Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, November 21, 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 proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any Introductions of Visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I would like to introduce all Members in the Legislature to our special guests in the gallery from J.V. Clark School in Mayo: Vernon Asp, Rosemary Asp, Michelle Buyck, Lana Cooper, John Dahle, Simone MacDonald, Joe Popadynec, Vera McGinty, now working with Yukon College, and teacher Jim Hawrylenko. I would like to welcome them warmly today.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have for tabling the annual report of the Government of Yukon and also a number of legislative returns, copies of which I have provided to the table.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling a legislative return from the Department of Economic Development.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have for tabling, for your information, an ad from the 1982 elections from the Whitehorse Star.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 1

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling a response to a petition regarding mining in the Kluane north area.

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

Notices of Motion.

Statements by Ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Audiology Services

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I rise today to inform Members of new initiatives being undertaken by speech and hearing services to deal with the backlog of audiological clients waiting to be seen. It has been a subject of some debate in this House in previous months.

As Members may recall, during the last session there was some discussion over the lengthy period of time that clients were required to wait before being able to see an audiologist. Then, the waiting period for adults was up to 18 months, and up to three months for children.

I am pleased to inform Members that it is this government’s policy to provide audiology services in as expeditious a manner as possible and that by January 1991, the old waiting list will have been cleared up and all clients on that list will have been seen by the audiologist.

As well as clearing up the backlog of waiting clients, steps have been taken by speech and hearing services that will ensure that Yukon residents who need to have their hearing tested by the audiologist will have only a minimal wait for an appointment.

A reorganization in speech and hearing services, changes in procedures and the purchase of new diagnostic equipment have already helped to drastically reduce the current waiting list.

The new equipment is highly accurate and reduces the need for repeat visits and reassessments while the reorganization and changes in procedures have allowed waiting clients to be seen much sooner than previously.

These changes have all helped contribute to a more efficient and speedy service. Once the backlog has been cleared up, adults who need appointments will have a minimal wait to see the audiologist and children will be seen within a few days of the initial call requesting an appointment.

It is unreasonable to expect that there will be no waiting list at all but efforts are being made to limit that waiting list to a minimal length of time - certainly within a month. I thank all Members for their patience on this question.

Mr. Lang: We welcome this ministerial statement. As the Minister knows, we raised this question last year and we were assured during the course of the last session that the backlog was going to be taken care of. I was quite surprised, as an MLA, over the course of the summer, when I had representation made to me by a constituent that he would not get the necessary service for up to two years. As the Minister knows, I pursued that with him as the MLA and we did get that clarified and the individual in question did get the necessary treatment. I hope, as an MLA, and I speak for all members on this side and I am sure on the other side, that we do not have to make further representation to the government in this respect. It is a service that is long overdue, and as long as it is done efficiently it is going to be very welcome by the public.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Hootalinqua North plan

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions about land-use planning again today, this time with respect to the Hootalinqua North land-use planning exercise. Looking through one of my files I saw a release dated February 23, 1987, entitled, “Whitehorse West Planning Starts”. That was the first name given to this planning exercise. Eighty-five thousand dollars was awarded to a consulting firm to assist in preparing the plan. The plan got to a certain stage and then bogged right down. I am wondering what has been done over the past 12 months with respect to advancing the Hootalinqua North land-use plan.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: With respect to the land-use plan affecting Hootalinqua North, the Leader of the Opposition may recall that I met with him during the course of last winter, outlining to him a scenario that I was going to be proposing to respective interest groups of the area. The proposal that I was putting forward was to create a planning body in three respective areas of Hootalinqua North. In the subsequent discussions that I had with residents of Hootalinqua North, the issue of hamlet status and incorporating a planning exercise with the hamlet body came into the discussion. As a consequence, the position that I have taken is to await the election of the hamlet councils of the respective areas and address the adoption of a Hootalinqua North Plan, following that time.

Mr. Phelps: I understand that there is a movement afoot to form another hamlet in the Hotsprings Road/Mayo Road areas. Is the Minister going to wait for that process to attain fruition before he proceeds with the land-use planning exercise?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member raises an interesting and very valid point. It was my intention, as I believe I have indicated to the Member previously in private discussions, and I definitely indicated to representatives of the steering committee that evolved in the Ibex Valley, that I would proceed with discussions pertaining to an adoption of a plan following the election and establishment of a hamlet council. The issue of waiting for another hamlet council is one that I have not given much thought to; certainly at this juncture, I would take the position that I feel committed to proceeding with discussions on adoption of a plan. It has been on the books long enough. Residents have some things to say about it. I would like to proceed early in the new year with those discussions, irrespective of another hamlet formation. If that posed a problem, it would be my logical approach to include representatives of that hamlet area that may be under consideration.

Mr. Phelps: How is the Minister going to appoint members to the new steering committee?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: When I outlined to the Member opposite and to representatives from the area the plan to create four steering groups with an umbrella group of representatives from those four groups, it was prior to the creation, or even the thought of the creation, of a hamlet council. It was during those discussions, in attempting to find a workable approach to a plan, that the hamlet councils began to evolve. Following the election of hamlet councils, I will approach the new council and address a model that would be acceptable to the council, a model that would address completion of the plans and that indeed would provide for a planning exercise through which ...

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: ... a planning model could be adopted that would be acceptable to residents and meet the requirements of the planning exercise.

Question re: Hootalinqua North Plan

Mr. Phelps: Back in February of 1987, $85,000 was awarded to a consulting firm to assist in the planning exercise in the area, and subsequently that contract was enlarged. I understand that somewhat over $100,000 was spent for that consulting group. I am wondering if there is going to be another contract awarded to have consultants assist the new planning body that is going to be appointed by the Minister?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I cannot give the Member a firm answer to that question. Through the planning efforts that have taken place over the past three years, we have compiled quite a substantial body of research and planning material. In fact, a final document exists, which has been put into circulation. It may not be necessary to engage further detailed work in an initial effort to finalize the planning exercise. The Member knows that as plans become more and more detailed, further detailed effort is required. Now there may be, later on in the planning exercise, a need to engage the services of outside help, but in the initial stage, I would propose to use the existing hamlet council and work with the existing research we have already developed.

Mr. Phelps: It is fine to deal with the hamlet council that is going to be elected, but that is only one small part of the area that is being planned. Most of the area is on the other side of the Takhini River.

Does the Minister intend to have a lot of public meetings before a final plan is adopted by him?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is correct when he says the hamlet council will serve only a portion of the Hootalinqua North planning area, but it is a substantial portion. The area in the region down the Mayo Road toward Marsh Lake is an area that is not represented by the hamlet, nor is some of the area around the Takhini Hotsprings.

I take a lead from the hamlet council to formulate the area steering group. I would be approaching the residents of the unrepresented area to formulate the other steering groups and, ultimately, create the umbrella group I explained to the Member I plan to use in the model.

Mr. Phelps: Over the course of the next few weeks, would the Minister prepare and table in this House the cost of the planning exercise to date?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am sure that would not be a problem. I could probably provide that information during budget estimate discussions.

To correct the record, in my previous answer I inadvertently said Marsh Lake; it should have been Lake Laberge.

Question re: South Highway School

Mrs. Firth: I have some questions with respect to the South Highway School, the school that was supposed to cost $1.4 million and is now going to cost well over $2 million. Some procedural problems with the tendering of this project were identified in April in the Minister of Government Services’ department, at which time it was determined that, number one, a decision to go with the invitational proposal call for fabrication and delivery of the school was a departure from normal procedure; number two, that there was a fine line between the distinction of purchase contracts and construction contracts; and number three, that there was a great deal of concern about criticism to be expected from the construction community because of the invitational proposal call; and finally, number four, that they were ignoring the government policy of promoting and using local labour and material.

Why did the Minister go ahead anyway, in light of the procedural problems that his department identified?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I do not accept the Member’s allegations of procedural problems. What I do accept is that Government Services was faced with a unique exercise in representing and servicing a client department.

In short, it amounted to a tendering of a contract for modular school construction. It had to meet some rigid, tight deadlines. A stick-built-construction facility could not be built in that period. We tendered it properly according to our current contract regulations. We awarded the job to the low bidder. It was done in the democratic process of receiving unanimous support from the building committee and client department.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister has been very defensive in the last few days about the tendering procedures, as to whether or not it was done legally or properly. His department identified and flagged that very point.

I would like to ask the Minister why he did not even go to Management Board with this proposal, where he would have benefited from valuable input from the officials and from his colleagues. He said in the House that he did not take it to Management Board. Why did he not even do that to ensure that everything was on the up and up?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I would like to assure the Member that everything was on the up and up. My Department of Government Services received a request from a client department to put in place a facility for September 1. The only way that that could be done was by tendering for the modular construction of a facility. It was done. It was perfectly in line with contract regulations, perfectly in line with the responsibility assigned to Government Services and it was in line with the response it is obligated to provide when there is a request from a client department.

Everything was above board and done properly. The school is in place today.

Mrs. Firth: Perhaps the Minister could just answer the question. Why did it not go to Management Board so that his colleagues could have a chance to review it and the officials have some input?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: My department and I make countless decisions in the course of a working day. I do not take all of those decisions to Management Board. We take decisions to Management Board where there is a requirement for a particular decision to receive an endorsement. In this particular case, everything was properly represented. It had a format and procedure to go through, which we followed. There was no need to take it to Management Board. I would ask the Member why she feels it would have to.

Question re: South Highway School

Mrs. Firth: I have another question for the Minister of Government Services with respect to the South Highway School, the school that was supposed to cost $1.4 million and is now coming in at over $2 million.

I want to show the substantiation for why this should have been a construction contract and therefore it should have gone for public tender. The bids were opened for this school. Only valid bids should have been passed on. When the government accepted the TSL bid and was prepared to consider it as a valid bid, it recognized it as a construction tender call and it should have been a public tender; is that not true? I would like the Minister to say if that is not true.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have to tell the Member that that is not true. Since the Member raised the question yesterday, I inquired about the logistics surrounding the bids. I am advised that there was no prior screening of the proposals before they went to the evaluation committee. They were received and they were forwarded to the evaluation committee members. Those committee members ranked the proposals and at the same time the technical review was provided.

Mrs. Firth: That is exactly the point. His department should have rejected the bid outright if it did not conform to the tender requirements, which is what the Minister has been stating.

The second point that confirms that it should have been a construction contract and gone to public tender is this: when the design changes were made...

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

Mrs. Firth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will start a new question.

Question re: South Highway School

Mrs. Firth: When the design changes were made - and Atco told me there were lots of major design changes: the layout, the skylight, the windows, some shelving and the siding was taken right out of the contract, major design changes - the supplier was no longer providing the design and the government was. That is exactly what the department had cautioned contracting services about. They said that that was the fine line that would make it a construction contract.

Is it not true that if the government decided to provide the design, it became a construction contract? It was only a purchase contract if the supplier supplied the total design. Is that not true? That confirms it should have been a construction contract.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is, unfortunately, confusing facts. The government undertook a commitment to put a facility in place. The only way that facility could be put into place in the required time frame was to tender fof a contract that conformed to the acquisition of goods. In other words, it is a purchase contract. A purchase contract is simply a call for a specified product. The specified products were modular trailers. We have done this, in fact, before. It comes to mind that a couple of years ago we tendered the same way for some trailers at Takhini School.

There is nothing inappropriate to tender on a purchase contract basis for a modular facility construction. That is what was done. Subsequent contracts were publicly tendered that related to the installation of surrounding facilities for the school - the foundation, the grounds work, the approach, the bus turn-around. All of those things were subsequently publicly tendered. There is nothing inappropriate to call for a purchase contract to provide a modular building.

Mrs. Firth: This should have been a construction contract, and the Minister can see from what I have outlined that it should have been, with reinforcement from the department. Construction contracts...

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

Mrs. Firth: I am just about to do that, Mr. Speaker. Construction contracts over $25,000 have to go to public tender. This one did not. That is where the concern is about the law being broken. Construction contracts have to go to tender by law.

Speaker: Order please. I have asked the Member to please get to the supplementary question.

Mrs. Firth: Is that not true? I would like the Minister to answer if that is true or not.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: You know, Mr. Speaker, the Member is now representing more misinformation on the record. I am sure she is hoping that if she puts enough misinformation on the record somebody might start believing it. The Member is asking me a question about a construction contract and its $25,000 limit. What we are talking about in the South Highway School situation is a purchase contract, and the ceilings for a purchase contract are higher than that. They were extended on an invitational basis. And, as I recall, there was some concern raised about the extent to which that contract should be let, and there was a two-week delay in which the purchase contract was retendered.

You cannot confuse construction contracts with purchase contracts and try to mix the rules that apply to each. That is wrong. Those are legal regulations that we must observe and that we will observe in respect for the integrity of the tendering system.

Question re: South Highway School

Mr. Lang: I want to follow this up with the Minister of Government Services. We have a school that was budgeted at $1.4 million. Four months later, we have now spent over $2 million for the same school, which is more than a $600,000 overrun.

How was that particular school tendered, and were procedures followed? It is very clear in the government regulations that, if a supplier provides a design, and we stay with the design, then it can be a purchase contract. If we alter the design, then it has to be a construction contract.

Why did the Minister break the contracting regulations, which he is defending? Why did he allow those major design changes, which account, in good part, for some of the escalating cost of this particular school? Why did he permit that to happen, when he was advised by his officers that that was the case?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: We now have another Member putting misinformation on the record. Construction contracts cannot be confused with purchase contracts. The estimated $1.4 million was the original estimate in late summer of the previous year, which was prior to the final decision regarding the location of the school.

At the time of the tender, the seriousness of the ground condition was not known. We estimated that 50 cubic metres of rock would have to be removed. In the final analysis, we had over 700 cubic metres of rock to remove. That escalated the price approximately $400,000. That cost ...

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: That cost would have to have been borne, regardless of the method of construction or who the contractor was.

Mr. Lang: This sounds like the Ross River arena all over again, and I am sure Mr. Speaker will remember that debate. We went from $500,000 to almost $3 million and it was always somebody else’s fault, except anybody on the front bench. I want to ask the Minister this: why did he and his officers, prior to the contract being actually signed, begin doing design layout changes when he knew that was contrary to the contract regulations? Why did he permit that to happen?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member draws reference to the Ross River arena. The fact is that is a community facility with a multi-use purpose, and the Member forgets that when he was on this side at one time, he budgeted a million dollars for an expansion to the Faro School and ended paying $2.6 million for it. The Member is not without his own track record.

The fact is that we are still talking about a purchase contract and a purchase contract is just that. You design a set of specifications for the product you want to buy. You are allowed to change your product with your supplier under the contract regulations. Only in a construction contract are you restricted when you exceed 10 percent of the scope of the job by a change that you have to retender. Again, the Members are mixing two types of contracting procedures, two types of contracting rules and attempting to blend them and create confusion. I am sorry, there is none - not on this side.

Mr. Lang: The reality of the situation is that the government presented this House with a budget of $1.4 million. We are now over $2 million and it is climbing. We still have not completed the facility; there are things that still have to be done. We are very concerned about what his involvement and his officers’ involvements were in the tendering procedure. It is very clear that once the layout of the design is altered, it must be a construction project according to the contract regulations. I want to ask the Minister this: why did he go against the advice of his officers and begin changing the design of the facility, if he was going to follow the contract regulations that all Members of this House have agreed to?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member is creating confusion by applying construction regulations to a purchase contract procedure. I keep repeating for the Member: the government is entitled to lay out a set of specifications for purchasing goods. It is not obligated to have those specifications rigidly met in a purchase contract. That is a fact. We put out many tenders for the purchase of goods, and we will pick the one that comes lowest in price and closest to the specifications that we have called for. The Member is trying to give the impression that construction contract regulations were applied to a purchase  contract where they do not apply.

When we buy goods, we buy according to the supplier who provides the closest to specifications of that product we are asking for and that is exactly what has happened here.

Question re: Capital City Commission

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services with respect to the Capital City Commission - I think I am going to give him a bit of a break here but I am sure we will get back to the other question.

The creation of a Capital City Commission was first announced in the throne speech on January 10, 1989, and I would to know what progress we have made in the last two years toward establishing the commission.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am trying to recall if we have a contract on that project as well.

There has been substantial progress with respect to the Capital City Commission concept. During the course of the past year and one-half, I have had numerous meetings with the city council of Whitehorse and with the mayor. At the same time, my staff has met with staff of the city and through the various communications and meetings, we have essentially drafted a working model for the creation of a Capital City Commission.

We have established some basic guidelines for the creation of that commission. It is in the process now of the preparation of legislation to endorse it. It will require, before all of that takes place, an endorsement by my Cabinet colleagues and by city council, respectively. Those formal steps have not yet taken place, largely because some of the paperwork relating to the legislation and the framework for that commission is being finalized.

Mr. Nordling: The throne speech, on March 8, 1989, said that the first task of the Capital City Commission would be to oversee the development of the Whitehorse waterfront. Is there going to be anything done before this Capital City Commission is created?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I take it that the Member is asking whether anything will be done with respect to the waterfront before the commission is created. The short answer is yes. The explanation to that answer is that, given what has taken place in the failure of our tripartite planning exercise to produce anything substantial and final, the City of Whitehorse and the Government of Yukon have undertaken to re-think their approach to the waterfront lands. As the Member knows, the waterfront lands are principally owned by the private sector and that private sector has withdrawn from the planning exercise, so the City of Whitehorse and the Government of Yukon are now in discussion as to what approach to take with respect to the acquisition or the...

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The two levels of government are addressing what to do about the waterfront lands.

Mr. Nordling: My concern is with the time that has gone by without substantial progress being made. Could the Minister give us some better time estimate as to when the legislation will be drafted and when we will have a commission in place that can take over the waterfront development plans?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The question is reasonable, in that we do see, in the long term, the commission taking charge of waterfront development. It is our hope that, while the commission is being formed, all of the waterfront activity will not be put on ice. I hope to introduce legislation in this sitting, possibly in the spring, that would confirm the commission. In the meantime, I hope to reach some resolution on an approach to the lands of the waterfront with the city.

Question re: South Highway School

Mrs. Firth: I would like to get back to the South Highway School - which was supposed to cost $1.4 million and is now coming in at over $2 million.

The Minister’s department said, and I will quote: “The decision to go to an invitational proposal call for design, fabrication and delivery of the modular school is, of course, a departure from normal procedures. The YTG contract regulations stipulate that any construction contract over $25,000 must go to public tender. An invitational proposal call is allowed, however, for purchases. The supply of the modular units is being treated as a purchase. In this instance, the distinction between a construction contract and a supply contract is very fine and rests in the fact that the supplier must supply the design. That is, if a building is prefabricated to an owner-supplied design, it is a construction contract. Members of the project team should be aware of this distinction.”

That is exactly what the government went ahead and did. They redesigned the unit so it was an owner-designed unit. They made major design changes, and it should have been a construction contract. They further compounded it and legitimized it by sending the TSL bid to the review committee.

In light of those recommendations and the procedural issues that were raised, why did the Minister go ahead and do it anyway, which brought into question whether the law was being broken here?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The Member has actually answered her own question. All the bids went to the committee. At that level, it was rejected, only because it did not conform to tender specifications of the purchase contract. It could not be accepted. Acceptance would have meant breaching contract regulations. I am sure the Member is not suggesting to me that I should advance a position of casting into doubt the contracting regulations by breaking them. I am sure the Member is not suggesting that.

TSL did not conform to tender specifications and was rejected. It was clear, under contract regulations, that that had to happen. If we had not done that, we could easily have been taken to court for breaking those regulations. There was no substantial design change. As I explained to her colleague, we had the right and authority to address changes to a product with the supplier who comes closest to it, and that is what we did.

There was no breach; there was no impropriety.

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

Hon. Mr. Byblow: In the final analysis, we have a school onsite, being occupied and available for all to see.

Mrs. Firth: The issue remains that this project was mismanaged and fooled around with. All of the groups ranked the TSL bid. It should have been rejected before it even went to the committee for ranking. None of the committee members put the word “reject” beside it. One of the committees said that the people’s...

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

Mrs. Firth: ...committee chose it as its second choice. Does the Minister not agree that that legitimizes the bid, when the government accepted it and sent it to the committee? Does the Minister not agree that the government should have rejected the bid the moment they opened it?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I cannot agree with the Member. It is misinformation.

All the bids were sent to the committee for review. That is quite ordinary and standard.

I would also point out that the building committee unanimously endorsed the Atco bid for $1.258 million dollars.

The attempt by the Member to suggest that there was any impropriety because TSL was not turfed before it was referred does not make sense. It makes reasonable sense for the committee to review all the bids that came in, even though one did not comply with the specifications and had to be rejected.

Mrs. Firth: The bids were evaluated by the superintendent of schools, facilities manager, building advisory committee, building maintenance manager and project manager. All of them chose Atco as their first choice except the building advisory committee, which chose Travco as its first choice, TSL as its second choice and Atco as its third choice. Will the Minister answer as to whether or not that is true?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: From my recollection of what took place in the evaluation process, Travco was selected by some people as first choice. It was also $1.58 million. It was chosen because of its design features. TSL was also chosen for a number of other reasons. But Atco had the lowest bid, was the most eligible bid and was unanimously endorsed by the committee in its evaluation process. It is misinformation to suggest the building committee chose otherwise.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Phillips: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Legislature several young women and men from the Grade 10 class at F.H.Collins and their teacher Mr. Dueling. They are here to observe us at our best behavior this afternoon and I would like all Members to give them a hearty welcome to the Legislature.

Applause

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 22

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Ms. Hayden.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 1?

Ms. Hayden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member of Whitehorse South Centre:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that racism is the scourge of humanity; and

THAT this House recognizes that multiculturalism is the foundation of Canadian social fabric and that the awareness of issues around racism, when combined with understanding and respect, will accomplish much to protect individual rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Ms. Hayden: We all think we know what racism is, and we may indeed know the hurt, the disillusionment and the horror that comes with blatant racism. But I wonder; are we aware of the subtle racism that goes on all the time? Some of us here have experienced racism and most of us have perpetrated racism, whether we like to admit it, even to ourselves. Some of us have experienced other kinds of discrimination such as sexism or ageism, for example. Not only old people experience ageism, so do the very young.

The people of the world have somehow never been able to get past these “isms” to see each other for what we really are. Dye us all the same colour and put us in the same clothes and we would have little left to fight about. Yet we have fought wars, put up barriers to employment and otherwise interfered with the day to day living of each other since the beginning of time - mostly, on the basis of race.

I think the shock for many middle-of-the-road Canadians has been the realization that racism is alive and well right here in our own multicultural country, certainly here in the north, in the Yukon that we all love.

How many times have you heard someone say: “I am not racist but...”  They usually go to say something like this: “If people want to live in our country, they should expect to live like we do, not impose their culture on us.” They may be referring to turbans, religious practices, religious symbols or language. The inference is that everyone should try to become white, middle-class, English-speaking Canadians - and yet we brag about being a multicultural country.

We are outwardly proud of our cultural mosaic, as long as it is somewhere else in the country and not in our neighbourhood, our church or our school - or our Legislature, for that matter.

The summer siege at Oka told all Canadians, “from sea to shining sea”, that the hatred that is racism runs deep. Guns or no guns, what will stay with me for the rest of my life is the television coverage of people - people like you and me - throwing rocks with the energy and fury that only hate and fear can spark, at their neighbours, also people like you and me. That incident has left an ugly scar on our Canadian soul.

Hate is fear. It is fear of the unknown, the unfamiliar. It is fear of change. It is fear of something other than what is “us” and yet, just look around us. The composition of “us”, even in this Chamber, is as varied as the mosaic of this country itself. We are middle class; we are ordinary working people; we are white; we are Indian; we are women; we are men; we are born in Canada; we are immigrants; we are single; we are divorced; we are married; we are young - well at least youngish, except for our gallery - and we are older. Well, I speak for myself. We have experienced racism, sexism and ageism.

I often wonder what will happen to one of the rules of this Chamber, which comes from a bygone era and relates to people not sitting in the Legislature with their heads covered. It goes back to when men keeping their hats on was a sign of disrespect. I wonder, if someone who wears a turban is elected to this Legislature, will there by a great fuss about parliamentary tradition, or will we gracefully acknowledge that old traditions can sometimes lead to built-in discrimination?

I am not going to pretend that I have the answer, that I can say “do this” and discrimination will fade away. We all know that that just is not so. I wish I could do that. I guess that I also wish that our world would grow from self-interest to enlightened self-worth and the acceptance of others that goes with feeling good about oneself, that we would indeed grow up.

In William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience, we are presented with an eloquent picture of the innocence of childhood, and the changes to this innocence brought about by the experience of growing into adulthood. This is a theme that has been played and replayed in literature, drama and music for generations and no doubt will continue to be. We - every one of us in this territory, this country, this world - are the major players today.

So, if little has changed, why bother? Why bother getting into this subject again today? Well, for one thing, if even a little can be changed, if just a little more justice can be created, then it is worth the time and the effort to do that little.

It has not been so long since Indian people in this territory could not vote. For that matter, it has not been that long since women could not vote. Indian people could seldom find jobs, and they had assimilation tactics used on them, like the suppression of language, religion and cultural rights, for example. Apparently, the vision of a cultural mosaic did not include Indian people, nor did it include many of the other people who happened to be our neighbours. Some 15 years ago, a black man here in Whitehorse was called Snowball. Some of you may remember him. People thought it was hilarious. Nicknames are often derogatory and often racist. The man had a name, and he had the right to be called by it. It is something like referring to your spouse as “the wife”, or “the old man”. These are dehumanizing tactics that allow us to separate people from who they really are.

None of this is new. People looking into recent Yukon history and the construction of the Alaska Highway are finding out about the blatant racism that prevailed in Canada in the 1940s. That is only 45 years ago, certainly during my lifetime.

The Yukon Anniversaries Commission published a supplement in the Yukon News on October 6. They talked about the more than 3,000 black American soldiers who helped build the highway in 1942. These soldiers are described as the forgotten ones: forgotten “...because of the racist attitudes of both Canadian and American governments of the day.”

The quotations in that article, which I want to enter into the record today, and quotations from correspondence of the day, are frightening. Frankly, they make me feel physically sick. The important question is: have we changed all that much? Certainly some, I hope.

I am going to read a small section from that insert. It is a Yukon News story put in by the Yukon Anniversaries Commission, and it does highlight the history of black soldiers, who have largely been ignored in the history of the building of the Alaska Highway. This is a quote from that article.

It was an excerpt from a letter written in 1942 by U.S. Army General Simon Buckner, who was in charge of army operations in Alaska. Buckner was responding to a letter from Brigadier-General C.L. Sturdevant in Washington D.C. Sturdevant had written Buckner to inform him that the Pentagon had decided to use black troops on the highway project. Buckner’s response to Sturdevant states, in part, and I quote, “I appreciate your consideration of my views concerning Negro troops in Alaska. The thing which I have opposed principally has been their establishment as point troops for the unloading of transports at our docks.

“The very high wages offered to unskilled labour here would attract a large number of them, and cause them to remain and settle after the war, with the natural result that they could inter-breed with the Indians and Eskimos and produce an astonishingly objectionable race of mongrels which would be a problem here.

“We have enough racial problems here and elsewhere already. I have no objections whatever to your employing them on the roads - if they are kept far enough away from the settlements and kept busy and then sent home as soon as possible.”

I find that difficult even to read but I think it is something we need to be aware of.

One of the things that one cannot help but notice are the dehumanizing references to “them”. And, of course, the words, “mongrels”,"interbreeding" - my god.

We Canadians like to spread our racism around. Just look at the terminology used over the years about people who come from somewhere else. I am not going to use the terms. You all know them. All of them are derogatory.

Our world is small. It is a global village. Our world is a community and we may no longer see people who are something other than what we are as exotic, mysterious and from some far off land. The people of the world are our neighbours in both a figurative and literal sense.

Even when we believe that age, sex and race are not an issue, subtle forms of discrimination take hold. We live out the myths of discrimination, saying things like, “Sure, we would hire a woman if we could find one who is qualified”, or, “I would really like to hire an aboriginal person, but I do not know even one who has the training and experience to do the job. Besides, they will never show up for work”. How about, “Gee, it would be great to work with someone older who has lots of experience. But, you know, when people are older, they tend to be forgetful and really do not have the energy to do the job.” Or, how about this one, “Sure, I would be glad to hire a young person right out of school - good energy there - but they really are unreliable. They do not know what it is to get to work on time and really stick it out. After all, they have no experience”.

And the myths go on, myths that are no excuses, but we use them as excuses. We use them as excuses so we do not have to look at our own behaviour. Then we get smart comments like “If only I were a disabled Indian woman, I would have it made”. I suggest that anyone who thinks that should ask a resident of our community, Judy Johnny, if she has it made. Ask her what it is really like being subjected to three compounding types of discrimination.

We can do a lot to deal with the excuses in the business world and in government. We can do a lot to deal with overt discrimination. We can legislate employment equity; we can legislate human rights; we can develop programs to help balance the inequities but we cannot do anything about stupidity and that is the bottom line. Discrimination is stupid. It is costly and it tears at the core of our country and our territory. Surely we can recognize that there is strength in diversity.

When we talk about discrimination at times like this we encourage other people to talk about it, to recognize it for what it is - fear of someone who is different. In time, we reach one, two, three and then more and more people. Each one of us can do something to rid the world of this scourge. The great freedom fighters of the world reached out to educate with determination and strength and it cost them their lives. Some of them were well known: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, for example. Others worked for social justice and equality, people like Mother Theresa. Most are never known beyond their own communities.

I believe that we must all work to educate ourselves and the people around us. We must show by our lives and by our actions that we can live side-by-side with respect and dignity, and that we are not threatened by people who are different. There is beauty in a mosaic. People bring different strengths, customs and talents, and if we are open, we learn to appreciate those strengths, customs and talents. This is one of the greatest arguments for living in other parts of our country and of our world. Our vision is broadened.

If we root ourselves, even here in the Yukon, and fail to reach out to others, even our neighbours here at home, we will remain people of limited vision. We will continue to distrust what is not familiar.

We all stand to win in a community of understanding and respect. We all stand to lose if ignorance and stupidity prevail. Surely the rights, responsibilities and freedoms of all Canadians are worth our time and effort and our attempts at understanding.

I look forward to your support of this motion on this North America day of action against racism.

Hon. Ms. Joe: With the official recognition of the North America day of action against racism, it makes me very sad that we have to recognize such a day. In this day and age, it is disturbing that we have to concern ourselves with such an unpleasant subject; nevertheless, racism is a problem that is very prevalent right here in the Yukon. In Canada, it is also a very serious issue as well. It is generally perceived by the average person that Canada, compared to other countries, does not have a serious racism problem; however, this summer during the Oka crisis, the horror of watching people stoning the Indians in Oka without any intervention by the police attending, and to watch this pure hatred was a frightening experience for me.

It was not only a frightening experience for me; it was a frightening experience for many other people. It caused many deep feelings among Canadians. It caused many Canadians to stop and think about what is really happening in our country.

I have already mentioned in this House, in my own home down in British Columbia where, during the Oka crisis, a group of non-aboriginal people walked into the graveyard one night, ruined the graveyard, broke the stones, some dating back prior to the turn of the century, with the original Indian names on them, and they left a sign that said, “Die Indian Scum”.

That was not the only incident across Canada. There were many. There were some right here in the Yukon. I sat beside a peace fire waiting for the Oka crisis to end with many other concerned people. One of the good things that happened during that process was the many people who came and offered their support. There were some young school children. A grade eight class from Jeckell School came over one day with offerings of wood and support. A number of other people came and sat beside the fire and took their turn.

As a result of the incident in Oka this year, there was a group of people who struck a committee that was called Justice for First Nations. They wrote a letter and said, “We are ashamed that we have kept quiet this long, as Canada is headed for an obvious conflict between the federal government and our First Nations.” They go on to talk about existing treaties and promises that were made, and they also said that they do not condone, although they understand, any desperate show of arms by Indian warriors. It is to eliminate the cause of more conflicts to help avoid Oka in every major highway, and they ask for support from other Canadians.

That was signed by committee members, including Margaret Atwood, Maude Barlow, Pierre Berton, June Colwood, Shirley Carr, Martin Cowen, Muriel Duckworth, Ray Gibson, Mrs. Walter Gordon, Kay McPherson, Kenneth McNaught, Farley Mowat, and the list goes on and on.

There are many people in this country who saw something that they did not believe was possible in Canada. We suffer in the Yukon from many types of racism, not only toward the aboriginal people, but toward all kinds of people here. I know of an incident in Porter Creek where an East Indian family, probably third, fourth or even fifth generation Canadian, built a home, proud of their home and proud of being Canadian, and woke up one morning with a racist remark painted on their driveway.

I wonder why people are so afraid of ethnic groups right here in the Yukon and other parts of Canada. Since 1971, Canada has had a formal policy on multiculturalism allowing every ethnic group the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. This policy has now become entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and right here in the Yukon we have legislation under the Human Rights Act that prohibits racial discrimination.

Yet even with all of these laws and policies, we continue to witness racism. Aboriginal people, minority Canadians and recent immigrants are often accused of taking away jobs and at the same time using up social services. These are myths. Often we hear statements about immigrants in Canada. People do not want immigrants or say that we should not allow immigrants into this land. Yet, immigration in North America goes back hundreds of years. I think some of my ancestors will remember discovering a fellow named Christopher Columbus on their shores. The Economic Council of Canada has shown that immigrants create jobs, rather than take jobs. They often take on jobs that no other Canadian would have and they often start their own businesses. There is no direct connection between unemployment figures and the number of immigrants allowed into Canada.

Blaming these groups is what causes racism. Instead we should be blaming employer practices and government policies. Canada is changing. It is becoming more multi-racial, multicultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious.

The Yukon, as well, is changing. It is exciting to see the new growth in population that has resulted in new businesses, new economic growth and new ideas - and all of this for the benefit of all Yukoners. Cultural diversity only becomes a problem if the minority culture, language or religion, is not recognized or respected. A changing society represents a challenge and many opportunities for all to learn to appreciate and respect one another. The development of land claims has provided for a new era of appreciation and respect of the aboriginal people of the Yukon. With the new awareness of the culture, language and spiritual aspects of the aboriginal people right here in our own back yard, we have seen the aboriginal people take on a new sense of pride and hope for a brighter future.

But there have been some who do not appreciate this new changing society of ours. There are those who actively work to try to sabotage any land claims settlement in the Yukon. I tabled an ad in the House today. I tabled it because I did not want something like this to ever happen again. It was an ad that was in the Whitehorse Star on Wednesday, June 2, 1982. I was told that this ad had to be softened in order for it to be published. I cannot even imagine what it was like before the publication. That was my first experience in dealing with a democratic process and trying to get elected to this Legislature. I picked up the paper one night and I looked through the paper and I read the ad. I have to tell you I could not go out and campaign that night, I was so angry, because I thought this kind of thing had disappeared: the use of a whole group of people, a whole race of people - in order for them to try to get elected.

There are 12 names on here; some of them I know and some of them I do not. But I sure do know D.G. Phillips. I know him very well. I did not know him then but I know him now. There is a person’s name here I cannot believe. When I was a justice of the peace, I did the wedding of his daughter. I could not believe that his name was on this paper. I want people to remember this. They say that when you face a lot of bad experiences in your lifetime, that you should forget the past and try to live in the future; but in order to live in the future, in order to live a life and to help with the human process, you have to remember the past. This is only one small indication of the past that many cultural groups have to live in.

I have also mentioned in the House during this sitting that when land claims were first contemplated in the Yukon, I do not think that there were a lot of Yukoners who would have objected to it, except for the fact that there was a move to oppose any land claims settlement in the Yukon.

In 1975, in the Toronto Star, it was reported that Dan Lang founded the Northern Land Research Society to oppose handing land back to the Indians. It was also stated in that article that Mr. Lang said, “I would hate to split the Yukon but I am sure we could get 8,000 people behind us if we worked at it.” If we worked at it, he said, if we really worked at it, we would get 8,000 people behind us to oppose land claims in the Yukon.

Aboriginal people in the Yukon and all over the country do not forget these kinds of things that are done to oppose land claims or to oppose the Indian people. But to deliberately put an ad in the paper, to name names - do not vote for these people, Mr. Speaker, because they like Indians and gee, it will be really bad, and we feel harm will happen to the Yukon if the NDP win this election. Then they go on to talk about what Tony Penikett said - and this is really bad, Mr. Speaker - “Tony Penikett says that his party has a fundamentally more positive attitude ...” Is it really bad to have a positive attitude toward the negotiations? Then they go on to say that he also said that YTG is sitting on the other side of the table from CYI: “It is a symbolic thing but we take a symbolic leap across the table.” Well, is that not a horrible thing to have to do? But they were saying that was bad, do not do it and do not vote for the people who do it.

I think that Yukoners are opposed to that kind of thing. It was very evident when the results of the election became final and we ended up with, I think, three more people in this House than they had prior to that. At that time I think that there were two aboriginal people in the House, and then five, and now four. The majority of Yukoners do not feel this way; I know they do not.

I would like to talk about the Indian Act. I have spoken about it before, but I would like to mention some of the discriminations that were in it. The first thing was that Indian women lost their status by marrying a non-Indian or another Indian person who did not have status. Men did not lose their status. Not only that, but if an Indian man chose to divorce his non-Indian wife, she had the option to keep the status she obtained through the marriage or give it up. Indian women lost their status and there was nothing they could do about it.

At one time Indian women, according to the Indian Act, were not allowed to run for chief or council. That was changed in the 1950s. Indian people, as was mentioned by my colleague from Whitehorse South Centre, were not allowed to vote. Men and women could fight in wars, and did. They were called the forgotten people with no recognition as they were not considered real people. They could fight in wars, but they could not vote when they came home.

Here in the Yukon, aboriginal people were not allowed to own a business. Many people had to give up their status in order to own a business. They were not allowed to attend public schools.

Many years ago, when I worked for the Yukon Association of Non-Status Indians,  some research on the lack of progress in education was going on in the Yukon. They came across a petition signed by a number of influential Whitehorse people. What they were opposing was the fact that there were Indian children starting to attend public schools. The petition was signed by people like Jack Hulland. He did not want Indian kids in that school because they spread disease, had lice, were dirty and things like that. That petition is in the archives.

Aboriginal people were unable to collect a northern allowance. I am not exactly sure why. That was not in the Indian Act. It was something they made up through the process. I know people who had to give up their Indian status in order to collect northern allowance.

We all know about the residential school system. There has been much publicity with regard to it. Aboriginal people were forced to attend residential schools because they could not attend public schools. I think we are just starting to find out the problems that occurred because of that. It has been said before but more people are beginning to come out and talk about the horrible things that happened to them and the reasons why they were sent there. It is not a pretty picture. It is a horrible picture.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission talks about the Indian Act as a “relic of our paternalistic past”. That is exactly what it is. A lot of things have changed. Attitudes have not.

I am proud to be a part of this government that, through a great deal of opposition, passed the Human Rights Act. I spoke of it before. Seeing that pass was one of the highlights of sitting in this House. The night that it passed in this House, there was great joy in the gallery. There were people all over the Yukon who were pleased to see that we were looking forward and thinking differently. We know there was great opposition to it. I believe there was a petition in this House, which was tabled, with many names on it. People were objecting to certain parts of the act, and I am sure there were people who objected to many other parts of it. I believe there were two items of protection included in that proposed act that were objected to at that time. One was sexual orientation, and the other one had to do with criminal records.

This government, as a whole, supported the whole act. The day it was passed, I had great respect for the former Minister of Justice, Roger Kimmerly, because I believe that was probably the highlight of his life.

The Human Rights Commission in the Yukon was set up under this government. They have had to deal with a lot of racism against the first executive director, who was threatened through phone calls. He had his tires slashed, and many other things happened to him. There was a great deal of opposition to the kind of things he did here in the House. He was called in here to do a job.

The Human Rights Commission in the Yukon has had to print ads. One of them said, “I am not a racist but...” and then it goes on to say things like some of my best friends are Indians, or some of my best friends are gay, or whatever. It is so bad, and it should not be, but we have to put out ads to tell people what a racist really is. They talk about racism not being a joke, and they talk about jokes that are told. Some of us aboriginal people have a great deal of fun telling Indian jokes to each other but, if somebody else told them, we would be very angry, and a lot of us are guilty of racist jokes ourselves.

Someday, we may never have to do things like this again; things will have changed a great deal. I do not know when that is going to be.

Tonight, the New Democratic Youth of Canada are holding an equality day panel discussion at Hellaby Hall, and that is a good move by a number of people. They are concerned about what is happening across Canada, and they mention Donald Marshall, a Micmac Indian, and we have talked about him before in the House. I will say it again. This was a Micmac Indian who spent 11 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. The inquiry into the Donald Marshall case determined that he was convicted because he was an Indian, and they worked toward that conviction with lies and many other things. They talked about an instance of a Jewish cemetery being desecrated. These kinds of things are probably happening every day in Canada.

They talk about the Betty Osborne case in La Pas, Manitoba. The whole community knew who killed her, but no one would come out and say it. They talk about a racist pin that was proudly distributed in Alberta. They talk about the stoning of Mohawk women and children as they were leaving Oka. They list a number of other things. Every time that someone does something like this, it is in order to try and deal with racism as it is and try to work toward eliminating it. Sometimes that happens and sometimes it does not.

There was a hearing here in 1984. It was on visible minorities. A group of people came here to sit on this panel, including Members of Parliament. I guess they did not think there was much of a problem here because there were only two people who showed up, myself and someone from CYI to talk to them about the kind of racism problems we have here and how we would like to see things changed.

I got the report back and looked at it. The panel and all the people working for it had all kinds of racial groups represented on it, but not one aboriginal person. I am not quite sure why; I have never been able to figure that one out.

I would hope that all Canadians can be proud of their culture. I am sure they are proud of their language and their religious beliefs. In turn, each and every one of us has the responsibility to ensure that we respect one another. No one is better than anyone else. We may be different, but with these differences should come respect for one another. We can learn and experience new things just by being tolerant and taking advantage of the opportunities that are available to all of us, by meeting and knowing the many cultures that make up this country.

I speak here today with a lot of anger. I do not know if it will ever go away in my lifetime. I speak because I have experienced it. We like to believe that all people are good. But, during the time I was growing up, my grandmother always used to say, “Ignore them; they are very ignorant.” They are. You can ignore it but you cannot forget it, because, every time, something comes back to remind you. The thing that came back to remind me of all the things that happened over those years was Oka. I had to deal with it all over again. I had to deal with having spent eight years in a residential school because of all the things that are starting to come out. Some day I will get rid of my anger. I hope it is soon because I love this place. I love living here. I love the people in it. I hope we will not have to stand here again and talk about anti-racism.

Mr. Phillips: Before I get into my speech today, I just want to make a few comments about what the Member from Whitehorse North Centre said. I listened closely to what the Member said and I share some of the concerns of the Member, but I do not agree with everything she said. I think the Member has had blinders on on this particular issue for a long time and reads into it what she wants to read into it. I think that is unfortunate.

When I read this motion, the way it is presented in this House, I feel that it is a basic statement of motherhood, and I do not know how one could not support the motion. History tells us that, other than aboriginal peoples, all of us immigrated to Canada from other countries, bringing with us our culture and our traditions. Multiculturalism may be the foundation of Canadian society, but I am becoming more concerned that, in our attempt to accommodate all people of all races and cultures, we are diminishing our own Canadian culture.

It is important for people from other cultures to maintain their traditions. What is Canadian culture? To me, it is a mixture of all people coming together from countries all over the world and working together in a country that affords us more opportunities than any other country in the world. We are rich in resources, we are rich in area and we are rich in cultural background. Lately, I have become more concerned about the fact that that priority seems to be switching to the importance of every other culture except for the Canadian culture. One of the most basic institutions in Canada - and the Member from Whitehorse South Centre alluded to this - is something well-known throughout the world as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in their scarlet uniforms. That is Canadian. That is Canadian cultural history. Now it seems we have allowed a certain segment of our population to wear their religious headgear, rather than the Canadian traditional one. As well, we are now allowing people of native ancestry to wear braids, rather than the traditional dress code.

I am afraid that even if one says that they have trouble with these changes, they are quickly painted as racist and that troubles me. I feel that the people who want the RCMP dress code to stay the same are Canadian traditionalists and not racial bigots. I would not be surprised if the next thing we see is someone who becomes a member of the RCMP demanding to wear their traditional uniform or clothing they have from another country instead of the scarlets, and I would not be surprised in Canada if we let them. Human rights commissions and governments are not respecting Canadian culture.

What are we doing to our Canadian tradition and culture and do we have one? My great, great grandparents are from Scotland and Wales. I am proud of that, but I would not insist that groups such as the RCMP change their dress code so that I could wear a kilt if I joined the RCMP. I am proud to be Canadian and to help build a strong Canadian culture, at the same time being tolerant of other cultures and enjoying and learning from the differences. Some groups in this country are very proud of their heritage and spend a great deal of their time, energy and their own resources in promoting it to their children and others and I have no problem with this.

I applaud the groups that do this without asking government for hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so. We should all be very proud of our heritage and be prepared, as many are, to promote its culture, its value and its traditions.

I suppose that some Members opposite will jump to their feet and claim that I am being intolerant. But I have heard the arguments I have made today here many times from my constituents. They are asking me: what about Canadian culture? There is a strong feeling there that in our well-intended attempts to protect individual rights and freedoms for some Canadians, we are leaving out many who believe there really is a Canadian culture.

Ms. Kassi: I thank the Member for bringing forth this motion, because we have to discuss these facts and face reality in order for our communities to heal. Not too long ago, this past summer, I was honoured to participate as a speaker at the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies annual conference held here in Whitehorse, at which time several of us made a lot of recommendations that would be appropriate to review on this North American day of action against racism. The term “racism” means different things to different people. Usually it means someone of a different colour, of different religious beliefs or different sexual orientation. Here in the Yukon, the most prevalent form is attitudes against Indians.

Four years ago, I was appointed as chairperson of the legislative committee to discuss the green paper on human rights for the Yukon. Being very new and naive to the white political arena, it was a shock for me to experience the ugliness of the opposition to this legislation. There are a number of other people of different races, religions and beliefs that have experienced the struggle for human rights legislation for the Yukon. I know that there is a perception by many people that human rights are for everyone. We all just include exceptions in our list of who qualifies as everyone.

It was not so long ago that an aboriginal person had few rights and the ones they did have were second to the rights of all other people. It was not so long ago that aboriginal people could not vote in this country; a little more than 30 years ago the vote was given to aboriginal people. How long ago was it that aboriginal people could not attend the school of their choice but were forced to attend residential schools? I do not want to go into the details of that either, of the devastation and the long-lasting impact of this process, which many of you now have some knowledge of. I had recommended an investigation of the impact of residential school syndrome that is still causing serious problems among our nation and quite recently, the request came from many aboriginal leaders across the country. The federal government has said no to such investigations taking place.

Further, how difficult it was for aboriginal people to find employment. Not so long ago, the only place in Whitehorse that would hire aboriginal people was the laundromat. That was owned by a Chinese person.

Housing was carefully protected against the intrusion of aboriginal people in the neighbourhood. Today, when an indigenous person is hired for a job, it is automatically assumed that they must be extensively trained. They always have to be trained first. We are appalled to hear of this blatant racism, but what about today? Has anything really changed? The answer is, quite simply, no. The only thing that has changed is that the discrimination and racism is more subtle. It is what aboriginal people call speaking out of both sides of your face, or with forked tongue.

While we are trying to reach milestones, like self-government, there are still some asking the question, why are we giving lands to the Indians? Today, I feel most would like to see a settlement. So much progress has been made. You can see the complexity of the whole situation, which differs greatly in the view of the aboriginal and the understanding of the non-aboriginal person.

The First Nations of our country will be happy to celebrate equality day when they are considered equals. Our role, as Members of the government, is to understand, respect and protect the rights of the indigenous and other minority peoples of Canada. If we put an end to the myth surrounding racism, we shall put an end to racism itself.

Here we are in the 1990s. We are in a similar position to those in South Africa and have received very little support from the highest level of the Canadian government in our struggle. In this age of exploring the outer reaches of the universe, computerizing every aspect of our knowledge and close to completely destroying our planet, the majority of aboriginal nations of this country live in utter poverty, enjoy the poorest housing, have the least education of any ethnic group in Canada, and continue to fill our jail cells.

It took Donald Marshall 11 years to get one person to listen to his claim of innocence. Something is very wrong. The fact is that another Third World racial country exists within the borders of Canada and is always consciously overlooked. While this government has been able to establish the present human rights legislation, which includes racial discrimination, we still have some of the old attitudes lingering around here, and there is much work for the Human Rights Commission in the Yukon.

Let me assure you that I, as a Member of this government, will continue to do all that I can to ensure that aboriginal minorities, all races and all creeds, contribute to their full potential as equal citizens of the Yukon and Canada.

Human rights have been around for quite a number of years and yet we all know that things have not really changed. Canada has been quick to criticize other countries for their racism, human rights violations and their treatment of minorities, of indigenous people. Yet the suffering and the inequalities of the aboriginal people of this country continue to be ignored and hidden in the furthest corner possible. Our people are not just being ignored but they are dying. The suicide rate is highest among our people. Malnutrition and poor health is highest among our people. These are allegations that you have heard on not just infrequent occasions; they are an epidemic among our people in this country.

We have a responsibility to educate the average Canadian, to bring about an awareness and an understanding of the differences and the beauty that exist in the variety of cultures and the traditions, in the braids that we so proudly wear in the police forces or in our culture. We want to continue to wear those braids. Canada should accept that culture. It is our belief. Canada should also publicly support the aspirations of the First Nations in their quest for control not just of their lands and resources but of their health, education, justice, traditions and all aspects of their daily lives that are presently under the control of bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa.

At the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies conference this past summer, Mary Battaja put it very eloquently when she said, “We eat the same, we cry the same, we die the same, we are human beings with differences that must be respected.”

So what can we do? It is quite simple. We can become aware of our own attitudes that can be racist in subtle ways. We can try to understand that there are differences in culture and that these differences do not represent a threat. We can respect the fact that not every human being is going be, nor should be, the same. Awareness, understanding and respect: together these things will protect us all. They will protect our right, they will protect our differences, our cultures and our human dignity. I urge everyone to find the courage that allows them today on this equality day to examine their own attitudes and to make the changes that will enable everyone to contribute to contribute to the fullest extent possible.

Thank you.

Mrs. Firth: I rise today to respond to this motion in a different theme than I have heard presented today, particularly from the Members opposite.

I found it interesting that all three of the previous Members who spoke talked about how difficult it is to talk about this particular issue. The issue we are really talking about is racism and how we have to deal with that as legislators.

I am not quite sure what kind of confidence the general public has in the words we as politicians might express here this afternoon. If I were to guess, I would say that a lot of the public is skeptical about what we are talking about, whether we really know what we are talking about and how much information we have to support the comments we make.

I do not want to sound like I am an authority on something I have no knowledge about, but I do want to make some observations about some of the comments I have heard here this afternoon.

I listened very closely to what the Minister of Justice had to say. She did not say anything new when compared to her points or opinions that she has brought forward in this House before. Perhaps I was listening more closely today, but I made note of a couple of things she said. I would like to respond to them.

The Minister talked about eliminating racism. She made a comment that many people would like to eliminate it. That is not a realistic goal. I am sure the Minister knows that but I am sure she did not mean it in the context of it being an achievable goal as there are some people who are always going to be like that. There is not much you can do about it except try to be more tolerant and more understanding of those people yourself.

The other comment she made that was sort of the opposite of eliminating racism is the comment about having to like everyone. I believe that is the way she put it. She feels we have to like everybody or at least try to like everybody. That is unrealistic. We, as people, do not like everybody and we should not expect everybody to like us. When I am talking about liking people, it is not in a racial context. I am talking only about our reactions as individuals to other people. We do not always like them.

If there is some expression made that way, it does not necessarily mean that the person who does not like someone else has racist attitudes toward them or that they do not like them because of the colour of their skin or contour of their eyes or some other physical or racial difference.

I feel for the Minister of Justice because, from what she has said today, and what I have heard her say in the House three or four times since the last election, she talks about the anger she feels because of her past experience and what she has had to live through. I feel for her, because I do not see that she is able to deal with that anger. Today, she said she was trying to, but could not, and she still raises all those awful things that happened in the past and made her angry, things that happened 15, 20 or more years ago.

Then, in the next breath, she says we have to get rid of that anger and be more tolerant and spend more time working on the anger. If she is going to do that, the Minister has to start talking more positively about the whole problem, and having a more positive outlook about it. If she does not, that anger will be passed on to her children and grandchildren, and maybe some of it has already.

I find that the more I deal with adults, the more I enjoy being with children. Children are uncomplicated people. They are loving, kind individuals. They have not yet developed all kinds of biases. They just accept people because they are nice to them and respond to them, depending on how they are treated. Maybe that is a lesson that we, as adults, should learn. Maybe we should be treating people in a more kind, tolerant and respectful way. In turn, we could also expect to be treated that way.

I am not saying that is done based on race or any colour, or sex. It is just based on people as individuals. I make an appeal to the Minister of Justice to try to be more understanding. She raised many examples of very nasty, unkind things that were done, and asked how could people do things like paint the signs on the streets and desecrate the graveyard. If we try to look at it in a more positive way and understand why those people are doing that, I feel that people do those things because they, also, are afraid.

They feel scared and they feel threatened. I think we have to be tolerant and understanding of that as well. I do not think there are lots of intentionally nasty, unkind, evil people in the world. I have already said you are not going to be able to help those kinds of people anyway. So let us deal with a goal or an objective that is achievable and let us look for something kind so we can all, because of this debate that the Members opposite find difficult to talk about and wish they did not have to talk about, as a result of that debate come out of here with a better understanding of each other as people, and maybe with some better credibility with the public that we understand the issues and we know what we are talking about.

One particular thing that the Minister has done that I think will help her see why some people may have a negative approach toward her or a negative attitude toward her is that she stood up in the House here one day and was very angry at the Member for Porter Creek East because she felt that he was in some way trying to tell her what she should think and how she should think. Well, it is fine for the Minister to stand up and express anger at someone else trying to form her opinions and tell her how to think. On the other hand, she stands up in the House and she tells us how proud she was when the human rights legislation was sponsored by this government and how the human rights legislation was passed, and how she thought it was the best legislation and objected to some people’s attitudes about sexual orientation and some of the other attitudes that were expressed about racism or whatever she made reference to.

It was the same thing. The Minister is telling other people how to think. Not only telling them, she is trying to legislate it. The Member for Whitehorse South Centre already indicated that you cannot by law make people do things that you want them to do and you certainly cannot make them think the way you want them to think. So I am saying to the Minister: please be a little more open and a little more positive when making her judgments about other people. She should think about how she responded as an individual when the Member for Porter Creek East tried to, as she interpreted it, tell her how to think.

I had a lot of representation made to me on behalf of the religious community, on behalf of mothers, constituents of mine, with specific objections to some of the clauses in the human rights legislation.

I can make representation on behalf of those people, and I have to take into account and weigh my own personal feelings, as well. None of us in this Legislature likes to be told what we are supposed to be thinking, or that what we are thinking is wrong. If unkindness is attached to that, then none of us is going to be able to relate to each other as people, nor to demonstrate those good qualities of tolerance, respect, the acceptance of other points of views and differences, and so on.

It is fine to hear all the negative things. It is fine to hear all the wrongs that went on in the past. We have heard them from the Member for Whitehorse South Centre. We have heard them from the Member for Old Crow. I would like to concentrate on what we are going to do about this problem. Obviously, it is going to be here and continue to be.

What constructive recommendations do we, as legislators, have to offer?

There have been some positive things done. I have talked to the new executive director of the Human Rights Commission at length about positive initiatives, things that I think they can be doing. He has asked my opinion, and I have given it. There is a tremendous potential we have in the education of our children: to teach them to grow up to be better, kinder and more tolerant people, to be less influenced by some adult points of views, and to think for themselves.

Those are not the kinds of things you can make people do. Those are the kinds of things that have to be gently taught. An awareness of issues is important. I agree with the Minister of Justice and the Member for Old Crow that people have to be made aware of these things, but we do not have to keep stirring up all the old nightmares and memories. It is fine for the Minister to remember so she does not forget, but it is time to be positive, optimistic and constructive, and to look toward the future and hope that our children, and our children’s children, belong to a more tolerant society.

They are not going to become that way if we keep harping and going on and on about what happened in the past. That is for us to remember and learn from, and it is time to go on to the future and positive things. As some of the positive comments the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North said, look at and capitalize on our assets, the richness of our country and our people and resources, and capitalize on that.

I think we, as legislators, can do one thing that we should be able to do well when it comes to this particular issue. That is: set a good example. I think it is incumbent on us, it is our responsibility; to set a good example in a positive and constructive way, to show that we are being tolerant, that we are trying to be understanding of our colleagues, of people with different racial experiences than we have and to try to understand them, and that we respect their points of view, ideas and opinions.

I respect the Minister of Justice’s opinion and her life and what she has gone through and I am trying very hard to understand that and to help her deal with it if I can. We have to have an example set by the Member for Old Crow, by the Minister of Justice, by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre who spoke and all the other Members who are going to speak. They have to set a good example and show that they are prepared to be tolerant and to respect other people, even though some of the things that have happened to them in the past have not been positive experiences. That is how we are all going to get along better in society.

I am not levelling any criticisms at people. I want to be kind. I hope I have said kind and positive and constructive things. I have not heard a lot of kind comments today with the exchange that has taken place in the Legislature. I heard the Member for Old Crow talk about how Indian peoples’ lives were being controlled by other forces, by bureaucracies, by governments and I think it is very important that we all, as individuals, get control of our own lives first. We have to do that in order to set a good example and pass on all the qualities that everyone will talk about this afternoon, those qualities that are admired, of tolerance and respect and setting a good example.

I think the dialogue we have this afternoon, the increased awareness, will have a more positive effect and will have a positive result on all Members of the Legislative Assembly, and, I hope, a positive effect on the public. I would encourage Members to exchange their points of view and to have this kind of dialogue.

I think we will all be better off for it.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I, too, would like to share some thoughts on the subject of the motion. I would like to say a few things on racism, multiculturalism and individual rights and freedoms. But I have to say I find it a bit sad that we have to debate such a motion, not because of the subject of the debate, but why we must talk about it. We have to talk about it because racism does exist around us. There are some very convoluted ideas about multiculturalism and what it means. I think there is some disrespect for individual rights and freedoms. It is sad that it exists around us in the Yukon, Canada and around the world.

I can support the position of the previous speaker in that we should express our preference and desire to see more positive discussion about racism. I agree that we should encourage positive attitudes and a greater awareness of racism. We should be more tolerant and understanding. Those are valued principles. But the reality is that racism does exist and a discussion of it allows for the kind of increased awareness that will lead to a much more positive and healthy attitude about the issue.

Someone once said that there will be racism as long as there is ignorance. That is very true. Having been also a victim of that kind of ignorance, I can speak with some first-hand experience. I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan. It was a very typical rural scene.

There were many small farmers. There were many families. There were many immigrants. There were also many Canadians of second, third, even fourth generation sons and daughters. There was quite a broad mix of cultural heritage in the community where I lived. There were Germans; there were Irish; there were French; there were Ukrainians and there were many others. In fact, my first language was Ukrainian, and I began school with very broken and deficient English. My parents instilled in me a deep respect for our own cultural heritage as originated in the Ukrainian tradition but, at the same time, they balanced that with a very broad respect for all people.

But I guess what I will never forget is an incident when I was about seven or eight years old. It occurred on some afternoon in the home town of the region where I grew up. I was joining a group of friends and strangers. It is so vivid in my recollection. I was very ceremoniously ostracized from the group. I think to this day I can hear in the back of my mind and I remember the chant so well: “You stupid Bohunk; you talk so funny.” I guess that stuck with me. It had quite an impact. It made me realize just how cruel kids can be to each other. In my instance, it gave me a tremendous early understanding of just what racism and cultural slurring was all about. I guess at the same time it gave me an early awareness of basic human rights.

There is no question that in any circle an experience of a child is more profound and more impacting than on an adult, especially when you do not understand and you are exposed to something for the first time. It is interesting also that one’s first reaction to that kind of abuse is that they lash back; they tend to respond in anger. I guess that too is part of the ignorance that perpetrates attitudes of racism. In this respect, I appreciate the comments of the previous speaker, because I think she is right.

Racism is a learned behaviour. Children do not inherit that characteristic or attitude in their lives. They acquire those attitudes from their parents and their immediate friends. There is no question that those attitudes are the product of bias, bigotry and selfishness, and all of those things are the products of an ill-informed point of view. So I feel very strongly that we must discuss an issue such as this, to create a more well-informed society, to create a change in some old attitudes that could be perpetrated with continuing ignorance. We clearly have a better understanding when we talk about something and we can get rid of the undesirable attitudes that exist.

In my own childhood experience, if it had not been dealt with properly by my parents, it could very well have left me just as bigoted and as racist and selfish as my critics, but rather, I feel very proud of my cultural heritage, and I feel strongly committed to protecting and preserving those same rights for others.

Looking around and listening to some of the debate this afternoon, clearly, when I see the examples of racism taking place, I am sometimes very disappointed and sometimes very, very saddened, and sometimes truly embarrassed. My experience, however, was not as deep and impacting as it has been for others, so I am not angry. I want to help with the understanding that is required to eliminate it.

It is true that our aboriginal people are so often singled out, as I was, as a child, in a much more powerful way. If I have any understanding of the personal pain and damage from racial slurring, it comes with a deep understanding of the cruelty, the unfairness and the harm that it can create toward a better life for all of us.

I find it quite revealing that one of the most critical issues facing our society today is the relationship we have with our environment. We express it in debates in this House. It is a matter of global concern. We talk about our fears relating to global warming and our desire for sustainable development. We debate it as one of the most important developing issues that could potentially have some catastrophic effects on the survival of our planet.

What I find even more revealing, and particularly so in light of the debate going on this afternoon, is that the aboriginal people, not just of the Yukon but of the country and elsewhere, have a closer affinity with and respect for the environment than all of the rest of us combined, who dropped in from Europe in the last century. I would be prepared to submit that if the rest of the world paid the same kind of attention and respect for the environment as the aboriginal people, it is very unlikely we would be facing the grave environmental concerns we do now. In fact, as noted by other speakers, a more informed attitude and cultural awareness would go a long way in eliminating the Okas of the country and the other racist and dehumanizing activities we see around us.

In closing, I would suggest we should make every effort to demonstrate our respect for, not only the cultural mosaic of our country, but also of the aboriginal presence among us and a respect for the dignity of all people. I think that would go a long way in making this a healthier, safer and, clearly, a much better place for us to live and raise our children.

Mr. Lang: I have a couple of comments I would like to make on the motion before us. But first I would like to clarify the record because of the Minister of Justice’s continual personal attacks on me.

The Society for Northern Land Research was formed in 1973. It was a group of people who were very concerned about what was happening to the Yukon with respect to the question of aboriginal title. One of the aspects of the organization was that it did question the issue of aboriginal title. Eventually, the organization accepted it. We were very prominent and were a major political force, prior to me getting into office, in getting the Yukon territorial government involved in the negotiations of the Yukon Indian land claims.

We felt it was important that the non-beneficiaries of the Indian land claim in the Yukon should have a say, and a major say, in how land claims were going to be settled.

The intimation by the Minister of Justice is that, because of that organization and my involvement in it, I am a racist. I want to make very clear that, on the board of directors at that time there were Indian people involved, and there were Indian people involved in the organization. It was a cross-section of the population of the Yukon that was, during that political climate of the day, questioning decisions being made, mainly by the Government of Canada, contrary to the decisions being made today, where the Government of the Yukon Territory is a major force.

I also want to clarify another point with the Minister of Justice, so my record can stand up against anyone else’s on the other side. I happened to be part of a Cabinet that appointed the now Minister of Justice as a justice of the peace. I happened to be part of a Cabinet in 1984, that agreed to a land claim package that was put to the public to the Yukon Territory. For one, I have nothing to apologize for to anyone in this House or in the territory. What concerns me is the attitude that is being exhibited by the Minister of Justice to anyone who happens to disagree, and it is an intolerant attitude that is being exhibited by her in her capacity as Minister of Justice. That takes away from the debate we are pursuing today.

I respect the Minister of Justice’s opinions. I am prepared to accept her opinions. We live in a community that has gone a long way in the last 30 years. If one takes a look, from 1960 to 1990, to see what we have done, as a people, together, we have seen native people elected to this Legislature. They are sitting here. We see the Minister of Justice, who represents a constituency that is not predominantly native, but is a homogeneous constituency of primarily non-native voters. She has been successful, at least twice, in an election. I commend the Minister of Justice’s ability to run in that constituency and get elected, because she is obviously reflecting in most part the wishes of that particular constituency.

All I ask is some tolerance from the Minister of Justice and others in respecting other peoples’ points of view, whether it be the Member for Riverdale South, or the Member for Tatchun. If we, in this House, do not have the ability to at least listen and show some respect for a difference of opinion, then this motion before us is meaningless.

It concerns me very much as a Canadian about where our country is going. It concerns me very much that we, as Canadians, seem to be forgetting that we are one country. I will reiterate that it concerns me. I listen to various interest groups and hear them on the airwaves, whether it be TV or radio, and they stand up and say, first of all, in some cases, I am an aboriginal person, secondly, I am from the Northwest Territories and, thirdly, I am a Canadian. I strongly believe that, in many ways, we are forgetting our national identity, our reason for being a country as we, within ourselves, search to find out what we can do for ourselves and forget about our country.

We spoke to that the other day with the Minister of Justice, who would not stand up and say that she was proud to be a Canadian. It took until two days later for her to stand up and yet she is the Minister of Justice for the Government of the Yukon Territory, for the people of the territory. She has a responsibility to uphold the laws and respect the laws and if she does not like the laws then she has a responsibility to come in this House to change the laws.

We have a wonderful country. We have a beautiful country. We have to be very careful in the future about what we do in order to keep it together. We are a multicultural society. One way or the other, we have all come from some other place, including the Minister of Justice, who is not from the Yukon but comes from another part of Canada, as do I. She should not apologize for it and neither should I, because I am a Canadian and I have a right to be in the Yukon and I have a right to be in Newfoundland and if I do not have that right, then I ask what kind of country do we have?

We, as Canadians, must see each other as Canadians first. Second, we must see each other as people from areas of the country, Yukon to Newfoundland. We must also, if possible, respect the differences of our ancestry, whether we be of Indian ancestry or whether we be of Inuit ancentry or whether we be of Scottish ancestry. I think, in many ways, we have our priorities skewed and we better start asking ourselves, as Canadians: if we are going to be Canada, we better be Canadians first. You look at our country and you take a look at what is ripping us apart. We have the most affluent, beautiful country in the world and we have the French fighting the English. We have the west versus the east. We have the aboriginal people versus the Government of Canada or versus the white people. We have a situation here where I think we have to really look within ourselves to ask ourselves if collectively we are doing what is right for our country? I think, in many ways, indirectly and not knowingly, and because, in many cases, of intolerance, we are breaking away and we are tearing ourselves apart.

I am prepared to accept the motion with an understanding of what multiculturalism is. There is no question that our country was built by various people of different ancestries coming to this country, in conjunction with the aboriginal people of Canada. They built a country that compares well anywhere around the world. Our standard of living is probably above anyone else’s in the world. I think we have to very careful about what we do as Canadians in respect to the principle of multiculturalism. As my colleague, the Member from Riverdale North, said: how far do you heighten the differences between people?

I have no problem respecting people of different nationalities and different interests. I will defend their right to be proud of their ancestry. On the other hand, I think we have to be very careful with government and how government becomes involved in the world of multiculturalism. What has happened in our country, in some cases, is that ethnic groups are looked at as a voting bloc. In other words, the politician has become involved and has said, “I can capture that vote if I do certain things on behalf of that particular ethnic group.” The unfortunate thing is that if a group is given preferred status, those who do not have that preferred status look with envy at those who have been put on the pedestal through the power of government. You cannot - you will not - be successful in eliminating racism if you have one group of people up here and one group of people down here - whether it be native up here and white down here, or vice versa, or French up here and English down here, or vice versa. Human instinct tells you that if you are putting somebody in a preferred position, over and above others, those who are not being treated in that manner are going to resent it. That being allowed to happen is what is going to propagate racism.

It is not in the interest of our country. It is not in the interest of our country to see us tear our people apart by race. I believe strongly that - and I do not care if you are of native ancestry, Scottish ancestry or French ancestry - given equal opportunity to get an education, he or she will be as capable as anyone else to join the workforce and to take part in Canada.

Our job in this Legislature is to ensure and to do our best, where possible, to provide equal opportunity. In good part, through the will of the Legislature and the government over the last 20 years, we have gone a long way, primarily in the education system. Take a look at what has been done in our education system and how people are prospering, whether it be native or non-native, growing up here in the Yukon. We can compete with anyone. We do not have to apologize to anyone. We can hold our own in almost any forum there is, primarily because we have allowed, permitted and ensured that equal opportunity has been made available to all people, regardless of race.

I think it is important that we, as politicians, as leaders in our community, look at people, not for not what they are, but for what they are prepared to do.

If we do that, then it is my humble opinion that we can go a long way toward eliminating racism within our community. If we heighten the differences between us, just as the Minister of Justice attempted to rewrite history earlier today, all we are going to do is to continue to propagate intolerance. The results of that, we all know, do not make for a nice place to live. People of the territory, and I am talking about my constituents, want a place to live where there is equal opportunity. They want a home; they want a family; they want the opportunity to raise their family in such a manner that those children, when they grow up, can compete in the world as it is going to be presented to them when they are at the age of majority. They want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbour. They do not want to be fighting with their neighbour. I do not believe, at least, that a majority of my constituents do. If we are going to be successful in that, then we have to make the necessary steps to try, wherever possible, to point out our similarities as well as our differences, and say that we have that much more in common than we have in differences and we can build a better Yukon and a better Canada together.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I thank the mover of this motion and thank the House for the opportunity today to follow the Member who has just spoken, because he and I have exchanged views and exchanged differences of opinion on this question before. Since the Member who just spoke, as others have said, suggested a kind of clearing of the air on some of these questions and allegations, I would like to do the same. I will say it, not in a combative way, to try to get Members opposite to understand why there is such a point of view about some of the things they have said in the past and why some of those hurts and pains do not go away quickly.

I want to state the obvious. I stand before you today as a white male - perhaps worse in the demonology of some people: a white, middle-aged, middle-class male. It is probably true that in terms of discrimination, I belong to the luckiest group in Canada, the most privileged group of human beings perhaps who have ever lived anywhere in the world. Certainly never before has such a large group of people, so defined, enjoyed so much of the earth’s riches and so many cultural riches in society. It would be dumb to suggest that racism is gone from our land or gone from our country or even that it has disappeared from our institutions. It has been long practiced in this country.

Let us be clear about this. Racism has been practiced for the benefit of the group to which I belong. To be white and male is economically and socially advantageous in this society. Nonetheless, my upbringing is such that I have no hesitation in joining my colleagues in calling racism a scourge of society.

I was fortunate in that I grew up in a democratic socialist family who taught its children about social justice, equality, racism and sexism. And, even though I have learned much from my parents, one never really learns anything until one experiences it oneself.

I do not think many of the lessons that my parents gave me became real for me until the 1960s, the time at which I came of age, particularly politically. There were certain people I admired at that time in the civil rights movement, which was for me, one of the most galvanizing events in my life. It was one of the most moving and persuasive political developments on this continent.

As a young person in university and as a young person here in the Yukon, I came to admire people like Martin Luther King and the traditions of Gandhi, and some of the people who were fighting racial injustice in this country and abroad. Likewise, I came to be sickened by the views expressed at that time by people like George Wallace and Lester Maddox and even, more recently in Canada, Jim Keegstra, and others.

I say, even though the Member for Porter Creek East has stepped out of the Chamber, that some people perhaps seem to have convenient memories of these events, but I remember very well some of the things said and reported by members of the Society for Northern Land Research. I am interested in what the Member says now about its true position. I know the members of the society whom I encountered. I was appalled and sickened by their views about native people and about land claims. I was sickened by the views articulated by some of the members of that group who suggested violent responses to the claims of native people in this territory.

The motion before us uses the word “scourge”. It is a strong word and means “a punishment”. That is exactly what racism is. It punishes us for small mindedness, for our petty and fearful acts of superiority and our exploitation of others for financial gain.

What is the punishment? It is the lessening of the dignity and the worth of every one of us who allows racism to continue to flourish in this community and country. While some among us may profit from a racist society, there is no one who is not diminished by it as a person.

In Canada, we are proud of what political scientists would call our liberal democratic traditions. I know that Canadians have been justifiably proud of their reputation as international peace keepers. We Canadians have traditionally liked to look upon ourselves as compassionate, caring and non-biased people, as the peace keepers and good neighbours. How easy it has been for us to look at our brothers and sisters in the United States, sniff in a superior way, and suggest that that cannot happen here, as we are much too nice.

During the acrimonious debate over human rights in the last Legislature, some people even put forward the notion that Yukon was somehow an oasis, a Shangri-La of racial tolerance, so far removed from some of the ugly events in other parts of the world that the kind of legislation we enacted here was really not needed. I do not want to draw too many conclusions from this, but I think it is remarkable that every single person I know who expressed that view was a very comfortably well-off white person. I never heard that view flouted by anybody of any religious, ethnic or visible minority. Despite what we may like to say and think about ourselves, this country has a long and dishonourable history of institutionalized racism that continues to this very day.

It is a matter of historical record that the earliest European settlers to our shores set right to work enslaving aboriginal people. By 1600 in this country, black slaves were brought to Canada to serve the French. Canada was certainly no trailblazer in the abolition of slavery. Slavery was routinely seen in Canada until British legislation abolished slavery for the entire Commonwealth in 1834.

Doing away with slavery did not do away with racism in Canada. Racist laws continue to be in the books in almost every jurisdiction in Canada, and racist actions continue to be allowed.

Legislation such as the Indian Act specifically promoted discriminatory behavior against aboriginal people. Provisions which denied aboriginal people the franchise, as has been mentioned by the Minister of Justice, or restricted areas in which they could practice otherwise legal activities were routinely approved by our legislators. It is a matter of record that a profoundly religious and cultural practice of aboriginal people on the west coast, the potlatch tradition, was made illegal by John A. Macdonald. A religious practice was abolished because it was regarded as paganism or heathenism. There are, in this territory, people among us who would attempt, and have attempted, to defend the use of residential schools as a means of crushing the culture and the spirit of Indian children who were forced to attend. The term “cultural genocide” has been used, and it is not too strong a term. It was genocide motivated by the conviction that only European culture had any value whatsoever. There was one way to do things, the right way to do things, and that was the way of the dominant culture. It is foolhardy for us to deny that that is one of the traditions of this community, and even of this Legislature.

Certainly it is a matter of record that very few in this country spoke out on behalf of the Japanese that were forcibly detained, had their property expropriated, and were moved away from their homes, across our country during World War II. People, many of them moved, were born and raised in this country. While Germans and Italians were considered Canadians and detained only if they gave some indication of fascist sympathies, the colour of the skin of the Japanese Canadians was reason enough to transport the Japanese. I have, I think, personally, as a long-standing member of the NDP, reason to be proud that the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP, opposed legislation authorizing this discriminatory action, and likewise fought this hysteria against the “Yellow Peril” promoted by the government under the aegis of patriotism.

While the horrors of the Second World War and the sickening evidence of what happens when unbridled racism is allowed led the Canadian government to adopt international covenants such as the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, only slowly did legislation in Canada come to forbid racist practices. By the 1950s, most jurisdictions in Canada made it illegal to advertise or publicize the intention to discriminate, but silent discrimination went unchallenged.

It was not until human rights legislation specifically made them invalid that covenants restricting alienation of land on the basis of race were done away with and this country consistently upheld restricted covenants that stated, and I quote, “land not to be sold  to Jews or persons of objectionable nationality” or “the land and premises herein described shall never be sold, assigned, transferred, leased, rented or in any manner whatsoever alienated to any person of the Jewish faith.” In fact that quote goes on, “any person of the Jewish, Hebrew, Semitic, Negro or coloured race or blood...”.

That is from legal documents in Canada.

The introduction of the Bill of Rights in Canada, in 1965, during the Deifenbaker government, was intended to help end discrimination. Instead, we saw a rise of legislative juggling so as to escape its effect, and the downgrading of the Bill of Rights from supreme law to a rule of construction.

I think that the 1960s really were a turning point for this continent on the question that we are debating today. I mentioned how I was affected by the civil rights movement in the United States, how impressed I was by people like Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, how impressed I was, a little later on, by people like Tommy Douglas, who stood up against public opinion, against the War Measures Act, and made me proud to be standing up for a principle.

It is very easy to think of these times as being a long time ago but they are as recent as the time that I worked at the House of Commons, in the mid-1970s. I knew an MP there, who happened to be Jewish, who told me an interesting story about how he had noticed that the Government of Canada regularly booked events with prominent international visitors or prominent guests at the Rideau Club. He decided to file a written question in the Legislature - we used to have them around here but they do not get used very much anymore - that had two parts: one, had the Government of Canada booked any meetings or events at the Rideau Club; and two, was it the policy of the Rideau Club to deny admission to people of the Jewish faith?

It so happened, as is often the case in parliamentary terms, that the person asking the question knew the answers to both of them already. A very unusual thing happened to this MP, who actually served for many, many years in the House of Commons: he filed his question with the table, as required, and then, instead of the question turning up in the parliamentary documents, he had a visit from a Cabinet Minister, with his question in hand. The Minister asked him if he would please desist in asking this question, because the Rideau Club was meeting at this minute to consider their policy on the question of the admission of people of Jewish faith.

Now, that is not very long ago in Canada, in a club that probably included, among its members, a sizable percentage of the national Cabinet, a great many senators and a lot of deputy ministers. I would say, as a matter of record, they included a lot of people who were - I will not say “notoriously” - proudly liberal in their views. In fact, I think the Leader of the Opposition was still a Liberal back in those days - a long time ago.

I even remember in Whitehorse, in the 1970s, going to a meeting one time where there was a prominent member of this community who had been on a Canadian Chamber of Commerce visit to South Africa.

He had observed there the method by which it was alleged that South African mining companies chose foremen for their underground crews. The method was, allegedly, that they took young men from their tribal homelands and brought them into a clearing and asked them all to try and solve a big wooden jig-saw puzzle. The first person to solve the big wooden jig-saw puzzle, it was said, would then be the foreman for this crew in the underground gold mine or diamond mine.

I had trouble not displaying my reaction to this story, in and of itself, but I was absolutely amazed when the gentleman then went on to suggest that something like this might be pretty good for our natives up here.

That kind of ignorance was not uncommon. The Member for Riverdale South, the Member for Porter Creek East, and, in some ways, the Member for Riverdale North, have complained that the Minister of Justice has gone over the past and reopened old wounds, and suggested that somehow statements made a long time ago, in a different context, were misunderstood.

Well, I think that we should talk frankly about some of these things since we are talking about clearing the air. I will tell Members opposite what I think about some of those things. I know the Member for Riverdale North said that the famous “vote white, vote Tory” ad was not racist and it was not intended that way. I have to tell the Member, and this will not surprise him, that a lot of people reacted to it as if it were that - a lot of people. While he personally may not have intended any malice, it was a matter of fact that some real ignorant bigots, inspired by that ad, phoned my house and made death threats on my kids and my wife, who happens to be an aboriginal person.

I am not going to just forget that. That is not going to go away. It is not going to evaporate. It is not going to get swept under the carpet, but there is a way in which we can exorcise the bad feeling that remains about those things. The Prime Minister of this country recently decided that an official apology should be extended to Japanese Canadians and that that apology should be extended to Italian Canadians who were interned during the Second World War.

I have just read what was said at the time about the drafting and intent of the ad, and that ad was clearly intended to raise racial fears. I read English very well, and I think I can be counted as an intelligent reader of English. That is what that ad was designed to do. For some people, it had that effect. Other people were horrified and appalled by it.

I am not trying to rewrite history, as the Member for Porter Creek East says. I am telling the Member what happened from my point of view, and how I experienced that situation.

I want to say something more, picking up on the remarks of the Member opposite. He talked about the very inflammatory situation recently of the turbanned members of the RCMP. It is interesting that this has become such an issue, when you think of the British army, hardly the most liberal or liberated organization in the world, that never had any problem allowing complete regiments, or some of its elite units, the Ghurkas, to wear the turban. It was not regarded as remarkable or inappropriate or contrary to tradition at all. It was regarded as a respect for the traditions of the people who were wearing them.

The Member spoke about religious headgear and that, somehow, that was a denial of Canadian traditions. I want to explore that with the Member for a second, and I do not want to be nasty. I want to share with the Member my thoughts on that.

If the proposition is that, somehow in order to join an institution like the RCMP, someone would have to betray their religious principles, I cannot buy that, nor can I accept the validity of that. The Member talks about Indian people wearing braids versus the traditional dress code. The traditional dress code notion is interesting, because now, it is the red serge but, of course, the working uniform of the RCMP is not the red serge. The uniform has been evolving all the time. The kind of short haircuts and clean-shaven looks that are now the norm, were not the norm when the RCMP was formed. You are not talking about ancient traditions; you are talking about current fashions.

Current acceptable hair fashions today, given the kind of variety of expression that people choose for themselves today, can include long hair, braids or crewcuts. I would suggest that the military style haircut, which some people favour, is not now the norm, is not even a tradition, but is the fashion of a period of the late 1940s or 1950s, which is now long past.

The Member talks about a question, which he asked rhetorically: What about Canadian culture and tradition? He implied that the hat and uniform of the RCMP is a Canadian cultural tradition. Indeed it is a very important Canadian cultural icon. I submit, however, that it represents only one part of the Canadian culture and tradition. To use the Member for Riverdale North’s expression, we are talking about the cultural traditions of previous generations when we assume that the dominant culture and tradition in Canada was the English language and Scottish, Welsh and Irish traditions. The dominant religious views, at least in English speaking Canada, were probably Presbyterian, Methodist and Anglican. In French Canada, there were the Catholic traditions. But, interestingly enough, Canada has since become more of a Catholic than a Protestant country. Notice that the traditions were Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Presbyterian, Methodist, English and French.

Canadian culture has been evolving and changing. It has become enormously enriched by immigration in the last few years. English and French are part of our traditions, but they are not the only part. Saxons and Celts are part of our traditions, but they are not the only ones. We now have a country that has a great many Jews, Moslems, Sikhs, and Hindus. We have people from faiths from all over the world, of all races and religions. Gone is the day when our immigration was from northern and western Europe as the standard of living in those places reached and sometimes surpassed our own. Immigration dried up from those quarters. Immigration since has come from southern Europe, Africa, Asia and the Third World. Those people appropriately see Canada as a desirable place to come to achieve their potential.

I believe it is entirely wrongheaded to suggest that when those people come and bring their values, languages, ideas, arts, music and poetry, that somehow they are not a part of the Canadian tradition or that they are somehow spoiling or corrupting it in some way, and that when they ask that their traditions and values be represented in our institutions, such as the RCMP, that somehow they are doing something wrong and pursuing something unCanadian.

The Member for Riverdale South talked about harping on the past, thinking positive and forgiving and forgetting. I think that is fine, but I do not think we can sweep things under the rug. Racism is a cancer that corrodes society and scars individuals. It is true that time heals wounds, but we may not have enough time if we just use that approach. Leaving it to time takes too long. Talking about it, as we are today, is a much more desirable point of view. Even getting past the accusations of racism, I still think there are some fundamental differences of opinion in this House on this question; I am just saying that there are.

Even when the Member for Porter Creek East was giving his current view on the Society for Northern Land Research, he talked about that society making the representation that the Yukon government should represent the non-Indian view at the land claims table. That statement seems to suggest that the Yukon government’s responsibility, in the view of the Society of Northern Land Research at the time, was to represent non-Indian people.

We take a different view. Our view, on this side of the House, is that the role of the Yukon government is to represent all people in the territory, Indian and non-Indian, urban and rural, men and women, native and non-native. That is a fundamentally different position. He suggests that the Minister of Justice is intolerant. It is an interesting case of a situation where a Member, who has been a victim of racism, unlike the Member for Porter Creek East, is somehow being told that she has to be understanding and sympathetic. Somehow, by implication, the victim of racism is to be blamed for it.

The Member then went on to talk about homogenized constituencies. The Minister of Justice represents Whitehorse North Centre. The one thing I am absolutely certain about is that Whitehorse North Centre is not a homogenized constituency, nor is Whitehorse a homogenized community, nor is the Yukon Territory a homogenized community, and I do not believe that most people here would want it to be so.

The Member for Porter Creek East asks about where our country is going. Canadians seem to forget we are part of one country, just one country. Well that is a great and a fine idea but I want to question what the image of that one country is because I suspect I might not buy into the Member for Porter Creek East’s image of one country.

The Canada of our childhood, as I mentioned, was governed by a white, male patriarchy. There were two rival oligarchies that occasionally traded power, but the people were of a certain predictable socio-economic situation and type, predominantly men. Even in 1974, there was only one woman Member of Parliament, I think. In 1974, as far as I remember, I think there were no native people - maybe one - in the Parliament of Canada. There were no visible minorities in Parliament. There were very few people of Jewish faith for example. I think in Canadian history there has only been one premier who was not a Protestant or a Cat