Category: Politics

Posted on

A first for an election priority

The election has been called for a week now and I have to admit that the professed priority of three of the parties encourages me. A poll done before the election indicated that the major issue resonating with Yukoners is housing.

We have a huge shortage of housing, particularly attainable housing, in the territory. There is little incentive to rent and the vacancy rate in the territory is about 1.2%. Supply and demand has led to extremely high housing prices (the average home sale in Whitehorse from the Statistics Department in the last quarter was about $425,000). Home sale numbers are slow and new construction has concentrated on condos, selling at about $400/sq.ft. With an average income, finding a house you can actually afford is difficult (remember that most banks use a maximum of 38% Total Debt to Service Ratio, which means that you won’t get mortgage unless you have enough income that your mortgage payment is 38% or less of your income. To buy a $450,000 house over 25 years means you need a combined family income of about $7,500 per month. Needless to say, if you work at Tim Horton’s or in a daycare, odds are you will never own a house. Given the rental rates, you may find that you simply don’t have a roof over your head at all and this explains why many people live in wall tents in the woods on the other side of the river.

Calls for improvement to the situation first came from the Territorial NDP party that held a meeting on dealing with the situation two months before the election was called. They have pushed for having Crown Land within the city turned into low income housing development. They and the Liberal Party support this, as well as  Northern City Supportive Housing Coalition’s $1.8-million plan to build 20 units of housing for homeless people in the city. The Yukon Party has also approached the housing problem with proposing to increase the number of beds at the Salvation Army,  and create a new youth shelter and designating Crown Land for affordable housing. However, considering that the previous Yukon Party government received about $18 million in two years in federal Northern Housing Trust and did not spend it and transferred other low income housing money to a First Nation to be used to buy hotels owned by a cabinet minister, I’m afraid I don’t hold much hopes for any of the Yukon Party’s housing promises coming to fruition.

That being said, it is safe to hope that someone, unless we have a return of government, will deal with a serious problem. Homelessness here is not reserved for people without jobs. And, quite frankly, any candidate running who doesn’t believe that safe housing is a human right, should not be permitted to run. Ask your candidates when they come to your door what they believe on this issue and then, be prepared to hold them to it. To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein, any society that does not make it its first priority to defend its weakest citizens does not deserve to exist…

Posted on

What’s so new about jumping ship?

I find one of the funniest parts of politics to be when a member of a political party, for some reason or another, opts to leave and take up the torch of another. Why funny? Because, the party left and the parties not joined seem to view this as the most horrible form of blasphemy. But, of course, this blaspheming will only be applicable to their opponents and never when they do it themselves.

Changing political allegiances is not new and it’s not that rare. Look at the current leadership of the three main political parties. The recent turmoil concerns the fact that interim NDP Leadeer Nycole Turmel was a card-carrying member of the Bloc and also a member of the Provincial Quebec Solidaire. Her claimed reason for doing so was to support a friend and because she favoured the social democratic principles of the party, while not supporting sovereignty. Bob Rae, the current interim leader of the Liberal Party, was a federal NDP MP before moving to provincial politics in Ontario. He became leader of the party and was elected as NDP premier in 1990. He left the party in 1997 and re-entered politics in 2006  shortly after a poll listed him as second choice for the Liberal Party leadership after Frank McKenna… and after McKenna announced that he was not running for leader of the party. Our last example, of course, is Prime Minister Harper, who has made a career of changing party allegiances. He started out as a Liberal, but quit the party when he disagreed with the National Energy Policy. He moved from the Liberals to the Progressive Conservative Party, but left when he disagreed with the policies of Brian Mulroney. He joined the Reform Party, but left it when he disagreed with the policies of Preston Manning.

Other famous federal politicians who have moved include Newfoundland’s John Crosby, who started out as a provincial Liberal before becoming a member of the provincial Conservative party and later a PC MP, Belinda Stronach, who ran unsuccessfully for the PC party leadership in 2004 and jumped to the Liberal Party in 2005 (while dating the former leader of the PC Party), and David Emerson, who was elected as a Liberal in the 2006 election and accepted a seat in cabinet as a Conservative MP immediately after the election.

And, if you follow Yukon politics, it gets even more interesting. In the upcoming election, we have Dave Sloan, former NDP cabinet minister running for the Liberal Party, Eric Fairclough who was an NDP cabinet minister who jumped to the Liberal banner, Scott Kent, former Liberal cabinet minister running for the Yukon Party, etc.

In short, every party has a history of wavering membership stories. Why, then, do the parties scream when someone demonstrates a history of having held membership in another? Much of the rhetoric makes little sense. For example, Stephen Harper’s comment about Nycole Turmel’s membership in a sovereignist party being “disappointing” wears a bit when it was revealed that Transport Minister Denis Lebel was a long-standing member of the Bloc. Also, the prime minister has appoint Michael Rivard, a Parti Quebecois MNA as a Conservative senator in 2008. So, this is obviously a glass house where stone throwing should be considered risky at best. Despite this, the war of words seems to arise anytime someone reconsiders their priorities, a somewhat human trait.

As a piece of trivia, the first time I was ever in the House of Commons visitors’ gallery, I watched Raymond Rock cross the floor from the governing Liberal Party to sit as a Progressive Conservative. As Pierre Trudeau rose to speak immediately afterwards, someone (I think it was George Hees) yelled out from the opposite side of the House, “Are you coming over, too?”

Posted on

Our judges walk on water

If you’re not in the Yukon, you probably aren’t aware that we’ve had one of the more unusual trials I’ve seen in a long time. It wasn’t different in the subject or outcome, but rather in the judge sitting the trial himself.

The  Commission Scolaire Francophone du Yukon launched suit against the Yukon Government in a lengthy battle over whether or not the Government had withheld funds that had been earmarked for French education. The government countered with the claim that the French school board was adequately funded. The French school, École Émilie-Tremblay, has 184 students and the principal claims that the school is overcrowded. YTG lists the capacity of the school as higher. The board asked for $15 million to expand the school to accommodate its 41 high school level students.

The judge, Vital Oulette, was brought in from Alberta, to sit on the trial. What came out early in the proceedings was that Justice Oulette had a history as a lobbyist and advocate for French education and the government lawyers asked that he recuse himself because of a potential conflict of interest. This seems a reasonable request. It is impossible to avoid the possibility of conflict when you have lobbied in favour of similar groups as one involved in the trial. He refused. He said that his lobbying had been public knowledge. I’m sorry, but saying that people may be aware that you might be biased doesn’t take away the possibility that you are.

He also issued an order for the government to hire more teachers for the French school system 8 months before the trial actually ended, actually predetermining the outcome of the trial. Finally, in his decision, he decided that the French school board should, instead of receiving an expansion, should instead build a new school within two years. Estimated cost: $30 million. Further, he ordered YTG to pay $1.95 million in federal funds to the school board. Needless to say, YTG is planning to appeal Justice Oulette’s decision.

Our little territory has long had issues with judges that thought they could walk on water. I only wish some of them would try it when the lakes aren’t frozen over…

Posted on

Goodbye, Atlantis

Part of my past really disappears on Friday with the launch of the last shuttle mission. That, of course, is assuming the weather is good enough for a Friday launch. The weather office is working with a 70% chance that the weather won’t permit the launch on that day.

I watched the first one, although a day later than planned when the first launch scrubbed because the computers’ times weren’t synchronized. And now, I’ll see the last. Yes, I also watched most of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo launches as well. I think I’ll miss the shuttle more because it seemed, although it only seemed, to make space flight a bit more pedestrian and accessible (remember that, at the time the Challenger exploded, that there were 752 different systems that could fail on launch and result in the “destruction of the orbiter,” according to NASA). No, the shuttle was not like taking the bus, but at least, appeared more bus-like than Mercury with its single astronaut or even Apollo with its three. The first three projects gave you a hundred of millions to one chance you would ever travel in space. The shuttle, carrying crews of seven, upped the chances a small bit and there were far more launches because the orbiter was reusable.

But, this is not why I truly will miss the shuttle. It was due to be replaced due to technological reasons. They are older equipment and really need to be upgraded. The upgrade, however, the X-33 project, was cancelled due to funding restrictions several years ago. This left the STS project with a fixed timeline for ending with no system in place to replace it when gone. The resupply missions to the International Space Station will be done with Soyuz rockets. The ISS program is supposed to last until about 2020, with no real program planned for the west after that point.

We see some of the reasons for the termination of the project here as well as in the US. We see the same in Europe, too. There has become a call for tax relief and the call for “individual accountability” for taxes. Governments pander to the growing calls of the “what’s in it for me” crowd. For example, our federal government is planning to cut the per-vote payments to political parties on the grounds that taxpayers’ money may go to parties that individual people didn’t vote for. In short, the somewhat restrictive view of governments has turned from what can we actually do in the grander scheme of things to how can we save money. Sadly, progress is predicated on the former concept and once again, we seem a species destined to go its merry way, following the rule that states that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have failed to adapt to changing environments and become extinct.

So, when Atlantis lifts off somewhere over the next week or so, and then returns, we should think on the one point that becomes evident as time goes on: we really have to stop leaving dinosaurs in charge of things…

Posted on

Not much of a public speaker, is he?

Our MP, Ryan Leef, posted the following on his Facebook page today. It is the Hansard listing of his response to Joe Comartin in the house during the debate on Bill C-6.

Mr. Speaker, I was certainly encouraged to hear the member talking about evidence-based solutions. We are hearing this now in the wee hours of the night. When we ask that question of the NDP opposition, it is only going to be their solutions that are satisfying to them.

We heard much earlier in the evening about talking from the heart, and new members of Parliament being here. I, as a new member of Parliament, would rather talk from my heart and not from scripted notes that we had a feverish debate on earlier.

I would like to say that back in 1910, Inspector Fitzgerald of the RCMP led a group of RCMP officers from Fort McPherson to Dawson City to deliver the mail. That became famously known as the Lost Patrol. That issue, that commitment to deliver the mail, was done because they understood the needs of communication and commerce in the north. They did so on December 21, four days from Christmas.

They were not battling pensions. They were not worrying about wages. They were doing this because they understood how important commerce and communication was to the north and to the people of Canada.

Can the member please tell us, where have we lost that idea that this service to the north is so important? What is so wrong with a Conservative government trying to protect that and re-instill that for Canadian people?

Keep in mind that the Lost Patrol were doing a ceremonial mail delivery and the leader of the patrol got lost and every member died because he probably didn’t have any real experience in the country they were crossing.

That aside, is our Member asking the postal workers to carry the mail to their deaths? He seems to think that postal workers shouldn’t worry about their wages and pensions and, if their job is unsafe, just keep going. Hey, what’s the worst that could happen?

Actually, the worst that could have happened in the House didn’t. This irrelevant comment was made to Joe Comartin, one of the A-List debaters in the House and one known to not suffer fools gladly and has been known to verbally draw blood. His response was far more gentle than expected… he just treated Leef like a 10-year old.

Mr. Speaker, I know he is a new member of the House, and it is probably not fair for me to say this to him so I will say it to the two ministers who are here.

I would suggest to the member that he walk across the chamber and tell those two ministers to do their job. He should ask them to go to the Prime Minister and tell him to pick up the phone, call the CEO of Canada Post, and tell him to unlock the doors, honour the collective agreement, and go back to the negotiating table. If he wants to get something done and he wants it done right now and he wants to get those workers back to work who want to work, that is what he should do.

I, for one, would not be so willing to post such a comment on my page. Incidentally, he still hasn’t announced if he’s taking an 18% pay cut or changing his gold-plated pension plan. I’m not holding my breath for that to happen as he has already broken his main campaign promise less than two months into the job…

Posted on

More Correspondence

My last blog post was the letter I sent to Ryan Leef, our newly minted MP, regarding back to work legislation for Canada Post. He did respond rather quickly, as well he should as the main thrust of his campaign was that he would vote against party lines if asjked to do so by his constitutents. Here is the remainder of the conversation.

Thank you for your note Doug and Clara,

I am sure you can appreciate that I am receiving many emails from Yukon residents and businesses who support the back to work Legislation.   I have asked the Opposition (twice in the early hours this morning) to end the debate (which I think was essential, but is now just repetitive) and bring their proposed solutions to a Committee of the Whole.  They have refused to do so. 

I will continue to ask for this to move to a Committee of the Whole so I can hear the proposed solutions of the Opposition and see what would be in the best interests of all Yukoners, which now includes Postal Workers, residents, charities, and small business.

Thank you for taking the time to email me.  I am keeping record of all who contact me, and am reaching out to both sides of this issue. 

Kind Regards,

 Ryan.

Ryan Leef, MP
Yukon

 Our response to this was:

Ryan:

We seriously suspect, given the strong support Yukoners have shown for CUPW in the current lockout, that you have not received letters spefically stating “Break the union.” Rather, we assume, they reqested the resumption of mail services.

The fastest way to do so is to order Canada Post to end the lockout and allow good faith bargaing. This would allow a win-win situation without the jackboot tactics of enforcing back to work legislation.

Doug and Clara Rutherford

 I found his response to this, in spite of the fact that this would expedite what all seemed to wanting, very disappointing and simply a “party talking point” response.

Hi Doug,

Yes, some are just asking for an end…others, (including CUPW Members) are asking for the Legislation as they feel the Union has “mislead” and “bullied” them. Again, having to take all sides into account, I am continuing to reach out to both sides for balanced information so I can make an informed choice based on Yukoners wants, needs, and expectations. As the view is quite polarized, I want to move quickly but not in blind haste to ensure the choice and contributions I make best represent the Yukon. I appreciate your point about the support you see by Yukoners to CUPW.

Thanks again for forwarding your position.

Ryan. 

 Guiven the somewhat sheep-like response, particularly since there are a few problems with the legality of the points he brought forward, we decided to send another reminder.

Ryan:

We have issue with the terms “mislead” and “bullied” here, particularly if these reference the offer made to Canada Post and not relayed to the union membership. We see that those members of parliament making this point should learn a bit about labour law. Presenting an offer to the membership that has not been endorsed by the bargaining committee is termed bargaining in bad faith and is illegal under the Canadian Industrial Relations Board regulations.

 We suggest that you place yourself in the shoes of those who this legislation will affect, a vital step in the process of any legislation. We want to know if you, as a new member of parliament, are willing to accept 18% less salary than members who were sitting in the last election. And, are you intending to change your pension plan from a defined benefit to a defined contribution program? If you are not willing to accept these conditions you are legislating on others, we strongly suggest you allow the process of collective bargaining to resume.

 Douglas and Clara Rutherford

His response was, simply:

Thanks again Doug. Points taken. Might be moving into the Committee of the Whole now, so we’ll see what comes up.

Ryan.

In the end, he voted for the legislation. Needless to say, he has yet to public announce he is taking a pay cut and changing his pension plan. I would ask him to table the letters he received to get him to actually prove he received lots of requests to legislate the postal workers back to work, but I assumed he was lying with his campaign and don’t see much sense in rubbing his nose in it. Oh, well. I’m assuming that in four years time, we will probably have a new government and anything else would be a vast improvement…

Posted on

Open Letter to Ryan Leef, MP, Yukon

Ryan Leef, MP, Member for Yukon

Dear Ryan,

As a constituent, I wish to express my displeasure with the stand your party has taken in the introduction of Bill C-6, A Bill to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services. The bill is an uncalled for intervention in the time honoured and legal practice of collective bargaining.

Also, I find your party’s stance that the union is preventing the movement of mail offensive. Canada Post locked its employees out rather than deal with the inconvenience of rotating strikes and, as a Crown corporation, can be overruled by an order by Governor in Council. It would be easy for the lockout to be ordered ended and mail moving by Monday morning. Implying anything else is, quite frankly, dishonest.

You stated, during the election, that you would vote contrary to your party if asked to do so by your constituents. Consider this a request by two of your constituents to do exactly that, and vote against Bill C-6.

Douglas and Clara Rutherford

Posted on

Now, Time to Talk to Another Branch of Government

Our next step is to deal with the problems associated with having a hazardous waste storage site across the street. Namely, what is my property worth?

I can heartily assure you that no one is going to buy a house on a street with a hazardous waste site on it. That, in consideration with the fact that my property taxes are based on my assessment, we’ve approached the territorial government, who also are the ones responsible for the assessments the property taxes are calculated from, to have our properties reassessed based on the new information available. The deadline for reassessments requests has passed but we think that this is an extenuating circumstance and have asked the department and the minister for an exemption and reassessment anyway. Given that the payment deadline is coming up, I’m probably going to Council Monday evening to ask for an extension on payment to dealt with the administrative issues that may be involved.

Onward into the breach. Again…

Posted on

No Reassurance Yet

Well, in continuation of our last post, I did get an answer from the office of the Minister of the Environment Department. We were looking for reassurance that the guy across the street wasn’t storing hazardous wastes in the neighbourhood.

I say “hazardous” for the purpose of clarity. Here, the government refers to these as “special waste,” since the old term sounds dangerous and you wouldn’t want to needlessly worry if some were to spill. The newer one, “special,” just makes them sound… well, special.

The only problem is that their answer really isn’t reassuring at all. When the response about potentially storing hazardous waste is that “he has a permit.” Ahhh?

My hope, and we have asked for clarification, is that the answer is not as well worded as it could have been, or maybe a little more generic than it was intended. I am, of course, working on the assumption that the Environment Department would not issue a waste storage permit for the middle of a residential neighbourhood. Of course, making assumptions is never a good practice, is it?

Posted on

I’m a Little Tired of Senate Whining…

Could we stop talking about the Senate? The embers of disbelief from the Prime Minister appointing three losing candidates to the Senate are still cooling. Now, with the Ontario provincial elections on, we have the Liberal Party screaming to have it abolished.

Let’s just take a quick reality break here. First, the Senate exists by legislation of the Constitution Act (1982) and its previous versions. You want  to abolish it? Go for it. All you need is pass it through the House of Commons and then get the approval of 7 out of 10 provincial legislatures, where those provinces comprise more than 50% of the population. Because that is the only amending formula for a major revision of the constitution.

By the way, you’ll notice that passing it through the Senate is not a requirement. If the Senate does not approve a constitutional amendment, the House can wait 180 days and re-approve the amendment and Senate approval is no longer required.

And, bluntly, don’t think that this sort of thing is just going to happen. Most of the provinces would like to do a bit of constitutional wrangling, rather than one single piece. Therefore, a First Ministers’ meeting on the constitution, or probably several, will be needed to get any amendments going. As we remember from the election earlier this month, the NDP stated that, as part of their platform, they were willing to reopen the constitution in the aim to get Quebec as a full signatory to it. This was criticized by both the Conservatives and Liberal Party. Mr. Harper, in Asbestos, QC, said:

“We are in the middle of an economic recovery and the real priority for families are jobs, growth, affordable services and keep their taxes down and those will be the priorities of the Conservative government, not resurrecting old constitutional debates.”

When we consider that this looks very much like “I’m not interested,” we do have to remember that a politician’s opinion in April isn’t necessary a politician’s choice in May. That being said, we can probably safely assume that a Conservative Prime Minister is not going to do anything that vaguely looks like he’s meeting the demands of a Liberal premier during an election. We all know that certainly isn’t happening…