Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, February 28, 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: Will will proceed with the Order Paper.

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Speaker: Under Tabling Returns and Documents I have for tabling an unaudited financial statement for the Yukon Human Rights Commission as at January 31, 1990, and the Internal Auditor’s Report on the Commission, dated January, 1990.

Speaker: Are there any further Returns or Documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of Reports of Committee?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.

Notices of Motion.

Are there any Statements by Minister?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Environmental Initiatives by the Department of Education

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I rise today to advise you of the initiatives taken by the Department of Education in teaching Yukon students about the environment, and particularly of a special environmental education event the department is sponsoring. It is this government’s policy to actively promote awareness of environmental issues, particularly among the Yukon’s young people.

These activities are geared, not only to enlightening students about the nature of the Yukon’s wilderness, but also to giving them encouragement and the means to act. The theme of this year’s science fair, for example, is the environment. Hundreds of Yukon students will be working on projects that illuminate problems and solutions to our local, regional and global environment.

Recently, new programs and curriculum have been developed and implemented that ensure the environment is an integral part of the Yukon’s education system. I would like to briefly outline these for you before telling you about the special event that will highlight the environment-related work with which Yukon young people are involved.

At the elementary level, the salmonid in the classroom program will be starting up in our schools by the end of this month. This program was developed by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in conjunction with the Department of Education, and it involves the students in actively learning about one of the Yukon’s most valuable resources.

Students in Grades 5 and 6, and their teachers, will soon be working on environmentally related projects with the help of the Yukon Conservation Society’s Small Winter Life Book, and those in grades 4 through 7 will develop awareness, knowledge, skills and commitment to the management of the Porcupine caribou herd through the new caribou management curriculum.

Students in grades 5 through 9 will also have an outdoor education resource book which is full of activities and projects that promote strong links between classroom environmental studies and outdoor activities.

For the senior students various environmental education teaching units, courses and books have been developed such as the biology supplement unit by science teacher Lee Kubica, on northern population ecology, that allows students to study the principles of population ecology in a Yukon context.

The second semester of the Yukon wilderness program has just begun. A key component of this innovative program is the direct experience by the students with a variety of environmental issues.

Environmental Studies 10, one of the courses in the wilderness program, is dedicated to developing knowledge and understanding about the environment. It provides secondary students with the opportunity to conduct in-depth studies and analyses of the Yukon and world environment.

Environmental education does not stop at grade 12. Yukon College is developing a northern outdoor and environmental studies program that is expected to be ready for September 1991. As well, the northern studies program now offers a course on northern environment, one on environmental geology and another on winter outdoor pursuits.

The college is also developing, in conjunction with the Department of Renewable Resources, a new geography course that teaches land use and resource management in the north.

I would now like to take this opportunity to tell you of a special event that will be held in conjunction with the environment science fair, that complements all the education initiatives I have told you about and as well, draws in those of us who are no longer at school or college.

The Department of Education has invited Jay Ingram, the host of CBC Radio’s Quirks and Quarks, to be our special guest at the Yukon Regional Science Fair on April 7th and 8th. Mr. Ingram is well known to Canadians as a public advocate of science education.

Mr. Ingram will demonstrate everyday science at the science fair.

He will also be the keynote speaker of the evening science series being held in conjunction with the science fair.

In addition to sponsoring Mr. Ingram, the Department of Education is further supporting the students involved in the science fair with the establishment of a special prize. This prize will recognize the science fair project that best articulates or represents environmental concerns, whether through content, application of environmental parameters or just plain ingenuity.

The environment award itself is unusual, yet quite appropriate. Each winner will receive a book about the environment or environmental issues and a one-day outdoor experience. This could be river rafting, or horse back riding or a special hike, for example. There will be an environment award for each of the three age groups participating in the science fair, with an activity chosen that is appropriate for the age level.

Several students have been asked what they think about the environment prize. Not surprisingly, they are very enthusiastic at the prospect of a one-day outdoor adventure. I personally like the idea that the winners - those students who show an outstanding interest in, or understanding of, environmental issues - will have a special opportunity to enjoy and explore the Yukon’s wilderness environment. I would hope the experience strengthens their commitment to the environment, as well as spur on students for next year’s science fair.

The environment is a subject that we ignore at our peril. This government’s initiatives in environmental education will go a long way to ensuring it is a subject every Yukon person is aware of, and committed to enhancing and preserving.

Mr. Devries: I am very pleased to see the Department of Education developing some environmental initiatives at this time. There is no doubt that the salmonid unit in the classroom program will be of great interest to the students educationally. It will give them the opportunity to participate in a project.

We can thank Tom Siddon, our new Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, for this fine program. Many of the other initiatives being taken will reach out and catch the interest of all the students, and especially the interest of those not normally interested in environmental affairs.

I am sure that the wilderness trip incentive will encourage the students to go beyond their normal intellect and come up with some truly unique projects for the science fair.

However, I am disappointed in the government’s own track record in putting into action what they preach. Just from observing the action around Watson Lake during the government’s ownership of Hyland Forest Products, mill trees were left in the yard to rot; 50 percent of the logs were being utilized; much of the balance was wasted with nothing done to rectify the situation.

A project to use waste heat at the high school and community centre was either postponed or abandoned. A silviculture study that stressed the timeliness of implementation of tree planting last summer was neglected. Now, it has been mentioned again in this year’s mains. I realize it is a federal responsibility, but it will save us money in the long run if we get going on this. There are still styrofoam cups in the cafeteria. Yukon College’s waste heating system is still inactive. Proposals for waste heating downtown have been turned down. Where is the long-awaited environmental protection act? I question that environment is this government’s priority, and until it is, it will be difficult to catch the students’ imagination. We have to take the lead and be an example.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank the Member for his, perhaps halfhearted, endorsement of the Department of Education’s initiatives in this particular area. We do owe thanks, with respect to one program of the many I have just announced, to the federal Department of Fisheries pertaining to the salmonid in the classroom program. I guess it would be a bit early to be thanking Tom Siddon at this point; probably, we will have more opportunity to speak to him in person after his new appointment, but it would have perhaps been even better for that particular program had he also agreed to the community advisor, which we debated ever so briefly in this House very recently.

The Member’s remarks tended to give the impression that the government, outside of the Department of Education’s initiatives, which are extensive and thorough, has neglected the issues of the environment. I think that impression is quite mistaken. The very clear initiatives that have been taken by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services with respect to special wastes, the support the government has provided to initiatives such as the waste heat plant downtown, the initiatives the government has taken to ensure that the Yukon College, and now the Granger school, will have heating plants capable of burning wastes other than fossil fuels are, I think, tantamount to expressing the very clear position of the government in its support for environmental initiatives.

The Member will have to do, I think, a bit better homework, in terms of his criticism. I understand that he would probably never want to, at any time, provide the government with unqualified support. Consequently, I am sure that this statement that was prepared for him kept that in mind. I think the Member should take a little better care in the future, in terms of criticizing initiatives that the government has clearly taken to protect the environment. I think we all owe special thanks to the Department of Education for its clear leadership in this area, leadership that was asked for by the Yukon 2000 review last November but started by the Department of Education much before that. Thank you.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation, regarding the Watson Lake sawmill. I understand that the court-appointed receiver has had trouble obtaining the financial records from T.F. Properties in Vancouver and I am wondering whether the Minister can tell us if the financial records have been received by the receiver as of this date?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to the Tony Penikett hour. The Member may know - I suspect he does, it being his rule not to ask a question that he does not know the answer to already - that an application has gone before the court to obtain from the manager the documents referred to in the Member’s question about the receiver. I understand that that matter is being dealt with in the court now.

Mr. Phelps: I am sorry, there is not a court case on the matter being heard today, is there?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I do not think it is initiated today. I think it may have been initiated before today. I was advised this morning that it is being heard and that was in the present tense. I can advise the Member privately what I know but that is what I can tell him for the record.

Mr. Phelps: I understand the court action had been once again been adjourned.

Can the Government Leader tell us whether or not the receiver has been able to obtain working capital by way of borrowing money? Apparently he has the right to borrow up to $1 million, and we understood he was having trouble raising any money because of the limited assets at the mill. Has he been able to raise working capital?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: It would be for the receiver/manager to make a statement on that question, not I. I am aware discussions between the receiver/manager and the investors have been proceeding. I am sure conclusion of those discussions will become public if an agreement is reached and the receiver obtains capital from outside sources or private lenders. I assume he will make interested parties aware of that.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: Surely the Yukon Development Corporation officials are watching the situation with some apprehension and keen interest, given the receiver is there to protect assets that belonged to the Yukon Development Corporation and taxpayers of the Yukon. Does the Yukon Development Corporation have any idea how long the sawmill can continue to operate without an injection of working capital?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member used the words “apprehension” and “keen interest”. We are watching the situation very carefully. Let me assure the Member that I am regularly briefed on exactly the questions he is asking, but I am also under instructions, until such time as agreements are reached about discussions, not to make the facts or knowledge that comes to my attention on these negotiations public.

Mr. Phelps: I am not asking questions about negotiations regarding the injection of money. I am concerned about - and I know the workers at the Watson Lake mill are extremely concerned about it - just how long the ship will stay afloat without working capital being provided to the operation.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We understand the concern, perhaps better than the Leader of the Official Opposition. The officials of the corporation are doing everything they can. They are fully apprised of what is going on and are continuing to work toward the stated objectives of the Development Corporation and this government in respect to this operation.

Mr. Phelps: Does that mean that the Yukon Development Corporation officials have a good idea of just how long the operation can continue without an injection of working capital?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: In putting the question in exactly those terms, I am sure they have a pretty good idea, but I am also pretty sure they would not, for all sorts of reasons, be making a statement predicting a date by which certain injections had to take place. I do know that discussions to satisfy concerns addressed by the Member are going on and will continue. I am sure, should they reach a happy result, the public will be aware of them very soon.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: Does that mean the Yukon Development Corporation is working toward a happy result by trying to assist the receiver in obtaining some working capital funds?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The relationship between the Yukon Development Corporation and the receiver is a very proper one. As the most interested party, we are playing an active and proper role in all these matters.

Question re: Art gallery in Whitehorse Public Library

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism regarding the future of the Whitehorse art gallery, currently situated in the Whitehorse library. The centrally located gallery is used extensively by local artists and for touring displays. I understand there is a waiting period of over a year now if a Yukoner wants to display their works in this gallery.

The arts community welcomed the announcement of the new public gallery in the proposed art centre, because there is a much-demonstrated need for more space. It appears that, when they approved the new gallery in the arts centre, no one told them they would have to forfeit the centrally located gallery in the library.

Would the Minister confirm or deny the art gallery in the Whitehorse library will close when the new gallery in the arts centre is complete?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: All along, the plan of action has been to provide for a single gallery space in the City of Whitehorse that would be publicly funded. This was a request also made by the Arts Canada North board in correspondence with me. Consequently, in designing a new arts centre, much care was taken to ensure the new gallery space was much better and much larger than the existing gallery space at the public library.

The short answer to the Member’s question is that the publicly funded art gallery space will be at the arts centre. The space that is currently housing some collections in the public library will now be dedicated to the public library, which is also in critical need of space.

Mr. Phillips: As I said earlier, the arts community is pleased about the new gallery, but their concern is about having a centrally located gallery in the downtown area. When they talked to the Government of the Yukon, they had no idea they were going to lose this small gallery they had there.

In light of the growing backlog of Yukoners who wish to display their art, and the need for a centrally located public gallery, would the Minister reconsider the plans to turn the old gallery into more government office space?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: That is the first time I have ever heard that the old gallery, that is planned to be turned into public library space, would be considered office space. There are many people in the City of Whitehorse who are insistent that there ought to be more space for the public library. We are keen to not only resolve their request for more public library space, but also to resolve the requests for more public gallery space for artists.

I would like to point out that the space in the current gallery in the Whitehorse Public Library is 500 square feet. The space for the new gallery in the arts centre is over 4,000 square feet. The collection storage area and the work areas in the new gallery separately, in terms of space, are more than what currently exists in the Whitehorse Public Library.

Consequently the government, through the construction of the arts centre, is providing for a very strong vote of confidence in our artists in the territory by providing them with much more space than they currently have. We are also resolving the requests by many users of the public library that they, too, after 16 years, will get more space.

Mr. Phillips: The Minister is missing the point. The point is that in all of the talks that they had with the people in the arts groups, the arts groups never thought for a minute that they were losing this gallery down here. They thought they were gaining an extra display area up the hill but thought that they would be maintaining this centrally located area here.

We know now that the new arts centre has been postponed several times, and it is supposed to come up to tender very shortly, but we are not sure whether it will go ahead, as yet.

When does the Minister anticipate the opening of the arts centre and the new gallery and the arts centre? What will these artists do in the meantime to display their work if we are going to renovate the art gallery that is down here sometime early in this year?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member has got all of his facts, both in the preamble and the question, wrong. First of all, he is saying that the artists never knew that the space that was to be provided in the arts centre would be the only space funded by the government, when I just indicated to the Member that the Arts Canada North board, through the chairperson, sent a letter last summer confirming that the only publicly funded space should be in the arts centre and not in the Whitehorse Public Library. Clearly, the artists did know, exactly, because they made a request of me to confirm the fact that this would be the only publicly funded space in the City of Whitehorse; that is a fact. I wish the Member would consider that.

With respect to the arts centre, the government has a very clear commitment, a commitment that has been stated many times, both in the Legislature and in the public, to build the arts centre. We also have a commitment to fiscal responsibility. We would like to marry the two. We would like to provide for an arts centre that meets the artists’ requirements. We would like to provide for a space for the many users of the public library, and we would also like to show some respect for the public’s budget. I think that our arrangement will accomplish all of those tasks, and we have done so with very thorough consultation with the arts community. We have kept very close contact with them throughout this entire process.

Question re: Yukon Pacific Forest Products

Mr. Phelps: I just received a note that says that there is no court proceeding on the docket for today in the Territorial Court of the Yukon. I wanted to put that on the record and ask one final question: namely, could the Minister confirm that T.F. Properties is using, as a reason for not surrendering the books to the receiver, a claim of a lien for management fees or something like management fees, of something like $200,000?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have to be careful of what I say, according to legal instructions, but that assertion by the Member squares with a report I have. What I was also told is that there was a contempt proceeding contemplated, and it may have been before a court in Vancouver, rather than in Whitehorse. In any case, I will seek confirmation of that fact, which is information I received this morning.

Question re: Office space

Mr. Lang: I would to direct a question to the Minister of Government Services, and it has to do with government space and the renting of new space by the government. The government came out with their strategy for acquiring further space to house the civil service, and the Minister indicated to us that the next step was the renovating of the old Yukon College and the moving of various departments to that particular area. Since that time, it has come to my attention that there may be some other moves contemplated, and I would like to ask the Minister if it is true that Government Services is moving out of the justice building, known as the Andrew Philipsen Law Centre.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member did indeed raise a question about space allocation and about intended major moves. At the time in the budget when he raised the question, I did indicate to him that the first major move contemplated would be the Department of Education relocating to the old Yukon College. At the same time, there are a number of other minor moves that will take place and that are being contemplated as demands and needs and space arise.

The specific answer to the Member’s question is: yes, indeed, it is contemplated that the Government Services administration unit will move from its location in the Law Centre to the building known as the M&R Building across the street.

Mr. Lang: My understanding is that it is not contemplated; I understand the decision has been made to move that particular department. Can the Minister report to this House the cost of the move and could he also tell us who is moving into the space that is being vacated by Government Services?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I will take those questions as notice. They are specifics on which I do not have detailed familiarity at this time.

Mr. Lang: I have to express my surprise that he would not have that information in view of the fact that he, in conjunction with Management Board, has to authorize the moves and expenditures.

I would also like to ask the Minister this: in view of his answer to the first question, could he tell us what other moves are being contemplated in the interim before the major move to the Yukon College?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: That would be difficult while on my feet during Question Period, but I certainly will make every effort to provide the Member with the anticipated moves that are contemplated in the overall space plan and strategy of the government. One of the anticipated moves that comes to mind is the intention to do some adjustments to the legislative precincts, with which the Member is familiar - the need to provide better space for Hansard and the need to accommodate more desirable space for legislative staff. A number of other moves are contemplated during the next three year period. I believe there are a total of 31 relocations and I would be quite pleased to provide to the Member the majority of those relocations.

Question re: Office space

Mr. Lang: I just ask an innocent question, and all of a sudden I got notice of 31 moves out of it. I would ask the Minister this: could he provide us with details of what those 31 moves are and a breakdown of the costs of those moves? He must have it in some document of some kind, because no one was of the impression that there were going to be that many moves contemplated in the strategy the Minister announced just a few weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: To clarify for the Member, the space strategy that was announced a couple of weeks ago was built upon a number of principles that are going to govern the government’s decision making in relation to its needs for space.

Over the course of the next three years, a number of moves are contemplated for the consolidation of various departments, for the anticipated devolution growth and for meeting occupational and safety standards for employees. The number of moves that may take place are also flexible, in that they are based upon those principles and will reflect current and anticipated needs.

To specifically answer the Member’s question, I can assure him that the space strategy follows those principles that were tabled and the anticipated number of moves that will occur could well change but there are anticipated to be, over the next three years, some 30 minor and major moves.

Mr. Lang: I enjoyed the response to the question, but the Minister did not answer the question. Could he provide us with the 31 proposed moves and the projected costs? This is the first we have heard of the moves.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have no problem providing that to the Member. I would caution that they are based on the anticipated relocations, consolidations and growth factors that are contemplated at this time. Members should not raise false expectations that all of these will happen. Circumstances do change and so do available dollars. I can also provide the anticipated costs within the next week.

Question re: Watson Lake extended care facility

Mr. Devries: During the Committee of the Whole debate a few days ago, I asked the Minister of Health and Human Resources for a status report on the Watson Lake extended care facility proposal. I was advised that the director of the Health branch had been to Watson Lake to meet with people to discuss the proposed facility.

Can the Minister advise the House who his officials talked to in Watson Lake about the facility because I cannot find anyone who seems to know anything about a meeting that took place.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would be happy to do that. Unfortunately, the director of the Health branch is presently on holidays. I will have to wait until his return to find out who he actually talked to. It may be that someone in his office has access to his files and he has some record of the people to whom he talked. I will take the question under advisement and get back to the Member.

Mr. Devries: There is only one month left to stay within the intent of the motion that was passed unanimously in the House. Will the Minister be instructing his officials to consult with the people of Watson Lake further as to what option they prefer? Will he report back to this House?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sure that we will be consulting further with the people of Watson Lake on the question. We will also be consulting with the federal government because they have a significant interest in this question as well.

We have not provided any money in this budget for that facility. Consultations will continue over the course of the next fiscal year.

Question re: Challenge ‘90 program

Mrs. Firth: The Government of Canada and the Yukon government announced last week the Canada/Yukon Challenge ‘90 program for summer jobs for students and youth. Through this program, over one-half million dollars is available to groups and employers to create some 360 jobs for students.

Groups and employers are advised to submit applications to this program in the next two weeks. The deadline is March 16. An increase in the minimum wage will have an impact on the numbers of jobs made available for the students.

Since the Minister of Justice announced almost a month ago that the minimum wage was going to be increased, will she tell us now when her government plans to announce this increase?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I mentioned in response to a previous question that a decision had to be made by Cabinet. I mentioned that it was not something that I could do by myself. It was in the process of being done the last time I spoke in the House.

I am not sure where it is right now, but it could be on the agenda this week. As soon as it has reached Cabinet and a decision has been made, I will announce it. I will check to see where it is now.

Mrs. Firth: I gather by that answer it has not even gone to Cabinet yet.

The tourism industry employers are making plans for the numbers of employees they will be hiring for summer, and wage costs are being predicted. Would the Minister agree it is too late to increase the minimum wage and just leave it as it is at $5.39 an hour, which is already the highest in Canada?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would not agree with that. There are certain things that have to be taken into consideration. As I said, the decision is not mine alone to make. It has to be taken into consideration and will have Cabinet approval or disapproval. I will report back to the House as to what happens.

Mrs. Firth: When I last asked this question, the Minister said she would make an announcement in the House and for me to rest assured that I would know prior to leaving. This week is almost over. Obviously, the Minister is not going to make the announcement tomorrow. I do not know when Cabinet is next week, but it is later on in the week. The announcement will not be made. The deadline for the challenge program is two weeks away. The tourism industry is already making plans. Surely, the Minister can give us a commitment she will consider not raising the minimum wage in light of the lateness of the timing and the potential impact it is going to have on both the students and the tourism industry.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I cannot make that commitment. I have already explained, it is a very important decision that has to be made and I am not about to make any commitments in this House one way or the other right now.

Question re: Crestview access roads

Mr. Nordling: For several years, I have been expressing my concern over the safety of the access roads to Crestview from the Alaska Highway at Azure and Kathleen Roads. The intersections continue to be very dangerous, to the extent that the Alaska Highway corridor study has proposed the option that one or, possibly both, of these intersections should be moved.

Can the Minister of Community and Transportation Services tell me when the study will be complete? What is the earliest possible date work will actually begin on the corridor to improve safety and traffic flows?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not believe I can give the Member any firm commitment at this time. I am still awaiting the final results of the public consultation on the corridor study. I am aware of the access routes he identifies. I am also aware of the general cost implications for improving those access points. They are in the magnitude of a few hundred thousand dollars in each case.

I will undertake to ensure the maintenance level is kept to the absolute best state possible and await the final recommendations from the corridor study and keep the Member apprised.

Mr. Nordling: The reason I am concerned is that constituents have come to me because an implementation plan was to be ready by the end of the year. That was announced in the August news release. Earlier this month, the Minister said the plan would not be ready until March or April. There is concern as to how far behind we are on this.

Does the Minister have a more accurate date when this implementation plan will be considered by the three levels of government and, after that, a date for actually starting the work? Is there a time when the three levels of government are going to get together?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The best information I can give the Member is the same information I provided a couple of weeks ago. In March, I anticipate receiving final recommendations from the corridor study. I anticipate that immediately following that, the decision making and budget processing will begin. I do not anticipate that any work will be taking place this year.

Mr. Nordling: I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Justice.

The danger is extreme at peak times when the number of vehicles entering and exiting Crestview is very high and, to a slightly lesser extent, the intersections at Wann Road and 15th Avenue are also dangerous. Part of the danger is due to the vehicles speeding along the highway, and the vehicles entering the highway not stopping at the stop signs. I believe the Minister of Justice is aware of this problem and I would like to ask if she has made any representations to the RCMP to enforce traffic regulations along that stretch of the Alaska Highway?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have not made representations to the RCMP with regard to this specific matter. Other areas of concern have been identified that do require that personnel be in certain areas at that time. I will take the question as notice and make sure the RCMP are aware of the situation. That is all I can do.

Question re: Licence plates

Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services.

In view of the fact that Yukon motor vehicles currently have two licence plates instead of one, and the law enforcement agencies support the retention of two plates rather than one because the back licence plate is often obscured by mud or snow, can the Minister advise the House if it is still the intention of the government to issue only one licence plate when the new plates are finally released?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It is still the intention to issue the one plate. That was announced and that is the current plan. I should point out that it was on the advice of RCMP authorities during the consultation period prior to the development of the staggered licencing system.

I suppose I can tell the Member that there has been some additional information on the subject. We are currently in discussion with the RCMP on whether or not that second plate is required. It is a matter of some discussion between the department and the RCMP now. We are examining what other jurisdictions are doing because we looked at other jurisdictions when we made the decision on the single plate. It is fair to say, our discussions have not concluded. We may reconsider the issue of the single plate.

Mr. Brewster: It is quite apparent that recent negotiations were between bureaucrats and did not get down to the poor patrol officers that have to work the highway.

Other than concern for splitting two plates between two vehicles, can the Minister advise the House if there is any other reason for having only one plate?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The concept of a single plate is a practice that is followed in other jurisdictions. Certainly there are some cost implications to the production of two plates. The Member recognizes that it is cheaper to provide one plate than it is to provide two. The problem has occurred in the past, which governed our decision to go with a single plate, that people put the plates on two separate vehicles and drove two separate vehicles without registering one of them.

That is a practice that may be more common in southern jurisdictions but was anticipated that may be happening here. On the advice of the RCMP, we made that decision. As I indicated in response to the Member’s first question, we are now reviewing that decision and contemplating whether or not it ought to be changed. I guess once we have enough information and have concluded those discussions, that will help make our decision and we will decide.

Mr. Brewster: Would the Minister consider a motion in the House to go back to two licence plates?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Well, the Member is entitled to bring forward any motion he chooses and I cannot say, today, whether or not I would support that. I have already made the decision to go with the one plate and I am reconsidering that decision on the strength of new discussions with the RCMP. The fact still remains that a single-plate production was intended, partly for cost reasons and partly for the plate-splitting reason. In addition to that, other jurisdictions do have a single-plate issue, and clearly, we saw the rationale of going with the single plate. The Member is entitled to bring forward a motion. I cannot say whether I would support it or not, but we will be making the decision shortly, and that should indicate it.

Question re: Licence plates

Mr. Brewster: Due to the fact that most of his arguments do not stand up, I would like to know if the Minister would consider a petition to solve this issue?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member knows that I am very respectful and sensitive toward petitions, and if the Member is contemplating generating petitions to ensure two plates on vehicles, that is his choice. I would only say to him that I am not convinced at this point that two plates are necessary, that two plates would be a wise expenditure or that two plates would be a useful licensing method for vehicles; but I am reconsidering that decision and I have indicated that already.

Question re: Licence plates

Mr. Lang: I would like to follow up a little further on this, if I could, because I find the responses that the Minister is giving to the Member for Kluane’s questions are interesting. I recall the very long and torturous debate on the gold panner versus the magic and the mystery, which I am sure the Member for Klondike will recall. The Minister said that one of the reasons a decision had to made in January was so that he could order the necessary plates. In view of the fact that the Minister is reviewing the decision of one plate versus two, has he ordered enough plates in order to provide each and every vehicle in the Yukon with two plates, if that was the final decision?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: When the previous exciting debate took place on the goldpanner versus the fireweed, I advised the Member that a decision had to be made by the end of January so that the period of February could be spent preparing the tendering documents. If the Member recalls, we anticipate running out of the current series of plates in approximately July, and we need a three-month lead time for the manufacturers to produce the plates. If you back up three months from July, you have to go to tender by March. We are currently in the final stages of preparing the tender documents and the documents have not been issued; therefore, we have not issued a tender and we do not have production started.

Mr. Lang: I would like to make a representation to the Minister, from a tourism point of view, that I think it is also advantageous to have the two plates for travelling through Canada and through the Lower 48. I think it is a method of advertising that goes a long way and costs us very little.

I would like to ask the Minister when he expects to make a decision in respect of the question of the two plates versus one?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As I indicated to the Member from Kluane, the decision is being reviewed now; I expect tenders to be issued in the month of March, which would require the decision to be made by then. Again, I want to caution the Member that the decision to go to two plates may not be a necessary one, from an enforcement point of view, a practical point of view and a financial point of view. The decision to review the two-plate issue is taking place currently. I expect within the next week or so to conclude it so we can issue the tenders for production.

Mr. Lang: I think the question of the financial aspect has been taken care of in view of the fact that, during the exciting debate as the Minister described it, he forgot that he had doubled the rates for the cost of the plates for this coming year, so that should be more than taken care of.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, then - a supplementary - in view of the fact that quite a number of tour operators and people in the tourism industry have made representation that they feel two plates are better than one plate for the purposes of advertising in southern Canada and the Lower 48, could the Minister of Tourism tell us what his position is: whether or not there should be two plates per vehicle or one?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I cannot honestly say that there has been  a lot of opinion from people in the tourism industry about the benefits of having a plate on one’s vehicle in front and back. As a matter of fact, I have heard the exact opposite view - that it might be good for tourism having just one plate - as it frees up one end of the vehicle to put on one’s own plate to promote whatever event or special activity a person would want to promote, such as the 1992 Alaska Highway 50th Anniversary celebrations.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Introduction of visitors

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would like to draw the Members’ attention to the gallery and the presence of very capable teacher, Bill Bennett and his students from F.H. Collins High School. Welcome to the Legislature today.

(Applause)

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 for Motions for the Production of Papers, and for the motions to be called in the following order: Motion 76, which is Item No. 1; Motion 71, which is Item No. 9; Motion 25, which is Item No. 2; Motion 69, which is Item No. 7.

Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Some Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 76

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Ms. Kassi; debate adjourned; Ms. Joe.

Chair: 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 wellbeing 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 justices.

Hon. Ms. Joe: Two weeks ago during debate, I ended by mentioning some things about tribal justice. Those are all on record. I have some comments to make to that motion.

People tend to interpret what they see and hear through their cultural eyes and ears. The judicial system of this country deals with people from other cultures: its native people.

By interpreting their words and acts through its non-aboriginal eyes and ears, these interpretations are frequently wrong. What this system finds may be very different from what aboriginal people know to be the truth.

The Canadian system of justice is far too insensitive to the needs and aspirations of its aboriginal people.

The Chief Judge of the Territorial Court made a presentation to the Canadian Bar Association that sort of opened the eyes of many people. I would like to quote from that speech. He said, “Significant cultural differences exist between the native people in northern communities and the personnel who are charged with administering the criminal justice system: lawyers, probation officers, police, court staff and judges. These differences are primarily found in the value systems of the two cultures and are reflected in the observable attitudes, demeanour and actions of individuals appearing in the courts. A misinterpretation of these observable characteristics can result in inappropriate assessment of the individual and in the inappropriate response to the courts.”

So, it has already been recognized by the Chief Judge in the territory that there are some problems regarding the cultural differences. They appear to understand that it is a part of the problems that do exist in the courts, not only here in the Yukon but right across the country.

Perhaps the key to understanding the differences between aboriginal people and other Canadians and the Canadian criminal justice system is to understand that this system stresses confrontation and the establishment of blame. On the other hand, aboriginal traditions stress the restoration of harmony in the community and between its individual members.

Aboriginal people believe that any system of justice applicable to them should reflect this value. The aboriginal people of Canada consider Canada’s criminal justice system a failure. I have said that over and over again. It has been said by people time and time again.

It is not surprising, therefore, that we are hearing more and more suggestions of independent systems of justice for aboriginal people. These should be systems that would be sensitive to the cultural needs and aspirations of the various aboriginal first nations.

I know that many obstacles will have to be overcome before any comprehensive system of tribal justice can be accomplished. I know that the federal government has jurisdiction over criminal matters.

I know the former federal Minister of Justice did not look with favour upon separate justice systems for aboriginal people. I remember when he made that statement. It was when he was very newly appointed. At that time, I felt he was not well enough informed of the problems faced by aboriginal people in the courts right across the country. He did say it more than a year later, so there is apparently still a problem there. It may be the case that aboriginal people are not looking for a separate system. They may be looking for a different way of doing things, but not a separate system. What comes out of many jurisdictions remains to be seen.

I know there may be problems with the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These and other issues will have to be addressed and resolved. Those have been mentioned by the Member for Old Crow, but we have to look at many other serious things.

Traditionally, we have a system that is so complex we need highly trained professionals to understand it. How can people with a completely different set of values be expected to understand the system? The concerns go on and on. I do not think we could ever talk enough about the kind of injustices that aboriginal people have seen over the years.

Time and again, I have mentioned that, back in 1974 when I was very involved with Yukon Indians and the law, we became very involved in what was happening in the justice system in the Yukon, and right across Canada when we attended a nation-wide conference. Now, 15 years later, we are still seeing the same kind of things we were seeing then. There have been programs introduced in the correctional centre. Some of those have been a little more successful than the others.

Programs have been introduced in our own centre through the former Minister of Justice, some of which have been very effective. They have not always been consistent with what they are doing, but the opportunity is there for people to try and deal with some of the problems they have. That would include a number of things, such as the sweat lodge that has a spiritual and traditional value to it. We are starting to listen to what the inmates and people who are working in those centres are saying. We are looking at what is happening across Canada in regard to the injustices in the past.

I cited one very good example of the Donald Marshall case in Nova Scotia, and the many things that went wrong, things that you would not believe, in this day and age. We found out there were many people who were completely ignoring facts as they were given to them at that time. A lot of work has to be done. As has been mentioned by the Member for Riverdale South, the side opposite will be supporting this motion, and that is very encouraging.

A year from now, I hope we will have made certain constructive changes. In my department, the Department of Justice, we are looking at a more coordinated effort in trying to deal with the system. We are not trying to tell the aboriginal people of the Yukon what to do, but we are listening to them, and we have offered them assistance by way of funding to do a program. The recent tribal justice conference they held was very successful. From that, I hope we will learn a great deal more about what the communities want.

I would expect there will be further support of this motion.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I, too, would like to rise in support of the motion.

I do so out of a fundamental belief in and support for a community that is driven to initiatives that are beneficial to itself. This motion supports such a principle. I readily admit that my knowledge and familiarity with a functioning tribal justice system is limited. I do recognize the general thrust.

I see it as a cooperative, community-based approach to crime prevention founded on tradition and custom. This motion speaks to the recognition and to the support for a community to assume a greater say in affairs that affect their community.

I hear aboriginal people asking to develop a workable tribal justice system. I hear the Yukon government contributing to an agreement between bands that is intended to lead the development of a tribal justice system within the Yukon, and I hear from Members on this side and the side opposite that they support communities playing a part in affairs that have a direct consequence within their communities.

It would seem to me the obvious course should be to support the initiative of the first nations, as the motion states, to assume greater responsibility over the social problems within their communities through the development of a tribal justice system.

I do not agree that insurmountable problems exist on the issue of the two systems of justice in our society. My legal knowledge is not vast, but I see basic similarities between what is being sought and the system we currently have in place.

Tribal justice is based on tradition and custom, and in a comparative fashion our legal system is based on precedent and common law. I do not see tribal justice as an alien form of justice. I see, however, the need for some work to ensure there is compatibility between the regular justice system and the tribal justice system where overlapping jurisdictions are invariably going to occur.

I have heard Members speak about, and am familiar with, Judge Heino Lilles’ report on the problems in the administration of justice in remote communities. Suffice it to say that Judge Lilles raises the staggering consequences for native people in their dealings with our current legal system. One of the more profound statements Judge Lilles makes in the conclusion of his report is when he speaks to the point that traditional non-native solutions have been tried for the better part of the century with little, if any, success. He suggests it is perhaps time to abandon them, to take a chance, to be risk takers, and develop a new, cooperative approach to the administration of justice in our northern communities.

I say that our motion supports that position, and I can certainly endorse that initiative. I believe we should give our unanimous support to the initiative demonstrated in this motion.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to say a few things about this motion today. I shall not speak at length, but I believe it is an important question and I believe it is appropriate that all Members of the House express themselves on this issue because it is fundamental from the point of view of the people in many of our communities.

I want to begin my remarks by pointing out that, in western civilization, the notion of justice is fundamental to the whole development of our political life and political culture. It is the Judaeo-Christian tradition that we look to thinkers like Plato and Aristotle and their definition of justice for the framework for much of our thinking about the correct ways to deal with our citizens, for dealings between citizens, and for the appropriate ways for the state or government to behave.

These ideas are deeply embedded in our culture. They have been central to political debates in my lifetime. I recall a person campaigning for prime minister in his first election, Pierre Trudeau, and he was campaigning for a just society. This was 20 years ago and during the time the Leader of the Official Opposition was still a prominent Liberal in this community. He would have been very much aware of the just society that was being proposed by Mr. Trudeau. It was an admirable enough notion, but one that was culturally biased. It was a notion of justice that was dictated or formed by the education of that particular person, by the socialization of that particular person, who was uniquely blessed to grow up a bilingual and bicultural Canadian in this great country.

It was a perspective on justice that ignored, or was ignorant of, some other notions of justice that exist in other cultures, not just foreign lands and exotic cultures, but cultures of the first citizens of this land.

I want to approach the debate today from the perspective of someone who grew up and was raised in one kind of cultural environment, but who recognizes that if this Yukon community is to thrive it has to recognize and understand the two cultural solitudes of this place, and deal respectfully and equitably with the other cultural tradition here, which is important, and that is the cultural tradition of the aboriginal people.

I want, therefore, to continue my formal remarks by drawing attention again to the motion you read out to us, which calls for the support of Yukon’s aboriginal people as they assume greater responsibility over social problems in their communities, through instruments like an aboriginal justice system - a system over which they feel some ownership; a system for which they feel some responsibility; a system which need not be in fundamental conflict with ours; a system which can be compatible, but is as fair and as just as the one of which we are so proud when it works well.

What this motion is saying is that there is a recognition, and a necessary recognition, that the social problems in the aboriginal community cannot be addressed by a criminal justice system that is imposed on it from above, or from outside - a system that is different from and foreign to the community it purports to represent.

To have legitimacy, a justice system must be a representation of the best will of the community.

I do not think any Member of this Legislature will try to argue that aboriginal people all across Canada, and certainly in the Yukon Territory, are not over represented as offenders in the justice system. What we have heard from the aboriginal justice inquiry in Manitoba and the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia demonstrates that this over representation is not an accident. It is not an historical anomaly. It is probably, unfortunately, not a temporary aberration. Clearly, there is a systemic bias in the justice system as it now operates in Canada - a bias that continues despite the very best intentions of many of the people who work within that system. This bias, I suspect, begins at the very start of the system and goes on throughout the whole of it.

I want to stress that I am not throwing stones at the very many people in the justice system who are committed to assisting their brothers and sisters, their neighbours, their fellow citizens; but I think all the evidence, this bias, seems to begin at the very start of the system - when decisions are made as to where to police and what to prosecute, who to arrest, who to charge. Once caught up in the system, aboriginal people are often faced with situations to which they do not know the expected response. They suffer a cross-cultural communication problem - one to which the dominant society is often extraordinarily insensitive. They do not always perhaps understand the expectations of this institution in our culture.

That is a problem that is not always unique to native people. It is a problem that is experienced by many poorer, less advantaged people in our system. That is also true of their dealings with other institutions. It is true, and we have heard this said time and time again by commentators on the justice system, that native people caught up in the conflict with the law often, when they are trying to respond to questions, do not know the proper answers to the questions - at least, they do not know the proper answer according to the dominant culture’s point of view.

Their reaction to detention, to court proceedings and to incarceration are not those designed to elicit the most beneficial response from the system. In the north, this systemic bias may be aggravated by the relative transients, the people who enforce the law.

As his honour, Chief Territorial Court Judge Lillies said of people he calls decision makers at a recent tribal justice conference, “For a number of very understandable reasons, they often remain in the community for relatively short periods and leave before they are fully in tune with it and the culture of its residents”.

While this problem may be ameliorating, as our non-aboriginal population becomes less transient and as the understanding between our two communities improves - as we all hope that it will - we still have to face the facts as they are now. From the point of view of Yukon Indian people, the system is not fair as it now operates.

Obviously, I am a person of British descent. I was schooled at home and in the classroom in English notions of justice. Our common law justice system represents part of my personal heritage. As it has been evident, I am sure, on the floor of this House, the adversarial system, as appalling as it sometimes is, makes sense to me. It is a part of my acculturation. It is something with which I feel comfortable, whether it is in parliamentary context or in a judicial context. I understand the reasonings behind its procedures.

I also recognize and respect the fact that the Athabaskan people of northern Canada have different traditions. They have a consensual political tradition that is often very different in its manifestations from the one under which we operate.

Aboriginal people are often appalled by the kind of adversarial, aggressive, confrontational behaviour displayed by people in our parliaments. As well, they find the court system, as it operates, a strange one.

It is obvious that the justice system that we now use in the Yukon territory is almost exclusively the product of one cultural condition, and in almost no respect represents the tradition of the older cultures in this territory.

Even I can see, as someone coming from that very background, that when we attempt to graft our common-law system wholesale on to a culture to which it has little relation, the results are often counterproductive. We have all heard the statistics during the debate on this motion. The Minister of Justice described some of the proceedings around the Marshall inquiry, which is the most painful and revealing process of its kind we have seen in our generation.

We know aboriginal people make up four percent of the general population and 10 percent of the federal prison population and 14 percent of the population of provincial institutions. We know aboriginal people have a young offender crime rate three times higher than their percentage of the national population in the relevant age group. These statistics are a matter of public record. They are plain facts.

I am in the same cultural position as all people in this House of European ancestry in that I do not have a perfect comprehension of what tribal justice is or what it might be. That is understandable. It arises from a culture to which I have only become acquainted in my youth and the years since. It is one of which I have learned much through my family connections and of which I continue to learn. I do know that tribal justice, in whatever form it takes - whether it be a council of elders, a quasi judicial court system, such as is used in the southern United States, or some other manifestation - is an attempt by the community to enforce its community values, and an attempt to force individuals to recognize the significance of their acts and the effect those acts have on the community. That is an important element of any working justice system.

The first nations of the Yukon recognize their people are hurting in the system that now operates. They recognize that, although many of the values of our cultures are shared, the way of reinforcing those values may not be common in all situations, so they look to tribal justice systems.

I believe the aboriginal people of the Yukon deserve our respect and admiration for the way in which they are attempting to deal with their own problems, and the way in which they are examining their traditions for their applicability in a modern world.

I want to end with two quotations that I think are relevant in this debate. I know my colleague from Mayo who is, to my knowledge, the only other person who, like myself, is a student of the Spanish Civil War, knows of the work of the great Jose Garcia Oliver, who said, “Justice, I firmly believe, is so subtle a thing that to interpret it one has only need of a heart.”

That is a statement that, while it is true for me, is one that seems particularly apt in a Spanish-speaking culture.

I believe the hearts of the aboriginal people of the Yukon are as sensitive to the finer ideals of justice as those of non-aboriginal people. I think the British system of justice, and the British notion of justice, are fine things. They are among the finest achievements of our civilization, not just of the English-speaking world but of the western world, but that is not to say they are perfect or that they are necessarily transportable to all corners of the world, or to all cultures.

I want to close with one other quote, which I know will be familiar to all Tories and to all lawyers, and especially those Tories who are also lawyers. It is a statement by Lord Hewart, who wrote, “It is not merely of some importance, but it is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” That statement has so entered our consciousness, so entered the common knowledge of the people of our civilization, in Canada, the United States and Britain, it has now acquired a certain kind of idiomatic or short hand form of justice having to be seen to be done as well as being done.

In working for a tribal justice system, the aboriginal people are wanting to ensure that justice is being done for all Yukoners, aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

In closing, I would note that Mr. David Joe, who is known to all in this House, was asked a question in the recent conference referred to by others in this debate about whether a tribal justice system would apply on aboriginal lands to non-Indian people. He replied, “Yes”.

I know going around in the communities a year ago, describing the arrangements made in the framework agreement on lands claims, that this was a source of some concern to people, to nonaboriginal people. There were apprehensions that somehow they might be dealt with unfairly in some tribal justice system, that there might be some bias in the other direction.

Given our instinctive understanding of the bias against aboriginal people in the present system, perhaps that is not a totally unreasonable fear. Perhaps it has to be said, and was said in those meetings by people who were lawyers, that the general public, the majority in this community, should be assured that any system of tribal justice we are talking about would operate in the context of the Canadian legal system, not outside it.

I am reasonably certain that there would always be an appeal to the conventional system for anyone who was unhappy with the arrangements or with the decision of an aboriginal court.

You, Mr. Speaker, have shared with me some information about the system operating in your home community: the tribal justice system being experimented with by the Tlingit people in Teslin, the reference of issues to the elders of the clans among your people.

I was impressed with the solidity of the concepts at the base of that system and their obvious relevance to your people and your traditions of its proceedings. I was also impressed with, if I may put it this way, the soundness and the justice of the results of the proceedings as you described them.

Mr. Speaker, you have helped in my understanding of this issue and I want to say that if the systems of tribal justice operate in every community in a manner similar to the one in your community, I am sure there is no reason for the non-native citizen of the Yukon to be concerned. Indeed, I believe there is every reason for them to be optimistic and hopeful about this development, and I would therefore urge all Members to endorse the motion before us.

Mr. Phelps: I, too, wish to say a few brief words in support of the motion before us and I would like, once again, to thank the Member for Old Crow for bringing this motion before the House so that we could discuss this very fundamental and important issue that is facing all Yukoners in this day.

I want to say at the outset that I, in supporting this motion, recognize that some aspects of the current legal system are certainly not perfect and that, from time to time, there is evidence of cultural bias that does creep in. I am sure there is not a practising lawyer in the Commonwealth who would say that the adversarial system is perfect in every respect for all people, even for those of the Anglo-Saxon or British traditions.

I read with great interest the remarks of the Chief Judge with regard to some of the shortcomings in our system in northern Canada, as he sees the shortcomings. I read the statistics, which of course most of us were somewhat aware of, and it does seem to me that one area that can be developed is that of more involvement of people at the community level - not just in the case, as stated in this motion, of the Yukon aboriginal people, but in mixed communities by all citizens, because the gap that exists between residents in small communities - in rural communities particularly - and their understanding of the system is one that I think is serious.

It is serious that quite often there is a concern and some agitation in the minds of many when lawyers, judges and court workers travel to the small rural communities from Whitehorse, which in many ways has very little in common with the lifestyle in those communities, whether they be aboriginal or mixed communities, when the sentence, or even the fact that the case has gone to prosecution, is seen as unsatisfactory and as a miscarriage of justice by those who live their daily lives in the community.

There are some broad issues of concern, such as the Charter of Rights, and Freedoms that have to be addressed as some of these new systems are developed by communities and by bands as is occurring in Teslin. There are issues relating to equality under the law, which is fundamental to any democratic society.

These issues must be addressed with sensitivity. They may present obstacles, but not insurmountable obstacles, to the intent of a solution being sought, such as those being put forward in this motion.

I do want to make a number of points, however. I recognize the facts as they are set forward in statistical studies such as those relied upon by Chief Judge Heino Lilles in his presentation. I recognize the findings that were made in the Marshall inquiry. These cause me great concern, as they cause concern to any sensitive citizen, and particularly to anybody who has any kind of involvement in the administration of justice in Canada.

We have to be careful when we look at these statistics and not get swept away with a false logic of cause and effect. The system itself is not the sole cause or the only cause for many of these deplorable statistics. It is very dangerous for people to jump to that conclusion simply by saying that in this system certain people, in this case Indian people, are before the courts in far larger numbers than those in the white society.

I can recall that when I first starting practising here in 1970. At that time, most of my work was in criminal law and I travelled to every community in the territory on a regular basis doing defence work. At that time, I was struck with the fact that, if you talked to people of a certain age in the Indian community, those elders would have no record at all. Yet, their children would have pages and pages of criminal records. There seemed to be a period in time during which more and more of the aboriginal people suddenly started to get in trouble with the criminal laws of the territory.

I noticed, as did others at the time, that one could place the time this malaise or aberration started to occur as some time in the early 1950s in the Yukon. The increase in crime was not just in the one race; it was occurring throughout society in the Yukon. I am sure all of us know oldtimers who can talk about the days when you never needed to have a lock on your door in Whitehorse, or wherever you lived. I knew lots of people who never locked their doors when I was a child growing up, but that period passed in time.

I think there are more reasons than just the justice system that account for the large increase in criminal activity in our society. There are problems relating to other things: alcohol and drug abuse. If one watches Nedaa and listens to the elders speaking to young people, their lament is the elders are not being listened to anymore. That is one of the problems they see with regard to their community and their people.

A lot of the problems may have to do with rapid change, with the fact that back in the late 1940s there were some devastating occurrences and impacts on the culture. It was not so much the Alaska Highway as the drastic drop in furs, the change in lifestyle, the practically-forced movement of people from where they traditionally resided to new communities. There was a tremendous upheaval that took place in that time frame.

I can recall, for example, during the pipeline hearings, when we went to all the communities and heard from large numbers of the elders in most of the rural communities. I can vividly recall the feelings of elders in Haines Junction about being moved from their homeland, their village site, at Aishihik. It was rather heart-rending to hear how helpless they felt and how unhappy they were in their new surroundings at Haines Junction.

At that time, some tremendous social upheaval took place within their culture. I am sure those upheavals had an impact that translates into some of the statistics that we see.

There are all kinds of changes that could be made to the system. Many things have been tried in other jurisdictions. I feel that part of the success, or at least anticipated success, of the kind of justice system that is being started and developed in your community, Mr. Speaker, stems from the fact that authority is being given back to the elders. That authority was traditionally theirs, and ought to be theirs culturally now.

Part of the success is bringing the community together to try to solve the problems and not relying on strangers from the big city of Whitehorse, which is so vastly different in lifestyle from the small communities. That very involvement in itself will have a beneficial impact. That involvement is not just in sentencing or determining whether or not a person ought to be tried for an offence that may or may not be viewed as serious from a cultural perspective, but is also involvement in the sentencing and the rehabilitation process.

Part of the problem in any society is that people do not tend to fulfill their responsibilities to each other. In itself, that neglect can exacerbate a problem such as criminal activity in a smaller community. It is important that communities develop moral and spiritual leaders. It is important that those leaders play a role for their people. I do not think that is exclusive to any culture; it is important in every small town that Yukoners live in. It is important in a place like Whitehorse as well, although Whitehorse has some problems in terms of its size and the turnover of population.

I enjoyed the speech given this afternoon by the Member for Whitehorse West. In introducing one of his famous quotations, he stated that not all Members of the Legislature are lawyers, and not all lawyers are Tories. I think that points to a certain shortfall in the educational and developmental process for lawyers, something I hope will be remedied in the future. Tory 200.

It is important, and I salute the new interest and desire to be involved expressed by aboriginal people at their recent meetings here. I salute the work being done by leaders in many of our communities. I support that work and hope it will lead to a better society.

For all those reasons I very strongly support the motion.

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

Ms. Kassi: I am pleased that there is some support for this motion in this Legislature. It will take many people and a strong political will and a lot of work here in the Yukon to make tribal justice work. This means that the leaders in the mainstream justice field, the aboriginal leaders and the politicians will all have to share a common vision of what justice is and how it can be delivered for the health of our people and our communities, and that the resources are made available for the communities to do this.

True justice reflects the very nature of our society. True justice is balanced and addresses the rights of all citizens. It is not only Donald Marshall Jr. who did not get a fair shake from the justice system. Many people did not get a fair shake from the justice system and these injustices continue. Perhaps the introduction of a tribal justice system will benefit not only aboriginal people but also show others that there is another way to look at justice, a way that will work.

Once again I say that this motion is a beginning, is a way to say yes, we can look after ourselves, we can restore the foundation of our society and act in a way that serves us best. I look forward to the day when our plans become action and tribal justice is firmly part of all justice here in the Yukon. Thank you.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Are you agreed?

Motion No. 76 agreed to

Clerk: Item No. 9, standing in the name of Mr. Joe.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 9?

Mr. Joe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 71

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

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to increase the Northern Residents Tax deduction to compensate for the anticipated higher cost of living which will result from the implementation of the federal goods and services tax.

Mr. Joe: I am worried about what the GST, the Conservatives’ sales tax, will do to people of fixed incomes, like pensioners and those on social assistance. Also, I am worried how the GST will affect housing costs. This motion deals with the need to find a way to increase the northern residents tax deductions so that it will truly help people in the north who will be hurt by the GST.

I am worried about what the tax will do to the income of many people in the Yukon, who rely on trapping as a way of life.

The Conservative sales tax will mean higher bills for repairs to vehicles. It will cost more to run a trap line.

The Yukon government has worked hard to develop programs like the trap exchange program to help trappers, and now the federal government wants to have a tax that will hurt trappers. In a good year, a trapper will earn maybe $15,000 to $20,000. This is in a good year. Most years are not good. So, trappers can earn maybe $20,000 in a country where the low income cut-off set by Statistics Canada for a family of five people is just over $17,000.

Low income people cannot afford to pay this tax.

Besides hurting the people who trap for a living, the GST will also hurt outfitters and people who work in the tourism industry. The Yukon is a good place for visitors. The Yukon government has done a lot of work to make sure people from around the world know about our territory. The GST will only mean that fewer people will be willing to pay the price to get here.

As I have said, everyone in the Yukon will be affected with increased prices. The cost of living is already high here. We must do what we can so that it will not go higher. The Government of Canada could at least increase the northern residents tax deduction to help out.

Ms. Hayden: I want to support this motion. All of us in this House need to do what we can to ease the effects of the goods and services tax, or the GST, on the people of the Yukon. An increase in the northern benefits deduction seems like the very least the federal government can do to assist northerners. For my part, I am particularly concerned about the single-parent families, mostly woman-led, who are living at the poverty line. I am concerned about parents who, in buying necessities like snowsuits for their children, are faced with prices that are often nearly double those found in the southern parts of this country. I am concerned about seniors who are living on fixed incomes and who are faced with a claw-back of their pensions. I am concerned about the bank tellers who pay taxes that are proportionally higher than the banks that employ them. And I am concerned about people like the gas station attendants who are taxed at higher rates than the large oil companies.

Now, especially since the budget cuts announced just last week by the federal government, I am more concerned than ever. Those cuts are aimed at the very members of our society who have struggled against monumental odds to gain the respect they deserve. I am talking about the aboriginal peoples who have been ostracized in their own land and I am talking about women who have fought for years for equality of citizenship. Social housing, the mainstay of so many women who are single parents who are struggling to keep their families together, has been cut by some $51 million over two years. Advocacy group funding has been cut by $70 million over two years, including $46 million out of Secretary of State and $24 million in cuts to Health and Welfare programs and grants.

This funding is the backbone of self-help groups, and legal aid funding has been frozen at current levels. Some Canadians will no longer have the right to expect that they will be able to retain legal counsel to represent them. Justice may become the prerogative of the wealthy.

This federal budget has done nothing for child care, nothing for the environment and, in the face of anticipated unemployment on a national scale, this budget has done nothing for job creation programs.

At a time when we, here in Yukon, are striving to build up our social services, the federal government seems intent on destroying Canada’s social programs. On one hand, they are bringing in legislation to disqualify Canadians from federal benefits such as unemployment insurance, and on the other hand they are limiting the resources of the territories and provinces for coping with increased demands on social services.

New Democrats have in Yukon, and throughout this country, supported social welfare and help/advocacy groups. Support for these groups should increase, not decrease. We have supported social housing programs and opposed cuts to cooperative housing. New Democrats refuse to accept the contention that the reduction of services and funding to aboriginal people and organizations is necessary for the well being of the country. We firmly believe in the principle of equality and opportunity for all people.

The budget will hit especially hard in the north where cuts to health care and post-secondary education funding will mean a loss of $10.7 million right here in the Yukon between 1990 to 1991 and 1994 to 1995.

We have already heard that Dan Sha is gravely affected by the cuts. In a time when communication is vital to the quality of life, we must support, not destroy, our media. Cuts to the CBC budget could affect the availability of Canadian signals in remote areas. As northerners, we know how important this link is to our people.

Not that long ago, speaking to a motion dealing specifically with the goods and services tax, I pointed out that since the Conservatives took office in 1984, personal taxes have increased by 46 percent. Our corporate taxes have risen by only 21 percent. In 1989 to 1990 alone, personal income tax has increased 16 percent and corporte income taxes in that same period saw a modest increase of only seven percent. Where is the equality of a system that punishes the people living at the lower end of the economic scale, and in the most isolated part of this country, to the benefit of the large corporations and the wealthy? Rather than spend millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money to promote what is really a sales tax, the money might be better spent to enhance social programs, not undermine them. We have been told that child care services will not be affected by the GST, for example, but will the people who run the child care operations? When people who do not make great financial gains from their work are faced with more expenses for equipment and supplies, they cannot help but pass on these costs to the parents whose children are in their care.

There are thousands of Canadians, Canadians on fixed incomes, Canadians with disabilities, Canadians living in remote regions of this country including the Yukon and Northwest Territories, working Canadians living on minimum wage, who will suffer when this tax is implemented.

The equation reads like this: those who earn less will pay more, and this lesson has hit home even harder with the new Conservative budget. I am concerned about the low-income people who just cannot afford to wait for the promised rebates, and I am concerned about first-time home buyers, who have been diligent about saving to buy a house and who will be held back once again. We are faced with a tax system that will soon see individuals paying $4 in personal income tax for every $1.00 in tax paid by big business. I ask you, Mr. Speaker: is that fair? And still the government wants more. The federal government seems to have lost its perspective. Greed is being put before the best interests of the people.

The Victoria Faulkner Women’s Centre is threatened by cuts in Secretary of State money; it will be closing, no doubt. What is the point of charging those who can least afford to pay?

When I spoke on the GST motion before us in December, I quoted national statistics that showed that a basket of food that cost $104 in Vancouver will come to $141 in Whitehorse. In Ottawa, the birthplace of the GST, that same food basket costs just $103. Compare it. We pay $38 more food in Whitehorse than Mr. Wilson pays in Ottawa and that is without counting in the addition of a GST on transportation to Whitehorse.

The Nightmare on Main Street, referred to by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its presentation to the Finance Committee of the House of Commons, will not go away. This massive tax, along with its administrative tangle, will be imposed by a government that either is not listening or just does not care about the regions of this country, especially the north. This motion before us today is one way for us to at least salvage something from a bad situation. The northern resident deduction must be increased and so must the sales tax credit under the GST’s rebate scheme. The GST is taking on a life of its own and will, I suspect, be with us.

I support the motion before us in the hope that we can encourage the Government of Canada to finally act in a way to compensate northerners for this hardship tax and hardship budget. We have a responsibility, as representatives of the people of the Yukon, to push and push hard for whatever can be done to ease the burden on northerners.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I, too, would like to add my support to this motion. There is no question in my mind that a strong and unified message should be sent from this Legislature to the federal government about the severe impact the GST will have on northern people. Previous speakers have indicated some specifics of that impact, and I would like to discuss the general impact.

When you combine the numerous other cutbacks that are being imposed on northerners by the federal government, the real seriousness of the GST will be felt - not only by a taxation on all goods and services, but by having less money with which to meet those increased costs.

In other words, if you have not only a taxation regime imposed on you but you have less money available for the society at large with which to operate, you in effect compound things and create a double imposition of hardship. It is the contention of many people, and I agree, that Canadians in the north have to pay a greater price to live here than southern Canadians pay to live there. I do not suggest that is simply a figurative description; I think across the broad range of all the goods and services we provide and that are provided for us, the costs are simply higher for us in the north. That is an accepted fact of life to live here. Whether we are talking about utilities, whether we are talking about food costs, whether we are talking about transportation costs, whether we are talking about housing, whether we are even talking about communications, we pay more to have these services here and it becomes no argument that it simply is a higher cost to live here and be here and do business here.

The recognition of that higher cost has been acknowledged, albeit I do not think adequately, by the northern residents tax benefit that is permitted in our income tax. I do not believe that deduction is either adequate for compensating the increased cost of living here, nor do I believe that it compensates adequately for the higher tax contribution that northern people make to Canada in comparison to southern people.

In the first instance, I submit that northerners already pay more income tax, for example, on average than people in the south. This is on the basis of a higher income that is often the situation in the north, but it is a higher income that is necessitated by the higher cost of living and the higher cost to be here. What happens is that people in the north are now being asked to pay an across the board seven percent tax on their already higher income and their already higher cost of goods and services. That is not, in comparison to what southern Canadians pay, a fair tax. It is a compounding effect, in my opinion, because northerners are not being asked to only pay the seven percent, like the rest of Canada is, but they are being asked to pay it on higher-cost items. The tax consequence, I submit, is more than the average southern Canadian has to pay, and that certainly is not fair.

In previous debates, I have indicated how a number of areas create a compounding cost impact on northern people. Certainly, one of those areas is air travel. By virtue of where we are located in the north, we have to travel further to get anywhere, whether we are visiting rural communities in the Yukon or whether we are visiting other communities in Canada.

It already costs us substantially more to travel than it costs the average Canadian. In the past, I have cited Statistics Canada figures where the average Yukon family spends just under $700 per year on air travel. The average Canadian family spends an average of just over $200. Already what we have is not only a wide variance in the cost of an item, but we also have a tax imposition that is going to be taxing a greater amount. That invariably means a greater tax to be paid. That is altogether unfair.

The same thing is true for transportation in general. By virtue of where we are located, we already pay an increased cost for the transportation of many goods that come to us from southern suppliers or manufacturers. We pay an increased cost on that transportation to get the goods here. When you tax that, you are taxing a far greater amount than any person would pay in a southern jurisdiction. Someone who pays a tax on goods that are manufactured in Delta and moved to downtown Vancouver has only a few kilometres of distance and does not pay the corresponding tax we must pay for the transportation of similar goods.

The situation has been of some concern in meetings I have attended in my ministerial capacity. The municipalities are particularly concerned about the imposition of a GST. They are concerned about the complexity of it, about having to upfront the costs before a rebate is paid, and the same is true for the whole housing industry and building community. Builders will have to do the same thing: front the cost and then produce the paperwork to get the rebate.

The issue of the unfairness of the tax system on the north, combined with the excessive cost of those basic goods and the compounding effect of this, is a harsh measure. In the area of housing, I also believe we are going to be particularly hard hit. Granted, there is going to be a 4.5 percent rebate on new homes, but that will still mean a $4,500 increase in cost on the average $100,000 home to the purchaser. It spirals through the system. The compounding effect is extremely impacting. You not only have your materials for a home taxed at the supplier end, they are also taxed at the transportation end, the purchase end and, invariably, you end up paying that tax two or three times along the way before the finished product that is ready for you to live in.

It is of some concern to me and to all Yukon people that our costs are going to be increased by the imposition of the GST. I find it strangely ironic that our own territorial Conservative party campaigned in the last several elections on the premise that to elect an NDP government meant there would be a sales tax.

The fact is that the NDP is now in its second term, and it has not introduced any sales tax or raised taxes. It has upgraded and introduced new services at a pace far beyond what previous administrations have been able to do.

The Members seem to want to argue with the facts. I submit that the only sales tax that we have is the one that was imposed by the federal Conservatives. Some people are calling it the Conservative sales tax. That is probably more appropriate.

There will a compounding effect on people in the north by the imposition of this tax. In the first instance, it is a very unfair tax because it forces everyone to pay, whether a person is of middle-income status, a high-income status or a low-income status.

The previous speaker articulated very well the unfairness of the tax because of its impositional nature on everyone. It forces more of the tax burden to lower-income people simply because there are more of them, and they all require the goods and services that are being taxed. In a proportionate sense, lower-income people pay more than their fair share of that tax.

They spend more of their disposable income, more of their earnings, on the necessities of life than do people who are better off. That is unfair. It contradicts a fundamental principle of taxation that is based upon our ability to pay.

Given that we are going to have this tax imposed on us anyway, unless it can be stopped, some of the impact can be offset by an increase of the northern resident taxation benefit. It should be increased. The threshold should be changed. There should be some mitigating offset for people who have to pay this tax under the conditions that we face in the north where the costs are already significantly higher than anywhere in the south.

At the same time that we have the imposition of the GST, it concerns me that we have a host of other financial cutbacks going on that severely impact our ability to maintain a reasonable quality of life and level of service to Yukon people.

The most recent announcement of cuts in grants to aboriginal groups and women’s organizations are examples of this. It is not only an increased burden on northern people, it demonstrates an abandonment by the federal government of essential support for the north.

I took the opportunity earlier this week to write to Mr. Siddon expressing my concern over the cutback relating to the native citizens directorate. The action of cutting back in this area will have a severe negative impact. It will affect all native populations, not the least of which will be jobs within the service provided.

It will affect production of northern newspapers. It will affect the production of the native radio broadcasting. It will be a severe blow to native television production.

I would say these newspapers and broadcasting productions have received national and international acclaim for their quality and cultural relevance. This is at a time when northern native communications are directly engaged in establishing a northern television network. It seems to me this move will serve to severely cripple native broadcasting, television and radio capability in the north for some time. It is a matter of considerable concern.

When we think back to the reduction of our formula financing arrangements, we seem to have some evidence that northern people are being punished. For what, I do not know. When we look at the vacating of federal responsibility in many essential services and financial support, combined with the GST, I think we have what amounts to a horrendous treatment that makes northern people second-class citizens. Just look around. We have increased taxation on communications. We have increased postal fees. We have a higher air travel tax, not to mention the GST on top of that. MOT parking fees have been imposed. All these things will cost more and invariably be taxed more. On top of this, the GST is added to the cost of all these things.

To increase the northern residents tax benefit is barely enough. A strong message has to be sent to the federal government about the multitude of harsh measures being imposed on the north, about the crippling effect this increased taxation will have on us, and we should make a strong statement about how unacceptable it is that the the federal government is abrogating its responsibility for various services. We should make a strong statement about the disincentives being foisted on us for being here.

Mr. Lang: The motion is obviously going to be carried unanimously.

I agree with many things the Member opposite said. I caution this to some degree in being too critical of the Government of Canada. I say that because the present government in office is the reason we have the northern tax credit to begin with. It is important to realize the principle behind it was to recognize our remoteness and that our cost of living is higher than in other parts of Canada. It is because of this that the particular section of the Income Tax Act came into being.

I would also point out the principle behind it is that individuals should have more disposable income than the government.

That is one principle I do subscribe to. No matter what level of government, there always seems to be a fair misexpenditure of dollars. Later on today, we are going to be voting on a motion to delete $62,300 for the land claim negotiator to go on a 12-month sabbatical to the French Riviera. It is ludicrous that we would even be discussing a topic of that kind in a Legislature that is supposed to represent responsible government. Yet, we are, and there is going to be a serious vote taken on it later today.

It may be better for the people to have more disposable income than all the combined wise minds in this room coming together to spend it on their behalf. At times, I would say there were mistakes made as far as how money should be expended.

The Minister who just spoke made some observations that are true. We are going to see some degree of inflationary pressure on everybody’s pocketbook in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, even more so than what we have experienced in the past year. Some cutbacks are going to seriously affect us. For example, if one lives in Old Crow, the changes to the post office subsidy for the purpose of freight is going to have some effect on those people.

With the tightening of federal money, there is going to be less disposable income for many of our citizenry.

If viewed positively and taken positively to the Government of Canada, this is an area where we can say there have to be some amends made to us living in the north, in view of the effects some of the federal policies are going to have. The GST that was spoken of earlier is fortunately not going to apply to food, and fortunately is not going to apply to real estate, but it is going to apply to considerable aspects of our economy.

With that in mind, the one aspect where we have a legitimate cause for concern is our remoteness. For the same commodity in Edmonton, landed here in Whitehorse, we are going to pay for the cost plus transportation. We do get an initial significant increase on any goods shipped to the Yukon and bought here.

The representation made by our side to the federal committee that was studying the GST made a firm recommendation that we should be looking at other alternatives. Because of our regional situation in Canada, what amends can the Government of Canada make, in view of the fact they also have a national responsibility. There is good logical, as well as political, reasoning to provide this alternative to the Government of Canada.

I want to conclude by strongly recommending this particular motion be sent to: the Prime Minister; the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Siddon; and Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Finance. Something could be done with the opposition sides, so a letter should be sent to the Leader of the Liberal party and to Ms. Audrey McLaughlin.

This is a positive motion that gives a positive alternative to the Government of Canada. It is not going to cost the Government of Canada a lot of money.

Hon. Ms. Joe: It has long been a concern of Yukoners that the high cost of living and doing business in the Yukon needs better recognition by the federal government. Since the federal government proposed the goods and services tax, this concern has become a very serious issue. This tax will not only be a substantial increase to the already high cost of living but will force Yukon people to pay a proportionally larger amount of the tax since costs are already higher here than in the rest of the country.

If the plans of the Conservative government in Ottawa are to decrease our government grant, we can expect the Yukon population to be paying more than its fair share. This, combined with the federal government’s interest in offloading programs in the recent federal revenue-generating initiatives, will all work toward creating extreme hardships for the Yukon.

I challenge all Members in the House to realize that the people of the Yukon cannot be expected to bear this inequity and be expected to develop a healthy economy. Small business being an important part of the Yukon economy, it is foreseeable that, with the Conservative sales tax and the hardships of our economy, small businesses will be affected the most.

Because small business will receive such a negative impact, this impact will most certainly be extended to employees. We know we can estimate that an average Whitehorse family will be expected to pay nearly $400 more per year than the average Canadian family under the proposed sales tax. I would expect that we can safely say that this will at least double for those outlying community residents, and I believe this to be extremely unfair.

The cost of living in Whitehorse is approximately 25 percent higher than the rest of Canada. The communities’ cost will be even higher than this - sometimes as much as 50 percent higher. The impact of the increased tax will be very severe. Many of the members of the communities are considered-low income households by definition.

My question to the federal government is: how do they expect these communities to survive? Even with those items that are tax exempt, they will not be truly tax exempt. For example, day cares, while tax exempt, may have to eventually increase their fees if they are to survive because their costs will increase. This will create a very serious hardship for single parents. Yukon has a higher proportion of single-parent families than all of the other provinces and territories. Single-parent families make up 50 percent of Yukon families and 75 percent of those are headed by women. Any increases in day care for these families will surely be a serious matter.

With an increase in taxes as proposed in the Conservative sales tax for such things as clothing, shoes and books, as well as anticipated increased day care, the cost of raising a family in the Yukon will be more than the average person can afford.

Knowing that the lower income person will bear the brunt of this proposed goods and services tax, it is our responsibility as Members of this House to demand that the federal government increase the deductions allowed for northern residents, in order to offset the huge increase in the cost of living for Yukoners during the last three years as well as the future.

If the present northern tax deduction policy is to encourage people to live and work in remote areas, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to make northern benefits attractive enough to ensure that we can develop a good economy and a stable labour force. Not only do we need an increase in our northern resident deductions, but the federal government also needs to look at ways to adjust the sales tax credit that will fairly - and I stress fairly - reflect the cost of living in the north, and in particular, the isolated communities.

I am concerned about our economy and I am concerned about our communities. It is our corporate responsibility as Members of this House to do all that we can to ensure that the federal government recognizes our needs and prepares a system of tax benefits that will provide for the equity that all other Canadians enjoy.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion this afternoon.

All of us who live in the north are aware that the price we pay for our goods and services are much higher than those faced by most Canadians who live in larger urban centres. Those of us who have been here for awhile have learned to cope with the cost, to budget for them. Union members have been able to negotiate slightly better contracts than some of their colleagues in the south. Employers have recognized that turnover is high if they do not adjust their wage scales to recognize the high cost of living that they, and their employees, must pay.

This, together with the high cost of bringing goods into the territory, means that business operation costs are higher here than in southern Canada. All of us who live in the north pay something for the privilege. These costs and the unfairness of taxing northern incomes without some adjustment for the higher cost of living paid by northerners, have been recognized in several successive northern benefits taxation regimes.

The need for some form of northern taxation benefit that  offsets the cost associated with living in the north, was reconfirmed recently in the report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas. That task force recognized that a tax system applied uniformly on the basis of income alone imposes a greater burden in real terms on individuals living in regions with higher costs of living and higher wages.

Unfortunately, the gross effects of the GST on the cost of living in northern Canada were not considered by the task force when it made its recommendations. Everyone knows that the GST will, without a doubt, increase the cost of living in Canada. The GST, also referred to by Yukoners as the CST or the Conservative sales tax, will pyramid the cost of living for people in the northern and remote parts of the country.

I do not know if Yukoners calling the GST “the CST” is corny or not. We are one of the few jurisdictions in the country without a sales tax, and the reason we will be paying extra for a sales tax, another seven percent on every dollar we spend, will be because of this tax imposed by the Conservative government in Ottawa. Consequently, it is known by Yukoners as the Conservative sales tax.

As I was saying, this Conservative sales tax will pyramid the cost of living for people in the northern and remote parts of the country. The GST is not fair to low and middle income earners wherever they live in Canada. It is especially not fair to low and middle income earners who live in the Yukon or elsewhere in the north, in the Maritimes, or anywhere distant from the major manufacturing and populated centres of the country. We already pay more for our daily needs. A seven percent consumption tax on top of our inflated cost of living means we will pay proportionately more than our friends and relatives living in the south.

Similarly, my constituents living in Dawson City will pay more because of the Conservative sales tax than people here in Whitehorse simply because they are a little further yet from the shipping centres that send us our household furnishings, groceries and many other things we need in order to live.

Transportation services will be taxed, not to mention most products being shipped.

A northern tax benefits tax break, which does not recognize the cumulative effect of the Conservatives sales tax, contributes to the further erosion to Canada as a nation. There was a time in this country when citizens, regardless of where they lived in Canada, felt that they were members of a national family. However, in the years that the Conservative government has been in power, Canadians in the north and in other remote parts of the country have come to feel that we are being dealt out of the federal family. I often hear this complaint expressed by people from the Maritime provinces when I am fortunate enough to attend ministerial meetings in filling my responsibilities as a Minister of Renewable Resources and Tourism.

They claim that the network of federal policies that offered most Canadians equal benefits within Confederation over decades has been systematically dismantled for reasons of running the country as a business - a bottom-line philosophy. Fairness, as a result, has been sacrificed in the name of efficiency.

For example, airline deregulation may have made travel cheaper on the more heavily-travelled Canadian routes. However, it has meant higher costs and less service between remote parts of the country. A couple of years ago, we saw the introduction of a communications tax that saw an increase for most northerners of another 10 percent on their bills. There was no cap on the extra tax.

That is unfair to people living in remote regions. Maritimers claim that the Via Rail cuts will affect the Toronto-Montreal corridor a lot less than it will the smaller centres.

In general, the federal/territorial and the federal/provincial funding and the equalization programs have been unilaterally cut in many cases by the federal government, to the misfortune of many Canadians, and to those specifically who live outside of central Canada.

The latest example of this hit home just last week when the introduction of the federal budget funding for most aboriginal communications across the country was drastically cut. We know that most of the aboriginal people live in the remote and northern regions of our country.

I agree with the Member for Porter Creek East that the federal government has not pursued these policies out of malice. They just have not given enough consideration to their effects. They are detrimental effects to the Yukon, the north and remote areas in general.

I would like to encourage the federal government to give some consideration to implementing some measures that will offset the negative effects of their policies on the north. I would like to encourage the federal government to give some consideration to increasing our northern tax benefit.

Mr. Phillips: I rise today to support this motion. I support the motion on behalf of the people of the Yukon who will be severely impacted by this proposed goods and services tax.

Even though the tax has been reduced from nine percent to seven percent, it will adversely affect Yukoners of all walks of life. I hoped that the earlier motion of December 6, 1989, opposing the GST, which was subsequently passed as amended by the Members of this House, would have been sufficient.

Obviously the Government of Canada does not want to be aware of the Yukon’s high cost of living and the other disadvantages that we face compared to other jurisdictions. That was obvious several weeks ago when an interview was conducted with the Minister of Finance. He was asked the very question about this affecting the north differently than other areas.

He made the suggestion that the proposed GST would help the north and that it would see a 1.6 percent growth in the north. He at the same time said that it would help the manufacturing industry.

I suggest to the Minister of Finance that that may very well be, that it may help the manufacturing industry, but not in our lifetime. He is perhaps a little confused by the fact we have a very small manufacturing industry. The problem is that it has to receive most of its products, goods and services from the south, so will be adversely affected by the goods and services tax.

Initially, manufacturing will be harmed by this tax. Down the road, if we ever become like southern Ontario - heaven forbid - where we have lots of manufacturing, that is when the Minister’s prediction of it helping the north might be accurate. Right now, the Minister is wrong. It could well be a deterrent to manufacturing development in the north, rather than promoting it.

Unfortunately, the first message we gave to the Minister when we passed a motion in the House on December 6 did not get through. That is the reason we are dealing with this motion today.

We have to be persistent. We have to impress on the Government of Canada that the current tax proposal will only serve to increase regional disparity in this country, especially in the north. Everyone who lives north of 60 knows that our cost of living is 20 percent to 30 percent higher than that of our neighbours to the south. In any and every way possible, we have to make the Government of Canada aware of these facts, even if we have to repeat them time and again.

If we are persistent, I believe we will prevail, as we have in the past. As the Member for Porter Creek East said, the federal government recognized our high cost of living when it allowed the northern resident deduction in filing income tax. We should give this Conservative government in Ottawa credit for doing that. No other government has ever made that kind of a move.

As well, rather than slamming the government in Ottawa, and although they have cut back our formula financing, we have never had it so good with money the Yukon government is receiving. I believe it currently works out to $10,000 for every man, woman and child in the territory that we are receiving in transfer payments from Ottawa. The provinces receive less than $1,000 for man, woman and child, I think.

It is perhaps not right for us to jump up and down and scream at Ottawa for these cutbacks. Although we are getting cut back, we are not getting treated the same as other Canadians. If some of the other Members who spoke earlier want to be treated as fairly as other Canadians, are they suggesting that we should be under the same type of transfer payments other Canadians are? If that were the case, we would be in big trouble. That is not what anyone here is suggesting.

We should realize that it is the Conservative government in Ottawa that gave us a fairly healthy formula financing deal for the past five years, although not quite as healthy for the next several years. There is some concern over the structure of the financing, and I sympathize with Members who have spoken out in that respect. I would caution us not to fed-bash over the amount of money the federal government gives us. Overall, the federal government has treated northerners reasonably well.

This proposal that has been brought forth by the Member for Tatchun is not the perfect solution, as it only offers relief to those Yukoners who file an income tax return. The tax Yukoners will have to pay on goods and services will apply to everybody. Many lower income Yukoners do not file tax returns, and they are the ones who are going to be the hardest hit.

Similarly, it would do little to make the Yukon manufacturers more competitive and reduce our transportation costs or, as others have said, to promote our tourism industry.

The motion could be called a mitigative measure, rather than an answer to all the problems that will be created by the imposition on Yukoners of the seven percent goods and services tax. We have to take whatever relief we can get. There is a good chance the Government of Canada will look upon this request favourably, as did Mr. Don Blenkarn of the standing committee on finance, who looked at the goods and services tax and actually suggested a measure such as this to address the inequities the north might face.

Accordingly, I think we should make the best of a bad situation, and I would like to call on all our Members to support this motion put forward by the Member for Tatchun.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have a few remarks I would like to make this afternoon with respect to this motion. I am somewhat disappointed by some of the comments put forward by some Members in the House with respect to the approach we ought to take with the federal government in this matter, given the history of financial relations between governments. I will talk about that just for a moment, after I talk about the motion itself.

The motion, it can be argued, is a timely one given the fact that we have now been subjected to a series of restraint measures inflicted by federal authorities, the most recent being a federal budget, which was tabled this last week and which indicated that further cuts, particularly relating to native people and women, ought to be inflicted. Of course, given the demographics of the Yukon, these cuts will hurt northerners again, more than others. I think it is a timely motion because we have to indicate, as a Legislature, our strong, forceful concern about the understanding or lack of understanding the federal authorities and federal politicians have shown to the north by causing greater hardship to the north through their uniform fiscal measures - uniform across the country but, because the cost of living in the north is higher, of greater consequence to northerners.

We heard a chorus from the opposite side that we ought to be thankful - that we ought to perhaps take a down-on-bended-knee approach with the federal government so as not to alienate them while we are asking for fair treatment for northerners. Without being confrontational, I would like to express a sincere regret that Members would advocate such a posture.

The Yukon government has historically had a very professional relationship with its federal counterparts. It has not been an approach that has been repaid in kind and I feel that, in the end, given the litany, this long list of federal fiscal measures that have impacted negatively on the north, I would think our approach ought perhaps to be more one of forceful indignation than one of cowering respect for federal authorities.

One Member mentioned that the formula financing arrangement we had was given to us by the federal Conservative government and that we should be thanking our lucky stars for what was referred to as $10,000 per person. It is not $10,000 per person; it is probably more in the neighbourhood of $6,000, but nevertheless it is correct to say that, on a per capita basis, the transfer to the Yukon is larger than the transfer to the provinces. The reason for that is that there is a very small population who are acting as caretakers for a very large territory, for which there are very significant responsibilities being undertaken by this population to meet national interests.

We maintain roads to such far flung communities as Inuvik at great expense to Yukon, for which there are no measurable benefits to Yukon taxpayers. We do that in the national interest. That is calculated into the transfer that we do receive from the federal government. It would not be right, especially for this Legislature, to draw comparisons between what the Yukon government receives on a per capita basis and what the provinces receive on a per capita basis. Certainly we receive much less than the Northwest Territories who receive in the neighbourhood of $13,000 per capita. Then again, their costs of doing business are extremely high with a small population in a very large territory. Consequently, it is appropriate they receive a large transfer payment per capita. It is quite justified that the Yukon receive a similar payment. Never once have I heard in any discussions between the federal and territorial government that the size of the transfer, per se, is something that really must be drawn down to provincial levels, or even a provincial average, or a high provincial level. Clearly, there is an understanding that the government’s cost of doing business in the north and the role that Yukoners play in meeting national objectives is quite significant and, consequently, requires more funds from the Canadian taxpayers.

It is necessary to point out once again that the formula agreement that was struck in 1984-85 has been reduced in its effectiveness by a number of things to a point where I would call into question the assertion that we remain the beneficiaries of riding the crest of a wave of wealth. This is not true. It has never been expressed as being true by federal officials, largely because inflation has eaten away substantially at the grants, and because the growth in population has eaten away the effectiveness of the grant, given we want to provide a standard of service comparable to that available in the provinces. That was the reason for the formula transfer in the first place and the large sum of money from the federal government, both Liberal and Conservative, to the Yukon.

It is necessary to be cautious in our remarks about the need to be careful and kind to federal authorities because the situation in the past few years has shown that there is serious reason for concern on this matter.

As a matter of note for the Member who indicated we should be thankful to the federal Conservatives because they are responsible for bringing in the northern tax allowance in 1986, it is important to remind Members I was part of the northern benefits committee in the Yukon back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, that it was a Conservative administration that announced there would no longer be a remission order for northern tax allowances. Clearly, that was the event of the late 1970s that caused northerners to mobilize and fight for fairness.

Having said that, we have to keep in mind the need to be fair ourselves about what the federal government has done. We have to be cognizant of some of the concerns that the federal government has about its deficit.

The federal government has done some things in the north that are good. It has done something about resolving a problem, even though it is partly of its own creation, with the northern tax allowance creation in 1986. That was good. The support that the Yukon received on the opening of Curragh was good. Other acts were good.

We have to be aware, too, that the federal government has a deficit. That is a deficit for Canadians, not just a deficit for some artificial government that has no relationship with people. It is their deficit; it is our deficit. Consequently, it is of some concern. It should also be of some concern to us.

We must promote a situation at all levels of government where expenditures match revenues. I expressed that sympathy for that problem to Mr. Wilson personally on the occasion that I met with him some months ago. It has been reiterated in writing to him on a number of occasions.

The question is not whether or not Canadians, and Yukoners in particular, should participate in deficit reduction. That ought to be a fact accepted by all Canadians; Yukoners are Canadians too.

The issue is whether or not Yukoners, as northerners and as Canadians, are being treated fairly. The issue is whether or not we are fighting a deficit to the same extent as other Canadians. The issue is whether or not we are bearing our fair share of this tax, which seems to have dominated all federal policy thinking over the last few years, and we project that it will over the next few years, as well.

We have indicated to the federal government that our cost of living is higher than the rest of Canada. It is substantially higher. We have a situation that is rather unique in the northern regions because of the small populations and large districts that we administer. It is also because the cost of living, the cost of transportation and the cost