Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, May 2, 1990 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will now turn to the Order Paper.

Are there any Introduction of Visitors?

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Are there any Introduction of Bills?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 9: Introduction and First Reading

Hon. Mr. Webster: I move the Bill No. 9, entitled An Act to Amend the Animal Protection Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Renewable Resources that Bill No. 9, entitled An Act to Amend the Animal Protection Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 9 agreed to

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

Notices of Motion?

Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Education department staff turnover

Mr. Phelps: I have a question for the Minister of Education with regard to the issue of morale in the Department of Education. I wonder if the Minister could tell us how many employees have come to see him personally in the last three months in regard to abuse of authority or workplace harassment by senior officials in his department.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I have indicated before: one group of about five or six employees and one employee alone.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister tell us if these complaints were about abuse of authority and workplace harassment, including swearing, threats and unwarranted criticisms, all emanating from one senior official in the department?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I am not going to divulge the nature or character of the conversations I have had with the employees. The employees discussed, as I indicate before, general morale within the department and I indicated to them I would be more than prepared to work at helping resolve their concerns and boost morale in that particular section.

Mr. Phelps: Will the Minister consider supporting an initiative that was raised by the Member for Riverdale South last week, an initiative to bring in some legal protection for employees from workplace harassment and abuse of authority?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I understand it, and I am not the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, but as I understand it, there is not only a grievance procedure, there is also a group or a new initiative that is being worked out with respect to harassment in the workplace, for which people can also air their concerns. I am presuming that if there is a problem, it will be dealt with through the appropriate channels.

Question re: Education department staff turnover

Mr. Phelps: There is a problem and, in my view, given the number of people who have approached me and phoned me and written me, it is a serious problem. It does involve one senior official in the department and I can say, and I am wondering if the Minister knows, that at a public meeting held at the fire hall at the Golden Horn subdivision on June 7, 1989, the senior official, in the presence of  myself and the Member for Watson Lake, referred to officials in the department as a bunch of “deadwood”, with certain adjectives that I would not want to raise in these Chambers?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have no idea whether or not the allegation that the Member is making is true. The department officials within the Department of Education are not deadwood, and I am not sure what the context was in which the comment may or may not have been made. Certainly, if the Member wants to give me more information later, I will be more than happy to investigate that.

Mr. Phelps: I can tell the Minister that it was in reference to a letter sent to that official by the MLA for Watson Lake, and it was a meeting at which the Minister was present but, I am sure, was too far away to overhear the conversation, although a lot of parents did, who were in the immediate vicinity.

I would like to know if the Minister would consider appointing an independent person of some stature as an ad hoc ombudsman, to hear the complaints in confidence and make recommendations about the deplorable situation in the department.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will not entertain that possibility. As I have indicated, there are procedures to deal with grievances between employees and their supervisors. There is also the harrassment policy I referred to, which will be the basic structure of the grievance procedure, where the issue can be fairly heard within proper procedures. I have also indicated that, with respect to the matters that have been brought to my attenion, I have been dealing with them expeditiously and thoroughly. Those are the appropriate procedures for dealing with the matter. I do not believe other action is warranted.

Some elements of the situation within the advanced education branch are something I have been dealing with for a couple of months now.

Question re: B-24 bomber recovery

Mr. Phillips: With respect to the proposed recovery of a vintage B-24 bomber from the bottom of a Yukon lake, a Yukon business person has offered to recover the aircraft and donate it to the new Transportation Museum, with very little or no cost to the Government of Yukon. This aircraft was abandoned by the U.S. Air Force during the war, and the recovery of it would tie in perfectly with the celebration in 1992 of the Alaska Highway.

Has the Minister of Tourism considered this request?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Yes, I have considered this request. To this end, I am assisting by way of the organization of the meeting of all the principals involved to consider this proposal.

Mr. Phillips: When will that meeting take place? This sounds like a very interesting project. This B-24 bomber is a very large, four-engine bomber that appears to be in very good condition at the bottom of the lake. It may even be able to fly, if restored properly.

Would the Minister consider fast-tracking this project so it could come online for 1992 and the bicentennial celebrations?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Again, I want to emphasize that the heritage branch in the Department of Tourism has offered to assist in arranging for a meeting of all the stakeholders involved in this project. We hope to have a meeting some time this month to get things going.

Mr. Phillips: Does the Minister feel this particular project would qualify as a Celebration ‘92 project under the guidelines that are set out?

This particular bomber was flown up during the Second World War, and that is the reason why the Alaska Highway was built.

Hon. Mr. Webster: The Government of Yukon does not have a specific program for such projects for 1992; however, it could be a project undertaken by one of the communities who could make application to the Yukon Anniversaries Commission for this purpose.

Question re: Chilkoot National Historic Park, vehicle access

Mr. Lang: I would like to refer a question to the Minister of Tourism as well as Renewable Resources. It has to do with the petition filed here last week with some 850 names requesting the Government of Canada to open up the management plan for the Chilkoot National Historic Park for further public discussion. Yesterday the Minister tabled the response of the government in 1987 on that particular park proposal. The government took a very short, terse position at that time. I have read through the alternatives provided by the Government of Canada, which never really referred to winter recreation in any of them.

When the position was put forward by the Government of Yukon, was the government aware that strict restrictions limiting winter recreation use in that area were contemplated?

Hon. Mr. Webster: The position the Government of Yukon put forward three years ago, less one month, was one in support of alternative three of the three options that were offered by the federal government.

I want to point out that alternative three very clearly states that winter use of the proposed park would be encouraged. They cite that a warming shelter would be located at Log Cabin, and public shelters at Bennett City and Lindeman City would also be available for day use. They go on to say these trails would be designated to accommodate cross country skiing. This is the trail that connects Log Cabin, Bennett City and Lindeman City. So winter activity was a consideration in alternative three.

Mr. Lang: Other than four, what was contained in alternative three? Was the Minister aware that there was a possibility that there would be curtailment of other winter recreational uses of the area, such as snowmobiling and things of that type, when the position was put forward by YTG?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Consistent with all three positions was one philosophy dealing with this matter of activities permitted in a park. At that time, they indicated that only non motorized uses would be permitted in the proposed park. In other words, motorized access to the park would not be allowed on a controlled basis. That was clearly spelled out in the three options presented by the federal government.

Mr. Lang: The Minister is giving me the impression he is defending the Government of Canada and the management plan and guidelines that have been brought forward. As far as motorized use in the area, it was clear that, if it was used, it would be private motorized use. The Minister did not clarify the record on the very selective use of the alternatives provided here.

It seems the Minister appears to be agreeing with the management plan. Is he telling this House he does not agree that the management plan should be made available to the public for further discussion, prior to finalizing the guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Webster: First of all, before I answer the Member’s question, I have a point of clarification. The principal component of all three alternatives to this plan limited access by private motorized vehicles on an uncontrolled basis.

With respect to the Member’s question, I plan to meet with one member of the snowmobile club tomorrow afternoon to learn more of their reasons for urging the Government of Yukon to request the federal government to reopen the public review process and, also, to get some further indication whether the snowmobile association is looking for a change in the federal parks programs policy on motorized access or is looking for an exception to the policy for this particular park.

Question re: Social worker position, Watson Lake

Mr. Devries: As the Minister of Health and Human Resources is aware, in an effort to decentralize the social services workers, there was a south regional social service supervisor position established in Watson Lake about a year ago. The person who was in that position resigned, and it has been vacant over a month now.

Has this important position been posted or advertised yet?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am aware that the incumbent in the position had left, I understand, to become a consultant. The process of recruiting and advertising for a replacement has not been brought to my attention or discussed with me at all. I suspect that a month is not an unusual length of time for a position to be vacant in this government. I will have to take as notice the request for further information about advertising dates and competition dates, but I will be pleased to do so.

Mr. Devries: A large amount of money went into renovating a building to house this social service branch, partly because they were overcrowded as it was and, with this additional member, the building had to be enlarged. There was a rumour around that the Minister was possibly contemplating not continuing that position. Basically the Minister is saying that the position will be filled?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am not sure if there was a question there. I do not know who starts these rumours about what I am thinking, but I wish they would stop. The Minister, I have to tell you, has not given a moment’s thought to that question, but now that the Member opposite has asked me what will happen, I will obviously be making inquiries in order to answer his question and be seeking assurances that money spent to improve the offices for our workers there in Watson Lake was well spent.

Question re: Robinson subdivision, naming of

Mr. Brewster: My question is to the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. The historic community of Robinson was established many years ago and is approximately two miles away from the subdivision that is currently bearing its name, thus causing considerable confusion. Can the Minister advise the House why the subdivision was named after the Robinson community?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I cannot tell the Member precisely why the naming of the subdivision was Robinson. I can only speculate that it is because it is adjacent to the area known as Robinson. I can undertake, for the Member, to check the records and seek from departmental officials what created the rationale and justification for calling it Robinson. There may well be a history that I am not aware of and the Member is not aware of. I can certainly undertake to indeed do more than speculate why it is called Robinson.

Mr. Brewster: Were the people of Robinson and the people in the subdivision ever consulted about the historic name of Robinson being used for the subdivision?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The creation of the Robinson subdivision was done some two or three years ago. It is my recollection that there was discussion and consultation with people in the area. The Member should recognize that the Robinson subdivision itself was essentially vacant land and had no residents on it. If the Member is asking me why the people within the subdivision were not consulted, he must realize there were no people there.

People within the area were consulted. There were meetings with departmental officials. I believe the previous Minister, in fact, met with people in the area in discussions leading up to the establishment of that subdivision. While I will undertake to check the extent of consultations, it is distinctly my recollection that there were discussions with the people from the area.

Mr. Brewster: Would the Minister, after appropriate consultation with the people concerned, be prepared to entertain a new name for the subdivision if the residents so desire?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I take the Member’s question as notice and would like to give him a generally positive response. It is my recollection that the people in the Robinson subdivision area did have public meetings. There were meetings with departmental officials, discussions and consultations and it seems to me that Robinson was the expressed choice for a name for the subdivision. The Member says the residents now in the subdivision prefer a different name. I would be more than pleased to accept representation from them for another name if that is what the Member is seeking. In short, I can tell the Member I am positively disposed to receiving representation for the renaming of a community. We believe that people within communities have the right to exercise decision making and judgments about affairs in their communities. This would be consistent with that belief.

Question re: Audiology assessments

Mr. Nordling: I have a couple of followup questions for the Minister of Health and Human Resources.

In February both the Member for Porter Creek East and I asked about the waiting list for audiology assessments. The Minister said he was aware of the problem and would establish what the waiting list is and report back to the House. I have been recently asked about the waiting period for follow-up after assessment.

Can the Minister today tell us what the waiting list is for audiology assessments?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the Member for notice of the question. Currently, the waiting list for adults is 18 months and for school-age children approximately three months. We are taking steps to reduce the waiting list through the purchase of new equipment. We think this will reduce the need for repeat visits and for reassessments. The addition of an on-call auxiliary clinical aid will reduce the time devoted by the audiologist to certain routine follow-up responsibilities.

It is the forecast of the department that within the next several months the waiting period will be reduced for all clients to approximately three months.

Mr. Nordling: With respect to the chronic disease and disability program, in February the Minister said that a review of the program would be complete before April 1, 1990.

Has the review been completed? When will changes to the program be announced?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The review is not finally complete. I am currently waiting for a submission from the department that looks at policy options to deal with the cost problem in that program. We have had representations from a number of professions, including medical professionals, on the question. I hope to be in fairly short order taking some proposals to my colleagues in Cabinet and Management Board. Until then I cannot make any announcements.

Mr. Nordling: The other area I am interested in is the extended care facility. On February 26, 1990, the Minister gave us a diagram outlining the time frame for completion. I would like to know if we are on schedule and if we have received proposals from architects and will be reviewing them in short order?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Work has been progressing on this project and in the next couple of weeks I hope to make some announcements that will give comfort to people who have been waiting for this facility for a long time.

Question re: Report on safety in the workplace

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It is with respect to the reducing risk in the workplace report that I believe the Minister received sometime in mid-March. This report was completed by Occupational Health and Safety and the Workers Compensation Board. In light of the 36 recommendations that have been made and the executive summary, comments and hard work that has gone on to complete the report, it is presently in her office waiting for her government’s response.

Could she bring us up to date on what the status of the report is?

Hon. Ms. Joe: Is the Member talking about the risk reduction program?

Yes. We have all had an opportunity to go through the report. We have spent time discussing it. The plan now will be to go through the recommendations, as they are stated in the report, and find out from the department what kind of recommendations we can implement immediately. The plan is being put together right now. I will be receiving information from the department in regard to how we would go about achieving some of the recommendations in the report.

Mrs. Firth: I understand the report was done for the government, and we are only waiting to see whether the government adopts the report or not. I understand the consultation process was with employers and work representatives. It is not going to cost the government any more money and there will be no increase in the assessment rate.

From what the Minister is saying, is there some possibility the government will not be accepting this report and adopting it, that it is going to go through the recommendations and say “yea” or “nay” to them?

Hon. Ms. Joe: No, that is not the case. The report was done in anticipation of improving the risk reduction in the workplace in the Yukon. It is our intention to make sure that, if there is some way of reducing injury in a workplace, we would work toward that. That is what that report is doing.

We are trying to develop a program that would allow us to go into the workplace to create some training or workshops, or whatever it is that comes out of the plan, to work with the employer to try and work toward risk reduction in the workplace.

Mrs. Firth: My impression of the report was they were looking for the government to adopt the report. There is some immediacy for it going into effect so we do not fall a year behind and people do not miss out on their rebates.

When does the government anticipate making a decision to go ahead with it, so we do not have people missing out on the rebates and having the whole process fall a year behind?

Hon. Ms. Joe: The Cabinet Ministers and a number of other individuals in the Yukon have had an opportunity to look at this report. It is not a confidential report or an internal working document. There has been a lot of consultation done in regard to people who have been involved in trying to put this together.

The Cabinet Ministers have agreed that it is a good report. It looks like a fine plan. If the Member is asking whether or not we have agreed to every single recommendation, I cannot tell her that at this time. The intention is to work toward a risk reduction program within occupational health and safety.

Question re: Report on safety in the workplace

Mrs. Firth: I would like to follow up on this particular issue. I remember the ministerial statement the Minister brought into the House in respect to this report. At the time, as far as the occupational health and safety branch and the Workers Compensation Board and I, as a Member of the Legislature, were concerned, the intention was that this report was to be done to provide the recommendations that were to be implemented.

At no time did I think the recommendations had to have approval of all the Cabinet Members. I say again that there is going to be no additional cost to general revenue, as the executive summary states. There is no increase in the assessment rates. The consultative process with employers and work representatives was extremely expensive.

I guess my question to the Minister is: when will the decision be made with respect to the report so that it can be proceeded with: in the next month or two months?

Hon. Ms. Joe: As I mentioned previously, we are already working toward the kind of things that are being recommended in that report.  The occupational health and safety branch is working toward a plan to try and implement a program. We are not sure if it will create other person years to take some action on that into the workplace. It is a little bit more than just looking at the recommendations and saying they are good ones. It is a plan toward more safety measures in the workplace.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister still has not answered my question. I am trying to get an idea about when the government is going to finish with this report so that it can be implemented so that people do not miss out a year on the intentions and effects of the report and miss out on their merit rebates. When will this report be approved by the government?

Hon. Ms. Joe: The report has been approved, not by Cabinet, but by individuals. There has not been formal approval like the Minister is asking about by Cabinet decision but we have agreed that it is a very important program to work toward and that is what we are doing. If she is asking for a time frame, the plans are already in the works and we hope to be able to work toward the recommendations very shortly, within the next couple of months.

Mrs. Firth: I understand all the merits of the report and all the worthwhile attributes of it. I simply want to know if there is a deadline that has to be met so that people do not lose out on certain things such as the merit rebates and fall behind a year. I think two months is too long. Could the Minister give us an idea of when the Minister is going to tell the Yukon occupational health and safety branch and the Workers Compensation Board to proceed with the report?

Hon. Ms. Joe: If she is asking for a definite date, I cannot give one at this very minute. I would have to check back with the department to find out how far along they are with the plan. When I find that out I could certainly come back and tell the Member when we hope to have all the things we would like to do in place and operating by a certain time, but I cannot give her an exact date at this very minute.

Question re: Marsh and Tagish Lake water quality

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services with regard to the water quality of Marsh Lake and Tagish Lake. Last spring I suggested that his department start taking water samples from these lakes at various places on a regular basis during the summer, in order to obtain background information that could be used with regard to determining whether any pollution problems might be occurring in the future. I would like to know, as my first question, whether his department has initiated such a problem and did they take water samples from these lakes last year?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As the Member is aware, the lands branch works with Health and Welfare Canada in regard to testing water supply systems throughout the territory. In the case of the Marsh Lake area, that I believe the Member referred to, we have undertaken some detailed work in the area and as the Member is aware, we have entertained expanded lease arrangements for lots where septic fields were required. I guess the short answer to the Member is yes, we are working with Health and Welfare Canada, the environmental branch, monitoring the water purity, if you will, of the areas in question.

Mr. Phelps: With the greatest respect for the Minister, I suspect the short answer is no. The issue really has to do with taking samples out in the lakes involved in various place. The complaint, as he may recall, was that the samples that are being done are being done by people wading into the water up to their knees and taking a sample of water. This simply does not give a true picture of what the water quality in the entire area is. There have been numerous complaints by people who own property in the area; there are a lot of people who own property there. There is a great deal of concern by other residents of the territory who take their water supply from these lakes. I would like to know whether or not they will enter into a fairly extensive program that involves taking water samples from out in both lake systems, some distance from shore, at regular intervals, in terms of time, so that we do have some background information about where we are at this time and what might be happening in the future.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: When the Member raised the issue with me, I believe approximately last fall, I had discussions with the department and I received the assurance that monitoring would continue. What I cannot tell the Member is the extent of that monitoring or the results of any tests that may have been made or samples that may have been taken during the course of the winter in the various lakes in the Member’s riding. I do know that, clearly, in the area of Tagish, there has been considerable work in monitoring the water in the lake. In the Member’s own community, at Carcross, we are in fact engaged in preparing for a major water intake from the lake, ensuring that no contaminated water is being used by the community - that may be the case on the just-offshore areas. What I have to tell the Member is that I would like to go back to the department and determine the extent and results of testing that I know was being done since the matter was raised, and even prior to that.

Mr. Phelps: I want the Minister to understand that many residents will not be satisfied until tests are done on a regular basis on the water bodies in question. I have asked the Minister to consider the fact that it is important that the residents affected have confidence in the sampling system in order to have cooperation from them.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I accept the suggestion and request for assurance of adequacy and accuracy on the quality of testing. That kind of assurance can easily be provided because it is a technical process that sampling goes through. Again, I would provide to the Member an appropriate update on that monitoring very shortly, as soon as I can determine the results of that work.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now lapsed. We will now proceed to the Order Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the House Leaders I would like to request unanimous consent to have Motions Other Than Government Motions called in the following order: Motion No. 95, Motion No. 91, Motion No. 7, Motion No. 93, Motion No. 52.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Item No. 19, standing in the name of Mr. Phelps.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 19?

Mr. Phelps: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 95

Speaker: It has been moved by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition

THAT it is the opinion of the Yukon Legislature Assembly that the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord addresses the major concerns that Yukoners have with the 1987 Constitutional Accord in relation to the creation of new provinces, territorial representation in the Senate, appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and territorial participation in First Ministers Conferences on aboriginal rights;

THAT the Yukon Legislative Assembly urges the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to ratify The 1987 Constitutional Accord provided that the members of Parliament and of each of the Legislative Assemblies have sufficient assurances from the discussions and negotiations between the First Ministers to firmly believe that the companion resolution will become law; and

THAT the Speaker forward a copy of this Resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, the 10 provincial Premiers and the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Phelps: I am very pleased to bring forward this motion, which is about a subject that is very dear to the hearts of all Members in this Assembly. Perhaps “dear to the heart” is the wrong expression, but it is at least of grave concern to each Member in this Assembly. I would like to thank the side opposite for giving me the opportunity for putting this motion forward in a cooperative manner, with some give and take on the precise wording.

As many Yukoners are aware, I thought I was scheduled to make a presentation to the special committee on the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord. I was shut out at the last minute, even though, some days prior to making that decision, they had received a precis of what our position is with regard to the companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord.

I have expressed my displeasure to the committee and to the leaders of the three major political parties at the federal level. I was somewhat surprised with the decision taken by the all-party committee, particularly in view of the fact our position on this matter is extremely similar to that of the government. I would have thought a committee, such as the one that came to the Yukon to hear the views of northerners, would have heard me out after hearing the government position, just for the novelty of watching us and listening to us agree on a subject of importance to all Yukoners.

It is an awful waste to go through the process of preparing a brief without using it. It is not the kind of brief I would normally read to meetings I hold throughout Hootalinqua, although there are undoubtedly many residents there who are concerned about the issues involved. It is not the kind of brief I would read at our semi-annual conventions, or many other places. So, I am very pleased to have a chance to use and read from the brief that at least has been delivered to the committee.

It is no secret that the PC Yukon caucus is opposed to the Meech Lake Accord itself, as it presently stands. We made our views known to most Yukoners at the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord in August 31, 1987, and to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Accord on October 25, 1987.

On November 16, 1987, we drafted a resolution that was presented in the Legislative Assembly by the Government Leader, the hon. Tony Penikett, and that motion passed unanimously. I made a presentation stating our position during the Twelfth Canadian Regional Parliamentary Seminar, and appeared on February 23, 1988, before the Select Committee on Constitutional Reform on the 1987 Constitutional Accord that was established by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In addition, I personally wrote letters to the Prime Minister of Canada, to the Premiers in every province, as well as to the Leader of the Official Opposition in Ottawa and the Leaders of the Official Opposition in every jurisdiction.

Yukoners felt betrayed by the Meech Lake Accord when they first learned they had effectively been locked out of Confederation. Rather than dwelling on the sense of outrage itself, our caucus asked ourselves the question, “How might the Accord be refined to accommodate Yukon concerns without impairing the constitutional consensus that had been achieved.” In answering that question, we proposed six amendments that maintained the integrity of the Meech Lake Accord yet met Yukon concerns.

Our proposed amendments were designed to: firstly, ensure the territories, like the provinces, respect the fundamental characteristics of Canada - section 2(2); secondly, allow the Yukon and Northwest Territories to be sovereign in their own right as well as existing provinces - that references section 41(i); thirdly, to clarify territorial rights to representation in the Senate - section 25; fourthly, provide equal opportunity to qualify territorial residents in relation to appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada - section 101(c); fifthly, ensure that northern Canadians have a say in matters that affect them by allowing territorial government leaders participation in First Ministers Conferences - section 148 and 50(1).

If the Members in this House compare our proposed amendments to the provisions of Premier McKenna’s proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord, it will be evident that, to a greater or lesser degree, our major concerns have all been met. The clauses 2 and 3 in the McKenna Accord would meet territorial concerns regarding the nomination of persons and appointment to the Senate and for possible appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Clause 6 and 7 of the resolution propose changes to the Meech Lake unanimity formula, which would permit the establishment of new provinces in the territories by proclamation of the Governor General, only after public hearing by the House of Commons and “only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons”.

This approach is broadly similar to the process under the Constitution Act of 1871, except that public hearings are required and a resolution, rather than statutory procedure, would be used. The approach is also similar in result to that suggested by the Province of Newfoundland at the November 9 and 10, 1989, First Ministers Conference. Newfoundland recommended the abolition of the unanimity requirement for entry of new provinces, and preferred a less restrictive procedure than the 1982 seven and 50 percent rule.

It required the matter come under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982, with appropriate adjustment for the approval of the territories.

The McKenna resolution goes further on this issue than either the Manitoba task force or the New Brunswick task force, both of which recommended that the seven and 50 percent rule of 1982 be retained. In August 1987, our caucus recommended the wording of the proposed section 41(i) in the Meech Lake Accord be changed to read, “the conferral of equalization payments under section 36(2) and by amending powers under this part on new provinces.”

We suggested this amendment as a compromise in response to federal and provincial concerns. In a letter dated June 1, 1987, from the Prime Minister to me, two reasons were put forward to justify the provincial veto over the creation of a new province. These reasons were that a new province would alter the numerical operation of the amendment procedure, and alter fiscal relations among governments.

These same reasons were later given by the federal/provincial relations Minister in subsequent hearings, and by several Premiers and correspondents to us. The objective of our proposed amendment to section 41(i) was to take Yukon back to its pre-1982 constitutional position and ensure that only bilateral agreements between the Yukon government and the federal government would be required for the maturation of Yukon into a province.

It would acknowledge the concerns of some of the provinces regarding the constitutional amending formula and fiscal relations. From our perspective, clauses 6 and 7 of the McKenna resolution are superior to our proposed change, in that they are more in keeping with Canadian constitutional history. If the provinces can accept the creation of new provinces on the same basis as they themselves entered Confederation, so much the better.

Provincial concerns over the amending formula and fiscal relations among government should not prove to be insurmountable obstacles to creating new provinces. Our concern about territorial government involvement in conferences, in addition to those concerning aboriginal rights, such as conferences on the Constitution and the economy, or other matters, has not been addressed by the McKenna resolution. We believe, as per our proposed amendment to section 8 of the schedule, regarding proposed section 148 of the Meech Lake Accord, that the territorial government should be entitled to attend conferences on the economy and other matters, in their own right, and to make statements to such conferences, but have no vote. The fact that the McKenna resolution does not specifically refer to territorial government attendance at conferences other than those involving aboriginal rights, should not preclude territorial participation in these other conferences. The fact that clause 9 specifically refers to territorial government attendance at aboriginal rights conferences is interpreted as a guarantee of territorial participation in an issue of special interest to the territories, because of their high proportions of aboriginal citizens.

Over all, the McKenna resolution addresses and accommodates the major concerns that the PC Yukon caucus has with the Meech Lake Accord. We therefore support the companion resolution but have concerns about the lack of certainty with regard to the companion resolution being implemented, once the Meech Lake Accord has been ratified.

The McKenna resolution cannot become law until at least one year after the first provincial resolution supporting it, and it could be as long as three years before the resolution has sufficient support to be proclaimed. If the first supporting resolution was passed in May 1990, the McKenna resolution could not become law until May 1991, at the earliest. Its fate might still be undecided as late as May 1993. Between 1990 and 1991, 1992 or 1993, public opinion might well influence elected leaders to change their minds or governments can change and subsequently change the positions of provinces in respect to the companion accord, as we have witnessed with the Meech Lake Accord itself. Notwithstanding this concern about implementation, we are supportive of the companion resolution initiative. We applaud Premier McKenna for his sensitivity to the concerns of northerners.

For these reasons, then, we have put forward the resolution, which we hope will receive unanimous support and will be conveyed as suggested within the language of the motion.

I would like to say that this is an issue that Yukoners have united to struggle with, and it has given me a great deal of comfort to know that we can unite on issues that are of common concern and ought to be of common concern. Once again, I thank the side opposite for this opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for presenting the motion before us today. He will understand when I say I share his regret that he was not able to present his views to the Commons committee that was recently in Whitehorse to hear representations about the New Brunswick companion resolution. I understand he was not alone in being discriminated against. In my private conversations with the Chair of the committee, Mr. Jean Charest, he did confirm that the committee had passed a blanket ban on opposition leaders. I do not know what the constitutional foundation of such a view was, that somehow opposition leaders have a lower status with House of Common committees than do ordinary citizens, beyond observing that it seemed to me to be a peculiar decision. It was one that was at least applied without prejudice to opposition leaders, whatever their political stripe, everywhere in the country.

I understand that in Manitoba, where there is generally a three-party agreement on the position on the question of the Meech Lake Accord, the problem was resolved by having the academic gentleman, Mr. Fox, descend from the Chair of the Task Force to present the views of their government and all the parties of the Legislature.

I am pleased, notwithstanding the ban on the opposition leader from the recent hearing, that he has now been given a chance to present his brief in a public forum. I hope that, consistent with this occasion, he will forgive me for recycling much of my brief before the committee. I have not had an occasion to rewrite very much of what we said on that occasion, but more properly, we have not had reason, as a result of anything we heard at the committee or since, to substantially change our views.

When we were before the committee, I did indicate that the country is at a crossroads. I think this is a decisive moment in our history. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is a potentially dangerous time. I am not one of those people who are so alarmist as to believe that the country will necessarily fall apart if we do not solve the impasse around Meech Lake, but I do believe that if we do not make good use of the time available to us between now and June 23, 1990, we shall certainly be in for some troubling and difficult times in our nation. We are doomed to a period of constitutional uncertainty, probably, I suspect, for a period of years, if we do not bend our backs and concentrate our minds on the problem that is before us.

As the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, it would be the simplest thing in the world to take a purely regional point of view in this Legislature, condemn the Meech Lake Accord to hell and offer no constructive suggestions as to how the problem of reconciling Quebec to the Canadian Constitution would be solved.

The motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition comes not only at a decisive moment for Canada, but also Yukon history. all As Members know, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Government and the Government of Canada achieved an umbrella final land claims settlement, which will provide a foundation in constitutional law for aboriginal and non aboriginal citizens to govern our communities together in this territory on the basis of trust and, I think, true equality.

This is happening at the same time as the nation and its leaders are trying to decide, not only whether Quebec will be reconciled to our Constitution, but also whether Yukon’s colonial status will be perpetuated.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has described the situation in which we would find ourselves if the Meech Lake Accord was ratified unchanged. He has, as well, described the situation we have found ourselves in since 1982, with the adoption of the Constitution Act, and compared that with the situation that prevailed prior to that time and operated for the most of the provinces in Canada in terms of the possibility of their joining Confederation.

It is, of course, historically accurate to state that none of the western Canadian provinces joined Confederation without some difficulty. In fact the difficulties in the case of Manitoba included some violent disputes between the settler and aboriginal population, particularly the Metis, but one interesting result of those battles was the creation of that province at a time when that province’s population was less than the Yukon’s is today. It is also a matter of historical record that the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan did not decide that those two places should be separate entities, but in fact, Premier Haultain, the Conservative leader of that old territorial government, who was, of course, known as Premier, did petition, I think consistently, for the creation of a province between British Columbia and the Manitoba borders that would essentially be a single political unit. It was the machinations of the Laurier government that sought to not only ensure that there would not be a large western Canadian unit that would challenge the power of the central Canadian provinces, but also wished to conspire or create an arrangement that would guarantee that there would be two Liberal administrations in western Canada rather than one Conservative one. History shows that, in that respect, he was successful, though only for a very short period of time.

The point I want to make is that there are good reasons why a frontier area, a young community with a large aboriginal population, has reason to be apprehensive about constitutional arrangements made for them by Canadians elsewhere in the country.

I believe the experience of Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and, most recently, the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, do not lead us to be paranoid, but do give us reason to be concerned.

Since 1985, I have attended Premiers and First Ministers Conferences on behalf of our government. Our role in Premiers conferences has been gradually enhanced to the point we no longer sit like loose nails at the aperture of the horseshoe table, which is the Premiers’ preferred arrangement, but now actually sit at the table and participate not just with a single speech, but on more than one occasion, if that is appropriate. We have begun to be included in private meetings of the Premiers. At the last First Ministers Conference, our status changed for the first time since Mr. Pearson was first admitted, on behalf of our government, in order to make a statement. From now on, we no longer sit as part of the federal delegation and, when we make our statement, we are not invited to appear at the Prime Minister’s side, but we appear at the place that is assigned to us in First Ministers Conferences and other interprovincial conferences, our proper place in Confederation, next to Alberta at the far end of the table. At least we are at the table, and with a voice independent of the federal government, in recognition of our separate status.

I do not want to overstate the changes that have happened in this Accord, but they have been incremental and are generally movements in the right direction.

What is significant about all this is that, while we have attended Premiers and First Ministers Conferences, and while we have participated in the lunches, dinners, social occasions and televised formal proceedings, we have not had access to the meetings that really matter to us. It is interesting that, whenever the Premiers get together, as a paranoid northerner would say, “to talk about us”, we are excluded from the meetings. At the Edmonton conference of Premiers, it was significant in that it was the first time the territorial leaders were included in the official portrait of the conference. This is a small thing, but a symbolic enhancement of our status. It was also the occasion when the essentials of the Meech Lake Accord were forged.

We were consciously, and very deliberately, left out of those discussions. That is a problem wthat I wish to return later in my remarks.

I would also like to remind Members that for several years leading up to March 1987, the former Government Leader and I attended, on behalf of the Yukon, First Ministers Conferences dealing with aboriginal rights. We sat at the table, we had a voice and I believe we participated constructively and well in those discussions.

That process ended in March 1987. On the agenda for that conference, Item No. 4, was the question of creation of new provinces. On the agenda of that conference, Item No. 4, was an item called “Creation of new provinces; repeal of the 1982 rules”, as I recall it. The federal background papers to that conference talked about a return to what they called the 1871 rules for the admission of new provinces.

In other words, we had a right, according to the 1983 Constitutional Accord, to sit at the table and have a voice on this fundamental question of our future participation in Confederation. That process went on for several years and ended in March 1987.

In April of 1987, the same question was addressed by the First Ministers, without our being present, and decided. For several years, we tried to get past Item No. 1 on the agenda for the aboriginal rights conferences and get to Item No. 4. We had voice. We sat there patiently waiting to get to Item No. 4 and we never did get to it, but when we were out of the room, at a meeting we did not know about in Meech Lake, the issue was decided without any consultation with the people most affected.

All Members in this House will recall, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has done, the shock and dismay that they felt when, on the morning of - I am trying to remember the exact date but it was on the cusp of the month; it may have been about now actually, the end of April or the beginning of May - we heard on the morning news that this deal had been struck that created new rights for all Canadians except northerners, and that the door of Confederation was being slammed in our face.

The Leader of the Opposition has talked about communications from the Prime Minister and letters from the Premiers that indicated that the amending formula and the fiscal arrangements were what precipitated these arrangements on our behalf. I want to say, on my part, that we found it incredibly frustrating that for months and months and months, nobody - none of the Premiers, nobody in the federal Cabinet - would look us in the eye and tell us why this was done. Although we had participated, as I said, in the First Ministers Conference on aboriginal rights, only a month before Meech Lake, we were not invited to the Meech Lake conference to deal with an identical issue, to deal with a question where our rights were also at stake. When we did raise our northern concerns, when the Government Leader of the Northwest Territories and I travelled to Ottawa in order to be able to be present, we were specifically barred from the Langevin Block block meeting in June of 1987, and we received only a letter from the Prime Minister indicating that our needs would be looked after, or that we would be cared for.

I do not want to dwell on this, but it is a matter of record that for two years after that, our telephone calls, our letters and our representations on this question were largely ignored.

The Meech Lake Accord is of course supposed to address Quebec’s concerns and, from that point of view, we think that is right and proper, so we had reason to question throughout the time since the Meech Lake Accord was adopted why all these assaults on the north developed. In the two and one-half year silence that followed Meech Lake, we were often left to consider some very dark suspicions about the intentions of other jurisdictions. We have rhetorically asked, on a number of occasions: do some provinces have designs on our constitutional future; is someone planning a northern land grab?

It was interesting that Jean Cretien, on his recent visit here, suggested that Alberta has some longstanding interest in the Mackenzie Valley. We do know, much to the shame and horror of all Members of this House, that a former Clerk of this Assembly moved to British Columbia, became a Premier, and then sponsored a land grab, or a constitutional grab, of the Yukon - a gentleman by the name of Duff Pattullo, someone who will cause us to scrutinize, very carefully in future, the credentials of any applicants for the position of Clerk in this Legislature, for fear they are some sort of fifth column or have some unsavoury intentions.

Every now and again I have this horrible nightmare that perhaps it was the debates in the Yukon Territorial Council that caused Mr. Pattullo to want to, in the final act of a Clerk’s revenge, snuff out the institution, but I am pretty sure, having actually gone back and checked the record, that the intervention of people like the Opposition Leader’s grandfather were not so appalling or as offensive as to warrant that kind of revenge of the Clerks, or whatever we might want to call it.

We have heard from time to time that Quebec has some unrealized claims in the Arctic islands or in the Hudson Bay area but none of these interests, if they are harboured, have been articulated or presented to us in a way that would allow us to deal with them. I think there has not been any evidence since W.A.C. Bennett’s musings one generation ago to indicate that anyone is actively contemplating moving their borders north. Nonetheless, such a proposition found its way into the Constitution Act of 1982, and the Constitution of Canada does now say that, with the approval of seven provinces with 50 percent of the population, it could happen.

What is, of course, important, as I said to the House of Commons committee, is that it is the very opposite of self-determination. It resembles much more Gorbachev’s relationship with Lithuania than it does with the aspirations of the people of Lithuania. We, in this territory, are quite right in believing that the question of our future in Confederation and our status in this country and our constitutional development should be ours, in the first place, to determine - not for everyone else. What I call the “blackball rule” is entirely improper as an organizing principle of Confederation. It is something appropriate perhaps to a college fraternity or a 19th century English gentleman’s club. It is not something that I think a modern progressive Premier of Quebec should be promoting.

It is a matter of record that we protested, in every forum available to us: the courts, the media, parliamentary hearings, provincial hearings and here in this Legislature where a resolution demanding fairness for northerners received unanimous, all-party support. This principle of fairness led us to all our concerns about the particulars affecting the north, our aspirations for provincehood someday, possible encroachment on our borders in the meantime, nominations to the Senate and Supreme Court, fair representation in future First Ministers Conferences where our fate as Canadians is being decided - in fact, most of the issues that were addressed by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

We remain committed to the fundamental principle of fair treatment for northerners as citizens of Canada, and we think it is fortunate that that principle has begun to be recognized.

There is evidence we are now being heard. Although our position has not changed, I think the situation has changed somewhat. As I have had occasion to report in this House, I have had meetings with a number of federal Ministers, the Prime Minister and, most particularly, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Senator Murray, who, some short months ago, agreed to a very formal meeting to discuss our concerns. As I have reported to the House, Senator Murray was accompanied on that occasion by Mr. Norman Spector, the Cabinet secretary for Federal-Provincial Relations, and a number of senior officials of Justice. We did have a very frank discussion about our concerns about the Meech Lake Accord and its possible resolution.

The most important new development is that New Brunswick has come forward with a thoughtful set of proposals that respond to many of the concerns about Meech Lake, including our own. The Leader of the Official Opposition is quite right that Mr. McKenna has not responded to every one of our concerns, but he has dealt with most of the main ones well enough that we can feel quite positive about his proposal. It has enabled us to feel more positive about the Meech Lake Accord. That is a preferable position.

We have a problem that, until a few days ago, the Prime Minister seemed very unbending on the question of Meech Lake and suggested that it could not be touched. In a recent speech, which I heard and which has been commended by a number of people, he sounded much more accommodating than he has in the past. I think it was a speech to the Council on Canadian Unity.

Even Premier Wells’ recent speech to the Commons committee was seen by some observers as leaving some room and giving him a more flexible posture than he had previously been ascribed.

There is still a dilemma in the sense that there is a significant gap between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland, between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba. In some way, we are all charged with the responsibility of trying to find answers to that problem, and with trying to find a resolution to that situation. As northerners, we can and are making a contribution to that process.

We have to be especially concerned because the difference between northerners and other concerned Canadiansis  that after June 23, they will either enjoy the status quo, or the benefits, of Meech Lake, while we could effectively be frozen out of Confederation, out of the Senate, out of the Supreme Court, out of First Ministers Conferences. We hope that will not be the case, but it is a very real possibility for us.

That is why we see the McKenna proposal in a positive light. At this late stage, I think that we are entitled to believe that Mr. McKenna’s proposals are probably the last best chance to resolve the nation’s constitutional impasse and, at the same time, recognize the needs of the north.

I want to put on the record the government’s views on four main points.

In doing so I want to indicate what I believe is the case, namely, that these are positions that are generally shared by the Opposition in this House and can be stated as something on which there is broad agreement.

The first is our general position on the content of the Meech Lake Accord and the proposed companion resolution. The second is our responses to the sections of the companion resolution that affect the north. The third is our concerns about some other constitutional issues, including the rights of woman and aboriginal people, and the need for Senate reform. The fourth is our conditions for supporting the companion resolution.

I would like to describe briefly our views on each of these points: firstly, the Meech Lake Accord. As Canadians we recognize the need for national reconciliation and constitutional accommodation. These fundamental issues cannot be avoided. We support the goal to bring Quebec into the constitutional family, we applaud the First Ministers efforts to resolve the differences that have haunted Canada for decades, we support Quebec in its quest to be part of Canada in a way that recognizes the uniqueness of its people, its culture, its language, its legal status, and its legal system and heritage.

In broad terms, we support the five basic principles outlined by Quebec, including the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. We think Yukoners have a special sympathy and empathy for Quebeckers because we, too, are struggling with our own cultural differences, our own unique situation in this country, and a society that is made up of two fundamentally different peoples from different cultures. We are in a community in which the founding groups are not English and French, but the aboriginal people and non aboriginal people have made real progress toward an accommodation, or social contract, in the land claim agreements that have been recently reached after 17 years of negotiations.

In essence, it allows us to say, as we have from the beginning, that we supported the main intentions of the Meech Lake Accord. Our critical concerns with the specific sections that affect the north are sections that, so far as we can see, are in no way essential to the constitutional recognition of Quebec.

La clause du l’entente du Lac Meech la plus troublante pour les gens du Nord est celle qui stipule la formule d’amendement des institutions politiques canadiennes, qui inclue la creation de nouvelles provinces.

En accordant un droit de veto a chacune des dix provinces en ce qui a trait a ces amendements, l’entente elimine en pratique et pour toujours la possibilite que les territoires deviennent un jour des provinces.

Je regret que l’entente di Lac Meech condamne les habitants du Nord a etre pour toujours des citoyens de deuxieme classe au Canada.

Mr. Speaker, shaw da hannee aye hut.

Our concerns seem to be almost completely resolved in the New Brunswick companion resolution in ways I will now describe in some detail.

Our concern is not with the rights granted to Quebec and the other provinces, but with having the rights denied to us, in some cases the same rights. It is not so much as what Meech giveth as what Meech taketh away.

The Yukon government would support a parallel or companion resolution that resolves our fundamental concerns with northern rights: to require the approval of the provinces for admission to Confederation; to be represented at all national conferences; to submit nominations to the Senate; to nominate appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Accordingly, we support the proposed companion accord put forward by Premier Buchanan as it not only removes the necessity of unanimous consent to the creation of new provinces to the territory, but it also removes the very real impediment created by the 1982 constitutional amendment, requiring the consent of seven provinces with 50 percent of the population. It places Yukon on an equal footing with all of the jurisdictions that sought to join Confederation.

Another is that it includes the territories in the right to nominate candidates to the Senate and also includes the territories in the right to nominate members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories’ bars for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The first of these amendments is extremely important to northerners. We argue that: where else in the western world is a state required to obtain the unanimous consent of all the existing states to enter into the union? That is not the case in the United States or in Australia or anywhere else we know of. As has been pointed out in this House before, Alaska, our nearest northern neighbor, was admitted to the union by an act of Congress. It did not require the consent of Rhode Island or any other of the 47 states.

It matters not whether we seek that status today, a year from now, or 50 years from now. We believe that we should be treated fairly and equally and Premier McKenna’s proposal grants us that right. It does so without detracting from the fundamental concern about requiring unanimous consent for changes in the federal institutions, including the powers and composition of the Senate.

Our final concern about representation, section 9 of the McKenna proposal, grants Yukon a limited role at constitutional conferences. The Leader of the Official Opposition was quite correct to address this point because it is, in some respect, a problem with the McKenna proposal for us. It is our position that we should be granted the right to participate in such forums wherever the rights of all citizens of the Yukon are at issue, as they were in the 1987 Accord. We should not be limited only to the forums where the rights of aboriginal people in the Yukon are concerned, as was the case with the 1983 Accord.

The Yukon government seeks the right to participate in all First Ministers Conferences and in all constitutional conferences where the people of the Yukon are directly affected. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has argued in the past, our government is a duly elected, responsible government, charged by the citizens of the Yukon with representing their best interests. We suggest this should permit and sanction our participation in such forums. We readily acknowledge that, at the moment, we do not participate in all issues on an equal footing with the provinces. That should only be a factor in any decision making and should not affect our right to participate in any discussions that directly affect our peoples. In short, we are seeking a voice, not a vote, at this time.

Our right to intervene in discussions on all topics affecting the lives of Canadians and of Yukoners should not be curtailed because the final powers of provincehood have not been sought by us, as of yet, nor conferred upon us.

I have a word about other constitutional issues. While the Yukon applauds the efforts of Premier McKenna to resolve the current impasse, we join those who believe that there are a number of issues yet unresolved. We welcome Premier McKenna’s recognition and support of the aboriginal people of the north. Section 9 of his proposals would allow aboriginal peoples the right to participate in constitutional decisions that directly affect them. This could be strengthened by directly addressing the one big outstanding issue of most concern to aboriginal people: the constitutional entrenchment of their rights. It is a matter of record: the Yukon government’s position in the land claims negotiations has been to support the constitutional entrenchment of self-government agreements, and we remain committed to that end.

The federal Cabinet has so far decided that the protection of aboriginal self-government can only be decided by First Ministers, not through bilateral negotiations. If this continues to be the case, we would agree with Premier McKenna that the people affected should not only be consulted, but should have their concerns on the First Ministers’ agenda and a place at the table ensured.

I have a word on the question of the rights of women. Mr. McKenna’s companion resolution addresses the concerns of those who feel women’s rights are at risk. It takes a step to shield gender equality from possible erosion through the constitutional amendments proposed in the Meech Lake Accord. Premier McKenna has indicated that his proposals are open to change, and we support this openness and flexibility - something that was missing from the Meech Lake Accord. None of us, as yet, are in a position to say whether the resolution he proposes will satisfy the demands of Canadian women, but we think it is a step in the right direction.

Our government believes the Commons committee and the federal and provincial governments should seek out the views of Canadian women through the appropriate organizations, to determine what changes, if any, are needed in the McKenna proposal to adequately protect and promote gender equality.

Premier McKenna’s resolution leaves the door open for Senate reform, a major concern in western Canada. We are aware of the discussions by the western Premiers to find ways to build on this initiative. Any reforms that would make our Senate more democratic would be an improvement. I hope the western Premiers will have something constructive to offer in this matter in the very near future.

As I have described, the Yukon’s history with the Meech Lake Accord has given us cause to be skeptical and to be skittish. Still, as I told the Commons committee, as Canadians we want to contribute to the building of the nation, not just in the Yukon but throughout Canada.

The last few weeks have given hope to the citizens of the territory. In January I was at last able to meet with the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations to express our concerns and get answers to some of our questions. Also, it has become increasingly apparent that the Meech Lake Accord will not be approved until the concerns of northerners, aboriginal people, women, minorities and others are recognized and addressed. This has led us to the constitutional proposals that Mr. McKenna has now put before us. Many northerners understandably believe our interests would be best served, or at least our losses reduced, by simply letting the Meech Lake Accord die on June 23, 1990.

I believe it was Mr. Erasmus of the Dene nation in his appearance before the Commons committee in the Northwest Territories who articulated that view, a view that has been heard on the streets of Whitehorse, and I am sure in Dawson, Watson Lake and Faro as well.

After two and one-half years of silence and neglect, this position has some compelling emotional and regional appeal. However, we believe that would be the easy way out. We think it is our duty to advance our long-term interests and those of Canada, and in this spirit we are prepared to support the substance of the proposals of the Premier of New Brunswick so far as they address most of our concerns as northerners.

We also welcome his effort to address many of the concerns of other regions in Canada, the concerns of other elements of society, and the concerns of Canada as a whole. We also support the approach of Premier McKenna to determine whether there is adequate support for the companion resolution to let Meech Lake proceed by June 23. He has stated his government must judge on behalf of the people of New Brunswick whether the First Ministers are sufficiently committed to his recommendations, whether they are committed enough to ensure the recommendations will be enacted.

The Yukon Government has taken the same position. Ideally, of course, we would like iron-clad guarantees for the changes we seek. We can support the language contained in the amendment of the Leader of the Official Opposition, which talks about assurances and talk about giving us reason to firmly believe these changes will take place.

Over the next two months there will undoubtedly be a lot of activity, a lot of communication and a lot of new ideas, positions and promises. It is impossible to predict the future or what will happen. Obviously Canada has some choices: to accept Meech; to change Meech; to add to the Meech Lake Accord, which is what Premier McKenna proposes to do; or to adopt Meech and promise to add to it after June 23.

The acid test of the fate of the McKenna proposal is whether his companion resolution will be entrenched along with the Meech Lake Accord and become effective, or whether it will be considered later.

Obviously, as I told the Commons committee, we prefer the former option.

We are pleased with the initiative of Mr. McKenna. We would like to see it work. We are especially enthusiastic about its northern provisions. We believe these can and must be part of the Canadian Constitution because we are, after all, Canadians first and foremost. We hope that Canada recognizes this before June 23.

I apologize for being so long but I think there is probably no more topic, perhaps other than the land claims question, which is as important to us, and I did want an opportunity to put on record the view of the government.

It is our sincere hope that the north can see itself as fully part of Canada by the end of this year.

I want to compliment the Leader of the Official Opposition on this motion and enthusiastically pledge the support of this side of the House for the proposition he has put before us. Merci. Mahsi-cho.

Mr. Lang: I rise also in support of the motion. I think it is very clear why we, as a Legislature, must support the McKenna companion resolution that has been brought forward. I think the province of New Brunswick has to be commended for the obviously constructive position it has brought to the Canadian people as perhaps a compromise to the present impasse on the constitutional discussions.

I want to say, as a Canadian, that it troubles me a great deal when I read international newspapers and magazines. There are various articles now appearing on a regular basis that talk about the division of Canada. It is very ironic when you think of us living, whether in Newfoundland, Quebec, Northwest Territories or Yukon or any of the other provinces in Canada, in one of probably the nicest areas in the world. We also have one of the highest standards of living never experienced before in history. It is so high it is safe to say that most Canadians lead a lifestyle Louis 14th would envy. When you compare what we have today - our technology, our social programs and, for example, our health programs - with anywhere in the world, we are very fortunate. Yet, here we Canadians are fighting amongst ourselves about what our country will look like in the next century.

I think it is very important that people realize the importance of what Canada is facing. The Government Leader touched on the importance of the decision we are facing as Canadians and the great effect it will have on our country if we do not reach a compromise on the present constitutional impasse.

It is becoming said more often in the money markets and internationally that Canada is becoming less and less stable for investment. When that sort of discussion starts to be believed by the money markets throughout the world, as a country we are in a lot of trouble.

The other aspect is that, in conjunction with the constitutional impasse we are facing, we are looking at a pending GST being implemented, and this is going to cause some inflationary pressures in Canada. We are experiencing a very high deficit, which is having some profound effects on us as a country. At the same time, we are suffering from what is called constitutional instability.

As a legislator and a Canadian, I feel it is absolutely critical the actors come together for the purpose of reaching a compromise, as far as the present impasse is concerned. If we do not, we do not fully realize the ramifications of what will happen toward the end of June, as far as our country is concerned.

I hope the steps taken here by the Leader of the Official Opposition, in conjunction with all Members of the House, will contribute in a positive way as one small step forward to bringing the various parties together to reach a decision all Canada can live with.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I want to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for bringing forward this motion at this critical time, and I express my support for it.

As the clock ticks toward the June 23 deadline for ratification of the Meech Lake Accord, it is important that Canada’s First Ministers receive a strong and united message of the Yukon position on the Accord and the remedying features of Premier McKenna’s proposed companion resolution.

If there is a national will to salvage the Meech Lake Accord, it is essential a number of errors, omissions or oversights in the Accord are also addressed, or Canadians will forever be saddled with a Constitution that does injustice to the north, to aboriginal people, and to women, wherever they live in this country.

From the outset, I want to make clear my support for the intent of Meech Lake Accord, which was to make Quebec a full partner in Canada’s Constitution and in the Canadian Confederation. However, as Members of this House know, the Meech Lake Accord has more than addressed the concerns of Quebec. It also proposes constitutional changes that would dramatically affect the Yukon’s prospects of ever becoming a full partner in the Canadian Confederation, and it has extended rights to the provinces that are denied to the territories.

I believe many Yukoners are now aware of how we were dealt out of the Meech Lake Accord. In the Accord, other jurisdictions of Canada would have more say than us in deciding our constitutional future.  We would need their unanimous support to become a province - our neighbours could redraw the physical map of Yukon in collusion with other provinces and without our approval.

We would continue to be denied full representation at national conferences, including First Ministers Conferences, and finally, we would not, through the Accord, acquire new provincial rights to nominate Senators, or Supreme Court justices, or to veto future constitutional amendments.

These features of the Accord directly affect the interest of the north. That is not to say they are the only problematic aspects of the Accord. The Meech Lake Accord will also deny Canada’s First Nations seats at the very discussions that would affect their constitutional rights.

Women could see their rights eroded by the constitutional amendments proposed by the Meech Lake Accord.

All these limitations to the Accord are well-defined reasons for the Yukon’s long, articulate, and I must say, unified opposition to ratification of the Accord.

Premier McKenna’s proposal of a companion resolution appears to address the major concerns of the Yukon about the Accord. For this reason I applaud his initiative and his efforts and I support his proposal.

However, while the companion resolution has breathed new life, in some ways, into the Accord itself, if has further emphasized inefficiencies of the Accord. It is now very clear that if an appropriate constitutional process had been followed, rather than the undemocratic, time-pressured, closed-door negotiations that gave birth to the Meech Lake Accord, its poorly conceived features would not have seen the light of day.

Similarly, the country would not be embroiled in the constitutional crisis we are now experiencing. Now, even with the thoughtful proposals of Mr. McKenna before the eyes of the nation, proposals that would appear to address many of our concerns, there exists the real risk that further mistakes will be made by Canada’s First Ministers in attempting to come to terms prior to the June 23 ratification deadline.

The deficiencies of an Accord negotiated by 11 men in a pressure cooker have been clearly revealed by an airing of the Accord in public hearings held in several jurisdictions. It worries me that a similar situation is brewing again. While expressing my support for Mr. McKenna’s resolution and the manner in which it addresses the concerns of the Yukon, I believe the process would be much more legitimate, more democratic, and provide us with a more sound Constitution, if there was an opportunity for all Canadians to review any compromise that might be negotiated as a result of Mr. McKenna’a proposals before the changes are entrenched in our Constitution.

Mr. Phillips: I rise to speak in favor of the motion as presented by the Leader of the Official Opposition. The whole Meech Lake process, in my view, has been flawed from the very beginning. Ten Premiers and our Prime Minister met and decided on the future of the whole country. It turned out to be terribly flawed. No wonder the general public is skeptical about politicians. I have spoken to literally hundreds of people about this issue and no one can believe that these political leaders could have walked out of that room at Meech Lake and felt they had solved all the problems of the country when so many other Canadians were left out.

It is very important for Canada to be united and for Quebec to be part of Confederation, but I submit to you that it is equally as important for northerners, native groups, women and others to be afforded the same opportunities as other Canadians. I was extremely puzzled when I read the agreement about why northerners were going to be treated differently than other Canadians. I wondered if there was a hidden agenda of some southern Premiers or we were just an afterthought.

Meech Lake is not written in stone. Political leaders in this country have had time to reflect on that decision and some have had second thoughts about what they signed and are now talking about making changes to the agreement.

It is time for compromise on all sides. Quebec wants to be an equal partner in Confederation, so surely it should not be so short sighted as to see others left out in its haste to include itself.

The Government of Canada has heard from thousands of Canadians, most of whom are talking about very similar problems with the Meech Lake Accord. It is time to listen and to fix a bad deal. There is no question in my mind that, if all Canadians are to be equal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Yukoners should be allowed one day to become a province on the same basis as all others before. Yukoners, like their fellow Canadians in the south, should be entitled to representation in the Senate and qualified Yukoners should be allowed to become Supreme Court judges. That is not really a lot to ask. All we are asking for are the same rights and privileges all other Canadians have been afforded.

The proposed companion accord is a more common sense approach to the shortcomings of Meech Lake. It addresses our major concerns with the 1987 Constitutional Accord. It is time for all 10 Premiers and the Prime Minister to right a wrong. Northerners deserve to be treated fairly and this companion agreement goes a long way towards achieving this fairness.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would like to thank the Opposition for bringing this motion forward at this time, particularly since the special Commons committee to study the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord is wrapping up its hearings.

I would like to address my comments to the concerns I have with the Constitutional Accord, as it is presently proposed by the Prime Minister.

I would like to think that, as a Yukoner, I am just as important to my country as a person residing in downtown Ottawa. If the federal government thought they were giving us some kind of a break by not including us as full citizens of Canada, they have not indicated that same consideration in the proposed GST. That the residents of Yukon cannot have a say in their future and, further, that they are not guaranteed a seat at First Ministers Conferences, that we are not able to nominate Senators or Supreme Court justices, is not only unfair but extremely offensive to the citizens of the Yukon.

There was a time not so long ago when aboriginal people were not allowed to vote, but were welcomed into the armed forces to fight and die for this country. We look upon those days with disbelief that inequality of that degree actually ever existed. I do not consider the proposed Accord to be a lot different.

This country is built on principles of multiculturalism and equality for every single individual. Has the present Conservative government forgotten these principles? It would seem so. Every single Canadian should have equal rights. Nowhere in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it exempt individuals living in the north. We have a right to decide the future of our jurisdiction. We have a duly elected body that functions as a legislature. It is through this body, and only this body, that the future of our territory is decided, in the same manner as any province in this country. Whether I vote in Ontario or the Yukon for a Member of the Legislative Assembly to represent my views, the important point is that my views are represented and respected.

I do not expect a Member from Alberta, Manitoba or Ontario to represent me as a Yukoner. The protection of my rights as a fellow Canadian as equal in all representations or decisions must be entrenched in any constitutional agreement in this country.

This then brings me to the companion resolution. It is somewhat encouraging that, somewhere in this country, there is someone with a sense of fairness and vision. We need to thank Premier McKenna for his proposal. I am encouraged that his proposals specifically address the concerns of the north, as well as the concerns of the aboriginal people and the rights of women. It is only right that any discussions directly concerning aboriginal people and the Constitution include the participation of these people.

The aboriginal people of this country are well informed. They understand political processes. The idea that they need these great white fathers in Ottawa to look out for their concerns is archaic thinking. It is important to realize that the aboriginal people in the north are not going anywhere. This is their home.

Many other people in the north move around the country, retire to warmer climates, or move on to better challenges or opportunities, but the aboriginal people stay here. They retire here. They will never leave the north.

This by itself is a consideration for their right to participation in constitutional discussions that directly affect their concerns.

More important is the question of entrenchment of self-government agreements. I agree with the concept of constitutional entrenchment of the rights of aboriginal people. This is of fundamental importance to the native people and they have been saying for years that they have a right to decide their future as well. This government is committed to this and we must be absolutely assured that this is not just another promise waiting to be broken. We must be secure in our minds that through inclusion in the companion resolution that this same resolution must go hand-in-hand with the Meech Lake Accord.

It has been interesting to see the attitudes of the federal government developing toward aboriginal concerns and women’s rights. First we see the Meech Lake Accord and then we see Jerry Weiner’s budget slashing of womens centres and native communications. There is a strong message here. There is no way I will rest assured that any concerns of the rights of these individuals and groups are of the least interest to representatives of the federal government.

For these reasons I must insist that my support to the Accord and to the companion resolution rests on the proposal that they are entrenched together.

Ms. Kassi: Firstly I would like to thank the Member for Hootalinqua for bringing forth this motion. No doubt there has been substantial discussion and legitimate concerns raised by citizens of this country about the Meech Lake Accord as it stands: by the aboriginal peoples, by northerners, by women and by certain provinces.

These concerns cannot be ignored. They just cannot be. Canada will not ever be a peaceful country if this Accord were to pass as it stands now. Although I, too, do not believe that the proposal of New Brunswick goes far enough, though I support it, I would like to congratulate Premier McKenna on his attempt to salvage the assets of the Accord, while at the same time addressing many of the most pressing concerns it has raised.

Presently, as we speak, the Assembly of First Nations is holding its annual conference here in Whitehorse. Our respective elders, representing many First Nations across this land, are speaking out and setting the agenda for, not only the Assembly, but for the future of the aboriginal people of this country.

This morning I had the opportunity to listen to the elders speak. Elder after elder spoke at length about this country and what its national leaders are doing to us.

Many of the elders spoke about the Meech Lake Accord and how it must be ratified. The Meech Lake Accord will certainly become a priority agenda item at the conference this week. Why? Because, once again, we are being pushed aside.

This is the 1990s, and we still have to fight to be recognized. I well understand the position of the French Canadians; I support them, and I wish them luck in their endeavours to be recognized in the Constitution, the Confederacy of Canada. I understand because we, the aboriginal people of this country, continue this long, drawn-out, unnecessary battle to be recognized as a distinct society.

The text of the Accord needs to meet the rights of aboriginal people of this nation, as well as those of women. It should also address the important issues of the north, including the process for gaining provincehood, nominating Senators, and having a say in appointments to the Supreme Court.

The New Brunswick resolution addresses these concerns, some to a lesser and some to a greater degree. The New Brunswick resolution requires that all matters directly affecting aboriginal peoples in Canada be included in future constitutional agendas. It also recommends that representatives of aboriginal peoples and the territories be invited to take part in these discussions.

The Yukon government has consistently supported the constitutional entrenchment of self-government agreements during our land claims negotiations. Premier McKenna has also recognized and supported aboriginal people. I agree with the Premier of the Yukon, however, that section 9 of his proposal could be strengthened by directly addressing constitutional entrenchment of aboriginal rights.

I also agree that the McKenna proposal pays significant notice to the question of provincial status for the territories. The same rules should apply now as they applied to the present provinces when they joined Confederation. We support McKenna’s proposal of removing not only the requirement for unanimous consent to the creation of new provinces, but also the seven to 50 percent requirement of the 1982 constitutional amendment.

I would like to conclude my comments with a couple of questions that many aboriginal people across this country share.

Since the Accord recognizes the distinct society of the French Canadians, and gives protection to their culture and language, do we, the First Nations, the indigenous people, the first people, not have our own distinct languages and cultural identity? Were we not also here as vital participants when this country was founded? Why do these particular Ministers, and the Prime Minister of Canada, demand that Canada approve the Meech Lake Accord and, at the same time, continue to deny the same rights to the aboriginal people of Canada?

I need some answers.

In closing, I would like to read into the record the conclusion of the Council for Yukon Indians’ statement to the committee dealing with the Meech Lake Accord.

“The Yukon First Nations endorse Premier McKenna’s proposals regarding the creation of new provinces and the appointment of northerners to the Senate and Supreme Court. We recommend that the proposed companion resolution be amended to provide for express recognition of aboriginal peoples of Canada as distinct societies and a fundamental part of Canada. As well, we urge this committee to report to Parliament regarding those policies of the Government of Canada, which require northern aboriginal peoples to pursue unnecessary constitutional amendments and recommend that Parliament direct the government to cease this practice.

“Finally, we recommend that Premier McKenna’s proposals calling for the inclusion of aboriginal issues in the First Ministers Conferences be amended to provide for a series of First Ministers Conferences dedicated exclusively to the resolution of outstanding matters relating to the constitutional protection of the rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada.”

Also, on behalf of my colleague, the Member for Whitehorse South Centre, who is unable to be with us, I would like to emphasize that our hope is that women’s rights to equality is firmly protected in whatever deal is finally concluded. The companion resolution proposed by Premier McKenna adds a section stating that the rights and freedoms guaranteed equally to men and women will not be affected by the interpretive clauses. This kind of guarantee is a positive step. Gender equality must be protected from possible erosion through constitutional amendments proposed in the Meech Lake Accord. Mahsi-cho.

Mr. Joe: It is only right when something is being talked about that people who are affected should be allowed to join in the discussion.

In the New Brunswick position on the Accord it is very clear that aboriginal representatives be invited to take part in discussions on matters that directly affect us. This is a step forward in making all people equal. The next step would be the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution.

I am proud to be a Member of the government that has so strongly supported a constitutional entrenchment of self-government agreement in the land claims negotiations. The New Democrats remain committed to this goal that is reflected to some degree in Premier McKenna’s proposal.

I support this motion.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I, too, would like to add my support to others of the House to the resolution on Meech Lake. While, like others, I respect and would like to see Quebec as a full partner in Confederation, I believe it is imperative that the Yukon have the same constitutional footing that was afforded to other jurisdictions in the course of our history. Like speakers before me, I believe also that the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord, if enshrined in law, will restore most of that constitutional footing that is being placed in jeopardy.

I think that we have good reason to be disappointed - and I say disappointed because the shock has passed - that the Yukon has been through the events of the last decade and then effectively shut out of Confederation.

I was a Member in this Legislature in 1982 when the Constitution Act of that year changed the admission formula to require the approval of the federal government and two-thirds of the provinces having 50 percent of the population of the country. I remember the outcry, not because Yukon necessarily wanted to be a province, but because the rules changed from those that existed prior to that for the earlier-formed provinces. Up until 1982, the addition of new provinces was achieved by negotiation with the federal government. I believe six provinces entered Confederation under those rules and those rules had existed since 1871, where at that time the sole authority of Parliament was required to admit new provinces.

I remember also the debate of the issue in the early 1980s, and then in 1983 the Constitutional Accord on aboriginal rights, which actually recognized that the entry provisions were unfair. I believe the Member of Parliament of the time spoke at some length on the unfairness of the 1982 Accord and spoke out at length on the discrimination it created for the Yukon.

In spite of the 1983 Accord on aboriginal rights being signed by all the participating provinces, the 1987 Meech Lake Accord made entry provisions even more onerous than what were suggested in 1982. As indicated by Members and speakers before me, essentially every province in the country would have a veto.

I believe we have heard some excellent debate on how the second round of discrimination in 1987 produced an outcry. It produced an outcry to all signatories of that 1987 Accord and the outcry was especially vocal and vociferous from the north, both in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.

I say that if there was anyone more outspoken on the issue than our Premier, I am not sure who it could have been. It would certainly be an understatement to suggest that there were meetings, lobbies, letters, phone calls and quite a multitude of representations made throughout the country that followed the announcement in June of 1987. Suffice it to say, no other single action since perhaps the gold rush could have had as much of an impact on the Yukon and many of its people - in some cases, quite severe.

It appears that Mr. McKenna’s proposal could change all that. It appears, as noted by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Premier and others, that the Yukon would again be placed under the same entry provisions that were granted to other provinces. Effectively, the McKenna proposal would not only eliminate the unanimous consent requirement of the 1987 Accord, but would erase the seven province/50 percent population rule established in 1982.

As spoken so well by the speaker before me, the McKenna proposal would also redress the issues of Senate appointments and Supreme Court appointments, and, to some extent, our participation at First Ministers Conferences and constitutional forums, as well as addressing our concerns surrounding aboriginal and women’s rights.

I submit that we are perhaps only a territory at this time, but we do have the democratic structures of other jurisdictions; we do have an elected Legislature here; we have a Cabinet; we do represent our constituents; we deliver most of our own programs; we run our own affairs; and we are assuming more and more authority in that area all the time. We have the same aspirations as other Canadians do. We have the same desire to participate and make decisions about our future as other Canadians. We should be entitled to those rights, those privileges, and those decision-making opportunities that have been afforded to, and are still being granted to, the rest of the country.

I submit that we should unanimously support this resolution and ensure that it is delivered to appropriate authorities who can help make a difference.

Thank you.

I think it is nevertheless important that Members do speak at this occasion, largely because this will be one of the few debates, I am sure, that future generations will look to to see how Yukon legislators dealt with constitutional assaults on its future and to see whether or not, way back in 1990, there really was any drive or ambition in the Legislature to become full constitutional partners in Confederation.

I do believe that the times we have now in this country are, in many respects, dangerous times, as the Premier mentioned. While I would not want to be seen as an alarmist, as that now is seen as counterproductive by some Premiers during this period of great potential change, I think that the brinksmanship that is going on in the political world of Canada may lead to a very different Canada in the months and years to come.

Every night we watch on television the latest person or group that has been enlisted to comment on Meech Lake. We listen to television commentators refer to Meech Lake itself in the same context as the changes that are taking place in Eastern Europe, where countries are being fractured almost every month and new political entities arise. The climate for change there, of course, is substantial, and clearly there is a view, at least within certain elements of the media, that the changes that are taking place in Eastern Europe could easily happen in Yukon and, for better or worse, we should perhaps accept the reality of those changes.

Consequently, it causes all of us to think of our vision of Canada and reflect on the fact that if we come out of the Meech Lake discussions and the future discussions that emanate from them with no resolution, we may not have a country that we can recognize as Canada. Perhaps we may be a stronger and more resolute nation. We are obviously having difficulty getting unanimity about getting unanimity.

Yukon, for its part, developed along with the other western provinces right up until the 1900s at the same rate. If it had not been for a slipping into almost semi-permanent colonial status that occurred after the early 1900s, we may well have been in the same position as other western provinces are today.

Yukon is now in a bit of another world. At times, it is a territory; at times, it is a mini-province. To those people who resist federal control, there are other people who consider Yukon to be a bit of a vassal state.

Yukon does have aspirations to join Confederation as an equal partner. Whether the time will come in the near or in the distant future, it may be tempered at times by economic and financial circumstances. Nevertheless, there is a desire by Yukoners and by legislators in this Legislature now to take a full partnership in Confederation in a manner that suits Yukoners’ interests.

These are interesting times. We have concluded a land claims agreement, which does have constitutional implications, as well as implications for the future internal constitutional development for the Yukon. We are living during a period where the federal fiscal agenda is not particularly friendly to the north. It is a time when Yukoners feel somewhat beleaguered about their vision of themselves within Canada.

Consequently, as all Members have mentioned, the introduction of Meech Lake to the Yukon’s political agenda has been quite unsettling.

While most Yukoners support the basic principles of Meech Lake and want Quebec in Confederation as a full signatory to the Constitution, they also want Yukon to ultimately play a role within Confederation and do not want the options to be closed off.

As Members have pointed out with respect to Yukon’s constitutional future, it appears that, under Meech Lake, everyone with the exception of Yukoners will have a say as to whether or not Yukon enters Confederation, and under what circumstances and conditions. It is not overstating the case, despite some commentators’ opinions, that we are effectively frozen out of Confederation with a unanimity clause that is not entrenched within the Meech Lake Accord.

It is not appropriate to ask Yukoners to be patient and wait for their concerns to be met, as it is unlikely in the future under a situation where the unanimity clause is in effect that Yukon will enter Confederation on its terms, patient or not. It is important to note the ratification process for the Meech Lake Accord is a useful object lesson for any of those who feel that unanimity will be easily achieved in future for constitutional amendments.

We obviously do have concerns, as the Member have pointed out, with respect to the future of the process for nominations to the Supreme Court and ultimately to the Senate of Canada - the Senate, of course, perhaps being more of an important institution as time goes on, with perhaps the potential that the Senate will provide greater representation for regions and will perhaps in the future be, appropriately, an elected body.

The role that Ministers in the Yukon government play at First Ministers Conferences is something that ought to be of particular concern to all Yukoners. We obviously need to be heard. We need to be heard as a full partner. Decisions are made at these conferences that will affect Yukoners’ future. I cite, for example, the Finance Ministers conferences that do take place now, where the Yukoner is asked to sit as part of the federal delegation. There is no chance that a Finance Minister of the Yukon can be seen as being part of a federal delegation when it comes to federal fiscal policies. When it comes to enunciating those policies at a federal conference, while I would obviously take the opportunity to be present, one will never find me sitting in the federal delegation.

The McKenna proposal is, in my view, a useful compromise that should be considered in future deliberations about Meech Lake. It does offer to the Yukon the hope that in the future Yukon can enter Confederation on terms that are acceptable to Yukoners. It does offer the hope that Yukon can participate within Canada and each Yukoner can be proud of the fact that they are full Canadians and not semi-Canadians within the constitutional framework. At the same time, it will afford aboriginal people the right to participate in constitutional conferences that affect their interests: a fundamental principle that simply must be incorporated into changes at this stage in our constitutional development.

There are many other useful elements of the potential companion resolution, respecting the protection of gender equality and the potential for Senate reform in the future but I will leave the record to show that others have commented appropriately on those points.

I would like to again, along with other Members, thank the Member for Hootalinqua for having brought forward this motion this afternoon. It is a useful motion and it is also in many respects a historic motion. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, I think, will be proud to have heard that the Yukon Legislature was sufficiently concerned, sufficiently aware and sufficiently vocal to protect the interests of Yukoners, way back in 1990.

Mr. Nordling: As a Member of the Yukon Legislature Assembly, I have no hesitation in agreeing that the proposed companion resolution to the 1987 Constitutional Accord addresses the major concerns of Yukoners. It addresses those concerns and maintains the integrity of the Meech Lake Accord.

Constitutions are not made in a day and we cannot expect perfection. The Constitution Act of 1982 was a great achievement, but nowhere near perfect; it left Quebec out. The 1987 Constitutional Accord was also a great achievement, but it is also by no means perfect.

The problem is that constitutions are very difficult to change unless there is a very strong political will. This motion is asking that a very strong political will be expressed so that the process of constitutional development and reform will be continued immediately so that we do not wait years and years before constitutional reform takes place.

The Meech Lake Accord, although not perfect, should be accepted because it is important to Canada; however, we in Yukon, have major concerns with the Accord as it stands - concerns that have been expressed very well by the previous speakers. Many of the concerns are dealt with in the McKenna proposal.

The building of a nation is an ongoing process. The building of a constitution is an ongoing process. The McKenna proposal, along with the Meech Lake Accord, will go a long way in building our nation by including Quebec, and not shutting out the north.

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

Mr. Phelps: I would like to begin by thanking all those who spoke to this important motion. I feel it is important that we send out the message loud and clear. Part of that message is that, despite the injustice done to Yukoners as a result of Meech Lake and despite the fact that our pleas for justice were largely ignored for more than two years by southern politicians, we nevertheless continue to be concerned about Canada’s future and concerned that Quebec be brought into the Constitution and that we want to resolve our difficulties in a constructive fashion. We do, to some extent, take a bit of a risk in supporting the motion. The motion itself contains an element of uncertainty that we hope will shrink in size as the discussions continue. I want to say that I am very pleased with the attitudes of, not only those in this Legislature, but also the vast majority of Yukoners who do believe in the future of our country.

I want to say a few words about the rights of women in the Constitution. We also want to be assured that equal rights will be preserved once the Accord and companion resolution are completed. We also share concerns about resolving the aboriginal rights question and getting those rights enshrined in the Constitution. Of course, prior to 1985-86, it was expected that the self government provisions of the Yukon land claims negotiations would be enshrined in the Constitution. I want to make it very clear that it has always been the position of the Yukon government, the previous government as well as the present one, that those portions of the land claims agreement should be entrenched in the Constitution.

We continue to support that demand being made by CYI and the First Nations of Yukon. I wanted to make that position clear.

Once again, I thank everyone for this opportunity, and I am very proud of the fact we have joined together in a positive way, despite the harm we saw when Meech Lake was first announced to us early one morning, two years ago in April.

Motion No. 95 agreed to

Clerk: Item No. 15, standing in the name of Mr. Lang.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 15?

Mr. Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Motion No. 91

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should establish a residential care facility for Yukon residents with mental problems.

Mr. Lang: I brought the motion before the House because I felt it was important that this particular issue not get sidetracked and ignored primarily by Members of the government. It is important to realize that this is a recognized need within the community that has been identified as far back as 1983. Since that time, there has been one complete study done, as far as what could be done to accommodate the people who could make use of such a facility.

It is unfortunate, in some respects. As I said in Question Period a number of times, it is an issue that is not going to land anybody political votes, or make or break the government. We are dealing with people in our society who are the most defenceless, who have no place to go, in many cases, who are in a situation not of their own making, yet we have very little service to provide for them.

We have gone through a period of time over the last five years where we have had a transfer of dollars from the Government of Canada that has never been experienced before in Yukon history. The argument put forward by the side opposite has been strictly from a monetary point of view. There is no question that there is agreement on all sides of the House. A facility of this kind could be worked out with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Yukon Division, and is badly needed. It would be of benefit to those people who are in the unfortunate situation where they would have to make use of such a facility. At the same time, it would speak well of our society.

The situation facing these people is a very isolated one. You seldom see them, because they are generally very quiet, whatever social circles they are in. It is difficult to know who they are within Whitehorse.

What we do know is that we may be talking about five or 10 people at any given time who would require such a service. I mentioned the other day I had a situation occur where I had to deal with an individual with problems. Upon contacting those from whom services are available, the people moved very quickly and were very accommodating to see what they could do to assist the individual in question. I recognized at that time that there was not much available to the administration to take necessary steps to help address the problem.

The question before the House is basically one of responsibility. The Government Leader in his magnanimous manner has said he is prepared to cost share with the Government of Canada on this particular issue because it is not our responsibility, but in this situation we will be prepared to take on at least a portion of the responsibility. It was very interesting. I pointed out to Member that back in 1983 there was a document that very clearly identified that at that time YTG had accepted the principle that the responsibilities for this type of social service was the responsibility of the Yukon government, as in any province. I am surprised that the government has taken a position contrary to that and is absolving itself of responsibility, at least in part, in saying it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

Personally, I think with the transfer of dollars to the YTG the service required is not all that great, in terms of dollars.

The government is prepared to put the capital dollars toward the facility. It was very interesting when the announcement was made that they never said that 75 percent of those dollars were federal dollars. It was probably an oversight because I am sure they did not want to infer it was strictly YTG money.

If we are talking about 50/50 cost sharing, if they have gone to 75 percent on the capital we should go 75 percent YTG on the O&M and 25 percent federal, if you accept the premise that the feds must cost share.

The reality of the situation is that while we have this bickering between the two levels of government, we have a very serious situation out there on the street. We are faced with people who have very little family to take care of them, very few friends and in many cases are ostracized because of their situation. What are we doing as people, as a society, and as a government to try to help them adjust to a very complex world?

The motion before us is urging the government to take the necessary steps to work with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Yukon Division, and see what you can do to come up with a solution or at least some service to be provided to these individuals.

I do not see the costs as being all that great. It is funny; we are at this situation where, all of a sudden, everything is on hold. The government paid for a study in respect to what could be done to provide a service for these people. There were discussions and something like 30-odd meetings held with the Canadian Mental Association, Yukon Division and one of the reasons the issue is before the House is that, quite frankly, the people who really felt strongly about the issue felt it was time that the public become aware of the situation surrounding people with mental health needs. The public should be aware of it. Secondly, this motion will also give notice to the government, primarily to YTG, that people will not longer be meeting just for the sake of meeting; people have other things to do with their time.

I am sure that it was very very frustrating for them when, after 30-odd meetings, there was no resolution. At the same time, you go to a meeting where two representatives of the government tell you they are all very sympathetic and they think it is a worthwhile project but there should be more studies on it. Well, I think it is time for action. I think it is time for some definitive decision to be made. I have a proposal for the Minister who, quite rightly so, is questioning the financial side of any project or program that we are doing. A study of this program was completed in 1989 - that is some time ago. That is over a year ago now.

This particular report recommends that the initial O&M costs for the home will be in the neighbourhood of $73,000. I had the opportunity to speak to those who should know, and by that I mean members of the executive of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Yukon Division. They indicated to me that they felt that, to get things going, to get things moving, they could do with considerably less. What they are saying is that instead of having two personnel, they could probably make do with one, so we are talking in the neighbourhood of $50,000 in O&M costs. If we had to accept the premise given by the Government Leader in Question Period,  and if we can cost by 25 percent, or $25,000, then it would naturally follow that the federal government would not have to put their funds in. Obviously then YTG could put the dollars in.

The Minister of Community and Transportation said they never put the funds in. It is very clear that the Government of Canada does not feel it is their mandate or their responsibility. I am saying I do not think it is their responsibility. I think it is a YTG responsibility.

I know we get monies from the federal government. We can set our own priorities through both the EPF and CAP transfers. Over and above that we have a very lucrative financial agreement with the Government of Canada to provide services of this kind, similar to what the government has decided to do in day care. That was a home-grown decision.

I find it very disconcerting that the government, which claims to hold the social conscience for us all in Yukon, has not met its obligations in this area. I do not think anyone is going to win any votes on this. It will not make or break a government. We are talking about a situation where people are suffering some very severe disabilities, five or 10 at the most, who could use such a facility. I say to the side opposite that surely if we cannot meet our obligations in this area, we cannot hold our heads high.

The Minister talks about costs. We see $62,000 given to somebody, after they have earned three quarters of a million dollars, to go on a year’s sabbatical. The side opposite justifies it in this House by saying that is the way it is. Sixty-two thousand dollars is $12,000 more than the figures quoted to me by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Yukon Division to run such a facility for 365 days a year. These people who will be coming into this facilities will never have earned probably $20,000, let along three quarters of a million dollars in less than four years.

It is a question of setting priorities. There is a social need that has to be met and how long can the government sit there fighting with the federal government telling the other the ball is in its court while each is saying it is very sympathetic to the problem. It is time to bite the bullet. It is time for them to meet their obligations. I find it a very lame excuse for the Government Leader to blame Mr. Wilson and the Government of Canada for not having such a facility. I think that is totally unacceptable when we are talking about an annual budget in this government of $340 million.

Why we cannot take these necessary steps with a very hard working organization, such as the Canadian Mental Health Association, Yukon Division, is beyond me. They have tried to work in conjunction with the government. They have taken all the proper steps to see what they could do with the government to work out a program. Frankly, I wish it had not come to this, where we are standing and debating this in a resolution of the floor. I would rather the side opposite had taken the necessary steps when they saw the obviously hard position the Government of Canada was taking, and one I cannot see them changing in the near future. The Government of Canada is running out of money.

Some Hon. Member: So are we.

Mr. Lang: If you keep giving $62,000 away to a guy to go on a junket to Australia, it is no wonder you are running out of money. You should not have been given the money in the first place if that is the way you are going to hand it out. Do not tell me it is Mr. Wilson, as the Minister of Finance, talking about how you are spending money.

I work for the people of the territory. There is a need out there for people you may not care about. The Minister of Finance may not care about those people.

Speaker: Order please. Let the Member continue.

Mr. Lang: There is a number of people out there in desperate need of assistance and help. There is a common concurrence among all Members in this House. We agree that there is a need that has not been fulfilled over many years.

In view of the fact the Government of Canada has taken the position it has, rightly or wrongly, and in view of the reality we are facing that it is very unlikely that that position is going to change, it says it is your responsibility as the Government of the Yukon. Similarly, it says this to the Province of Alberta or Quebec.

I strongly believe it is up to us to say there is a priority here and a need here. Let us look at this need and work with these people and fulfill that need. It may not be on a scale as large as first proposed. There are ways we can remedy it. I believe we can find the resources within what the government is already spending. The government is spending money sending Yukoners outside for some services; there is money spent in the hospital where people are going to the hospital for such a service, at $450 a day. This would no longer have to be spent. There are unfortunately some who go to jail because there is no place to go.

There are also those who are perhaps using social housing or other government programs. When I talk about an expenditure of $50,000, it could well be that the government may well be already spending $25,000 to $30,000. It may be a redirection of those dollars.

I feel the motion is timely. I feel the government has a responsibility to meet the obligations, similar to the provinces. I leave it to the conscience of all good Members as to how they vote on this motion I have put forward in good faith. I hope it will be given very serious consideration.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the Member opposite for a chance to once again, for the seventh or eighth time debating this, put our position on the record.

At the conclusion of my remarks, I am going to take the Member at his word and see if he is a caring person of good faith and not just playing political games, as he is sometimes inclined to do in this House.

I apologize for my own inability to communicate successfully on this score, because once again he has misrepresented our position, and given an entirely inaccurate statement of the constitutional responsibility in that area, and disappointed us considerably in that he seems to be making arguments for his party, whose government is in Ottawa, rather than arguments that are appropriate to the point of view to the Yukon.

The Member opposite claims that this is strictly a matter of money. Nothing could be more wrong. If it were strictly a matter of money, this government would not have made the offers it has made, notwithstanding the federal responsibility in this field. I believe people who have had an opportunity to review previous versions of this debate, whether in Question Period or during the time in Committee when we were discussing the Mental Health Act, will understand and know well our point of view. If, indeed, we were intransigent on this question, as the Member charges, we would have simply said that this is a federal responsibility and we are not paying a penny.

If we had been as hard-headed as the Member opposite, if we had been as inflexible, as anal-retentive as the Member opposite, we would have simply have said...

Mr. Lang: Ahh, come on, Tony. Let’s get a little bit above the bowels, eh?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: ...if we had been as rigid...I do not believe I could ever get as low as the Member opposite has been upon occasion in this House, but I am saying that if we - now I am being accused by the Member opposite of having a sick mind, by that Member who has displayed the most emotionally labile personality of anybody in this House.

If we were as rigid or as inflexible as the Member opposite on this question, whatever side we are taking, we would have simply said that this is a federal responsibility: we are not paying a penny. That has not been our position. We have said this is a federal responsibility and notwithstanding the fact that it is a federal responsibility and notwithstanding the fact that, if you pick up the phone book and you look in the Blue Pages to where mental health services are, you will find them under the federal government. You do not find them under the Yukon government.

Since 1954 in this territory, all the time that the Member opposite has been in this House, all the time that he has had a passing acquaintance of the responsibilities of this government, it has been the responsibility of the federal government. Never, in all his years in this Legislature, since 1974, has he ever, prior to going into Opposition, articulated the view that this kind of service was a responsibility of the territorial government.

As evidence of