What’s old is new and what’s new is old
(Excuse the meaningless paradox!)
Ah… nice to get out of Dodge for a breather!
As much as I love Dawson I was feeling a bit claustrophobic after the big sundown shoot-out on Front Street last October. The glare coming off the shiny new pavement skewed my aim and was only able to graze my opponent.
One thing is for sure, politics is never dull in the Yukon.
Apparently there aren’t enough parties here to represent all 32,000 of us. To address this deficit, old-timer Willard Phelps has emerged from the shadows to form the Unity Party. With an eye to do what? If I were a gambling man I would say that the notion of a no-party system for the Yukon will be promoted by this new group, assuming they gain enough momentum. In these cynical times, it will be surprising if a sustainable head of steam can be maintained.
The jury is definitely out on this question. I’m not entirely convinced that dismantling political party representation in government will enhance efficiency and fairness, although at first blush it seems like a sexy idea.
Perhaps the real question might be – are we over-represented in the legislature? With eighteen MLAs, each has an average of 1,800 constituents. A city councilor in Toronto might have in excess of a 100,000.
I realize that our big chunk of northern real estate comes loaded with resources, an ecosystem that needs to be managed along with the supporting infrastructure. All of which requires good stewardship, that’s why we have a bureaucracy.
Does this administrative arm of government need eighteen politicians for direction on behalf of so few inhabitants? Especially when most of those same people work for government in the first place.
The beauty in governance in Canada’s northern territories in in their size. Everything is small enough to enable one to see how it works. The problem is nicely capsulated in your question John: “Does this administrative arm of government need eighteen politicians for direction on behalf of so few inhabitants?”
One of the more serious problems in Canada’s system of government, from 24 Sussex to City Hall, is that the legislative and executive arm of government are one and the same. When those who run the government are the same people who write and adopt the laws that govern the conduct of government, what becomes of accountability? Silly notions such as party discipline and the institution of a “loyal” opposition (loyal to whom?) only aggravates the problem.
That is not to say that systems with a clear distinction between the executive and legislative are problem free, but the separation of powers does provide a greater measure of accountability.
Loyal to Her Majesty I assume.
You’ll be glad to hear there will be an increase to 19 at next election then. But they are probably necessary due to geography and population distribution or you’ll soon find your MLA lives in another town 1000km away. It’s the cost of them and their tax-free expense accounts that bothers me.
On accountability, bring on the recall legislation as proposed by Mr Phelps. If the politicians are truly listening and representing their constituents, what do they have to be afraid of? Since this government extended the election period to 5 years it’s a long time for a majority government to have free rein with no mechanism for the people to hold their representatives to account. A policy manifesto means nothing past election day after all.
Sorry John for your dust-up and the wounds you received in the recent showdown in Dawson town.
When is a party not a party? Mr. Phelps is just creating another party with the very same rhetoric all party’s claim. Big Tent, open democratic process, we are different,etc etc….. Remember Mr. Phelps has history and none of it convinces me he would be bringing something different to the table. He is already proposing drafting party policy, having a executive. Sounds like a party to me.
In regards to over representation at the legislature it is not the quanity but the quality that we should be focusing on. If we obsess about the numbers then let us also look at municipal politics. Correct me if I am wrong but a town of under 2000 with 5 elected members does seem a little skewed as well. That works out to 400 people per elected member. Other municipalities with the same number and only 4 to 6 hundred people total. Then you have First nation governments with elections of 4 to 6 members representing 3 or 4 hundred people.
As to a comment made about recall legislation. I introduced Legislative renewal this sitting and if people want change such as this then I hope they attend the hearings of the select committee when it comes to their town and make sure real change does happen.
Thanks Todd,
I don’t mind an occasional dust-up nor do I mind losing to a worthy opponent, unfortunately in this case I do have a problem with the outcome.
Dawson is once again a laughing stock for having gone one step forward and consequently, two steps back.
Regarding your analysis of Mr. Phelps’ efforts, I have to agree with you. Perhaps his new ‘party’ should be called the ‘Let’s Get Back at Fentie’ party.
Initially I thought that a consensus style government without official political affiliation might make sense, especially given our small population. Shouldn’t we be free to draw on the available talent, regardless of political affiliation? Perhaps I’m naive in thinking that everyone should work together towards a harmonious governance by the people, for the people.
Still not sure if that’s viable or not given the importance of the checks and balances built into the legislative process.
Regarding the issue of over representation, again I’m treading carefully because your reference to quality as opposed to quantity is well taken.
Hi John
Yes , I agree. Mr. Phelps so called unity party is being fueled by bitterness and anger towards Mr. Fentie. Not a very auspicious beginning. I wonder what kind of glue will hold them together. Possibly a very thick hide glue might work. Tightbond creeps to much.
Ah Dawson, what can I say. I am not a proponent of the sayings, the voter always right, nor, the voters get what they deserve. I am sure you shall be entering the political arena sometime in the future. I lost in 2000 and it was a great lesson for me.
We need to change the way we vote at the territorial and federal levels to insure we get the best elected.
We need to change the rules of engagement in the legislature to insure the peoples will is best reflected by those elected.
I believe we can do this without affecting the checks and balances needed in a democratic system. Possibly strengthening those items are also needed. I say no sacred cows. Lets be honest and fearless in our approach to strengthening our democracy.
Mr. Hardy, on the subject of checks and balance, I am surprised – make that deeply disappointed – at the silence by Yukon’s political party to the Court of Appeal decision in Whitehorse (City) v. Darragh. Dave Keenan, the Minister responsible for the Municipal Act confirmed that the intent of the Act was to have OCP and OCP amendments subject to the public votes provisions. The Act, after all, did specify that all bylaws were subject to public votes, with the exception (budget and taxes) being identified in the Act. The Court of Appeal decided that, because Alberta and Saskatchewan exempted OCP bylaws from their referendum regulations, that same exemption should apply in the Yukon.
The Yukon Legislative Assembly could very easily amend the OCP to make it clear that the public votes provisions apply to all bylaws, “including official community plan and zoning bylaws” if it were interested in providing the democratic process at the Yukon’s community level with effective checks and balances. But it appears that the Yukon’s legislators prefer to keep the power to govern in the hands of elected politicians.
In one decade there has been only two citizen-initiated referendums in the Yukon, one in Whitehorse (greenbelts) and one in Dawson. Hardly enough to argue that the process has been abused. In view of the silence by Yukon’s politicians in this matter, I take their (and your) “checks and balances needed in a democratic system” with not just a grain, but a handful of salt.