Arthur Lutz, said that the law infringed on the Charter of Rights, the security of the person, because the evidence shows that wearing a seatbelt increases the risk of injury or death by a small amount.

Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, the name Lutz is well-known in Watson Lake, in connection with Watson Lake, and this is not the first time to speak of Judge Lutz. I would want to say that Chief Justice Laycraft, in handing down his decision, said that the evidence shows that seatbelts do reduce the risk of injury and death and generally protect the public and there was overwhelming evidence to support that view, and I do subscribe to that view.

The problem of trying to discuss the question of public safety and personal freedoms is a very difficult one. The Member for Kluane entered into the question of access to this building. There are people who misunderstand that. I remember there was an official from Government Services in 1982 who was trying to tell Members of this Opposition, of this party, when we were in Opposition, who we could bring in to see us in our offices. That official clearly had never heard of Oliver Cromwell and did not understand one of the oldest principles in parliament, about the right of access of Members to the Chamber.

On that point, I just want to say that I think that that official had himself straightened out by someone who knew better. The Member talks about signing in here. The Member knows that for Members of this House, signing in is voluntary, but, again, that is a public safety measure. The people who are the security guards here want to be able to find people in case of a fire or some other problem and get them out. I do not regard that as a terrible infringement on my freedoms; I regard it as necessary to achieve public safety. I do not believe that if I wanted to bring some people in here when the Legislature is sitting, even in the evening, whatever I may think of evening sittings - that I regard them as really being terrible barriers. I just want to say to the Member, in passing, that he should go to Ottawa, where the kinds of restrictions to get into the House of Commons, the kinds of passes and permissions you need are quite onerous. They are not as bad as they are at Westminster, where you have to telephone party headquarters to get an appointment with an MP, and then go through not just the security check but also an X-ray machine and a metal detector, in order to get into Westminster to watch from the gallery. That is because of terrorism.

We have not yet seen an outbreak of terrorism here. I am not arguing for the kind of measures that exist in Westminster, the Mother of Parliaments, to operate here. The point is, we have a continuing struggle to try to balance the appropriate desire of citizens for personal freedoms and the need for public safety. That is what the debate is always about.

I have come to the conclusion, based on the evidence available to us, that the requirements of public safety do require some infringement upon personal freedom when it comes to the use of seatbelts. I would argue that the failure to wear a seatbelt could lead to accident and injury which produces massive costs for society. Therefore, I do not believe, by irresponsible behaviour, an individual has a right to pass on those costs to their fellow citizens. The seatbelt law is an appropriate measure.

I know there will be people who will say Moses introduced us to the Ten Commandments and these were called God’s law and not everybody obeys those. Sin will always be with us. I suspect that is the case, but it is still also true that those laws are a good idea. Even if the law only increases utilization of seatbelts to 70 percent or 80 percent, based on the evidence in Ontario, I would argue that that is better than the effect of a public education campaign that saw the increase of use to only 30 percent. The lives that are saved and the injuries avoided as a result of a seatbelt law, notwithstanding personal objections, are worth taking that initiative. For my part, I believe the introduction of such a law is timely.

The debate today has been extremely useful. The concerns of the Members about the infringement on personal freedoms have been appropriately expressed, and all of us, in our political decisions, have to make a judgment about where the dividing line between those two great principles should fall. Perhaps today we have made a statement in this House about some incremental shift in that boundary. I believe it is for the public good, and that is what we are here to serve.

Mr. Lang: I have a few comments to make with respect to the debate since most of it has been said.

I would like to express some concern with the continued refrain that comes  from across the floor about what everybody does in other jurisdictions. It is almost like we are rushing, pell-mell, to be like every other jurisdiction in Canada. The Minister of Community and Transportation Services and the Minister of Health mentioned it. I question that, because Ontario or Newfoundland or British Columbia do a certain thing, we have to do it. We may be able to draw on their experience, but I do not think a Minister should be embarrassed because he goes to a conference and is chided because he has not enacted the law of some other jurisdiction. I do not think the Minister should be embarrassed and should be more than happy to stand up for what our Legislature has done. In this particular case, the Minister had nothing to apologize for. We had already passed restraint legislation for children in this House that was unanimously consented to. That has been spoken to by a number of other Members.

I am beginning to wonder. In one session we have managed to change the name of the Government Leader to that of Premier; we are in the process of getting rid of the gold panner and “the Klondike” on our licence plates, and now so we can really be like everybody else, we want to discuss mandatory seatbelts.

It is not a party vote, but if we are going to follow an extension of that logic, the side opposite should accept the principle of the 911 number that my colleague, the Member for Riverdale South, has put forward in a motion. That saves lives. It is known to save lives.

The one thing I think should be corrected for the record is that everyone has said seatbelt legislation saves lives. There is a fact that there are a number of people who have lived through very serious accidents because they were not wearing seatbelts. I have two close, personal friends who, if they had been wearing seatbelts in their particular circumstances, would not be with us today. Thus far in the debate, the impression being left in the House is that for every accident where seatbelts were worn, would have negated any major injury of any kind. If all Members reflect on it, they probably know people who have been in accidents and can say that, because of the circumstances and the fact they were not wearing seatbelts, they did not suffer  the injuries they may well have.

At the outset, I was one who, for many years, did not wear a seatbelt. I have become convinced over the years that seatbelts should be worn. Like the Member for Hootalinqua, people get into my vehicle, and I ask them to do the seatbelt up. I believe that, overall, it will protect them from the chances of bodily injury, as opposed to not wearing one.

The outstanding question today is whether or not we should have mandatory legislation. The question of education has been raised. There has been some attempt to educate by YTG, but it has not been a concerted public relations campaign for the purpose of wearing seatbelts. There has been the odd newspaper ad, and that is about it. There is very little information or continued reminders to the public that this is a safety feature and should be used. I have to agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition on this. More education is required, and more public relations is required, because I believe people should wear seatbelts.

Similar to some of my other colleagues, I do have a problem with passing mandatory legislation. Once again, it comes down to the right to choose, the freedom of choice, the right of the individual. I do not see this motion in the context it has been spoken of by some that, because of the word “consideration”, we are not really voting for mandatory legislation. The principle here is whether or not we agree with that principle and whether or not it should come forward to the House.

My position is that I do not believe, and am not persuaded by the arguments presented today, that the people of the territory need mandatory seatbelt legislation. Therefore, I will be going against the motion.

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

Mr. Joe: First I must say that I am disappointed to hear that some very key Members on the other side do not support this motion.

I am pleased with the general support of this House for this motion on seatbelts.

Many of my friends here have noted the need for better safety on Yukon roads. Seatbelts will help make our roads safer. But they will only work if people use them. We must not just make a law that calls for seatbelts, we must also work to teach people about why seatbelts are good. We must tell people about how lives are saved when accident victims are strapped into vehicles. We must make sure people understand that in an accident they are safer inside their car than they are if they are thrown from it.

We cannot afford not to have seatbelt legislation. We must act now and develop laws that reflect the scientific proof we have that seatbelts do save lives.

We must move now and I believe the time for seatbelt legisl