001a

        Whitehorse, Yukon

        Tuesday, October 26, 2004 — 1:00 p.m.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:    We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

In recognition of the 6^th Annual National Students Against Impaired Driving Day

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I rise today to pay tribute to the 6^th Annual National Students Against Impaired Driving Day in Canada. Today in almost 400 schools across the nation, students are participating in this national day of action to raise awareness of and help prevent impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, statistics show that young drivers are more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than by any other means. Tragically, in 40 percent of these crashes, alcohol is involved.

002a

Many Yukon families are profoundly affected each and every time a young person is killed by impaired driving. These deaths are heart wrenching, not only because they are untimely, but also because the deaths are preventable. As a society we strive to guide and support our youth so when a young person dies in a preventable manner, we all share in the sorrow.

What bolsters my spirit today is the fact that young people are spearheading the awareness campaign to remind their peers and adults that we all have a role to play. Students all across Canada have organized themselves to promote National Students against Impaired Driving Day to increase awareness and prevent impaired driving.

 003a

Students have created Web sites, organized events and letter-writing campaigns and distributed programming manuals and kits to raise awareness among themselves of the tragedy of impaired driving. It is my hope that through the hard work of Canada’s dedicated youth, combined with the laws and efforts of our society, we will all have safe lives.

In recognition of Block Parents Week

Mr. McRobb:   I rise on behalf of the official opposition to tribute our Block Parents by recognizing national Block Parents Week. Currently there are more than 300,000 Block Parent volunteers in Canada who make our communities safer for children, and everyone. Anyone over the age of 18 who can pass the police screening process can become a Block Parent.

004a

 A distinctive red and white Block Parent sign placed in the window will tell children, seniors and indeed anyone in need of assistance that there is help close at hand. The more signs there are on a block, the more protection everyone is afforded. These signs act as a deterrent to troublemakers. The more signs, the safer the community.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most serious offences among children is bullying. This is the most common reason why Block Parents are called upon. In addition to the window signage program, the Block Parents offer other important educational programs designed to increase personal safety. We urge all residents to consider becoming part of this vital service.

Thank you.

005a

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the national Block Parent Week, which runs from October 24 to October 30. Yukon’s Block Parent program has approximately 80 volunteers in Whitehorse and Watson Lake. These community members have stepped forward to offer a safe place where a responsible adult is available to assist, should the need arise. The Yukon Block Parent program is run out of Crime Prevention Yukon, with financial assistance from the Department of Justice. Block Parent volunteers display a familiar red and white Block Parent sign in their windows when they are home. Children can look for this sign when they approach homes in their neighbourhood and know that someone inside cares and is there to help.

The Block Parent sign also acts as a deterrent to troublemakers and, in particular, bullies that may be picking on other children. Bullying is in fact the most common reason why Block Parents are called upon. A Block Parent can receive a knock on their door from a child who is lost or frightened, an adult who has become stranded with car problems, a teen who is being bullied or finds their driver is impaired, or from a senior who requires assistance.

006a

The more Block Parent homes we have, the safer our neighbourhoods are. This week the Yukon Block Parent program is advertising for people to become Block Parents. The benefits of having a thriving Block Parent program outweighs the possible time commitment of only a few hours a month. Parents are encouraged to educate their children about what the sign looks like and that this identifies a place to go if home is too far away, and they don’t feel safe. This year’s theme, “Be someone others can depend on — become a Block Parent”, encourages members of our community to consider becoming a Block Parent.

I would like to thank the volunteers who are working to build this program for their hard work. I look forward to a time when the Block Parent sign will be visible throughout the Yukon.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I have for tabling today the Motor Vehicles Act review survey.

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

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

007a

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill No. 105: Introduction and First Reading

Mr. Hardy:   I move that Bill No. 105, entitled Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that Bill No. 105, entitled Act to Amend the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act, be now introduced and read a first time.

Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 105 agreed to

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Rouble:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Electrical to fulfill their obligations to maintain power line rights-of-way free of trees and brush.

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to commission an independent study to measure the true economic impact of a new bridge across the Yukon River at Dawson City.

008a

Mr. Cathers:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to streamline local area planning and zoning processes to expedite their development and implementation for the purpose of ensuring that the interests of area residents are respected.

Mr. Hardy:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Premier to table his government’s plan for the collection of unpaid business loans owed directly or indirectly by members of his Cabinet and to allow this plan to be debated and brought to a free vote of all members of this House during the current sitting.

Mrs. Peter:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Minister of Tourism to work cooperatively with the air charter and wilderness tourism industries in the Yukon to lobby the Yukon Member of Parliament and the federal Transport minister to renew the existing exemptions that allow fixed-wing aircraft to carry external loads such as canoes and other equipment and materials that are an essential part of the northern Canadian wilderness lifestyle.

009a

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:  Business loans, outstanding

 Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Does the Deputy Premier intend to repay his long overdue business loans from the Government of Yukon and, if so, when?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    I rise to respond to the member opposite’s question with respect to outstanding loans pertaining to economic development. As the leader of the official opposition is very well aware, this matter, this particular file, is a very difficult issue. However, with that said, our government, to this day, remains very committed to maximizing the recovery of all outstanding loans and has taken great strides in doing so and has generated much success in the interim.

Mr. Hardy:   I gave the opportunity for the Deputy Premier to clear the air on this matter, and that was passed, unfortunately. Now we also know who is answering for the Premier on this file this week; it seems to be a rotating seat — whoever answers. However, we’re no further ahead on getting this issue resolved. The Deputy Premier recently seems to have changed his tune on this $300,000 debt.

010a

The story used to be that this was a business debt and his business wasn’t making enough money to make payments. Now we’re hearing suggestions that the Deputy Premier inherited this debt when he bought his business, so he’s not responsible. We’ve even heard reports of the Premier saying much the same thing in his community meeting at Lake Laberge last month. Does the minister who is answering for the Premier today consider that to be a valid argument?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    Mr. Speaker, I can tell you what a valuable argument is. It’s that our government remains committed to maximizing the recovery of all outstanding loans. We have said repeatedly on the floor of this Legislature that we on this side of the House remain very committed to recovering those outstanding loans. As the Premier stated just a very few short days ago, since implementing our collection plan, 11 borrowers have renegotiated their loans, bringing the total number of borrowers in good standing to 17, which represents $2.4 million — more than half of the outstanding portfolio. That is success, Mr. Speaker. We are also currently working with Industry Canada to transfer 12 loans totalling $640,000 that were cost-shared between YTG and the federal government. Mr. Speaker, we have forgiven loans belonging to NGOs who owed money to the government — NGOs, I might add, who continue to contribute very good work on behalf of Yukon taxpayers for the benefit of all Yukon.

011a

Again, we continue to work with the Department of Finance to work on options to resolve the matter of the balance of the outstanding loans, which also pertains to the Member for Klondike.

Mr. Hardy:   Let it go on record that the minister did not answer the question I directed at her. Nobody in the Yukon public is buying this argument that was just presented. Anybody who has bought a house knows that the new owner is subject to the caveats that come with the property. That’s a fact. Anybody who buys a business knows that debts come with it unless there are specific arrangements made for the previous owner to manage those debts. That’s a fact as well.

A few moments ago I tabled a private member’s bill to amend the Conflict of Interest (Members and Ministers) Act to prevent any future reoccurrence of this shameful situation where a person can ignore a long-standing debt to the taxpayers and still enjoy all the rights and privileges of a Cabinet minister.

Now, for the sake of restoring public trust in government, will the minister give her assurance that she will support and vote according to direction on this matter from her constituents and her conscience, as well as all the other MLAs in this House?

012a

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    For the record again, just to make things very clear for all members of the Legislature, the Government of Yukon remains very committed to maximizing the recovery of all outstanding loans pertaining to economic development, loans that, I might add, were provided to Yukon individuals by the previous government, loans that we were left to take care of and look at maximizing the recovery of. Despite previous governments’ inactions on this particular very difficult file, our government has actually stepped up to the plate, we are taking action and we are having success.

Question re:  Electoral reform, contract

Mr. Hardy:   I’ll continue along with the theme of finance and accountability issues.

Yesterday the government House leader tabled the interim report of the government’s senior advisor on electoral reform. I have a question for him today in his capacity as Deputy Premier.

Is the Deputy Premier satisfied that Yukon taxpayers are receiving value for money on this contract?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The issue before us is the tabling of an interim report, and I must stress the word “interim” report.

013a

And that report is not in its final policy form as to what recommendations will come forward to this government from the individual who was hired to monitor this situation in B.C., monitor what has transpired in that jurisdiction and report to us accordingly. And there are other steps that have not yet been fulfilled.

So yes, the answer to the question is that we are well satisfied with the value received to date, but there is more coming.

Mr. Hardy:   A $120,000 contract to an individual. Over eight months have passed. This is past the mid-term. I think we would expect a little bit more than what we have received.

Let’s take a look at the facts. This interim report is basically a non-report. Apart from a fancy cardboard folder that looks like it came from the federal government, and a stunning souvenir photo of the senior advisor’s credentials as an official observer in British Columbia, there is really nothing in it. It consists almost entirely of fact sheets and handouts from the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. All this material and more has been on the Assembly’s Web site for ages. In fact, I was able to download almost all the material in this interim report in 40 seconds yesterday afternoon. It took me 40 seconds to find this material.

014a

Will the Deputy Premier explain why this is worth $120,000 to Yukon taxpayers? Will he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our party has a campaign commitment to look at electoral reform. The implications cross all of Yukon. That is exactly what is underway, Mr. Speaker, and if the member opposite takes exception to what has been produced to date, so be it. But the issue is that there is an individual engaged. There also will be a citizens-led advisory committee on this very important issue and we will be moving forward. But the initiative has begun in British Columbia. In that jurisdiction, they constituted a full review, and our government took steps to monitor what was going on and what is before the Legislature. And what was provided to the members opposite yesterday was an interim report. That is not the final report.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, it sounds like the Deputy Premier is quite defensive about this report. That indicates the quality and the volume that has been produced after eight months and I would guess over the $80,000 or $90,000 already having been spent. Now, let’s not kid ourselves here, Mr. Speaker. The only substance in this interim report is the page called “Budget Considerations”, in which the senior advisor justifies his expenditures to date.

015a

This is fascinating reading — truly fascinating. I note that this budget page refers to six more weekends of deliberation in Vancouver that the senior advisor plans to attend, but we all know that the citizens’ assembly has already made their major recommendation. They’ve already voted on it. They’ve already moved forward. Why? Will the Deputy Premier agree to cut the Yukon’s losses on this spectacular deal by cancelling the remainder of this lucrative contract and putting the money toward a commission on electoral reform this government promised in its election platform?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   We’re not a government that is, as the member opposite is suggesting, going to go out and reinvent the wheel. We are monitoring what is transpiring in other jurisdictions adjacent to us within Canada. The initial proportional representation initiative came forward from the former Yukon Party leader when he visited New Zealand and was impressed with the situation there. He made presentation to the House on that very important way of electing people to form the government. Our party committed to examining this area. That is exactly what we’re doing. That’s exactly what’s underway, and we have taken the steps to monitor what is currently transpiring in British Columbia. We are very, very positive as to what information has been received to date, but I must stress, once again, it is an interim report.

016a

Question re:  Land applications, policy

Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There’s chaos in the Yukon land applications because of the bungling of this minister. When the Government of Yukon took over land applications from the Government of Canada, this minister changed the rules. That’s a fact.

In recent news articles, and as recently as yesterday in this House, the minister denied that was the case. He insisted nothing had changed. He was wrong. Even according to his own Web site, he’s wrong.

Is the minister prepared to admit today that, yes, a change in policy has occurred under this Yukon Party government? Will he admit that he provided incorrect information to the House yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly know there’s a demand out there for rural land. We have a commitment, as a government and as a party, that we would make land available for Yukoners and we’re moving ahead with that policy. If people are interested in rural land, they can access information on our Web site, call or walk into the office five days a week.

In terms of policy, the biggest policy change was that we took over control of the lands from the federal government a year ago. To make the process of devolution go smoothly, we mirrored federal legislation. We have also formalized the rural residential land application policy to match practices of federal governments, and this allows for residential land applications. We’re moving ahead with managing the land in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has still not recognized that he has created a real mess because he has not done the hard work of government. Policy takes a long time, and this mess proves that this government and this minister are not prepared to do the hard work to get things right. You can’t just change the rules and not tell anyone that you did it. You cannot expect people to log on to the Internet every day or camp out in the office of the lands branch to see what changes have been made. The public relies on the government to make changes public, to make everyone aware of the information.

017a

Now, I wrote to the minister two weeks ago with a solution to this mess. In my letter I suggested to the minister that we have a case where the interest in land is ahead of the necessary public policy development. I suggested that the government not make land available in this area until there is an open public, fair process — well-established.

The minister has had some time —

Speaker:   Will the member please ask the question?

Ms. Duncan:   I will. Will the minister put this solution forward and clean up the mess he created?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I appreciate the member opposite’s opinion and that’s all she gives in this House — her opinion on how this government runs the land office. It is just her personal opinion. Our government is a very open government. The land policies are very open. Their office is open five days a week and we have a Web site.

We manage the land portfolio very seriously. We made  a commitment to the residents of the Yukon that we would put the land policy up front and we would move forward so all Yukoners would have land available for them. It is an open forum. It has nothing to do with secretive government or a policy that the general public isn’t aware of. We have an office, a very well-equipped office. There is no such thing as camping overnight in the office. You get prompt service in that office and we are moving ahead with managing the land in the Yukon.

Ms. Duncan:   The fact is that this government — the Yukon Party government — and the minister have created a mess. There has been a policy change in June of this year and the government didn’t tell the general public about it. They didn’t notify the general public. There was no public notification of a very significant change. The result? A free for all on land around the City of Whitehorse and hard feelings among Yukoners. And the minister will confirm, when he stands on his feet, that he has had absolutely no consultation with the Kwanlin Dun or the City of Whitehorse about this change in policy. I suspect that is the case and I would ask him to do that. Will he confirm that there has been no consultation with the Chief of the Kwanlin Dun or the Mayor of the City of Whitehorse on this change in the policy that wasn’t even made public?

018a

Hon. Mr. Lang:   There’s one thing we won’t do: we won’t run the land policy in this territory on hysterics. We work positively with the general public —

Unparliamentary language

Speaker:   Order, please. That is an unparliamentary characterization and I would ask the member to retract that please.

Withdrawal of remark

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I retract that.

There is a process that people go through in the process of acquiring the land on the Fish Lake Road. That process is very open, and it certainly involves every resident of the Yukon when that comes forward in the form of LARC. There’s a land application before the Land Application Review Committee, as well as having environmental assessment and whether or not this land fits into the appropriate policies and local area plans. They’re a long way from getting land on Fish Lake Road. This goes through a process — a very open process — on how the land will be issued. So for us to sit in this House and second guess what the LARC is going to do, what the environmental assessment is going to be —

I think we should let the process work its way out and, at the end of the day, hopefully it will work.

Question re:  Land applications, policy

Mr. McRobb:   Well, after two years the Yukon Party’s true stripes are really starting to show. One of those stripes is “favouritism”; the other one is “no balance”. This land disposition process is a good example of that. There’s no fairness in the process with respect to land dispositions. There is no land use planning to balance the process. For example, the Member for Lake Laberge yesterday tabled a motion to streamline the land application process. “Streamline” is code word for “abolish” to this Yukon Party. I asked the minister back on March 30 about a major land sale this year, and he denied it.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Point of order

Speaker:   The Member for Lake Laberge, on a point of order.

Mr. Cathers:   Pursuant to Standing Order 19(g), the Member for Kluane is imputing false or unavowed motives to me in claiming that the motion tabled yesterday was expressing a desire to abolish the land process.

019a

Speaker:   On the point of order, Member for Kluane.

Mr. McRobb:   On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here and this time should be added to our time for Question Period.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   I would ask that the members allow me to review the Blues, and I’ll get back to you with a ruling. The Member for Kluane has the floor.

Mr. McRobb:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, to the Yukon Party the word “streamline” means abolish. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources denied there was a land grab coming in the Yukon this year. He also talked about streamlining the oil and gas process and agricultural land process. I’d like to ask the minister: what other Yukon land use planning does the minister plan to streamline out of existence?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   We certainly are looking at land policies. We’re looking at trying to streamline. I guess government can always improve itself on how we process things. Certainly in our government in the Yukon, there are steps in the process and how we do that. But we certainly have to look at our agricultural policy, our rural residential policy, our rural policy, our commercial policy on how land will be handled in and out of the municipalities in the Yukon. That is work in progress.

I think that for the last year we have had land in our portfolio. I think we’ve done an amazing job as a government. As a land department, I think they’ve exceeded themselves in the work they’ve put forward to date. Our government has made a commitment to Yukoners to streamline, get land available for people out in the Yukon. And we’re committed to do that, Mr. Speaker. We’re committed to do it and work on the policies so we can do it, so at the end of the day we have a policy in place that addresses issues that Yukoners have addressed for years in this territory — from a five-year turnaround point on land when DIAND handled it to a point where we can do things in 60 and 90 days in an appropriate fashion. That’s what devolution was about, Mr. Speaker. It was about shortening up the application and getting this land out.

020a

Mr. McRobb:   We’d prefer if the answers were a little shorter and a little more substantial. The minister doesn’t recognize the Yukon’s need for proper, planned development, not willy-nilly development and only for a few insiders. The minister doesn’t recognize there has been a major and sudden change in the land policy, which apparently now is allowed within 30 kilometres of municipalities. There’s no public consultation; he has undermined land use planning. Communities and councils have lost any trust they had with this government. He has a whole department to devote to land use planning, yet he doesn’t use it.

Word of mouth is not good enough. Why did the minister allow only a chosen few to have access to the new distribution of land?

Hon. Mr. Lang:   Since June of this year, into October, there were a few people who took advantage of the Fish Lake situation. The land was there. Understand in the House, they did nothing illegal. Those people were completely within their rights to stake that land. They staked the land.

The next issue is, how does the policy work and how did they get the land in the long term? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, there are 31 applications. They’re going before LARC; they’re going before an environmental review; they’re going in front of all these policies to see if this land is legitimate, and it can go ahead.

This is not the first time in and around Whitehorse that people have staked land and acquired land that way. Through the federal system, within the last four or five years, there are people on Fish Lake today who used the same system and the same process that we’re talking about today. Nothing has changed.

We’re working with the policy; we’re going to work our way through it, and the people who have applied for the land or staked the land did nothing illegal. We will work with those people and work through the policy and see if, at the end of the road, the staked land is valid.

021a

Question re:  Caribou permit allocation

 Mr. McRobb:   Yesterday, the new Environment minister displayed a total lack of respect for this House when he claimed his explanation for tenets of natural justice could be found in Hansard. Wrong. There is no such explanation. The only Hansard is from last Thursday. Then he only said it was a matter pertaining to the tenets of natural justice. Somehow this minister believes he is above it all and doesn’t have to answer for his actions in this Legislature. That’s wrong. It insults the institution and everybody in it.

Let’s return to his overturning process decisions regarding the hunting allocations of Aishihik caribou. Would the minister now specify what the Alsek Renewable Resource Council did wrong?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’m not aware of the Alsek Renewable Resource Council doing anything incorrectly. What was not followed through was the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee. Now, the reasons detailing the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee were not provided to the outfitter at the same time the recommendations were issued. That is the essence of the difficulty and that was explained in an answer provided to the member opposite last Thursday.

One of the primary tenets of natural justice is that the reasons for administrative decisions must be provided to those affected by the decision at the same time. You don’t have a decision rendered and the reasons for the decision provided a long time after when the decision impacts the number or the quota on an outfitter’s licence that has got to go to work on August 1 of this year. That is the difficulty that the Minister of Environment was faced with. That’s why a decision was made for one year to ask the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee to review it and to go back.

022a

Mr. McRobb:   Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. That explanation is not in Hansard from Thursday. I invite anybody to check on that.

Now, there is a lot of confusion over this. On the radio transcript from Friday, he indicates he’s blaming the Alsek Renewable Resource Council, which is an Umbrella Final Agreement-mandated council. Now he says it’s the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee that did wrong. That’s where the outfitter took the issue when he wasn’t satisfied with the resource council’s decision on how many caribou he was permitted to hunt from the Aishihik herd. Following the outcome of the appeal process, the outfitter still wasn’t satisfied, so he took it to the minister, who then gave him all he wanted in the first place. I’d like the minister to be a little more specific and tell us exactly what did the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee do wrong, and what gave him the right to overturn it without consulting with both it and the resource council?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked; the question has been answered. It is very simple: the decision that the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee rendered has to have the reasons for that decision flowing or provided to the outfitter at the same time, because the outfitter’s licence specifies the species and the numbers on it. Before that outfitter can go and hunt that species, he has to have that clearly outlined or on his licence; otherwise he can’t hunt that species. We were right at the end of July, and the season opened August 1. That was the issue. The board didn’t provide the reasons for the decision at the same time as they provided the decision.

023a

Mr. McRobb:  The minister thinks he’s the judge, jury and big game hunter all in one. He overturns all of this process because he heard from one party about what he perceives to be some inequity in the process. That is not right.

I asked him yesterday about the requirement in section 16.8.4 of the Umbrella Final Agreement, which requires him to file his reasons for a decision to overturn such boards within 60 days. I want him to specify — it has been about 120 days since his decision. Has he filed his reasons — his reasons — within 60 days?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I am not aware of anything that the RRC did that didn’t follow proper procedure. What I am aware of is the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee. They have an obligation to render a decision and render reasons for that decision. That is the essence of the difficulty the Minister of Environment was faced with. This is an issue that has had an interim solution that was rendered for one year and the boards have been asked to go back and review it.

But let’s look at what has transpired during this past hunting season. The number of game animals taken was exactly the same as last year.

Question re:  Tantalus School, Yukon College campus at

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday the minister said that it was a matter of opinion which communities chose to have the community campus attached to the school. The facts are clear. It is not a matter of opinion that the policy has been to ask communities this question. Three communities said yes, three communities said no.

Maybe the minister ought to take a little trip to the communities and take a look for himself. Now that he has been updated with the facts, will he leave the decision of where the campus is located up to the community of Carmacks, as has been the policy in the past? Will he do that?

024a

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I believe this issue has been answered on several occasions in the House since opening, and again today I will confirm that this is a very-much needed infrastructure in the community. Every citizen in Carmacks will benefit greatly from it. Every community I have spoken to that does have this same arrangement thoroughly appreciates it. I believe that it’s a very positive move. We’re talking about the morale of students. We’re talking about the safety of students. We’re talking about the morale of teachers and educators. I think that this is a very positive initiative, and I think it’s one that Carmacks will benefit greatly from.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, by not answering the question he’s obviously saying that the policies have changed. No more do communities have the right to decide on their own. This minister will tell them what’s best for them, and that’s not what the communities want at all. Things are going well in the community of Carmacks with the campus in its location. The fact is that the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation passed a resolution not to have the campus attached to the new school. The fact is that the advisory committee held a community open house on this matter, and the decision was the same. They gave that direction to the architect. The school council does not support the campus attached to the school. The minister says he’s listening to the community. Despite all the advice that Carmacks residents have given to him and despite the fact that there was a march and a protest outside the House, is the minister’s decision final?

025a

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Again, I will state for the record that I have made several trips to Carmacks. There were a lot of mixed messages coming out. For example, members of the school council would make comments like, “This was the best idea, the most logical, but I’ll have to think about it.”

So, Mr. Speaker, this was not a case of a slam-dunk decision. There was a lot of consultation on this issue, and I believe that it is the responsibility of this government to build infrastructure in the community, and this government takes that very seriously. We intend to comply with that and build infrastructure in Carmacks.

I believe there is so much benefit to this infrastructure that I can’t understand why there is so much resistance to it. For example, I know there is not an abundance of employment in Carmacks. This initiative is great for providing employment to citizens in Carmacks. Again, it’s nothing but positive. It just maybe takes the member opposite to make it negative.

Mr. Fairclough:   What a poor answer. What the minister needs to do is go to the community and get his facts straightened out. Listen to the people. They protested outside of this House. They didn’t like the minister’s decision. He said there was little resistance to his planning. By not answering the last question, I believe the minister’s decision is final. I wonder why the Premier is going to the community of Carmacks on Friday if this minister is not going to move.

The Premier has to bail him out; that’s what it is. The planning committee in Carmacks is left in the cold. They haven’t received any formal direction from this government on their official duties. The window of opportunity for construction next summer is closing fast and the minister is to blame.

026a

Is the minister planning to disband the joint planning advisory committee? Can he tell us that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just stated that I’m to blame. I think maybe at this point it might be appropriate to say that maybe the member opposite needs only to look in the mirror to find out where a lot of this dissension is coming from. This government, again I will state for the record, has a job to do, and that is to build infrastructure for public use. The school and the College both happen to fit that criterion. Part of my job is to be able to make the tough decisions that come my way, and I believe I’m capable of doing that. I believe I did that.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

Notice of government private members’ business

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7), I would like to identify the items standing in the name of the government private members to be called on Wednesday, October 27, 2004. They are Motion No. 332, standing in the name of the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin, and Motion No. 328, standing in the name of the Member for Lake Laberge.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Fairclough:   I’d just like all the members in the House to join me in welcoming Robert Hager and his wife, Christine, from Mayo. Robert is a councillor for Na Cho Nyäk Dun. Please help me welcome them.

Applause

Speaker:  We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Government Bills

Bill No. 51: Second Reading

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 51, standing in the name of Hon. Mr. Hart.

027a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I move that Bill No. 51, entitled Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works that Bill No. 51, entitled Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be now read a second time.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Speaker and hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly, I am pleased to rise today to introduce amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Yukon Motor Vehicles Act is a complex and comprehensive piece of legislation. Motor vehicles are integral to how Yukon society functions. Whether you are a driver or not, this law affects you.

The Motor Vehicles Act has been amended on a regular basis in response to societal changes. The act was amended last in 2000, prior to that in 1998, and it changed substantially in 1997. We share our roads and highways with our neighbours, friends and families, and it is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that the laws promote safety and fairness for all drivers. The bill before you today is a result of consultation with citizens of the Yukon. Citizens from around the territory were invited to give us input through a random telephone survey and newspaper survey. The amendments to be debated in this House deliver improvements to the Yukon impaired drivers and vehicle impoundment laws. The bill is about fairness and consistency. The impoundment provisions were first enacted in the current legislation in 1997. Over the last seven years it has become apparent that impoundment rules need to be tightened in certain situations and applied more consistently and fairly in others.

The amendments we are proposing on impoundment provisions in this bill propose that vehicle owners, both private and commercial, and persons who have special needs to use an impounded vehicle may request early release of their impounded vehicle. This provision currently exists for dependence on the vehicles only. This impoundment amendment means that private and commercial owners will be treated consistently and fairly.

028a

This bill further proposes that impoundment rules be stricter for individuals who operate a motor vehicle without a valid licence. Persons who drive a vehicle without a valid licence, or no licence, will now become liable to vehicle impoundment. The impoundment provisions proposed in this bill are also about making our highways safer and removing the risk of impaired drivers to others. We propose that drivers who refuse to take an alcohol breath test may find their vehicles subject to double the usual impoundment period. The Motor Vehicles Act states that all vehicles must be insured for third party liability; however, there are many vehicles on Yukon highways that are not legally insured. Lack of insurance places all Yukoners at greater risks. This bill proposes that proof of liability insurance be shown before a vehicle will be released from impoundment.

The proposed amendments will also clarify the circumstances around vehicles impounded in error. The amendments also bring Yukon’s legislation into line with the Criminal Code of Canada and allow convicted impaired drivers to apply for the Yukon’s ignition interlock program earlier than previously allowed. The ignition interlock system is successful in removing impaired drivers from Canadian roads. We believe that by matching the federal law and making a convicted impaired driver eligible for the program sooner, they will take this opportunity rather than drive illegally or under the influence of alcohol.

This amendment also delivers a number of other improvements, improvements that are important to all Yukoners. As in all other Canadian jurisdictions, to improve the safety of everyone who shares Yukon roads, drivers must safely secure any loads carried on their vehicles.

In an effort to make our streets safer and to deter dangerous police chases, we are also proposing that drivers who recklessly endanger the lives of others by driving to escape the police receive a licence disqualification upon conviction.

We are also proposing to correct several legal errors in the Motor Vehicles Act, such as the age to start operating a motorcycle and an error in licence disqualification periods.

We are also taking positive steps to make Yukon roads safer. We are updating and strengthening our laws and we are taking steps to make our legislation fairer to Yukon motorists.

Thank you.

029a

Mr. Fairclough:   I’ll be short in my comments to the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. There are all kinds of questions about this act that need to be answered by the minister. I’d like to thank his department for providing the briefing on this bill a couple of hours ago. It’s too bad we didn’t have more time, because there were certainly a lot of questions that needed to be asked about the act itself.

When it was first announced in the House, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that most of us thought, “tow truck, tow truck, tow truck” — that this was what was pushing the amendments to this act. The government calls these “housekeeping amendments”, minor amendments. It does look like that when you first pick it up and read. Look at the first page of the document, “electric power-assisted cycle” — we need to change some of these. These are housekeeping until you start flipping through the document, and it starts to talk about the hot issue that was debated in this House around the minister’s action of bailing a tow truck out of impoundment. That’s where the push came for amendments to the act. That’s the area on which we will be questioning the member opposite.

There are a number of questions we have in regard to some of the housekeeping amendments, as they call them. Maybe a lot of it is for clarification, because I think our cyclists on the roads need to know where they stand. They talk about “electric power-assisted” cycles and maybe taking them off the road and having them in bicycle lanes, for example.

We have some questions in this bill regarding snowmobiles and ATVs, particularly when, for example, four-wheelers are different from motorcycles, or snowmobiles being licensed, and so on, on our roads. Then we have to question what it means for communities that rely on this type of transportation, like Old Crow, for example. Many people use ATVs as a form of transportation to and from work.

030a

Not only that, but there are limitations. And I believe that has always been there. And I’m not sure if the members opposite’s consultation would take into consideration communities like Old Crow. Basically, you shouldn’t be on a vehicle if you’re younger than 15 years of age, and that is a bit of a concern to us. Certainly we would like to know how government and this department is going to answer those questions for the people of Old Crow.

This is a very big act, by the way, and the minister did say it’s a complex act. The amendments that we have before us show sections of the act that either will be changed or moved from one section to the other. It takes a lot just to follow that through the act. I believe there are probably over 1,000 pages to the act itself. So there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

I understand the department coming forward and saying there are mistakes in the act. There are probably mistakes in every act that we have in government. This is what they’re saying. We need to clean some of those up. And when you bring forward an act like this, we can do that and update them, too. It could be little things, like where there are words such as “vehicles” to change it to “motor vehicles” — that type of thing. That is housekeeping.

031a

Why did this act come forward to this House for amendments? Was it because of public pressure? Is it because of questions in this House? Is it because of actions on the government’s side? Interference, some may say — or was it all of the above?  I believe that it is all of the above, and some of them, I believe, are serious and need to be questioned a lot.

There is a difference between privately owned vehicles and commercial vehicles. We have questions on how the split is and how it is defined in the act the way it is — also the minister’s responsibility in this whole matter. I was surprised that while the big issue was, let’s not have a minister involved in this type of matter again — and I agree with that and I think we all do. We should not see a minister put in the position, pressured by any business, to make that type of a decision.

I believe that’s why we have come to this point, although the act itself — I have to flip through it to find exactly where it is. But there are places that still have the responsibility going back to the minister. For example — I can’t find it here, I have to try to remember — it’s like paying the fees for wrongful impoundment. I suppose somebody in government has to do it and it has to point back to the minister. So that, if there is ever a wrongful impoundment, the tow fees and the fees for storing the vehicles and so on, are paid by government through the minister, or a designate, I believe. Maybe those are some of the questions that need to be answered by the minister — whether or not a designate would be able to do that type of work for the minister.

032a

The member talked about how this act was strengthening the rules against impaired drivers, and so on. We don’t have a problem with that. We have questions about it and how, in fact, this could be carried out, and how it impacts on a vehicle that has been impounded. For example, double the time if a person does not want to give a breathalyzer test.

I did ask the officials about if this is the only impairment that we are talking about here — impairment through alcohol. The answer was yes, there is no mechanism for government to identify impaired drivers on drugs, for example — whether they were prescription drugs or illegal drugs.

They are relying on the federal government to come down with some guidelines and rules, I guess, on this matter. Hopefully we will see that as soon as possible, because I believe that, when people talk about impairment and impaired drivers, that is on their minds a lot — why are we doing it for only one type of impairment and not the other?

Those are the types of questions we have. I have noted throughout the document what areas of this act are housekeeping and what is new. There is a lot of new wording that has been put into this. Of course, the whole section of impoundment and who, for example, is in charge of hearing the case of a person whether their vehicle was wrongfully impounded, whether it’s a police officer, or whether or not the client or person goes through the courts to say their case was not heard properly or they felt that there was more to it than what was provided by the RCMP and try to get it overturned. I think that’s where the biggest changes were made: where and who does that? It’s through the courts now and not the minister; that’s how it was explained to us.

033a

That’s the biggest section. I thought the opportunity might have come to government to look at this act a little more carefully for where they can make improvements, but the biggest section that was focused on was exactly that — the wrongful impoundment.

We do have questions on this matter and I know it’s going to go to Committee of the Whole. Some of my colleagues might want to comment on the Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act and I will certainly endorse that and will pass it over to the Liberal Party for their comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise to address Bill No. 51, Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, at second reading. I do agree with the minister that it is incumbent upon all of us in the Legislature to update legislation, to review the legislation that’s on the books and to regularly take a good, hard look at what is contained in the blue volumes at the Clerks’ Table and in all our offices, and that we ask Yukoners to enforce.

I note the minister committed, for example, to redo or bring forward the necessary changes to the five pieces of legislation dealing with animals and animal control this session. We haven’t seen them, and we are unlikely to see them because the minister and the Yukon Party government haven’t done their homework.

I do not believe the government has done its homework on the issues contained in Bill No. 51.

034a

For example, the evidence that is presented in support of these changes is a survey. That’s it, a survey of specific questions. The survey was conducted, I might add, at the start of one of the best summers, in many respects, that Yukoners have seen in some years, and we just received this information today. The survey asked very specific questions. It does not allow for the kind of fulsome debate and consultation that Yukoners are well used to. We saw, for example, when the changes were brought forward in 1997, there was a very fulsome debate about the graduated driver’s licence program — a very in-depth debate, discussion, consultation with Yukoners. These are significant changes in many respects presented before us. There has not been significant homework done on them.

We are required as legislators to ensure that the laws that we pass are enforceable. We can’t put laws on the books if we can’t enforce them and can’t deal with them. We can’t ask Yukoners to do the impossible. There are issues around enforcement among many provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. For example, that graduated driver’s licence program I mentioned a moment ago — that’s one of the issues out there today among young people and their parents and the enforcement agencies. We can’t pass these laws without also providing the resources and ensuring they are enforced. There’s no point in having it on the books, Mr. Minister.

035a

I would advise the minister. And a very good example is contained in the act before us. The minister has put forward a move from the Highways Act to the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to securing a load in or attached to a vehicle. In other words, under these changes — you had to under the Highways Act but now under the Motor Vehicles Act — a Yukon driver is going to have to ensure that that load of stuff they’re taking to the dump or wherever — a landfill site — is well secured. It’s a good idea, and we all like to see that happen. We’ve got the garbage pickup along the sides of the highways near communities that will attest to how important that is. There’s no point in doing it if we’re not going to make sure it’s enforced. And that means the resources and that also means, particularly around the City of Whitehorse, consultation with the City of Whitehorse bylaw enforcement, of which, I would add, in relation to doing your homework, there has been none. On these issues we’re working with people. Theoretically the government is supposed to be.

There are other burning issues with respect to the operation of motor vehicles, major issues that are the subject of discussion not only in the Yukon but elsewhere, and two immediately come to mind. One is whether or not there should be a restriction on cellphone use while driving. Some provinces have looked at it. I’ve heard this discussed by some Yukoners. That’s an issue that would come up in a discussion of the Motor Vehicles Act. It’s an issue Yukoners are talking about. But this Legislative Assembly that’s in charge of making those laws isn’t talking about something like that. It’s an important issue. It’s worthy of consideration.

And the minister has stood on his feet in this House and made tribute during Safe Driving Week and called all of our attention to the fact of the number of times we drive while distracted, and I will admit that I am guilty of that as well. Should we be looking at those sorts of restrictions in the Motor Vehicles Act if we’re bringing it forward? Absolutely.

036a

Also an issue throughout this country is how an individual experiencing ill health or simply the symptoms of age is told compassionately that they’re no longer able to drive. That’s a major issue. All of us as part of the sandwich generation — those raising children and caring for elderly relatives — in some form or another, have experienced, or have friends who have experienced, situations where an individual, either in the territory or outside the territory, has come to the place where they’re no longer able to drive. How do we compassionately deal with that? How does the family compassionately say to the motor vehicles branch, “We don’t think uncle so-and-so should be driving any more.” In some provinces, as I understand it, those who have suffered a stroke have restrictions placed on their licence.

Those are issues for members of my constituency; they’re issues for all Yukoners. They’re important issues that relate to the Motor Vehicles Act, and this government, because they don’t do their homework, aren’t bringing forward those issues.

There is some straightforward housekeeping — changing “vehicle” to “motor vehicle”; however, there is also the very fundamental change that has been brought forward by the Yukon Party that is a step backward. I’m referencing, of course, the impoundment provisions.

The impoundment provisions around clarity to a private owner of a vehicle are one issue; it is the clarity around the issues of a commercial vehicle where the Yukon Party has taken the Yukon backward, and not only backward, but it’s inconsistent with other pieces of Yukon legislation and legislation elsewhere.

037a

The Environment Act, the Liquor Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, all hold an employer responsible for the actions of an employee. This impoundment provision that the minister has brought forward with respect to commercial vehicles takes public safety on one hand and commercial interests on the other and says that commercial interests win, at the expense of public safety. I believe that’s wrong — absolutely wrong. Not only is it inconsistent with other Yukon legislation, it’s fundamentally wrong. Public safety should absolutely be first and foremost.

There should be no doubt that while there are other amendments in this legislation, the key amendment is the one surrounding the release of an impoundment of a commercial vehicle — the tow truck amendments. There was a serious error in judgement made a year ago and now this legislation is trying to clean this up. It’s a cover your act, if you will. I do not support those particular amendments. The amendments put dollars and cents ahead of public safety. It’s something I cannot support.

We are going to have a very full and thorough debate. I’m sure, on many aspects of this legislation. There is a lot that could have and should have been addressed. There is homework, and the hard work of government that should be done by the Yukon Party hasn’t been done.

The fact that this legislation is coming forward as opposed to other pieces of legislation that are very important to Yukoners and the fact that it is such a legislatively light agenda speak volumes to the public about how the Yukon Party governs.

038a

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that the government has done its homework on these issues. I don’t believe that they have done the hard work of government. It will be, as I said, a full and thorough debate, and it will extend, because if these amendments pass, then the government can expect some very tough questions as to when and how they are going to provide additional resources to ensure that these provisions are enforced. We will be asking if they are prepared to put their money — and Yukon taxpayers’ money as required — into doing some of this enforcement. 

As I said, I am sure that there are others who wish to enter into this debate. I do not support the amendments that have been brought forward, and I look forward to the minister’s defence of them, because I am quite interested to hear how he justifies the inconsistencies in the Yukon legislation he is putting forward.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, my colleagues and the leader of the third party have brought forward some very interesting comments. I think that what they point to, once again, is the government of the day, the Yukon Party government, is not doing its homework, not doing the necessary work, not doing the proper consultation, not looking at all aspects of our society and how their changes that they make to something like the Motor Vehicles Act — what kind of impact they will have and what kind of message they send out, especially around safety, and around accountability. Accountability is a big factor in this matter, because when I look at the impoundment changes that they are proposing, I don’t see any accountability.

The member from the third party has already mentioned the other acts that have that onus of responsibility being transferred to the owner or the business, that’s not part of this. I don’t understand why; I don’t know why this has to be different — the fact that this legislation is coming forward, as opposed to other pieces of legislation that are very important to Yukoners.

039a

I don’t understand it. I don’t know who got to this minister or this government to ensure that they can basically run a loose ship and not be accountable. And you don’t have to look very far to see what the results are when you allow that kind of thing to happen under your acts. That’s what this is and I can’t agree to it. I can’t believe that this is the kind of response that has come forward from the fiasco that we witnessed last year when the former Justice minister intervened to allow a commercial company to walk away from their responsibilities on a very serious charge — something that any individual out there would have been nailed to the wall on. This is the response we got.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this territory are not going to find this satisfactory. Because of that, we will argue, we will try to bring some light to the subject and hopefully the minister will be open to the proposals we bring forward and the changes and the concerns we mention about the amendments they’re doing. But it also raises a lot of other questions. What have they been doing for the last eight months, 10 months, 12 months? Here we are in the fall sitting where we expect substantive legislation brought forward, and what have we been given? Shame on this government. Shame on them collecting their paycheques if this is the best they can do. This is an embarrassment.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   Yes, the Member for Klondike is saying that we get paid the same amount. Well, that Member for Klondike — we do not have to bring it up again in this House, but who pays their bills and who doesn’t?

This is the same kind of attitude that bothers me about this government. Changes are brought forward that have no substance. If anything, they’re tilted in a direction that does not address the problem.

040a

They cause more problems. That is a serious outcome — if we have people right now, in government, making these kinds of decisions and recommendations that ultimately have the potential of causing a greater problem.

Now, I know there was a survey done. And the critic for this area, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, had mentioned that we got this survey on the very same day that we are debating these amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. Now, that’s not the way good government happens. That’s not the way you ensure good debate happens in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker. You try to ensure that every person in here, every member who is representing a riding, has the information to come forward and have a good debate so we can make suggestions and try to improve this. That’s not happening here, because we just received this — I just received this — and you have to page through it.

But it’s interesting what jumps out. Looking at one page, “Release Issues”, the owner of a commercial vehicle should be able to apply if not in the vehicle and for reasons he could not control — should be able to apply for the release of the impounded vehicle. “And for reasons he could not control” — what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? Where is the explanation behind this? What would a question like that — how was the question crafted so that you would get a response like that, “for reasons he could not control.” So how does that work?

So what do we end up with, Mr. Speaker? We end up with changes in section 10(1), followed by a few more. But basically it’s saying that “If the owner was not the driver of, or a passenger in, the motor vehicle when it was impounded, the review officer may revoke the impoundment if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that because of inadequate alternative transportation (a) the owner or a person in their care will suffer any loss or unfair curtailment of employment or educational opportunities; or (b) the health or safety of the owner or person in their care will be jeopardised if the vehicle is not released from impoundment.”

Those are the factors. Following on, again, “… the business in which the vehicle is used will suffer economic hardship that threatens the survival of the business if the vehicle is not released from impoundment….”

Now, that was an argument we heard last year.

041a

That was never proven. As a matter of fact, I could quite easily prove otherwise, that that was not a legitimate argument. The second part, (b), “an employee or customer of the business in which the vehicle is used will suffer the loss of income or service or commodity that is a necessity if the vehicle is not released from impoundment” — we debated this quite a bit last year and these changes don’t address it. If anything, they allow a double standard where a person may be responsible for who’s driving their vehicle, may be violating the Motor Vehicles Act, may have that vehicle impounded but not have to face any responsibility. That’s what this is saying. That’s what has been brought forward.

Is that good law? Is that fair law? Is that equal law applied to all people? Is that natural justice? I don’t think so at all. That’s just an example of the problems with this.

We’ve already talked about the fact that this government hasn’t been doing the work, and there are so many other issues, as well, not just the little bit they’ve brought forward. Very legitimately, there are the cellphone issues that are out there. Study after study has proven that there’s a serious problem with the usage of cellphones when driving. Accidents increase.

There are other jurisdictions that have taken action to ban the use of cellphones while driving. There’s a reason why that has happened. Is that being addressed in here? Why not? What kind of work has been done? Why has that not been addressed?

042a

There are issues around graduated licensing that can be improved. Has the minister directed his department to look at a broader picture, to bring forward amendments and changes? Was that part of the discussion? How about off-road usage and on-road usage of vehicle classifications? Insurance costs?

Insurance cost is an interesting one. Every time you say, or you make a condition, that you have to prove insurance here or do insurance there, you are adding a cost to the people’s ability to drive a vehicle. Have there been corresponding discussions with the minister whom the insurance would fall under on how we can address some of the insurance costs in this territory and the difficulties around that for young people, seniors, older people, house insurance, car insurance — is the work happening? Is there any communication over there on all this stuff? Vehicle costs: the Motor Vehicles Act does connect to insurance. Is that correspondence happening? I don’t see it. I don’t see any of it.

How about rates for impoundment? Every time you increase the impoundment you increase the cost, of course. Maybe it’s right, maybe it’s wrong, but are there rates for the impoundment? Are there enough businesses out there to impound the vehicle? Where does the vehicle get impounded? What are the rules with the RCMP around impoundment? Are there problems there? I’m hearing a lot of problems.

Are there standardized rates to ensure that the costs do not go so extreme that it is impossible for a person to regain the ownership of their vehicle because of that, because of those restrictions? Has there been any look at that?

043a

How about the proper protocol in the information given to those who have had their vehicles impounded? Are we increasing the infraction cost to such a point that we are denying people the ability to get their vehicle out because they can’t afford it immediately? A lot of people in this territory do not have a lot of money. They’re getting by. Have we considered their needs as well when we look at these acts?

It’s interesting that I’ve been fielding a lot of phone calls in the last few weeks around tow trucks and impoundment costs, around why a vehicle is impounded and the towing cost itself. Has there been a review about the costs? Does this government have a responsibility in its relationship with the RCMP and the RCMP’s relationship with the tow truck companies that are also connected to the Motor Vehicles Act? Does it have a responsibility there? I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there are some serious problems.

How about the licensing of businesses and listing those businesses? Are they legitimate? I’m talking specifically about — I’m getting back to the Motor Vehicles Act review and the tow trucks. I can point to one business in town that has five names listed — different names. And then there are two others. So when the RCMP calls for a tow truck to come and pick up a vehicle, they do it on a rotational basis. Well, guess what. One company gets five calls and then finally it hits another one, somebody who isn’t part of that one company. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that a problem? Yes, it is. It’s a problem for the other businesses trying to make a living.

How about the rates during the day and at night when you have a call-out? Are we getting fair value? Is it fair? Is there agreement? There are a lot of issues here.

044a

Three weeks ago I dealt with a call in which a vehicle was towed to the RCMP compound for investigation. That vehicle was then towed to the tow truck compound by the same company. That young man was told it was going to cost $1,200. Why pays that? Is that fair? It was probably not a distance of more than 15 or 20 miles — two tows. There might have been a couple of other tows in there. We’ll be generous: four tows done in one night, $1,200.

Those are serious problems. This government should be hearing this. They should be addressing these concerns. People want to make a living; all businesses want to make a living. They also want to be treated fairly. All people want to make a living; they want to be treated fairly. Some of these changes here do not address those concerns.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues. There are a lot of issues that aren’t addressed, and that’s the sad part. This survey we just received, although it’s always good to have a survey, I don’t think it was broad enough, and I would love to read the questions and how they were put to ensure they weren’t skewed to give the government the direction it wanted.

I would like to know the process that was used, how this survey was developed, was the government involved in drafting the questions, was there feedback on ensuring the questions were fair and presented in a manner that would ensure a neutral answer or an answer that doesn’t direct the person answering in a certain direction? There are lots of questions, and I would really have loved to have had this survey a bit earlier. I request that, in the future, maybe the Yukon Party government could ensure we get the information sooner than what has been in the past so we can participate in an informed debate and assist this government in their deliberations on bills and acts they bring forward.

045a

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

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I thank the members opposite for their comments with regard to the amendments to the act. I will state that currently the regulatory review committee is reviewing the graduated licence process, and we’ve had a few concerns about that particular aspect, and we are checking into that through that particular committee.

However, we will look forward to responding and debating as the members opposite have indicated in some of these sessions over issues that we are looking at. I anticipate that we were looking at making adjustments to that act. We obviously were not in a position to cover a broad spectrum, as the members maybe have indicated. To give them the appropriate consultation would have taken considerably more time.

I look forward to debate.

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 51 agreed to

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   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 that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

Is it the wish of members to take a brief recess?

046a

Some Hon. Members:   Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a 15-minute recess.

Recess

047a

Bill No. 51 — Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act

 Chair:   Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 51, Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, in general debate.

Does any member wish to participate in general debate or shall we go line by line?

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, I think it’s the Yukon Party’s dream just to have this go through as quickly as possible, but that’s not going to happen.

We do have questions with this legislation. I know that the member opposite anticipates a lot of questions, and we will be asking them. A number of my colleagues are going to ask questions in regard to this. I thought, perhaps, maybe the minister might have had some opening statements, but I see that he would like to get right into answering questions.

048a

It has been said in this House that we know what the driving force is behind bringing in the amendments to the act. We know that this could have been taken further. There are lots of questions with regard to the major amendments to this act, and we’re hoping to get some answers from them. During the briefing, we just received the survey that took place, which I believe guided the amendments to this act — or a lot of them anyway. I guess we have to go through it carefully to see exactly where the changes were made.

049a

I guess the first question I have with the survey is: how did the government come up with these questions? How did the department come up with these questions? Some of them don’t seem to suggest any alternatives; there’s just one — “What do you think of it?” “Do you support it?” — a strong percentage of yes, or whatever.

How did the department come up with these questions? Was it through partnership with other organizations? I know that some people have made comments on the changes to the Motor Vehicles Act, like MADD, for example. But the questions that have been put forward by the department on the survey — who worked on them and how long did it take to come up with these questions?

050a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, last year an advisory group was struck and key community representatives were selected to provide suggested changes to the act. Considerable thought went through the suggestions, and they also came up with possible suggestions. We were looking at trying to bring something in early last year. They felt they needed further consultation and wanted some more public input. Their input into the process provided the basis for the questions that were drafted by the DataPath crew.

051a

Mr. Fairclough:   As the member said, it is a compilation of the department’s thoughts on this matter and the advisory group, or is it the advisory group itself? I just want to know if the questions that have been asked in the survey are reflected in the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act — so if the department had more input than the advisory group that was struck.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   DataPath had prepared all of the licensing. They have the expertise. They have a good track record to ensure that we get a good cross-section of all Yukoners’ viewpoints and questions.

052a

They will guarantee that the 400 respondents we got in the survey represent the demographics of the Yukon in terms of age, gender, Whitehorse and community representation. The issue is that we provided this information; the advisory group provided the basis of what questions should be put forth and DataPath put them in a form that they could put in a survey and get a response back from them.

Mr. Fairclough:   Can the minister tell us why it was struck that way?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The advisory group consists of the transportation board, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, local and national, and the Teamsters Union.

053a

Mr. Fairclough:   I know that the communities, for example, had all kinds of questions on this matter and with motor vehicles, especially when it comes to impairment, community healing, alcohol and drugs and so on.

Does the minister feel that their issues were adequately addressed through the questions in the survey?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The questions identified in the DataPath survey were to basically relate to those brought forth by the advisory committee, not to go out to a wide variance of that process.

054a

Mr. Fairclough:  Is that normal practice or is this a change in policy and direction in how we gather information?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   This is specific for the changes that were being looked at as far as the regulations go and they were specified in a manner to address the issues at hand.

Mr. Fairclough:   Did it follow past practice, past policy in which we gather that information? That’s the question I asked.

055a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Yes, previously in the past — in 1995-96 — this situation was followed, and we asked them for specific answers for specific questions.

Mr. Fairclough:   This government said they are working to improve relationships between First Nations, government to government. How was this matter dealt with — the amendments and the survey, and the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   In addition to the phone calls to the public from the DataPath surveyors, letters were sent directly to Yukon First Nations and Yukon communities to invite them to participate in the survey.

056a

Mr. Fairclough:   And that is just to participate in the survey, or actually putting together the questions for the survey? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It is for the participation in the survey.

Mr. Fairclough:   Was it not the desire of the department to include First Nations in the territory to be part of putting together the questions in the survey? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   They felt that the representation provided in our survey would cover a wide range of Yukoners, and we feel that it was adequately covered in the survey to address the situation of all Yukoners.

057a

Mr. Fairclough:   Is that the reason for not including First Nation participation in drafting questions for the survey?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It was also in lieu of getting out a consultation and getting the results back in sufficient time for us to evaluate the information and prep the information for this fall session.

Mr. Fairclough:   That changes a lot. Then is the minister saying this was more of a controlled amendment to the act where other issues were not looked at and intentionally not looked at?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   No issues were intentionally not looked at. We were looking at a specific number of changes as indicated by the advisory board, and we were trying to keep them at a manageable level and to get there. I would also like to advise the member opposite that 14 percent of our process in the evaluation of our survey included First Nations.

058a

Mr. Fairclough:   But for the questioning, they were not. This survey was done, completed and presented to government on June 16, with an update on July 5. How long was the consultation for amendments to this act?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   They were out for somewhere in the area of six to eight weeks.

Mr. Fairclough:   Were other major issues presented to government by First Nations and by the general public that were not included in the survey and were not included as part of the amendments to the act?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   For the member opposite, we had a section on the survey that provided for people to make alternative comments with regard to the survey. We received very little uptake on it, and those we did we’re taking under advisement for when future amendments come through.

059a

Mr. Fairclough:   The areas in which comments were made were not reflected at all in the amendments to the act. They weren’t reflected in the survey questions, they weren’t reflected in the amendments. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We had indicated earlier that we received very few comments in the section of “others” and those that we did we are taking under advisement for possible changes in future legislation. The number that we received — for example, we didn’t exactly receive 10 comments on the same issue. They were varying comments and they were very limited in number.

Mr. Fairclough:   So there are 10 comments in the category as “others.” Is that 10 comments on the same issue or are there more? I am wondering if these are major concerns that people had that weren’t being dealt with.

I know, for example, that the First Nations have issues with the Motor Vehicles Act and they haven’t been brought forward.

I wondering if, first of all, the minister can answer that question and then I’ll continue with that.

060a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Just to help rephrase this, I indicated that we didn’t bring forth any issues that were indicated as “others” because we didn’t receive a large number on the same issue. I used the example of 10 on one particular issue. I don’t exactly have the numbers, but I do know that there was a very small number that were indicated as “others”, and they were sporadic.

Mr. Fairclough:   Six to eight weeks — that’s the normal time for major amendments to acts like this. Obviously the public was basically anticipating amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. I thought there would be more than what was provided here. Why didn’t the department make recommendations to, say, the advisory committee on areas to look at, and perhaps have it reflected in the survey that was done? Why didn’t the department do that?

061a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The issue is that we did provide an aspect of an issue for the advisory committee to look at. One of the issues was the interlocking system and we asked them to give us a list of ideas on how we can improve that system and how we can improve the impoundment issue. We didn’t specify anything in particular. We just asked them to look at ways and issues of dealing with that particular one from our view. And other questions were brought up from the advisory committee, which we went to question with DataPath.

Mr. Fairclough:   So basically those were the two issues that the minister had, the department had — or how did the direction go from the minister to the department to the advisory group that was struck? Did the minister give any direction? Obviously he wanted to make some amendments to the act. The two that he mentioned were ones that were big issues in this Legislature — impoundment, and the interlocking system, I know, has been an issue for awhile. Why those two and not others? What others has the minister discussed with the department?

062a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We were looking specifically at points being addressed at that time. As the member has indicated in the House, there was a strong issue. We were looking at trying to improve those particular parts of the act, and we are looking at it.

As I mentioned in my preamble, the act is very complex, very long, and it has been amended many times. We’re not in a position to review the act from scratch, because the consultation period for that would be extensive.

The member from the third party indicated that the graduated driver’s licence went through a lot of consultation, and even though it went through consultation, we’re still having some difficulties in it. I will state that we are in an effort to try to improve the act where we can. We’ve asked the advisory committee to assist us in making those improvements and get it to a state where everything is reasonably clarified and we can go forward.

Mr. Fairclough:   As the minister has just stated, they didn’t want to do the hard work that was tasked to them as they became ministers. We think that more could have been done. Was the minister surprised at all by the results of the survey?

063a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Was I surprised at the survey results? I’m not quite sure what the member opposite is looking for in response. I would state that, in looking at the response on one particular issue, I thought the results were maybe a bit lower than I had anticipated, that’s for sure. But in general it looks to me as if the results were very consistent throughout on the recommendations made.

Mr. Fairclough:   Was the minister at all aware of how the advisory committee came up with some of these questions? What did they use for background material and rationale for them? Was it just a group discussion or did they do some homework by looking at other jurisdictions, for example, when it came to penalties and so on?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We did provide the advisory committee with lots of background information from other jurisdictions, legislation and other aspects they requested to allow them to make their assessment on trying to make the improvements on the act.

Mr. Fairclough:   Some of the questions asked — for example, whether people disagreed or agreed with having the penalty double if a driver refuses to take a breathalyzer test. Was that taken right out of another jurisdiction? How did they come up with that? Why wasn’t triple, or a length of time other than saying it was double, put in place or given? Why wasn’t the option given in the survey?

064a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The main reason for the doubling up is that it just fits with the other aspects of our legislation that we’re dealing with. We have a double process right now, i.e. the impoundment issues if you double the impairment value. And basically it’s to detract people from driving while overly intoxicated.

Mr. Fairclough:   So there is no real backgrounder or rationale as to whether or not this will work better or deter drivers from driving impaired? There is no background to it at all, no rationale about doubling up? I’m just wondering why we use it as a doubling or why we’re not using a specific period of time, by saying, “It’s a two-year penalty.” I’m just wondering how we end up with that, how we can explain it clearly, I guess, to the public who may be interested in this change?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We’re looking at providing, as I mentioned earlier, a double process. If you have the double BAC as it is right now, and he refused to take the test, which many people will do because they know they are going to be double the process, which will in effect double the impoundment of their vehicle. So that, as I mentioned earlier, is to follow along with the current legislation that we have as well as dealing with our process of following along in the legislation and keeping things even.

065a

Mr. Fairclough:   And that’s penalizing the private owner of a vehicle more than it is a commercial owner — is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It’s anyone who refuses.

Mr. Fairclough:   I didn’t quite hear that. I thought the minister said it was anyone. It’s both? That wasn’t explained, or maybe I didn’t hear that from his staffers during the briefing. But the minister says it’s with both? I know we’re going to go through that in detail later.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Mr. Chair, it’s any driver.

Mr. Fairclough:   Okay. Well, I don’t understand it completely. I guess I have to go to that section once we get to it, because it doesn’t quite make sense because there is a bit of a difference between — I guess the minister must be referring to the owner of the vehicle, whether they’re business or private. So I think that’s what he said.

In regard to impoundment — we’re going to go into detail on that, but in regard to the other amendments, were these the more pressing housekeeping issues that have been with the department for awhile? How did the minister direct his department to ensure that these were part of the amendments — for example, definitions and so on of, say, the electric power-assisted cycle? Is this just to keep up with other jurisdictions? How long has this been on the books for amendments, if these are housekeeping?

066a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   These are housekeeping measures that have arisen since 2000.

Mr. Fairclough:   Does the minister feel they’ve gone all the way in these amendments on housekeeping stuff regarding mopeds and the electric power-assisted cycles and so on? I’m just wondering, if they were going to address that issue, why not address others? It’s talking about three-wheelers — I don’t know why they’re mentioned and not four or five, or whatever type of motor transportation that’s being developed now. Why are we only looking at that and not powered wheelchairs and so on?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Wheelchairs aren’t motor vehicles.

But we were trying to address things as the issues came up. We’ve looked at specific things to basically assist in the operation of ensuring safety for all Yukoners on our highways. As issues arise and things come up, we’ll look at them where they are. These issues of the electric cycle, mopeds and all that have come to light and we are trying to address them.

067a

Mr. Fairclough:   We’ve seen the modes of transportation on our roads here in Whitehorse. I’m just wondering how come we didn’t go all the way, and maybe I’m missing it. For example, the electric power-assisted cycle. What is that? Is it battery operated? Is it gas powered? What is really meant by that?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It’s a small electric motor that moves the cycle along, and it has a maximum voltage that it can kick out.

Mr. Fairclough:   In Whitehorse here we’ve seen people using a gas-powered one on their bicycle. Was it not considered in these amendments to include that?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I only refer to electric. I’m not aware of the gas one he’s talking about.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, is his department aware of them? They’re on the streets in Whitehorse.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We’ll have to get back to the member opposite on that issue.

Mr. Fairclough:   Is this then common in other jurisdictions? Obviously we’re following other places that have maybe a little more use of bicycles and electric power-assisted cycles. Why did we not include that? We’ve seen them all around the city. There are different types, and so on. Does it fall under a different category? Why not include that? I’m just wondering. The department just can’t overlook something like that. It’s got to be included, or was it deliberately left out for some other reason?

068a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned previously to the member opposite, I’ll get back to him on it.

Mr. Fairclough:    Would the minister commit to getting back to me on this tomorrow? We’re in Committee of the Whole. We’d like to debate this thoroughly, and if there are any changes we’d like to propose them. Is that enough time for the minister to get back to me — as early as possible? Tomorrow would be almost too late if we go through this bill today.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will endeavour to get the information for the member opposite as soon as possible.

Mr. Fairclough:   I hope that it is in some detail on that matter.

People are very interested in that, especially with rising gas prices and so on, and other means of transportation.

In particular, it wasn’t part of the survey. The department looked at this and came up with some guidelines in making this part of the act. What guided the department into putting some parameters around this? For example, having these electric motors at no more than 500 watts, and that type of thing — what guided that? Is it a standard or a motor size that companies have been putting out? There must be reasons for saying, not 1,000 but it’s 500.

069a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   These are federal government regulations, and they regulate what the definition of what the process is for these bicycles.

Mr. Fairclough:   They’re federal government regulations. So were these taken directly out of some regulations and developed by the federal government? I don’t know why, but there are some of them that are weird. They spell out exactly what kind of a vehicle this is. If you pedal, the motor shuts off, and that type of thing. It’s the same with braking. I don’t know if it’s for safety reasons or you want to limit the amount of speed that could be produced by these, but why have those parameters in there, other than for safety, for example, when you’re braking? There must be more to that.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Safety is the big issue. It is also, as I have mentioned, regulated through the federal government on what these types of vehicle are and how they operate.

Mr. Fairclough:   Have any of these issues or part of the federal regulations been looked at carefully by the department? I’m just wondering why some of the numbers are there. Like, why a maximum of 32 kilometres and not 40 or 50 or 25? Why have the magic number of 32?

070a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The 32-kilometre rating for this particular cycle is taken right from Transport Canada’s motor vehicle safety regulation definitions.

Mr. Fairclough:   Maybe the minister has all that information in front of him and could tell us why it was that number and not any other. Why wasn’t it 50, for example? I know that we’re doing is taking these electric power-assisted cycles off the road and into bike lanes. Is it strictly to keep the speed down?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    The main reason is that we’re treating them like bicycles. That’s why they’re in that lane. And it is for safety reasons.

Mr. Fairclough:   Okay, well, the minister is not answering the question. Can he send us over the federal regulations and how they came up with that number? Because we’re interested. Obviously if there’s a lot of interest in this and people are actually driving these electric power-assisted cycles, then they’re in the same lane as anybody who is riding a bicycle and they could be in the same lane as those using gas power. There are no regulations, there’s no change to the Motor Vehicles Act, so it doesn’t limit anyone from a gas-powered bicycle, or whatever you want to call it, from riding in the bicycle lane. Is that how it is now with the changes to the act?

071a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   They are not considered a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act; they are considered a bike. As I mentioned earlier, that is why they are in that particular lane.

For the member opposite, we would be more than happy to send over the regulations if he wishes.

Ms. Duncan:   I would just like to enter into the debate for a time here. I am certain that there will be other questions.

I would like to thank the officials for the briefing we received this morning. It was very helpful. To start, I would like to follow up with a couple of questions around the advisory committee that the minister mentioned. The advisory committee assisted in reviewing the changes; let’s start there perhaps. Exactly what was the role and what did the advisory committee do?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The role of the advisory committee was to look at the two main issues: impoundment and the interlock system for that process. Those were the two major aspects they were asked to look at.

Ms. Duncan:   So the minister summoned an advisory committee to examine the issues around impoundment and interlock, and the advisory committee — if I heard the previously questions correctly — included the transportation board, a local and national representative of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the Teamsters. There was no representative from the enforcement agency, and there were no representatives from the Department of Justice. Is that correct?

072a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The enforcement aspect was dealt with through MADD, through their enforcement people in their consultation in dealing with that particular venue. And also the council did review it with some of the reviewing officers and got their input on the process.

Ms. Duncan:   There was not a single member of the RCMP, who does the enforcement in my read of the act as it exists today — not one member had a look at this or had input into it, who is called upon daily to enforce it, no representative of the RCMP and not one legal mind on the committee. A trained lawyer — not one?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We did have ongoing advice from the RCMP outside of the counsel and we also had ongoing advice outside the counsel from Justice on this issue.

Ms. Duncan:   So there was advice after the fact, but the key advisory committee that looked at these issues for the minister did not include representatives who draft the legislation for us to look at, nor individuals who are called upon to enforce it. Their opinion was sought afterwards but not in the advisory committee process. That doesn’t sound like a very thorough job on the homework in this particular instance. It isn’t a thorough job on the homework.

Perhaps the minister could advise: why these two issues — why just the impoundment and the enforcement? Perhaps while he thinks about his response — I’ll let him address that question first. Why was it just these two issues?

073a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We asked them to address those two specific issues. We required some improvement to the act and that has been demonstrated during that period of time.

Ms. Duncan:   With all due respect to the minister, he didn’t say why these two issues. There are many, many areas in this act that required improvement. It’s incumbent upon us, as I said in second reading, to take a thorough look at all our legislation. These aren’t the only areas in the Motor Vehicles Act that required attention, so why were these two selected?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    For the member opposite, as I mentioned earlier, this is a fairly complex act. We are looking at taking amendments that we had for housekeeping as well as issuing with the advisory committee, dealing with two important issues at the time. These are the areas they felt should be looked at in conjunction with those, and we’re following through on that process.

Ms. Duncan:   I don’t have Hansard in front of me; it won’t be available until later today. Would the minister state again, for the record, who designed and how the survey questions were determined?

074a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The questions were designed by DataPath based on the suggestions brought forth by the advisory council.

Ms. Duncan:   So the advisory committee made some suggestions and DataPath then conducted the survey. I would just like to refresh the minister’s memory for a moment. Perhaps he hasn’t had it available to him. I’d like to quote to him from Hansard: “Well, what gave rise to the question even being posed in this questionnaire? There had to be an event or series of events that occurred that gave rise to that question even appearing in that survey that was conducted throughout the Yukon. There has to be something that drives these initiatives, Mr. Chair. That is what I’m getting at. For the question even to be on the questionnaire, something has to have driven it. What is the issue or series of issues that drove that initiative?” — the Member for Klondike in reference to a survey conducted about the Motor Vehicles Act. Would the minister stand on his feet and state specifically why these questions were asked? Is it a result of his predecessor’s, the former Minister of Justice’s, actions with regard to the impoundment of the tow truck?

Hon. Mr. Hart:  We asked the advisory committee to look at ways of improving the impoundment and the interlock system, and they did so on our behalf.

075a

Ms. Duncan:   The reason the minister asked for them to look at impoundment provisions was because of the actions of the former Minister of Justice, and the reason for the interlock is because of an ongoing court challenge. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   At that time the court challenge hadn’t come up. There was a gap in dealing with the issue at that particular time, and this was obviously one of the ways we were looking at trying to close that gap.

Ms. Duncan:   Can the minister explain how there were 10 previous cases on the impoundment of a vehicle, and the way that section of the act was worded worked for nine of them, but it didn’t work when the Yukon Party came to power? Can he explain why that happened?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There were well over 1,000 impoundments done. This was the first time that someone used this part of the act.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Chair, unfortunately that directly contradicts what we were advised during the briefing. In the briefing we were advised that there were 1,000 impoundments but that 10 cases had been brought to the minister’s attention or had gone up for review. Nine of them the minister upheld, and the one case happened after the Yukon Party came to power. So the section of the law — the way it was written and hotly debated in this Legislature, and we’ll be getting to that — worked for nine out of 10 cases. What went wrong with the tenth?

076a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Capital Towing was the first one to utilize that section of the act. There have been nine since that period of time.

Ms. Duncan:   So the minister is contradicting what we heard in information in the briefing. My understanding was that these cases had come up before — that previous ministers of Justice had had this issue raised to them since it was brought to them. That’s my understanding. Now, is the minister saying that it had never been brought to a minister before this — that the justice of the peace and judges had been able to deal with it, that it had never come to a minister before?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I will restate it for the member opposite: Capital Towing was the first one to enact this particular one under the process and there have been nine since that time, to equal the 10 that the member opposite was advised of in the briefing this morning.

Ms. Duncan:   As I understand it, this change came in 2000 — the impoundment provisions — and they were debated at length in the Legislature. The impoundment provisions, as they were written and as the law stood, worked fine — they worked — until one case happened. There was no other situation where there was a problem where it had to go to the minister. That’s what the minister is saying. It worked fine until this one particular case, which occurred in 2003. Is that correct?

So the law worked really well for three years, until the summer of 2003. There were no cases; nobody else tried this.

077a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   As I mentioned, Capital Towing was the first to bring up this section of the act, 243, previous to 2000. It has been there ever since. Nobody brought up until that particular time.

Ms. Duncan:   So the section of the act, 243, worked until the summer of 2003. That’s what the minister just said.

Hon. Mr. Hart:   It was actually there since April 1999 and was never used until Capital Towing used it.

Ms. Duncan:   So it worked for four years. Of the 10 cases — the one that caused the amendment, which the minister has brought forward, was that the only commercial vehicle?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Of the 10, there were other commercial vehicles. We’re unsure of just how many.

Ms. Duncan:   I don’t want to wander into an area of questioning that is not public information — and during the briefing we asked for this information. Can the minister advise us, are those 10 cases — the law and the section and so on — all public information or is it a matter of ministerial confidentiality?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We believe that that information would be protected. These names wouldn’t be released.

Ms. Duncan: