001a

        Whitehorse, Yukon

        Wednesday, November 3, 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 remembrance of Herman Peterson

002a

Mr. Rouble:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the Legislative Assembly to join me in saying good-bye to a man, a husband, and a friend who has been an inspiration to all of us with whom he shared his life — an inspiration as a pilot, an aircraft engineer, and a craftsman, but most of all, as a wonderful human being — Herman Peterson, the last of the early-day bush pilots, and one who had certainly seen his share of bad flying weather, has taken off to a place where there are eternal blue skies and tailwinds.

I would like to ask the Assembly to please join me in welcoming Mrs. Doris Peterson and Mrs. Vera Kirkwood.

Applause

Mr. Rouble:   Herman was born on December 29, 1913, in Latuque, Quebec. At the age of 10 he persuaded his father to take him to see a floatplane that had landed nearby. He climbed into the cockpit, moved the controls back and forth, and knew then and there that he would be an aviator. Before he had his first flying lesson, Herman bought a rare and slightly damaged open-cockpit bi-plane, with the fitting registration for a fledgling aviator, of CF-ABC, and he eagerly began the task of rebuilding. A local pilot, Joe Fecteau, who would become Herman’s lifelong mentor, recognized the young man’s enthusiasm, and agreed to teach him to fly.

By the end of 1941, Herman had earned his commercial pilot’s licence, his aircraft engineer’s licence, and the hand in marriage of his loving partner-for-life, Doris. In 1942 the young couple moved to Carcross where Herman honed his skills as a bush pilot and aircraft maintenance engineer. One of his first assignments was a fitting introduction to his life of adventure in the north  — that of flying as co-pilot and swamper on a Fokker Super Universal on skis, hauling out the engines, radios, bombsites, and armaments of the three B-26 bombers that crashed in Million Dollar Valley. It was considered to be a classified military job, and so Herman was not allowed to photograph his first great adventure.

In the years that followed, Herman flew thousands of hours on the wartime Canol and Alcan projects, as well as Northern Airways’ regular charter and scheduled mail routes.

In 1950, Herman and Doris moved to Atlin and started Peterson’s Flying Service, with a small three-place Aeronca Sedan. It was that year, in the month of February, that their young friend Moe Grant went missing between Atlin and Carcross in his Tiger Moth. After the official search was called off, Herman doggedly continued to scour the country, until he found Moe alive — but barely. No one is more acutely aware than Moe that Herman’s unselfish dedication saved his life.

Seventeen years later when the company sold, the fleet had grown to include a Super Cub, a Cessna 180, two Beavers, an Otter, and a Bell 47G-4 helicopter, with a brand new JetRanger on order. During those 25 years of flying in the north, Herman built a solid reputation as a professional pilot, a reliable charter operator, and a superb maintenance engineer. In fact, in almost a quarter of a century of hauling the mail between Carcross, Atlin and Telegraph Creek, he never lost a single letter, or failed to get the mail through.

During his 17,000 hours of flying, Herman never injured a passenger.

In 1965, Herman was honoured by the B.C. Aviation Council for his contribution to northern aviation, including a daring rescue he carried out on the treacherous Iskut River. Some 25 years later, the new Atlin Airport was dedicated to Herman, and officially named Peterson Field.

In 2003, Herman was inducted into the Yukon Transportation Hall of Fame, and last January Herman and Doris celebrated their 65^th wedding anniversary.

Clearly, we can all rejoice at having had Herman Peterson in our lives, and joyfully celebrate the full, rich, generous life that he crammed into his 90 years.

Thank you.

007a

Mr. Hardy:   It’s lovely to see you again, Mrs. Peterson. Paying a tribute to a man like Herman Peterson is difficult when you measure your own life compared to someone of his stature. His contributions to the north are legendary. His concern for his friends, for his family, for his wife, are well known, and his passion for flying, which was a lifelong passion, is something that we often don’t see in people today — passion for life, passion for occupation, passion for friends and family.

The Member for Southern Lakes has recited the life activities and awards and dedications and recognition that Herman Peterson had acquired, and I don’t want to repeat that even though much of the information we have says the same thing. But I do want to say, from my perspective, that I never met Herman Peterson in person.

008a

I met Herman Peterson through one of his passions, and that was the building of violins and fiddles. There are many people throughout the north and elsewhere who are playing those fiddles. He built 18 of them, just as he built airplanes, with passion, with skill and with love. And when you hear those fiddles played by the players — Joe Loutchan, Bill Matiation, Rusty Reid — when you hear the fiddles played, you know that Herman Peterson’s voice is speaking to you, just as when you see a plane fly above, a hand-crafted plane, a prop plane, you know that there is a part of Herman Peterson in those planes.

My understanding is that he will be recognized. One of his planes is going to be mounted at the Transportation Museum in Whitehorse, and that’s a wonderful tribute, as are many of the other tributes that have already been mentioned.

009a

I was driving in today from Carmacks and I put a CD in the CD player — it’s my daughter’s CD; I didn’t know what was on it; who knows what you might find with a 22 year old. The first song that came on, which reminded me of Herman Peterson and where he is today, was a song called I’ll Fly Away. It’s a beautiful, beautiful piece with a lot of violins and fiddles in it. It’s a bluegrass piece sung by Alison Krauss and it’s a wonderful piece. It made me think very deeply about this man and his contributions to the north, to his friends and the impact he has had on people’s lives.

I have been very fortunate. Mrs. Peterson sold me Herman’s equipment and many pieces of the violins he was working on. I go into my shop now and sit there and look at them, and I think of this man and of what he has given to so many people, and I’m thankful for that.

010a

I hope everybody takes a moment to think about the contributions this man has made and the contributions we can make in following in his stead.

In recognition of Kerry Huff

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I rise today to inform the members of this House of a significant recognition bestowed upon Principal Kerry Huff of Porter Creek Secondary School. I ask the members to join me in welcoming Kerry Huff, who is present in the gallery.

Applause

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   Maclean’s magazine’s The Grade School Project names Porter Creek Secondary School as one of Canada’s best high schools. Kerry Huff was nominated for his leadership as a principal. Many of you may be familiar with Kerry Huff’s wonderfully unusual leadership style. In the true spirit of leadership, he works to engage everyone at his school to do their best and respect one another.

011a

I would like to extend my thanks to Kerry Huff for making the school experience so very special for so many of our students.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the students and staff at Porter Creek Secondary School and the parents involved with the school for supporting Kerry Huff. It is through your support and hard work that you make Porter Creek Secondary School a great school.

Finally, I would like to thank all Yukon school administrators, teachers, support staff, students, school councillors, parents and Department of Education staff for making our schools what they are today: positive environments that stimulate our youth and provide them with the best learning opportunities possible.

012a

Ms. Duncan:   “One hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, what sort of house I lived in or the kind of car I drove. But the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.”

That anonymous quote hangs on Kerry Huff’s office wall for a reason. This principal, former president of the Yukon Teachers Association, colleague, parent, constituent, concerned citizen does more than glance at that quote when he starts his day. He walks the talk and he lives it. It is truly an honour, as the Member for Porter Creek South, to pay tribute to a constituent such Kerry Huff.

There are many stories to be told that would exemplify and tell in a far wittier fashion that I can what a difference Kerry Huff has made and continues to make in the lives of Yukoners. In recognizing Mr. Huff as an educator, there is a story in Maclean’s that a photo of Kerry Huff in a tutu also hangs on his office wall. The quote attached to that article says that he “makes students feel good about being here”.  

013a

Kerry Huff is one of those unique individuals who sees something good in everyone and can produce, no matter what your daily circumstances, a smile or a pun to share. Kerry, thank you for being there for your students, your colleagues and for all of us. We truly appreciate not only what you do but how you do it. Thank you, Mr. Huff.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hardy:   I’m going to say just a very few words. Once again, the work that Kerry Huff has done as the leader of the school has already been described. He has inspired the students to excel. He has definitely brought forward a sense of humour, which is so essential in education. As a matter of fact, it’s essential in the Legislature at times, and we can learn from that kind of action. Kerry, congratulations on the award you have received. It’s well-deserved. From the NDP, we definitely appreciate the work that you’re doing up there.

One of the greatest compliments a teacher can ever get — and I know this because I did go to a teacher years later and say it to him — is to go up and say, “Thank you. You helped me.” I said that to a teacher, and they told me that was one of the greatest compliments they’d ever received. And I bet there are many students who will be saying that to Kerry Huff over the years.

Thank you very much.

In recognition of Project Red Ribbon — Tie One On for Safety

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Highways and Public Works, and as minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation, I rise today to pay tribute to the 2004 Project Red Ribbon, the Tie One On for Safety campaign.

The campaign runs now through January 3. Mr. Speaker, each year Mothers Against Drunk Driving launches a public awareness and education campaign to remind the public that impaired driving causes needless death and injury. Boxes of red ribbons are being placed in our liquor stores around the Yukon and at the motor vehicles branch.

014a

We invite patrons to pick one up and, if able, to make a donation and support this important cause. By placing a red ribbon on their lapel or on the antenna of their vehicle, program supporters will show their respect for those who have lost their lives or suffered injuries as a result of alcohol-related offences.

Supporting this campaign also sends a strong reminder that we all need to be sober when we get behind the wheel of a vehicle and take to Yukon roads — and even off-road.

Impaired driving poses a risk to all Yukoners. An impaired driver is a risk to him- or herself, a risk to every other motorist on the road and certainly a risk to innocent bystanders.

We have seen the tragedy that drinking and driving causes, and we know the devastation this crime can inflict.

Mr. Speaker, we are reaching that time of year when we all enjoy the chance to socialize with others and celebrate the warmth and the joys of the holiday season. Through the Tie One On for Safety campaign that is now underway, Mothers Against Drunk Driving are offering a strong reminder not to drink and drive. By displaying a red ribbon from the Tie One On for Safety campaign, you add your voice of support to this very important campaign.

Over the coming days, the Yukon chapter of MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, will be saying more about this initiative, but at this time and on behalf of the Yukon government, I salute MADD and encourage the public to support Project Red Ribbon  — Tie One On for Safety. Please display your red ribbon and show that you, too, support sober driving.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and their annual Project Red Ribbon. This year, we celebrate the second year of the chapter of MADD in the Yukon. From the first week in November until after Christmas and New Year, MADD distributes red ribbons to tie on to our vehicles. The ribbon recognizes all the persons who have been killed or injured in accidents due to impaired driving.

015a

They are there to remind us all about drinking and driving during the holiday season and to allow us to commit ourselves not to drink and drive.

MADD’s mission is not only to remind us once a year of the grief and dislocation caused by drunk driving; it also presses for legislative changes, educates the public about the extent of drunk driving and offers community solutions to the problem.

MADD reviews legislation about impaired driving and produces a report card on each jurisdiction. Yukon does not fare well in these assessments. The Yukon rate of alcohol consumption remains the highest in Canada. Recently the Yukon Bureau of Statistics revealed that sales of alcoholic beverages increased by 3.5 percent in Yukon.

We have a long way to go to make our highways safer, and we extend our full support to the local chapter of MADD.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

 Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House to turn our attention to the gallery to welcome some very, very special guests, Ron and Marg Pachal from Kenora, Ontario. Ron was once the principal of the St. Anne’s School in Watson Lake during the period of 1965 to 1967. We thank you, Ron, for trying to teach us young Watson Lakers back in those days.

Ron is also seated with Janet Couture, the wife of our Sergeant-at-Arms, Rudy.

Please make welcome the Pachals from Kenora, Ontario.

Applause

Ms. Duncan:   I’d ask the gallery to join me in welcoming Val Birss, who is a member of the support staff at Porter Creek Secondary School. She has joined Kerry Huff for the tribute today. Welcome, Val.

Applause

016a

Speaker:   Are there any other introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    I have for tabling the annual report of the Yukon Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2004.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I have for tabling the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board audited financial statements for 2003, and the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board annual report for 2003.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Petitions.

PETITIONS

Petition No. 4 — response

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I rise today to respond to Petition No. 4, tabled on October 21, 2004, by the Member for Whitehorse Centre. Now, this petition concerns the reindeer located at the Northern Splendor Reindeer Farm and requests that the Yukon government relocate this herd to the government-owned Yukon Wildlife Preserve.

I have the greatest respect for those who put their names to this petition as they were surely guided by the utmost concern for the well-being of these reindeer. Their very honourable intentions are somewhat misplaced, however, when seeking to move these animals to the Yukon Wildlife Preserve. The Yukon Wildlife Preserve was created to become an internationally recognized public showcase for Yukon Arctic and boreal wildlife serving educational, research, conservation and wildlife appreciation. This was in accordance with a recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board made to the Yukon government.

As we know, reindeer have been used for domestic purposes in northern Europe and Russia for thousands of years. Many reindeer herds in North America today can be traced back to animals imported from Russia to Alaska between 1890 and 1902, and were subsequently brought to the Mackenzie Delta region of the Northwest Territories.

017a

In the late 1980s the Northern Splendor Reindeer Farm was set up as a private enterprise and purchased 45 reindeer from a Tuktoyaktuk breeder with the assistance of approximately $170,000 in economic development assistance grant monies. These animals of long-domesticated stock are not what the Yukon Wildlife Preserve was created to exhibit and preserve. While some many find it desirable to maintain a viewing facility for these reindeer, the Yukon Wildlife Preserve is simply not that place.

As a government, we recognize that conditions have been extremely difficult for reindeer and game farmers in recent years, due in part to the diminishing market for these animals. We realize that a lack of clarity was created when the new Yukon Act failed to provide for the regulation of reindeer as had previously been done under section 47 of the old Yukon Act.

Our government is working to develop the necessary changes to rectify this oversight. In the meantime, we have reassured reindeer farmers that they can continue to carry out their business as they have previously done by ensuring that permits will be available for the export or sale of their stock. Further, with regard to the health and well-being of these animals, they will continue to be carefully monitored in conformity with the Animal Protection Act and the Animal Health Act.

Speaker:   Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the federal government to continue funding the Canadian Council of Archives financial assistance programs and Archives Canada programs, which are essential to the development of both large and small communities and First Nations archival institutions in the Yukon.

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

THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government, in consultation with the Yukon and First Nation governments, to live up to its campaign commitment and move forward to establish a joint commission with the United States, Alaska and the Yukon, to evaluate options for establishing a rail link connecting the Yukon and Alaska to the southern rail system.

018a

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:  Tantalus School, Yukon College campus at

Mr. Hardy:   For the record I’d like to correct some information that was put on the floor of the House yesterday by the Minister of Education. First, as my colleague from Mayo-Tatchun pointed out, the Department of Education did release a letter that was sent to the school building advisory committee last May in response to a media request through ATIPP. The minister said the government had not released this letter.

Second, the minister stated yesterday that the chair of the advisory committee had quit. This is not, in fact, the case. The minister was wrong on both counts.

Will the minister now please correct the record?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to thank the member opposite for the question.

First, I wish to correct the record. I have learned that the letter in question was, in fact, released by my department. This was an operational decision — purely and simply operational.

This letter was produced at a public meeting, I might add, and who knows? The letter would have surfaced sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, and this government is and will continue to be open and accountable. As I said, this was delivered at a public meeting. There was nothing secret about this.

Mr. Hardy:   Also for the record, the minister didn’t answer the second part of the question, in which he stated that the chair of the advisory committee had quit. I wonder why he omitted that. Plus, the letter was not released at a public meeting and it was by the decision of that committee — where it was discussed and introduced — to be suppressed because of the nature of that letter.

Yesterday one of the local radio stations carried an interview with the minister about this letter and the effect it had on people in Carmacks.

019a

The report included a statement that the letter in question helped the minister make his decision about building a Yukon College campus and a new Tantalus School on the same site.

What specific steps did the minister take to find out if the claims made in the letter about the condition of the existing campus were accurate before making his decision to move the College to the new school site?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to state for the record at this time that this minister does have feelings for everyone. Surely to goodness, I will never, ever stoop to the level of embarrassing anyone. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, everyone who has an opinion and wants to present it, whether it’s verbal or written, has that option. I will not by any means or fashion discredit anyone who has put forward an opinion. I have maintained the high road all the way through this process, and I will continue to do so.

Mr. Hardy:    Mr. Speaker, again the minister did not answer the question, and I wonder why. Now, I ask the minister to listen closely. We have to get the truth out.

The minister stated in this House yesterday that it was the advisory committee’s responsibility to deal with the concerns raised in the letter. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That’s not the advisory committee’s role. In fact, the president and the acting president of the Yukon College have both made it very clear that the allegations in the letter do not reflect the College’s position at all. If the minister or the Cabinet used this letter as the basis of their decision to relocate the school, it would be completely irresponsible to do so without checking the facts.

Why did the minister fail to verify the accuracy of this letter before making a decision that ignored his own advisory committee, the Yukon College campus committee, the school council, and the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation? Why?

020a

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to start by correcting the member opposite. This letter was not a sole decision maker, and I believe I stated that also. I’m not in control of what any acting president may present as their point of view on any issue, and I’m certainly not going to question the acting president’s comments on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will maintain that this process was a process that was started by the opposition parties by attaching colleges to public schools, and I applaud them for that decision because it’s very economical. I think it’s time that the citizens in the Yukon Territory realize that it is a luxury to have a college campus in the community where there is a population of 200 people. This is probably unheard of right across Canada — having the opportunity for community members to attend a college. It is really a luxury and I believe that it’s one we should all appreciate. Again, the Yukon has the highest dollars per capita per student — one of the highest, or second in Canada.

Question re:  Tantalus School, Yukon College campus at

 Mr. Hardy:   Well, you know the past governments, especially the NDP, gave the communities the choice on what they would or would not have. That’s the difference.

Now I’d like to follow up with the Minister of Education. Unlike the minister, I thought it was important to check the facts as they were being presented, so I drove to Carmacks this morning and had a thorough tour of the Yukon College campus. I will tell you right now, it’s a very fine facility. I didn’t see any signs of the negative conditions the letter writer had referred to.

For the minister’s benefit, I’m going to table another letter from Yukon College that carries yesterday’s date.

021a

In this letter, the acting president says, “We have occupied the current space for the past 11 years. During this time, Yukon College has enjoyed and valued a long-standing partnership with the campus landlord, Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation.” Now, why did the minister and his colleagues decide all on their own to fix something that wasn’t broken?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:    Mr. Speaker, I also travel to Carmacks many times. This is not the opinion of everyone in Carmacks. This College campus, again I say, added to the elementary school is nothing but a positive. It enables the College campus to utilize all of the new school — the industrial arts room, the computer rooms — Mr. Speaker, it’s just nothing but a real added bonus to have the two connected. For example, when it’s 50 below, people don’t have to go out and start their cars and travel two miles to go and use the public school. You can walk over there in your T-shirt. What’s wrong with that? The opposition, I feel, are just beginning to use the First Nations to their advantage.

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

Point of order

Speaker:   The hon. Member for Kluane, on a point of order.

Mr. McRobb:   On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what I just heard contradicts the Standing Orders of this Assembly. The Minister of Education just cast motives upon the leader of the official opposition and I ask you to remind him of the rules.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   Actually, I think that probably every member knows the rules, and I’d ask the Minister of Education not to make that reference. Carry on, please.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The community knows the minister has been to Carmacks; the Premier has been to Carmacks very recently, yet they didn’t bother to take a look at the existing campus before deciding to make a change.

022a

In fact, the Minister of Education has never even met with his own building advisory committee. This is plain irresponsible. The Premier and the minister owe both the College and the First Nations an apology for acting on information that they had not even bothered to verify.

Now let’s get right down to it. Let me ask the Premier this question: who persuaded the minister and the Premier to relocate the campus to the new school site? Who had the Yukon Party government’s ear?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   In my opinion, the member opposite is chasing a red herring here. It is this government’s responsibility to provide public infrastructure. Again, we are doing our job. That’s our job. I think that at some point in time I certainly hope that things haven’t diminished to the point where the Yukon territorial government no longer has the authority to make a decision.

Mr. Hardy:   I would like to remind that minister that he’s here at the blessing of the Yukon people. It’s not the other way around.

Now the Premier is playing a very dangerous game here. This government has alienated another First Nation by not consulting, and the list is growing. Yesterday, the Chief of Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation went so far as to say he would follow the Premier to oil and gas conferences and tell the industry people that, contrary to what the Premier is saying, there is no certainty in the Yukon under this government. The wheels are falling off the Premier’s wagon, and he needs to do something very quickly to restore confidence in his government. Will the Premier back away from the brink on this matter and revisit the decision on the Carmacks campus in full and meaningful consultation with all the players involved?

023a

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   We cannot back away from a brink if we are not at it. When you look at the evidence and the facts in this territory, there is a tremendous amount of work, tremendous number of initiatives and a lot of relationship building that has taken place with First Nations. This specific issue is not a decision made by influence, by letters or anything of the sort. This is the decision of a public government in addressing the public education system and in spending money from the public purse. Our position as a government is that the best investment for the community of Carmacks is to build a learning institution in that community for all its citizens. This is not alienation. This is bringing people together in an educational hub in a community that needs it.

When it comes to oil and gas development, I can tell you this much: in today’s Yukon, self-governing First Nations receive a share of the benefits of all oil and gas royalties. That’s the type of partnership this government has produced. We are not alienating First Nations; we are involving them in the future of this territory — socially, educationally, environmentally and economically. That’s our commitment; that’s what we’ve done.

Question re:  Liquor Act changes

 Ms. Duncan:   I have some questions for the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation. The Yukon Party has demonstrated over two years that it is unprepared to do the hard work of government. We have another example with this fall legislative-light agenda. Yukoners are beginning to wonder if this government is allergic to hard work. The minister, who is also responsible for business and economic development, recently gave a speech where he complained about red tape holding back business. He talked about several silly Liquor Act rules, like how high licences had to be displayed on the wall and that a table cloth was required before liquor could be served in some bars.

When this government came to office two years ago, a new Liquor Act was drafted and ready to go. It was business friendly and it reduced red tape. It had undergone thorough community consultation. Instead of just talking about it, why doesn’t his government just change the Liquor Act?

 024a

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to that. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Liquor Act has been clearly identified by this government as not the highest of priorities, because there’s a great deal of work that can be done within the existing Liquor Act. We have carefully reviewed all of the recommendations of the Liquor Act and Regulations Review and, out of that, I can say that 17 of the recommendations have been addressed and some operational changes have already been made or are underway in other areas that will mitigate some of the concerns. So we feel that within the existing act we can accomplish a great deal and reduce a lot of the red tape; and it is the position of our government that we are not going to create legislation for the fun of it. We’re going to create legislation or amendments that solve individual problems. The fact that it’s legislation-light — Mr. Speaker, that comment I don’t agree with, but I do take it as a compliment.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the minister recently gave a speech to the business community and talked about the Liquor Act, the legislation and the changes to the act that needed to be made, but that’s all he did was talk. There’s no action to back any of it up. The Liquor Act is one of the Yukon’s oldest pieces of legislation. It needs to be updated. There have to be changes made to the act. And as the minister himself recently pointed out, it contains a number of outdated rules that are not business-friendly. The only thing standing in the way of the new Liquor Act is a government that won’t do the hard work.

Mr. Speaker, the new Liquor Act, the one that was done and ready to go when they took office, is the result of extensive community consultation conducted over a two-year time period. It’s a huge improvement over what is currently in place. When will the government and the minister responsible for the Liquor Act do the hard work and bring a new Liquor Act to the floor of this House? When will that happen?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I appreciate the comments of the member opposite, and there has been a great deal of work done by this government and by previous governments on the Liquor Act and various problems.

025a

We would prefer to look at this whole legislative agenda as “legislation right,” not “legislation light” — do the right thing at the right time. We do not believe that there are significant problems in this act to deal with the problems.

The previous administration wanted to make liquor more readily available. I don’t agree with that; this government doesn’t agree with it. They also wanted to build a new jail. Maybe there was a tie-in with, I don’t know, but our idea is to deal with the problems of alcohol while making it reasonably available to people for reasonable use.

We’ve looked at recommendations; we’ve maintained the legal age at 19 years for buying and consuming liquor in the Yukon.

Recommendation 8: Do not license you-brews nor tax you-brew products. We have agreed to that.

Recommendation 39: Develop standards and processes and guidelines regarding barring patrons for consistent Yukon-wide application. We’ve done that.

Recommendation 46: Yukon Liquor Corporation should continue to determine the off-sale markup rate. We’ve done that.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister seems to have the same problem as some of his colleagues. The Minister of Education dropped the ball on the Education Act review. It’s stalled.

The minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Act has dropped the ball. The act review is now a year behind schedule.

The Minister of Community Services has reneged on a commitment to update the animal protection legislation — a commitment made in this Legislature.

A committee was struck to cut red tape, led by the MLA for Copperbelt, announced a year ago. Nothing has happened — not even a meeting.

This government has to do more than talk about cutting red tape. It has to do more than talk. They have to do the hard work of government, and they’re not doing it. They can start by actually updating the Liquor Act, as recommended after two years of extensive community consultation — all-party community consultation.

When is the minister going to bring that legislation forward and actually do the work of government? When is that going to happen?

026a

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I point out to the member opposite, of course, that that work over two years was abruptly ended by an election, which requested certainty. I suggest that the member opposite received that certainty with great emphasis.

I go back to a number of the different recommendations here that have been implemented. Recommendation 6: develop a policy manual for use by the Liquor Board — we’ve done that. Off-sale hours reduced — we’ve done that. The general public should be informed of a licensee suspension, including the reasons for the suspension, Recommendation 43 — we’ve done that. Recommendation 19, readily accessible for the BARS, our Be a Responsible Server program — we’ve done that. Comprehensive, quality BARS programs with frequent review — we’ve done that.

We can work within the existing act on all of these things. There is no need to continually produce legislation that is not needed, and that is the difference with this government.

Question re:  Health care services, privatization of

Mr. McRobb:   This Yukon Party government has broken the public trust on so many fronts, including relations with First Nation governments, that we’re left wondering what’s next. Now we know that, when it comes to important decisions, this government prefers to hobnob within its inner circle. Consequently, there’s good reason to suspect its intentions with respect to public health care, given its close relations with privateers like Klein and Campbell.

Yukon people expect and deserve a secure and comprehensive health care system. Now, instead of wandering off in the barnyard, as he did yesterday, today we expect a responsible, straightforward answer. Can the Minister of Health and Social Services put on record his position with respect to the privatization of health care services?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:    Our government is committed to following the principles of the Canada Health Act.

Mr. McRobb:   Although the Canada Health Act allows quite a bit of flexibility with respect to privatization of health care services, as we’re seeing in the provinces to our south, the minister didn’t really put his position on the record at all.

027a

In B.C., the Campbell Liberal government is shutting down three operating rooms and contracting out 980 day surgeries to private clinics due to a shortage of operating room nurses. Of course, the minister is aware that many Yukon patients in need of surgery are sent to St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. In fact, the Yukon government is one of their biggest customers. The B.C. nurses union is critical of the move, saying it will only further erode the public health care system because there’s only one body of nurses in the province and they’re either operating in the private or the public facilities.

Is the Yukon Minister of Health prepared to hitch his wagon to Gordon Campbell’s private health care scheme or will he take measures to protect the public health care system for Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where this member is coming from. Our government has committed the largest budget ever to health care. It’s approximately $170 million on the O&M side this year, another $10 million in capital and, in addition to that, this supplementary is for just over $8 million. I believe that bodes well for the health care services that Yukoners are provided with and receive. They’re universal and they’re publicly funded. We can’t go further wrong than following the five principles of the Canada Health Act, and we will adhere to them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the budget and the supplementary have been before the floor, and this member and his party vote against it. That bodes well as to where they sit as to the funding of health care.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, why did the member avoid answering the question of whether he’s prepared to hitch his wagon to Campbell’s privatization scheme? Why did he refuse?

Perhaps he can provide some information to this House that’s worthwhile, including informing us on the number of Yukoners who are affected by Campbell’s scheme.

028a

The minister has had the luxury of being the lucky recipient of millions of extra health care dollars thanks to a flush federal coffer. The territory is now in a position to ensure Yukoners receive the highest possible level of care. The minister should be all the more protective of our public system. What is he prepared to do to ensure that Yukon health care dollars are spent in public not-for-profit facilities?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Let’s just track what has transpired in the health care field with respect to more money for Yukon.  It was through the leadership of our Premier that Ottawa was dealt with to the point where the three premiers from northern Canada walked out on a meeting with the former Prime Minister of Canada. That resulted in $60 million flowing to northern Canada. We can thank our Premier and his colleagues from Nunavut and Northwest Territories.

To that end, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding is the budget that has been tabled, which clearly identified where this money is being directed. It has clearly identified that we are in full conformity with the Canada Health Act. I don’t know where this member is coming from when he votes against this tremendous increase of funding and how it is spent here in the Yukon on health care.

Is this member opposed to health care for Yukoners?

Question re: Violence against women, prevention of

 Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the minister responsible for the Women’s Directorate.

In this month when we pay special attention to family violence and, in particular, violence against women, will the minister tell us how this government is responding adequately to the needs of Yukoners in violence situations?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    It is indeed my honour to be able to respond to the member opposite’s question. Violence against women is something that we do not condone on this side of the House, as well as among all members of this House. Instead, it is a priority of this government and we have done a number of initiatives to address this very dire problem that is well and alive in our communities. In fact, in the supplementary budget we have designated an additional, I believe, almost $250,000 toward violence prevention initiatives for aboriginal women as well as non-aboriginal women.

029a

So I believe that our words are coming alive through our actions, and we are very committed to working and supporting both aboriginal and non-aboriginal women’s organizations through a number of initiatives.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, in July, the minister announced that the Yukon Party government had kept their election promise and established a Yukon-wide crisis line. They have an agreement with B.C. to extend their VictimLINK telephone helpline to the Yukon — a 24-hour toll-free service. The helpline was announced as a support to victims of family and sexual violence, including sexual assault, violence in relationships, elder abuse and adult survivors of physical and sexual abuse. Very little advertising about this line has been done beyond the original press release. Promotional materials available from the B.C. line are not available, even in transition homes. Can the minister tell us how this department is assisting people to access this helpline in violent situations?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   With regard to this line, Mr. Speaker, it is something that has been very newly put into place. I believe that it is going to be a real asset to the people in the Yukon Territory. This line will provide 24-hours-a-day counselling by a professional, so there is nothing but good and real advantage for all Yukoners through this line.

Mrs. Peter:   VictimLINK gives out telephone numbers of government and of some NGO services.

030a

Most of these services are available only during office hours. Violence occurs mostly not during office hours. This help line offers no counselling. This help line offers no assistance to people looking for immediate help in frightening and even dangerous situations. A real crisis line intervenes in these situations. It does not simply give out telephone numbers. This is not a crisis line. Will the minister commit to living up to the Yukon Party’s election promise and fund a valid Yukon-wide crisis line with trained personnel who know the issues of the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the best of my knowledge, this crisis line does just that. It provides 24-hours-a-day service to anyone in a crisis. To the best of my knowledge, it’s being done by professional people, not volunteers, so I believe that this crisis line is going to be a real asset to the Yukon people. I fully support that crisis line.

Question re:  Dawson City bridge

 Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Premier. In the last election, the Yukon Party promised to build a bridge across the Yukon River in Dawson City when it was economically feasible. The Premier made it clear that this bridge is a good candidate for public-private partnership of the kind that has created so many problems for other governments. The Premier now has more money than he knows what to do with, so is the government planning to build this bridge as a public project or is he still favouring the public-private partnership model that will cost taxpayers even more money?

031a

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are still looking at the Yukon River bridge as a good candidate for a P3 policy, and we think it’s economically viable to do so.

Mr. Fairclough:   At what cost to the taxpayer? This bridge is another classic example of the Yukon Party deciding what its plans are, and then tacking on a bit of consultation after the fact.

On Friday, the Minister of Highways and Public Works held a public meeting in Dawson City. Even the Member for Klondike was there. The problem is that it wasn’t consultation. It was an information session. The people weren’t asked what the government should be doing; they were told what the government is doing.

There was no evidence that the minister or the Premier have heard any of the concerns people have with the location of the proposed bridge. Is the minister or the Premier — whoever is going to answer this question — determined to put a multi-million dollar bridge at the proposed downtown location, even if that jeopardizes Dawson City’s attempt to gain designation as a world heritage site?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We have had several consultations in Dawson City with respect to the bridge since May of this year. During that meeting on Friday, we had a lively discussion with respect to the bridge. There was a lot of discussion on both sides of the issue.

And yes, there have been issues with regard to the bridge. As mentioned at that meeting, we’ll be looking forward, at construction of the bridge, to accommodate and looking at ways of mitigating so it does or does not affect their aspect of dealing with a world heritage facility for the town of Dawson City.

032a

Mr. Fairclough:   Moving ahead whether or not the community is expressing concerns about it or not — that sounds like what we’ve been asking over the past couple of weeks. It is this Yukon Party and the Premier and ministers who seem to know best.

The Premier won’t lift a finger to collect the outstanding debt from the Member for Klondike, yet he’s perfectly willing to award him with a multi-million dollar bridge and a post as Deputy Premier. Surely the Premier must realize that not everyone in Dawson City supports this bridge project, not to mention the people around the territory who have questioned the Premier’s financial priorities. In fact, one of the partners in a major mining engineering company said, a few days ago, “I can show you 25 places in the Yukon that I would rather see a bridge than across the river at Dawson.”

So instead of pushing —

Speaker:   Order. Would the member please ask the question?

Mr. Fairclough:   I have the question, Mr. Speaker.

Instead of pushing ahead with his private agenda on the bridge, will the Premier now give a clear assurance that the residents of Dawson City will have a say in where and how the bridge is built?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   First let’s deal with the preamble in somehow connecting a loan to the bridge. The Member for Klondike was elected with this very much being public knowledge in 1996. The Member for Klondike was elected again in 2000, and the Member for Klondike was elected again in 2002. The government has produced progress on this file. We are now at the stage — and it’s well known — where we have some remaining delinquencies. We are looking at an option of collection. If we collect, or go down the road of collection, it would include the Member for Klondike.

033a

The issue of the bridge has been discussed in Dawson City since the late 1960s. There have been environmental screenings done. To say that the community hasn’t been involved is simply ignoring the facts, Mr. Speaker.

We know the NDP, when it comes to public-private partnerships, is adverse to that, because they oppose the private sector. They are anti-profit, and this bridge project is a good candidate for a public-private partnership. It is simple arithmetic. It costs $1 million a year for a ferry; we have $1 million a year to debt-service a bridge. I think it’s a good thing. The majority of the people of Dawson want it, and we are going to proceed with an infrastructure that will benefit all Yukoners, including the City of Dawson and its residents.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed.

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

Question of privilege

Speaker:   Point of privilege, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun.

 Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.  Mr. Speaker, I have advised you that I would be rising on the question of privilege, and I have laid out my reasons why.

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to review the Blues from yesterday. We all heard what was said by the Minister of Education, and I wanted to read it to make sure that I did hear it properly, and this is the first opportunity that I do have to respond to this. Mr. Speaker, I and members of my family have felt that the comments made by the Minister of Education were inappropriate and inaccurate, and I would like to read that out clearly for all to know, Mr. Speaker. It was in response to a question I had asked during Question Period, and a response to me, and I’ll read it. This is a quote from the Minister of Education: “I stated on the floor of this House before that the member opposite needs only to look in the mirror to understand where some of the dissension is coming from, and I stand by that comment…”

034a

Again, “The member is entitled to his own opinions and that’s all it is — his own opinion. This government has gone far beyond trying to work in consultation with everyone in Carmacks. One of the options that the member opposite probably gave notice to his First Nation was that they can build a school anywhere they want in the country. Such a request came, one to be built about three to four kilometres out in the bush where we would have to build a road and a bridge, and you name it.” I could go on to read the rest of that, but it doesn’t apply to the reasons I rise on a point of privilege.

This information is inaccurate and inappropriate. It certainly constitutes a breach of my privilege as a member, and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Education to withdraw those remarks and apologize for them.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   I hope that the House will allow me to review this, and I will return with a ruling in the future.

We now will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

 Speaker:  Opposition private members’ business, bills other than government bills.

Bill No. 107: Second Reading

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 107, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Hardy:   I move that Bill No. 107, entitled Democratic Reform Act, be now read a second time.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the leader of the official opposition that Bill No. 107, entitled Democratic Reform Act, be now read a second time.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   It’s with great pleasure that I’d like to introduce the Mayor of Faro, who is in our gallery here today. Please welcome the hon. Mayor of the Town of Faro, Phyllis Forbes.

Applause

035a

Speaker:   Leader of the official opposition, I await your pleasure.

Mr. Hardy:   I would like to open with a quote. “In this new democracy, in this Canada of ours, there must be room in the party to which I belong for independent spirit and independent thought. I must be permitted to exercise the intelligence that providence gave me.”

These very defiant words from a future Prime Minister of Canada come from Hansard. It’s not Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin that I’m quoting. The words and ideas come down to us from a backbencher MP addressing the House of Commons before World War I, and that future Prime Minister was Sir Robert Laird Borden.

I would like to make it very clear up front that this is not a partisan bill. If anything, it’s not about who is in government or who is in opposition, but what it truly is about is democracy. It’s about the democratic right of people to have a say in how they elect their MLAs and it’s also about giving Yukon people a say in how their MLAs conduct public business on their behalf. It’s about us, as elected MLAs; it’s about the belief that the Legislative Assembly should be formed or created or changed and what we believe the weaknesses and the strengths are.

Let me put it in a different way. The values that make us believe that there has to be a better way for society to be do not allow us to sit back and do nothing to effect the change. It’s the willingness and the eagerness to embrace change, especially when the rest of the world has moved forward.

036a

We still operate or function in a system that hasn’t.

Now, we have witnessed a lot of pressure from the public to enact change around the world. We just witnessed an election in the United States of America, which has an abundance of issues to face in their own democratic structure, in their own government structures, and in how they also elect people. Four years ago, they went through a tremendously difficult period. This time around, there are still issues. Most of all — I would say, looking from outside down to the United States — one of the biggest issues is choice, something that United States’ politics and the structure they have and work within do not allow. Most of the time, it’s between two parties, and I do not think that is democracy in its completeness.

Other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world are also looking at these kinds of questions. Within Canada alone, we’re witnessing, I believe, five to six provinces that are presently engaged in a debate to, predominantly right now, find a different way of electing that is more representative of the wishes of the people.

Now, the democratic reform bill I brought forward is definitely one part of it, but there is also another part, and that is legislative reform. If we want a strong democracy, if we want people to believe in the work that we do here, and it has value and meaning, we must listen to the tides of change — the people of this country.

As I said earlier, there are five to six provinces right now engaged in this. The Yukon Party government has hired a consultant to monitor one of those processes, called the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, which has come to a conclusion around what recommendations they will bring forward in their final report to the government.

037a

There are other provinces that are looking at different models. They have a different approach. What this bill provides is an opportunity for the dialogue to happen within the territory. It provides a very rare opportunity for Yukon people to take ownership of the process they have asked for. We must never forget that we are here by the grace of the people who elect us, but also the people whom we are empowered to represent. This is not our House; this is not our Legislature. If the people’s wishes are to see change, then it’s incumbent upon us to embrace that and to find a method and a way that will allow that change to happen and one that is reflective of the wishes of the people. But it’s also incumbent upon us to lead once we know the direction that it’s necessary to go in. That’s what this bill is intending to do: offer an avenue to go forward from this position to the next.

The people have asked for change generally by commenting on what they don’t like about the Legislature, what they don’t like about our debate, what they don’t like about the structure of government and opposition, what they don’t like about the ability to access and come before committees. That doesn’t exist.

There are many examples, and I will go through them briefly.

I would also like to point out that I am not going to talk for a long, long time, so I really am looking forward to an exchange of ideas. I want to hear what the elected members, everybody in here, say about this, and I will embrace change within this act we have brought forward.

038a

I am not welded to it; I am not going to defend it when I can see that a suggestion definitely improves it.

There are concerns about the elections, for instance. That is expressed often by the low turnouts. Now, it is recognized in the Yukon that we have a higher turnout than in other areas — not the highest, but we have a higher turnout — but it is not totally acceptable where it’s at, and there has been erosion in the voting numbers. On a federal level, of course, we see it. Every time there is an election, it seems to drop down — how many people participate in electing a government — and I don’t want to see that happen here, and it’s starting to happen here on a territorial level. It definitely happens on a municipal level.

Another comment I have heard, of course, is that politics are irrelevant in their lives, and that is the farthest thing from the truth. It is a shame, because when people feel that politics do not affect their lives or do not have an impact, they are disenfranchised from the work that we do. We know from being in here how important it is, how much of an effect we have upon the communities and the people of this territory by the decisions that we make, whether they’re budgetary decisions, whether they’re positions that even opposition takes to try to get the government to go in a certain direction. We know daily what impact that has.

Unfortunately, so many people are disenfranchised, and they do not have that feeling. That’s a real shame. I would go so far as to say that it’s incumbent upon us to restore the confidence of the public, by Yukoners, in their own Legislative Assembly. There are ways to do it, and I think we all have suggestions in here. But I also would suggest that we may have to question the very justification of our Legislature in order to realize one that measures up to our expectations. If we don’t ask the questions, we will not improve and we will not make change.

039a

We will not find out what’s wrong before it’s too late.

I’m going to look at the structure of the bill that has been brought forward. This bill that we brought forward is in two parts: our election system that we presently have; and the second part is how MLAs and ministers function both in the House and in their constituencies. It also addresses a few minor housekeeping issues and I will just touch on those very briefly.

On the two main topics, the bill provides similar but slightly different approaches. Briefly in part 1 on electoral reform, it’s suggested — I’ll read it:

“1. (1) Within three months of this bill receiving asset, the Commissioner in Executive Council shall establish an Electoral Reform Commission consisting of five Yukon electors for the purpose of conducting a public review of the method to be used to elect Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.”

That is similar to the commission established on changes to the Yukon Act. Members were appointed by order-in-council after consultation with the three party leaders on how that came about, so it’s not breaking any new ground. We have used it and I think it was used successfully.

The commission would pick its own chair, it would have three months to prepare for public hearings and it would report back publicly, within a year of the act getting assent. It could recommend options for Yukoners to vote on by plebiscite. The plebiscite could be at the next general election or within two years after the commission makes its report. There is a fair amount of time there, depending on how the consultation goes. Structurally, basically what we’re saying is support and budget would be provided through ECO, one of the departments; a secretariat would be established to gather research information, help arrange the public meetings, provide discussion papers, create a Web site, et cetera.

Like I said just previously, it’s not reinventing the wheel. A lot of this information already exists on this subject. New Brunswick, the federal government, and British Columbia all have very well-developed information on this.

040a

As well as Web sites, several other countries with democratic systems have looked into this, and there are numerous studies and pages available to the commission. There are very few countries actually left that elect the way we do — “first past the post” is generally what it’s called. I think there are only three countries with populations over eight million that are left doing it: Canada, England and the United States basically. You have to wonder why all the other countries have shifted to a different model, use a different model. Even countries that have looked at and made changes to their existing one have not adopted this model. They’ve looked at it. New Zealand would be an example — recent changes — but almost universally this model was never accepted, the one we use here. It does have some pros and cons. That’s something that needs to be debated. Now we do know, of course, that the Yukon Party is on record in favour of an electoral reform commission. I believe that this bill provides a model that is appropriate in scale and scope to the Yukon situation. Like I say, this is not a big-ticket item. We’re talking about five people on a commission, but it would be a democratic and effective mechanism for getting input from Yukoners about the electoral system that they may want, if they want change or not. If they want change, what kind of change? Would it work? Rural would be different from the Whitehorse area. Are there different ways of finding a way to elect a person who represents a larger voting number?

Saying that, Yukoners may want to stay with first past the post. They may want to adopt some form of proportional representation or a preferential ballot system. Or they may want a mixture of the two systems, which has been done as well, but the important thing is that Yukoners deserve the right to make that choice. It doesn’t have to always stall in here. It’s appropriate now to move in that direction. I hope all members will set aside the partisan considerations that, of course, are part and parcel of a party system and adopt what I consider a very practical measure for the sake of all Yukon people and the strength of our democratic process.

041a

Now, the second part of the bill deals with legislative reform and we believe that this is a positive innovation that blazes a new trail in terms of accountability. Very few governments are looking at it, yet the people are asking for it. They want change. They want a difference. All of us can remember the last election. It was only two years ago. Every one of us heard on the doorstep criticisms of this legislative structure that we work under, of the conduct of the previous government and opposition members. We all heard it. I heard it a lot. I know all MLAs heard it, because it was said universally, it was in the newspapers, and it was stated by the leader of the party that there would be changes made.

Now, the principle behind it is clear. A lot of people have said that they feel it’s a private club that belongs to MLAs. Once you’re elected and you’re in here, basically these walls go up and we conduct our business just the way it was before, just the way it’s going to be today, and just the way it’s going to be 20 or 30 years from now. But we have to remember that we conduct public business in trust on behalf of all Yukon people.

It’s traditional that elected members set their own rules of procedure and nothing in this bill takes away from that, Mr. Speaker, but it allows Yukon people —

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

Introduction of visitors

Speaker:   The hon. Member for Southern Lakes, on a point of order.

Mr. Rouble:   My apologies to the member opposite for interrupting, but I rise today to ask the House to join me in welcoming the former Commissioner, Ken McKinnon.

Applause

Mr. Hardy:   I also welcome Mr. Ken McKinnon.

I would just like to go back — since Mr. McKinnon’s in the gallery at this present time, I’d like to go back to one point on the electoral reform portion of this bill. It’s something that I’ve said to the press but I have not said in here yet. I was going to say it later, possibly during debate.

042a

The way it is set up, it can dovetail very nicely with the work Mr. McKinnon is doing on behalf of Yukon. The timelines were considered with respect to the final report. The information Mr. McKinnon has gathered can be incorporated once this committee is up and running. And I would suggest that one of his own recommendations might possibly be around something like this. As I said, the committee for electoral reform is based upon not just what we brought forward, but based upon what the Yukon Party presented in their platform and also what many other people have talked about. It’s nothing new. So I believe that this portion of the bill on electoral reform dovetails very nicely with Mr. McKinnon’s work and his timelines, which I believe is February for the final report.

I want to go back to the second part. People comment about how we operate in here. Almost invariably, they are not positive comments. All we want to do with this is allow Yukon people to give their input on how they would like us to conduct public business on their behalf. Instead of hearing it at the election, let’s be proactive and move forward on this. Let’s go to the people, and then maybe we can bring change that they will embrace.

This bill calls for a four-member special committee of MLAs to conduct public consultations on a number of related issues. The committee chair would be the Speaker, Mr. Speaker. All parties would be equally represented. The Clerk of the Assembly would provide support to the committee, and the budget would come under the Legislative Assembly budget.

I did see an eyebrow raised there, but it is within our ability to make that happen. Again, this would not be an expensive exercise — just to calm everyone down — but it is a positive and meaningful way to hold ourselves accountable to the people who elect us.

The committee would ask Yukoners to take a look at the existing Legislative Assembly Act and make suggestions on a variety of topics: should we have a code of conduct for MLAs and ministers? Other Canadian jurisdictions, such as Saskatchewan, have done it.

043a

Let’s put it out there; let’s find out. Should we have a separate executive council act to spell out the roles, duties and qualifications of Cabinet ministers and premiers? Should we take the section of the Legislative Assembly Act that deals with MLAs’ salaries and put that into a separate act, remove it from there? Now, as MLAs, should we look at changing how committees work and how the public can give more guidance to our deliberations? I think that’s empowerment. I think that would be well-received.

Are there ways to make the roles of government private members and opposition members more productive? Now, we hear that one all the time within our own chambers. I was a backbencher on the government side and I’m an opposition member now. I know the role, and as to the quote I said at the beginning, I believe very firmly in that quote, that all people in this Legislature should have a meaningful role and full contribution for the governance of the territory and the direction it’s going in.

Should we look at new rules for debate in this House to improve our accountability to the people, both as MLAs and as ministers? Should we look at free votes, for example, so MLAs have more opportunities to vote according to their conscience or according to their constituents’ wishes? That’s a very hot topic and has been for a long time. No one has addressed it. Are there ways to improve how we communicate with the public and make people more aware of how their democratic legislative processes work?

Now, these are very legitimate questions to ask Yukon people. And these questions should be asked from time to time. This is another consideration. Should we only do this once? Should this be something every 10 years? These are considerations we need to incorporate.

Now, this bill calls for public consultation on these general topics at 10-year intervals. It’s in the bill. Go back to the people, have that debate. Obviously, the specific questions would not be the same in future reviews but the principle would stand, and that’s the most important part: that there is a connection on how this Legislature operates.

044a

Yukon people do deserve a say in how we, as their elected representatives, make decisions on their behalf. Again, I encourage all MLAs to keep the public interest first and foremost as they consider this important bill. A lot of work has gone into preparing this private members’ bill. Adopting this democratic reform may be one of the most positive and constructive decisions we make in this House this year or for a long time down the road.

The official opposition is not looking at this bill in a partisan or confrontational way. As sponsor, I assure all members that their input of course is welcome. Our side will give a fair consideration to any amendments that make a positive contribution to this act. I look forward to this debate very much, and I look forward to the unanimous support of this House for this important initiative on behalf of Yukon people.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise to address —

Speaker:   Order please. I’ve got the rotation wrong. I have to go to this side.

Ms. Duncan:   It is not spelled out. In our Standing Orders, it’s whoever stands up, as I understand it. There was no speaking order agreed to at House leaders’ meeting` this morning and no speaking order presented.

Speaker:   According to past practices, the Chair recognizes the Member for Lake Laberge.

Mr. Cathers:   I would like to thank the leader of the opposition for bringing forward this bill. I think it’s a very valuable contribution to our public debate around democratic reform.

045a

I see the looks of surprise —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cathers:   I have a request to repeat myself from the leader of the opposition so I’ll say it again. “I think it’s a valuable contribution to our debate around democratic reform.”

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just got distracted there. Yes, anyway, as I said, I thank the leader of the opposition, and I thank the members opposite for the looks of appreciation on their faces.

Reform of our electoral and legislative processes has long been an area that I have been very personally interested in discussing and in looking into. I think there are many ways in which we could possibly improve the system that we currently operate under. This has to be done very cautiously. We should be aware of the ramifications of any moves. This is not a game; this is government. It’s a very serious business, but that should not discourage us from actually looking at these areas. The seriousness of any potential changes we make should not discourage us from looking at it. It should not cause fear in our hearts that there could be impacts and therefore we shouldn’t look at it. It must be discussed carefully; it must be done with due and thorough consideration, but I do believe that the discussion should take place.

There are many different ways in which this can be done. Not all of them are necessarily through changes to the electoral process. There are also a number of ways in which the process could be improved and has been reformed and modified both with benefits and with detriments in other jurisdictions. Changes to the way that the House of Assembly operates, changes to the committee structure — a number of these areas do have tremendous potential and potential impact. We should be very clear in any discussions around problems or concerns that our constituents or other members of the public have with the way our process is currently functioning. I think we need to clearly establish the line of where any problem that is perceived to exist originates from.

046a

We should not be tackling the wrong problems — essentially coming up with either a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, or the wrong solution to the wrong problem or a non-existent problem.

This bill presents many valuable ideas that are worthy of debate and I would like to state that I do agree with many of them. I do not concur with all of them and a number of these are key. I do feel they are valuable for discussion and I appreciate the leader of the official opposition and his party sharing their vision with us and with Yukon citizens. I do not share their vision but it is still worthy of debate.

Some areas of the process that they have proposed in this bill are dramatically different from how I believe this process, these discussions, should be done and should be constructed from the start.

Of particular concern to me is what has not been addressed in this bill. In my opinion, there are many areas in which this bill needs to be fleshed out a little more because I see critical gaps, areas that I think are not adequately addressed, like setting up an effective structure before beginning the process.

I would like to begin by talking about part 1 of this bill, entitled electoral reform. My concerns with this part of the bill include the composition of the proposed electoral reform commission, the numbers of this proposed commission, which is proposed at five — and I have to note that that is dramatically different and dramatically fewer members than what the B.C. process has established. I’m not saying that the B.C. process is necessarily the way to go or the be-all and end-all. I have some concerns with the way that they have structured it and I would not necessarily want to follow that road or advocate following that road myself, but it is a very significant difference and I have not seen the rationale behind why that would be done. I did hear from the leader of the third party — sorry, the leader of the official opposition, I apologize — the leader of the official opposition said in his introductory remarks that he felt that modelling this after previous commissions that the Yukon has undertaken, such as the Electoral District Boundaries Commission, would be a structure that has a precedent within the Yukon system.

047a

However, this exercise being discussed is different from any that have ever been undertaken in Yukon history. In fact, the structure in British Columbia and some of the other jurisdictions that are being looking at — or different structures that they are looking at that vary from British Columbia’s — are a very different procedure for changing the electoral system, for changing political accountability and political process, from what we have seen in our country, in our history. The initial roots of our country, from being both a British and a French colony and then coming together over a large number of years in the early formation of our nation at Confederation in 1867, were based on the British model. It was done through the British North America Act of 1867, and largely, the key difference in all these structures from what British Columbia has undertaken is that the construction of any changes has normally been done in our past at an elite level — for lack of a better term — elected officials, an insular executive level that does not involve the grassroots.

British Columbia chose to address that through formation of a citizens’ assembly that was actually specifically screened to remove anyone who might be tainted with the stain of politics or might have been a member of the Legislature in the past, to try to ensure that it truly did reflect a grassroots process. That is certainly a very valuable approach that they have taken — or let me correct that — a very valuable intent. I do have some concerns with that, because I do personally see problems when you have a group of inexperienced people put together in any sort of board or commission or citizens’ assembly. If they are being required to deal with an area that they have no personal experience — or little personal experience — there is a danger in having whoever is controlling the flow of information into those people having a profound influence on the outcome by controlling the input. Of course, input determines output, to a large extent.

048a

And if they are presented in any way with a biased form of information, there is a danger of that reflecting the bias of whatever individual oversaw that process. I’m not saying that’s the case in B.C. I’m not fully versed with all the intricacies of their process and how it has been established and conducted. I don’t have the time for that. That’s why the Yukon chose to hire Mr. Ken McKinnon to work with the B.C. commission, or as an observer on our behalf and to report back to us on the progress. Of course, we’ve seen his interim report, which members of the opposition have criticized for not being as full as they feel it ought to be. However, as has been noted before by the Premier and others, this is an interim report. Certainly I did not expect the interim report to go into great detail of everything that had ever been discussed at these meetings and, at this point, personally I’ll reserve my judgement on it until I see the final report. I have confidence that Mr. McKinnon will do a good job. He has a very fine record of service to the Yukon, and I think he will present us with a good report in the long run. I will reserve my final decision until I actually see that report. I expect that it will be much fuller and give us much more information to work on, on how B.C. has handled their process, because the handling of the process, the establishment of the process and the management of the process are very critical to the outcome.

So, as I said, I do have some concerns with the whole concept of restricting anybody to attempt to ensure that people who are on it have little experience in the area that they’re dealing with, but I do see also the need to ensure that any committee or group purporting to represent the grassroots is composed of the grassroots, not of a bunch of people who have a very keenly vested opinion and agenda that has been honed by years of involvement in circles here.

049a

So there are issues regarding whether that’s even the appropriate step; however, I do have concerns that this model being proposed by the leader of the NDP appears to be taking a step backward — that instead of going to a process that is driven by grassroots citizens, it’s a process that’s driven by an appointed commission. Again, it’s somewhat of an elite group — five members. Within the framework of this bill that has been presented to us, there is very little which has defined the terms of reference, what they are required to report, and how they’re required to conduct their procedures. One concern that I’ve heard on numerous occasions from my constituents and other Yukoners is how consultation is conducted — that it’s not enough to consult.

Every government claims to consult, every department claims to consult, every board that’s out there with a mandate to consult claims to consult. With all of the consultation that’s going on, there are a number of Yukoners who complain that they don’t always feel like their opinions were reflected in the report on the meeting or the consultation. I’m sure all members of this House have heard complaints from constituents and other Yukoners that after being at a meeting, whether a meeting held by a government department or by a board or by a municipality or by whomever — I’m not meaning to point fingers at anyone.  I have heard complaints about meetings from constituents, on numerous occasions, because they don’t feel the minutes reflected what they thought went on at the meeting. This is a real issue with all levels of government and all boards set up by government. Those complaints are out there.

Now, I’m not one — or, at least, I like to think I’m not one — to jump to rash conclusions. I was not at most of the meetings that I’ve heard complaints about, so I’m hearing one person’s version of events versus the official version of events, and I don’t have any personal knowledge about which is correct. But it does concern me that I’ve heard these complaints on numerous occasions, with numerous different groups or bodies that were doing consultation.

050a

I believe that the process by which any consultation and discussions by a commission regarding electoral and legislative reform is conducted, the level of involvement, the depth of involvement that ordinary Yukoners have in that is absolutely critical to what the outcome would be. I see it as being absolutely necessary to define how this is going to be done before we head down this process.

The bill presented to us does not do a lot to define how the commission would act. We have here, I believe it’s five clauses, approximately two pages, not quite two pages’ worth of clauses defining this commission: its set-up, provisions regarding when the committee will be formed, what they are supposed to analyze, and final report requirements.

It has in it, clause 3, commission procedures. “The commission shall determine its own procedures for achieving the general mandate…” It doesn’t spell out the process and, in my opinion, the process is the single most critical part of any democratic reform exercise.

Going back to the composition of the commission, there is a failure to identify how these members will be chosen. I heard comments from the leader of the opposition in his introduction to this bill, but I note that it is not spelled out in the bill. His thought is that this commission would probably be appointed with members nominated by the parties, if I understand it correctly.

051a

However, it does not spell that out in the bill, and there would be many ways that this could be turned into something else afterwards, through intent or through accident. Mr. Speaker, I missed his commentary on how he saw the other two members being chosen. I’m not sure if that was stated or not, but composition of the committee — whether it’s chosen by each party or by government or by some random process — is a very important facet of this. It is very important in determining the hope for this procedure of really reflecting what Yukoners want.

As I stated previously, in B.C., they took steps to eliminate politicians from the Citizens’ Assembly, including former MLAs and I believe also party activists. It was with the clear intent that members were supposed to be grassroots citizens. They had their qualifications clearly stipulated for being a member. They had their way of becoming a member of that Citizens’ Assembly clearly outlined, that it would be done through a random process. They had it outlined who would be conducting that random process, and they went through that. We do not seem to have a clear plan in this bill for what the qualifications would be required to be on this proposed commission or who ultimately would make the decision of whether they would be there. It seems to be going down the road of creation of an expert panel, and although we do not have a stipulation of what qualifications the leader of the NDP envisions members of the proposed commission having or meeting, one would assume — or at least I would assume — that going down the road of creating an expert panel would probably mean that the commission would be composed of former MLAs from each party or other party supporters, and they would be chosen by the parties.

052a

Now, perhaps it was the leader of the NDP’s intent that no, the commission would still be grassroots people; it would just be grassroots people chosen by each of the parties. Again, we get into the issue of how you define the qualifications. Is the proposal now suddenly that, if you’re trying to ensure that they’re grassroots Yukoners, then how do you determine that they aren’t and haven’t been involved politically. Each party takes efforts to protect the privacy of its members. We do not distribute membership lists. It’s related to the same issue as why we have a secret ballot in our society. There are issues of intimidation, there are issues of people feeling, rightly or wrongly, that if they’re known to be a member of a certain party, another party being in government will regard them less favourably and that is, as I said, a concern that, whether right or wrong, is out there among Yukoners.

So there is no real way of determining whether somebody’s really a grassroots Yukoner or whether they’re really a closet NDP or a Liberal or a Yukon Party member, as far as I can see, Mr. Speaker.

Again, going back to the model of an expert panel, with former MLAs or party supporters chosen, I see that we’re taking a step back in political evolution, in political processes, from what is currently occurring in British Columbia and what other jurisdictions are looking at. We’re taking a step back to construction and determination by an elite group.

Introduction of visitors

Mr. Cathers:   I’d like to ask, at this point, all members of the House to join me in welcoming a former member, the former Member for Klondike, Mr. Dave Millar.

Applause

053a

Mr. Cathers:   Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I’m just regaining my train of thought here.

As I believe I just said, my concern is that forming an elite or expert panel is essentially an elitist process. We saw the reaction of Canadians to the Meech Lake Accord — constitutional discussions that, at that time, most Canadians felt were necessary. Most Canadians at that time did feel it necessary to engage in constitutional discussions to revise our Constitution. However, the manner in which it was conducted by an elite group — a much larger elite group than five people, but an elite group — created a result that Canadians felt did not reflect their values nor their needs. They felt it was an arrogant process. There was a fair bit of antipathy created as a result of this toward the Prime Minister of the day, Brian Mulroney, and we can only hold the benefit of the doubt for that group and for that Prime Minister that there probably was intent to create a good end result in that process when they started out and set it up, but they did not take enough steps to adequately ensure that the views of grassroots Canadians were respected.

Then the same thing happened with the Charlottetown Accord. In attempts to learn from the Meech Lake experience and unsuccessful experiment, the Charlottetown Accord had a vote in the referendum at the end of it. This resulted in Canadians voting to reject the process, which again had been conducted and constructed behind closed doors. Even though — and I give credit to the government for doing that — they did allow a final vote by all Canadians at the end of it.

054a

The process in constructing the end result, obviously, again, was not successful in representing the needs of Canadians. Of course, as we all know, there are other issues related to this. The fact is that Canada is a very large country; the second largest in the world. We have sparse populations in many areas; we have areas such as our own, which at a little over 30,000 people would not be enough to fill a major sports stadium in southern centres. Yet, we have an area of land, 480,000 square kilometres, which is larger than every country in Europe except for France and Spain; yet any one of those countries in Europe has apartment buildings with more people living in them than the Yukon’s population.

But our interests are often lost and forgotten in southern Canada. We are an afterthought. There has been good work done by the Premier and by the premiers of the other two territories in their collaborative approach in dealing with the federal government, particularly on the issue of health care, and it has gained us more recognition and profile at the national level than the Yukon has probably ever had before.

I know that when my parents and sister and I moved up here, I was quite young at the time, but I do recall that for years afterwards some relatives from back east in Ontario would write letters with addresses on them such as “to Whitehorse, Yukon, Northwest Territories” or “Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories”. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance among many people in southern Canada toward even the existence of our territory, and even whether we are part of Canada or not.

I think there is a lot more awareness — it seems to me, in going back to visit — than there was certainly a number of years ago, but still our interests and our needs will never be reflected in a country where decisions are made entirely on a one person, one vote decision.

055a

That is why our House of Commons has been constructed the way it has, with the intent to balance representation of regions and representation by population through a system where some ridings have fewer people in them if they are a more sparsely populated area. Some jurisdictions, such as the provinces — if memory serves — B.C. and Saskatchewan have both gone through processes to determine at what point the disparity between the number of people in a riding exceeds what is reasonable, and I believe that the guideline is 25 percent more or 25 percent less than the average population. I can’t recall the exact figures the Yukon uses, but I believe that we used something similar as a guideline in our last electoral boundaries report and probably some prior to that, as well, because we do have an issue.

I think most people would agree that — I’m sure that the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin would agree that she would not want all decisions in the Yukon to be based on where the biggest population is, that there is some need for more representation. I don’t want to put words in her mouth, but I would assume that she would agree that there is a need for Old Crow to continue to have a member of the Legislature and to not have to share that member of the Legislature with other areas of the Yukon — have it spread out to include Dawson or to include Ross River or to include wherever. To have it spread out, they would not have the attention of one MLA but would have to split the attention of an MLA shared with many other people and many other areas of the Yukon over vast distances, and that would make it very difficult for that MLA to even be aware of their needs through the shortage of time and the difficulties of travelling to remote areas of the Yukon.

056a

So I would think that most, if not all, members of this House would probably concur that there is a need to have some balance, and a need for a more sparsely populated region to have a little more representation per capita than would be the norm. I would also assume that, looking at the national level with a population of 33 million Canadians, I believe, and 308 seats in Parliament, I don’t think there would be very many people who would like to see us divvy up what our share as a territory would be and how many other regions and areas we’d have to be lumped in with to share a Member of Parliament.

That, of course, is one of the issues that has to be balanced in any one of these processes. There’s also a different approach to this whole issue, which is adopted by the United States, as we witnessed in their election yesterday. It is also used by Australia, where they have two Houses of Parliament, much like Canada does, but they have one House that is designed to represent the population — representation by population — and the other House is constructed to provide representation by region. In the United States, of course, they split this up on the lines of states, where you have two senators per state, and the House of Congress provides the representation by population.

I cannot recall off the top of my head the exact numbers that Australia uses in their Senate and those they use in their lower House, their House of Commons, but they do follow a similar concept — that of having one House for each purpose, the idea being that in a model such as that, the regions can’t ram any proposal or initiative down the throats of the vast population, but the larger population in an area such as Toronto, with four million people plus, can’t ram an initiative down the throats of the more sparsely populated regions that, in some cases, you have a few provinces that do not add up to the same number of voters.

057a

That would be a concept. The Yukon could consider something like that as well. Now I’m not saying that I would advocate that. We already have a fair number of elected officials on a basis of how many people we represent compared to other regions, and we do have to be conscious always of the cost-benefit relationship. Providing more members of the Legislature, or the creation of a second House and having a senate-type of affair in the Yukon would also result in an increased cost. It would also result in one more step to proceed through, which would take us longer to do things. There are both benefits and downsides to that. Of course, a number of the provinces in Canada initially started out with having both upper and lower Houses, and all of them have abolished their provincial senate at this point, so we would probably want to think very carefully about why they abandoned that and whether we really would be well-advised to go down the road that a number of provinces felt was not an effective direction and created problems for them. We should be learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions, not trying to make all the mistakes ourselves and figure it out later. As the saying goes, you’d better learn from other people’s mistakes, because you don’t have enough time to make them all yourself.

Another concern I have is that a commission — or, for that matter, a citizens’ assembly, but particularly a commission, and one of this small size — would have correspondingly larger drains on its time, if an attempt is made to specifically exclude ex-politicians and party activists. There’s the question of how do you exclude these people, excluding everyone who has been involved in politics, without excluding most of the people who care enough about the process to have thought about it or who want to even take the time from their busy lives to start thinking about it.

058a

B.C.’s model, of course, the Citizens’ Assembly, began by choosing a chair. The Legislative Assembly chose the chair and then they selected a further 160 members through a two-stage random process. As I said before, I do have concerns about how you ensure that that selection is truly random. The oversight provisions — the person who runs that, does have an ability to perhaps create a problem through that, through intention or even through error. In our system here, in most political processes and elections, we do have scrutineers, and that is for the purpose of having oversight of the process, not that we don’t — it’s not done to say to election officials that we mistrust them; it’s simply to provide checks and balances, and checks and balances are an important thing in any system, I believe, to ensure that we’re not saying to just trust someone — there’s actually a safeguard in place.

So in a random selection process for a citizens’ assembly or commission, how would you ensure that there is some oversight? Do you use scrutineers? If so, looking at voters lists for random selection, would this create issues regarding protection of personal privacy — having these individuals looking at the voters lists? Would our election laws even permit voters lists to be used for such a purpose?

As all MLAs and former candidates and anyone who is really familiar with our election process will remember, during elections in the Yukon and at the federal level, when we’re given voters lists it’s done with the strict admonition that those lists can only be used for the purposes of the election.

059a

So it begs the question: can we actually implement a random process making use of the voters list without amending legislation? If so, would the legislation that had to be amended — which acts would it encompass? Would it be the Elections Act, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, both acts, or perhaps other acts? I have not personally had the time to find out what the answers to those questions would be. We have not had much time since this bill was presented and we’ve had other duties related to the House so that I have not had the time to do the research that, frankly, I’d be very interested in doing and finding out these answers. I do have other duties, as do all members of this House, both related to the session in process and to serving our constituents. As I say, I have not had the time to find out the answer to those questions, and I’m wondering if the members opposite, and the leader of the NDP, have even considered that possibility of what effects, what ramifications, any proposals here might have upon other legislation.

        Now, of course, this would only apply if the five-member committee, or some part of it, is intended to be randomly selected, because obviously a politically chosen expert panel would neither be random nor infringing on personal privacy nor contravening laws pertaining to voters list security. But it would go back, in my view, to where we’ve come from in this nation, or where I’d like to think that we’ve progressed from. It would be going back to an elitist process, an elitist process that, as I stated, in both the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, was rejected by Canadians for that very reason. There were other reasons but I think, by and large, if you ask Canadians, that’s probably the most galling thing about the process. It’s not what the result was but how it was constructed and that whatever problems they perceived to exist with the end result, they did not feel that those problems needed to be in there. They felt that there was a solution to that but they were never asked for their solution.

060a

It was done behind closed doors, at an elite level, overlooking beautiful Meech Lake, or wherever else they had their discussions. Mr. Speaker, this bill that we’re presented, the Democratic Reform Act, Bill No. 107, does not even address it itself — the only way that the composition and the membership of the committee and how they would be chosen were addressed was in comments by the leader of the official opposition. Another question that looms, no matter how you select the members of the commission, is who are they there to represent: themselves, their area of the Yukon, a political party, grassroots Yukoners or something else entirely? And what would that be?

Mr. Speaker, I do have to wonder at the rationale for the NDP proposing a process so radically different from B.C.’s. Again, as I stated, I am not advocating that we follow B.C.’s process. I think that they have ways that — I think there are things from it that we can learn and things that we probably should follow, but I don’t think we should necessarily follow every part of it. We might wish to choose a process that is dramatically different in some ways from what B.C. has chosen because of some of the flaws I have pointed out before with constructing such a system as they did.

But the rationale for choosing such a radically different system has not been laid out by the mover of this bill, the leader of the NDP. There has not been a full rationale behind why the structure in this bill — or the proposed structure — was chosen to be this way; simply that, well, we’ve done this before with other areas that, in my view, are very dramatically different. They are not the same. Establishing electoral boundaries has more to do with being familiar with established standards and procedures regarding the variance between many voters an area can have above or below what the average is. There are many technical things that have been decided — in some cases, I believe, even through court cases — about what a reasonable level of voter parity is.

061a

So there are guidelines for that, and establishing electoral boundaries — in many ways in the main part of it — is a fairly technical area and a fairly technical discussion, and the exception from that can be determined through public meetings and discussions without too much difficulty — such as the riding that was proposed to be created. My memory is failing me on what the name of it was, but it involved Watson Lake and Ross River, if memory serves. I can’t recall the exact boundaries that were proposed.

I thank members opposite for their comments on this. I can’t recall the exact name. Was it Tu Cho? Tu Cho was the name of the riding that was proposed. Certainly there was a very negative reaction from Yukoners in those areas, and they made that change to the proposed maps. That can be done fairly easily and fairly successfully through that type of process when you’re defining electoral boundaries. Personally I consider the way that the Yukon sets up electoral boundaries and commissions to be a fairly successful process. I don’t think there’s a lot of problem with that. I’m not saying it’s a perfect process, but coming to the issue of how you improve on it, I think it’s probably fairly successful and doesn’t seem to create a lot of glaring problems. Certainly I have never personally heard complaints from constituents that they feel there is a real problem with the riding boundaries of my riding or any other riding. Perhaps those concerns are out there in other ridings, but they do not seem to be present in mine or, if they are, my constituents have not felt that it warranted picking up the phone and giving me a call.

062a

However, setting up a similar model for doing a vastly different exercise is not, in my opinion, a wise manoeuvre. I think that, as I stated before, any reform of our legislative system or our electoral system should represent the interests of the grassroots Yukoners — their concerns, their interests, their desires. It should look at the problems they see with the process and where those problems come from — whether it comes from the electoral system, from the legislative system or something else entirely. It should not just be a festival of complaining. It should actually focus on finding out what the problem is and coming up with a solution to it. In my opinion, it has to be done by grassroots Yukoners and not be a process that’s driven by political parties.

It’s well known, as least nationally — and I believe the local NDP feel the same way — that there is a great deal of support among the NDP for a proportional representation system. In fact, I have heard the leader of the official opposition say that he thinks we should move to that type of system. And I’m not saying that is wrong, nor am I criticizing that. There are merits to that. There is also the argument against that, that in areas such as Italy it resulted in what was referred to — somewhat unkindly perhaps — as a “pizza parliament,” with so many divisions and the inability to move forward. But that is the NDP position.

There are other areas that different parties perhaps see, and different members see, that warrant their attention — that they have a specific agenda on that. Personally, I have some real concerns with any proportional representation system. It has the potential, in my opinion, of providing too much power to the political party. There are other ways around this through the list system of candidates. There are downsides to those systems as well.

I do feel that ultimately there is a real ability, even through ranking of a list, for the political party to exercise more control over the political process, and I do not see that as a beneficial step. That is one of the concerns I have with a proportional representation system.

063a

There are also problems in a proportional representation system. There is a tendency for legislatures, for parliaments, for any House to become a situation where no party has a majority. There are arguments in favour and against that. The argument in favour of it is that, while without the ability to have a majority, no party can ram something down the throats of the minority; but it also can and has created in some jurisdictions a case where the tail wags the dog and the few members of the small party, who make the difference in the balance of power, can exercise a great deal of control over the agenda of the majority party and can end up taking something down the road where it is not always what the majority wishes. The party lines are fairly hard drawn, and their supporters are hard enough drawn that it does result in problems.

I know that from talking to people from Germany, where they have their system of a lot of parties within their parliament, I’ve heard complaints from some of them that they feel that the smaller party does engage in the tail wagging the dog and that, of the two main political parties, you know which smaller one either one is going to group with, and they don’t really have a lot of control over the outcome. You may get a few changes in each side, but really you end up with the same result and still the small party exercises a lot more control than they feel it should.

That’s one concern with moving to a proportional system: the denial of a majority. There may be other ways — I believe there are other ways to address concerns regarding party discipline and regarding a majority ramming things down the throats of the opposition. These can be done through changes to the committee structure. They can be done through changes around free votes. They can also be do