Whitehorse, Yukon

Tuesday, February 24, 1998 - 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 tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the energy options paper.

I also have for tabling the final work plan for the Cabinet Commission on Energy.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I have two documents for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Statements by ministers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Alcohol and drug addictions treatment program changes

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to inform members about changes being made to the alcohol and drug addictions treatment program provided by alcohol and drug services.

Recovery from an addiction is not something that happens overnight or in a month or six months. It is a process that can take a lifetime and can involve family members, co-workers and the community as a whole. The changes I am outlining today reflect that awareness.

With the introduction of the new programming, people facing alcohol and drug abuse programs will now receive the kind of support that is most appropriate at different stages of the recovery process.

The new program will offer a 14-day medical detoxification process, a 12-day treatment program and an additional 14-day program for clients who require additional supports. Contrary to reports, there will be a residential component to this program for those who require it or for those who are considered at a greater risk without it.

The day programming component has been met with enthusiastic support. In the past, serious concerns have been expressed by individuals who could not or would not participate in a residential program for a variety of reasons, such as child care concerns or abuse issues.

I would like to assure members, however, that beds will be available in the facility for up to 40 days for those who require residential care.

By moving ahead with this new program on April 1, 1998, our government will be offering an enhanced continuum of services to those requiring treatment from addictions.

Mr. Speaker, an individual in need of treatment is primarily responsible for the success of this treatment. Still, no one can stand alone. In recognition of this fact, new components of the program include after-care and follow-up, including reintegration into the community following treatment.

Every three months, the focus will shift to a one-week relapse prevention program. After-care supports are being strengthened through the recovery process and links will be fostered with other social and health agencies.

The philosophy of alcohol and drug services is straightforward. The needs of the client determine the types of services most appropriate. The treatment should be flexible and as non-obtrusive as possible. The programs must be sensitive to the diverse and changing needs of the people they serve.

This new program also recognizes that addictions may be only part of the client's problem. ADS will now have a greater ability to work with other agencies and with the client to address personal issues that have contributed to the addiction.

Mr. Speaker, this change in programming came about as a result of a number of concerns raised during extensive consultations in Yukon communities last fall. One of the principal requests was for a treatment program that could be adapted for delivery at the community level. This new programming has that capability.

Research supports this changing direction. Other jurisdictions are also looking to making similar changes in their addictions programs.

We have provided information about these changes to all Yukon addictions workers, health care providers and social workers in the territory. We have met with First Nations agencies and organizations that could be involved in providing assistance in the future.

We're embarking on a new journey that will result in a better system for those who have the most need of it. By doing so, we are meeting one of our government's main commitments to foster healthy communities.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, I rise today to respond to the minister's statement on the Government of Yukon's so-called new and improved alcohol and drug treatment programs.

There's an old saying that comes to mind, Mr. Speaker: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Alcohol and drug abuse problems are alive and well in the Yukon today, and while we on this side of the House do not profess to know all of the answers, we do know that it is irresponsible of any government to play politics with this problem, its cure and its treatment.

There was in place a tried and true drug and alcohol program, which had been operating effectively for the past 26 years - namely, the Crossroads treatment centre. When you have a program like Crossroads, which has served Yukoners so well for so long, you don't end it with the stroke of a pen. If there are problems with the program, you correct them, fix them, then move on.

It would appear that the minister's playing a very dangerous political game, which will have a very serious impact on Yukoners who are trying to recover from alcohol and drug abuse addiction.

The decision to cancel the government's contract with Crossroads and replace it with a 28-day treatment program and a 14-day part-time program was done in haste and with very little consultation with anyone, despite advice to the contrary from the minister.

The jury was also still out on the changes Crossroads had made to its treatment program when the Minister of Health and Social Services terminated the program.

Back in September, I did call for a full investigation of the Crossroads treatment program by his department. This was never done and yet a decision was made to axe the Crossroads contract without giving it a fair and full appraisal and without proper or adequate public consultation.

Perhaps the minister could outline all those groups and individuals who enthusiastically supported his new, untried program. The minister is living in a dreamworld if he believes the Yukon government itself can provide the services that Crossroads did, at the equivalent cost. The Yukon government has no experience, whatsoever, in providing this so-called new and improved treatment program.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this new program is going to cost much more to operate, and one can only hope that it will provide as effective a service as the Crossroads centre provided overall. It is also a fact that this shoot-from-the-hip minister saw an easy way for him to meet the NDP commitment to provide a homeless shelter, and unfortunately he targeted the Crossroads treatment centre. That is what he hit.

The minister talks about consultation, but what is the point of talking to Yukoners if you don't listen to them? Is this open government? Is this the better way, Mr. Speaker? Alcohol and drug abuse is a major problem in the Yukon, and this minister is playing politics with it at the expense of individuals and families afflicted by these dreaded diseases. I say, "Shame on you, Mr. Minister."

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal Health critic, I find this ministerial statement on changes to alcohol and drug treatment programs most disturbing. I find this statement disturbing not because of what it says, but because of what is not said.

Mr. Speaker, what ever happened to good decision-making? I have no problem with the department wanting to keep up to date on the latest and the greatest in the field of addictions. What I have a problem with is that the decision to change the department's approach to drug and alcohol addictions treatment was a totally non-inclusive process.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have had to make some pretty hard decisions on how to spend taxpayers' money. The decisions that stood the test of time and that were never changed were those that included the people who were most affected in the decision-making process.

Mr. Speaker, the way this decision should have gone would have been something like this: first of all, I would have gone to the rural communities and to those involved in Whitehorse, including the Kwanlin Dun and the workers at Crossroads, and asked their opinion on how drug and alcohol treatment programs should be delivered, as opposed to the general rural consultation that took place on a wide variety of alcohol-related issues. Secondly, if there was a widespread concern with the way the Whitehorse program was being run, I would have done a little research and gone to the board of Crossroads with two or three options for change to see if they were interested in coming onboard for any of those programs. Then, I would have gone back to the community to see if any other organization had expertise to add to the search for alternative drug treatment programs and to see if any other agency was interested in delivering alternative drug and alcohol treatment programs for the Yukon.

With the best alternative chosen, agreed to by both rural and Whitehorse community agencies, I would have implemented change that was asked for, agreed to and well-accepted.

Mr. Speaker, all decisions about health care in the Yukon have to have those critical elements to them. People are not afraid of change; they are afraid of not being included in the decision about the changes that affect them.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the department is now embarking on a consultation process after the decision about the program being changed has been made can only be construed as disrespectful to those people - the people who have taken the time to voice their opinions to alcohol and drug services.

There is no question that alcohol and drug treatment programs need support in the rural communities, but this ministerial statement answers none of the questions about those programs, either. How much money is going to be spent on the training of alcohol and drug workers in the various communities? Who gets trained and who doesn't? Will there be any Yukon-wide standards for treatment programs and a universal way to measure their effectiveness? How many beds will be made available in Whitehorse for residential treatment?

In the past, over 20 beds have been filled at a time. What if the demand is greater? Will we send people outside for treatment and who will pay?

Why wasn't the Whitehorse alcohol and drug treatment program tendered out so that other agencies could at least get a kick at the cat on delivering updated ADS services? The treatment program that ADS picked off the Internet is only one program. There is nothing to say it is any more effective than any other new program. Why weren't other options examined? Will there be ADS positions made available to the Crossroads workers who lost their jobs in this debacle?

Mr. Speaker, is this the way we're going to make future decisions about health care in the Yukon? Is this the better way? Can we expect more of these king-like decisions from on high, with a little bit of consultation afterwards to make the peons feel like they actually have a say in these life and death decisions?

Mr. Speaker, I actually have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Health and Social Services and I hope, in the future, we can look forward to better and more inclusive decisions. I know that the minister will learn from this mistake.

Speaker: If the member now speaks, he will close debate.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I guess up to now I've always assumed that the word "Luddite" applied to technological change; it appears it can be extended to social change as well. So I'm glad to see the social Luddite over there from Klondike saying his bit. I agree that he did do a bit of a mea culpa because he was one of those people who was calling for an investigation.

This was not a political decision. This was not a political choice. This decision was made after consultation. There was consultation with NNADAP workers, with community health representatives, with social workers, community justice workers, First Nations healing councils, community transition home workers, prevention workers, after-care workers, Yukon College instructors, ministerial representatives, school councillors, social development coordinators, and it goes on and on - in Carmacks, Pelly, Faro, Mayo, Ross River, Dawson, Watson Lake, Teslin, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, Destruction Bay and Haines Junction, and indeed in Whitehorse.

The consultations began at the end of September. We went out to get some ideas on how to best serve Yukon people. We wanted to find out if there were gaps in the programs, which we felt that there may be.

Communities told us very, very clearly that they wanted programs at home, that they need after care, relapse prevention and community integration.

As members of this House know, there have been concerns about the manner in which Crossroads was delivering service. We worked with Crossroads to address some of these insufficiencies, including issues surrounding staff, union charges, financial accountability and others.

It is a nonsensical argument to say that we haven't consulted with them; we did. I recognize that people have been helped by Crossroads over the years, and I respect the loyalty of those individuals to that organization. We've also determined that we can provide a program which responds to the needs of communities, which we believe is more cost effective and we believe is more flexible. Just this week we've begun to deliver the treatment program up in Kwanlin Dun.

This new system also allows us to empower First Nation communities in their own healing programs. Some of the money that will be redirected will go for per diems in treatment centres in communities.

We've been given a mandate to provide good, responsible government. Crossroads is a program that we felt was not meeting the needs in this case. We believe that we've found a good solution - not an Internet solution. Some of the document that came off there was drawn from Internet sources because it was a way to provide some research basis.

The Member for Klondike obviously doesn't know the program. He has obviously not availed himself of the opportunity to find out about the program. He's simply shooting from the lip, as is his normal custom. I would repeat to him and to all members of this House, the opportunity to take a briefing on this program, at their convenience, and I urge them to take advantage of this offer.

Thank you.

Energy policy consultation

Mr. McRobb: I rise today to inform the House about the plans of the Cabinet Commission on Energy for public consultation toward developing a comprehensive energy policy for the territory.

During the past year, the commission has met with a number of stakeholders, government departments, corporations and members of the public to discuss energy issues and listen to their concerns and ideas on how best to develop policies beneficial to all Yukoners.

Several public discussion papers have been produced. The one I tabled in the House today links all energy policy initiatives together into a comprehensive package.

The energy options discussion paper and its companion papers will be useful to stimulate discussion and provide options for improving government policies on important matters, such as community energy management, transportation management, supply options principles, investment risks, and utility regulation.

Mr. Speaker, last fall we heard from Yukon people, who said they wanted greater stability in their electrical bills. Now we want to hear their views on five options we're proposing to improve the rate relief program and help lower people's electricity bills.

These options include targeted relief for those who need help paying their electricity bills; winter relief, available to all residential electricity consumers at the time of year it is most needed; enhanced programs to help Yukon people reduce their energy consumption; a green power fund to encourage the use of environmentally-friendly alternative energy sources; and a rate stabilization fund.

Mr. Speaker, long-term electrical rate stability is a primary goal of this government. Our consultations will apply public input toward finding the best way to achieve stability, even during severe circumstances, such as the current mine shutdown at Faro.

As members are aware, rate relief was introduced as a short-term measure to offset rate shock when the Faro mine closed in 1993. Yukon people told us they want a rate relief program that is aimed at achieving long-term rate stability. Options are being developed now to deal with both the immediate situation and the future interests of the territory's electrical ratepayers.

A rate stabilization fund will help protect residents, small businesses and other non-industrial customers from future rate shocks.

Developing this fund with public input is a priority, and members can look forward to a more detailed announcement on this matter in the near future.

In keeping with our government's commitment to public participation, we will hold public meetings in Yukon communities in March and April to hear what Yukon people have to say about these and other energy matters.

There will also be more detailed discussions with groups that have much to say at the technical level about energy matters, including the Council for Yukon First Nations, individual First Nations, the Association of Yukon Communities, individual municipalities, non-governmental organizations and rate hearing interveners.

We will also be surveying Yukoners through a questionnaire to receive feedback and input on energy issues, concerns and priorities.

Next week, Dr. Mark Jaccard from Simon Fraser University will be in the Yukon to speak on community energy management. I encourage members to take the opportunity to hear what he has to say about this interesting policy approach that has worked well in many parts of Canada and elsewhere.

Besides the energy option paper I tabled today, six resource papers will assist the public review of supply options principles. These papers, which were prepared for the commission by the energy resources branch of Economic Development, provide valuable information about wind, wood, coal, hydro, oil and gas, and alternatives. There is also a public discussion paper and a technical paper on rate relief.

In advance of our consultations, we will also be releasing companion discussion papers on a rate stabilization fund, the green power fund, energy efficiency, investment risk, supply options principles and community energy management.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the energy commission's consultations will be guided by the fundamental goals of energy conservation, protection of the environment and sustainable development of our energy resources. Our goal is to develop a comprehensive energy policy that helps provide Yukon people with stable, reliable and affordable energy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cable: By my count, this is the third commissioner's statement from the commissioner, and while he doesn't lack for ideas, I think we'd all like to see some more product.

The idea of the rate stabilization fund, of course, is a very useful idea. But let me suggest to the commissioner that it's time to stop talking about talking about the issues and get some hard product on the table for this House.

The commissioner has indicated in the past to this House that he's prepared to tackle the issues in isolation - some of them anyway - segmentally rather than wait for the completion of the gestation period for this comprehensive energy policy he's been talking about. And the issues that come to mind are the governance issue that he talked about. He identified that for his work plan - the relationship between the government and the Yukon Energy Corporation - and I believe he talked about issues relating to the Utility Board. Then there was that new issue that was raised yesterday in the budget speech - the tie-in, the interconnecting tie-in with some of the neighbouring jurisdictions.

So let me suggest to the commissioner that he get some hard product on the table in the near future and that he give us his final, irrevocable, last work plan so that we know just exactly when these things are going to be done and when we're going to be in a position to judge whether he has done anything that's useful.

Mr. McRobb: I guess I had my hopes too high. I was expecting something more constructive from the opposition members.

May I remind the member that our government believes in consultation with the people. We do not make backroom decisions. We are taking these issues to the public. We have prepared papers in advance of our consultation in respect of the public, and the desire to hear their input - and constructive input - to help us find the best solutions to these problems.

Mr. Speaker, all of this takes time and considerable effort. If the Member for Riverside has ideas on how to expedite this, I'd certainly be open to hearing his suggestions. I've invited him on a number of occasions to meet with me in my office and listen to his input, but so far he has chosen not to take me up on the offer. At times I wonder why; at other times, I don't.

His reference to initiatives, such as the YUB and so on, are all dealt with in the paper and the workplan. These workplans are not chiseled in stone, they are just the best efforts of a future scheduling at a given point in time.

Already, in the past year, he refers to - I can recall several - newsclips, where the member got air time making an issue out of the fact that, apparently, we were somewhat late in delivering product. I can say that he made an issue of nothing. The commission is ahead of schedule. We have shortened our termination date. We have produced more documentation than originally envisioned.

All of this, Mr. Speaker, has been amidst a number of severe challenges, such as two shutdowns of the Faro mine, the direct management of the Yukon Energy Corporation - plus the fire, I might add, at the Yukon Energy Corporation - which all has made progress more difficult.

Amidst those challenges, we have done very well in meeting our workplan commitments. We look forward to our consultations with the public. I invite the Member for Riverside to attend, as I do the members of the official opposition. Thank you.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Phillips: Before I get into my question, I would like to take a brief moment, as is the tradition in the House, and recognize a couple of former members of the House. Bea Firth, from Riverdale South and Ken McKinnon, former member and Commissioner ,are both here. I ask members to make them welcome in the House.

Applause

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Old Crow school

Mr. Phillips: My question today is for the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday, in the House, I asked the minister several questions about the contracts let for the Old Crow school that excluded Yukon manufacturers. The minister evaded the question, so I am going to ask the minister again. Hopefully, this time, I will get an answer.

The type of insulation that is specified for the Old Crow school is batt insulation and styrofoam panels. These all have to be shipped in from outside the territory. I am told that it will require 11.5 truckloads, at about $10,000 a load. If this local hire government had specified foam spray insulation, it could have reduced the number of truckloads to about one and employed several Yukoners who manufacture an equivalent insulation locally.

I'd like to ask the minister why his department issued contracts for insulation of the Old Crow school that excluded the participation of these local manufacturers?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would challenge the allegation that this type of insulation excludes Yukoners. I would remind the member that chapter 22 of the Vuntut Gwitchin final agreement does call upon us to try and maximize local content. What we believe is that the type of insulation that would be used in this school would maximize the number of local employment opportunities for individuals in Old Crow. As well, the nature of the construction of the school - the very type of construction - requires that this type of rigid styrofoam insulation be used.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that chapter 22 didn't envision us buying all the materials from southern Canada. I think there are people in the territory who produce an equivalent product. He would have saved about $100,000 in trucking, and it would have allowed Yukoners to have the jobs and to be employed in Old Crow. Why didn't the Government of the Yukon, with its local hire/local purchase policy that it's been heralding, why didn't it at least give these individuals an opportunity to bid? They didn't even have an opportunity to bid, because the specifications ruled out their product. Why didn't they do that?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would suggest, before the member gets too exercised about this - and I want to take a moment and lean over to his friend, the Member for Klondike, one of whose constituents, I believe, got the insulation contract, so perhaps he would like to say something on that - I should point out that my friends across the floor have been fighting us in advancing the concept of local hiring. Now they pretend to champion it.

As we indicated, the local content, the local hiring, also does not just apply to Whitehorse. It also applies to maximizing opportunities for the people of Old Crow, and that's what we've attempted to do.

Mr. Phillips: The minister misses the point. He misses the point completely. Mr. Speaker, the press release the government put out today is misleading, to say the least.

If you look into the -

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Point of order has been called.

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member saying "misleading" is unparliamentary.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, there's no point of order. The press release is misleading. I'm not accusing the minister of being misleading. It's the information provided in the press release that's misleading.

Speaker: There's no point of order. Continue the question, please.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister pointed out that one of the constituents of the Member from Dawson received the contract, but what he didn't point out is that if the contract for the trusses had gone to a local truss manufacturing company, Mr. Speaker, of the $240,000-odd, over $200,000 of it would have stayed in the Yukon.

The way the minister's awarded the contract, probably less than $10,000 will stay here, and it won't create any Yukon jobs. It'll create jobs in Alberta and British Columbia. That's what's wrong with what this minister's saying, Mr. Speaker.

This is the only large capital project that's happening this year. Can the minister tell this House why he didn't instruct his department to ensure that all the design specs would allow for the participation of Yukon manufacturers? Why didn't the department - they've been planning this for a year - have a list of Yukon manufactured products that could be used in the school, and why didn't they make sure that the specifications allowed those people to at least bid on the job - not get the job, but at least bid?

They excluded local hire, local purchase. They said forget it, Mr. Speaker. Why didn't they give them a chance to bid?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, the member is following his usual nonsensical route. As a matter of fact, the architect met with the business incentive officer prior to this. They spent an afternoon going through it. The design recommendations from the architect were reviewed with the manager and our technical staff.

Things such as truss joints and insulation passed the test of being available from local suppliers. Now, I understand that the member there doesn't want anyone here to be able to supply, only to manufacture, so we'll have to have to take that up perhaps with some of the companies that actually indeed supply.

As a matter of fact, part of the decision with regard to the Styrofoam, which is manufactured by Dow Chemical, is that it's an industry standard and it is supplied by all building suppliers in the Yukon.

Did consultations with industry take place? Yes, they did. The schematic design was forwarded to the Yukon Contractors Association for comment and review, and the YCA was specifically asked to make suggestions as to how Old Crow First Nation involvement could be maximized. So, the member is simply wrong.

Question re: Old Crow school

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. With 11-percent unemployment in the Yukon and skyrocketing in the near future, it would have been a lot better to have it manufactured here than shipped in from outside, and the minister knows that.

My question is directed to the Government Leader. Yesterday, he said in the budget speech, and this is on trade and I quote, "One goal of this strategy is to help local businesses develop the capacity to sell their goods and services outside the Yukon. We believe this will make Yukon companies stronger financially and create more Yukon jobs."

I would like to ask the Government Leader: wouldn't the Government Leader agree that the best way to help local businesses develop the capacity to sell their goods and services outside the territory would be first and foremost to use and specify these quality products in our own government construction, and why didn't this government do that?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, it probably would be too trite for me to say that I tutored too long under the Yukon Party government, which didn't even allow Yukon contractors to bid on the major capital projects of the day. So, that would be too simple an answer.

I would point out to the member that, when we indicated to the territory that we wanted to review the rules respecting local hire and local content, we indicated that we wanted to do this very deliberately through a proper procedure that involved the public - that did not simply involve some backroom thinking by a few backroom boys, but instead involved the public thoroughly in those public discussions.

We resolved not to break the rules, but to change the rules, and as the local hire commission has gone to some lengths to make some good practical suggestions on how the system can be changed, the Minister of Government Services will be responding in a very thoughtful, considerate way to those rule change proposals. When we announce our response to those many practical suggestions, I am looking very much forward to the Yukon Party support for the many suggestions that the Yukon hire commissioner has tabled.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, Yukoners have to be very disappointed with the answer that has just been given by our Government Leader.

This government has been in power for over a year and a half. In this budget, we see the building of the Old Crow school. They had total control over what happened to the building of that school - total control. In the election campaign, that minister, that Government Leader, and the Member for Whitehorse Centre said that in three months they would have a local hire policy in place. They haven't done that, but they had an opportunity in this job to ensure that Yukoners at least could bid the job. They didn't do that.

I'm asking the Government Leader: how the devil does he hope to promote the export of Yukon manufactured products if he doesn't buy them himself?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member will not be surprised if I disagree with him on virtually every point he's made, beginning with how long the government has been in office. I realize that sometimes 30-minutes' worth of Question Period can sound like two years in any normal person's life, but we have not been in office for over a year and a half, as the member I'm certain already knows full well.

In any case, with respect to the Old Crow project and any capital construction project, as I mentioned already to the member, this government doesn't break rules. This government changes rules very carefully and deliberately, and we've gone through the process of reviewing all the procedures that may add to local content and local hire, and we will very thoughtfully - very deliberately - look to changes to those rules to maximize local content. Until that time, we will follow the rules - the rules were embraced by the Yukon Party government in the years before.

That is our commitment to the people. We don't break rules. We change rules, and we do so thoughtfully and carefully.

Mr. Phillips: Well, we have 11-percent unemployment in the territory and it's going to go a lot higher now that 400 more people from Faro are out of work. We have a Government Leader rising in the House yesterday and giving this great speech, talking about capital construction projects of schools that are going to create all kinds of jobs in the territory and we have the Minister of Government Services handing jobs to Alberta and British Columbia - and a government that professes to be the champions of local hire and local purchase.

I would like to know from the Government Leader when - when - are we going to see the contracts come out on the only major construction project in the territory that're going to ensure that companies offering products that are presently manufactured in this territory at least have an opportunity to bid the jobs. They didn't even have an opportunity. It's shameful.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have to announce, for the first time in this Question Period, that there is one proposition that the member just made that I agree with - one out of all the things he has said so far - and that was that we both agree that yesterday's speech was a great speech.

We do not, as I mentioned before, under pressure even from the Yukon Party, break the law when it comes to contract regulations. We, in fact, follow the law and seek ways to change it intelligently and thoughtfully.

I would point out to the member that a large portion of the work already associated with the Old Crow school is, in fact, going to Yukon contractors and suppliers. So, the technical points that the member is raising now with respect to one small feature of this particular contract, which could have been, perhaps, supplied by local suppliers - and would have been if we had had rule changes last year, but we were, of course, bequeathed of the Yukon Party's contract regulations - t

he fact will remain that the vast majority of the work on this project and the vast majority of the businesses that will be working on this project will be Yukon-based workers and Yukon-based businesses.

And I can tell the member another thing: we did allow people to bid on this project. We did not do, as I pointed out before, as the Yukon Party did with the biggest capital project this territory has even known - the Yukon hospital construction project - prevent Yukon-based contractors from bidding on the project, as the Yukon Party did with the hospital.

Question re: Old Crow school

Ms. Duncan: My question today is for the minister responsible for Government Services.

Today, the minister has issued a news release stating that the supply of materials for the Old Crow school has been awarded to Yukon suppliers. While Yukon companies may be supplying the materials, it is a fact that a good deal of the products will be manufactured outside of the Yukon - say, Alberta, for example. The minister needs to ask some tough questions instead of just reading his briefing notes and his media statements.

Will the minister tell this House, of the million and a quarter dollars of revenue that Yukon businesses have been awarded, how much of this material is being manufactured in the Yukon and how much of this money is simply a transfer of funds to Alberta-based manufacturers?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked I wasn't aware that we had a nail industry here, but maybe there's one that's out there fledgling. Pressure-treated wood - I suppose that's something that's out there. But when I look at this, when I take a look at the list, I'm sort of assuming that the member is opposed, then, to wholesalers, Yukon wholesalers - is that it? - not having the opportunity to be able to supply things? That would be my interpretation on that.

I can certainly break down and find out how much of the nail industry here is being supplied. I will attempt to try to get some information. I hear the chattering of my friend for Riverdale North there. I would suggest that maybe he wants to go through here and maybe discuss again with his colleague, the Member for Klondike, that perhaps Yukon suppliers in Dawson should not be allowed to bid on these?

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the minister's forgetting that it's not me being called to task, it's that minister, for the way that this project's been handled.

Earlier, it's been mentioned in this House that the request for proposal states that the project will, at every stage, maximize the economic opportunities for the residents of Old Crow. We know that Yukon manufacturers have been excluded from the process to date. Can the minister state what opportunities have been provided for the people of Old Crow?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we can provide that. We have been working with the people of Old Crow on trying to maximize opportunities. We have, for example, done work with the people of Old Crow in hiring a local project manager, with having individuals work on the foundations, having people work on the road. We are currently discussing with the members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation ways that we can maximize those opportunities. In all of our contracts that we'll be letting out, we'll be seeking to maximize local content, local opportunities.

That's not only a requirement of section 22, but I think it's also a moral obligation for a community that has perhaps some fewer economic opportunities than other areas.

As a matter of fact, this week, our project manager is travelling to Old Crow to meet with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation to discuss some of the things that we can be doing.

Ms. Duncan: We can only hope that the government will do a better job of fulfilling this - as the minister put it - moral obligation than they've done in fulfilling the need to put Yukoners to work - those who work for Yukon manufacturers.

The record of this government on this project to date can best be described as sad and pathetic. The most important next step is the key contract, that of the general contractor for the construction of the school. That contract has to be issued and awarded properly. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that the next major contract will be awarded, and it will maximize the opportunities for local hire for the people of Old Crow and for all Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: As I indicated, we have been discussing with the Vuntut Gwitchin the opportunities that would come out of this. We're meeting with them now, as we move toward tendering that contract, to see what kinds of opportunities we can build in there. It will be a requirement of anyone who gets the contract to maximize local labour as much as possible, as well as local training opportunities. I think this is an important opportunity for the people of Old Crow, and that's what we're attempting to do now.

We've begun the process already and will continue to do so.

Question re: Old Crow school

Ms. Duncan: My question is again for the Minister of Government Services.

In another media release, the minister has indicated that it is anticipated that most of the materials will be supplied to Old Crow over the winter road. The current closing date for the road is March 25, which is an ever-narrowing window of opportunity. Has the minister had a commitment from suppliers that they will be able to transport all of these goods to Old Crow in that time frame?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Well, the indication is that we will be able to transport most materials. However, when the decision to move with the road was undertaken, it was also indicated that there would be some systems - for example, mechanical systems and things like that - that may have to come in in another manner, and even in the contract on the road, it was anticipated that approximately 10 percent would have to be moved in by air.

Ms. Duncan: Well, this project - the new Old Crow school - should be shining as the key capital project for Yukoners. However, the only thing that's shining so far is the NDP minister's red face over the fiscal mismanagement.

Given that there are various scenarios - the minister has just started to indicate some of them for how much material may or may not get to Old Crow - can the minister tell this House whether this project will be on time and whether or not it will be on budget at $8.5 million?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'm a little surprised. The member seems to be indicating a severe lack of faith in both the people of Vuntut Gwitchin and in the contractors who would possibly get the job. We hired a local company, Pelly Construction, to build the road, and not only did they complete the road in good time, they actually completed it ahead of time.

Incidentally, all of the contracts so far that have been let have come in under what we had anticipated, so we are on budget or, in fact on a couple of the major components, actually under budget.

Can we do it on time? Well, I would presume that if the building of the road is any indication, yes, we can do it on time, and I happen to have a little more faith in the people of this territory than perhaps the member opposite has.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it's not a matter of faith in the contracting community or in Yukoners, and I have a lot of faith in both. I don't have a lot of faith in the Minister of Government Services.

The minister has just committed that this project will be on time and somewhat under budget. In the event that weather conditions are favourable and that the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation agrees, has the Government of Yukon applied for or considered an extension to the permit for the Old Crow road?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I don't know, Mr. Speaker, but looking outside I believe it was zero or plus two this morning. I would anticipate that there are some things that are even outside my domain and I cannot predict weather. I cannot anticipate weather - I believe it's a federal responsibility, as a matter of fact - but I can say that, given good cooperation, given some weather cooperation, we will be able to complete the project. I would be very, very leery about anticipating pushing this project into April, simply because of the conditions on the road there, and as well such things as creeks and things of that nature. We are committed to trying to complete this project in the most expeditious manner possible and I have faith in the people that we have in the territory to be able to do that.

Question re: Team Canada trade mission

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, yourself and members of this House will recall that the Yukon NDP government recently participated in and supported Team Canada's trade mission to South America, which was led by the Prime Minister of Canada. The Yukon was represented by the Government Leader. The trade mission concentrated on promoting trade and investment opportunities.

My question is to the Government Leader. Would the Government Leader tell this House why he openly supports the Team Canada trade mission and the trade that it was supposed to encourage, yet the representative that he sent to Ottawa on the internal trade agreement refused to support that agreement?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: We have said consistently from the beginning of our mandate until today, and will into the future, that we do believe in trading opportunities with other jurisdictions, both domestically in Canada and also outside Canada. We also believe in fair trade with those jurisdictions, a subject that we have raised, along with some provinces, when the Team Canada missions have offered that opportunity. Fair trade ensures that all of us can ensure that local laws, which protect our people and protect our environment, will not be compromised.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance in the member's question, the Member for Whitehorse Centre did not speak to the subject of internal trade, but spoke to the subject only of the multilateral agreement on investment which, incidentally, is not only opposed by most provinces, it's also opposed by the Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been considered to be free traders and supporters of NAFTA.

So the position that the Member for Whitehorse Centre took on behalf of the government with respect to the mulilateral agreement on investment was, first of all, consistent with the position that this Legislature took last fall; secondly, perfectly consistent with our trade policy.

Mr. Ostashek: The representative that was sent by the Government Leader clearly spoke on the agreement for municipal - the MUSH sector, as it's called - spoke on seeing that Yukon businesses were treated fairly. That was part of the internal trade agreement that was left to be signed off yet, when it was signed several years ago by myself, as representative of the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, the internal trade agreement already provides safeguards for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Those were part of the initial negotiations of the agreement, where there is a minimum for procurement of goods and a minimum on the size of the contracts that have to be advertised Canada-wide. So there is protection built in.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon public was well-alerted to the refusal of his representative to support this endeavour, long before the meeting. In fact, the representative was publicly opposing the agreement prior to even seeing it and discussing it in Ottawa.

Would the Government Leader tell the House if he is working to eliminate trade restrictive practices in the Yukon, or does he have one agenda when he travels with the federal Liberals and yet another for Yukoners and Yukon businesses?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, no, of course the position that the government's been taking has been consistent everywhere we've gone, anywhere on the face of the globe, and certainly makes a lot more understandable the position that his own caucus is making with respect to local hire and local procurement.

But let me point out this, first of all. The Member for Whitehorse Centre did not speak at the meeting at all on the subject of the internal trade agreement. That position will be determined by Cabinet shortly. The member spoke only on the subject of the multilateral agreement on investment, and not only took a position in this Legislature, but also was supported by the majority of the people in this Legislature.

So, the message has been consistent: fair trade for Yukon, fair trade for Canada. We will be pursuing trading opportunities where they make sense to us and our economy.

Mr. Ostashek: The representative may have taken a position if a motion was debated in this Legislature, but the Government Leader is fully aware that it wasn't a unanimously supported motion.

I have in my hands a letter that was written by the Minister of Economic Development to yourself, Mr. Speaker, on July 3, 1997, in which he states, "All parties to the agreement also agree to eliminate trade-restrictive practices and to treat businesses and residents of other jurisdictions the same as they treat their own businesses and residents." That was a letter signed on behalf of the government by the Minister of Economic Development.

So, I would like to ask the Government Leader this question: the Government Leader and the NDP have publicly agreed to support eliminating trade barriers and restrictive practices, yet they flip-flopped. We were noted in the paper as one of two jurisdictions that has refused to sign the trade initiative. I would like to ask the Government Leader, at this time, to honour the position that was outlined in the letter by the Minister of Economic Development and to sign this deal, or will he choose to sit on his hands while the rest of Canada takes steps that will positively impact their businesses and jobs in their areas?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that this may be somewhat complicated for the member, but let me suggest this. When we've talked about wanting to eliminate unnecessary barriers - and the NDP governments in the past have worked to eliminate unnecessary barriers in the whole trucking de-regulation has been an element of that - we did not say at the same time that we could not pursue, for example, training opportunities or even mandatory certification for apprentices on government projects. We did not say that we couldn't pursue the whole notion of consulting with local manufacturers, such as people have been suggesting here, with respect to building projects that are coming forward. In the future, I'm certain that those reforms will certainly take place. Certainly I assume from the member's discussion so far that he has no problems with that kind of recommendation that has been put forward by the local hire commission, because he spent the first half of Question Period talking about it. So I'm certain that when we adopt probably most of the good, practical suggestions made by the local hire commissioner, I'm certain we're going to get enthusiastic support from the opposition benches.

Now, with respect to the internal trade agreement, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be making a decision with respect to the internal trade agreement, and we will do so in the interests of Yukoners, consistent with the consistent policies that we have taken all along supporting fair trade for this country and fair trade for this territory.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of government private members' business

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of government private members to be called on Wednesday, February 25, 1998. They are Motion No. 96, standing in the name of the Member for Whitehorse Centre, and Motion No. 95, standing in the name of the Member for Lake Laberge.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Unanimous consent requested

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an agreement reached by the House leaders, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to waive the provisions of Standing Order 27(1) in order to debate Motion No. 97 respecting national unity, standing in the name of the Government Leader. This motion, the text of which was reviewed by the House leaders earlier this day, was sent to the table by the Government Leader during Daily Routine this afternoon.

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 97

Clerk: Motion No. 97, standing in the name of the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Speaker: It is moved by the hon. Government Leader:

THAT this House accepts the recommendations of the Yukon Commission on Unity;

THAT this House supports the Principles for National Unity in the Calgary Declaration as follows:

1) All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law.

2) All provinces, while diverse in their characteristics, have equality of status.

3) Canada is graced by a diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world.

4) Canada's rich diversity includes Aboriginal Peoples and cultures, the vitality of the English and French languages and cultures and a multicultural citizenry drawn from all parts of the world.

5) In Canada's federal system, where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well-being of Canada. Consequently, the legislature and Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.

6) If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.

7) Canada is a federal system where federal, provincial and territorial governments work in partnership while respecting each other's jurisdictions. Canadians want their governments to work cooperatively and with flexibility to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the federation. Canadians want their governments to work together particularly in the delivery of their social programs. Provinces and territories renew their commitment to work in partnership with the Government of Canada to best serve the needs of Canadians.

and supports continued efforts by Canadians and their elected leaders to seek a resolution to this issue;

THAT this House endorses the Framework for Discussion on Relationships presented to the premiers and territorial leaders by the leaders of the five national Aboriginal organizations in Winnipeg on November 18, 1997;

THAT this House's support for the Calgary Declaration does not compromise the future constitutional development of the Yukon;

THAT this House supports minority rights of French communities outside Quebec and English communities inside Quebec; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue to involve Yukon people in the unity processes, and to continue to fully contribute towards the renewal of a healthy and vibrant Canada.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm proud and pleased to speak to this motion this afternoon, not only because Canadians need to acknowledge and stand up for what Canada stands for, but also for what Canada has to offer, and also because the legislative motion this afternoon is timely.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must speak to all other Canadians at a time when there are those who would see Confederation disintegrate, those who would tear us apart.

Mr. Speaker, most of Canadian history has been all about a diverse, spread-out population fighting against geography, fighting against socio-economic forces that would pull us apart.

It's been widely spoken of in this Legislature that the United Nations has acknowledged Canada as the most livable country on earth. Time after time, we are reminded by an international organization that what Canada has to offer its citizens is the envy of the world.

Most of us don't need to be told that. On Heritage Day, this last week, people who came to the ceremonies at the federal building in Whitehorse spoke of cooperation, compassion, freedom and democracy, tolerance, respect, taking care of each other in time of need, the beauty of the country, and the diversity of the country. All these words tripped off people's tongues so easily and so naturally, because they reflected what Canadian truly do believe about themselves.

What was also obvious was that for Canadians to really understand and appreciate what they have, they have to work to keep their country together. Somebody at the ceremony told me that the problem is that Canadians never know that they've had it so good. Mr. Speaker, that is a big problem. Quite often, people do take for granted the freedoms, the institutions that bind us, the diverse character of our country that makes it so rich, so cosmopolitan, so livable and so exciting - these features of Canadian identity are often truly taken for granted.

When I was growing up in school, the joke among the children at school was that Canadians could never really identify themselves unless they were comparing themselves with somebody else; that Canadians themselves were presumably so tedious a people that they couldn't even reflect on what they had that was so wonderful. That is less so today than it was when I was a young man and a boy.

More and more, today, we are able to see the character that makes this country so attractive. So when someone says we don't know that we've had it so good, it is time that those of us who do care, and do realize how well we have it - it's time that we speak to protect the country and to raise awareness about what this country has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Saskatchewan, who has been a noted statesman on the subject of Canadian unity, and who for many years has provided good leadership and participated in many different constitutional conferences - in fact, if you can believe this, he participated in a pre-1970 constitutional conference on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan, and he participated in the Calgary meeting last summer - he has spoken, often eloquently, of what he refers to as the 80:20 solution to the salvation of this country.

The 80-percent:20-percent solution refers to 80-percent work trying to preserve and promote the institutions and the understandings between people that bind us together, such as protecting universal education and health care - those national initiatives, those national programs and those national services that reflect who we are, which takes up most of the work, and the 20-percent solution, which refers to the constitutional discussions; discussions that frame the legal network and the constitution that bind us together, as well as identifying the important symbolic messages that make us feel good to be part of a country.

It is the latter that I will speak to now, the symbolic messages that we must issue to each other to ensure that we all feel that we're part of this same family.

Last year, there was a concern that those who would have the country separate were gearing up for another round of constitutional debate and leading discussions internally in Quebec to try to seek another mandate to negotiate full or partial separation of Quebec from Canada. It was to be billed as another internal discussion only inside Quebec, without care or concern for the English, the French, the aboriginal, the multi-ethnic communities that lived not only outside Quebec, but the minorities who lived within.

Mr. Speaker, there was a feeling, a strong feeling - not only among the first ministers of this country but also the Council of Canadian Unity and other national organizations - that we must do something, we must say something to all Canadians and to residents of Quebec that we want to fight to keep this country together; that we want to express the values that are the bond that has made this country work.

Mr. Speaker, we knew that people needed to speak out. We all knew that to simply leave the future of this country to an internal debate led by a separatist government in Quebec would put us close to the brink of disaster that we nearly experienced during the last round of discussions in that province.

It is commonly said, Mr. Speaker, that without a last-minute show of love and respect by people from across Canada, we may have lost the last referendum - the federal cause may have lost the last referendum in Quebec - and no one wanted to see that performance repeated.

Mr. Speaker, people said that they wanted to speak. The first ministers realized that it was not their place to simply speak out on the people's behalf, but that the voice had to emanate from the grassroots of this country, that the people themselves had to speak and that governments should act as a catalyst for those discussions.

So, last year, the first ministers met in Calgary to determine what they could do to encourage public discussion and a voice of support for Canadian unity. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the federal government was most definitely interested and involved in those discussions and, though they were not present at the meeting in Calgary, they were most present over the phone, they were most present in terms of their interest, and there was unanimous agreement that there must be some grassroots public consultations that would encourage the strengthening of the Canadian federation.

It was agreed, Mr. Speaker, that the guidelines for the process of the public consultation would be open to the general citizenry, that in every province and territory creative ways of engaging Canadians would be employed. It was agreed that there should be a coordinated time frame, that all jurisdictions should explore public opinion on the subject of Canadian unity and report, preferably by the spring, and that each territory and province was free to decide on the range and scope of that consultation.

In the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, after the meeting, I had the pleasure to meet with the leaders of the opposition parties - both the Yukon Party and the Liberal Party at the time - and we agreed that the approach taken by Yukon should be a non-partisan public consultation process. It should be as broad based as possible, and it should raise the issues identified in the Calgary framework for discussion.

It was concluded that not only should there be a 1-800 number to encourage consultation, there should also be a questionnaire, and that a unity commission should be formed to lead the public discussion so that the public would be reassured that this was not an attempt by partisan forces to co-opt the process.

We had the pleasure of asking a number of very respected Yukon people, each of whom has a well-respected reputation of their own, to participate in the process. The commissioners that were asked to participate, and who ended up participating, included Pam Buckway, who was the chair of the commission, Doug Bell, Bob Charlie, Michèle Guèvremont, Joyce Hayden and Ken McKinnon. The commission, I will say at the outset, took the task to heart and put a lot of creative energy in pursuing the basic objective, which was to seek public opinion on the Calgary framework for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, as members know, they pursued a very innovative consultation process, which I'll describe in a minute, and ultimately made a report, which I will also briefly describe. They made a report to our Legislature of their findings.

Now, in the intervening period, another event took place that I would like to report to the Legislature about, and that was a meeting that was held in Winnipeg last November between the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations and the first ministers, where they presented the ministers with a framework of principles for discussion of relationships between federal, provincial and territorial governments and aboriginal governments and peoples. That framework was designed to ensure appropriate respect between aboriginal peoples and all other peoples who have come to the land which is now Canada, and that that respectful relationship would be sustained in future constitutional discussions and processes.

The first ministers of the provinces and the territories took the framework of principles designed by the aboriginal leaders back to their respective jurisdictions and, in the Yukon, those principles were delivered to the unity commission.

Now, the unity commission, as members know, undertook a town hall simulcast meeting, a technical marvel by most estimates. It was simulcast on Television Northern Canada, CHON-FM and CKRW.

It was held on November 26 and there were 300 direct participants, and many more viewers, of course. That evening was a memorable evening in many respects, not only for the production values associated with the event, but also with the wise advice that was provided by so many Yukoners, as well as the participation of the federal Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, who was able to provide the national perspective on those discussions.

There was also a questionnaire that was distributed, Mr. Speaker, 13,000 in total, also published in the Yukon News and the Whitehorse Star, as well as l'Aurore Boreale, as well as on our unity website. This questionnaire had 209 respondents who responded directly to the MLAs of the ridings where they lived. Those responses were delivered to the MLAs and were also compiled as part of the report from the unity commission to the Legislature.

Beyond this consultation, Mr. Speaker, there were also some direct consultations, three times in total, with the executives of l'Association Franco-Yukonnaise. I understand that those consultations were conducted in French.

Mr. Speaker, the findings of the unity commission are both encouraging, from the perspective of Canadian nationalists, and also compelling. A large majority of respondents supported the seven principles for unity in the Calgary declaration. Many people expressed a strong desire to preserve Canadian unity. A substantial majority wanted their elected leaders to continue to pursue a resolution to keep to Quebec in Confederation.

The commission concluded that the Calgary declaration be regarded as a first step in a process of reconciliation and renewal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say that there were, of course, those in our community who dissented with the vast majority view and expressed some concern about some elements of the declaration. There were some people, of course, who felt quite exhausted by the constitutional debate of the past decade and somewhat resentful that the political leadership of the country was still attempting to send messages to Quebec and to those who would break up the country that the country was worth saving. While I respectfully disagree with those comments, I am pleased that those people took the trouble to express their opinions to the commission and to the MLAs directly through responses to the questionnaire.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, that we have a good broad view of the sentiments of the general public.

Given the thoughtful and considered comments that many people made on Canadian unity, the unity commission recommended that the Legislative Assembly support the principles for national unity in the Calgary declaration and support continued efforts by Canadians and their elected leaders to seek a resolution to the issue. They recommended that this Legislative Assembly endorse the framework for discussion on relationships presented by the national aboriginal leaders in Winnipeg on November 18, 1997. They recommended that the Government of Yukon continue to involve Yukoners in the unity process and provide information on the content of the Calgary declaration and the rationale behind the principles for national unity. They asked that the Legislative Assembly affirm its support for the Calgary declaration and that it be without prejudice to the aspirations regarding the future constitutional development of the Yukon, and they asked the Legislative Assembly to confirm its ongoing support for French language minority rights outside Quebec and the English language minority rights inside Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that we have on the floor this afternoon fully embraces all of the recommendations the unity commission makes and goes a step further.

As has occurred in other jurisdictions, we have fine-tuned the wording of the Calgary declaration in our motion to better reflect critical concerns raised during the consultations. I'll point out, Mr. Speaker, that these concerns were raised by the community unity commission with the leaders when they presented the report on the morning of the formal announcements of the conclusions of the commission.

We, in the motion, have replaced the reference of Canadian diversity as a gift in recognition of aboriginal people's unique place in Canada, which is a truer descriptor of our nation. And we have added the reference to culture with respect to French and English linguistic diversity. We also acknowledge in the motion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the linguistic minority rights of the French and English outside and inside Quebec, respectively, also include their rights and unique cultural communities.

Mr. Speaker, this motion and the grassroots public expression it represents embodies all that citizens expressed as the values they most love about their country. If passed - and I'm trusting that it will, of course, be unanimously endorsed by all members - this motion will be sent to all provinces and territories and to the federal government to add our voice, our Yukon Canadian voice, to the cause of national unity.

I would like to end, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon by saying that I would particularly like to thank the people of the Yukon Territory for expressing their views. I would like to thank very much the members of the unity commission who put so much heart and soul into this project, and I would like to thank the members of the Legislature who have provided so much constructive comment about the process to date, and thank everyone for standing once again and speaking up for Canada.

Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour to rise today to speak to this very important motion on endorsing the Calgary declaration.

I want to say at the outset that when we have a motion like this presented - with the negotiations and the talks that went on between the three political parties that are represented in this Legislature to try to reach a consensus as to how we deal with this motion, how we endorse the Calgary declaration, and how we give our Government Leader the support that he needs from the Yukon people to be able to continue on a course of keeping Canada united and lending our support to that - it is one of those rare occasions where we, as political parties of different philosophical beliefs, all have the same goal in mind and don't resort to playing partisan political games with it, because I believe it is far too important.

Although our Legislature itself is set up to be an adversarial forum for expressing views on behalf of our constituents, this is one of those rare occasions when we can work together for the betterment of all Canadians. I'm glad to be a part of that.

I want to thank the Government Leader for the leadership that he's shown in bringing together a consensus to bring forth a motion to this Legislature that we can all support and we can all speak to. I'm sure, as he has stated, we will have unanimous consent of this legislative body, which is a representation of the people of the Yukon, for the Calgary declaration.

I, too, would like to thank the unity commission, some of whom I see are in the gallery with us today, and thank them for their hard work and for the dedication that they put in to seeking out the views of Yukoners and then tabulating those views and passing on their recommendations, as they were instructed, to the Government Leader.

They did this in a very timely manner. It's not one of those issues that we could have dragged out for a long time, and I'm glad to see that they responded and worked very, very hard bringing it together. There were some very diverse people on the commission itself - different political parties and some very diverse views, I'm sure. But again, I believe that they were a group of people who all had the best interests of Canada at heart.

I don't want to spend time today repeating what the Government Leader has said. He's covered off a lot of how we came to be at this point in time, where this motion needs to be debated in our Legislature and the decision that the Yukon people passed on to Canadians in general in promotion of a stronger Canada.

There is no doubt that the debate on the future of Canada will continue for some time into the future. I know that I, as would many other Canadians, would like to see this issue put to rest and come out with a conclusion to it that keeps a strong and united Canada.

There are other people in this country who would like to see this country torn apart, and on one of those rare occasions in this Legislature, I can wholeheartedly agree with the Government Leader. I am not one of those people. I believe that this is an issue that is worth fighting for and fighting very hard for, because I believe that a divided Canada would be a much weaker Canada.

We have watched over the years the numerous attempts to try to finding a resolution to this issue. We have seen political leaders who have worked very diligently in the past, and very hard, who are no longer with us, have moved on. The issue is still here. The issue has not changed.

What do we need to do to be able to have all Canadians say, "We are proud to belong to a united Canada"?

I think it's important for members of this Legislature, and any of those in the Yukon public who are listening to this debate or will be reading it in Hansard later on, those of us who believe in a united Canada, that when we hear the people who are working to divide this country, that those people - some of our own citizens - who don't feel it's that important an issue. We have all heard people say, "Well, if they want to leave, let them leave. It isn't going to affect me." I think it's our responsibility as elected people in this Legislature to talk to those people and to point out to them the weaknesses of their argument.

While that may be the feeling of the person at the time - and we all get frustrated with this issue; we all say, "Why do we have to deal with this again?" - I think it's fundamentally important that we provide the leadership to convince those Canadians, Yukoners and otherwise, who don't have the interest and won't speak out in support of this issue and keep Canada united, and to point out to them what we would lose if, in fact, we were to allow this country to be separated.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very, very clear that I believe we would all lose - and we would all lose big time - if we do not win this issue.

As I said, this discussion has gone on for many years. There has been so much consultation held on this issue, it makes people's heads spin. It makes people not want to participate. As I stand here today, I'm very, very proud of Yukoners - all of those Yukoners who took the time to present their views to the unity commission and who felt it was important that their views were heard and taken into consideration when the unity commission was going to make its recommendations to the Government Leader.

I think that one of the things that makes our country so strong is that we do have diverse views and diverse positions, but we need to be able to pull together in the final analysis and find that balance that is going to be supported by a majority of Canadians. We haven't been able to do that with this issue yet.

We saw Meech Lake fall apart when we thought we had an agreement that was reached by the leaders of our provinces and territories and the federal government. We saw the hard work that went into the Charlottetown Accord and we saw it rejected out of hand by the people of Canada, overwhelmingly.

So, as a result of having had the opportunity and the privilege of sitting in that chair opposite to the one that the Government Leader is sitting in now and representing the Yukon and knowing how gun shy politicians across Canada are, we're dealing with a constitutional issue of national unity again.

It has burned some politicians and burned them badly.

So there has been a reluctance. I know that in the four years that I was Government Leader, it was an issue that came up at almost every conference I went to. Yet, nobody really wanted to sink their teeth into it. We all knew we had to. We all knew the day would come when we would have to face this issue again, no matter how unpalatable we found it.

I do agree with our Government Leader that the Premier of Saskatchewan has been a strong voice for national unity and has provided strong leadership in the national unity debate for many, many years. I find it remarkable that he still has the energy, the enthusiasm, the drive and the dedication to continue his work after he was part of Meech Lake, Charlottetown and the whole ball of wax that goes around national unity and constitutional issues in this country. Nevertheless, I respect him for his tenacity in dealing with this issue, and I know that he'll provide strong leadership in the future.

I think the way I would like to sum up my opinion today is by sharing with the Legislature the views of some of my constituents who answered the questionnaires that were sent out by the commission on the seven principles of the Calgary declaration. I believe that the views of some of my constituents who answered this are views that are shared by most Yukoners and most Canadians.

Number one was: "Do you generally support the principles of national unity as a basis for renewing Canada?" Of all of my constituents who answered, all but one agreed with the majority of the principles. "Quebec is not fundamental to the well-being of Canada, but it adds to the well-being, or, it adds interest to Canada." "All Canadians are equal," was a view that was expressed, "French, native and all other minorities."

"Wishful thinking that Canadians are equal and have rights protected by law and that Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world, if we could implement them."

I think that's a great statement. We have a greater strength in numbers in our diversity, culture, origin, and freedom in this country. Those are views that were expressed.

The second one is: "In your view, what is best about Canada and being a Canadian?" Some of the views of my constituents were space, reasonable economics, a reasonably clean environment, federal/provincial division of responsibilities, a good-looking future, a peaceful democracy and unity. Some expressed its diversity in lifestyle, its medicare and its resources. Others expressed being treated like a human being in other countries once they realized that we weren't Americans. I think that's a great view to have, and Canadians can be proud of that - that we are seen by other areas of the world as different from Americans, even though we sometimes don't believe that ourselves.

Diversity, freedom, which we take for granted and do not appreciate, as well, and our social programs, which are eroding. Our medical health care system. However, there were expressions of the Prime Minister's denial of a free vote on Bill C-68. So, there are issues of many, many sorts but we, as Canadians, pull together when we're asked to in the issue of national unity.

And number three: "Should your elected leaders continue to try to find ways to make Canada work better?" One person expressed, "They always do that anyway. This is leading." They considered it a patronizing question to get a desired response. Another person said, "Yes, but how? Leaders do not listen." There's a lot of truth in that statement. A lot of times as leaders we don't listen, or we have selective hearing, and we're all guilty of it. I don't think anybody can blame anybody else any more of that. We're all guilty of that at times, in that we hear what we want to hear, and that may be the problem with the national unity issue in Canada. One part of the country is hearing one thing from the same statement that another part of the country is taking a totally different interpretation of.

Another person said, "We need to take constitutional discussions out of the hands of the premiers and the Prime Minister. They failed twice already - Meech Lake and Charlottetown - and they will screw it up again." Well, they may be right, but this is a question that I don't know the answer to. I wish I did, but the premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada couldn't reach an agreement on it, and when they did reach an agreement on it, Canadians dismissed it out of hand in almost every jurisdiction in Canada, I believe - it was dismissed; the vote was against the Charlottetown Accord - and all for their own specific reason, not for the package. Maybe it wasn't sold well enough. Maybe that's what happened. Maybe our politicians didn't do a good enough job of selling the package. I don't know, but I know that because of the fact that we were unable to reach an agreement at Meech Lake and we were unable to reach an agreement at Charlottetown, we ended up in a referendum that we almost lost. I believe that it woke up many people in Canada.

So, Mr. Speaker, these were comments made by my constituents - and many more, I won't go through them all - but from what I've said here on that, I think they are basically comments that are no different from my constituents than they are from other constituents in Canada. They all had a similar response and a very diverse response as to how we should resolve this issue.

We have today in Canada a question in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. Whether we agree with the Prime Minister taking it to the Supreme Court or not is not the issue. The issue is that it's there, and it is open for debate across this country.

There are many approaches. There are many views as to whether Quebec can separate or cannot separate. My fundamental belief is that it's not a question that ought to be answered in the courts. It's a question that has to be answered in the political forum. The court may set out a procedure, in my opinion, as to how separation would take place if there was a democratic vote for it. I'm going to be very interested in seeing what the Supreme Court comes up with. I think they've been handed a very hot political football and it's going to be interesting to see how they rule on it.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, never did have any difficulty with the Calgary declaration. I have no difficulty with the changes that have been made to the motion in support of the Calgary declaration as laid out by Yukoners and as a result of the meeting that the Government Leader attended in Winnipeg with First Nations people.

This is an issue that we all have to work together on. I know that we, in the Yukon, have always taken the position in conferences that we were in favour of national unity. We did not want to see Quebec leave and we would work very diligently and do whatever was required of us to help keep it in Canada.

I believe that the Government Leader touched on this in his presentation, but I believe it is worthy of further comment, and that is about the number of Yukoners who were quick to jump on an airplane and go to Montreal in the dying days of the referendum when all Canadians who wanted to see this country stay together were getting very, very worried and very scared that we were going to lose that referendum.

I take my hat off to those people who took the time to go and let Quebeckers know that we supported them and we wanted them to stay in Canada.

The unilateral separation of any province, or any part of this country, would fracture the very foundation that Canada was built on. We are a nation that was built by two founding peoples, both French and English. We are a nation of aboriginal peoples. We are a nation to which many minorities have emigrated and taken out Canadian citizenship.

We are a very diverse nation, and I believe that, as a diverse nation, it is a nation that gives us more strength.

One of my constituents also mentioned that the power is in numbers. Quebeckers and Canadians benefit from unity, and the mathematics speak for themselves. I'd like to quote Keith Spicer, who was head of the citizens' forum on unity in 1991, and as a former official language commissioner, summed it up:

"Are you better off together, with 30 million against 250 million? Or are you better off with six million against 300 million anglophones, who are surrounding you and, out of those, 24 million who, yesterday, were your allies, and are now, putting it mildly, not very interested in defending your interests?"

I think that's a very powerful statement, and one that I hope we never have to deal with. I hope that this country will stay together. I know I will do all that I can to convince those people who believe that it shouldn't stay together that they are wrong, that there are many opportunities for Canadians, for our children and our grandchildren, in this great country, and that we do enjoy a very high-quality lifestyle. We only enjoy that because we are such a diverse nation and can draw on the different cultures of many, many nations from around Canada - from their people who have come and settled in this great land of ours because they believe in the democratic system that we have set up here and that respects the people of this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Calgary declaration, I support the motion as presented by the Government Leader, and I sincerely hope that the role that we play in this will help to keep Canada united. Thank you very much.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to the motion before us. I'm honoured that the people of Porter Creek South have asked that I represent them here and that the Yukon Liberal Party has selected me to lead their views in this Chamber.

I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the fellow leaders in this House, fellow legislators, the Yukon unity commission and its staff members, and most especially the people of the Yukon for their contribution to this discussion and to the Yukon unity commission report.

I would like to express also my appreciation to the government's director of public communications services who has diligently recorded and enclosed the comments from the people of our constituencies to each of us.

The debate on national unity began for me in a very personal way almost 20 years ago. I was asked to help represent the Yukon at the interchange on Canadian studies in Quebec City. This group of Yukoners, including a principal from Faro, students from Dawson City and from Watson Lake, decided among ourselves that each of us would make a presentation about the Yukon, and I was asked to give the address on how we in the Yukon were governed. I opened those remarks by saying how sad it was that I was explaining to the assembled students, largely from Quebec, how badly we wanted to get into the country and they were explaining to me how badly they wanted out.

That was the beginning of my understanding and my appreciation and true understanding for the people of Quebec. It also, I believe, speaks to the fundamental underpinnings of what we now refer to as the Calgary declaration. The Calgary declaration has done what no other constitutional effort has done. It has set out for all Canadians principles of national unity.

My, we do have difficulty defining ourselves as Canadians and as a country, don't we? I remember reading the transcripts of the Berger inquiry - again, 20 years ago - and I believe it was then that the then mayor of Calgary, who is now the Premier of Alberta, said at the hearings, "Canada is the only country in the world that's continually ripping itself up by the roots to see if it's still growing." That attitude was prevalent in the '70s, and I believe the Government Leader has already referred to that attitude as well. We do, thank goodness, define ourselves by more than our prowess at our national game, hockey.

We, as Canadians, are lucky, and we consider ourselves not just lucky but truly blessed to be born in or to emigrate to a country of such opportunity, of such high standards of health and education, a country with room for all, with resources to support ourselves, and the will to help others in nations less fortunate than our own. This is a land that is rich in history and in possibilities. We are part of the best country in the world.

Year after year, by the standards measured, Canada comes out on top as the best nation to live in. Our lifestyles and the rights and freedoms we enjoy are not to be taken for granted.

It is incumbent upon us all - politicians, citizens, old, young, First Nations immigrants - to work to ensure that this great nation continues to function to the benefit of all Canadians. We must make this federation strong and responsive to the needs of all Canadians.

It was interesting that my colleague, the Member for Porter Creek North, also chose to note and quote from the views of his constituents. I was particularly interested in this response from one of my constituents. In answer to the question, "Should your elected leaders continue to try to find ways to make Canada work better?" this constituent said, "If Canadians worked harder at keeping Canada working better, it would be less important for separatists to separate."

We need to work harder. We needed to seek out and establish principles for keeping this country together. The "we" needed to be not simply the political leaders and politicians. Yukoners themselves needed to speak to this issue and needed to be heard.

I'd like to particularly note the unity commission and other leaders, in their efforts to ensure that Yukoners were heard: Don Taylor, tracking down those Yukoners not normally reached by cell phone as they would be in some other parts of this country, but tracking those who are out in the bush.

The electronic town hall was truly Yukon history in the making.

Leadership that was demonstrated by the Yukon unity commission must not be forgotten. The Yukon unity commission has summarized the views of Yukoners and has recommended five key points to us.

I think it's important to review those five points: that we support the principles for national unity in the Calgary declaration; that we endorse the framework for discussion on the relationships that was presented to the premiers and government leaders by the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations in Winnipeg in November of last year; that we continue to involve Yukoners in the unity process, and; that the Yukon Legislative Assembly affirm that its support for the Calgary declaration is without prejudice to its aspirations regarding the future constitutional development of the Yukon.

We tend to forget sometimes, as Yukoners, just how much history and how much work has gone into even the legislative structure we enjoy today, and that the Legislative Assembly confirms its ongoing support for French language minority rights outside Quebec and English language minority rights inside Quebec.

I wholeheartedly accept the recommendations of the Yukon unity commission, and I accept, as well, that this is a majority viewpoint, and it's not shared by absolutely everyone. That, too, is part of the diversity, the tolerance and the compassion that we, as Canadians, extend to one another.

Although there are often differences in opinion in this House, and between Canadians - not this time. For perhaps the first time today we, as Yukoners, I trust, will agree on some very key principles. We accept that all Canadians are equal, and that we all must have rights protected by the law, and that all provinces must have equality of status. I accept that the largest part of Canada's grace lies in its diversity, its tolerance, its compassion and its attention to equality of opportunity. We accept that.

We accept that our rich diversity includes aboriginal peoples and cultures, the English and French languages and our multicultural citizenry. We accept that the unique character of Quebec society is fundamental to the well-being of Canada and that the Legislature and Government of Quebec have a responsibility, a role, to ensure that that society's unique characteristics are defended, protected and promoted within Canada.

We accept that powers conferred on any one province must be available to all other provinces - we have especially noted that here in the Yukon - and we accept that federal and provincial governments must work cooperatively.

We accept these principles. We accept them, and I as a member of this Legislature am proud to offer my vote and my support for this motion.

I would like to again express my thanks for the leadership that the Government Leader has demonstrated in bringing forward this motion, in seeking all-party agreement, and for the work of the Yukon unity commission, and I would like to close my remarks by expressing my fond hope that this unprecedented expression by Canadian legislators of the desire and support for the principles for national unity, this leadership that has been demonstrated over the past few months, will truly point to a nation united.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the opposition noted, it is rare in this House that we have an opportunity to speak on something that is as important and profound as the future of this country, the future of Canada. It's a privilege that is not to be taken lightly, and for a person like myself, a person who came from elsewhere, Canada is and always will remain a rare and unique place.

I grew up in a place where sectarianism was the rule and where communities for generations had been divided by barriers of religion and class. It was a society that for years and centuries had been based on exclusion. Seamus Haney, the Irish poet, once called it the ministry of fear.

At the age of nine, I came to Canada with my family, and from a narrow, parochial society of Protestant Belfast, I found myself in a country where most of the kids I went to school with were from very different religious, ethnic and social backgrounds. I remember at the age of nine this being a revelation, a stunning revelation, because I discovered at that time that Canada not only represented a place - was not only a physical, political state - but, like many immigrants who have come to this country, I discovered that it also represented freedom - not only a political freedom, but a freedom from old prejudices, hatreds and ancient grievances.

Too often we define nationalism as who we are not, a closing of the door against people who are outsiders or people who are different, and I believe that much of the tragedy of the 20th century can be seen in this narrow nationalism.

Canada to me has always represented inclusion rather than exclusion. It is a country that embraces people because of their diversity. The very nature of this country is the acceptance of diversity and our ability to accommodate our differences.

Mr. Speaker, because of this, I believe that Canada is not and never will be a finished product. It is a country that will always be in transition.

In a very real sense, the dynamic tension that's existed in Canada for the past 130 years has led to a nation that has truly evolved in the treatment of its citizens. In a sense, that's why I'm so profoundly disturbed at those who would seek to reduce my country: in Quebec, the narrow nationalists who lay claim to my heritage, saying it's theirs; those who say I have no claim to Dollard des Ormeaux, Louis Hebert, Cartier, Champlain, Henri Bourassa, and, yes, Louis Joseph Papineau, to those who say that I don't have equal claim to Place Royale, Ile D'Orléans, Outremonte, Grand Bergeron and the Gaspé.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, what can we think of those people who say there is no difference, those who deny that people in other parts of Canada have legitimate aspirations?

Mr. Speaker, this country has survived and flourished because of differences. We're better in this House because we are Tlingit, Tutchone, Gwichin and European. We are better in this territory because we are German, Vietnamese, Tagish, Czech, Ukranian. We are better in this country because we are Scots, Poles, Chinese and French.

Mr. Speaker, the Calgary declaration is a recognition of that fact and a recommitment to the basic principles of fairness, tolerance and civility that characterize this country.

It is often joked that we are so polite, so civil, it's said that Canadians are the only people who say thank you to an ATM machine.

But, really, in a world that's based on conflict and self-interest, is civility such a bad thing? Frank Scott, the great constitutional scholar, poet and lawyer, once wrote a brief poem that, in its gentle, jibbing way, I think says a great deal about this country and its virtues. It's called "Bon Entente" - Scott taught at McGill and lived in Montreal:

"The advantages of living with two cultures

Strike one at every turn,

Especially when one finds a notice in an office building:

'This elevator will not run on Ascension Day';

Or reads in the Montreal Star:

'Tomorrow being the Feast of the Immaculate Conception,

There will be no collection of garbage in the city';

Or sees on the restaurant menu the bilingual dish:

Deep apple pie/tarte aux pommes profundes."

Mr. Speaker, what Scott was saying is that a culture can embrace differences, a culture can be encompassing, a culture can bring together people from diverse backgrounds who can live together and flourish together.

In my travels in Quebec, I have never, on a personal level, felt any animosity. I have never felt anyone question me as to what they felt was any kind of oppressive nature of the rest of Canada. I have expressed to my Quebec confrères, as recently as last September, some of my frustrations with the kind of narrow nationalism I see.

I had dinner with David Payne, a Parti Québecois MNA from the south shore, and I expressed my concerns about the narrowness of the Quebec vision. When the ice storms struck the south shore, I sent a note to David expressing our concerns, and I was surprised to see the expression of surprise that came from many people in Quebec over the generosity of the rest of Canada.

I think unity has been a preoccupation of Canadians for so many years. I am reminded of the Trudeau years, repatriation of the Constitution, Meech Lake, Charlottetown and the "kitchen accord". I think the first political book I ever read was when I was a teenager reading Trudeau's Federalism and the French-Canadians and was rather awed by Pierre Trudeau's logic and his brilliant dissection of the separatist arguments.

I think sometimes here in the Yukon we have felt, because of our distance, that we're immune to some of these national problems and I think probably many of us think that if we just sort of ignored it, it would go away. But the problem of Canadian unity hasn't gone away. It continues to haunt us. We continue to struggle with what it means to be a Canadian and the importance of retaining Quebec as part of our society, the value of each region of this country, the contribution of each ethnic group, the multicultural element, the many languages. It's ironic sometimes that the very characteristics that make our country special, unique and the envy of the world - such qualities as the variety of languages, multiculturalism, ethnicity - are the very things that cause us tensions.

The problem of finding a solution has been so Canadian. The qualities of democracy, consensus, politeness, inclusiveness have all pervaded this process.

I believe that the recent consultations around the Calgary declaration have solidified the general feelings of Canadians toward their country, toward what they see as valuable in this country.

Other members in here have referred to reactions that they've received from their constituents. I can tell you that the people from Whitehorse West, in their response, have echoed many of those: freedom of speech, social safety net, cultural diversity, understanding, human rights and fair laws are, in their views, some of those characteristics that make Canada great, and they generally support the basic principles of national unity in the Calgary declaration as a basis for renewing our country.

They challenge us as elected leaders to try and continue to find ways to make this country work better.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe for a moment that we've articulated all the possible solutions to the unity problem, nor do I believe we ever will. We will always be in a struggle to make this country work. We will always be in a struggle to make this country better.

I think what's happened is we've somehow been sidetracked by some narrower issues and have forgotten why we have such faith in this country.

I believe that we will be able to find the strength to draw us through this difficult time. I think we've got tremendous resources to draw on. We have the minds, we have the unique thinkers, we have the constitutional experts, but more than that, we have the will, we have the desire and we have the fundamental decent nature of Canadians to carry us through. We're not the only country to face these kinds of difficulties of unity, and there will be struggles. They will be tough, tough struggles, but I can tell you from personal, bitter experience, there is no other way.

I have the experience in my own life of coming from a nation where people could not reconcile differences. We must make this work.

I support the Calgary declaration and this motion, but even moreso, I support Canada. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be short in my response.

I rise in support of this motion. I believe that the Yukon Commission on Unity has done a good job and has done good work, and that it has listened carefully and respectfully to the people of the Yukon and what they have to say about national unity. Their work deserves the endorsement of this Assembly.

It comes as no surprise to me that Yukoners support the principles outlined in the Calgary declaration. They seem like common sense to me. They recognize what we are as a country, the values that have united us and the diversity and tolerance that are our strength. I think it's very important that efforts to keep this country together will not be left in the hands of politicians alone. I believe that we, as politicians, have the responsibility to involve people. I suspect that far fewer people would have commented on the principles of the Calgary declaration if the debate had been left in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

I would like to thank all the members of the Yukon Commission on Unity and their staff for their efforts to reach out and encourage participation in the national unity debate. It struck me as I was reviewing the suggested principles of the Calgary unity declaration that the principles of cooperation, to which it speaks, are certainly practised here in the Yukon.

In the Yukon scale of things, we are doing our best to work cooperatively within the social framework established by the land claims agreement. I think of Mayo as an example where the renewable resource council brings together people representing much of the diversity of the community. The council's recommendations to Yukon, federal and First Nation governments are helping us work together to meet the needs of the people, the wild lands and the wildlife on which the Yukon people put such high value.

The message that came across loud and clear to the unity commission, and within the national context, too, the Yukon has supported initiatives, such as the national accord on the environmental cooperation that lays out a cooperative, flexible framework to ensure that efficiency and effectiveness of the federation as laid out in the principle 7 of the unity declaration.

In these times of tight resources, we need to work together to make the best use of what we have. I was pleased to see that the commission both listened to and heeded the advice of those who spoke of the need to more explicitly address the constitutional concerns of First Nations and their unique status within the federation.

Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal people of Canada have always spoken about keeping their land and water clean and they've always spoken of the importance that the land provides for us, and now, putting greed aside, have reflected, and people are speaking out for the protection of our land. At times it seems to define who we are.

We have always known that the land provides for us and we have always said and expressed, as Canadians, a lot of pride in our land, much as we have, unlike most countries, reflected this right in our Canadian flag in having a maple leaf representing the land in which we live.

At times, the aboriginal people in Canada are forgotten or not looked at as closely as we should be. During the federation talks, when Canadians felt that our country was about to fall apart, one thing they started to focus on was the aboriginal people in Quebec. What about the land and the outstanding issues that are out there?

In the Yukon, since the influx of non-native people, I think that we've come a long way in living together and working together, and it's reflected in our governments today and the First Nation agreements that are out there. The Yukon is a good place to live.

I strongly support the commission's recommendations that the Legislative Assembly should endorse the framework for discussions on relationships presented to the premiers and the territorial leaders by the leaders of the five national aboriginal organizations. I believe that some progressive principles were advanced by the framework, and that the recommended approach is consistent with what we have tried to achieve here in the Yukon. I believe that the final agreements negotiated here are important instruments to resolve the issue of resource sharing and management in a manner that will promote economic and social development with certainty and public acceptance.

As I have already mentioned in passing, they also open the doors for greater public involvement in the decisions that affect all of us and our common resources. I think that it's also important that the framework for discussions document notes that any rebalancing of federation should not diminish the fiduciary and constitutional responsibility of Canada in its capacity to honour its commitments and obligations to all Canadians.

Too often we have seen the Government of Canada attempt to retreat from its obligation in its pursuit of deficit reduction. It is very important that that goal not be achieved at the cost of the country itself.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are privileged to live in a country that is the envy of the world, and in a territory that is sometimes the envy of that and, in my view, should be the envy of our country.

We have demonstrated that we can live and work together and prosper together through cooperation - First Nations, French, English and all of us who have joined the people in this founding nation from all corners of the planet. We have something special here, and I support the motion and the direction it gives to government to continue to work together and toward a renewal of a healthy and vibrant Canada.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's an honour and a privilege today to rise in this House and speak to the motion before us - the motion of Canada's unity - and to accept the report of the Yukon Commission on Unity, and to support the principles for national unity that were outlined in the Calgary declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I go back a number of years - and probably I'm somewhat unique as to how I view this issue before us today. I was born, raised and educated in Montreal, and grew up in a bilingual environment. I grew up where there existed two different systems in language and two different systems in education, both based on the religion that you had. There was always a friction between the English and the French, and there was always a friction between the Catholics and the Protestants.

When one grows up in that environment, one becomes acutely aware of what the separatists in Quebec are seeking - their language paramount and one distinct society - but it goes much beyond that. It goes much beyond the issue of language. When one looks at the laws in Quebec, civil law is still the Napoleonic code, criminal law is based on the British system. The only other place in North America that that exists is Louisiana, where their civil law is based on the Napoleonic code. And it's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that there are more French-speaking residents in Louisiana than there are in Canada. Yet we don't hear of the difficulties that they have of being part of the United States of America versus what people living in Quebec have of being part of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Calgary declaration has succeeded in involving Canadians at large in discussions regarding Canada's future and keeping Canadians together, and indeed Canada together, as one country. This process was not as exhaustive an experience as previous forums were. It was very painless and non-partisan. My thanks go to the members of the unity commission for the time and the hard work they spent seeking the views of Yukoners on the principles outlined in the Calgary declaration.

The time constraint of the window that they had was quite narrow, and yet they did a wonderful job, and again my congratulations to those members.

Thanks to their efforts, I believe the unity commission has been successful in coming up with a set of recommendations for keeping Canada united, based on the views and opinions of Yukoners. Each member has brought with them their own thoughts, beliefs and their opinions, while sharing a common commitment toward keeping Canada as one. I reflect back on the questionnaires submitted to me by my constituents in the Klondike, and there was a general consensus that they were pleased with the process, and they were pleased with the forums that were held and, of all the issues that the questionnaires were sent out on, I received the most back on the unity question of any of the questions posed to my constituency.

So, again, it is an issue that we all hold dear to our hearts, and overall, they supported the framework of the Calgary declaration. They felt it was a very broad-based representation of how they perceive Canada, and they also thought it was flexible enough to keep Canada together. There were those who felt passionately about Canada as a country, but there's also that growing feeling of cynicism among a lot of people in my riding, and indeed in Canada - a cynicism about what is the use of trying to reach a consensus given the number of times that we've tried. We've tried in the past a number of times and failed - failed almost to the point where the referendum has taken hold in Quebec, and they receive the majority.

It seems that we Canadians, since time, have been trying to find a way of defining Canada and what it means to Canadians in words and then enshrine them in a formal constitution. While the Calgary declaration is not another constitution but words of support for Canada, I believe the words are solely not enough. As Canadians from all walks of life, from all corners of the nation, it is imperative that we take action, not just action as politicians and governments, but actions by Canadians at large to work together in the spirit of unity.

The timing of the Calgary declaration was no accident, Mr. Speaker. Provincial elections in Quebec are expected in the not-so-distant future, in the spring of this year. Current polls indicate that the Parti Québecois government under their Premier Lucien Bouchard will win again. And it's no deep, dark secret that Mr. Bouchard intends to hold another referendum on independence. The growth in support for sovereignty over the last 30 years, which fell just short of 50 percent in the 1995 referendum, suggests that a majority in the next referendum could occur.

Just regressing, Mr. Speaker, growing up in that environment, it's very close to me as to how the people in Quebec view separatism. I still have family that live and reside in Quebec. I still have business interests in that province - somewhat more profitable today than business interests in the Yukon, I might add. Given the bilingual nature of the Province of Quebec, I know my first job came about as a result of my ability to speak English to my boss and speak French to the workers that I was associated with. English was our language at home, French was our language on the street, yet I failed French miserably in high school.

The message we have to send to Quebec - to the people in Quebec and, specifically, the Bloc Québecois - is that Canada is a much better country with them. Canada is probably one of the best countries in the world to live in. I believe that. It's a position affirmed by the United Nations. It is a position that, when one who resides in Quebec looks outside their boundaries and then goes back to Quebec, will also believe. Yet, a lot of Québecois do not look beyond their boundaries. They do not go beyond their boundaries.

Education, as to the global economy that we are involved in, would do much to foster Canada as one country.

One of the other areas that I believe we have to concentrate on if we're going to keep Canada together as one is that we all become one Canadian: we are not of this descent or that descent or English-Canadian or French-Canadian; we are a Canadian. As soon as we subscribe to that concept, we will be much better off.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I and my constituents endorse that Canada includes all that it is today. It includes the aboriginal people; it includes the multicultural citizenship from all across the world who have chosen Canada as their home. Indeed, Canada has chosen them. It includes a strong Yukon - strong provinces and territories.

I support this motion, my constituents support this motion, and we support this dialogue as a basis for future discussion and action toward keeping Canada together.

Mr. Hardy: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this motion, and I'd also like to extend my thanks to the people from the unity commission that worked on this, as well as their staff and also all the people of the Yukon that participated. When I say "all people of the Yukon that participated," I mean beyond the submissions that were given, because many people that I know participated by dialogue with other people who did submit. So, it goes beyond the amount that we received in response, and I think it was indicative of the attitude throughout the Yukon in support of the declaration and the work that the unity commission did.

I also attended the last part of the town hall meeting - yeah, I think it was what you can call it, the electronic town hall meeting - and I found it quite a fascinating process and was really encouraged by the input and the excitement that people approached it with. There were still a fair amount of people there when I got there, which was late, but my understanding is that there were a lot of people wanting to get on the line, that wanted to participate that weren't able to, but hopefully their comments were captured through other means.

I join with other Canadians in asserting that all Canadians are equal, have rights protected by law, that all provinces have equality of status, and that Canada is graced by an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world. Now, it could be argued that if you're a francophone and living anywhere outside of Quebec, except New Brunswick - if you're living in Newfoundland and used to fish for a living, if you're an aboriginal and struggling with the legacy of cultural imperialism - that equality of right and opportunity may lie well outside your experience, your personal reality.

But putting all that aside, there are laudable sentiments - and these are laudable sentiments - that if we were to undertake a journey toward renewed Canadian unity, we need to embrace these principles that are being articulated and commit ourselves to making them a reality for all Canadians. We have to sometimes rise above concerns that are immediately in front of us, ones that affect us day by day and look at a larger picture, a bigger picture, and I think the picture is Canada.

So, what makes us Canadian and gives us a sense of our uniqueness in the midst of all this diversity that we have within this country? How are we different from our neighbours to the south? Well, some people in the south say that they are a melting pot and in Canada we are a tossed salad, and that's how they describe our cultural differences, our ethnic differences. In some ways, if you like food a lot, that's not a bad description.

I know the member just previous to me, the Member for Klondike, talked about how he views Canada being a greater country because of the diversity, because of the francophones that are part of it, because Quebec's part of Canada, and I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

I've lived in Quebec. I've lived on the west coast - I started in the north and now I have returned to the north, but I have lived in most parts of Canada and have to truly say that I've been enriched by every region that I have lived in, and especially by Quebec because there is a uniqueness there that I value greatly.

I think most Canadians would agree that it's about values that we hold, the values which over the years have governed the way our federation works. Many Canadians and many Yukoners have identified them as the most important unifying force we could point to and have spoken about the critical need to reassert them. While many of us, especially northerners, take pride in our independent nature, our unique character, we don't embrace the brand of rugged individual that is so often seen with the Americans.

We care about our neighbours. That's not saying that they don't, but they have a different approach to the individual aspects of their country. We don't blame the poor and sick for their misfortunes. We take pride in having built a more compassionate and caring society, one that believes that everyone should have equal access to adequate health care, to good education, to good working conditions and to income supports when jobs aren't available. We've taken pride in our universal programs, our pensions and our UIC - what's left of it anyway - and those are comments that were reflected from my constituents. One of them here is, "universal health care, peaceful co-existence, tolerant society, decent standard of living". That's what they see are of great value. Peaceful co-existence I find is a wonderful statement, and tolerant society, and I think that's what Canada is seen in the world as being. We are known throughout the world as peacekeepers,

Within our own country we can have this debate, and maybe people are tired of it. Maybe they're tired of the unity debate, but it is our debate and I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed to say that we can openly discuss what makes up this country, how it's united, the differences within our country, and be proud of it and try to work to find the commonality and strength that we have and the values that we hold dear.

In many other countries you can't do that. You can't discuss this matter. I'm reading The Long Walk to Freedom right now, Nelson Mandela's book - his autobiography - and it's absolutely impossible in South Africa to have this kind of discussion on the differences of equality without being put in jail, being beaten and being suppressed. That's one thing that Canada, more than any other country in the world, I believe, can do - have this kind of debate - and in that regard I'm very proud of it.

I may get tired of it, but I'm very proud of it. We haven't resorted to violence to solve our differences within our own country and we do have that tolerance for each other and different opinions.

Unfortunately, over the last few years, we've witnessed massive erosion of so many of the programs and services that I just mentioned. They give our country its unique character, which bound us together as Canadians, but I fear that if the process continues, we run the risk of becoming little more than a loosely associated bunch of semi-sovereign states - some of them haves and some of them have-nots. I think it's pretty easy to figure out who would be the haves and who would be the have-nots in the states right now.

An article in July 1996, in the Globe and Mail, stated, "As the debate over Canada's political union grinds on, Canada's economic union has almost, unnoticed, been dissolved. It has not been a cataclysmic, traumatizing disintegration or political breakup. Rather, there has been a slow unravelling at the hands of two relentless forces over the last decade. One is the economic integration fusing the Canadian economy to that of the United States. Another is the federal bankruptcy and regional self-assertiveness tearing the provinces from one another." That was in 1996, and I believe it's continuing. I believe that has exacerbated some of the problems that exist between the provinces and territories.

How did we get into this position? We can talk about certain governments, such as Mulroney years, the Trudeau era, federal laws that were passed, statements that were made that have caused harm, anger and bitterness. That is part of it. We can talk about massive cuts to federal-provincial transfer payments. That sure hurts. That creates inequality and resentment within our own country. We talk about what's going on now and the continuation of cuts - the pain that we feel there - and the block funding transfers, especially up here.

Our national standards have been eroded, and that has an impact on how Canada is viewed by each other and if we feel equal and united across the country. As you get that pressure in each region, you become very insular and you become very individualistic. You start to look after what is your own. You start to resent what other people have - what other provinces or territories have - and you get this division, and you see B.C. and Alberta at odds with each other, and you get Alberta and Quebec at odds with each other. You get Ontario and Quebec border fighting over work rules, and it goes way beyond trade deals and interprovincial agreements. That's allowance of cash. That's not how people feel about each other.

Are we looking at each other as a Canadian, the whole body, and not as "I'm from B.C." or "I'm a Yukoner" or "I'm from Alberta," but how we are as Canadians? I feel that with these changes, we have begun to look at ourselves more as "I'm from the Yukon" or "I am a Yukoner," and not "I am a Canadian," because we don't have the universal programs that we had historically, and there may be very good reasons why not, but we don't have them as we did historically to attach to and stand up and be proud of. Now we find we're being separated inadvertently by them.

Most Canadians believe in federation. I think that's what our unity commission has found, and a federation by definition implies a strong federal government to manage our common affairs - those areas of shared concern, like health care, education, social welfare - and it's a role of the federal government, and I am a very strong supporter of the federal government maintaining those roles, maintaining that control and distribution of wealth and programs throughout Canada.

We can't app