Comments on: Trumped?

By: Andre

Andre — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:07:27 +0000

I don’t know either, unless of course Yukoners have lost the courage to make use of that tool – the referendum that is.
Look at what happened in Whitehorse in the case of Marianne Darragh. The City of Whitehorse attempted to block the initiative process every step along the way, even going public with ads claiming that the McLean Lake petition was illegal. When the petition was eventually filed, with 20 percent more votes than required, the City took Marianne to court, naming her personally. She had to get a lawyer, at her cost. She won. The City then went to appeal the decision. The City won on appeal because the Court of Appeal relied on Alberta and Saskatchewan precedent. The Court of Appeal did not consider the information Marianne’s lawyer submitted to establish that the Yukon legislation had established new principles of citizen empowerment. Throughout it all Marianne was on her own. The YTG had it in its power to intervene and advise the Court of the citizen empowerment principles the Yukon Legislature had established with the new Municipal Act, but instead it chose to remain silent.
So Marianne was left on her own. The City of Whitehorse paid tens of thousands of dollars on this case – no big deal, it all comes from taxes. Marianne, on the other hand, was left as on individual citizen to pay for her costs, even when over 2.400 citizens had signed her petition. To add insult to injury, Marianne contributes to the City’s legal costs through her taxes.
And then, come election time, same old same old. Any wonder why citizens may be luke warm about attempting to use the limited bit of power they do have under the Municipal Act?

By: Sylvia

Sylvia — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:49:08 +0000

John, it’s like deja-vu for me, when I had my little rant at the city, all I was trying to get across is that the little guy, me and now you are just serfs, pay taxes and pay homage, and all I want is for the citizens of Dawson to put on their heritage glasses and understand what we will lose if YTG has its way and it’s pretty close now to being fait accomplis. BUT close to 300 people have signed the petition to save Minto Park and more folks are coming on board every day so we will have faith and keep on collecting names and info on the importance of Minto Park in the everyday life of the town and what we can do to perhaps bring more events back to the park in the future.

By: Dawson Activist

Dawson Activist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:44:18 +0000

Reading your example again raises another pet subject of yours. For some reason, Government of Yukon chose not to use this exception for the lagoon, when there was fed money, timelines etc at hand.

Reason: Because they didn’t have the political courage to go against that direct vote.

I’ve done a lot of research in recent times and have quite come around to direct referenda actually. I’m not sure why those opposed to this project, on which fundamentally I am quite neutral, didn’t go that route.

By: Dawson Activist

Dawson Activist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:23:41 +0000

I am smart enough to understand all that. I repeat, however, that it should be done legally. Ignoring the stipulated steps of procedure is a slippery slope that yourself and Dawson knows all too well leads to no good.

By: Andre

Andre — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:51:29 +0000

Dawson Activits, don’t forget that there are other forces at play. For example, if another Ministry, be that Highways, Health, Education, or whatever, have a need for something or other, and a budget with which to meet that need, then that is often considered to be the “greater interest” which trumps the limited “local interest.”
For example, there may be a deal involving the feds as well in a cost-sharing scheme, there may be timelines to such schemes too.
In B.C., for example, it is not unheard of for the provincial government to overrule a municipal council in land use or taxation matters “in the greater public interest.” Very easy for a provincial or territorial government to raise the “greater public interest” as the deciding argument because they represent the province or territory as a whole, whereas a municipal council represents “only” the “local interest” by which they usually mean the “narrow local interest” but lack the balls to say it in so many words.

By: Dawson Activist

Dawson Activist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:34:12 +0000

And, I’m sure the intent and spirit of that exception was for it to be used in highly unusual circumstances. Otherwise why would the first part of the sentence be there?

If it was intended that Government of Yukon claim a general exemption from bylaws, why write the first part? Would you not just write ‘Municipal Bylaws do not apply to Government of Yukon’. I think it has been generally accepted previously that you try not to do this.

I remain wedded to my first point. If government won’t follow the spirit of the rules I see no imperative to do so myself and I am sure others will feel the same and it brings the whole bylaw into disrepute. Leadership is best portrayed by example.

By: Dawson Activist

Dawson Activist — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:10:54 +0000

I understand what you are saying but, they still need to take the 10 mins to do it, right? For it to be legal that is.

To put it on the permanent public record that the decision was forced through by Cabinet from above against the direction of the local bylaw as passed by the Council.

Just so, politically speaking, everyone was clear on the matter and there was accountability should the citizens wish to take an interest.

By: Andre

Andre — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:51:45 +0000

Commissioner in Executive Council, that’s the Cabinet. And when the Municipal Act says that the Government of Yukon is bound by the bylaws of a municipality “except as otherwise established by Commissioner in Executive Council by regulation” it means that the law gives Cabinet the power to do whatever Cabinet wants to do. All Cabinet has to do is pass a regulation, which takes about 10 minutes. The Legislature has already given its approval in the form of the section that allows for exemption by regulation. So, if Cabinet wants to ignore a municipal bylaw, any bylaw in any municipality for any reason at any time, then it can do so in full compliance with the law. Ain’t it beautiful how the law works? In answer to your question, Dawson Activist, “that bylaw don’t apply to us in this case” is precisely what the Yukon Government (Cabinet) may do and if it does say that, it will be in full compliance with the letter of the law. Welcome to the real world of local government.

By: Dawson Activist

Dawson Activist — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:15:25 +0000

But would the Government of Yukon not be legally required to follow the clause John has quoted from a Territorial Act? To get the Commissioner in Executive Council i.e the Minister etc to sign a regulation?

The Minister and his colleagues then just have to be accountable politically for over-ruling the municipal Council. But at least it would be legal. Surely with that clause in there, Government of Yukon can’t just say, in generality, that ‘bylaws don’t apply to us’.

By: John Steins

John Steins — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:08:35 +0000

So aptly put.

Thank you for clarifying the true relationship we have as a municipality to the Territorial Government.

I even question our so called ‘rights and freedoms’ if we are not allowed to easily enjoy a modicum of empowerment at the grassroots level.

If I am not mistaken,it should be noted that the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in government is constitutionally entrenched thereby making them almost equal to the Territorial Government in stature.