Whitehorse, Yukon

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.

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

Hon. Mr. Jim: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly to pay tribute to a very close and dear friend of mine and of a lot of people all over the Yukon. She was a special Yukoner, Lena Rose Johns, who passed away recently in Whitehorse.

Lena was born at Lower Lake Laberge on January 15, 1934. She was the fourth child of Jim and Alice Sam and grandniece of Chief Jim Boss. Lena belonged to Dakhl'awedi Clan, the Wolf Clan. As a child, Lena attended the Chootla residential school in Carcross, and later the Whitehorse Baptist mission school. Here, she met and married Art Johns Senior. They had seven children: Lydia, John, Darlene, Charles, A.J., Daphne, Dino and stepson Conrad.

In the late 1960s, Lena met Pete Borotsik Sr., and together they had two children, Alan and Peter Jr.

Lena was a powerful force in the community. She worked for Yukon Native Products parka factory, and she was also the manager of the Yukon Trappers Association and a NNADAP worker for the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. In 1988-89, Lena was elected councillor of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. In 1989, she was elected chief and remained chief for seven years.

I remember Lena when I was a young child. I used to spend some summers at Lake Laberge. At that time, there were fish around her, and she loved fishing. There were also always children around her. She loved children. Just about everywhere she went, there were children and there were her fish camps.

One of Lena's focuses was Indian child welfare. She developed policy changes to help children remain with their families and also help reunite children with their families. One of her legacies is the Na Kwa Ta Ku Potlatch House. Another is the Ashea Daycare at the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. She helped establish both those two complexes.

Lena loved traditional activities such as fishing, hunting, camping and berry picking. She had a great talent and passion for sewing. She also like the faster pace of city life, especially gambling and bingo.

In October 1998, Lena suffered a serious head injury. Through sheer determination, she recovered and was able to return home and enjoy her time with her children, her 16 grandchildren and her 10 great-grandchildren.

Lena spent most of the past summer working with Shirley Beattie and camping out with the Don't Fence Me In Society. Lena had a wonderful sense of humour, which she shared with her family and her friends. She will be greatly missed for her many talents, skills and knowledge.

On behalf of all the members of this House and all Yukoners, I offer our condolences to her family and all the people of Kwanlin Dun. I know she will be greatly missed. Farewell my friend.

Speaker: If there are no further tributes, I will proceed to introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Roberts: I would like to table the Yukon Hospital Corporation financial statements, March 31, 2000.

Mr. McRobb: I have for tabling the fall 2000 issue of Heritage Magazine, which has a feature article on Dawson City.

Speaker: Are there any other returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

PETITIONS

Clerk: Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 1 of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Member for Kluane on November 15, 2000.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(1) of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, it is the responsibility of the Clerk to report on whether petitions conform to the rules and practices of this House.

Petition No. 1 does not conform in the following respects: it has a covering page setting out a petition in the format of the model petition outlined in Appendix 2 of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly; however, the following pages, on which signatures are found, does not contain the same text as is found on the covering page. The pages with signatures are not addressed to the Yukon Legislative Assembly and do not conclude with a prayer requesting the Assembly to take any specific action.

Standing Order 65(7) states: "Petitions may be either written or printed, provided always that when there are three or more petitioners the signature of at least three petitioners shall be subscribed on the sheet containing the body of the petition."

The covering page of Petition No. 1, which is the only page of the petition that might be found to meet the requirements of the Assembly, is not signed by anyone.

Further, it is required that a petition have original signatures or marks. Petition No. 1 is entirely composed of photocopy pages.

Speaker: Accordingly, Petition No. 1 may not be received.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Also, the Chair reviewed the remarks made by the Member for Kluane when presenting this petition on November 15. Standing Order 65(3) states: "Every member offering a petition to this Assembly shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from which it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains."

Also, annotations 1041 and 1042 in Beauchesne's Sixth Edition state: "A Member, when presenting a petition, may not make a speech nor present argument in support of the petition." And "When presenting a petition a Member may make a brief statement of the content of the petition. In making such a statement, the Member should avoid going beyond the thrust of the petition and entering debate."

It is clear that the Member for Kluane violated these rules in the remarks he made in presenting the petition yesterday. The Chair would recommend that any members presenting petitions in the future acquaint themselves with these rules and adhere to them.

Thank you.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: Turning to the Daily Routine, are there any new petitions to be presented?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of the Yukon should work toward the development of a territorial-wide electrical grid, commencing with the extension of the Whitehorse-Aishihik grid from Carmacks to Mayo and then to Dawson City.

Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: I would like to report to this House on this government's continued involvement on climate change issues.

As many of you may know, the predicted effects of climate change may make this the single most important environmental issue facing the whole of Canada's north. These effects will not only have environmental impacts, but we will also experience profound effects on Yukon's economic, social and cultural fabric. For example, we have reports that we are losing significant portions of our Arctic coastline due to permafrost melting. We may have to look at higher costs for infrastructure construction and development as a result of the melting permafrost.

There is expected to be an impact on traditional lifestyles due to habitat loss and the potential extinction of some species. The threat of longer, more severe fire seasons is also a concern.

As we indicated in our election platform, we acknowledge our responsibility to preserve and protect our environment for future generations. The Yukon government is taking action at the local level, as well as being involved both at the national and international levels on the climate change issue.

At the local level, we will continue to provide good policy and effective leadership on this issue and take action in several areas. The Yukon government's extensive energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction programs have resulted in the highest grade, an A-minus, in Canada on the Energy Efficiency Alliance's report card on energy efficiency measures.

The department's environmental protection and assessment branch chairs the Yukon government's Climate Change Coordinating Committee, which, among other things, is developing an inventory of climate change activities in the Yukon. This inventory will be the first step in preparing an action plan for the Yukon with respect to climate change.

The Yukon government already has a number of research projects underway with respect to the impact that climate change has and will continue to have in the north.

Our policy is to identify other areas that need to be studied in the future, and it will also identify additional actions that the Yukon government can take to reduce its releases of greenhouse gas emissions.

We are also working very closely with the other two territories to ensure optimum benefit to Canada's north.

At the national level, we recently attended the joint ministers' meeting on climate change in Quebec in October, and we will be attending and supporting Canada's negotiating positions at the upcoming international negotiations in The Hague during the third week of this month.

While recognizing the importance of maintaining a competitive edge for Canadian companies, we also believe it is important that Canada show that real action is being taken in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have been part of the process to develop an integrated package at the national level. This package includes the national implementation strategy for how Canada will fulfill its commitment under the Kyoto protocol; the first national business plan that explains how the implementation strategy will be implemented; and, the federal/provincial/territorial agreement with respect to climate change.

We will continue to provide leadership on this issue. I would also like to urge all Yukoners to participate with the Yukon government in continuing efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb: Again, today I am pleased to rise in support of this former NDP initiative. It was the previous government who launched these programs that are now in place and which the minister speaks of. In fact there's nothing really new in the statement today.

The only new thing out of this Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, is "review, cancel, delay". It seems to be the Liberal way. We don't get much new.

The report card he speaks of is generated as a result of the energy commission, which I headed in 1997-98. It's interesting to note that back then the Liberals were extremely aggressive and critical toward the work of the energy commission, yet they're here today speaking proudly on the commendations of the work generated by the commission and the follow-up by the Yukon government and the Crown corporations. So, I would ask the minister, when he tries to take all the credit, to maybe give credit where credit is due in that regard.

The announcement is basically a follow-up, part 2 if you will, on a September 16, 1999, announcement by the previous Minister of Renewable Resources, Eric Fairclough. It's interesting in that release, Mr. Speaker, he was quoted as saying, "This project is all about our future." Sounds familiar - it's all about the future to this Liberal government. If it's not happening in the future, it seems it's being cancelled, reviewed or delayed.

The energy report card reminds me of the implementation of the final recommendations from the Cabinet Commission on Energy and the greenhouse gas reducing measures it contains in the 56 recommendations. We have yet to hear a peep from this government about implementing those recommendations.

What about the telework project which is telecommuting? What about using waste heat from diesel generators in Yukon communities and in Whitehorse? We don't hear anything about that, Mr. Speaker. What work is being done in that regard?

The minister speaks about his trip to The Hague. Well, I hope it's more productive than his trip to Iceland last summer, in which he bragged about how great the endangered species legislation was going to be this fall. Because we all know what happened to that, Mr. Speaker. The federal government killed it. They left it on the table when they called the election. They put politics ahead of endangered species. I certainly hope this minister takes this issue more seriously and does what he can to convince his federal counterparts to do the same.

Now, the minister appeals to Yukoners to do what they can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Well, I'm wondering if he has got the message to the Premier, because I understand that she's making a special flight back today to help the Prime Minister campaign. How many tons of CO₂ are being burned for that special trip?

So, if he's interested in getting the message out, I would suggest they look internally first and maybe think about a little less hot air in the Legislature and a few more constructive ideas on the ground. There are plenty of recommendations out there; all they have to do is follow up on them.

Thank you.

Mr. Jenkins: I would like to thank the minister for his statement on climate change in Canada's north. I believe it is fair to say that Yukoners are doing their part to mitigate the effects of climate change, as witnessed by the highest grade in Canada that Yukon received on the Energy Efficiency Alliance report card on energy efficiency measures.

While Yukoners are doing more than their fair share, it is obvious that climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. Climate change has been portrayed by some groups as almost a doomsday scenario for Canada's north. While there are bound to be negative effects of climate change in Canada's north, there are bound to be some positive impacts, as well. I believe that it is important for Yukoners to keep a balanced perspective on climate change.

While climate change is important to Yukoners, an even more important and immediate concern to Yukoners is the current state of our economic condition. The primary focus of this government should be on how it can improve Yukon's investment climate. There are things that this government should be doing to improve Yukon's current economic plight by settling land claims, basing the protected areas strategy on multiple use and ensuring that the development assessment process doesn't become a major impediment to economic growth.

Now, I might be sounding like a broken record, but while such issues as climate change, the Wildlife Act review and other reviews this Liberal government has initiated are important,, they shouldn't be used to divert the attention of the government away from what it should be doing, and that's to turn the economy around and encourage Yukoners to not give up hope, to live and stay and work in the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, if you stopped a Yukoner on the street and asked him what the single most important issue facing Yukoners is today, the response wouldn't be climate change. It would be about jobs and how many families, friends and other youth have had to leave the territory to find their livelihoods elsewhere. I'd ask the minister, in his response, to tell us what this Liberal government is doing to turn this situation around. Every day we have a new statement from a minister raising important issues but failing to address the most important issue of all: Yukon's and Yukoners' economic well-being.

Now, Yukoners, Mr. Speaker, are addressing greenhouse gas emissions but haven't done anything yet about the Liberal gas that is driving Yukon's economy into a full-blown depression. Let's refocus our energies, our efforts and do something about the economy here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Mr. Speaker, in response to the members opposite - the Member for Kluane - I believe that this issue, as expressed by the leader of the third party, is global in nature and I did not mean to pre-empt any former governments' initiatives in this effort. As we all know, the former Minister of Renewable Resources thought it so important that he spent 10 days in Kyoto to represent the northern interests at that conference. I am just carrying on the tradition of going to The Hague to represent Canada's north and to put forward our concerns in that global warming is not something that's going to happen, not something that's coming down the pipe, but it's something that is happening now. It is affecting such things as migratory routes for caribou. It is affecting our permafrost layers. It is having a direct effect on the territory right now, not only Yukon but the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. And the Member for Kluane should know that Nunavut is in Canada, not Iceland. I do acknowledge the initiatives that were put forward by the previous government, but I also want to indicate that this initiative is not solely the responsibility of the Yukon Liberal Party, although we're being very proactive in that aspect, as well.

So I do credit the former minister for making his presence at Kyoto. I think that was a very, very worthwhile endeavour. It's not a new initiative, but the fact is that global warming is having a direct effect here in the territory as we speak. I do believe that the national leader of the NDP did make a special trip to Yukon, so I don't think that any one party has the total op on the use, or creating or adding to global warming. I believe the NDP, in their expressions, are also adding to the problem.

I disagree with the leader of the third party, Mr. Speaker, in that he says it is not an economic concern. It is an economic concern because of the impact it is having on our land base as we speak. The fact is that it will change the dynamic of the landscape and will change economic opportunities with respect to wildlife, ecotourism.

So it is something that this government is taking very responsibly. We're not only looking at the short term by making Canada's representation at The Hague, but we're also looking down the road, because these impacts will have profound effects on the whole of Canada's north and are of concern to this government, Yukon's north. We're concerned about the impact it's going to have on the Vuntut Gwitchin traditional territories, as well as other places in the Yukon.

So that is my response to members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are there any further statements by ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Fentie:My question today is for the Acting Minister of Economic Development.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, an article in the Yukon News appeared that brings to bear another example of this Liberal government's lack of economic vision and lack of an economic plan - proof positive that they're flying by the seat of their pants.

I think the headline says it all: "Liberal policy may flatten brewer's expansion plan". The Yukon Brewing Company has been a successful and symbolic business of economic diversification in this territory over the last four years. It is through the trade and investment fund that this company has been successful in marketing a made-in-Yukon product outside of this territory - reaching millions of Canadians. They now have a chance to enter one of the toughest markets in the country: British Columbia. Then in steps the Liberal government, and throws up a roadblock.

Mr. Speaker, why has this government eliminated the trade and investment fund and further strangled - further strangled - any hope of economic diversity in this territory?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: First of all, Mr. Speaker, "strangled" is violent language and it's not appropriate for use in this House.

The member opposite says that we have eliminated the tourism marketing fund, and that is factually incorrect. The tourism marketing fund was largely spent by the previous NDP government, long before we were sworn into office. The money that was left, and there wasn't an awful lot of it, was distributed shortly thereafter. At the present time, we're looking at that fund to see if it best meets the needs of Yukoners.

Now, the business the member opposite is making reference to is a great business. It has been very successful in a number of different markets and it has, indeed, accessed a fairly large amount of taxpayers' dollars in the past to help them in their business pursuits. The principles of our government are that we believe in a level playing field for business; therefore, we believe that one business should not get any more than another business. So, what we're trying to say to the people of the Yukon is that we don't play favourites with Yukon business, that we believe business should do what it does best and that is to strengthen the economy of the Yukon. And that should happen without government interference.

Mr. Fentie: A very interesting answer, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the minister fails to get the point.

This business, as stated - there's no question the Yukon Brewing Company has been a classic example of what some small investment and a little help can do. It is the government's job to help Yukon businesses diversify their businesses and help to diversify this economy.

This government refuses to do so. The reason that this brewing company is now having trouble expanding their business is not because they lack markets or that they lack their own investment, but because they lack the help of this Liberal government. Why won't this minister recognize how important the tourism marketing fund and the trade and investment fund are to Yukon businesses, and reinstate them immediately?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: There is no money tree. We just can't make money appear. The money was spent by the previous NDP government long before we were sworn into government. Economic Development has helped this business in the past. As a government, we are supportive of business within the Yukon Territory. We believe that there should be a level playing field, and part of that level playing field is letting business do what they do best - and that is to go out and make money and provide services for the people of the Yukon without government interference.

Mr. Fentie: Well, the minister has just claimed poverty. Yet we are debating a $37-million budget in this House which, for the most part, makes government bigger and ignores Yukon businesses. These Liberals turned their backs on the 125 forestry workers in Watson Lake, shutting that down. They turned their backs on the people and the children of Mayo and stopped the Mayo school, so those benefits are gone. They ignored our economic future and cancelled the port options which may very well landlock this territory. And now they're turning their backs on small business. Why has this Liberal government given up now on small business in this territory, among all the other things they've given up on?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, our government believes in small business in the Yukon Territory. That's why we don't interfere with it. Now, the previous NDP government knew that funds such as the trade investment fund did not effectively meet the needs of Yukoners. They knew that the previous government was handing out taxpayers' money with no assessment of how that money was being spent. What they were doing was trying to meet their political objectives. This government does not do that. This government supports small business by letting it do what it does best. We let the private sector in this territory work without government interference. We believe in a level playing field for all the private sector in the Yukon Territory.

Question re: Yukon Brewing Company, trade and investment fund

Mr. Fentie: Well, this is the same minister who refused to answer in this House what assessments were done on purchasing a private sector business in this territory. Yet, the minister claims that they don't get involved.

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon economy, when the Liberal government took office, was diversifying and turning things around. Now, it's in the toilet. The only thing the Liberal government has done, instead of trying to recover it, is pull the lever and flush it.

Will this minister recognize the crisis we're in economically and lobby her Premier and Cabinet colleagues to immediately reinstate the trade and investment fund, so that this brewery can expand its markets, creating more jobs and benefits for Yukon people?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: No.

Mr. Fentie: Now we have a government that claims they are reviewing the funds. The reality is that they have cancelled them. The ramifications are now starting to set upon us.

This business is now going to have major trouble in trying to enter the B.C. market and help increase jobs and benefits for Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of economic devastation in this territory. This minister and her government continue to do nothing. They claim they are reviewing all these programs to make them better - to make them responsive. Well, they're reviewing the Education Act. Does that mean we're going to stop teaching our children?

There was lots of money when this government took over. The Auditor General has said it was $64 million. Surely they could step up and help this brewing company expand its business, and create jobs and benefits for Yukoners, as it is their duty to do.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way is once again factually incorrect. To go back to his first question, I have never refused to answer a question in this Legislature. That's my job. I am the minister. I have never refused to answer a question. As that is my job, it is unlikely that I will do that in the future.

The other factually incorrect statement by the member opposite is that we have cancelled these funds. What we are doing is reviewing these funds, because we felt - and we heard this from many Yukoners - that those funds did not meet the needs of Yukoners. Therefore, what we are doing is going out to find better and more improved ways to support Yukoners in the initiatives they wish to undertake.

I want to remind the member opposite that if we are on the brink of economic devastation - and that's a matter of some debate in this House on an almost daily basis - then it is because of the actions of the previous NDP government.

Mr. Fentie: Well, the minister claims that I am factually incorrect. If I had a half an hour to ask this question, I could read from Hansard many, many quotes where this minister has refused to answer the question.

Secondly, this is a cancellation. There is no money in the fund. You may be reviewing it, but how long is that review going to take and will it save this company, this Yukon company's ability to expand its market? It's highly unlikely. This cold-hearted government, with no vision and no plan, is now sacrificing solid businesses that, through the initiatives of the former NDP government, actually begin to diversify and expand our economy outside of Yukon borders. When will this minister wake up, lobby her Premier and her colleagues to do the right thing, help this brewery company get into the B.C. markets, create more jobs and benefit for the Yukon Territory? When will she do so?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: To be clear, Mr. Speaker, I am awake. The member opposite is factually incorrect in two statements once again that he has made.

He is factually incorrect in saying that I have refused to answer a question. That has never happened in this Legislature. The member opposite is also factually incorrect when he says that we have cancelled the funds. The trade and investment fund was spent. The large majority of it was spent long before we were sworn into office. It was spent in less than a month by the previous NDP government, as was the community development fund, as was the tourism marketing fund. That money was gone, and it was spent to buy political favours throughout the Yukon Territory, but it didn't work.

The member opposite says that this business, which we have supported in the past as a government, which their government supported in the past, will somehow or another go under because of a lack of support from this government. What we have decided to do, as a government, is to support business by promoting and keeping to a level playing field. That is something that came out as a recommendation from the business forum here in the Yukon Territory. There was a report that was given to this Legislature when I sat in opposition, and the government at the time completely ignored those recommendations. The number one recommendation was a level playing field for business, and that is exactly what we paid attention to, that was in our platform, that's what we're doing as a government.

Question re: Job creation

Mr. Jenkins: I have a question for the Acting Minister of Economic Development.

Now, in response to a question in the House about unemployment on October 26, the Premier took pride in the fact that the unemployment rate was down two percent since the Liberal government took office - sounds great. The unemployment statistics for October, however, made it clear that there was no reason to be proud, as Yukon's labour force between this October and last has dropped by some 600 workers. If these workers hadn't decided to leave, Yukon's unemployment rate would actually be an alarming 13 percent, not 9.7.

Can the minister explain why her government didn't use a portion of the $64-million surplus to create a winter works program to help find work and create employment for Yukoners this winter? Why doesn't this government care about the economy?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, apparently the previous government didn't care about the economy either. They are the government that brought us to this position. They are the government that did not have winter works within the budget that this government adopted.

The member opposite is saying that this government does not care about the fact that there are Yukoners who are out of work, and we certainly do care. That's why we have undertaken a number of different projects that will put people to work this winter. Those are projects that are going to be in the Department of Community and Transportation Services; those are projects that are taking place within the Tourism department; those are projects that will be taking place within Government Services as well as Health and Social Services. All of those are areas where Yukoners will find work this winter, and those are initiatives, some of which came from the previous government and some of which came from our government in the supplemental budget.

Mr. Jenkins:What we have is this Liberal, NDP-clone government creating a U-Haul economy, by turning the Alaska Highway into a one-lane U-Haul route heading south. Can the minister explain why there is a waiting list to rent U-Haul trailers, if all of the wonderful things that the Premier amplified the other day in this House are going on that she said were going on? Why can't Yukoners find employment for Yukoners themselves here? Why are they having to leave in droves to find work elsewhere?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, this government is working very hard on projects and on programs that employ Yukoners. One of the ways that we help to promote certainty within the Yukon economy, and the Member for Klondike has always found a problem with this, was that we adopted the NDP budget in order to provide certainty for businesses within the Yukon Territory. When the previous Yukon Party government came to power, they very quickly adopted another budget of their own. At that time, a number of contracts were torn up. There was a great deal of uncertainty added to the Yukon economy. A number of businesses went under that year. We determined, as a government, that we would not do that, and we have not, and we will be employing a number of Yukoners this winter.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, I guess it's all the NDP's fault, because the Liberals adopted their budget. That was a Liberal decision, and when that budget was adopted we were told, "Wait until the fall. We will have the Liberal picture painted for you in our supplementary budget." We have yet to see anything. In fact, one of the auto parts store owners in Watson Lake has commented that one of the most popular items was the sale of trailer hitches as Yukoners head south looking for work.

I'd like the minister to name one winter works program that Yukoners can hitch their hopes to this winter, because I can't think of one. Name one winter works program.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, a number of different projects are taking place throughout the Yukon. I am thinking off the top of my head about the Shakwak project. I'm also thinking about the clearing for the sewage lagoon out in Carmacks. That's through the Department of Community and Transportation Services. I'm thinking about a number of multi-million dollar films that are going to be produced in the Yukon, and the former Tourism minister is very, very proud of that even though the negotiations took place long after the election took place. The other things that I can think of, just off the top of my head, would be projects to do with, once again, Community and Transportation Services, and those would be works programs around highways.

It's not the be-all and end-all, because the private sector is also employing people and, to be absolutely clear, the unemployment rate is down to 9.7 percent.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. McRobb: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism on the Beringia Centre gift shop matter. On November 6, I asked the minister if any of the purchase price paid by her department went toward paying for goodwill. In a letter to me on November 9, the minister said no, meaning, I presume, that no public money went toward paying for goodwill.

Is the minister now prepared to admit that this statement in her letter is not true?

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order please. I remind the member that making references to statements being true or not true, or suggesting falsehoods, are not acceptable in the House. They are unparliamentary. I would ask the member to refrain in future.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: The member opposite is talking about two different things. First of all he asked in the Legislature - despite the fact that Mr. Hughes was here for the Hughes inquiry as opposed to the McRobb inquiry. Mr. Hughes has spoken to most people in the Yukon about this issue, and he is conducting an inquiry. The member opposite also seems to be conducting an inquiry.

Now, the issue of goodwill was two different issues. The first one - and to be clear, I had no involvement in this as the minister responsible. I was at arm's length for the entire process. And I apologize for any confusion around this issue to the member opposite.

Now, there was no payment for goodwill. The term "goodwill" means a lot of different things in a business transaction. In this case it meant lists of inventory, et cetera, et cetera. It didn't refer to the common - or what the member opposite thinks is goodwill. Now, what I will do - and because this is a subject that seems to have a lot of unclear areas about it - is once again provide yet another written response to the member opposite. Of course, he does have an access-to-information request in, and he will be getting that information in complete detail by the end of this month as well.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear on one thing. I'm not interfering with the investigation. This question is clearly beyond the scope of the investigation being conducted by Mr. Hughes. My questions relate to policy, and what the minister said.

Now, the minister can call it anything she likes, but that doesn't change the facts. In the same letter, she refers to a letter from the former contractor on May 12, which included the following items: supplier list, contracts, product research, goodwill.

On Tuesday of this week, the minister finally provided an inventory list we had asked for. The final item on that list is for supplier list, contracts, product research, goodwill.

Will the minister confirm that her department paid in excess of $25,000 for this item, including goodwill?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to hide, so for the McRobb inquiry - and once again, this is an individual who refuses to make a charge, as Mr. Hughes pointed out to the member opposite as well - if he would like to make a charge, if there has been some sort of wrongdoing, then it is his responsibility to spell it out, to tell Yukoners what he thinks is the problem.

I have answered the question previously. I will get back to the member opposite, because he will not listen to the answer. I will get back to him in writing. Actually, you know, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what I say, the McRobb inquiry continues day after day after day after day. If the member opposite had been willing to make a charge against the Member for Whitehorse Centre, Mr. Hughes would have been happy to expand his inquiry, to look at all the issues the McRobb inquiry is now looking at.

So to be absolutely clear, I will get back to the member opposite in a written response, to clear up this area for the McRobb inquiry. I would suggest to the member opposite that he still has an opportunity to ask Mr. Hughes to expand his inquiry by making a charge against the Member for Whitehorse Centre. That is his opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can insult me, she can mock me all she wants, but I can take it. I've got a thick skin, and I'm here to represent the interests of Yukoners and Yukon taxpayers, and I will do whatever it takes to stand here and ask the questions, no matter how much she insults me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a seasonal operation, a concession stand that drew its clientele from people who were there to visit a government-owned tourism operation - a money-losing operation, at that, as the side opposite used to point out when they were over here. The vast majority of that clientele was one time only. Given all of those factors, can the minister tell us why any reasonable Yukon taxpayer would think the government should be paying goodwill to any private business in a case like this?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite once again refuses to make a charge. There is an opportunity for him, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a representative of the people of his riding, to make a charge against the Member for Whitehorse Centre and to expand the inquiry of Mr. Hughes. As long as he does not do that, it is the McRobb inquiry on the floor of this Legislature.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Order please. Order please. I would ask the member to be cautious or be judicious with her choice of words. I find "the McRobb inquiry" can be insulting language. Thank you.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, there's a constant insult on the floor of this Legislature every day that the member opposite stands up, refuses to make a charge - the constant innuendo. It is there every day. I have told the member opposite that I would respond to him in writing, and I will. He has an opportunity to expand the inquiry of Mr. Hughes. He does not take that opportunity.

Question re: Beringia Interpretive Centre, purchase of gift shop

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to follow up with the Minister of Tourism. Earlier in this Question Period, the minister, acting on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development, stated that this Liberal government does not get involved in the private sector - especially with money - and is very focused on a level playing field.

We know it's a matter of public record that a private sector business was purchased by this government. That purchase included $25,000 of goodwill. Are we to take it, Mr. Speaker, that that means now that the Liberal government, whenever a government contract comes to its end, will be purchasing and paying for goodwill from other Yukon businesses? That to me spells "level playing field".

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the member opposite about his inquiry. The contract had three options at its termination. I got back to the member opposite about those. One of them was to buy the business out. That is what the government did. It is the same opportunity that is given to anyone who has a contract with the Yukon Territory in this respect.

If anyone had had that contract, other than the Member for Whitehorse Centre, they would have had the opportunity to be bought out as one of the three options for terminating that contract.

Mr. Fentie: Well, this is not an inquiry. I am merely trying to get the record straight. The minister, on the one hand, when dealing with the Department of Economic Development states, "The Liberal government does not get involved monetarily with the private sector." She wants to ensure a "level playing field." Yet, on the other hand, this same government will purchase private sector businesses and pay for goodwill. Is that the Liberal government's idea of a level playing field? Are we now, here in this territory, with taxpayers' funds, going to be paying for goodwill to government contractors whose contracts have come to an end?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, once again I will answer the question. It was a level playing field. It was within the terms of the contact negotiated and signed by the previous NDP government. We followed the terms of the contract as written.

Mr. Fentie: Well, the word wizards from upstairs have missed the question. The little note that the minister just got to read does not deal with the question I'm asking.

This minister is telling us, then, that a Yukon company that is now trying to access further markets outside this territory, is not eligible for government help. But, on the other hand, there's this other business, which just happens to have been owned by a member of the Liberal Party that is eligible for government help.

We are trying to find out, Mr. Speaker, if the minister's meaning of "a level playing field" is the purchase of goodwill from Yukon businesses that have government contracts. That's all this is.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is confused. He is confusing buying out a contract with gaining marketing dollars from the Department of Economic Development. Those are two entirely different issues. There is no connection whatsoever, and to be absolutely clear, we believe in a level playing field for business.

Now, the contract with the Member for Whitehorse Centre, which was bought out by this government, was negotiated by the previous NDP government. Buying out the contract was one of the three options at the termination of that contract. We followed the terms of the contract as written.

Question re: Prime Minister of Canada's visit

Mr. Fairclough: I have a question for the Acting Premier.

We know that today is a big day for the Liberals, with the Prime Minister coming to learn all about Yukon in the 90-minute love-in with a few invited guests. Today we learn that the Premier will be coming back from Anchorage for a piece of the action.

Can the Acting Premier tell us if the real Premier will be returning to Anchorage after 10 minutes of rubbing shoulders with the Prime Minister?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, this brings us to an issue that came up yesterday. The Member for Kluane referred to the Prime Minister of Canada as "the grand pooh-bah". Now we're talking about a political rally as a love-in with the Prime Minister of Canada. That is completely lacking in respect.

To be absolutely clear, the Premier will be returning to the Yukon Territory. She will be staying in the Yukon Territory until she next goes somewhere else, obviously. But the issue here is a lack of respect, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister of Canada, as the Member for Kluane seems to think, is not the grand pooh-bah. He is the Prime Minister of Canada.

And to be absolutely clear, the political rally tonight is not a love-in. It's an honour for our family, for example, to meet the Prime Minister of Canada. My children are very excited about it, and it's something that Yukoners take for granted. We are a very, very small area of Canada and we meet prime ministers all the time. There are many people in this nation who never have that opportunity. I'm excited about it.

Mr. Fairclough: The Prime Minister comes to the Yukon once, on average, every 12 years, and every 16 years, when it comes to a federal election. I think it's important that we do have our government lobbying on behalf of Yukoners.

Can the Acting Premier tell us why the real Premier now thinks it's more important to take part in a political photo-op than to carry on with her aggressive promotion of the Alaska Highway pipeline route?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: The Premier's efforts on lobbying for the pipeline route are never ending. To be absolutely clear, her meetings are over now in Alaska.

The last time the Prime Minister visited, to be absolutely clear with the member opposite, was in 1996. That was not 12 years ago. We meet regularly, as a government, with officials and with politicians in Ottawa and the sad, sad truth here is that the side opposite has a real lack of respect for the political leader of our country.

Mr. Fairclough: It's funny that he'd be coming to the Yukon at this time when many times we have invited him to look at Yukon issues. There are, of course, many very, very important issues that Yukon people want the Prime Minister to be aware of. There's land claims, of course; devolution; environmental clean-up - the Marwell tar pit comes to mind; northern economic development; timber harvest agreements; fuel prices; global warming; and the list goes on.

Now, will the Acting Premier give her assurance that the Prime Minister will not leave here tonight without someone from the Liberal government making it crystal clear that what Yukoners want and need on these matters are dealt with and voiced by someone from the Liberal side?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: We take the opportunity as a government to constantly voice our concerns and enjoy opportunities in all the areas that the member opposite has just listed. We will again be speaking to the Prime Minister of Canada today about some of those issues. But, to be absolutely clear, there are many, many letters, many, many meetings, that we've had with officials and with politicians in Ottawa, about every one of those issues. Those happen on an ongoing basis. It will not just happen tonight; it will happen for many, many years into the future as long as our government is in power.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 31, standing in the name of the hon. Ms. Buckway.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I move that Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Community and Transportation Services that Bill No. 31, entitled An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this Assembly, today I introduce you to Bill No. 31, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act. Bill No. 31 is, for the most part, the fine-tuning of some previous amendments made under the Motor Vehicles Act.

In 1997, this Legislature approved amendments to deal with drivers who abuse their driving privilege by driving impaired, without insurance, or with a suspended or disqualified licence. New laws were introduced, including vehicle impoundment and roadside suspension provisions. Now, after two years' experience with these amendments, some changes are necessary to ensure these laws work as effectively as originally intended, and as effectively as we all want them to work. We share the highways with our neighbours, our friends and our families. We need to know that our laws are structured to keep unsafe drivers off the road.

In October of this year I signed a protocol of recognition agreement with B.C.'s Minister of Transportation and Highways. This agreement will allow Yukon traffic laws to apply on sections of B.C. highways. The agreement will provide for greater clarity and consistency in traffic laws. And, because these sections of highway are operated and maintained with Yukon government funds, it makes good sense to have a parallel legal regime that applies to traffic on the B.C. sections of the highway.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments before us will help to keep drivers who abuse their driving privileges off the roads, and therefore will help to protect law-abiding citizens from harm when they use our roadways.

Some years ago Yukoners told government that it was time to get tough on drivers who abuse their driving privileges by driving after using alcohol or drugs and driving without a valid licence. To be effective, the law must deter unsafe behaviour. The laws exist to convince people that driving after drinking too much alcohol, driving without a valid licence or without proper insurance, is not worth the consequences. These consequences, Mr. Speaker, are in the form of tough laws. They have to be tough, and I'm glad they are.

The behaviours they are trying to deter are very destructive, very costly in dollars and in wasted potential, and are also very avoidable. There is tragedy in avoidable harm and wasted potential. Every motor vehicle crash that results in a fatality is a tragedy. Every crash that seriously injures a victim wastes the potential of that individual.

Across Canada and in the Yukon, there are too many stories of wasted potential because of avoidable crashes. The best way to avoid crashes is to prevent them from occurring in the first place, by removing unsafe drivers from our highways.

Through these laws, we are sending a very specific and a very strong message, that drinking and driving, or driving without a valid licence, will not be tolerated. For the betterment of all people, it cannot be tolerated. I believe the amendments in Bill No. 31 that deal with impaired driving will send just that message to those who abuse their driving privilege.

A number of provisions in this bill are connected to the crime of impaired driving. I use the word "crime" purposefully, Mr. Speaker. Impaired driving is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. Impaired drivers have a disregard - often a reckless disregard - for your safety, for my safety, and for the safety of every other person, whether a mother with children, a teenage cyclist, or a senior using the road.

Mr. Speaker, I will now review the major aspects of the bill. Improvements in this bill cover the laws for impounding vehicles when police detect impaired driving and other offences like driving without insurance. These changes to the impoundment laws will hold people more accountable for illegal and dangerous driving behaviour.

Improvements to the processing of reviewing a vehicle impoundment by a review officer are proposed. Review officers have an important and difficult role. Changes will set clearer parameters for those requesting reviews and also will set clearer parameters for deciding reviews. In addition - and very significantly, because it is new - drivers who have very high levels of alcohol will be subject to even longer periods of vehicle impoundment. A driver who is tested and found to have an alcohol content greater than twice the legal limit will have his or her vehicle impounded for twice as long.

I would like to share some statistics on the vehicle impoundment law. Between April 1, 1999, when the law was implemented, and October 31 of this year, 516 vehicles were impounded. Of these, 311 vehicles - or just over 60 percent - were impounded because police found the drivers impaired. That's 280 vehicles. Or, the person refused to give a breath sample - 31 vehicles.

The second highest number of vehicles - 116, representing just over 20 percent of the total - were impounded for not having liability insurance. The remaining 89 vehicles were impounded for driving while disqualified, prohibited or for leaving the scene of an accident.

Changes made over the past years are working. Many unsafe drivers are being removed from the roadway before they can harm the innocent. We still need to do more to reduce the deaths and injuries on Yukon highways.

The bill also contains an important component of the graduated drivers' licensing laws connected to the impaired driving problem. Graduated drivers licensing in the Yukon, and in the six other Canadian jurisdictions with these laws, requires new drivers to drive alcohol and drug free for the two years of their driving apprenticeship, as one might call it. This bill requires the people who teach new drivers - we call them co-drivers - to be alcohol and drug free when in a vehicle teaching driving.

Several provisions deal with the alcohol ignition interlock device. The amendments will provide an opportunity for a person convicted of impaired-driving-related crimes to seek approval from the Driver Control Board for installation of such a device at an earlier time than was permitted in the current law.

The Criminal Code was changed on July 1, 1999, to permit reinstatement of driving privileges at an earlier time after a conviction if an ignition interlock device is approved and used. These amendments harmonized the Motor Vehicles Act with the Criminal Code provisions regarding alcohol ignition interlock devices. Some provisions make minor adjustments to the 90-day driver's licence suspension or disqualification law. A number of other amendments correct a few minor errors in other parts of the act and clarify some existing laws to make explicit what was implicit.

As we bring this act through the Legislature, we will make all roadways, which are some of our most public places, safer places for Yukoners. I think it is great work for this Legislature, and I look forward to support as we debate this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize former MLA and minister Bill Brewster and the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, who held this portfolio in the previous government. Both of them did significant work on the Motor Vehicles Act. I thank them for it. My role is to bring forward a few more changes that are necessary to make our roads safer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. McRobb: First of all, I'd like to ask the members to join me in welcoming Dawson City Mayor Glen Everitt to the gallery.

Applause

Mr. McRobb: Now, on An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, Mr. Speaker, if it's so important to this government, why wasn't there public consultation on these changes? Mr. Speaker, this government has said over and over and over how it prides itself on good public consultation. I can still hear the stinging words from the Member for Porter Creek North ringing in my ears when he condemned the previous NDP government for only talking about consultation but never doing it right - only talking about it, he said, but the Liberal government would do it right because they believe in good, public consultation.

Mr. Speaker, it's our job here, as you know, to hold them accountable when we see some things that they should be held accountable for, and once again, I'm standing here holding them accountable on their promise to do good public consultation. Because it seems that what's happening is a long way off from being as good as they had vowed it would be. It seems they only want to consult on matters they feel are important, not what are important to Yukoners.

In some cases, they use consultation as a means to delay something. For instance, the community development fund, the fire smart program, the trade and investment fund that we heard about today, training trust funds and so on, are all under review, internally.

Mr. Speaker, this whole pledge to public consultation turns out to be nothing more than a tool of this Liberal government to use in its larger scheme of repackaging all the NDP programs into a new red and white wrapper they're going to call some Liberal program. In the meantime, people are hurting.

Now, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act is no exception. Why wasn't the public consulted on all of these matters?

Like the CDF and the other funds - people are hurting this winter - people without work, who can't put food on the table. The members opposite, yesterday, when we discussed this matter in great detail, found it to be funny. Well, it's no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the priorities of this government. Does it really feel that an act like this, which is basically - if I may be permitted - a housekeeping act to tie up this Legislature when there are far more important matters to be dealt with - far more important matters.

The economy is worsening day by day. People are leaving. I know, as an MLA for a rural riding, the rural communities are especially a target of this neglect by the Liberal government. Why is this government only doing what it sees is important to itself? This Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act - sure these things are important, but are they the highest priority? I think not. There are other priorities such as the many things that have been raised by members of both opposition parties in the Legislature - not only this sitting but in the spring sitting.

It's very disappointing to discover this Liberal government has ignored the priorities that we see as priorities, and instead is focused more on housekeeping - housekeeping, Mr. Speaker - not priorities of Yukoners, but priorities of a housekeeping government. These bills we are dealing with in this sitting, and the supplementary budget we are reviewing in this sitting, are all about government. But what about the people? It is the people who are important to us, Mr. Speaker. It seems the Liberals have lost that connection. They deal only with matters that are important to them - what they see as important. There are countless examples to substantiate my argument in only six months of their reign.

Look at the friends of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. A lot of them have nice, cushy appointments, big contracts - you name it - because their friends are in power now. Their friends are in power and their priorities are to look after their own ilk - not the public, not ordinary Yukoners, but themselves. They're a housekeeping government.

They stand up and take credit for things that were well in the works, with no mention of all the previous resources and energies devoted right from the beginning of those initiatives. The energy report card is one. Mr. Speaker, if the public really knew what happened there - and I'll explain. That report was a year late because, apparently, the explanation of the work done was not worded as extensively as required - something to that effect. Otherwise the report card mark would have been given a year earlier. Now the government knows that. Their briefing notes should all say that. But, do we hear that? No, instead there they are, they're taking credit for it. They like to do that; they like to stand up; pat themselves on the back for all the wonderful things they've done in six months, but don't give any credit where credit is due. They're not very charitable at all, wouldn't you say, Mr. Speaker? Charity is not a priority of this Liberal government. They like to cut ribbons, eat cake, break ground, but really, Mr. Speaker, they are breaking ground all right because they're digging their own grave, politically speaking. When judgement day comes and we hold up their record and compare it to the priorities of Yukoners, there will be a large gap - a very large gap.

We'll also compare it to our record in government, and it will be embarrassing for this Liberal government when that is done.

I spoke of priorities - economic priorities. Mr. Speaker, in this current budget year, we had dozens of new economic initiatives. A lot of them are going down the drain now, because the Liberals don't consider diversifying the economy to be a priority. Instead, we're dealing with housekeeping motions, like An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, to bring in alcohol ignition interlock devices. Mr. Speaker, is that a priority of Yukoners? Because if it is - they say it is. They seem to stand up over there and say it is. When people in Destruction Bay ask me, "What happened to our fire smart? How am I going to feed my family this winter?" I'm going to have to tell them, "It's because this Liberal government put a higher priority on housekeeping than it did on you, or your family, or your neighbours, or friends in other Yukon communities."

Mr. Speaker, I'll report back what some of those people say. I won't speculate what they'll say, but I'll report back at a future date, and we can discuss it then - that the priorities of this Liberal government certainly are not grounded in public opinion. In the spring we asked for a supplementary budget to provide some jobs for Yukoners right away, because there was, as we claimed, a $56.2-million surplus. They said, "No way." Well, the Auditor General has substantiated that claim and, in addition, has found there's another $8 million in the coffers, for a total of $64 million.

Mr. Speaker, could this government find it a priority to bring forward even $500,000 for something like the fire smart program to keep Yukoners employed this winter? No.

During Question Period, the member of the third party challenged the Acting Minister of Economic Development to name one winter works program to employ Yukoners this winter that was devised by this Liberal government. When she got up, I listened carefully, but every one of the few examples she gave were all initiatives done by the previous government and were in the budget that the election campaign was all about, Mr. Speaker, and she stands up and says, "Well, that's what we're doing." Yesterday they said, "Well, it's your budget. If there are no winter works, you have to accept the blame."

Mr. Speaker, sitting back here sometimes - obviously there's not an opportunity to respond every time. Every time something is said I don't agree with - otherwise I'd be like a jack-in-the-box over here and I'd be interrupting about every three or four minutes.

But on that one issue, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that every fall, we introduced a supplementary budget with winter works, and the reason for waiting until the fall is because, after the Auditor General reported, there was a clearer picture of the surplus and the lapses and the year-end projections, and a more responsible government would clearly have a better idea of fiscal management and what could be done to help Yukoners. That's why. Why try to guess ahead in the spring to what's happening in the fall when the Legislature sits in the fall anyway? And the fall is before winter.

The fall is the time to bring in winter works, and this government failed to do it. Instead, I'm embarrassed to stand here today and talk about An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act. It's embarrassing.

I'm ashamed because people out there expect more of us. And the poor performance of this Liberal government rubs off on us all. It's like the behaviour in this Legislature - they raise the expectations of Yukoners that there will be better decorum in this Legislature, but they're the worst offenders, Mr. Speaker. And it reduces our credibility on this side as a result. The same goes for the economy. When people out there are starving and without a job, and they're forced to move from communities like Destruction Bay, they hold me accountable. Not everybody understands that I am a member of the official opposition. They think I'm the government and I should be doing something to help them. Well I try to, through my role as holding them accountable, on occasions such as this one. But I don't write the budgets, the Liberals do - they're elected. They have the majority in this Legislature. It's up to them to do what's right. It's up to the Liberals to decide what priorities are best for Yukoners.

Now, in the spring sitting back in May and June, we wanted to know where the Liberals stood, because nobody knew. At election time they wouldn't say - they said, "We'll have to look at the books. We'll just do things better." Well, Mr. Speaker, what a joke that has been. Prior to that, they walked out of this Legislature when we brought forward a motion on the economy. They walked out. They were bankrupt of ideas. On another occasion, in November 1999, I brought forward a motion on the economy. It's embarrassing to review what they said. They contributed nothing. This government is clueless. They're without a plan.

Unparliamentary language

Speaker: Order please. Order. I would like to draw the member's attention to the word "clueless". It is unparliamentary.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have spent considerable time researching "clueless" or "minister doesn't have a clue." It all depends on the context it's used in. It's used quite extensively in Ottawa, and I would be happy to provide the Speaker with copies of the research. I will have to go back into the federal Hansard and print it off, but it is used very, very commonly in Ottawa. It translates it quite differently, in that it is used in French quite frequently, and it translates differently into English. But it means the same thing: the minister is clueless or the minister doesn't have a clue. It's used quite frequently. In fact, in general debate, I've used it myself. I was told that there are two separate sets of rules here in the Legislature.

I believe we should be consistent in the application, and when we don't have a rule here in this Legislature, we should hold true to what occurs in the federal Parliament as guidelines for ourselves. I would ask that some research be undertaken on this issue.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: Well, thank you very much. The Chair has done some research on that, as a matter of fact. I will just take some time to review it.

In Beauchesne's, "clueless" or "does not have a clue" denotes ignorance, incompetence, stupidity, unintelligent or foolish. In addition to that, it denotes an ignorant person, lacking knowledge, ill-mannered or uncouth. While I occupy the Chair, I will make the rule that it is not acceptable in this House.

Mr. McRobb: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. Well, if I just say that they're not shoeless, I think everybody will get the idea.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not finished talking about the priorities of this Liberal government. It's not to say we won't be supporting this bill, because we do support it. It's a matter of priorities, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I was referring back to the dismal record of this Liberal government about their priorities of being a housekeeping government instead of responding to the needs of Yukoners. This, Mr. Speaker, was the basis of our questions in the spring, when we asked where they stood, because up until that time, nobody had a clue. Now, Mr. Speaker, it's still very difficult to get a clue around here as to what their economic agenda is.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: Order please. I find that the member is trying to embarrass the Chair, and I just simply finished ruling that "clueless" and "does not have a clue" in my research, is used in the same vein. I would ask the member to try to raise the professionalism of the performance here.

Thank you.

Mr. McRobb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that I had no motive whatsoever to try and embarrass the Chair, and I want to be clearly on record.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the priorities of this government? It has clearly not responding to the needs of Yukoners. We've seen how they're bankrupt of any new idea.

We've seen how a lot of the good ideas are under review, cancelled or delayed. Today the Acting Minister of Economic Development stood up and said that none of the programs are cancelled. But, Mr. Speaker, we know that a few weeks ago in Hansard, the questioning on cultural arts funding and the questions I brought forward clearly indicated that these programs had been cancelled based on minutes of meetings and direction from the minister. I can table a newspaper article next week, Mr. Speaker. I see the acting minister shaking her head, but it's true.

So, they say one thing and do another. They're not responding to the priorities of Yukoners, and I'm really wondering what this government does stand for. A lot of Yukoners are wondering. I hear them talking about it downtown, asking if this Liberal government has produced even one new job for Yukoners. People are scratching their heads in wonder. Those who know are already disappointed, and it reflects poorly on their performance. If there were performance indicators, after six months, Mr. Speaker, it would be a huge failure.

I remember when we were in government, the opposition parties were quick to pump out six-month report cards giving us failing grades. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we deserve better because there were many programs in the hopper and consultation had started on a number of priorities. There was action being done to deliver programs important to Yukoners.

Now, is the same happening over there? I think not. They call in an audit team to review a bunch of funds important to Yukoners to put food on their table in the winter to develop their communities productively. They're all on hold. Even with a $64-million surplus, Mr. Speaker, they're all on hold. Instead, we have to deal with An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act. It's embarrassing.

The Premier, today, is flying back to hold the Prime Minister's hand during his political tour when she promised to aggressively lobby for the Alaska Highway pipeline. Well, Mr. Speaker, the meeting in Anchorage was an all-day meeting. She was also booked to speak to the industry Alliance of Alaska tomorrow morning. It's on the Web site, Mr. Speaker, I see they're nodding their heads over there. It's on the Web site. I printed it off. Why did she feel it's more important to come back and play federal politics than to continue aggressively lobbying for the pipeline. Again, that's a poor reflection on the priorities of this Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have much problem with this act, and as I said, it's basically a housekeeping act to modernize a few clauses, to be consistent with terminology used in the rest of the country. Now, it could be debated that there are a few things that are worthy of discussion. I'm sure that the Member for Klondike will be bringing those items forward. But I suggest we not spend a whole lot of time on this act and that we buckle up, buckle down, and buck up, and start addressing the priorities of Yukoners.

Mr. Jenkins: I rise to speak to this Bill No. 31, the proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, and I must emphasize the "proposed".

Mr. Speaker, just a few short years ago, we went through a complete review of the Motor Vehicles Act here in the Yukon and that took place after extensive consultation during two former ministers of Community and Transportation Services, Bill Brewster and Dave Keenan. That extensive consultation resulted in the act that was passed by this House in, I believe, 1997.

It has come into force and here we are, just a few short years later, with some 50 amendments to this act. Some I will accept and some I will recognize as perhaps oversight, but there had to be something wrong in the original drafting of the act, because we relied on input from virtually every jurisdiction in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and a tremendous consultation process, and the department itself. What I see is an effort by the department to cover off a number of other areas, and I do have some grave concern with these because, in some respects, we haven't gone far enough and, in other respects, we have gone too far.

We have a number of issues here in the Yukon that must be addressed. One of the largest is the chronic problem of drinking drivers. Now, a few steps are taken up by addressing shortcomings in the Motor Vehicles Act and dovetailing it with the Criminal Code. I don't have any quarrels with those.

With respect to insurance, there's another problem in the Yukon. We haven't gone far enough. In other jurisdictions, when your insurance is cancelled, your insurance carrier must notify the motor vehicle branch. The repercussions of driving around with licence plates that may be expired is not too significant. The consequence of driving a vehicle without liability insurance can be very, very costly and impact financially on a great number of individuals - if you're involved in a motor vehicle accident or even if you're the other party and you do not carry uninsured insurance. We haven't gone far enough in that area, and I'd ask the minister to go back to her legal draftspeople and look at that area, because it is a very important, critical area and it's not being addressed.

If we look further at some of the areas that are being addressed, it's whom we are empowering to enforce the Motor Vehicles Act. Currently we have the RCMP and YTG highway enforcement. But what we're doing here in this legislation is expanding the powers so that it may include the games branch, highway foremen - probably the minister herself, we can put some red lights on the top her van as she tootles up and down the highway and she can get involved in enforcement. I would hope not, Mr. Speaker. But we're extending this and broadening it when it really isn't necessary. The Yukon is currently the most over-governed, over-regulated, over-policed and probably now over-legislated part of Canada, if not the world.

Because this government is void of ideas with respect to what to do with the economy, the smokescreen that's coming up is all of these other acts and bills. Well, let's deal with it. There are other areas that are problematic that are not being addressed. We can insist that rental vehicles have child-restraint devices. That's great, Mr. Speaker. I don't have a quarrel with that, but at the same time, how do we still allow our school buses to transport our students back and forth to school in a bus that doesn't have seatbelts? Someone ain't doing their homework.

What's good on one hand is not good on the other. What are we saying here? I think it's probably appropriate - given the thought that was given to these amendments - Mr. Speaker, that the Minister give some consideration to taking it off the table, go back and have a look at it and rework it. There are many, many other areas that lend themselves to change to improve this act and improve the safety and enforcement standards. But we seem to go overboard on one hand and, on the other hand, they just leave it alone and ignore it, like riding in the back of a pickup. That was totally ignored. It is outlawed in most other jurisdictions in Canada, but here in the Yukon it's okay for the folks to get into the back of a pickup and go tootling down the highway at 90k. It is not even addressed. And why not, Mr. Speaker? Probably because this minister doesn't understand her portfolio, and this was just thrown on her desk, and she looked at it, "Oh, yeah, sure, fine." But let's get into the nitty-gritty of it. The nitty-gritty is that this is not going to do very much to address the hard-core problems that we have here in the Yukon.

I expected more from this Liberal government, Mr. Speaker. I expected a lot more.

Let's start looking at some of the other areas that are going to be problems. An amendment is added that a person who teaches driving is to have a zero blood-alcohol level and not be impaired by any drugs. Okay, what about prescription drugs? What about a diabetic? Their insulin level goes up and down. Things change. Where's that covered off? I can't find it anywhere. I can agree with illegal drugs, Mr. Speaker, and I have no quarrel including those, but they're against the law anyway. That's accepted. That's known. These are substances that are against the law - marijuana, cocaine, whatever you want to deal with - yet we eliminate all drugs. What benefit is that going to serve society? It's not.

These amendments haven't been given a lot of forethought. It looks like they were scrambled together at the last minute. It looks like they're a series of wish lists from somewhere - I don't know where - and we have them before the House.

It goes on under this amendment that's proposed: a person who teaches driving is to have a zero blood-alcohol level. The accepted factor is .08. That one would have ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but if we have all these different sets of values out there, why not just lower everything to .05 if that's the intent? At least apply some consistent standard across the board.

What we're doing is getting involved in society at a different level, when we start looking at changes that are being proposed here. Why not an amendment that if you operate a school bus, or if you operate anything with a motor transport licence on it, you have zero alcohol level? That's not even suggested. It would make a heck of a lot more sense to me, Mr. Speaker, than it does to have the person accompanying a driver that's just in the learning process have a zero level.

All I'm asking is for something that's workable, something that's consistent and something that addresses the safety issues. The safety issues are out there and recognized. This goes a little way, but it doesn't go far enough with respect to insurance, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that when you get right down to it, they're going to say it's an unworkable arrangement.

Well, if you have an operating authority here in the Yukon, as soon as your insurance is cancelled, your insurance carrier has to notify the Motor Transport Board and your plates are automatically revoked. Driving without insurance is a problem here in the Yukon, especially for out-of-territory licensed vehicles and for vehicles licensed here in the Yukon. Your licence tags expire on a certain date, but your insurance doesn't necessarily expire on the same day - it can slip by. So, there has to be a mechanism to ensure that the vehicles are, at least, insured. The tags, really, are a side issue.

Why can't we do something with that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. It's because it might take a little forethought, a little planning and a little bit of initiative on the minister's part to even think about it. To date, she hasn't.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with fines is that people just don't pay them. They have their vehicle impounded, but they don't really care. What's the bottom line that the enforcement side can do? Throw them in jail? That doesn't serve any purpose. It just ends up costing us. That is what we're doing here.

At the end of the day, what we should have is legislation presented to this House that is going to address the shortcomings in the specific piece of legislation that we have. At the same time, it should improve safety, especially when we're dealing with the Motor Vehicles Act. It should improve the safety of Yukoners and our visitors alike.

I can't see this going very far in this regard. It just avoids dealing with some of the glaring abnormalities in the Motor Vehicles Act, Mr. Speaker.

I could go on at great length, but I want to get into the supplementary budget, which is the heart of the economy of the Yukon - which doesn't exist any more - and deal with the areas that this government should appropriately be dealing with. It is the economy that creates jobs and puts the light back on at the end of the tunnel, which they have switched off. It means attracting business, enhancing business and creating a window of opportunity for our children.

That's not being done. Instead, we're asked to deal with blah, unthought-out amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. It just shows us how much knowledge and understanding that the Minister of Justice has of her portfolio, Mr. Speaker. It's very, very sad.

Mr. Speaker, I'll look forward to debating some of these areas in line-by-line debate, but at this juncture it would probably serve the interest of Yukon better if this piece of legislation were taken off the table, went back and carefully thought out, and those areas that need to be addressed, be addressed. It's going to take a little bit of time. The act itself is not an old act - the Motor Vehicles Act. It's only a couple of years old, Mr. Speaker. It can be brought back this time next year and we could really do something for Yukoners, instead of making every one in the Yukon employed by government a highway cop, not addressing the important safety issues, because that's what this is doing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Speaker: If the member now speaks, she will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Hon. Ms. Buckway: I will confine my remarks to the matter before us, as is right and proper. The Member for Kluane asked if it was so important, why wasn't there public consultation?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kluane spent his time speaking all over the map. We're continuing the process begun by the previous governments in these amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. These are minor amendments, not a total review of the act.

The members opposite frequently complain bitterly about the number of reviews that are underway, yet in the next breath they're asking for more.

The Member for Kluane admits that these are housekeeping amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, yet he wants the government to review it. That is contradictory, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of housekeeping matters before the House this session because the previous administration didn't do their housekeeping in a great many areas.

I am disappointed that the Member for Kluane is making light of these amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, which are designed to make our highways safer. The member's riding contains a great deal of highway, Mr. Speaker, from the Ibex Valley up to Haines Junction, down the Haines Road and up the Alaska Highway through Destruction Bay, Burwash to Beaver Creek and the border. I know his constituents, like me, will be very disappointed that he refuses to take their safety seriously - for shame, Mr. Speaker.

Drunk driving is a serious issue. I'm very disappointed that the members opposite are laughing at that. It's embarrassing that the Member for Kluane doesn't understand this. Like many other Yukoners, including residents of the Kluane riding, I have lost family and friends as a result of drunk drivers. The only acceptable level of drunk drivers on our highways, Mr. Speaker, is none - none. If one life is saved as a result of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, it will be well worth it.

The Member for Kluane can't find anything good to say about these amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. He's trivializing the loss of life on our highways as a result of impaired driving. I'm also surprised that the Member for Kluane is trivializing the good work of his colleague, the Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes, on the Motor Vehicles Act when he was the minister.

I point out to the Member for Klondike that these amendments are, as I've already said, fine-tuning. The member, I'm assuming, does get a tune-up on his car from time to time; he does make repairs, I'm sure, when problems arise. We can pass these amendments this session and bring forward further amendments in the future. The Member for Klondike is again seeing nefarious plots where there are none. There is no plan to put red lights on top of my van so I can do highway enforcement.

The objective of these amendments is to keep drinking drivers off the road, Mr. Speaker. Alcohol abuse is a huge problem in the Yukon.

I thank the members for their questions. I'll be pleased to deal with them in line-by-line debate. I'd also like to thank departmental officials for their hard work on these amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Division

Speaker: Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker: Order please. Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Eftoda: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Jim: Agree.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Hon. Mr. Roberts: Agree.

Hon. Ms. Buckway: Agree.

Ms. Tucker: Agree.

Mr. McLarnon: Agree.

Mr. Fairclough: Disagree.

Mr. Fentie: Disagree.

Mr. Keenan: Disagree.

Mr. McRobb: Disagree.

Ms. Netro: Disagree.

Mr. Jenkins: Disagree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are seven yea, six nay.

Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 31 agreed to

Ms. Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader -

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Member for Ross River-Southern Lakes on a point of order.

Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to concentrate when we have, I believe, Liberal staff in the gallery taking pictures of the proceedings as they go on here. I'm not sure if that is allowed in this House. I understand that it's not.

Speaker's statement

Speaker: I'll look into that matter. Thank you. I will. Thanks. And I'll continue.

It has been moved by the government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole. Are you agreed?

Motion agreed to

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Mr. McLarnon: Good afternoon. I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Do members wish to take a brief recess?

Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

Chair: This will be the only recess of the day. It will be 15 minutes long.

Recess

Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to order.

Bill No. 22 - An Act to Amend the Elections Act - continued

Chair: We will continue with clause-by-clause debate on Bill No. 22, An Act to Amend the Elections Act. When we last left, we were on clause 409. Is there any further debate on clause 409?

On Clause 2 - continued

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify that the Member for Klondike was indeed correct that the option was for 12 to 20 seats under the Yukon Act.

Mr. Jenkins: What we were dealing with in section 409 was the fact that the electoral boundaries commission that was going to be set up under this act was going to make recommendations on the number of seats in this Legislature, and I think I would be more comfortable if that decision were a political decision, not a commission decision, and if we could exclude the word "number" and go back to the way it was in the previous act - because what I don't want to see, and I would believe that most Yukoners would be of the same opinion, is for us to be represented by 17-plus members, an additional three members.

And that would be an easy solution. The responsibilities of this electoral boundaries review is to look at what is existing, in my opinion, not to add one, two or three more seats around the peripherals of Whitehorse, which would be an easy solution. I'd like to ask the stand-in Premier today if that's in fact an option - if they will entertain that kind of an option?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: I need to remind the member opposite that exactly one year ago his party had the exact opposite position. I'll read from the Justice critic, at the time, who was Mr. Phillips of the Yukon Party. He says on November 15, 1999 - just slightly more than a year ago - "Mr. Chair, the minister said that I wanted to disenfranchise rural Yukoners. The fact of the matter is that the bill we have here before us is doing exactly that, it's disenfranchising rural and urban Yukoners the way it's written and that's the point we're making to the minister. This is on the amendment that we have made as a government.

"I am not the person who is going to decide what the boundaries look like when this is over. I am not the person who is going to decide how many ridings there are in the territory when this is over.

"It will be the commission that comes forward with those recommendations, and that's where it will come from, not from me. I don't go out there and decide or draw boundaries. I won't have anything to do with it. It will be Yukoners who will do that."

And then he goes on: "My argument is exactly the opposite of what the minister is saying." And, of course, Mr. Chair, that's why we're bringing this amendment forward. "It's the minister herself and this government that's disenfranchising rural Yukoners and urban Yukoners by refusing to have an electoral boundaries commission established and boundaries set prior to the next election. There may be 17 ridings" - and this is what's interesting. We've just heard almost exactly the same line from the member opposite. "There may be 17 ridings; there might be 18; there might be 19; there might be 20; there might be 15 - who knows. And I'm sure that the boundaries commission will recognize a fair urban and rural split, but will also recognize the gross discrepancies, even in the City of Whitehorse - with the Whitehorse West ridings and some of the other ridings, and many of the other ridings. I mean, the minister said that Whitehorse West is different because it encompasses some more rural areas. Well, so does Porter Creek North and Porter Creek South. They have some fringe and boundary areas to them as well; we all know that; we're not kidding anybody here."

Mr. Chair, we're not kidding anybody here. A year and a day ago, the Yukon Party asked for the amendments that we're bringing forward. These changes allow for public input. The previous act passed by the NDP government did not allow for public input. As we mentioned on a number of occasions when we were on the side opposite, as the Yukon Party mentioned on a number of occasions on the side opposite, this act - the new act - empowers all Yukoners, rural and urban, to make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly.

I'm not going to prejudge the outcome of the work done by an electoral districts boundaries commission. Yukoners have asked for these changes; we spoke out for these changes when we were in opposition. Our position has not changed. The Yukon Party's position has changed 180 degrees. But our position, as a Liberal Party, has not changed.

These amendments open up the possibilities for change as expressed by the people of the Yukon and in consultation with the people of the Yukon.

Mr. Jenkins: That's completely incorrect. The position of our party is that we wanted an electoral boundaries review quite some time ago. In fact, we saw it coming into place before the last election. It didn't happen. That was our position; it has not changed. We still deem it very necessary and very appropriate to have an electoral boundaries review.

Look at what has changed over the past few years, Mr. Char. We've lost probably 12 percent of the total population base of the Yukon. Our economy is going down. If our economy were growing and the population were increasing, as it did under the Yukon Party, then we could make a case for increasing the number of seats. I don't have any quarrel, but I think we should be very cognizant that another seat is going to have a cost associated with it. And the exercise of government is to provide the highest, consistent level of cost, the best cost to the taxpayer - give them the best bang for their buck - and this certainly is not doing it, what I see here today, Mr. Chair.

Given that the population of the Yukon is going downhill at a very rapid rate, I think we have to recognize that and put a cap on so that the number of seats is not on the table - 17 is it. We should make a cognizant decision that we are not going to reduce it at this juncture. But, if the population increases and goes back up to probably 35,000 or 40,000, that should probably trigger another seat and another review. But I don't see it ever happening under the Liberal regime, and probably not under the NDP either, but there is hope. There is the Yukon Party, Mr. Chair.

Let's look at what we have before us. I want to make it abundantly clear that our party's position has not changed. We still want to see an electoral boundaries review. The caveat on that is that, given the severe economic recession and the severe downturn in our population - I could probably suggest that the Yukon population is under 30,000 today, and I don't think I would be far off. I know how much it has dropped in our area. I know how much it has dropped in other areas of rural Yukon. It's going down at a very rapid pace.

I think that, as legislators, we should be cognizant of the spending of government money. Let's move ahead with the electoral boundaries review at all speed, but let's remove from the table or from the equation the opportunity for increasing the number of seats. That's all I'm saying with respect to this clause. That's all I would like to deal with.

You know, if you look at what happened in our riding with the voters list and the complaints I lodged with the chief electoral office - and the RCMP investigated it and said there was no cause. What it says to me and what I am told is that this act does not have jurisdiction if someone from outside of the territory votes in the Yukon.

They just don't have jurisdiction. Perhaps the Minister of Justice could correct me, or correct the record, but that someone can live elsewhere, fax in the proxy vote and say they're a voter or an elector in Yukon, makes a mockery of this act, if that is the case. Because there was a black-and-white case of someone having moved out of the Yukon several years before and voting by proxy. The RCMP investigated, and they said, "You know, we can't do anything. We're not laying any charges." And I've asked a few questions of a few legal minds, and they've told me that, in all probability, this Elections Act in the Yukon doesn't have jurisdiction in British Columbia or Alberta or anywhere else where voters might send in their request, saying they're still a Yukon resident.

So, if you want to look at things in this act that should be addressed, they are eligibility requirements and the definition of a Yukon individual to actually vote here. Those could be looked at.

But let's look at and focus on the issue before us. We have to have electoral boundaries review and we have to have it at the earliest time. I support this legislation. I'm uncomfortable with a couple of clauses - one was amended, and I thank the Liberal Party and the official opposition for supporting the amendment to broaden the focus that only three individuals could chair this commission. I think that was a good move.

But let's look at the reality of today's Yukon. Heck, we can't even support 17 seats, let alone expand it, Mr. Chair. Let's not fool ourselves. That's the only part that I take exception to, and I would urge the minister to give consideration to taking that part out of the equation, as far as the electoral boundaries review is concerned.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Let's go back and talk about some of the issues that the member opposite has been discussing. First of all, the cost of a new seat. Obviously the cost of a new seat will come back to the Legislature - that is, the cost of the running of the Legislature - is part of our responsibilities. We regularly go through the budgets here every year and supplemental budgets, of course. And those will be included in those budgets and the cost will be part of the debate at some point in the future if there is going to be an additional seat. And there may not be - there might be fewer. All these things are possibilities. There are many, many possibilities. The member opposite says that we should only increase the number of seats if the economy improves. The member opposite, like most of us here in this Legislature have been here for many, many, many, many, many years. Some of us were born here. And we all know that the economy in the Yukon goes up and down and up and down and it always has because we're a resource-based economy. And the economy of the Yukon will improve, but that should not be related to the work of this commission. The member opposite says that - now his party is saying that there should be a cap on the number of seats. Well, that is in direct opposition to what his party's position was a year and a day ago. And I read from Hansard from November 15, 1999, and I'll read this portion again, "There may be 17 ridings; there might be 18; there might be 19; there might be 20; there might be 15 - who knows. And I'm sure that the boundaries commission will recognize a fair urban and rural split, but will also recognize the gross discrepancies, even in the City of Whitehorse." Now, the boundaries commission will be asking Yukoners what their opinions are - and that's a good thing to do. And it's something that as a government we endeavour to do often, and especially when we bring forward changes to the way we do government. We will be going out to the communities with the boundaries commission and asking what Yukoners think. Then those recommendations will come back to this Legislature and the decision will be made by the members of this Legislature at that time.

The commission will not be making those decisions. So, to be absolutely clear, this is a decision that will be made here in this Legislature, and hopefully we will make a good decision at that time.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, at that time, the horse is out of the barn. Then we just close the barn doors and pay for it.

The issue before us is that the population here has gone down. We have lost better than 10 percent of the total population of the Yukon, Mr. Chair. That's the issue. The only thing that's going to increase the population of the Yukon - well, maybe this global warming will have an effect if there are palm trees appearing suddenly and it becomes another very tropical area, but I don't think it's going to get that warm up here. The only other option is if the economy turns around and the population increases.

What should be the driver of the increase in the number of seats in this Legislature is the Yukon's population. That's what I'm saying, Mr. Chair. Given that it has decreased so significantly, I believe that taking out of the equation for the electoral boundaries review the fact that they can look at the number of seats and expand them according to the Yukon Act - it's currently 20. I might point out that, under the proposed Yukon Act that the NDP brought forward and the Liberals agreed to, there's no upper limit on the number of seats that this Legislature can have. I believe that, somewhere along the line, we should tie in the number of seats to the population.

Adding another seat is probably adding another $150,000 to this equation, if you want to look at the total cost. It may be more or may be a bit less; I don't know, Mr. Chair, but I suspect it's in that order of magnitude.

All I'm asking is that consideration be given to taking the number of seats out of the equation in the electoral boundaries terms of reference. Probably, next time, under a new government, the economy will turn around, there will be an increase in the population and there will be a need for another electoral boundaries review and there will probably be a need for more seats in this Legislature, Mr. Chair. But, at this time, 17 are a stretch.

Now, the taxpayers of Yukon and Canada are being very considerate and very generous. You don't want to stretch them too thin.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to belabour this. The member opposite is in complete opposition to the position his party took a year and a day ago. This is a ludicrous discussion. The opportunity to have fewer seats or greater seats will be in the recommendations from the commission. It's quite clear.

Mr. Fentie: Unfortunately, this Liberal government fails to grasp the situation. In all likelihood, if a boundaries commission is charged with dealing with issues beyond the electoral boundaries' names and areas, and asked to look at number of seats, there's going to be a dramatic change in this Legislature. That change will be fewer seats in rural Yukon, more seats in Whitehorse. That simply does not constitute fair representation in this Legislature.

Furthermore, the minister has stated that we're going to go back out to Yukoners and ask them about this. Well, in rural Yukon the minister is going to find, very readily, that people in rural Yukon are going to say, "Close the whole thing down."

This Liberal government is irrelevant, because they're only following the federal Liberal doctrine and the issues that the federal Liberal government will deal with - none responding to the Yukon Territory. We don't want to belabour this point any more, either. It's evident that the Liberals aren't interested in fair representation in this territory. They're bent on increasing the seats in Whitehorse, decreasing the seats in rural Yukon for very good reason. They are simply not going to get support in rural Yukon, the way they've alienated rural Yukon in the last six months and turned their backs on the people out there in the communities. Those are the facts.

So, we in the official opposition propose an amendment to clause 409.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Chair, I move

THAT Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 2 by: amending Section 409 by deleting the word "number" and the commas that precede and follow it.

Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Fentie

THAT Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 2 by: amending Section 409 by deleting the word "number" and the commas that precede and follow it.

Now, do I have leave of the House to continue debate while this is photocopied, or do you need this photocopied now? Is there anybody who needs this now?

We'll have a five-minute recess while we photocopy this.

Recess

Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Everybody has a copy of the proposed amendment now, and we'll go through it again. It has been moved by Mr. Fentie

THAT Bill No. 22, entitled An Act to Amend the Elections Act, be amended in clause 2 at page 2 by amending Section 409 by deleting the word "number" and the commas that precede and follow it.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, to be absolutely clear, the member opposite who made the amendment made the leap that there were going to be fewer rural seats and more urban seats if this amendment goes through. Well, that leap in logic is a complete leap in logic because it doesn't make sense. The commission may say that there are going to be fewer seats in Whitehorse; they may say that there will be more seats in the rural areas. It doesn't make sense. We can't prejudge what the commission will say.

What Yukoners have said to all of us, throughout our political careers, is that they only want two things. They want to be listened to and they want to be treated fairly and equitably. So even if they are getting treated poorly, Mr. Chair, then they want everybody to be treated just as poorly. And if they are being treated well, they want everybody to have that same kindness.

So, that's what the commission will do. They will go out and endeavour to make sure that Yukoners are going to be treated fairly, that they will get fair representation within this Legislature, that they will be listened to because the commission will go throughout the Yukon and find out what Yukoners want.

The findings from the commission will come to this Legislature and, at that point, the learned members of this House will discuss those recommendations.

I think I should remind the members opposite, too, that this is an independent commission that will be chosen partly by the members of the opposition. That seems to be something that is lost within this debate. So we will not be supporting the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, isn't this interesting. I remember not long ago sitting in your chair and listening to the Liberals when they were in opposition, talking about how the shutdown of the Faro mine and the increased size of the Whitehorse West riding were two major factors prompting the need for an immediate electoral boundaries review. Now we get the Acting Premier here today saying we can't prejudge the commission. The two don't add up. Another contradiction by this Liberal government.

Mr. Chair, the main focus of debate last time was the need for an electoral boundaries review and all the issues that surrounded it, including the frequency of such review, and this was based on the Faro and Whitehorse West ridings. The population in Faro had dramatically decreased and the population of the Whitehorse West riding had dramatically increased. There were arguments raised and arguments refuted that voters in Faro were better represented than voters in Whitehorse West. Therefore, there's a need for a boundaries review.

So when the Acting Premier, the Member for Riverdale South, stands up and claims that we can't prejudge the commission and that we can't prejudge what number of seats or ratio of rural to urban seats the commission will recommend, I don't see a basis to that. This is a very futile argument. It's not grounded in anything factual or on the previous discussion that took place in this Legislature - an extensive discussion, I might add.

And I would imagine that if I wanted to take the time to research this, I'd probably find a Liberal press release to that effect, and possibly even comments from the same minister when she was in opposition. So they say one thing and do another.

Now, I think this amendment is very worthy of our support. The redefining the number of ridings is a contentious issue. It's also clear that the Liberals in government have no rural ridings. So, Mr. Chair, it's quite obvious why they want to tinker with the number. It's because they know the Faro riding probably won't be substantiated on its own, and they know that an urban riding - at least one, Whitehorse West - will probably be divided somehow. So they stand the most to gain. Again, Mr. Chair, this is another example of how this Liberal government is thinking of itself only, not the interests of Yukoners.

Now, this issue of fewer rural seats and more in Whitehorse is troubling for a lot of Yukoners. In many democratic countries, it's an accepted principle to give an advantage to rural seats in order to avoid inflicting upon them the ideals of urbanites, who greatly outnumber the sparse populations in rural ridings. As a matter of fact, Canada recognizes that. Look at the population in the Yukon riding, compared to some of the urban ridings. The population is a lot smaller. The United States recognizes that. Now, surely we don't want to go too close to that model, given all the confusion around the college system.

But surely, Mr. Chair, the point is there - that special recognition should be given to rural ridings and not base the definition of ridings solely on population numbers.

What the Liberals are doing is that they are trying to capitalize on a natural advantage, given the circumstances in the territory. The circumstances are such that rural communities have suffered because of the depressed mining economy. Towns like Faro have diminished in number. In fact, in recent years, Mr. Chair, some towns in the Yukon have vanished altogether. Look at Clinton Creek. Look at Keno Hill; it's still there but it's just a shadow of its former self. Look at Cassiar in northern B.C. - same story - and Tungsten, just inside the N.W.T. border on the Nahanni Range Road out of Watson Lake - same story there. There are other examples too, but why should we reconfigure the number of seats at a time when the rural ridings have suffered great losses because of poor commodity prices and bad times for mining.

As well, Mr. Chair, in a more direct aspect, one could argue that the Liberals are not assisting the economies of rural Yukon, in order to further hope that their numbers are plundered when people move into Whitehorse, because the conclusion is obvious. It means more Whitehorse seats and fewer rural seats.

Is that why the CDF and fire smart and other programs are all under review, to help people without jobs move into Whitehorse just in time for the electoral boundaries review, Mr. Chair? I may be paranoid but this, again, may not be without merit.

I have had the chance in my four years in government to talk to several constituents in the Kluane riding, and many of them have strong feelings about the makeup of the riding. The riding extends from the Whitehorse border to the Alaska border, both on the Haines Road and the Alaska Highway, plus the Fish Lake Road beyond the city limits - there are a few families out that way. It used to include only the communities of Haines Junction, Destruction Bay, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, Canyon Creek, and so on, but the last boundaries review expanded it to include the Whitehorse bedroom community of Ibex Valley.

This has had the effect, according to the concern I have heard from a lot of people in Haines Junction and the other communities, of taking away and reducing their outlook on where and what the Yukon government should do. It could be argued that a portion of the riding now essentially is Whitehorse based.

Mr. Chair, if the boundaries review is based on numbers of reduced populations in these communities, there could be a greater area of Whitehorse hived off and lumped into the riding. This could also occur in other rural ridings.

So there's another concern. It's not just on the total number of ridings and which ones are rural and which ones are urban; there's a concern about the makeup of the rural ridings and how the rural voice is being diluted.

So, Mr. Chair, one thing I think the Liberals should consider is accepting this amendment, doing away with this number, keeping the same number, but they should also consider additional measures to protect the makeup of rural ridings. In order to give some level of comfort to people in the outlying communities, they will still have a strong voice - just because people in the communities can't find jobs at this time and have to maybe move into Whitehorse, that they won't be punished.

Now, there's one more matter I want to speak to. In the Liberal platform document, under restoring confidence in government - Mr. Chair, I might add they have a long way to go there - one of the bullets is "provide balanced representation to all Yukoners". I'd like to know what that means. Is that code for reducing or eliminating special considerations and just basing ridings purely on number alone? So I'd like to hear what the acting minister has to say about that and the other questions.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the Member for Kluane said that perhaps he was paranoid.

The comment in the platform talked about the fact - and we've always been very clear about it - that we felt that there needed to be amendments to the Elections Act as it was put forward by the NDP. We are doing what we said we would do. These are the amendments that are coming forward.

The Member for Kluane said that members of my party - of the Yukon Liberal Party - when we were in opposition used the example of Faro for discrepancies in representation within this House, and I challenge the Member for Kluane to find any Hansard that says that. Because there isn't any, Mr. Chair. I know. I was here every day. I listened to every word the Member for Riverside - my father - said, and he was the critic in this area, and every word that the Premier said, when she was the leader of the party, over in opposition. And it never happened.

The only thing that I ever remember the Premier saying, when she was in opposition, about Faro, was that it was the little town that could. Plainly, the Member for Kluane is trying very hard to fight the Faro by-election on the floor of this Legislature - and he's not doing a very good job of it, at that.

The Member for Kluane says that his constituents - and these are his words - have strong feelings about the Kluane riding and its makeup. Well, here is an opportunity for those constituents to come forward with their concerns - come and talk to the commission. It's a perfect opportunity. When those concerns have been registered, and when the recommendations are made to this Legislature, then the Member for Kluane can point out those concerns again, and bring them to the further attention of the members of this Legislature, as we - as legislators - make the decisions. The decisions will not be made by the commission. They will be made by us, as the representatives of all Yukon.

I have to say that I have great faith that the members opposite will represent their ridings well in their positions, as they believe, as the representatives of rural Yukon.

I have faith in their ability to do that. I certainly wish that they did.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chair: Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members: Division.

Chair: It requires two members to call division.

Okay, I didn't see him stand up. We will call division.

Division

Chair: Division has been called.

Bells

Chair: I now call Committee of the Whole to order.

We will be taking a division vote on the proposed amendment moved by Mr. Fentie. All those in favour, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: All those opposed, please rise.

Members rise

Chair: The numbers are four yea, seven nay. The nays have it; the amendment dies.

Amendment to Clause 2, Section 409 negatived

Chair: Shall we continue on with debate of clause 409? Is there any further debate on clause 409?

Mr. Fairclough: I have one quick question for the Acting Premier on this. In questioning fairness of boundaries being changed in Yukon, the Premier said that what the Liberals believed in is fair and equal representation. I would like to know from the Minister what their definition of "fair representation" is.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the representation in the Yukon has changed over time. We've always said that Old Crow, for example, should be a riding. The Premier has always spoken up for the riding of Old Crow, that that needs to be a seat, but there are other considerations that need to be taken into account. The First Nations, for example, in the riding that the member opposite now holds, Mayo-Tatchun, those considerations were taken into account.

By having a commission of Yukoners, we can make better decisions as Yukoners about what we think is fair and equal representation within this Legislature.

I think the comment that has been made in the past was "fair representation within this Legislature", and that's what we all endeavour to do - to treat people fairly within this Legislature - and the recommendations that come from the commission will come to this House, and then we will make the final decision as to what we think is fair representation for Yukoners.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, I didn't get the answer to the question that I asked, about what fairness was. I just wanted to know, to get a sense of where the Liberal Party is coming from, on what they believe "fair" to be in distributing boundaries around the Yukon. What does "fair" mean to them?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, it's not up to any one party - the NDP, the Yukon Party or the Liberals - to decide what Yukoners think is fair representation. The Liberal Party has taken the position that they will take the recommendations from this commission and that they will support them in this House when they come forward.

Now, if the side opposite decides that they are not interested in the recommendations that come from Yukoners, that they don't think they're fair, then that will be their opportunity to state that position.

What we're saying, as Liberals and as the government side of the House right now, is that it's our position that fairness in representation will be represented by the recommendations that come out of the boundaries commission report and those recommendations that come forward to this Legislature. At that time, we will all decide - every one of us in this House - what we think the new Legislature of the Yukon Territory should look like. Perhaps it will be exactly the same. Perhaps there will be fewer seats. Perhaps there will be more seats for the urban areas. That's something that we'll decide at the time. I don't think it makes sense for us to stand up at this point and decide for Yukoners what is fair.

That's why we're going to have a boundaries commission to go out and find out what Yukoners think. So, our position is, we're going to listen to Yukoners. We're going to let them make that decision.

Mr. Fairclough: It's not what the Premier had said in this House. She did put a position forward that the Liberals believe in fair and equal representation. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the Liberal Party means by "fair". I think that's a very legitimate question before we carry on with this, because we are talking about numbers and so on. I just want to get what the Liberal's thoughts were on that - a simple answer?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to belabour this point again and again and again and again. The Premier has also been very clear. Her position is exactly the same as mine and her position was that we're going to go out and ask Yukoners. She talked about fair representation being determined by the commission and by the views of Yukoners.

Mr. Fairclough: So, Mr. Chair, the Premier said, "fair and equal representation". Is it one or the other or is it both together? I would like to know that. Perhaps the minister can tell me what the Liberal definition of "equal representation" is?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, "fair" is listening to Yukoners. The member opposite is claiming that there was a statement made in Hansard and - to move things along, I wonder if he could tell us where that statement was made? I would appreciate it.

Mr. Fairclough: It was in an answer by the Premier in the last discussion on this bill. I could bring it forward for the member opposite, if she's questioning that. Even the minister had made the same comment as the Premier about believing in fair and equal representation. I just want to get a sense of where the Liberal government is coming from when making amendments to this act.

It's only appropriate that this question be asked and not in a roundabout way. I'm trying to get a sense of it. I need to answer questions from my constituents about this Liberal government and what this Liberal government believes in, too. So, equal representation - what does that mean to the member opposite?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the member alleges that there was a comment made by the Premier about equal representation within the Legislature, and I've gone through Hansard from the previous discussion and cannot find it. I wonder if the member can help me and state where that was said by the Premier, because I haven't been able to find that statement. Perhaps he can be a little more clear about where that statement was made.

Mr. Fairclough: Just a few minutes ago, Mr. Chair, the minister did say that they believe in fair and equal representation, and that there was no different position by the Premier. So, if you're not saying what the Premier's said, what is the difference between her position and the Premier's?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, once again, there is no difference.

Mr. Fairclough: I don't know why the minister would not be able to answer that question. Does the Liberal Party believe in fair representation, do they believe in equal representation, or do they believe in fair and equal representation?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, we believe in fair representation.

Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Chair, the minister is contradicting what the Premier has said. It's different from one day to the next, and many people have heard it and written it down, and we would like to know why the Liberals have taken that position of fair and equal representation.

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Chair, the only statement that I can find from the previous conversations in this House is a comment by the Premier saying that she believed in fair and adequate representation in the Legislature. I believe that I give adequate representation to the people of Riverdale South. I think it's up to each and every one of us to do the best job we can, and I've gone through this a couple of times now and cannot find the statement that the member opposite is alluding to. Perhaps he can be clearer about where it is. This is the fourth time I've asked. Perhaps he can tell us where the Premier made that statement.

Mr. Fairclough: Well, I did, Mr. Chair. The last discussion we had on this the Premier said "fair and equal". Now you're reading through the Hansard and slowly finding more words that the Premier has said in this House. So what is "adequate"? Can the minister tell us that?

Hon. Mrs. Edelman: This is skipping ahead quite a few clauses, and I know that this isn't proper procedure for the House, but let's go to clause 419, if the Chair allows, although I presume that that discussion can probably best happen at that time.

Chair's