Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, February 14, 1990 - 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.

Announcement about fur vote in Aspen, Colorado

Mr. Phillips: I rise today, Valentine’s Day, to bring some information to the House, which is good news for the Yukon. Yesterday, in Aspen, Colorado, a vote took place regarding the ban of fur sales. I am pleased to say that the people of Aspen, Colorado rejected the question by a two to one margin. There were 1701 voters who voted against it, and 898 for it.

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling the annual report from the Yukon Advisory on Women’s Issues.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

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

Notices of Motion.

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Yukon reindeer

Hon. Mr. Webster: I would like to take this as my first opportunity to advise Members that the Yukon is currently host to 235 reindeer from the Tuktoyaktuk herd, which are in transit to a purchaser in Alaska.

The shipment of reindeer, under the supervision of Agriculture Canada veterinarian Al Chambers, left Inuvik on January 27 and 28, and were unloaded at the Circle P Ranch on the Mayo Road on Tuesday, January 30. The reindeer are in quarantine at this location.

Subsequent to their arrival and containment within secure game fences at this facility, blood samples were taken of the reindeer as a check against any communicable diseases.

Late yesterday, I was informed that 33 of the 235 reindeer have tested positive for brucellosis. The strain of this disease is suspected to be brucella suis biotype 4, which occurs primarily in caribou and reindeer.

Agriculture Canada, which has a responsibility for this testing and eradication of this disease, is making arrangements to isolate the 33 infected animals and ship them to Dawson Creek for destruction. At that time, it will be possible to determine the strain of brucellosis that is involved.

The balance of the reindeer will remain in quarantine and will again be tested for the presence of brucellosis. When the herd has received a clean bill of health, it will be shipped to its destination in Alaska.

I would like to assure Members that no Yukon animals, wild or domestic, have been exposed to the infected animals. Other livestock at the Mayo Road facility are contained in separate paddocks and have not been in contact with the reindeer.

Once the reindeer have been shipped, no other animals will be permitted in the enclosure that they have used until Agriculture Canada and my officials are absolutely confident that there is no risk of infection to other animals that may use the site in the future.

This shipment of reindeer from the Tuktoyaktuk herd is not the first to enter the Yukon, but it is the only one that has tested positive for brucellosis. The reindeer at the Yukon Reindeer Farm came from the same herd, which were tested for brucellosis when they were imported and received a completely clean bill of health. Those animals remain healthy.

Officials of Agriculture Canada and my department are monitoring the situation very carefully. The fact that the infected animals have not been, and will not be, allowed in contact with any Yukon domestic stock or wild animals means that they pose no risk to Yukon animal health.

In the future, reindeer will have to have a clean bill of health before Agriculture Canada will sanction any shipments from the Tuktoyaktuk herd. Agriculture Canada has advised us that the owners of the Tuktoyaktuk herd will be required to provide inspection facilities on site in the Northwest Territories.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Agriculture Canada for their supervision of this shipment, and for their cooperation in dealing with the problem which has arisen.

I have instructed officials in my department to advise the Yukon Game Growers Association, Yukon Livestock and Agriculture Association and the Yukon Fish and Game Association of the situation and the steps that Agriculture Canada, in conjunction with Yukon officials, has taken to deal with it. I would be pleased to advise Members of further developments in this situation as soon as I am made aware of them.

Mr. Lang: First, I want to point out that we never received a copy of the ministerial statement prior to the Minister giving it, which is contrary to the practices of this House, and is one I hope does not happen again.

We raised the concern approximately a week ago about diseased animals - and animals in general, not just reindeer. There is no policy in place providing for animals coming into or through the territory to be quarantined and checked to protect purchasers. I want to stress our dismay about the implications of bringing these animals in and the possible results.

I am not fully satisfied that the disease brought in by these 33 animals will not spread to other animals in areas along the Mayo Road. Only time will tell.

I want to impress upon the Minister, there must be a requirement that animals be checked at the borders to ensure that diseases are not being brought in. We have been expressing concern over the bison. We have been told it can take up to seven years to detect some of these diseases, because they can carry it for a period of time. It takes time to determine whether these animals are disease free.

We are pleased to see that in this particular case the animals will have to be quarantined in the Inuvik area prior to coming in. I want to impress upon the Minister how important it is that a policy be put in place so that there is a method of checking animals coming into or through the territory from Alaska, or down south, so that the Minister is not put into a position of having to notify the public, or people whose life investments have been affected because of negligence on the part of the Government of the Yukon Territory.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member for his comments, and I want to apologize from the very start for not providing proper notice of this ministerial statement. I want to assure him that I just learned this information late yesterday afternoon, and this ministerial statement was just handed to me one minute before I arrived in the House this afternoon. It certainly was not by design that the Member opposite did not get notice of this statement.

I agree with the Member somewhat as to the potential seriousness of this situation. There should be some measures in place to ensure that animals being imported into the territory or transported through the territory are somehow checked to ensure they are not infected with some communicable disease. It is a serious matter; it was raised at a meeting of the Agricultural Planning Advisory Committee this past weekend; it was on their agenda. Our department is presently consulting with other jurisdictions to see what measures they have in place, apart from legislation, to do exactly that. As I mentioned, this matter is of concern to us, and we will be doing a great deal more work on it.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Land claims

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister responsible for land claims regarding the issue of land selection. As the Minister knows, there is some concern being expressed about the fairness of land selection in communities, and I think it is important to have an understanding about government policy in this regard. The federal government has frozen land claim interim selections on federal lands by order-in-council. I would like to know whether or not the YTG has frozen any interim selections on territorial lands.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: As the Member, I believe, knows, there is no interim protection on land within the municipalities, and there have been no selections as such within municipalities, although the Member will be aware of interests that have been expressed by a number of first nations in some lands within some municipalities.

Mr. Phelps: I would like to know whether or not the territorial government intends to have a policy with regard to interim selection within municipalities or on territorial lands, that parallels the federal government policy, because it would seem to me that there is some urgency to a policy being adopted in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure if I understand the Member’s point. Is the Member proposing that we should also have a land withdrawn within the municipalities where first nations have selected the land or asked for that land to be protected? Is that his representation?

Mr. Phelps: My representation is that there should be a parallel process whereby the public knows which land is frozen, or has some certainty which land might be protected at any given time, rather than the kind of guessing that is going on right now. If it is intended that the territorial government is going to be saying “this land is not available or is available” to individual applicants, it is far better to have everything on the table as soon as possible. There may be no such areas right now, but it seems there should be a policy whereby it is out in the open as to which areas are under interim protection and so that there is not this kind of speculation.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I think I understand the Member’s point. I want him to know why we cannot create a situation that is free from speculation. We are very shortly, we hope, going to get into negotiations in communities where this will happen. I think the Member will understand that, until the first nations make selections or proposed selections, the kind of protection he is contemplating for those lands while the negotiations are going on is not something we have been required to take up to now. Certainly, if that situation arises, we can, I am sure, have the means to act accordingly.

Question re: Land freeze

Mr. Phelps:  To go on to the next related issue, again to clear the air: Does the YTG policy allow that government to freeze territorial lands on an interim basis and yet to develop those lands prior to a final settlement of land claims going through?

Hon. Mr. Penikett:  The Member is asking a general question and he may have in mind a specific situation. I do not know that for sure but if a first nation has expressed an interest in a piece of land, then obviously we would be - if I can use this word in its proper sense - extremely conservative in the way in which we dealt with that particular piece of land. There are cases, one in particular of which I am aware, where developments were proceeding according to agreements between both the territorial and municipal government, where an interest has been subsequently expressed. We are attempting to deal with that through negotiation.

Mr. Phelps:  I make the representation, I guess, in this question, that there ought to be a written policy with regard to these issues because obviously there is some concern out there. I strongly recommend, and ask if the Minister will prepare, a written policy that deals with the issue of developing land that may or may not be frozen, as well as putting forward measures for the interim protection of lands that clearly ought to be protected because they are seen as desirable by various first nations in the lands claims process.

Hon. Mr. Penikett:  I will certainly take the proposal under advisement. Of course, I would be considering any such policy in cooperation with my colleague, the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who is principally responsible for land disposition in this area.

I think I would want to say to the Member though, having said that I will look at it, that there is a strong likelihood that the situation, say, in Whitehorse, where there may be many competing interests around any particular piece of land, is not the same as the situation in perhaps even the rural municipalities in the Yukon Territory. While conceding that we have to have a policy on this, I think we also have to be in the position in negotiations to have enough flexibility to move expeditiously, not only to deal with problems but also to find solutions in this very important period in the next few months.

Mr. Phelps:  I guess my concern is twofold. First of all there is the issue of ensuring that appropriate lands are protected where the selections are around the territory-owned lands, and secondly, that there is fairness in terms of every possible applicant being given the same story when applicants are applying for various kinds of lands within municipalities and on territorially-owned lands. The ad hoc kind of situation, where one official says, yes, you can have it, and the other official does not know, where one person is told one thing and the other person is told another thing, is not healthy in my view. I ask that this issue be addressed soon so that we do not have unnecessary problems surrounding land selection in the land claims process.

Hon. Mr. Penikett:  I want to say, sincerely, that I appreciate the represention of the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that he will understand that these are not the only representations that I have heard on the subject. We recently had a proposal that amounted to transferring all the territorial land to the municipality within the city boundaries, which, I have to tell them frankly, the Council for Yukon Indians did not regard as a helpful suggestion, for reasons I think will be clear to the Leader of the Opposition. I hope he will understand that, while I am taking his suggestions under advisement, I am getting advice from many quarters and we will be factoring that in, too.

Question re: Attorney General devolution

Mrs. Firth: Three years ago, the previous Minister of Justice led us to believe the transfer of the Attorney General office from the federal government to the responsibility of the territorial government was about to happen. Could the Minister update us on the status of that transfer?

Hon. Ms. Joe: Officials in my department have been meeting with federal officials in the last little while in regard to that transfer. We keep on top of the negotiations that are going on. I cannot tell the Member at this time when we expect that transfer to take place. The discussions are ongoing. My officials will continue to meet to talk about that transfer, and I would be prepared to continue to keep the House updated on that.

Mrs. Firth: On its list of priorities, where does this particular transfer come? It has been three years. Could the Minister enlighten us as to whether other transfers take precedence over this one? As the Minister of Justice, where does she feel this is on the list of priorities?

Hon. Ms. Joe: It is on the top of the list. I cannot tell her in what order. If it was not on the top of the list, there would not be ongoing discussions, and that is occurring and will continue to occur.

Mrs. Firth: It is very nice to say it is on the top of the list. The Minister of Health says the hospital transfer is on the top of the list, and the Minister of Finance talks about his formula financing agreement being on the top of the list. Obviously, all the Ministers are on top of one another and nothing is happening in the Yukon Territory with respect to the transfers.

We place a fairly high priority on this transfer. Could the Minister come back with a response from her department officials as to what they anticipate the timeline is for the transfer of this particular area?

Hon. Ms. Joe: As I said before, it is on the top of the list, along with other priorities. The discussions are ongoing. They will continue to be ongoing. There are certain things that have to be worked out, and you just cannot have one meeting and have a transfer.

I will let the Member know when our expectations for this are. I am sure the transfer will occur, and we will continue to deal with the issue.

Question re: Swedish economy

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister who is at the top of the list, and that is the Government Leader. Today, we have learned of the imminent collapse of the Swedish economy. In the words of Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson, the Swedish economy is falling apart. A leading Swedish bank economist, Nils Lundgren, said what was known as the Swedish model is, on the whole, gone. This is just another sign.

Other reports say banks have been closed for 11 days, since 62,000 employees were locked out after a deadlock in wage negotiations. People are short of cash, the stock market is virtually inoperative, and many companies may soon be unable to pay their salaries and bills.

Last June, the Government Leader and his entourage travelled to Sweden to the tune of $43,000 to examine the Swedish economy. He returned with glowing accounts of the Swedish model. In a report tabled late this fall that tried to justify the trip, there was not one word about the failing Swedish economy. In fact, the report tells of a glowing story of Swedish success.

At the time of writing the report, was the Government Leader aware of the severe economic problems that were facing Sweden? Why was that not in the report as well?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all, may I say on Valentine’s Day how handsome the Member across the way looks today, and congratulate him on the most convoluted question in the history of the Yukon Legislature.

First of all, the Nordic commission did not go to study the Swedish economy. We went to look at sustainable development in the northern parts of the Nordic countries. The people there are acknowledged world leaders in things like winter tourism, sustainable development, appropriate technology, use of local foods - a whole range of initiatives that I think are very useful for us and from which we could learn a great deal. They were described in the report.

Sweden is experiencing some interesting problems right now. I look forward to questions tomorrow from the Member on the problems that the British economy is having. Perhaps the next day, I will be asked some questions about the French and the day after that about the Japanese and Germans. I would be happy to talk about them. I do not have any ministerial responsibility for those. If we had the problems that Sweden has had, with a one percent unemployment rate, Canada might be very grateful.

Mr. Phillips: I would like to thank the Government Leader for his convoluted answer. Most people in the Yukon are questioning the most convoluted trick in the history of the Yukon Territory by the Members opposite.

The Yukon government report, prepared by the Government Leader’s press secretary, which is titled, Sustainable Futures: Lessons from the Nordic Countries, makes the effort to describe the great stability the Swedish government has reached in its economy. There is nothing here about the problems they are experiencing in maintaining that economy.

If the Government Leader wanted to be accurate - and he accuses people in this House of not beening so - why did he not tell the whole truth in that report about the economy of Sweden? This report talks about the great economy of Sweden. The report was given to us about four months ago. There is not one word about the failing economy of Sweden. Why did the Minister neglect to tell the people of the Yukon the whole truth when he tabled this report?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member opposite is trying very hard, but failing utterly. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is that it was a report on sustainable futures, not only in Sweden, but in Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Member says that the report says nothing about the problems. In fact, the report alludes to the traditional problems that are discussed there about the size of the public sector. It talks a little about the problem of the tax burden in those countries.

It is interesting, because the tax burden is an adjustment of the previous tax system, as they prepare for the opening of Europe in 1992. That, I understand, is causing some of the problems that they are now experiencing. If I were responsible for discussing the whole Swedish economy, if I had the opportunity one day to write a whole book about that, I might be happy to discuss it with the Member. Clearly, he has been misinformed.

Mr. Phillips: It is nice to know that the Government of the Yukon is isolated. In the report, it says, “Its political stability reflects the homogeneous nature of the Swedish society in a remarkable degree by which Swedes are able to reach consensus on major issues”. The report today says that Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson said Thursday, “The Swedish economy is falling apart, and this government will resign unless Parliament bans strikes and imposes a wage and price freeze”.

How in the devil did the Government the of Yukon ever come to a consensus to put a sentence like this in there? They do not comment, anywhere in this report, on the failing economy of Sweden. The Government Leader mentioned earlier about the unemployment rate in Sweden, but he forgot to tell the people of the Yukon that they have twice the inflation rate of western European countries.

Speaker: Would the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not know where the Member is going for this, but suspect that he is talking himself into a black hole.

Reference to the political stability in the Scandinavian countries is quite appropriate. They have had, for most of the last 50 years, a social democratic government that has guided that country to extraordinary prosperity. They have had one brief period, for six or seven years...

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?

During one period they had a liberal conservative coalition, which was an absolute disaster because they had more business failures during that time than ever before in history. They have recovered from that.

Notions of what constitutes a crisis in that country are probably somewhat different than what the Members opposite think. The former Prime Minister of Sweden, the late Olaf Palmer, talked about the dangerous instability being evident in the Swedish electorate, because sometime before an election there were four percent undecided. They clearly have different notions of what constitutes a crisis and instability than we do in this country.

Question re: Swedish economy

Mr. Lang: In view of the news we have received with respect to the Swedish economy that banks have closed down, people are not getting paid and various other economic things are happening, would the Minister not call that a crisis?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not know. Did the Member opposite, who is a good Tory, call it a crisis when every financial institution in Alberta governed by the Tories for the last 20 or 30 years went bankrupt? Was that a crisis?

Every domestically licensed financial institution in Alberta, during the last crisis went under, there are no Alberta banks left so far as I know. They all went.

The Member asks me if the fact that there is a lockout in Swedish banking institutes constitutes a national crisis. I am sure it is very serious for Swedes, but I fail to see how it affects the people of the Yukon, or is an appropriate matter for debate in this Legislature. I am happy to debate it anyway.

Mr. Lang: I think the people of the territory have some interest in this - interest to the tune they paid $43,000 of taxpayers’ money for the Government Leader and the Members of the front bench to go and learn about the state of the economy in Sweden. Just for the record, of the 10 days spent in the Nordic countries, seven of the 10 were spent in Sweden. I thought the Minister would have had a fair idea of the economy of Sweden when he was going about his junket.

In the report it states that 65 ...

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

Mr. Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the report it states that 65 percent of the people work for the government. That is a concern I want to get to. In view of the obvious results of such a policy, can the Government Leader assure the people of the Yukon that it is not his intention to follow the example of Sweden and enlarge the size of the civil service to the extent it is in Sweden, especially in view of the increase in the civil service over the course of the last five years?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Now the Member opposite is really revealing his lack of knowledge.

Let me first deal with his preamble. There is a well-documented major economic crisis in the Soviet Union right now, but Yukon’s leading Conservative, Rolf Hougen, was recently advocating investing in that country, so it is interesting, the tortuous logic of the Member opposite.

The fact of the matter is that if the Member had even read the report - I am sorry the Member for Porter Creek West is having genetic mutterings about Sweden. Perhaps his racial memory is being aired. The Russian economy is in crisis, and Mr. Hougen wants to invest in it. A whole bunch of Yukoners have gone to visit there, and perhaps they should not have, according to the Members opposite.

On the question of the civil service in Scandinavia, it is very interesting the Member should make that point. It is very interesting, because the national government departments in those countries are a tiny fraction of the size of Canadian government departments - even smaller than most provincial government departments. It is an interesting model, and perhaps we should look at it. In Sweden, Norway and Finland, many...

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

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Thank you. Many administrative functions are devolved to the local governments: administration of economic programs, health, social services, education and everything. If the Members are opposed to that idea just because it comes from Scandinavia, we will have to think twice about that.

Mr. Lang: I do not know how Russia got into this particular debate. I would harken back and remind the Government Leader that the title of his book, that the taxpayers paid $43,000 for, is entitled Lessons From the Nordic Countries.

I am here to ask if we have learned a lesson from, in particular, Sweden. My concern is that the Minister tabled this report to the Council on the Economy and the Environment this last fall as if it was the gospel. Obviously, it is lacking in many respects about the true picture of what is happening in Sweden and the implications of government policies in that country. Would the Minister undertake to have a third party review this particular report and also then provide a true picture of what is happening in that country, so that the Council on the Economy and the Environment can review the implications of the government’s policies in total, as opposed to only what the Minister and his entourage want the people of the territory to hear, and as opposed to what the true picture is.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: What a wonderful argument of convenience and what a wonderful suggestion to waste money. This is the ultimate waste: we hire someone to write a report on a report. I am sure the taxpayers will be wonderfully charmed by that.

Some Hon. Members: (inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I recall, just a few weeks ago, when we were debating a motion in this House on circumpolar relations - I think it was an unanimous motion, was it not, Mr. Speaker? I do not think anybody spoke against it, and in fact, the Leader of the Opposition actually stood in his place and expressed regret that he and the people on his side had not been along on the trip. Even though most of the private sector members were from his constituency, he expressed regret that he had not been along and had not been part of the trip and would we think of him in the future. It is a wonderful argument of convenience.

Now we have had a news report about a problem in Sweden so we had today’s Question Period about that. I yearn for the opportunity to entertain questions this week about other European economies and perhaps the Japanese economy, perhaps the American economy. It would be quite bizarre in the parliamentary context, according to our rules, but I welcome the opportunity since clearly the Members have run out of important questions concerning the Yukon.

Question re: Swedish economy

Mr. Lang: Is the Government Leader standing up in his place and telling the people of the territory that the $43,000 he spent on learning lessons from Nordic countries is irrelevant and does not warrant questions from this side of the House? Obviously the report tabled in this House is false and does not show the entire, true picture? Is the Government Leader standing in his place making fun of the Yukon taxpayer as he sits and wines and dines in every hotel in Sweden?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No, I am not making fun of the Yukon taxpayer. I am making fun of the Member for Porter Creek East, who is being very silly.

The report describes many innovations in Scandinavia, not just Sweden, but Norway, Finland and Sweden. It talks about innovations in winter tourism. It talks about the use of local foods, not only as import substitutions but also as a tourism device. It talks about the use of waste disposal technology. It talks about energy-efficient projects. It talks about appropriate technology. It talks about regional development. It talks about training and education: many useful lessons to learn. Also, we saw things that would not be models for things to do here; those are indicated in the report as well.

Question re: Na Dli Youth Centre

Mr. Nordling: I would like to take a huge leap back from Sweden to something that is of concern to us here in the territory and I would like to ask my question to the Minister of Government Services with respect to the young offenders facility.

On January 30 and February 6, I asked the Minister for a breakdown on the total cost of repairs and improvements to the security of the facility. Both times the Minister took the question as notice. Does he now have a final accounting?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The final accounting is being prepared and will be provided to the Minister of Health and Human Resources when it is, and then provided to the Member.

Mr. Nordling: Thank you. I will ask about it again next week. My supplementary is to the Minister of Health and Human Resources. On February 6, the Minister was going to recheck the facts to confirm that two occupational health and safety investigations or reviews were done at the young offenders facility and both times the facility was given a clean bill of health. Has the Minister done that check?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have seen one of the reports but not the others. I believe that I can confirm the original information. The discussions that have been continuing with the employees will always, of course, be directed toward improving their health and safety, and that remains a concern.

Mr. Nordling: To the Minister of Health and Human Resources again: last week, the Minister also said he would look at Hector MacKenzie’s report on wilderness programming for young offenders in the context of having it tabled. Has the Minister done that, and will he table the document?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I regret that I have not yet had an opportunity to read that report. I hope I will have time in the next few days.

Question re: Mount Hundere/housing shortage in Watson Lake

Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Yukon Housing. As the Mount Hundere project gets closer to production, many of my constituents have expressed concerns on the availability of housing in Watson Lake. The developers are understandably reluctant to start building projects if Yukon Housing is planning to build more houses. Could the Minister tell me if Yukon Housing is planning to build or buy any more units in response to the anticipated demand that will be created by Mount Hundere?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I believe, as I have indicated to the Member in the past, Yukon Housing is currently engaged in assessing the housing requirements that may emanate as a result of the Mount Hundere project. I have indicated also to the Member that Yukon Housing officials and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have recently been to the community to assess that situation. We are, at the same time, assessing our land availability needs and that is being provided to the proponents interested in the project and, at the same time, is being provided through our committee approach to the development.

Mr. Devries: Has Yukon Housing been approached by anyone on a joint-venture project that would be related to the Mount Hundere project?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I cannot say definitely on my feet today, but certainly speaking from my point of view and understanding, there have been enquiries regarding housing developments for Watson Lake by individuals who were interested, who had been directed to Yukon Housing to discuss the details further. I can undertake to provide to the Member more properly whether there are any specific joint ventures under contemplation.

Mr. Devries: Has the Minister formed an overall consultation group to assess the impact and needed infrastructure to support the Mount Hundere mining venture? Originally, I believe, I had written a letter to Mr. McDonald concerning this.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The government has undertaken to address the Mount Hundere project through a one-window approach. I believe I have indicated that to the Member in the past. The Department of Economic Development is providing the lead agency role in this area; affected branches and departments of government speak to that one-window approach and sit on an appropriate committee for matters that affect their various branches. So, Yukon Housing, lands branch, et cetera deal with Economic Development, who are providing the one-window approach in addressing the Mount Hundere development project.

Question re: Health services transfer

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Human Resources with respect to the health services transfer. Two weeks ago I asked the Minister questions about the hiring of the chief executive officer for Whitehorse General Hospital. The Minister said a national firm was retained to search out suitable candidates. He said he would be happy to return to the House with precise information as to the cost of that process. I would like to know the name of the national firm retained, and what the projected costs are for this unusual method of recruitment.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If I remember correctly, the cost was $17,000. I have asked for a legislative return to be prepared, and I think I can file that tomorrow. The firm was a national consulting firm. I think the name of the company is Stevenson, Kellogg, Ernst & Whinney, but I will confirm those facts in a legislative return tomorrow.

Mr. Nordling: At first glance, $17,000 sounds like quite a bit of money. Can the Minister tell us what facilities and expertise are lacking in the Public Service Commission and the Department of Health and Human Resources that would prevent them from undertaking such a recruitment?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I explained before why we were looking for a person in anticipation of us taking responsibility for the hospital system. Technically, the position we would be staffing is in the federal government at this moment, so we had some negotiations with them. The normal recruitment processes of this government are fairly passive in the sense that we put an ad in the Globe and Mail and national competitions to see who applies and then interview those persons. The advice we received was that this was not likely to produce a satisfactory result in this case, and that we would actually have to go and hire a firm to try and recruit people who were already in jobs and might not be looking for positions: people with a rare combination of skills we would need for this project.

Mr. Nordling: From where was the advice that this was the way to go received?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It was probably obtained from talking to health care professionals, both in the federal government and elsewhere. As I have indicated before in the House, this is a general problem in this country of trying to recruit certain kinds of skills. I might note in passing that Mr. Fingland had a meeting some months ago with representatives of the British Columbia government, who tell us they have not recruited anybody in a senior position in the last few years except by way of the head-hunting process. They have completely abandoned the passive recruitment method as a satisfactory way of trying to recruit talented and able people.

Question re: Wood bison

Mr. Brewster: Has the Department of Renewable Resources provided the Minister with any information regarding the possibility the so-called wood buffalo herd is not a valid subspecies?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I am sorry. I did not catch the herd the Member cited. Did he say the Wood Buffalo National Park herd?

No, the department has not given me any information on that matter.

Mr. Brewster: Is the Minister aware there may be a controversy in academic circles as to whether the wood buffalo is or is not a valid subspecies?

Hon. Mr. Webster: No, I am not aware of any controversy by academics on the subject.

Mr. Brewster: Would the Minister investigate this and see if this is so before the next buffalo transplant, and table the results of any documents he finds before the buffalo are transplanted in this area?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Before I make a commitment to give this undertaking, I would like some more information from the Member opposite as to the relevancy of our situation here in the Yukon.

Question re: Wood bison

Mr. Lang: I would like to carry on with this particular topic. The reason for bringing these buffalo in was because they were that species. The information we are receiving is that there is now some question whether or not that is true. I am surprised the Minister is not aware that, in some very respected circles, there is a debate presently underway on whether or not there is actually a woodland buffalo.

In view of this obvious difference of opinion among very learned people, would the Minister check into this? Prior to bringing in more buffalo, would he find out whether or not the species we are bringing in is actually endangered?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Is the Member suggesting that the genetic quality of the strain of bison from Elk Island Park is in question as well?

Mr. Lang: The decision to bring buffalo into the Yukon was taken because they were seen to be endangered. My understanding was that was done in order to have five herds in Canada so they could be taken off the endangered list. Information has been provided to us that these animals may not be endangered. There is debate presently ensuing between people very knowledgeable on the subject, notable biologists and people who have studied these animals for years.

I would like the Minister to check on the validity of the debate prior to bringing any more animals into the territory.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Member for adding more information to the situation. I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Lang: Can we take this as an undertaking and that the Minister will report his findings to the House prior to making a decision to bring more animals into the territory?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, but I am not making any commitment as to when that will be. I do not know how extensive the research will be. I do not know how much work has been done on this issue in the past, or how many experts were involved in this whole debate. We will look into it.

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 request unanimous consent to proceed directly to Motions Other Than Government Motions rather than calling Motions for the Production of Papers and for the motions to be called in the following order: Motion 47, Item No. 1; Motion 76, Item No. 11; Motion 71, Item No. 9; and, Motion 69, Item No. 7.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent is granted.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 47 - adjourned debate

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Ms. Kassi, amendment moved by Mrs. Firth, as amended by subamendment of the Hon. Mr. McDonald, debate adjourned, Mr. Nordling.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the problem of excessive alcohol consumption in Yukon communities is serious;

THAT alcohol not only destroys individuals, it is also a threat to the survival of these communities;

THAT the Government of the Yukon through the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Resources should investigate ways for communities to enact provisions for the prohibition of alcohol within their communities, if they so wish.

Amendment to the amendment is as follows:

THAT Motion No. 47 be amended by deleting the third paragraph and substituting for it the following:

THAT the Government of Yukon through the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Resources should:

(1) continue evaluating existing programs;

(2) recommend alternatives for dealing with this important problem; and

(3) identify ways for communities in crisis, where there is clear consensus, to enact provisions for the prohibition of alcohol within their boundaries.

Mr. Nordling: The debate on this motion began on December 13, 1989, over two months ago, and continued two weeks ago. Two weeks ago I expressed a concern that the Members of the Legislature were being asked to support this motion based on a lot of “ifs”, without concrete evidence of need.

The Minister of Health and Human Resources, who is also the Government Leader and has been for almost five years, talked a lot about the cost to health services of alcohol abuse. He said that we have huge expenditures resulting from the sale of alcohol, not just the direct expenditures in the health budget. He went on to say that the cost of absenteeism, the cost of car accidents, the cost of the justice system, and the cost of the social services budget was largely attributable to the problem with alcoholism in the territory.

As justification for this motion, and in asking the Members to support it, he then began with a long string of “ifs”. He said, “if alcohol abuse has reached such crisis proportions, and a community is crying out for help, crying out for someone to do something, demanding a radical measure, who am I or who are we in this Legislature to say that this community that is crying out for this ban should not have its wishes respected?”

I hope that today we hear evidence that that is happening and that it is necessary. The Minister responsible for Health also said, “If we had fetal alcohol syndrome cases in large numbers, if there is family violence where people are not just being hurt, abused, cut and shot, but dying, if the community is dying of alcohol, if the community is suffering to the sense that the people are drinking themselves to death, families are falling apart, homes are being broken, the economy and the social structure of the community is in chaos, who would we be to say no, you cannot have what they need, what they desperately want, which is a ban on the sale of alcohol in your community?”

Again, if those things were happening, I could understand why this motion was being brought forward today. The Minister responsible for Health went on in dramatic fashion and described the horrors of alcohol abuse, talking about “when the abuse in a small community reaches crisis proportions, when the number of violent death rises dramatically, when the number of fetal alcohol syndrome starts to climb, when people, family members are caught up in the justice system as a result of alcohol related offenCes, when family members are being beaten, abused, physically violated during violent incidents, drinking parties or as a result of alcohol abuse, when families are falling apart, when homes are being broken and kids are coming into care in such numbers that the community is crying out for help, then the community is saying to us, for God’s sake, stop, enough”.

When the Minister tells us that is happening in a community, that a community is saying for God’s sake, stop, enough, then I will agree with the Government Leader, the Minister of Health and Human Resources that we should not turn a deaf ear. We should not say no, never. We should listen to such a plea.

The problem that I have is that no one on the government side, including the Member for Old Crow, has said that that scenario exists anywhere in the territory. The Member for Old Crow spoke in glowing terms of the progress in her community in combating alcoholism. The Minister of Health and Human Resources spoke about the evaluation of programs that was going on in his department to check on the effectiveness of those programs and that we would soon have a report.

Now he is saying that we need this step, that we should bring in legislation that would allow prohibition, which is not consistent with what has been said. It is not fair to Members of the Legislative Assembly to be asked to approve this motion with no evidence or detail of need, except speculation. We do not know what that speculation is based on.

I have travelled throughout the territory, and I did not see a trend toward the awful scenario outlined by the Minister of Health and Human Resources. I know that many other Members want to speak on this topic, and I am going to take my seat and listen carefully to the government’s side for concrete evidence of the need for this - what I would term - drastic measure to be taken at this time. I will be looking for some evidence from the government side that this step will solve the alcohol problem to a greater extent than is being done now with the hundreds of people and the millions of dollars being spent by the government of the territory.

Amendment to Motion No. 47 agreed to as amended

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the main motion, as amended?

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

Mr. Devries: I worry about the approach of prohibition. To me, it is a temporary fix method for a problem that will still be there. The abusive drinker’s problem will not be addressed. The drinking problem within his own mind will still be there and when this person leaves the community for a trip, or whatever, the urge will still be with him, and the will as to whether to drink or not drink will not have been addressed. Having this motion before us is a sign that our social programs up to this point have failed. Our social programs may have been too oriented to a temporary fix approach. There has no doubt been a lack of rural community input; there is no doubt that our situation here in the north is possibly unique and we have to develop our own policies to meet the needs of each individual community independent of each other. We have heard the recent cry of the social health workers as they formed their own rural association as a protest against the government’s arrogant, nonconsultative approach toward rural social services. We have yet to hear from the communities involved and have not given this new rural association a chance to follow up on their ideas. We hear promises of assessment and evaluation of existing programs, but the wheel of bureaucracy grinds away slowly as alcoholism, family violence and drug abuse eat away at the heart of the community and the traditional family.

When my colleague and I travelled around the Yukon, there was a picture of people fighting to get control of their lives, but not all were succeeding. There are people who are becoming more and more aware of their plight and of what is in store for them if they continue down the road of self-destruction. Many of the stories were much like Pilgrim’s Progress and often the load became too heavy to bear. But there was hope as some reached out for helping hands and often it was the hand of God or the help of friends that helped them get out of the situation. Everyone said it was they themself who had to make the decision to better themself. These decisions were often made in consultation with various caregivers, whether it be from church, government or native bands.

The government also has to address the problem of co-dependency among workers in the field. Many are doing a marvellous job but there are still those who have a co-dependency problem with alcohol and, without realizing it, become a problem rather than an asset. It is up to the various groups to ensure that we have open-minded, truly healed, reformed workers in the field.

Also, as we look at our communities, it does not take long to realize that there are many more deep, unresolved, deep-rooted problems out there. One that really came to light recently I got from a book called The Grieving Indian by Arthur H. As I read the book I got a better understanding of some of the deep-rooted hurts that our native brothers and sisters are burdened with, which in turn create much of the concern that we are dealing with today. He points out the lack of tolerance among the native peoples. He points out how 80 to 90 percent of the people in our prison system are from broken homes and many are uncertain whom their parents really are, which in turn leads them to believe that no one really cares whether they are alive or dead. They often end up in prison by getting caught up in attention-getting misdemeanors: children begging for someone to reach out and give them the love they so richly deserve.

He speaks of the unresolved grief brought on by what I just mentioned and also the high rate of violent deaths, whether it be from suicide, drunk driving, drunken brawls or whatever. I urge everyone here to read this book to help to get a better understanding of the spiritual and psychological struggles that the aboriginal people are facing today.

In closing, another area Arthur H speaks of is the passive will that has been developed by their governments, people who have lost the ability to make decisions because everything is always taken care of for them. Before a person can be cured of alcoholism they must get rid of this passive will. No longer is your wife or kid going to make excuses for you. No longer is the meal going to pop up from nowhere. Prohibition is not going to cure these ills; they can only be cured from within, with help from God, from their families, care givers and government.

The last time I spoke, I mentioned that Lower Post had become a dry community. They are in that process; they have not done this as yet. They are also listening to our debates on this subject very carefully. My understanding is that they have spoken to the B.C. government and they are talking with some judges on whether they can legally do it. I do not know for sure where it stands at this point.

Mr. Brewster: This is one of the motions that comes into this House that is very emotional, but has repercussions much, much greater than most people think. Firstly, I think I do not have to point out that alcoholism has been with us from the time human beings were on this earth and alcoholism will be with us for as long as this world survives; it is just one of those things. You can pass all the rules and all the laws you want, but unless you are going to fence people in, you are not going to prevent this. I was told one time by a corporal in the RCMP that you can pass all the laws you want in this world but if people do not accept them, they do not accept them. I hope that when I am through you will understand what I am talking about.

There is no question that alcohol is a very, very great problem. I have to disagree to some extent with the Member for Old Crow; it is not just a problem for native people; it is a problem for every person and everybody in Canada. They also state that women and children are abused. I agree with this but I can also tell you of cases where men have been badly, badly abused by it.

You can - and the government has been doing it for years - train all the people in the world to consult with people but unfortunately, although there is a great number of sincere ones, most of them work from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. That does not help alcoholic people; it does not help the average person. They need help when they call for it, whether it is 3:00 a.m.,  whether it is 4:00, or whenever it is.

It is a 24-hour job, and it is very hard to get people dedicated enough to work 24 hours a day. They cannot do it, because they would play out.

I recall going to a doctor one time. We had just put another person into a dry-out tank, and I went to a doctor to find out why these people would continually go back to the dry-out tank. I guarantee anybody who has gone through the experience of a dry-out tank has a very severe disease, or they would not be going into that hell again.

The doctor’s reply to me was very blunt. “We do not have time for drunks.” That was a statement made by a medical professional right in this town.

I would hasten to say, however, there are other doctors who spend 24 hours a day working on the same situation. My answer to him was very clear. In my blunt way, I made it very clear. Of course he did not have time for them, because this did not fit into the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. system. It is something you have to stay with all the time. It is a dirty disease, and a disease that hurts people. It is a disease that wrecks families, and it does not fit into a doctor’s schedule, so they do not want to touch it.

The other important thing is they do not understand it. They spend millions of dollars studying cancer, heart disease and everything, but they cannot and have never, in the history of this world, been able to control alcoholism.

We have to change the whole society. We have to change people like that medical doctor. We have to change governments that think all they have to do is hand out a bunch of money and say, “Go to it and straighten these people out.” They wipe their hands and go the other way and hide. We are not gaining anything from this.

When I came up here as a young boy, there were thousands of soldiers here. I can name people who are here today who started their business with the alcohol they sold to those soldiers at $75 to $100 a bottle. I have been to camps where I have seen the soldiers eating shoe polish and drinking lemon extract if they were not getting alcohol. In many camps, it was forbidden to have lemon extract around, because it would have been drunk. I saw wood alcohol being consumed in the army. They would sniff anything they could to try and solve their craving for alcohol.

It is something we are not going to control by legislation. There is no way. We have to turn around and change the thoughts of society, of government, and of all the people who have to live in this world.

Most people say when you criticize, you should have an answer. I do not have an answer. However, in my years in the Yukon, I have observed a small religion. It is not one of the main religions, and it seems to be the answer for a lot of people. I have had guys out with me who I did not think would be alive in three years, and this is 10 or 15 years ago. They joined these churches, and they are still alive today and living a happy life.

This type of church has never asked for money from government, that I know of. They have never asked for money from the taxpayers. They have done it on their own. Yet, they spend millions of dollars, instead of saying, “Let us get it out of the bureaucratic system. Let us see what these people are doing. Maybe we can help them a little bit, and maybe we will go on.”

I can name people, although I am not going to, who I thought would not be alive in five years, and that was 20 years ago. They are alive now because they believe very solidly in what this church does. Unfortunately, it does not work for everybody. I have known others who continued to drink until they either had an accident, or drowned, or something else happened to them.

We used to have a real problem getting the guides I have had out to work. Once they joined this church, within two to three years, you would never know these people. They are completely changed individuals. They are happy-go-lucky, they smile, they are in better health than they were.

Often, we talk about the reservation at Alkali Lake. I have phoned and checked on a little of this. This is a great movement there, but it was not made by governments putting prohibition in. This was not made by anybody but the people there who made up their minds they were going to do something.

They did it. I talked to them for a long time. The one thing they said was that prohibition might have helped a little, but they were not too sure because it would have been forced on people, and you cannot force a change like that on people.

I have done a little checking on some of this. I would like to point out a few things on places that have prohibition. These are not my words; they are words they give us. In Rae Edzo in the Northwest Territories, it is not working. The population is 1,600. There are approximately 67 bootleggers for 1,600 people. In the words of the manager, it is not working worth a damn.

In Angoon, Alaska, the chief of police says the dry community is not working. Education at school level is probably the only way to combat this situation.

Probably none of you have ever read this. It is seven pages of an article from the Anchorage Daily News. They have won prizes all over the world for what they have written. I will give one example. It is called the “Booze Line” and shows what happens. This is in areas where it is supposed to be dry, and where there is not supposed to be any liquor. This is how it starts out.

“First Move: A bootlegger goes to the Alascom office in Bethel to wire money, a transaction that takes about five minutes. The wire is sent by satellite to Alascom in Anchorage. A typical order might be for a case of whiskey in light weight 750 mm plastic bottles. Cost of telegram $4.20.

“Second Move: The wired money is received in the Alascom, Anchorage office where it is turned into a cheque.

“Third Move: A liquor retailer picks up the cheque and verifies the order has been received, processes the order and delivers it to an airline for shipment. Typical cost of a case of whiskey is $86.00.

“Fourth Move: Liquor is flown to Bethel at a cost of $36.75. Order is picked up at the airport by a bootlegger or runner, if ordered under a runner’s name. Up to this point, everything is very legal. Total cost now is $126.95.

“Fifth Move: The bootlegger sells the liquor in Bethel. A bottle typically sells for $30 to $40. The profit is $230 to $350 dollars per case.

“Sixth Move: Some bootleggers will take the liquor to dry bush camps, many of which ban both import and sale, or sell it to someone else who will do so. A few villages may even ban possession. Bootleggers command as much as $100 per 750 mm bottle. If the bootlegger obtains the whiskey by the method outlined here, a single case can yield $1,000.”

That is the same type of business that was going on here when I came up as a young boy. People made money from it. As long as people can make money like that, you are not going to control by prohibition. What you do is turn around and get a lot of people into trouble. The police are unable to handle what is going on, because this is going to be sneaked in regardless of what happens.

I can remember when there was an interdict list here. This is a list where, if you drank too much, you went in front of a judge. He would turn around and put you on this list. If you are from Dawson City, then you cannot drink in Dawson City. You are not supposed to drink in the Yukon, but you come down to visit Haines Junction. How is the bar in Haines Junction supposed to know this person is from Dawson City? They are now in trouble with the police. It is a vicious circle that goes around and around. I do not think there is any way at all that prohibition is going to work. If I thought it would, rest assured, I would vote for this motion, but it just does not work.

When I was in the Canadian army, I was in the regimental police. There were barracks with a six-foot fence around us. Night after night, there were booze parties when no booze was allowed in the army camps. We spent all our time running around trying to catch these guys climbing over fences. The military police were there, and it did not stop them. This is something that we have to make up our minds ourselves, the villages have to make up their mind themselves and, until this is done, prohibition is not going to work.

I also know what the Northwest Territories do. Communities cannot simply decide on their own to create or change laws governing the use of liquor. They must take certain legal steps. They must send a petition to the Minister of Justice and Public Service asking to be allowed to have a plebiscite or a vote. I did not see any such motion in here, if we were following this, which are not our rules. There has to be 60 percent of the people voting in favour of it.

Then there are three choices. Even there, they are not sure that it works. One choice is no restriction. One is a prohibition system. The other is a controlled system. Some of these choices seem to be working. When $1000 per case can be received for liquor, there will not be very many places where prohibition will work. This is ridiculous unless we put a fence around them with armed guards.

It bothered me when, in Alaska, airplanes searched the area and people’s private mail was being searched. I wonder what the officials of the Post Office in Canada would think if this was started. Where is a person’s freedom? Someone’s parcel may look like a bottle and be opened up. That person may not even drink.

I agree that we have a great problem. Until we change society, until we change the way people think, we are not going to stop drinking by legislation. We cannot fence people off in one area and keep them from drinking. They are going to get the liquor regardless of what happens.

Hon. Mr. Webster: All of us have friends and acquaintances whose lives have been blighted by alcoholism and the social problems that go hand in hand with that disease. Studies tell us that the incidence of alcoholism in any community is directly related to the availability of alcohol in that community. It is socially acceptable to consume or even abuse alcohol, and if alcohol is available, more people will indeed fall prey to alcoholism.

The Yukon, which has the highest per capita rate of alcohol consumption in the country, where the consumption of alcohol is taken for granted, where it is for the most part readily available, is a fertile breeding ground for alcoholics.

The variety of alcohol-related problems varies from community to community in the territory. I can well understand that some communities, particularly the isolated ones where a crisis situation exits, may want to have access to strong measures to deal with alcohol abuse.

One of the implicit goals of my government is to put decision-making power into the hands of the people who are most affected by the decisions being made. In regard to the management of alcohol, that philosophy was most recently reflected in amendments to the Liquor Act, which were made in 1988. Those amendments extended to Indian bands: the ability to ban public drinking on band lands, a power similar to that that had earlier been granted, to hamlets and municipalities.

Judicial measures, which the Member has asked the government to consider in the motion before us this afternoon, are certainly worthy of consideration. I am prepared to support the Member’s motion. Provisions for the prohibition of alcohol in designated communities do exist in other jurisdictions. In general, some sort of legislation is required to give authority to the conduct of a plebiscite on the use or consumption of alcohol within a particular geographic region.

In the Northwest Territories, for example, an entire section of its liquor act deals with provisions for managing the availability or consumption of alcohol in the communities. There, a plebiscite must be held and 60 percent of the voters must give approval before the liquor board can grant a liquor license within a community, although some kinds of licences, primarily for non-profit-type organizations, are exempt from this requirement. In areas where some types of liquor licences already exist, plebiscites may be held to determine if the consumption, possession, purchase, sale or transportation of liquor ought to be restricted or prohibited. A plebiscite may be ordered by the responsible Minister when application is made by a petition signed by at least 20 qualified voters in the community in question.

The actual systems or mechanisms for controlling the availability of alcohol in a community are many. Some are similar to the current provisions of our act, which, with the exception of community-decided questions - such as public drinking - essentially makes all liquor outlets subject to the general provisions of the territorial Liquor Act.

In the Northwest Territories, plebiscites may seek to restrict the hours of operation of, or sales at, licensed premises, something our Yukon Liquor Board has the power to do at the present time through our licensing provisions.

Another system available through plebiscite in the Northwest Territories is restriction on the quantity of liquor that a person may purchase.

In addition to these measures, Northwest Territories communities may also decide by plebiscite to adopt a much more comprehensive method of management through the formation of a locally elected alcohol education committee. Under Northwest Territories legislation, this committee can be empowered to decide who may consume, possess, purchase or transport liquor in the settlement, who may import liquor into the settlement, the amount of liquor a person may possess, purchase, transport or import in the settlement, and who may apply for a permit in the settlement in order to make homemade wine or beer. The committee may also decide to effect outright prohibition. It may ban outright consumption, possession, purchase, sale or transportation of liquor within the settlement.

However, I should say that plebiscites are not allowable - as I understand the Northwest Territories Liquor Act - where a cabaret licence for the sale or consumption of beer, a cocktail lounge licence or a diningroom licence have already been issued. Incidentally, where a plebiscite is held, a 60 percent majority vote in favour must be achieved before its revisions can be implemented.

When this does happen and a settlement has been declared a restricted or prohibited area, regulations under the Liquor Act must be drafted and passed by Cabinet before the provisions of the plebiscites have legal effect.

My point in outlining the provisions for prohibition in the Northwest Territories is to indicate that it has not proven to be a simple matter. It may be possible to explore other options for the Yukon, such as some development of the current provisions of our Liquor Act, that provide for the banning of public drinking by resolution of a ban or town council. My own view is that prohibition is a matter of such seriousness that all members of the community should have an opportunity to be heard. We have already heard the preceding debates, and some good points have been put forward. Some people believe the introduction of prohibition contradicts the principles of the Charter of Human Rights, while others are of the opinion that prohibition has never worked and never will.

In the meantime, the Government of the Yukon, in cooperation with other agencies, will continue with rehabilitation and education programs. As well, I am confident that the Yukon Liquor Board will continue to consult and cooperate with communities to achieve the best and most responsible management of alcohol in Yukon communities possible under the present provisions of the Liquor Act.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I rise in support of this motion before us today. I have mentioned before that there is much evidence in our jails that the inmates are largely there as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. As mentioned in this House, it has been very devastating to many of our communities, including Whitehorse. It is also very evident in some of our other institutions, such as the young offenders facility, the group homes, some of our alcohol treatment homes, and many others.

We have discussed the problems we have with regard to family violence, child abuse and the breakdown of family. A number of those cases are a result of alcohol abuse. Every sector of our society is faced with these problems, and we are all aware of the very serious problems in our communities. It has been stated time and time again that there are a number of problems in regard to suicide, crime, and to many other things.

Under the family violence prevention unit, the Department of Justice is working actively to deal with many of the problems that are a result of alcohol-related incidents, and they continue to improve on the programs they already have. This government has also recognized the need for communities to be involved in their own problem-solving and, in particular, to work toward eliminating the devastation of alcohol.

We have all talked about how the communities have to be involved and how the communities have to work toward something like that, as many communities are. We have to continue to work toward solving the whole issue of alcohol abuse in the communities, and we need to work together toward this problem.

I am encouraged by the work communities are already doing in trying to face their problems in combatting alcohol problems. We all recognize the efforts many communities are making, but we need to provide more support and investigate more solutions to the needs of the communities. We need to encourage and support more healthy lifestyles and work toward changing the conditions that lead to alcohol and drug abuse. We need to encourage and support the young people who are concerned and want to make changes.

Right now, I would like to mention the work the young people were involved in last year in their substance-free grad at F.H. Collins, the work that was built up and how successful it was. At that time, it was proven there was a very big need to provide some other alternative to celebrating graduation by drinking. I think all of us have to encourage those kinds of initiatives and let our young people know that they can make a difference in the communities, together with all those other individuals who are involved in trying to help with the problem.

We know there is the will and the commitment by many groups in the communities to work toward battling the serious drug and alcohol problems in the Yukon. Some of our communities are developing their own solutions and are looking at other areas for guidance. The Member for Watson Lake has mentioned the Lower Post Band as a substance-free community, and I commend that.

We are all aware of Alkali Lake and their program down there, how they were able to deal with their alcohol and drug abuse, and how successful it has been. If it is the will of these communities to use prohibition as a means to control their alcohol problems, then we need to respect their decision and work toward a means of providing ways to develop this concept.

We have talked about the decision having to be on a consensus basis. There has already been discussion about who forms the consensus, what that really means and how many people are involved. It has been mentioned that every single person in that community should have a voice in any kind of a decision that has to be made in regard to prohibition, so we can all clearly understand exactly what it is they want. I suspect things would have to be in such a condition that it would become a crisis before that kind of a decision was made.

I do have the will and the commitment to work toward supporting the communities in any kind of manner they have in developing initiatives that will provide for a means of combatting alcohol abuse. It is our responsibility to meet those needs, and I am prepared to work toward that. It is my hope that, because of the knowledge they have and the work that they have done in many areas, the communities will work toward solving many of their own problems. As a last result, this may not have to happen but, if it is the will of that community, then I support having something available for them to work through and with.

Mr. Phillips: Before I get into the text of my speech here today, I would like to make a couple of comments on what other Members have said before me. In particular, when the Government Leader spoke the last time we debated this motion, he stressed several times - in fact, he was quite dramatic - and almost insinuated that all Members of this House were denying the people of Old Crow a right to better their lives. I think that was a bit excessive on his part, and the feeling I have has been backed up here today by comments just made by the Minister of Justice.

It was interesting to note that the Minister of Justice just told us things would have to come to such a condition where we would have a crisis, and people should have the option for prohibition when we reach this crisis. Two weeks ago, when the Government Leader spoke, he told us we have a community crying out in crisis, or a community in crisis crying out. I think the two Members should get together and decide which Minister is accurate: whether we have a community crying out or whether we should have a law in case a community cries out.

The Members opposite have to get together on this issue. The Justice Minister also used the dry grad as a good example of what people can do, and I agree with the Minister of Justice. That is a perfect example, and that is what we are talking about. There has to be a will within the community. There has to be a will like there was with the grads to have a dry grad. Prohibition would not have prevented people having liquor at a grad party. It was the grads themselves who prevented liquor being at that grad party, and they should be commended for that.

The Minister also used Alkali Lake as an example. That is another example that would run contrary to her arguments. Alkali Lake is another example of a community wanting to be dry. It did not have to have a law passed that said, “You will be dry.” People in the community decided it would be dry.

This last week, I have had a couple of phone calls from people in Old Crow about this very motion. The calls I received were in opposition to prohibition of alcohol in Old Crow. These people were wondering why they had to be punished for problems that were created by others. These people understood the problems, and they understood that Old Crow had fairly severe problems. They felt the problems should be dealt with by the community, not by the government passing a law that says there will be no more alcohol in that community.

In 1986, the band manager from Old Crow, Howard Linklater, stated, and I quote, “Prohibition is not the issue here. It is control,” Linklater added. He pointed out that twice in the past prohibition had been tried and had failed in Old Crow.

Prohibition was tried twice in Old Crow and it failed. It failed because of the will of the people. At that time, there was not the will for it to work. There has to be some kind of message from the people of Old Crow. The community has to be united, and that is the way it will work.

We have had many speakers rise in this House and talk about this problem, but we have not had one Member of this House stand up from either side and show us a petition, a letter, a request, or any documentation that the people from Old Crow, other than the Member for Old Crow, are asking for this motion to be put forward.

I understand the Member’s concerns, but simply passing a law is not the way to solve the problem. I sympathize with the Member for Old Crow, but I do not believe prohibition is the simple answer to alcohol abuse problems. To me, it is more like an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach. Unless the community is totally isolated from outside access, it will not work. Every Member of this House recognizes that alcohol and substance abuse are major problems in the Yukon. It destroys individuals; it causes family violence and child abuse. It is one of the major contributing factors to the high rate of suicide in the Yukon, and it creates major problems in Yukon’s justice system and in Yukon communities.

Instituting prohibition is admitting that our existing programs are not working. It is a last resort, and it is one I do not believe we should consider, however worthy the intentions of this motion. Its direction is misguided.

Under the proposed amendment, the government should be directing its efforts toward evaluating existing programs and recommending alternatives for dealing with this serious problem, rather than spending its efforts examining means by which it can enable communities to prohibit alcohol.

I am not alone in this belief. I have received several letters in this regard. Some of those letters, which were from the Chamber of Commerce, the British Columbia/Yukon Hotel Association and other hotels, were actually made fun of by the Government Leader in his speech last week.

The B.C. Hotel Association has also forwarded a copy of a letter to me that was sent to the Government Leader. It makes some very valid points that I would like to reiterate for the benefit of Members. The letter points out that prohibition of the sale of beverage alcohol by licences has only given rise to increased bootlegging.

Another point that the letter makes, “Licensees have a vested interest to ensure that they meet the requirement of the Yukon Liquor Act. Bootleggers do not. Further, since the government is the largest distributor of alcohol, the onus is on it rather than on the communities to regulate alcohol consumption. The communities, moreover, do not have the resources that the Yukon government has at its disposal”.

I received another letter from the Yukon Hotel Association that says, “This motion contradicts the principles in the Charter of Rights and would undermine the objectives of the tourism industry, which is to offer full services to all tourists visiting the territory”. It goes on to say, “Many years ago, the Yukon had an interdict list, which prohibited certain individuals from consuming alcohol. It is a proven fact that denial does not stop individuals from obtaining what they want by any means at their disposal. With this in mind, problems such as bootlegging, speakeasies, et cetera, would again rear their ugly heads, and more problems of substance abuse would unfold”.

I lived here in the Yukon when that interdict list was in place, and so did you, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that many people who were on that list still obtained alcohol. They came in front of the court system charged with drinking alcohol while on the interdict list, time and time again. Did we solve the problem of those people who were put on that list? We did not solve it one little bit. All we tried to do was ban them from drinking alcohol rather than addressing their problem of alcoholism.

The industry is concerned that prohibition has not worked in the past and would have an effect upon the tourism industry as well as resulting in the loss of legitimate jobs in the hospitality industry.

Let us look at some examples of types of prohibition that have been tried in the past. The Yukon has had prohibition, and it lasted only one short year. It was plagued with many problems.

Again, I go back to what I mentioned the last time I rose in the House about the problem of public drinking in the streets of Whitehorse. I mention that again because it is worth mentioning. It is a type of prohibition. We had a problem where people were consuming alcohol on the downtown streets of Whitehorse. Instead of dealing with the people who had the problems, we banned it from Main Street.

The same people moved into Rotary Park and drank there. They created the same problems in Rotary Park that they had created on Main Street. Did we again go to Rotary Park to try to help solve the problems of the people who were carrying on these activities? No, we took the easy way out and banned drinking from Rotary Park. Then, I suppose we sat back and said that we had solved that problem.

Today there is no more talk of drinking on the streets of Whitehorse and drinking in Rotary Park. I can assure every single Member of this House that we did not solve one of the problems that those people have who were drinking on the streets in the first place. They were chased to the park, and now they are in the bush along the riverbank, drinking. Banning alcohol is not the solution.

I received another letter regarding this motion from the Yukon Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is concerned that the motion is evidence of a governmental intrusion into Yukoners’ lives, both on a personal and a business level. The Chamber advises caution. They would rather see government efforts dedicated toward educational efforts and awareness programs rather than to legislate action and prohibition measures.

The motion brought forward by the Member for Old Crow is well intended, but at the same time, it is probably more specific to her community. Even in the case of Old Crow it is not the only answer.

We seem to have the cart before the horse. We have a Government Leader telling us there is a community in crisis, and we have the Justice Minister telling us that in case there is a community in crisis we should have a law. Would it not be proper that the community of Old Crow tell us they want to prohibit alcohol and then approach the Yukon government with a petition, or letters, or band resolution that would ask us to allow them to do that kind of thing? Would it not be looked upon much more favorably in that regard? Some of the people of Old Crow have asked me whose crazy idea this is.

There has to be total community effort and support for prohibition to work. Prohibition or not, people will get a drink if they want one. We currently ban the use of cocaine and other drugs, but has that stopped the use of illicit drugs? It has just driven the price higher and the problem is still larger than ever, but now it is behind closed doors and a lot of us do not see it. Prohibition of alcohol will do the same thing; it will drive the problem underground. The Member for Old Crow knows full well the problem that exists in her community today, and prohibition is not the simple answer. Even now, if one wants to buy a bottle of whiskey in Old Crow, they may pay over $100 for a $25 bottle. Prohibition will drive that price up even higher, and the people we should be attempting to help with their drinking problem will have to pay that higher price, and will pay that higher price, unless we look at other alternatives to solving their problem.

We cannot be instituting prohibition by sweeping this problem under the rug, we must deal with the problem at its source and not spend all our efforts in dealing with the after effects. Has the Member for Old Crow considered the rights of other individuals in her community and in all communities of the territory?

What about the Yukoners who live in a community where prohibition is brought in where this individual may like a drink once in awhile, someone who does not have a problem with alcohol? Will they be exempt? Will they be allowed to bring liquor into the community? What types of problems will this cause? We have to remember these people have some basic rights as well.

History tells us the people we are trying to help will still get liquor into the community if they want it, whether or not we prohibit it. Is that fair to the average Yukoners in that community who will have to obey the new law? It will be the person who can control their drinking who will obey the law.

The wording in the motion states that the communities can have prohibition if they wish. I would have to ask who would decide this: the band, the town or city council? Who would monitor it? Who would pay for the policing of this new law? What would happen in Ross River, Carmacks or other small Yukon communities where this new law could apply? Would government compensate local business people who now depend on the revenue from liquor sales to keep their doors open year-round? Who would pay for this?

One of the principles of the tourism industry is to offer full service to all guests who visit Yukon. What effect would prohibition have on that?

Alcohol abuse is a very serious issue, and we must examine all means of solving the problem. Prohibition, in my view, has been tried before. Even in the most isolated places, it is not without problems. It has to have total community support to work. I do not believe it will work in easier-access areas. Prohibition, in my view, is an admittance that the millions of dollars we spend on dealing with this problem are not working. That is why we should be taking the approach that will examine and evaluate the existing programs.

Prohibition helps hide the problem, it does not provide the solution to the problem.

I cannot take the easy way out, as some Members in this House would like to, and just pass the buck to the communities. It is time to take a close look at where we are failing and not try to put this problem out of sight so as to feel that we have solved it.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: First of all, I want to say that it is important to remember that we are discussing a resolution here, not a law. The House is giving an opinion on a question rather than deciding the precise language of a law. The House, collectively, in the expression of its opinion is, of course, speaking for the whole community; all shades of opinion are being represented, and the policy makers will ultimately have to read the will of the House in proceeding to deal with this very difficult question.

Since I am speaking for the second time in this debate, I shall be brief, but I do want to say that, pleased as I am to have been quoted so extensively by the Members opposite, I am puzzled in that my speech, which I thought was reasonably clear, has been read in two entirely different and contradictory ways by two Members opposite. One Member, the Member for Porter Creek West, accused me of describing a hypothetical situation, a conditional circumstance; the Member for Riverdale South said that I was describing my own perception - distorted, no doubt he believes - of current reality.

I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding in this debate and probably a lot of misunderstanding about the use of words. The use of words like “prohibition” is very colourful and very emotional, because there has been the impression created by one or two speakers on the other side that the government Members wish to shut down all the hotels and bars in the territory, or that they have that in mind or some kind of hidden agenda to do that. That is a long long way from the truth.

Some other things have been said, and I say this with respect to the Member for Watson Lake, which could be very much misunderstood. The Member rose in his place earlier in this debate and alleged that the rural social workers were forming an association to protest the actions of their government department. Having met with those people only briefly before they formed their association, I want to tell him I received absolutely no information of that kind. I do not know who he is talking to - one can only assume who he is talking to in Watson Lake - but that, too, is a very distorted perception of reality from my point of view.

The Member for Watson Lake also made reference to the alcohol workers in the field being co-dependent. That is a troubling accusation because it was so blanket. The inference left by the Member was that, because people working in this field were not free of their own dependency, somehow they were inadequate to the task. I am troubled by that accusation against the people working in the field, especially because it must be admitted there are people who are professionals, who are public servants, who are employees, working in the field of alcohol and drug abuse who have had personal experience with the problem; but I submit that makes them sensitive to the problems and particularly well equipped to deal with some of the trials and tribulations that people who are caught up in such dependencies have to wrestle with. The suggestion that somehow these people are the wrong people or are inadequate to the task or, because they have had a dependency in the past or still have the psychological burden of it, they should not be working in the field or are the wrong people, is something to which I take exception and have a problem.

Likewise, I must say that the Member’s quotation from a book attributing to native people a lack of tolerance and ascribing to native people uncertainty about their own parentage is an awful kind of suggestion to make in this House because it is bound to be misunderstood by people. It seems to be an accusation or suggestion made about one group in society, which I must submit - and I want to say this in the kindest way - is totally inappropriate.

I want to make a comment about a number of the interventions of the Members who have spoken since I did. The Member for Kluane made a number of interesting points but one of his points was that the problem of alcoholism has always been with us, throughout history. I have done a little reading in this field, and I want him to know that that is an argument that is not accepted by everybody who has looked at the question. In fact, there are people who argue very seriously that the problem of alcoholism, as a serious problem in society, has not been with us in a big way and was not a major problem until the Industrial Revolution; and further, that the use of jails and the development of modern police forces, which are associated with alcohol and alcohol abuse, did not develop until the problem of the gin mills in industrial Britain, during the last century. It is not a problem that has been with us forever; it has been with us for a long time, but it is a mistake to think that it is somehow a problem of human nature, rather than a problem of society, which society can address.

There is certainly plenty of evidence, if you look at the Justice statistics in the Yukon or in Canada today, that many of the people who fall afoul of the law, much of the work of the police, an awful lot of the work of courts and probation officers and people who work for Corrections, is tied up with the consequences of alcohol and drug abuse, and that if we were successfully able to deal with that problem, some of those expenditures might be reduced dramatically.

I apologize, I am interrupting the Member for Porter Creek West, who is muttering something; he may want to take the floor later. I think there is evidence, which you can may a very convincing case about, that communities that have dealt with the problem of alcohol abuse and those that have dealt with it by the most radical step that they might be able to take, which is prohibition, have in many ways reduced the crime rate, reduced the number of criminal prosecutions, reduced the burden on the justice system, reduced the burden on their social service system and have improved the health of the communities - a point I made before.

In the Member for Porter Creek West’s speech, he often referred to my speech. He quoted extensively from my speech, and talked about my saying “if such a situation occurred”, and “when such a situation occurred”, and responded to my rhetorical question, “Who are we to deny a plea from a community to go dry?” I can only reiterate the question. We are not necessarily talking about any one community being in that situation today. We are talking about whether this government, and this Legislature, is prepared to have a community decide this question for themselves. It is the question, and the power, to decide who decides. In this one respect, the Member for Riverdale North is correct when he said control is the issue.

I want to return to that because the Member for Riverdale North made a number of mistakes in his speech. He said in my earlier remarks I had made fun of the letters from the B.C. and Yukon hotel associations and other small business people who had written to me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I dealt very seriously with the comments of those people, not only in my replies to those people but in my remarks in the House.

The Member again seemed to imply what has been said before as one of the great cliches about prohibition: it does not work. As evidence of that, he cited quotes from hotel operators that prohibition does not work because it produces bootlegging. I would state the obvious. We have bootlegging now. We do not have prohibition, but we still have bootlegging. The truth is that you will have bootlegging whether or not you have prohibition. That has been the experience everywhere.

I am not making the case any further than this but, from a health point of view only, the evidence is pretty clear. Prohibition can work and does work, whether you look at communities in the Northwest Territories that have gone dry, or counties in Texas, or whether you look at the United States in the 1920s. The evidence of improved health, reduced evidence of cirrhosis of the liver, and reduced other alcohol-related diseases is quite clear.

Because it is important to reiterate this point, I want to again say that I am not standing in my place here today and advocating prohibition for the Yukon; I am not advocating prohibition for Whitehorse. I want to be perfectly clear about that. I am saying that a community should have the ability to decide if the social circumstances in its community are such that they believe they have a crisis. It is not that I believe they have a crisis, nor that the Yukon Legislative Assembly believes they have a crisis, but that the people in that community believe there is a crisis.

The issue is who should decide. Some of us in this House are saying that, on a question such as this, the community can and should decide. Some Members opposite seem to be saying that, even if a community decided the situation called for them to take this radical step of going dry and called for prohibition, the Legislature should deny them that right and that, in principle, this is a matter that should remain within the power of the territory to decide.

It is on that point that we part company.

The question is: would we, if asked by a community, accede to a request to go dry? If the situation of alcohol abuse in that community was so serious that that community decided it wanted to go dry, it wanted to ban alcohol from its precincts, would we agree to that? Some of us are saying that we would. Some Members on the other side are saying no.

The issue is who decides. The Member for Riverdale North quoted the Chamber of Commerce as saying that the Chamber of Commerce believes that this is an example of government interfering in people’s lives. I rarely, as you know, disagree with the Chamber of Commerce. On this point, I think the Chamber of Commerce is wrong.

This is not a question of the government interfering in people’s lives. This is a question of people in communities deciding that their lives are affected by alcohol and if their lives are so affected that they want to ban that substance from their communities, rather than the government interfering, we are saying that the government should respect the wishes of that community and accede to their views.

The dispute is about who decides. We believe that if the community asks, they ought to have that power. The Members opposite are saying no. They have spurious arguments about the Charter. I do not know what Charter right is claimed for the ability to have a drink in a dry community. I do not know if it has ever been tested in law. I suspect that it has not.

There are dry communities in this country. Some people believe that communities that have gone dry in the Northwest Territories have gone through a process of healing that has been very good for them.

They have made that decision. Right now, the power to make the decision is in this House. The law is here. All we are saying is that if we heard a petition from a community, we would be prepared to listen to that community.

The Member for Old Crow was elected by the people of that community. She is asking us to listen. She is asking us to be ready to listen, ready to hear such a call if it comes. I am saying that we are ready. The Members opposite are saying that it should not be up to them, that they know better. On that point, I say we disagree.

Mr. Phelps: I am pleased to rise and speak to this important motion. It seems to me, from what I have heard and we have heard from all the Members in the House, that there is a lot of sympathy for people who are suffering from the problems of drug and alcohol abuse. The fact that we have spent so much time in debate indicates that all Members are genuinely concerned about the problem.

It goes without saying that there has been no attempt by even one speaker to filibuster. Individuals Members have done a lot of research on their own. I was unaware of some of the research that came forward today that was done by Members of this side. Each and every one of us feels very deeply about the problem.

The Member who is putting the motion forward is from Old Crow. She knows I have travelled to Old Crow on numerous occasions over the years in various capacities. I know that the people there see the problem of alcohol and substance abuse as an extremely serious problem in that community. They are not alone. It is a serious problem in every one of our communities.

I was in Old Crow in October, last fall, and at that time there was some discussion among a few of the people about this issue. Of course, I did not speak to all the people, but I did speak to some people who were discussing the issue as an issue that had been discussed and was currently being discussed in that community. So it does not come as a surprise to me that we are now talking about the issue here.

We have heard that there is a bootlegging problem in many Yukon communities, including Whitehorse. We have heard that a bottle of alcohol, which at the liquor store in Whitehorse would sell for $20 or so, is selling for $100 in places like Old Crow. That is fairly common knowledge. So, there is not a question that there is a problem with bootlegging. I know we have it in my community, Carcross, and there have been incidents reported in the past about that problem.

Alcohol and substance abuse is an area of concern to us all, as I have said. The problems are extremely complex, but simply because they are complex does not mean we should not try to address them or try to meet the problem head on. Certainly, this is an issue that has been spoken to time after time over the years. I recall last year, while travelling during the election to communities where the issues of suicide and alcohol and substance abuse were being brought forward by numerous individuals. In fact, while I was in Ross River they had just, at that time, found the body of a young community leader who had died of exposure after a bout with alcohol during the bonspiel there. The whole community, virtually everyone there, was devastated.

I read in the paper and hear about similar situations occurring now that we have cold weather once again in the Yukon. The body of a man was found in an abandoned house in Watson Lake just two weeks ago, approximately, when we were debating this issue in this House. The body of another man was found just a few blocks from here, at the hill; again, it was pretty obvious that that person had died of exposure because of his incapacities resulting from alcohol ingestion.

I do not want in any way to downplay the problem. I think most of us can remember that in the election - and we certainly came out very strongly on the issue of alcohol and substance abuse - it was an issue we took extremely seriously, and we continue to take it very seriously.

I do not want in any way with my remarks and the position I am taking to appear to be downgrading the problem or to appear to be belittling any of the speakers. I want to make it very clear that I think it is good that we are discussing the problem here, and for that I thank the MLA from Old Crow.

There has been a lot of talk about government programs not working. There is a recognition that more has to be done. I, for one, want to pay tribute, though, to all those people, whether they are working for the government or not, for the work they are doing. The people I have talked to and met with are sincere and doing what they believe in. I do not think we should lose sight of that fact. I think, too, that more has to be done, more has to be done at the community level, and to some extent I suppose this motion indirectly supports that point of view.

I wanted to talk about prohibition itself without getting into too many of the standard cliches, although, as we all know, it has been tried in most parts of the world. It has been tried in Europe, and in the States. That is the most infamous example, the prohibition which lasted until 1933. It is interesting that in 1932 the Democratic Party adopted a platform calling for repeal and, as a result of their victory in the presidential election of 1932, prohibition was repealed in 1933 by Congress.

There is a bit of history involved when one talks about prohibition; it has been mentioned that prohibition was adopted in the Yukon during the period from 1914 to 1921. It was a time in this territory when prohibition was a pretty hot topic in the political arena. It was proposed in 1914 and narrowly defeated - 874 to 871. It was finally brought on in 1920, and again it was a pretty hotly-contested vote - 635, I believe to slightly more who wanted prohibition. It was only in place for about a year when it was repealed. Interestingly enough, partly on economic grounds at that time, but we have had a taste of it here in our history.

There has been some talk about prohibition encouraging criminal activity, particularly the bootlegging trade. I noted with some interest that Al Capone is the most famous bootlegger we know of. It is alleged that when he was carrying on business illegally, his annual earnings were estimated at $60 million. I know that a lot of people get into bootlegging because there is a lot of money to be made. I suspect that prohibition in a community would lead to an increase in the problem of bootlegging.

All Members received letters from hotel owners and business people who were concerned about prohibition and made their representations against the motion. We have had some debate on what they have had to say. I do not feel that economic grounds and economic arguments are the fundamental issue here before us. I do think there are good points to be made by those who oppose prohibition on that level. Certainly when one looks at any large tourism consortium making a substantial investment in a smaller community, if the threat of prohibition were there, if there was a great degree of uncertainty with regard to whether or not the community might go dry, I think that would have an impact on that type of investment. I would not - I repeat “not” - want to stand in this place and use that as the sole reason for voting against a motion that is as important as this.

Much has been said about the issue of the Charter of Rights, about the rights of those who may be affected but who may not have a vote. That, in turn, goes to the issue of who decides and how. Who decides? How do they decide? What kind of a vote is required? These issues are important ones. I cannot imagine it being accepted that people who do not have a voice or a vote should have prohibition imposed upon them, if they are adults living in a community.

In Old Crow, for example, the band speaks for many people, but it does not speak for everyone. A significant number of people who live there are not entitled to a vote on an issue such as this, if it were just on a band resolution basis.

One looks at other communities in the territory. We have to consider the rights of people who do not abuse alcohol but use it socially. There are some pretty important issues about rights. There are the rights of the individual and balancing off those rights with the rights of all the people for common good. These are important issues and cannot be dismissed in a sentence or two.

I have had one problem with some of the arguments. Some of them have been highly emotionally charged. That is understandable because of the seriousness, the magnitude and the scope of the problem. We have to overcome that reaction to the issue and try to deal with it in a logical fashion. We have to try and look at all the various consequences of this motion should it pass and become law.

The Government Leader spoke his spurious arguments about the Charter of Rights in his most recent speech here. Without being technical about it, I feel that there are Charter rights and individual rights that one has to look at. They cannot be dismissed out of hand. He said that the issue is who decides. Who decides if a community should or should not be dry?

There is an absence of other details such as, how it is proposed the community would vote, what kind of majority would be required, what kind of rights would be given to those who are opposed to the motion, what kind of search and seizure would be exercised by those in authority. These issues are heavily important. It is overly simplified to say that it is a choice between the community and the territorial level of government.

It seems to me that the whole issue is who decides, and it goes beyond just the community or the territory. It goes down to how it is proposed that prohibition would be enacted in any given place in the Yukon.

There has been lip service paid to medical evidence from the 1920s about how prohibition proved to be beneficial. There are records, but none of that information has been placed here. When we look at the consequences of alcohol and substance abuse, there are arguments about whether or not there is a causal relationship between alcoholism and problems of the liver. There are arguments that it may be dietary rather than a cause and effect relationship from alcohol.

Sclerosis of the liver, in the view of many experts, is brought on by a lack of certain vitamins and nutrition in a person. Many times an alcoholic gets to the stage where he does not ingest the appropriate types of food.

Nobody has really paid much attention to the problem of people going from booze, as we know it, legal alcohol, to other substances, if alcohol is cut off. I practiced as a criminal lawyer for a good many years throughout the territory and travelled to all the communities. Many times the problems and stories behind break, enter and theft in the villages around the territory surrounded people breaking into houses to get alcohol: alcohol from shaving lotion, alcohol from hair spray, and other substances. There is a whole area there that requires examination before we get into a realistic assessment of whether or not prohibition is a desirable weapon to use against alcohol.

In my own community of Carcross, young people and old people have used all of those substances - sniffed gas - often because legal alcohol was not available. That is a problem that deserves scrutiny.

We do have some examples we could look at of places where prohibition is in effect right now. I recall travelling to the Navajo nation to study the tribal justice system in place there, and particularly at Window Rock. That is a large reserve with some 25,000 square miles of area and 150,000 or more people living there, with their own police force and justice system, which is a topic I am sure we will be discussing in another motion. I was certainly struck by the fact that when I observed the proceedings in court, virtually all of the accused who appeared that morning in court were charged with either alcohol offences, or at the very least alcohol-related offences.

I think that perhaps research should be done with regard to some of those other communities, and some of those rather large areas, such as the Navaho nation. We should learn more about the experience there and in some of the small towns about which we have heard from the Member for Kluane before we take any serious steps toward encouraging the use of prohibition as an important weapon in the war against alcohol abuse.

That really is the basic problem. There are too many unanswered questions and too much potential for infringement of rights of individuals without knowing that it is really sufficiently in the common good to make the exercise of prohibition in any community worthwhile.

I intend to speak against or vote against the motion as amended. I am not doing it in a smug way. I think the problem is an important one. I think the debate, if nothing else, has served to show us all and the people of the Yukon how seriously we each view this problem. It has given us a chance to speak about the dimensions and scope of the problem and we, on this side, will certainly support measures that we feel will assist in meeting these problems head on. We simply do not, at this point, see prohibition as an answer or even as an appropriate weapon; that is why we are going to be opposing the motion, as amended.

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

Ms. Kassi: I brought this motion forward seeking support, requesting that the government look at ways to change legislation so that if and when the  communities, and my community, are good and ready, we will take the steps to ban alcohol on our lands. We are reaching that point. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.

We are working to a point where, one of these days, we will ban alcohol and be completely dry on our lands. We have lost many, many of our relatives from alcohol abuse. We have dealt with suicides; we have dealt with murders, fetal alcohol syndrome; we are dealing with bootleggers, and every ugly effect that is created by alcohol abuse. We do not need to hear all that over and over again. We have felt it. We feel it every day as we live. Since 1985, as my chief recently stated in a radio interview, “We have worked very hard up to this point; we have had many awareness workshops developed, personal development workshops, community development workshops and have dealt with many educational programs. Of course, we are going to need more. We need them to be ongoing.”

Now, the majority of the people in my village have chosen to abstain from alcohol, and we are happy about that. We have come a long way. When we are good and ready, we will ban alcohol from our lands; therefore, we ask that the laws and the power that this House holds be changed to create a balance. We ask that the laws that are in place right now, that hold the rights for whisky traders and the rights for people to sell alcohol anywhere, be changed to recognize the rights of people who do not want alcohol around. There is nothing wrong with that concept. We have to live by balances.

If we had these laws in place, we would not have bootlegging in our villages, because the laws would then say that we can get rid of the alcohol upon it entering into the village.

That is why we want to work toward it. We are seeking that balance, and we should have that right. We will exercise that right. We are going to do it ourselves, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are working at home toward a consensus. We are educating the people. We are showing much care for our future. Of course, we will have people who still drink, who go against our wishes. That is understandable. They are addicted. They need it; they think they need it.

We also understand that the people who wish to continue to drink will leave the village. That is okay, too, as long as our elders and children are safe and happy in the village. Those who leave will always return to that.

We also understand that people who make money from alcohol, who sell alcohol, will dispute our efforts. We have heard that over and over again from the side opposite.

We have a lot of support out there. Of course, there is not too much from the other side as we have heard in all this debate. However, I too have been getting letters and phone calls of support to push on. From the Council for Yukon Indians, Rosemarie Blair-Smith, vice-chair of social programs, wrote to say the CYI feels this motion, “represents the basic principle of democracy and is essential to us because it supports the principle of self-government in an area which we determine is a number one obstacle preventing ourselves actualizations as first nations”.

She goes on to describe alcoholism as “an agent of oppression for our people”. She says that, “the Council for Yukon Indians feels that this motion gives the community the freedom they so rightly deserve to set their own future without the continued plague of this disease.”

I also heard from chiefs. Angie Joseph, the chief in Dawson, supports this motion. I would like to take this opportunity to read their letters into the record. This is from the Council for Yukon Indians.

“Dear Norma, This letter is in reference to the motion you have put forward which states to encourage the Department of Health and Human Resources and the Department of Justice to look at ways to make provisions so that communities can prohibit alcohol if they choose to do so. We feel that this motion represents a basic principle of democracy and is essential to us because it supports the principle of self-government in any area which we determine is a number one obstacle preventing our actualization as first nations.

“As you have so accurately described in the Legislature, alcohol has served as an agent of oppression for our people. There are very few crimes, incidents of family violence, failures in school or employment that are not somewhere related to alcohol abuse.

“Alcohol has served as a tool for disrupting our traditional government, our spirituality, our values and our future, and this is why the passage of this motion is so essential.

“We feel that this motion gives the community the freedom they so rightly deserve to set their own future without the continued plague of this disease. We commend you for proposing this motion and support you. Please let us know how we can assist you further.

“Yours sincerely, Rosemarie Blair-Smith, Vice-Chair, Social Programs, Council for Yukon Indians.”

The other letter from Chief Angie Joseph of Dawson City, “Dear Norma: Prohibition in Old Crow. The Dawson Indian Band would like to express our support for your efforts to amend the YTG legislation so the RCMP is able to enforce prohibition if it has been voted in by the community. Sincerely, Angie Joseph, Chief of Dawson.”

I also heard from other people such as former MLA, Eleanor Millard, who represented Old Crow at one time, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Whitehorse Star that, “The prohibition question deserves a decent hearing.” I will quote from her letter. “I have spent the last few months working in one of these communities in the Northwest Territories, Snowdrift, on the eastern shore of Great Slave Lake. This fall, Snowdrift received a national award from the RCMP for reducing the number of arrests in the community drastically. The reduction was directly related to the fact that the community had voted for, and successfully implemented alcohol prohibition. I found no one in Snowdrift who seriously felt they would like to see the law reversed. Neither was the law difficult to administer, according to those whose job it was to do so. Everyone including visitors, stated that prohibition had made the town a much more positive place to live and had given the community a new lease on life. You may not realize that Old Crow has more than once in the past voted for prohibition, acting as you would like them to, admitting they have a problem. Now Norma Kassi has made another plea for reason and legislation to come to their aid. Surely the fears of small town hotel owners who see their excessive profits from the communities’ misery going down the drain is worth far less than the efforts made by concerned people who have a long-term investment in their communities, and in their children’s future.”

I will continue to push for the rights of the communities to decide for themselves. I will not be intimidated by people who say that even a community-willed ban on alcohol is an infringement on a constitutional right. We should all have the courage to do what is right. The reality of day-to-day life in the Yukon is that alcohol consumption is excessive. It is debilitating and a serious threat to our families and the very survival of our culture, traditions and communities. We should have the courage to acknowledge that a ban on alcohol just might be the right way to go under certain circumstances.

We should have the courage to acknowledge that sitting here in this Legislature we just might not know just when circumstances are right. Our communities must have the right to make this decision. We can give so much support to those who have had the courage to face their addiction and get the help they need to beat it.

Once a person has made that decision to stop drinking, surely they deserve whatever support their community can offer to stay dry. We will have programs in place. We are working on that. We have developed a wilderness treatment centre for people in our village, and that is ongoing.

Our people are becoming stronger, united, and one day we are going to achieve the goals and aspirations of a self-governing people that many of us are working toward. I hope that we will all see a healthier Yukon sooner than later. Mahsi-cho.

Motion No. 47 agreed to as amended

Clerk: Item No. 11, standing in the name of Ms. Kassi.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 11?

Ms. Kassi: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 76

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House:

(1) THAT throughout the Western World there is a growing recognition that the existing adversarial criminal justice system is failing to resolve social and criminal problems;

(2) THAT the costs of the existing justice system are rapidly increasing without significantly improving the well-being of individuals or communities;

(3) THAT, in the Yukon, lay people and professionals recognize the need for significant changes in the justice system to enhance opportunities for communities to play a much greater role in maintaining peace and harmony within a community;

(4) THAT vital initiatives such as tribal justice, mediation and diversion in the Yukon have begun to enable communities to assume responsibilities for community problems;

(5) THAT there is a need for a change in our justice system from primary reliance upon professionals to a partnership between communities and professionals and, in many areas, to a primary reliance upon everyone in the community to participate in promoting the well-being of their community; and

THAT the Yukon Legislative Assembly recognizes and supports the initiative of the Yukon aboriginal people to assume greater responsibility over social problems within their communities through the development of aboriginal justice systems.

Ms. Kassi: I am really hoping this motion does not go through what the previous one went through and that it receives a lot of support from this House.

In December, 1987, I brought a motion to this House calling for the Yukon government, in cooperation with the Yukon Indian bands and tribal councils, to investigate the feasibility of tribal police, peacemaking and tribal justice systems.

In January, 1988, the Vuntat Gwich’in Tribal Justice Council submitted a proposal for a coordinator to the Minister of Justice. In April, 1989, that coordinator, who is Grafton Njootli, submitted a six-month report on tribal justice and the Vuntat Gwich’in. In November, 1989, the current Justice Minister signed an agreement with the coalition of the bands of Teslin, Champagne/Aishihik and Old Crow to work on the development of a tribal justice system in the Yukon.

One phase of this agreement provided a three-day conference to review tribal justice concepts developed by the Yukon first nations and to discuss ways to improve and implement them. That was the conference that was held last week. As the newspapers reported, judges, lawyers, Indian leaders and a professor of law all agreed that the territory’s justice system does not serve aboriginal people, but that Yukon Indians have the capability to strengthen it.

The brings us to the motion before us today.

The justice system we live with today fails the aboriginal people in the Yukon. Why are so many aboriginal people in the jails? Why are there so many aboriginal young offenders in the maze of the courts? We know the justice system has failed us. We want change, and this change means putting the responsibility for justice management back into the hands of the communities. Change means re-establishing our elders in their place of respect in our communities. Change means healing and harmony. Change means peace and hope.

I want to tell you a story about a young man whom I know. He is now an adult and is in the Whitehorse Correctional Centre right now, but I want to take you back to his childhood. This young man came from a family where there was alcohol abuse. He learned to be tough to survive and he started to drink when he was very young. He rebelled against everyone: the schools, the police, his family and his community. He was involved in lots of break and enters, many crimes, and he was constantly fighting. The system could not handle him. He was sent out to youth assessment centres time and time again, but still no one could reach him. He was assessed but there was no rehabilitation; nobody had the time to develop any positive skills in this child. There was nothing good and promising to replace the bad. He was sent out to jail in a p