Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 19, 1989 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any Introduction of Visitors?

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would like to introduce to the House today some people in the gallery: Albert James, Rosemarie Blair-Smith, Sharon Jacobs and Linda MacDonald and Bob Coves. Welcome to the House.

Applause

Speaker: Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have a legislative return in answer to a question asked in Committee.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have two legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

Are there any Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Notices of Motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Ms. Kassi: I give notice of the following motion

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should support the Assembly of First Nations of Canada in their struggle for reconsideration of the cutbacks in funding for Indian education;

THAT the most recent federal government cutbacks to funding for post-secondary education are yet another affront to the aboriginal peoples of Canada;

THAT education is regarded as an important route for aboriginal peoples to climb off the poverty cycle;

THAT cuts in funding for single parents will cause great hardship and a great number of people taking post-secondary education programs are in fact single parents;

THAT proposed changes do not reflect the needs of northern aboriginal peoples;

THAT access to post-secondary education is an aboriginal right and limiting funding for post-secondary education abrogates these rights;

THAT without access to post-secondary education, the aboriginal peoples of Canada are sentenced to a life of poverty in which their only support will be government social assistance programs; and

THAT the Government of Yukon should urge the federal government to re-establish full post-secondary education funding levels.

Speaker: Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Operation Falcon

Mr. Phelps: I have some follow-up questions for the Minister of Justice regarding Operation Falcon and the motion about having an inquiry into that operation. That motion was passed in this House in December, 1987 and the motion was sent to the federal government in December, 1987 as well. Last week the new Minister of Justice said she would not do anything about holding an inquiry here until she hears from the federal government.

Has the Minister communicated with the federal government subsequent to this matter being raised in the House on April 11, 1989?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have not communicated with the new Minister of Justice. He is aware of the motion and the questions in the House. Some information has been received with regard to the federal government looking at the matter and I have been advised that the federal Minister will make that information known to me very shortly.

Mr. Phelps: Can the Minister tell us how long she is willing to wait before she pushes this and we will have an inquiry into that operation?

Hon. Ms. Joe: One of the things we have been doing is trying to find out the extent of the cost. The information is that it is going to cause a great deal of financial difficulties, as well as difficulties in trying to subpoena some of those individuals to the Yukon. I will not make that big a financial commitment until I am sure that the federal government has reacted and at least given a response.

Mr. Phelps: I am worried that the longer it drags on the more it will cost. Will the Minister communicate with her counterpart in Ottawa and tell that Minister that if we do not hear from him in the affirmative about the federal government starting an inquiry by a certain date then we will initiate our own inquiry?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I am not entirely sure I could make a commitment for a certain date for an inquiry. I have just mentioned it is going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It could be in the range of $500,000, and that is a lot of money. I realize the seriousness of the situation. Right now, the federal government has the file, and it is being reviewed. I am expecting a response from the federal Minister.

Question re: Operation Falcon

Mr. Phelps: In December, 1987, why did the Minister and her colleagues not express this underlying concern about costs during debate on the motion? Why did they not use that as their excuse for not supporting it? They did support the amended motion.

Hon. Ms. Joe: The motion was much more complex than anybody realized. The Leader of the Official Opposition knows the extent of the cost of such an inquiry. That is something that has to be taken into consideration. I am still waiting for word from the federal Minister. I know the file is being reviewed. That is a fact. I could write him a letter asking him to speed things up because I would like to have an answer as soon as possible, but there is a lot of information that has to be gathered. The review is being done.

Mr. Phelps: There is no slight intended to the Minister personally. People do become cynical about due process of justice when all the Members in this House support a motion and then there seems to be a great reluctance to follow through.

On April 11, I asked the Minister a question about what kind of planning had been done by her department, aside from the costing. She was going to get back to me on that. Does the Minister have anything to report with regard to the planning the department has done about instituting the inquiry?

Hon. Ms. Joe: As I said before, we are in contact with people in Ottawa about this, and we are trying to gather the information we would need in order to determine what the costs might be. The cost is a very important thing. We have to know exactly how much that is going to be. We do not have $500,000 to throw around, although I have taken the motion very seriously and the concerns of the people involved.

Mr. Phelps: This is nothing personal to do with the Minister, but is she really saying that the government is going to use cost as an excuse to never launch an inquiry?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I did say that we have to take into consideration what the cost would be. I am also still waiting for word from the federal government. I have been informed that I will be getting a response from the Minister very shortly. When I get that response then I will know what he is saying.

Question re: Thomson inquiry

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister of Justice also regarding a long outstanding issue. It is with respect to the Justice of the Peace who was fired because of his age. It has been many months now since this issue was discussed and there still remains the outstanding question of who was responsible for the dismissal of the Justice of the Peace. I would like to ask the Minister if the issue has been resolved yet; does she have a satisfactory answer regarding this issue?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I do not have a satisfactory response to date, but I understand there is also a great deal of difficulty in subpoenaing these individuals who might have to come back to the Yukon.

I keep hearing little echoes in the background, and I am not sure if they want to speak.

I do not have a satisfactory answer, but when I do, I will bring it back to the House.

Mrs. Firth: The Judicial Council was asking for subpoena powers. In light of what the Minister has said this afternoon, do I conclude that they were given subpoena powers when they were going to investigate this issue?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I do not think that that was the intention. As I understand it, they do not have subpoena powers at this time.

Mrs. Firth: The Minister should not use subpoena powers as an excuse in response to the question. If she does not know the answer, she should just tell us she does not know and she can bring the information back.

I would like to ask the Minister when she expects to hear from the council regarding this issue. I believe there is a report due. Has the report come, or is the Minister expecting that within the near future?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I am expecting the report; I do not have it yet. I have asked for it.

Question re: Thomson inquiry

Mrs. Firth: I would like to ask the Minister if she would be prepared to give a commitment that when she does get the report that it will be made available to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. I believe there was kind of a half-hearted commitment by the previous Minister, and I would like to know if that follows through with this Minister.

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would have to take that question as notice.

Question re: Petitioner, re Spirit Lake

Mr. Nordling: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. There has been an elderly gentleman picketing outside of this building for the past several months. My understanding is that he has been trying for a number of years to obtain a strip of land to expand his lot near Spirit Lake. I would like to know if the Minister has resolved the issue yet?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I am familiar with the case, as the Member is fully aware. I have communicated with the gentleman. The most recent communication suggests a number of options for resolution and I expect to be meeting with the gentleman shortly.

I might raise the question: is the Member speaking as a Member of this Legislature or as the lawyer for the party in question?

Mr. Nordling: In answer to the Government Leader’s question, put through his Minister - he often gives instructions to his Minister and so I am sure that is his question - I am asking the question as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and not as the gentleman’s lawyer.

The last time I spoke to Mr. Oblak he was very pleased with Minister and with the fact that the Minister had written back to him. He was encouraged. I would like to ask the Minister if he expects that the issue can be resolved in the next few weeks?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I look forward to meeting with Mr. Oblak and we will be discussing the options that have been laid out. The Member is fully aware that there are a number of complications related to the case because it involves the jurisdiction of the federal government in land matters and it involves the rights and responsibilities of other property owners. I cannot advise the Member anything further other than to say that we have undertaken very seriously to look at the gentleman’s problem, and I will attempt to the best of my ability to resolve the issue.

Mr. Nordling: Has the Minister been in touch with the gentleman and has he set up a meeting, or would he like that done? I do speak with him from time to time and if the Minister would like I will ask him to contact the Minister to set up a personal meeting.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It escapes me at this moment whether or not the meeting has actually been set up. I know that I had directed that it take place.

Question re: Skagway dock

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Government Leader regarding the Yukon government plans for the Skagway dock facilities. I understand the Government of Yukon has had several meetings with Alaskan officials regarding participation in a new dock at Skagway. A meeting was held in Juneau on March 20, 1989, where the future of the possible dock was discussed. Another meeting was set up for Whitehorse in April.

Can the Government Leader tell the House if the meeting that was set up for April has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No.

Mr. Phillips: Can the Government Leader tell us when that meeting is to take place and what individuals or groups will be invited to that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot answer either of the questions asked by the Member precisely yet. The meeting in Juneau was the first at which the Yukon Territory, State of Alaska and the Municipality of Skagway were all present to discuss their various interests. Some of the private interests in that community and in that facility were also present but not participants in that meeting. At this moment the City of Skagway is in a dialogue with the State about a proposal that the state development agency has for the development of that port. It is my understanding that following further informal communications between those two bodies and us there would either be a subsequent meeting here in Whitehorse or in Juneau. Although we have had recent correspondence about the general willingness of the parties to have such a meeting no date has been scheduled to my knowledge.

Mr. Phillips: There is an Alaskan law called the open meeting pact that provides that interested persons can observe or take part in a meeting held in Alaska. If the government moves the meeting to Whitehorse will they provide that same access to individuals who are extremely interested in attending the meeting either to observe or to take part?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: If we are having intergovernmental negotiations, that is not the Canadian tradition nor Canadian custom. I know that would not be the case. If we are having a general discussion about the particular port facility where it would be appropriate to involve the private interests, we would certainly be open to that suggestion.

Question re: Arts Canada North

Mr. Devries: My question is for the Minister of Education.

Last evening I attended a meeting of Arts Canada North. Since neither the Minister nor department staff were in attendance I would like to raise a few questions. If the sod is not turned this spring is the government withdrawing funding since the funding is budgeted for this year?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I do not think it was ever intended that sod would be turned this spring. Firstly, the detailed design of the arts centre has not been initiated so I think it would be rather a difficult proposition for contractors to start construction immediately.

The Arts Canada North people have been informed that the $7 million commitment by the government is in effect. Should there be any change of plans with respect to the arts centre, such as the federal government not coming through with its commitment, and I understand that is the case, then the government will reassess the situation at that time. Since the meeting the Member mentioned, we have not had communications with Arts Canada North in written form, and I would be unable to comment on the government’s position until we have heard from them.

Mr. Devries: There were a lot of concerns raised concerning O&M once the facility is completed. Is the government making any commitments towards the Yukon Arts Centre once it is completed?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As I indicated before, the basic O&M for the facility would be borne by the government. The street lights, water and sewer is a commitment that is on the table. Anything further to that, which might support the Arts Centre Corporation, such as who would manage the facility, would have to be a matter for negotiation and those negotiations have not been initiated.

Question re: Ta’an Gwich’in

Mr. Phelps: I have a question for the Government Leader relating to the Ta’an Gwich’in people of Lake Laberge. As the Government Leader is, I am sure, aware, these people are attempting at this time to re-establish their band as a separate band from the Kwanlin Dun. They have been doing a lot of work in this regard.

My question for the Government Leader is whether or not this government has taken an official position on this movement, and firstly, whether this government supports the Ta’an Gwich’in people as being recognized as a separate entity in land claims?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I appreciate the importance of the question posed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I must be careful in my response. I do not know that we have had occasion as a government, and particularly as a Cabinet, to express an opinion as to the legitimacy of the Ta’an Dun to separate band status. We have of course observed the discussion between the band members and the Kwanlin Dun band members and the Department of Indian Affairs.

It may satisfy the Member to know that for all practical purposes in the land claims negotiations, we are assuming the existence of 13 bands, not 12, to date.

Mr. Phelps: I take it the thirteenth band will be the Ta’an Gwich’in. I am wondering whether or not the government has been doing anything in terms of communicating with the federal government in support of the band to acquire official band status under the federal jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I cannot say exactly what subliminal messages may have been conveyed at the land claims negotiating table but I can tell the Member that we have not been asked by the petitioners, neither band members nor the federal government, to take a position on this question, and I am not at all sure that the Ta’an Dun band members or Kwanlin Dun members would not take the position that it was none of our business.

Question re: Renewable Resources studies

Mr. Lang: I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources and it has to do with the various studies that have been undertaken in this past year, primarily wolf studies. In the Budget in this past year over $100,000 has been identified for such studies. I would like to ask the Minister if he could report today to the House the results of the studies that have been undertaken over the past year?

Hon. Mr. Webster: No, at this time I would not be able to report the results of those studies to the House, but I could make them available to the Member opposite as soon as they become available.

Mr. Lang: I take it that the studies were done primarily for game management in order to determine what steps would be taken if the predators outnumber the big game animals in the areas being studied.

When will the Minister and the government be in a position to announce what steps will be taken in those areas that are in need of some sort of predator control program?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I would think that, sometime this spring, the information would be available to the department. It will then be submitted to Cabinet for review and assessment of a logical program.

Mr. Lang: We look forward to that. Since the results of the study will be made available to me, I am assuming they will also be made available to the public. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I will have to take that question under advisement.

Question re: Kluane Park, photo shoot

Mr. Brewster: In the contracts tabled in the Legislature, I noticed a contract entitled “Photo Shoot Kluane Lake Park”. Could the Minister of Renewable Resources and Tourism please tell me where this new park is?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I am not familiar with the contract, but I would hope it is a mistake in the listing of the contracts that were awarded last year. Perhaps it is just Kluane Park.

Mr. Brewster: At least the Minister is admitting the government makes mistakes. Can the Minister assure me there is not a new park being put around Kluane Lake?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I would be the first to admit that the government does, on occasion, make mistakes. I can assure the Member there are no plans afoot to create a new park.

Mr. Brewster: Has the National Parks ever approached this government to take over the rest of the Kluane Game Sanctuary and put it into the national park?

Hon. Mr. Webster: Not to my knowledge, but I will research that question and come back with an answer for the Member.

Question re: Judges’ salaries

Mrs. Firth: The present process for reviewing the judges’ salaries is an annual negotiation between the Minister of Justice and the chief judge. There has been some concern expressed about the practicality of this legislative situation. Does the Minister intend to change this process?

Hon. Ms. Joe: There have been discussions in regard to the way in which salaries are reviewed. It is under discussion right now.

Mrs. Firth: With whom is it under discussion? Is it the Judicial Council or the chief judge who is involved in the discussions?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have talked to the chief judge about it. I am not about to say what those discussions entailed, but I have been in discussion with him and a number of other people.

Mrs. Firth: I am not asking for the details of the discussion; I am simply asking who was involved in the discussion. I would like to know if it involved the Judicial Council, the chief judge, the Minister? I would like to know who is involved and who is going to make the final decision. Is the Minister going to make the decision on her own, or is it going to be a recommendation that comes from the Judicial Council, if it is consulted?

Hon. Ms. Joe: We are in the beginning stages of these discussions in regard to how the judges’ salaries are determined and who determines them. My discussions have been with the chief judge.

Question re: Judges’ salaries

Mrs. Firth: If I could just follow up on this issue regarding the review of the judges’ salaries, has the Minister asked the Judicial Council specifically to review that process and bring recommendations forward to her?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I have not done that. I have not asked it to bring recommendations to me. As I have said, we are in the beginning of our discussions.

Mrs. Firth: Is the Minister going to ask the Judicial Council to look at that?

Hon. Ms. Joe: It is a bit difficult for me to answer her questions because there has not been a lot of time to sit down and have very serious discussions with regard to that. When we come to an agreement of some kind, then that will be known.

Mrs. Firth: I am just trying to establish the Minister’s policy and see if she is giving direction. I am simply asking her: is it going to be her intention to ask the Judicial Council to review this process? It is a very serious matter. It is going to require legislative changes to the Territorial Court Act, and I feel that perhaps the council should be consulted in this matter. Is that going to be her policy also?

Hon. Ms. Joe: The Judicial Council is being consulted through my process of discussions with the chief judge. That is what is taking place right now. I realize that if changes are made they would entail a legislative change. Certain things are being taken into consideration and consultations, of course, are through the chief judge.

Question re: Capital city commission

Mr. Nordling: I have a question to the Government Leader. The Throne Speech mentions that this government is going to work on setting up a capital city commission. The Government Leader has recently discussed this in the media. Have any meetings taken place as yet with other levels of government, business, or community groups on when the commission will be set up? Will the Member answer this question as a former night clerk or as a Member of this Legislative Assembly?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: With respect to the Member, I will answer the question as the Minister responsible. The capital city commission is under the responsibility of Community and Transportation Services as the lead department. As the Member knows, a proposal has gone forward to the city. At this point in time we are waiting for the official response from the city. It was touched on briefly at the last meeting that I had with city council and I expect that once a formal response on the various options is received from the city, we will proceed with an evaluation and will go ahead from there.

Mr. Nordling: Is the Minister saying that it is possible that we may not have a capital city commission or is it a commitment of this government that we do have one?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The commitment is that we do try to establish one. We have put forward several options of how that commission should be structured. We are awaiting the City of Whitehorse’s response, telling us its preference of the options. It is our intention to proceed to the establishment of a capital city commission.

Mr. Nordling: In the Throne Speech, the government assigns the commission its first task and that is to oversee the development of the waterfront. I would like to know how much independence this commission will have from the government?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As the Member is aware, at the same time that we are proposing to set up the capital city commission, we are also involved in some preliminary stages of preparation for waterfront development. I expect that once the commission is established that it will assume the responsibility for the waterfront development, and that will simply take place.

Question re: Tool shed demonstration project

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the most famous tool shed in the Yukon, the one that is sitting out beside the government building here and has been for a month or more now. I understand from the Minister’s statements last night that the shed was going to go down the road today. Obviously, somebody has gone down the road, but it was not the shed. It is still sitting there. Last night he told us the actual cost of the shed was not $15,000, it was $11,000. I would like to ask the Minister if the products used in that shed were products that were obtained from the Hyland Forest Products mill in Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: It is my understanding that the products were obtained from sawmills in the immediate area of Whitehorse.

Mr. Phillips: There were no products obtained from the Watson Lake sawmill in the construction of that building?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Phillips: When will the actual date be when this building is going to make its trek from here to wherever it ends up?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As I pointed out to the Members yesterday, the facility is going to be used for storage. At the same time, it can be fully monitored for its original purpose, which was to demonstrate local products and be tested on how they stand up to various conditions in the Yukon. Now that the facility is clearly destined for a purpose within Government Services, it will be moved this week to the Marwell area.

Question re: Tourism marketing courses, Yukon College

Mr. Devries: I have a question for the Minister of Education. With tourism being a major industry in the Yukon, I find it rather disturbing that Yukon College does not offer any courses directed toward tourism advertising and marketing and the promotion of this viable industry. Does Yukon College have any plans to do more to train Yukoners to fill those important areas in our economy in the near future?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: It was precisely because the government considered the tourism industry to be of such significant value to the territory that a tourism program was arranged between the Yukon College and the Tourism Industry Association to ensure the training was appropriate to the needs of the industry and could enhance a very valuable industry.

The Yukon College has been involved in not only establishing directly related tourism courses at the college but, also, courses that are peripheral but of importance to the tourism industry. I suspect those initiatives will continue. The discussions we have had so far indicate there are some useful projects that can be undertaken between the college, as a delivery agent, and the tourism industry, and those will be pursued.

Mr. Devries: I picked up a calendar yesterday, and I could not find anything directed toward advertising and marketing in it. I do not feel the advertising and marketing that is done down south particularly applies to northern marketing, as it is a different system. Do we have any programs specifically directed toward advertising and marketing in northern tourism?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: This is the first I have heard of a request for tourism marketing, per se. I would suspect the clientele would be rather small. However, if the tourism industry regarded the undertaking of an advertising course as being a high priority, then that would be considered by the college. I would ensure the appropriate analysis was done. To my knowledge, no member of the industry has approached me or my office to indicate the desire for tourism marketing courses.

Question re: Wildlife Management Board

Mr. Lang: Over a month ago, I had the opportunity to attend a Wildlife Management Board public meeting. Quite a number of significant recommendations were discussed by the board at that time. My understanding is that the board gave to the Minister of Renewable Resources its recommended changes to the regulations.

Have the regulations been changed? If so, has that been done by Cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Webster: No, those regulations have not been considered by Cabinet yet.

Mr. Lang: The concern that was expressed to me was that time is passing us by, and people planning spring bear hunts, as well as outfitters who are planning for this fall season, are looking to see if there are going to be any significant changes from last year in order to plan accordingly. Why is it taking so long to make decisions, in view of the fact that the recommendations were sent to the Minister some time ago?

Hon. Mr. Webster: There seems to be some confusion over the recommendations concerning the matter he has raised, that being bear quotas. The matter was raised at the Yukon Outfitters Association annual general meeting two weeks ago and, again, at a meeting last week between the Outfitters Association and officials of my department. Some progress was made on the matter and, from that meeting, some recommendations will be coming forth in time for this year’s hunt.

Mr. Lang: I am not trying to be difficult. Time is passing and there are private hunters who are concerned as well. If there are going to be changes, they would like to know what they are so they can make plans accordingly, whether it be in the spring or in the fall. When are the decisions going to be made, and when are they going to be made public?

Hon. Mr. Webster: I cannot make a definite commitment but I would like to have the matter settled within the next two weeks.

Speaker: Time for Question Period has now lapsed we will now proceed with the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Phillips: Based on an agreement between the House Leaders I would request unanimous consent of the House to proceed directly into Motions Other Than Government Motions rather than calling for Motions for the Production of Papers. I would also request the unanimous consent of the House for motions to be called in the following order: Item No. 16, Motion No. 37; Item No. 15, Motion No. 36; Item No. 12, Motion No. 32; Item No. 13, Motion No. 34; Item No. 9, Motion No. 29.

I would note that it is understood that we will proceed to Bills Other Than Government Bills at either 4:30 or at the conclusion of the consideration of Motion No. 29 on the Order Paper, whichever is earlier.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Members: Yes.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 37

Clerk: Item No. 16 standing in the name of Mr. Devries.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 16?

Mr. Devries: Yes, I am Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Watson Lake

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should implement the Deloitte Haskins and Sells Report, Viability Assessment Section, regarding the use of Yukon Pacific waste products to generate power for the southern Yukon and that small electrification projects throughout the Yukon should be encouraged with technical assistance and low interest loans.

Mr. Devries: I appreciate the opportunity to rise to this motion. For clarification of those who are not aware of it, the Deloitte Haskins and Sells Report was a viability study done for the Yukon government when it was considering the purchase of Cattermole Timber in Watson Lake. One of the things that this report indicated was that there are alternate ways to provide power to the mill. The approach I am talking about here would be the base case, which suggests the sale of accessed power to a local utility company to help offset the cost of operating the power plant. This is actually the only case where there was a handsome profit figure shown in the sawmill operation. I realize that the government no longer owns the mill, but it has retained a 15 percent share and is financing the majority of the operation through YDC, so it still would be in their interest to make sure the new company is viable and profitable.

It is a little difficult to speak to this not knowing the fine print involved in the deal. I can only hope that the government may enlighten us on whether it is still feasible or being considered.

Watson Lake appreciates the recent reduction in power rates, but it has a concern. With fuel prices being so volatile, it is important to develop an alternate source of energy to maintain a more stable economic base in that community.

Watson Lake does not like to see the smoke and ash from the burner adding to the greenhouse effect. The potential exists for the utilization of this wasted heat to produce power. It can be done through private enterprise and would eliminate the need to run both the diesel plant and boiler in tandem and thereby reduce emissions being expelled into the atmosphere.

If the company, Yukon Pacific, along with government approval, indicates that it is still considering the sale of excess power to Yukon Electric, it would help promote Yukon Pacific’s image of being a good corporate citizen and show people that it has serious environmental concerns high on its priority list.

There are some new innovative ideas floating around Watson Lake regarding the forest industry. One of the requirements will be a reasonably priced power source. I realize the governent is already contributing towards the Alternate Energy Program. The second portion of this motion gives the government the opportunity to show the public that it is  truly committed to finding and promoting alternate energy sources.

Once the hydro sites are developed, they will give the highway lodges, mining camps and other isolated sites across the territory access to much needed power. Having access to this clean power, it will no longer be necessary to keep huge volumes of fuel in tanks often stored near rivers and lakes waiting for an accident to happen.

When the tourists stop at the lodges, they will be able to experience the quiet of the forests and the roar of the rivers as opposed to the rat-tat-tat of the diesel power plants. The lodges will have access to the cash they usually spend on power for much needed upgrading and maintenance of the facilities.

It is, without question, important that the hydro installation be done in an environmentally sound manner. We must ensure that adequate spillages, capable of handling fish migration, are installed where necessary.

Watson Lake takes pride in its resources. One of these is the potential for an alternate energy source development. Let us not let Watson Lakers and other potential developers down. Vote “agreed” for a safe, clean and affordable power source. Vote “agreed” for economic expansion for both tourism and mining.

I am prepared to accept the following friendly amendment to my motion: that after the words, “Government of Yukon”, we should add the words, “encourage Yukon Pacific to...”, so it would read “THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should encourage Yukon Pacific to implement the Deloitte Haskins and Sells Report”.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am pleased to debate the motion before us. I take it that we do not have a formal amendment before us and are debating the main motion. Like the Member who moved the motion and who just spoke, I think there is some problem with wording of the motion as it is before us.

I want to take the intent of the motion seriously. I believe the intent is to discuss ultimate energy proposals, including the initiatives that have been proposed for Watson Lake and, as the second part the proposed motion addresses alternate electrical energy projects throughout the territory, not just in Watson Lake. I will have an amendment to propose, without substantially altering the intent of the motion - I think, to improve the wording.

Firstly, I want to tell you what wonderful irony it is for me in the second half of this sitting, to be rising to speak again to the recommendations of a certain consulting firm, after having, for several weeks, been abused in this House for acting upon recommendations of the same firm and the same report. Nonetheless, as the Member opposite is probably aware, the 15 percent share the Yukon Development Corporation now owns of the mill in Watson Lake, which will shortly devolve to the employees, does not put us in a position to make management decisions for that company.

Amendment proposed

Accordingly, I would like to move

THAT Motion No. 37 be amended by deleting all the words after the words “Government of Yukon” and substituting for them the following:

“Should continue to promote energy conservation and alternative energy projects such as the use of waste products to generate power and the development of small electrification projects; and

THAT the government should continue to give consideration to the methods, such as provision of low-interest loans and technical assistance, by which such activities should be promoted."

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Government Leader

THAT Motion No. 37 be amended by deleting all the words after the words “Government of Yukon” and substituting for them the following:

“Should continue to promote energy conservation and alternative energy projects such as the use of waste products to generate power and the development of small electrification projects; and,

THAT the Government should continue to give consideration to the methods, such as provision of low interest loans and technical assistance, by which such activities should be promoted."

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sure that Members who have been in the House for some time will be aware that for several years, through the Government of Yukon’s energy branch and the Department of Economic Development and, more recently, through the Yukon Energy Corporation, we have been encouraging in a number of significant ways the development of affordable and reliable energy alternatives throughout the territory.

The reason this has been such a central policy consideration for us is the fact that the Yukon economy and society is remarkably dependent upon imported energy. We are a small community, in terms of our population, in a very large piece of geography. We have a very extensive road system. We live in one of the colder climates on the continent. The cost of energy for each household, for each business in this territory is very very high. The cost of importing energy makes the Yukon economy extremely vulnerable to changes in energy markets, to changes in energy prices, and indeed, oil price shocks.

Members know that initiatives that we have taken, not only to lower power rates but to pursue energy alternatives, have been a very important part of this government’s program in the last four years. Indeed, the fact in recent months that we had a fuel price inquiry was driven, in part, by questions asked by all three parties in this House, including the Member for Riverdale North, about the time when fossil fuel prices were dropping on the continent but the savings were not being passed on to local consumers in this community.

The cost and availability of energy is absolutely critical to life and to the economy in this society. The fact that it was costing us, in 1985, an incredible amount of money every day for imported fuel, was also something that was, in many ways, crippling our development. When we looked at some figures in 1985, we discovered that if you put a dollar into the Yukon economy, almost 25 cents was instantly flowing south for imported fuel. That kind of hemorrhage, that kind of leakage in our economy, made sustainable development extremely difficult to achieve.

As Members will know, the Yukon Economic Strategy and a number of other documents, including the Yukon Conservation Strategy, and indeed this House, have spoken to the wisdom of sustainable development strategies. It is also true that the rising consciousness of people in the western world about matters of conservation and the environment has caused them to think again about the wisdom of burning fossil fuels in the way that we do. For the dozen or so communities in the Yukon Territory - small communities in which people live far apart - there probably are not that many transportation options other than cars, so it in inevitable that we, as individuals and as households and as businesses, will spend a lot more money than perhaps our counterparts in southern Canada on fossil fuels for transportation.

Even here there are opportunities for conservation and many organizations and individuals in recent years have been purchasing smaller vehicles or more energy-efficient vehicles in an attempt to achieve some fuel savings and to, in fact, make a personal statements toward limiting the impact on the environment.

I was at a conference of energy ministers last summer where we were told by a very well established Canadian consultant that there was a report soon to appear, which indicates that the average automobile produces every year its own weight in carbon dioxide emissions. That is quite a dramatic finding and indicates the kind of impact on the environment that the gasoline-burning vehicles we all depend on has.

The initiatives that we have taken to try to reduce the cost of electricity to homes and businesses recently, since the acquisition of NCPC by the Yukon Energy Corporation, are, of course, a matter of record. We have not left it at that. The cutting of rates for electrical use throughout the territory is well known. This month, the rate reductions came into effect throughout the territory and that is part of our continuing effort to reduce the cost of energy and the securing of long-term, low-cost hydro power.

Members will be pleased to know, I am sure, that the energy corporation is, at this point, in association with its manager and with its consultants, investigating the hydro potential of various locations throughout the Yukon Territory, and I might say, specifically, sites that may be developed in the Watson Lake area. All these investigations and developments must, of course, be appraised on the basis of their affordability, reliability and, of course, they must be environmentally appropriate. We are anticipating, of course, that we will have a final settlement of land claims before we have a major hydro project proceed in the territory.

We have, indeed, been developing a long-range energy plan for the territory. We did eliminate, to produce some savings and an incentive to people operating, particularly in the renewable resources sector as well as the mining sector, the off-road fuel taxes very early in our administration.

I think it is also important to note that the energy branch in the Yukon government - a small branch but one that has, I think, done some very important work - has a number of programs. The Yukon Energy Alternatives Program and internal management projects have done a lot to encourage the development of local energy resources, including coal, wood fuels, oil and gas and geothermal energy, and there are also a variety of district heating projects that are in place or being assessed.

As well, there is the Yukon Economic Strategy, which addresses what steps we can be taking on the energy front there.

We are, at this moment, encouraging development of small electrification projects throughout the Yukon where they are technically viable and cost effective. The Energy Alternatives Program provides financial assistance, nonrepayable contributions toward studies to determine the viability of projects and, as this motion addresses, has already in place low-interest loans to assist with the implementation of viable projects.

The energy branch has been involved in several projects. Funding was approved for a project to examine the heat recovery possibility from the Watson Lake diesel generators - the Department of Education, the Town of Watson Lake and Energy, Mines and Resources were involved in this project - it was put on hold at the point when the Development Corporation was pursuing the idea of connecting the wood-waste fired generators at the mill to provide local electricity. That is a matter of record.

Members know from discussions in the House that a wide variety of projects have been examined, including the possibility of wind power in the Destruction Bay area. There was originally a study in the 1980s that was commissioned by Canada that showed that a 50 kilowatt wind generator would not be economic. Government Services subsequently studied the possibility of smaller-sized wind generators. Unfortunately the viability and reliability of that alternative compared to diesel power is not yet demonstrated.

Members will also know that we have commissioned a study by a company called New ERA Engineering for the installation of a micro hydro project at one of our highway camps. This was the idea of having a private contractor build and operate a small, water-driven generator to sell power to this highway camp, a customer that would demand and require power year round. If this project proves successful, it will be proceeding this summer.

We have funded proposals for a district heating plant by the Champagne-Aishihik Band in the community of Haines Junction. The idea is for a wood-fired heating plant for the seven-unit elders complex and community centre. That is now under construction. The study for the plant and the construction was funded by the territorial government through the Yukon Energy Alternatives Program that I described earlier that provides funding not only for feasibility but also low-interest loans.

The Mayo geothermal unit is a project where the village is reconstructing a district heating plant for some buildings and heat to keep the water supply from freezing. Again, the funding came from the Yukon government and the Government of Canada through the Department of Energy, Mines & Resources.

The potential for district heating, again an energy alternative, has been examined for Watson Lake and the results of that are now being studied.

I understand there is also at least one other highway camp where the feasibility of a micro-hydro project is being assessed.

We have a district heating project involving the law centre downtown and a local hotel. I understand that service could commence shortly. We have looked at other district heating projects in communities as far away as Faro.

I want to take the time to outline these projects because we do, as a government, recognize the burden to Yukoners of high energy expenditures. We also recognize the environmental wisdom of finding alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels, or at least the appropriateness of trying to conserve energy, or through energy conservation techniques, reducing the unnecessary consumption of fossil fuels where possible.

We are currently assisting in improving the energy efficiency in residential, commercial and other buildings through the SEAL program and through our own internal energy management program in this government. The roof on this building was reinsulated in the last several months, and that has made quite a significant impact on fuel consumption.

The SEAL program was initially introduced in this House by the former Member for Tatchun, Mr. Tracey, during his days as the responsible Minister.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have erred. I could have sworn it was the Member for Tatchun who introduced that bill but, in fact, it was another Member whom I am not permitted to name, because that would be a violation of the rules. I understand he represents a suburban Whitehorse constituency and is still present. I love and admire the people of Porter Creek East, but I continue to be puzzled by their political judgment. They do indeed know what is right, and they could not have anybody more right than the Member who now occupies the seat, and has occupied the seat forever, it seems.

To continue with my discussion of the SEAL program, as excellent as the program was, it was clear that, in order to really promote energy conservation and the kind of retrofitting that is necessary to avoid energy wastage, the SEAL program had to be expanded so it was available to commercial buildings. The scope of the program was quite substantially expanded by this government and by this Minister. When the Member for Porter Creek East rises to his feet, I am sure he would want to pay compliments to the Member for Whitehorse West, who took this important initiative during his time as the Minister responsible for the department.

The long-term importance of not only energy conservation but, also, energy alternatives, is important to us. It is important to Watson Lake; it is important to Dawson; it is important to Faro; it is important to Haines Junction, and to every community where we have initiatives going on that have been funded by this government, and they will continue. We have made commitments in our efforts to negotiate a Northern Accord. We made commitments in the adoption of the Yukon Economic Strategy. We made commitments to cleaner air and better energy consumption in the funding assistance we provided to the City of Whitehorse in its woodsmoke control program. We have continued to work with and encourage the federal government in its energy-related programs.

The study referred to by the Member in the original motion was tabled in this House in January 1987. As I have been reminded many times in the last few weeks, it declared that the Watson Lake sawmill was viable, that it could not possibly lose more than $18,000 in its first year of operations, and that the power sales were going to bring in $500,000 in the first year.

As we noted after the first year of operations, the absence of power sales was a major contributing factor. The reason that we could not produce power for sale was because the plant took much longer to recondition than our consultants had anticipated.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the power plant and the waste product, the fuel, are now the property of a private company. We are prepared to encourage them to continue to look to utilizing the surplus power from the mill for the benefit of the people. We are quite happy to work with Yukon Electrical, which have the franchise to distribute power in Watson Lake, to achieve this end. We will continue to make available the programs of the Department of Economic Development and the good offices of the much abused Yukon Energy Corporation to achieve this end for the continuing benefit of the people of Watson Lake, because we believe in energy conservation, in developing energy alternatives and, need we say it again, we believe in Watson Lake.

Mr. Lang: As a Member of this House who is not only the Member for Porter Creek East, but one who also recognizes the responsibility of each MLA for all areas of the Yukon, I want to speak specifically of the community of Watson Lake. I perhaps have closer ties to that community than some Members in this House for one reason or another. Also, it is an area that sometimes seems to be forgotten due to its location right next to the British Columbia border.

I want to begin by commending my colleague, the Member for Watson Lake, who took it upon himself to bring a motion forward that would force the government to deal with the issue of alternate energy sources for that particular community. It has been a continuous battle for those people, both residents and businesses, to be able to meet their daily expenses as well as pay their monthly electricity bills.

I want to say that I give the government credit for the rate equalization move that was made as of April 1. I would say that it was not the largesse of the Government of Yukon that permitted the Yukon Energy Corporation to do that,  it was part of the transfer arrangement of NCPC that effectively had some of those debts written off, which gave them excess funds with which to implement such a program. I think credit should be given where credit is due, but the historic ramifications of these particular moves must be explained. I would also give the Government of Canada credit for the transfer of NCPC and the writing off of the debts. They should be recognized because they were prepared to do that as part of the transfer although the Government Leader conveniently forgets to mention that when he talks about his largesse and his ability to cope with the financial ramifications of various moves made.

I see the Government Leader saying that he mentioned the Government of Canada three times, but he does not mention the Government of Canada when he speaks of rate equalization. The reason he is able to put rate equalization into play is because of the largesse of the Government of Canada. We cannot argue facts. That is true.

I want to make a point. It is an overview. I realize that the government has made some moves in the area of alternate energy uses. I commend the government in respect to some of the steps that were taken with respect to reinsulation of buildings and such things. The SEAL program, which the Minister spoke of earlier, has, to some degree, been successful. But there is also an overview of the territory that has to be taken into account.

I want to express my disappointment. In the past four years, the Government of Yukon has spent over a billion dollars. That is a “b” for billion, not million. The only substantive project undertaken in the area of electrical generation was the refurbishing of the Mayo dam, which was announced some six months ago. I feel that we, in this House, have been derelict in our duties when all we can talk about is a number of government facilities and not being able to speak in broader terms with respect to what we can do for communities such as Dawson City or Watson Lake. These communities are presently being served by fossil fuels. We can talk about all the studies in the world, but the fact is that it is there.

A motion has been brought forward by the Member for Watson Lake in reference to the Deloitte Haskins and Sells study that was done in December of 1986. A major recommendation in that particular executive summary was number 4 on page 5: The sale of electricity at realistic but competitive rates. The sale of electricity would also provide a stabilizing cash flow that would assist the company to ride temporary market price fluctuations or adverse operational circumstances.

This was not done in respect to Hyland Forest Products. Why was it not done? The Government Leader said he just explained it. He did not explain it to my satisfaction. That should have been one of the highest priorities within that operation in order to see that it would be successful. We may not have been in the situation where we are discussing a $6 million deficit.

The concern that we have on this side of the House is that the amendment is too general. Anyone reading it could not discuss or debate it, as all they would be talking about would be apple pie and motherhood.

We want to ensure that the motion we pass today deals with the issue embodied in the main motion, that being the question of the Yukon Pacific and the use of the waste heat from that particular mill. The other variable here is the fact that the plans are now going to the point where we are going to do five times the volume through that particular plant. You can see that there is going to be that much more waste that could be utilized if properly managed.

In order to go along with the spirit of cooperation exhibited by the Government Leader, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment.

Subamendment proposed

Mr. Lang:  THAT the amendment to Motion No. 37 be amended by deleting the expression “such as the use of waste products to generate power” and by substituting for it “through encouraging companies such as Yukon Pacific to use waste products to generate power”.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 37 be amended by deleting the expression “such as the use of waste products to generate power” and by substituting for it the expression “through encouraging companies such as Yukon Pacific to use waste products to generate power”.

Mr. Lang: I support a friendly amendment to the amendment. We wanted to ensure that the essence of the motion passed through this House did not lose the major intent of the motion, and that was to specifically refer to the situation in Watson Lake. We feel that this amendment to the amendment will reflect, at least in part, the intent of the MLA from Watson Lake in his genuine concern that steps be taken to ensure that, if possible, the waste being generated through the running of the mill can be used to generate power in that community. That would make it a very much more financially-viable operation. This relates to the viability study that the government presented to us as the basis of the investment that the government initially made in Hyland Forest Products. Although some things may have changed, if we are, as I said earlier, going to expand the mill, then it may be that much more viable and can be supported within the community. I hope that the government sees fit to support Watson Lake in the manner that they would like to, and I would to say that we view it as a friendly amendment, and we are looking forward to their support.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: My colleagues may want to speak to the amendment, so I will not commit myself to it. It seems, at first blush, a somewhat poorly-worded amendment if it wishes to achieve the objective of the Member opposite. The specific proposal here is that instead of having a general proposition that would deal with multi-energy projects, such as the use of waste products to generate power, including such worthy initiatives as the one at the Yukon College, which can burn waste wood, and other projects that we have going on around the territory that have the public sector burning wood, the proposal by the Member for Porter Creek East is that we would only encourage companies, such as Yukon Pacific - not in fact the public sector or Yukon College or other people. The other problem I have with the particular text...

An hon. Member: (Inaudible.)

Hon. Mr. Penikett: ... Now the Member for Riverdale North is talking about a hydro project in Watson Lake.

The other problem that I see with the text of this motion is that it refers about using waste products to generate power, which of course this mill I am sure is going to be doing for the foreseeable future, if not longer. The point is that we are talking about generating surplus power, which I understand is the real purpose of the Member’s motion.

The Member claimed that he did not have an adequate explanation of why we were not producing $500,000 worth of power. I did explain that. If the mill has a greatly increased capacity it will be interesting to know how much surplus power will be available, and that is something that we are not in a position to determine at this moment. Those are just some comments on the Member’s sub-amendment.

It is a poorly worded amendment, but we will accept the spirit in which it is moved and support it.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the amendment to the motion?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The amendment to the motion before us, as amended the third time, is a little disappointing, even though I think we have shown great largesse in considering the spirit in which it was moved. We are assuming it was friendly.

To reiterate what the Government Leader had to say with respect to the potential for the generation of power by groups or organizations other than private companies, there are some interesting projects that are being pursued now. For example, Yukon College has a boiler that can burn a variety of fuels such as waste wood, garbage and other things. In many respects, this is a model of the sort of power plant that is the wave of the future. In the decision making that went into developing this power plant, thought was given to adhering to the principles of energy conservation and the search for alternative energy systems, as well as serious consideration for the development of a plant that could be used as a training centre for people who would require some understanding and training in managing plants of that sort.

There are some rather remarkable public sector projects that have been sponsored in the last while. I would hate to think that the amendment to the amendment was done to consider the exclusion of those projects in the future. That is a whole field of endeavour that should be encouraged as well as that support we can provide to private companies who might want to achieve the same goals.

I am happy about the general nature of the proposed amendment, even with the specific citation of Yukon Pacific, because I believe there are many exciting things currently happening in the territory that we should note. The Government Leader has taken note of some of them, but there are a number of other points I would like to make at this time, which I think will add something useful to the debate.

All three Members who have spoken have referred to the dependency the Yukon has on imported energy, and they have spoken of the vulnerability of Yukoners, businesses, governments, and individuals alike to the decision-making that may be made elsewhere with respect to fuel prices, the transportation of fuels, and the kinds of fuels that will be available to people in the Yukon.

One of the first tasks the new government undertook in 1985, and one of the efforts I was personally involved in, was to encourage better transportation routes to the Yukon. This effort was to encourage a more competitive transportation environment to ensure that fuel we sought elsewhere was coming to the Yukon in the most cost-effective way possible. From that point onward, the government has been making great effort to encourage the development of alternative energy supply and, also, the more efficient use of the energy plans we currently have, in order to ensure that a most cost-effective and efficient supply is provided to Yukoners.

I think it is illustrative to discuss Elsa once again. It is important to remember that a community like Elsa, which has been the backbone of the territorial economy for well nigh a half century now, has been quite dependent upon efficient, low-cost energy. In the past, it has even financially contributed to energy projects that were quite novel in their day, in particular the Mayo Dam and hydro-generation on the Mayo River. The costs associated with keeping that community alive, and the costs associated with ensuring that community could provide a significant contribution to the territorial economy, were significant in terms of power.

For example, it is important to note that when the Husky southwest hoist starts up, it uses as much power as the entire community of Teslin or Mayo. When the mill starts up, it uses as much hydro power as the city of Dawson. The mining industry has great dependency on affordable power, and it is absolutely essential that energy alternatives are considered in order to encourage the mining industry to continue to provide the necessary wealthy economy on which we all depend.

This subject matter could be the basis for very long discussions with respect to determining more efficient uses of power and the development of new energy alternatives, whether it be wind generation, microhydro installations, or the more efficient use of diesel generating stations and waste heat from those generators.

The remarks made by the Member for Porter Creek East, with respect to what the government has done, were slightly understated. From his perspective, I take it he is not one to give the government too much credit in recognizing the significant efforts the government has undertaken. His remarks, and those of others, illustrate that the proper direction has been and is currently being taken to encourage energy efficiency, the development of energy production alternatives, the more efficient transportation of energy, and a more competitive environment within the energy sector with respect to the lowering of rates and the rate equalization programs that have been adopted by the government. Given the remarks of the Members in this Legislature, the general direction is one that has been adopted by all sides and, therefore, is one that is headed for significant success.

Having said that, I would hate to continue. I would more than likely be repeating some of the remarks Members have made. I think the direction the government has taken and is taking is valuable. The potential for better use of energy in Watson Lake is great, and I was happy to have been involved in encouraging the use of alternative energy sources for the new school in Watson Lake. I feel that it is through that kind of cooperation, however clumsy it might be from time to time, that major, innovative projects can come to be and produce the kind of results that MLAs expect in our new direction.

Mr. Devries: I find some irony in the fact that the Government Leader wants to forget the name of the company by deleting it from the motion. I would also like to go on record as never having stated that I was not in agreement with the Deloitte, Haskins and Sells report, as far as the feasibility study was concerned. The report I often referred to was the Carroll-Hatch operating report. I feel that if the feasibility study had been managed properly, its projections could have been that in the second year of operations, and Hyland would not have been in the dire circumstances it found itself in later. We have high hopes of better things to come with the sale to the new company.

I appreciate everyone’s support on this motion, and I am sure the people of Watson Lake and the Yukon, as well as anyone who is considering an electrification waste product energy project, also appreciate it.

Amendment agreed to as amended

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the motion, as amended?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I wanted to enter the debate and not be restricted by the amendment or the subamendment. We now have an entirely new motion before us, and it speaks not only to the issue of whether Yukon Pacific should be encouraged to use alternate energy sources, but it speaks also to all communities and all agencies being encouraged to use alternate energy sources.

The original intent of the motion is still being respected and is being expanded upon and substantially improved overall. The encouragement and implementation of various energy projects that would contribute to any kind of reduction in energy cost to the territory are worthwhile efforts. Members on both sides have indicated the general support for that intention, and I would like to echo it. It makes sound economic sense to encourage alternate energy sources for our use. What we have had demonstrated to us in the last number of years is that energy has become a large cost component of everyday living, whether that is for companies, government or private citizens. It makes extremely good sense to build small-scale energy projects, which is encouraged by this motion, and it would speak to the very interests that Watson Lake has stated.

There have been efforts to tap water resources on a small-scale level in the Watson Lake area, just as there have been studies and efforts to examine those kinds of small-scale projects elsewhere in the territory. Speaking for my community, we have a water source near us that also lends itself to small-scale development. I believe Watson Lake and Faro often have many things in common besides a highway. The efforts that have been made in Watson Lake to reduce energy costs for the community have already been mentioned by my colleagues.

Certainly there was some effort in the Member’s community put into heat recovery from diesel generators. I understand that project has stalled, but it may well be reactivated. Part of the problem is that the federal government has pulled out of the project. I believe the Minister of Education and the Government Leader have cited the Watson Lake High School plant that is being put in. I am sure all Members are looking forward to seeing how well the effort on that front progresses. I look forward to seeing how the feasibility of that heating plant will contribute to the reduction of energy costs in that  facility.

The Minister of Education has already mentioned a number of projects that the government is involved with, and I want to lend my support to the continuation of that approach to reducing energy costs and examining alternatives for energy consumption. We definitely want to see more of that. If it includes the encouragement of Yukon Pacific to use waste products to generate power, that should be part of an effort that is extended well beyond the borders of Watson Lake. As many companies as possible should be encouraged to minimize energy costs by looking at alternative sources.

The Yukon Housing Corporation has taken on a major initiative in the business of reducing energy costs to residents. Certainly their very active promotion of the R2000 Program has been a useful exercise, and a number of communities in the territory have received the benefits of that effort.

As we progress through budget estimates, we see many dollars being spent on various energy retrofits to a number of facilities by government as well as by corporations of the government. Certainly we have a number of improvement programs in housing that contribute to that where residents can do that themselves. The entire business of energy cost reduction is something that has to be examined on a massive scale.

The Member for Mayo talked about what happens in his community when certain commercial activities are taking place at the mine site when certain equipment kicks in. I can assure Members I have first-hand experience of what happens when a Curragh Resources shovel kicks in. There is an energy reflection throughout the town. In some cases it reflects on the rest of the territory.

The business of examining alternate energy is very relevant to the community of Faro, and I certainly look forward to any examination of alternate energy sources. We have had a feasibility study in the community to look at alternate wood heat for the town. If that feasibility proceeds to fruition, it is something I am sure will provide extreme benefit to the community.

I am not going to belabour the general issue other than to express my general support of the efforts of various agencies, including the government, to examine the numerous alternate energy sources. Communities such as Watson Lake, Faro and Elsa, will all benefit from any effort expended in that area. I would like to lend my general support to the motion and see these efforts continue.

Speaker: The question before the House is

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should continue to promote energy conservation and alternative energy projects through encouraging companies such as Yukon Pacific to use waste products to generate power and development of small electrification projects; and

THAT the Government should continue to give consideration to the methods, such as provision of low-interest loans and technical assistance, by which such activities should be promoted.

Motion No. 37 agreed to as amended

Motion No. 36

Clerk: Item No. 15, standing in the name of Mr. Phillips.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 15?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North

THAT it is the opinion of this that littering is a major problem throughout Yukon;

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon in conjunction with municipalities, Indian bands, groups, and individuals to implement a year-round, antilitter program entitled “Yukon Pride” which should comprise of the following initiatives:

(1) development of environmental awareness and antilitter educational programs for use in Yukon schools;

(2) establishment of year-round antilitter advertising and promotional campaigns;

(3) development of an assistance program to help individuals, groups and communities carry out cleanup campaigns in specific areas;

(4) creation of a “Yukon Pride” awards program to recognize individuals, groups, business and communities who have contributed to a litter-free Yukon; and

(5) preparation of a feasibility study regarding the establishment of a recycling depot in Yukon.

Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to be able to present this motion to the House today. In the past few weeks, and through the recent territorial election, many of the MLAs present here today expressed strong concerns over the protection of our environment. I hope that each MLA in this House can put their words into action.

Yukoners pride themselves in having our pristine wilderness at our fingertips. Most of us in Yukon can be just a stone’s throw away from the Yukon wilderness. Almost everyone in Yukon will tell you they came here partly because of our reputation for clean air, clean water and the undisturbed wilderness. Unfortunately this is fine to say, but it is hard to believe when spring arrives and garbage starts turning up everywhere.

One could just take a short walk around this building today or go down by the river and see what I mean. It is really quite disgusting. Unfortunately, Whitehorse is not unique. Almost every other community in the Yukon has a similar problem.

It seems that we feel if we address this problem once a year, we are doing our duty. Setting aside one week a year, or even one month a year to clean up litter just simply does not work. An anti-litter campaign must work for 52 weeks of every year. Yukoners take a great deal of pride in Yukon’s beauty and it is time that we take measures to clean up our environment and then keep it that way.

Some Yukoners seem to have the idea that when they roll down their car window and throw out a small piece of paper they are not part of the problem. It is always the other guy. It is important, I think, to make a point here. I am sure that everyone agrees that it is much easier to litter when you are hiking or driving anywhere and you look around and there is garbage. Most people will think twice before littering if everything is neat and tidy and in its natural state.

I think, as well, that many Members of this House last year who took part in the challenge that I issued to Members in the House to go around and clean up the river bank can appreciate exactly what I am saying. I think that in about an hour or two we filled a dozen bags of garbage. In fact, one of the Members took the opportunity to go out before even coming to work and I thank the Member from Mayo for doing that. When I got to work there was a large bag of garbage sitting on my desk with a note attached to it. I wish I had saved the note because the note expressed astonishment over the amount of garbage on the riverfront and I think the Minister has a very clear appreciation of the magnitude of the problem.

I would like to talk for a moment about the first point of the motion, which deals with education in our schools. I would surely believe that in educating our children to see that littering is bad we will solve a great many of our problems. But, at the same time, I want to make it clear that I am not saying that it is the youth that contribute to all of the problem. I think though, if you went to our local schools and took a walk around in the spring as the snow started to melt, there is an enormous amount of litter surrounding most of the schools in the Yukon.

Many of our children are much more environmentally conscious that we were at their age and I feel that is good, but we simply need to do more to educate them on the importance of a good clean environment.

What I would like to see with respect to education is that anti-litter and environment awareness would become a mandatory part of the school curriculum. Students could be and should be involved in organizing clean-up projects. Again, I point back to where we went outside last year with all the MLAs who attended and we cleaned up around the river. Each of those MLAs remembers that well, and I think by involving the students in similar programs they too will see how big the problem is out there and will maybe think twice the next time before they throw their gum wrapper or lunch bag away.

There is no better steward of the environment than your 10 or 11 year old son or daughter who will say to you, “Dad or Mom, why are you throwing that out? Don’t you know that that is bad, that that is littering?” I think that will happen, if we educate our children in schools that it is wrong to litter.

Thirdly, we could teach our children in schools the merits of recycling. We could teach them what products are recyclable. We could show them how to sort these products and we could teach them, as well, what type of products on the market are biodegradable and what that means to future generations. I am sure that if we taught that kind of thing to our children they would go home and teach their own parents what is right and what is wrong.

I think that would be an interesting approach and one that would work very well. It is pretty hard to argue with a young child when they talk about common sense and the protection of the environment when you know they are right. We must start now, and I think the education system is one of the main areas we could approach to try and solve this problem.

I should not leave this area without complimenting the students and teachers who have made strong efforts in the past to try and correct the problem in and around the schools. I think all of us have seen it in the past week. There have been some students going in and around some schools cleaning up and I think they should be commended for their efforts.

I would like now to move on to my second point of establishing a year-round, anti-litter advertising and promotional campaign. Again, we only seem to hear about this in anti-litter week in the spring. That is not good enough. As I said before, you do not stop litter by addressing it one week or even one month of the year. It has to be on our minds 365 days of the year.

I see a “Yukon Pride” logo being developed with a slogan, and perhaps being developed by some of our schoolchildren, that Yukoners could recognize as a symbol of pride in the cleanliness of our territory. Ads could be run on our local radio stations, including our new tourist-oriented radio station. Small ads could be placed in the local newspapers reminding people of the program. Local stores could be encouraged to print the logo and slogan on shopping bags, again encouraging people to take pride in the Yukon and not to litter. We could design and construct picturesque billboards at entry points in the Yukon stressing the “Yukon Pride” program.

I would like to ask all Members who have had a chance to travel anywhere in the world what is one of the main things one always remembers? It is cleanliness. Tourists, travel magazines and travel documentaries always mention the fact that they were impressed with how neat, tidy and clean an area is. Tourism is one of our largest industries and our litter problem is not giving us a very good reputation at this time.

A third point in this motion is to develop an assistance program to help individuals, groups and communities to carry out clean-up campaigns in specific areas. Let me give you a couple of examples. I could see various school classes in Whitehorse, for example, targeting an area around Whitehorse, possibly Schwatka Lake. They could go to the lake, be provided with garbage bags through this program and could clean up the shores of Schwatka Lake. Another area is up behind my riding of Riverdale North. I am sure if anyone has ever hiked up into the area on any of the trails and roads, one can see what a mess it is. Many people have gone down some old roads and created little dumps. Everything from mattresses to old car bodies are laying beside the trails. These areas could be identified and financial assistance could be made available through the Yukon government to remove the debris. Again, the actual work could be carried out by a local girl guide group, cub scout group or a conservation organization.

I might add that all of the points I have made so far will cost money. It will be expensive in the first year or two, but as we identify the major areas and clean them up, and as Yukon students gain a greater appreciation of the environment and as Yukoners in general become involved in the “Yukon Pride” program, the benefits will far exceed the costs. I am convinced that the spin-offs in tourism alone will more than offset any costs of this program.

Now that we have many Yukoners involved in the program, it is most important that we recognize their contribution. I mean publicly recognize the reference. I believe the setting up of the Yukon Pride Award Program is a major step toward achieving this goal. I might add that the Member for Old Crow, in her speech yesterday, alluded to this. I would like to quote from page 233 in Hansard, “There is much that each of us can do. Right now I want to point out that the local Super Valu, for example, promotes the use of biodegradable garbage bags. I want to commend the individuals who are involved in taking the issue seriously. Something like an environmental achievement award presented by the government would give recognition to businesses that are doing something about the formidable problem we are facing.”

That is exactly the type of award program I am talking about - to give recognition to individuals, businesses, groups and communities for their efforts in keeping our community clean.

Let me explain how I see the program working. I believe there should be several categories so that all Yukoners are eligible. The awards program should be administered by each local government or Indian band in their own areas. I would hope there could be awards for individuals, businesses, large and small, and possibly some recognition for specific communities that really put a major effort into the program in their area. The awards do not have to be large or extensive, just a plaque or public recognition by officials, or possibly an article in the tourism booklet each year recognizing people who have made significant contributions or in the local newspapers commending the winners. Once a year the Yukon government could receive a list of the people in each community who made specific contributions to the program and could probably host a small banquet in Whitehorse. At that banquet, each one of these people may be recognized by the government for their efforts.

Let me explain to Members another area where one may qualify. When I was in Prince Edward Island last year, I had an opportunity to talk to some of the civic officials about a program that works well in their community. They give people awards simply for maintaining their property in areas where there is a great deal of tourist traffic - something as simple as painting the fence, keeping the hedge trimmed, mowing the grass, keeping the yard clean and taking pride in your own personal property that would reflect on the pride of the total community.

Another area that could be recognized is an auto wrecker on the Alaska Highway or on a main road who builds or paints a fence again, making the area more pleasing to people who travel by.

A local cub scout group took one evening last week to clean up litter on Lewes Boulevard. A local church group, on another week other than clean up week, holds a garbagethon and goes out on its own initiative and gathers garbage throughout the City of Whitehorse. That is a very positive initiative and not a word was said to anyone in this group about it. They did it on their own. They did not do it in clean up week; they did not do it just one week a year; they do it several times and they do a very good job.

A couple of other examples could be the local Super Valu store that uses biodegradable bags, or prints the “Yukon Pride” and logo slogan on them. The Yukon Fish and Game Association produced and distributed garbage bags to outfitters and local sporting goods stores.

These people have to be recognized for their efforts and not just during one week a year. They have to be recognized for their efforts year round.

My last issue is the preparation of a feasibility study to determine the possibility of establishing a recycling depot in the Yukon. I have had the time to investigate this area and, on the surface, it appears that although we may not have a large enough population at present to recycle the garbage ourselves, there is merit in looking at the possibility of sorting the garbage now and storing it and either bringing up a portable plant in the future or shipping certain products out in bulk. People in Yukon are eager to participate in such a program as was reflected in a CBC phone-in show several weeks ago. We should take the opportunity to at least investigate this possibility now. I honestly believe that we cannot start too soon. I hope the five points I have mentioned will be received favourably by all Members of this House.

In summary, it is most important that we get away from the one-week, one-month per year anti-litter program. It is not working. To really be litter free, it must be practised 365 days of the year. Advertising must be an essential part of the program to keep people aware of the problem we have and the pride that Yukoners must take in the community to keep it clean. Education of the value of the environment is essential and there is no better place to start than in the schools. Project Wild is a good start. We must stress the anti-litter segment of that program.

Just making an announcement that litter is a problem will not solve it. There must be a financial commitment from all levels of government to help groups and individuals to carry out clean-up programs.

As well, we as government must publicly recognize the contributions made by communities, groups and individuals by developing an awards program.

My last point is that we must immediately examine the possibility of recycling garbage in the Yukon.

I think the motion is timely, as the spring of the year is the time when people are much more aware of the garbage problem. I think that this program will be supported by a great many Yukoners. Many of them will pitch in and help. I know that almost every Yukoner has great pride in the Yukon but is saddened when they walk on a trail or fly into a bush camp or drive along a back road in the territory and see the garbage that is left around. It is time that we cleaned up our act. It is time that we become the area we profess to be, that of having a clean and pure environment, and I would hope that all Members of this House would rise in support of this motion.

Applause

Hon. Mr. Webster: It is a pleasure to speak on this motion today, and I want to thank the Member for Riverdale North for bringing it forward. As Members may recall, I sponsored a private member’s bill on litter just last spring. An amendment to the Highways Act was supported by all Members and made the deposit of litter on the highways an offence punishable by a fine of up to $500. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, it has never come into effect. I am hoping, though, that the RCMP will increase their surveillance on the matter and bring someone to punishment.

That may indirectly draw attention to the whole problem of litter on highways and in the Yukon and may start some positive action as a result.

I want to assure the House that my ministerial responsibilities have not diminished my interest in cleaning up the Yukon. In fact, I am pleased to be able to report that the Department of Renewable Resources is already involved in a number of initiatives designed to deal with the problem of litter. It is not only the Department of Renewable Resources that is involved in anti-litter campaigns, but the Department of Community and Transportation Services and the Yukon Liquor Corporation are also involved.

Amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. Webster:  For that reason I would like to propose the following amendment to Motion No. 36. I seek the House support for it. I move

THAT Motion No. 36 be amended by deleting the words which appear after:

“THAT it is the opinion of this House that littering is” and substituting the following words: “a problem in the Yukon; and

“THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon, in conjunction with municipalities, Indian bands, businesses, groups and individuals to continue its anti-litter initiatives and to consider others which could include:

“(1) development of environmental awareness and anti-litter educational programs for use in Yukon schools;

“(2) establishment of year-round anti-litter advertising and promotional campaigns;

“(3) development of an assistance program to help individuals, groups and communities carry out clean-up campaigns in specific areas;

“(4) creation of an awards program to recognize individuals, groups, businesses and communities who have contributed to a litter-free Yukon; and

“(5) preparation of a feasibility study regarding the establishment of a recycling depot in Yukon.”

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Minister of Renewable Resources

THAT Motion No. 36 be amended by deleting the words which appear after:

“THAT it is the opinion of this House that littering is” and substituting the following words:

“a problem in the Yukon; and

“THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon, in conjunction with municipalities, Indian bands, businesses, groups and individuals to continue its anti-litter initiatives and to consider others which could include:

“(1) development of environmental awareness and anti-litter educational programs for use in Yukon schools;

“(2) establishment of year-round anti-litter advertising and promotional campaigns;

“(3) development of an assistance program to help individuals, groups and communities carry out clean-up campaigns in specific areas;

“(4) creation of an awards program to recognize individuals, groups, businesses and communities who have contributed to a litter-free Yukon; and

“(5) preparation of a feasibility study regarding the establishment of a recycling depot in Yukon.”

Hon. Mr. Webster: In addressing the amendment I have a number of comments I would like to make. To begin, it is no accident that the Member for Riverdale North has introduced this motion at this time of year. As he says, it is quite timely and we are all reminded just how much refuse has been carelessly discarded over the months of winter when the snow has masked our collective carelessness.

Fast food packaging, garbage containers, shopping bags, even election posters come back to haunt us as the snow recedes. Few of us would abuse our yards at home as we obviously do abuse our big backyard, the Yukon. So, what have we done about it? What are we preparing to do? I would like to remind you of a number of well established government anti-litter initiatives and advise you of some new ones of which you may not be yet aware.

The Yukon Liquor Corporation, on April 1, 1987, adopted a policy of deposits and refunds on all containers sold through Yukon Liquor Corporation outlets. That was as a result of a recommendation made by the Select Committee on Renewable Resources. The result of this action is a noticeable decline in alcoholic beverage container litter. The Yukon Liquor Corporation has recently expanded its program by eliminating the twenty-five cent refund stickers from liquor and wine bottles and paying a refund on all alcoholic beverage bottles returned regardless of the point of purchase. Existence of a positive incentive to return beverage bottles and cans has turned a problem into economic opportunity for some community groups who take the initiative to collect discarded cans and bottles for return. Some of these groups have also discovered that there is an established market for aluminum pop cans if they are collected in sufficient volumes. At least two Whitehorse area businesses are prepared to purchase discarded aluminum cans in volume.

Before I move on to discuss other government initiatives I should mention that Yukoners appear to be responding very positively to the Yukon Liquor Corporation’s return program. The return rate on domestic beer bottles is 91.2 percent. The return rate on liquor and wine bottles is 69.6 percent and that on cans is 58.1 percent. Although it is considerably higher than the national average of just 35 percent, I really think it is still not acceptable. I think an aggressive advertising campaign to promote a greater return of beverage containers should be introduced at all liquor outlets.

In respect to liquor and wine bottles, we do not even have a basis for comparison as we are the only jurisdiction in Canada to have implemented this program. Thus, as far as alcoholic beverage containers are concerned, it would be a fair statement that the Yukon government is showing significant leadership in dealing with litter.

The Department of Renewable Resources is involved in a number of areas that will bring us to terms with litter. The Yukon Conservation Strategy and work on a Yukon environmental protection act are two major initiatives that will do much to shape our future approach to the problem of litter. As Members are aware, the Yukon Conservation Strategy and the public working group, which is guiding its development, have already co-sponsored public work shops on environmental issues. The theme conference on Yukon water resources sponsored in cooperation with the Yukon Science Institute was the most recent of these. The Conservation Strategy is intended to promote more public discussion on a range of conservation issues to encourage environmental education. In this year’s budget, the Conservation Strategy Demonstration Projects fund is targeted at initiatives that will demonstrate the economic feasibility of good environmental behaviour and management. One of the goals of the program and the conservation strategy is to encourage projects that demonstrate the importance of the three “Rs” of the 1980s - recycle, reduce and reuse. Each of these injunctions strikes at the heart of the problem in a society that is too often wasteful of its environment.

In conjunction with Environment Week this June, we will be co-sponsoring work shops on recycling in both Whitehorse and Haines Junction. These will inevitably deal with the subject of litter and what we should be doing with the paper, plastic and metal waste that too often becomes litter.

The Haines Junction workshop is, in part, a campaign commitment to develop a pilot recycle project in that community. I should point out that Haines Junction has established a recycling committee, which has already met with officials from my department to discuss the recycling pilot project. Haines Junction residents believe that, in addition to aluminum cans, there is profit potential in collecting paper and shredding it for use as a heating fuel.

I expect the June workshop to generate much more interest and awareness of recycling possibilities than is now the case.

I could go on at some length on the past, present and pending initiatives of this government, which daily demonstrates our determination to deal with the problems of litter: our annual clean-up week, our improved highway signage and more numerous highway pull-outs which advise travelers of litter disposal opportunities and provide the proper facilities.

My government is committed to dealing with the problem which the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North has provided us the opportunity to debate today. I believe I have laid out more than sufficient grounds to support the amendment which I proposed. I would ask Members for the support of that amendment.

Mr. Phillips: The House is certainly changing. It is a sad day when Members from the other side will stand up in the House when a positive motion like this is introduced to take the opportunity to one-up it or change three words that make very little difference to the motion just so they can stick an amendment in. It is sleazy politics. There is very little change in the motion.

I would like to ask the Minister of Renewable Resources who just got up and made a speech about all the great things they are doing about litter now if he thinks it working, because it is not. I will take him for a walk anywhere in the Yukon. He can name the place, and he will see that the litter programs they have in place are simply not working.

The intent of the motion was to put together a coordinated program that would deal with this issue on four or five fronts and you brought forth a motion here that simply plays politics. You want to pick a name yourself. That is what the government is trying to do.

I suppose “Yukon Pride” is not a good idea because it was not their idea. That is the only reason, so they brought in these petty little amendments that do nothing to change the intent of the motion. It is disgusting. I hope that Members of the House and all people in the Yukon will see what the intent really is and that they are not serious about cleaning up the litter of the territory and they are playing politics with the people of the Yukon once again.

Amendment to Motion No. 36 agreed to

Ms. Hayden: I rise in support of the amendment motion.

This is certainly an appropriate time of year for a motion concerning litter in the Yukon to be addressed. I congratulate the Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North and the Minister of Renewable Resources for their vision of a public education program and agree entirely that we must continue to support community clean-up campaigns. The amended motion sets out the direction that these programs should take. Winter snow is melting quickly and seasonal change is exposing the bad habits of some Yukoners.

I walk a lot and I enjoy walking but is distressing to have to pick my way through litter. I am pleased that the need for public education is expressed. This government has long known the importance of environmental awareness programs and has always supported anti-litter initiatives. In fact, the New Democratic Party is the first national political party to identify the need for environmental protection initiatives. The Yukon New Democratic Party has been on the vanguard of environment considerations for many years.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North for bringing forward this motion. The concept of an awards program is excellent. People who care about their community should be officially recognized for their efforts. We often fail to say thank you or to acknowledge individual initiatives.

The community cleanup sponsored by the City of Whitehorse last year is a good example of community cooperation. It brought together neighbours who worked to tidy up their streets. It also brought out city staff members and their families, who volunteered to do their bit to beautify Whitehorse. City employees also did extra work to load the debris at designated pickup spots.

I was in Carmacks last spring, when school children spent an entire afternoon picking up litter in the streets of Carmacks. The place sparkled when they were finished and it is this kind of commitment that makes our communities special. I remember that several years ago girl guides in Haines Junction worked to the slogan “make us glitter; stow your litter”. These were signs on garbage containers. They collected garbage around their community. Theirs was an example to other community groups and over the years guides, scouts, schools and other community groups and service clubs have done their part to clean up the Yukon.

Recycling is a concept that I know a bit about and that I certainly support. I also know that it costs money, at least in the short term. Markets for recycled material are limited, and equipment, transportation and salary costs usually have to be met by government. In the long term, recycling pays, by creating less need for land-fill space and by supporting a cleaner, more attractive landscape.

That is, of course, pleasing to Yukoners and visitors alike.

There is nothing like finding someone else’s garbage to detract from a wilderness experience. It is an investment in the future of the Yukon.

I believe a broader solution to littering is necessary. We need to look at what we consume and the packages that we throw away. There is a Vancouver-based organization called Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition. It is a Canadian group that supports initiatives to reduce Canada’s waste disposal products. This group acknowledges that there is no simple solution and maintains that waste must not only be well managed, but reduced, reused and recycled. They emphasize that years ago environmentalists predicted the current waste disposal crisis across the country. It is much more than a litter problem and we must pay attention or our beautiful Yukon will eventually be buried in garbage.

Each of us, I am told, produces more than five pounds of garbage each day. No wonder we have a litter problem. In many places in Canada there is no place left to dispose of garbage. We do not want that to happen in the Yukon, yet we seem entrapped in a cycle of producing more and more waste as we consume ever-increasing amounts of packaging.

So what is the solution? The coalition suggests that unless we are part of the solution we are part of the problem. As consumers, we can, among other things, reject products with excessive packaging and encourage manufacturers and retailers to use environmentally-sound containers and packaging. As politicians we can create a positive environment that will encourage manufacturers to design for recycling and enable consumers to participate in resolving the waste disposal and litter problem.

In my experience, most people would like to be able to recycle. For example, during a recent election campaign several of my constituents inquired about recycling. Most Yukoners are concerned about the environment. They would rather be part of a solution than part of a problem. A feasibility study would give us the facts we need to develop a program that would suit our diverse territory. It would also identify the funding needed to support a recycling program.

These are the reasons that I support this amended motion.

Mr. Phelps: I will be as brief as I can because I would like to see the motion voted on before we run out of time. I certainly support the motion and the motion as amended. Although I do have some reservations I think they were summed up in a more telling way by the Member for Riverdale North.

Nonetheless, I support the motion, as amended. I would like to thank the Member for Riverdale North for bringing this particular motion forward. The Member is strongly committed to the programs he has outlined here, and his sincerity speaks for itself. Last year, we did have the unexpected challenge to all Members to clean up litter on the riverbanks here, and many of the Members responded at that time. The Member has worked diligently to encourage anti-litter programs, through associations such as the Fish and Game Association.

As I have said, I share his concern. While I do note there is a growing awareness about the problem and a very gradual changing ethic about garbage and litter, unfortunately the change in attitude is very slow - almost glacial. This type of program would do a lot to encourage the attitudinal change that is so necessary among so many of our citizens.

I live in Carcross, and the riding I represent encompasses some of the most beautiful scenery in the Yukon. It is an area that is under very heavy use by people who live in Whitehorse and the surrounding area, as well as by numerous tourists. We are finding there seems to be more garbage and litter strewn along the southern lakes in the few good camping grounds there because of the winds and the limited number of sheltered points. It is really surprising to many who do not spend much time on the lakes just how few decent camping spots there are. It does not take much to make the camping spots really disgusting to anyone who comes along after they have been abused.

More and more people amongst my friends and neighbors in Carcross go out to the lakes with extra garbage bags, not only for their own litter, but to clean up their favorite camping spot. I have witnessed situations where people have found a particularly bad mess in their favorite camp spot, have cleaned it and filled bags of garbage and, then, delivered it to the vehicle or boat of the person who is responsible for the mess as a not-too-subtle message.

In my home town, the awareness is growing in leaps and bounds with particular regard to the wilderness and the favourite community areas.

My riding is named Hootalinqua, after what many people now call the Teslin River and the old community of Hootalinqua at the junction of the Hootalinqua River and the Yukon River, as it is now called. There is a growing number of people canoeing down these rivers throughout the constituency, and on down to Dawson or Carmacks. The litter along these riverbanks is appalling.

A couple of years ago, I travelled down the Teslin River, as far as Carmacks right at spring breakup, with some people who were hunting bear. We were almost the first boat from Johnson’s Crossing to Carmacks. Even that early in the season, the litter and garbage was there. It had come up through the snow as it does on the streets of Whitehorse, and it was shocking to behold. From a more rural prospective, I feel the problem is not just confined to the streets of Whitehorse or the other municipalities throughout the Yukon. The educational aspect of the motion is an important one. The program would be cost-effective in one sense, in that it would reduce what is becoming a bad reputation amongst the people who seek the wilderness experience here. More and more complaints are filtering back from people who come here for the unique wilderness experience and go down the Teslin River, and they come back utterly disgusted with what they see and find there.

With those few comments, I once again say that I fully support the motion and look forward to unanimous support of the motion, as amended.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I would like to speak briefly to the motion, as amended, to echo my sentiments with those of the speakers who provided informed discussion on some of the environmental and littering issues facing us in the territory. The motion speaks to a number of additional initiatives that can be undertaken. I, too, believe they should be.

I recall many years ago going with groups of students in the early spring of each year to pick up bags and bags of garbage that were subsequently hauled to dump sites, as school children made their contribution to the anti-litter campaign. More than ever, I can agree with the previous speaker that many of us are here because of the natural Yukon beauty that surrounds us. Anytime that times get difficult or pressured, all you have to do is take a walk into Yukon’s wilderness, removed from litter, and you will find an easy answer to why you are here.

The initiatives that the motion outlines are ones that certainly can be encouraged for year-round activity. I am sure, as Members realize, there is an activity that happens annually that is sponsored in part by one of my departments. The spring clean-up campaign is promoted extensively and supported financially within the government through Community and Transportation Services. As Members may be aware, it has existed for a number of years, and it does provide promotional advertising for a clean-up campaign each spring. Members may also be aware that it provides funding to municipalities in the order of $250 to each municipality to aid that campaign exercise. That support does help with the clean-up campaign but I think what we are hearing, and is echoed by all speakers on this motion, is that that exercise is not enough.

I can certainly support the thought that we should be providing a much greater effort to clean up and provide for initiatives that will rid the beautiful Yukon of the litter and neglect of people. Certainly the initiatives that are outlined respecting awards, recycling plants, working toward a much stepped-up program or more than just a week of clean up in spring are all worthwhile initiatives. I want to lend my support to the motion and encourage others to do the same.

Motion No. 36 agreed to as amended

Motion No. 32

Clerk: Item No. 12, standing in the name of Mr. Phillips.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 12?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale North

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should examine the feasibility of negotiating a reciprocal friendship agreement with the Government of Alaska to give Yukoners and Alaskans a preferred rate on non-resident sport fishing licences in each other’s jurisdiction in recognition of our long history of co-operation and mutual friendship.

Mr. Phillips: I intend to keep my comments short in view of the time. I think it is very important that we get this motion through today if we can get consent on it because of what I will be explaining later in my speech.

In March of this year several Members of this House took part in the annual legislative exchange with our Alaskan neighbors in Juneau. In the course of these meetings, we had the opportunity to attend various legislative committee meetings. I believe that these exchanges are extremely valuable in giving us a better understanding of each other’s concerns.

This year, we met with the Commissioner of Fish and Game as well as the House Resources Committee, and in our discussions we suggested that both jurisdictions recognize our friendly relationship by providing a preferred-licensing schedule for Yukon and Alaska sports fishermen in each other’s jurisdiction. This move would recognize the fact that each year many Alaskans and Yukoners travel frequently to each other’s jurisdictions for recreational activities.

We were pleasantly surprised by the reception the Alaskans gave to this idea. Both the Commissioner of Fish and Game and the House Resources Committee said that they would explore this idea very favorably. The Alaska State Legislature only sits for 18 more days this year and I understand that their Bill No. 124, that addresses those fishing and hunting license fee changes may be fast tracked so that it passes in this sitting. That is why it is important today to send a clear legislative message of our intent to set up a special fishing license fee for Alaskan and Yukon residents.

So that Members understand what exactly my intent is, what I had in mind with this motion is that Alaskans would not pay the same resident fee as Yukon residents would pay; they would pay a higher fee, but it would not be as high as the non-resident fee for other non-residents. As well, I would hope that in any agreement we reach with Alaska the fees that we pay would be equal to the fees that they pay here; if it was a $20 fee, we pay $20 on this side and they pay $20 on that side.

I think it is important to recognize that many Yukoners every year spend a great deal of their leisure time fishing in Haines, Juneau or Skagway. It is probably a great economic boon to those areas just for the fact that Yukoners go and spend some time fishing there and, as well, many Alaskans come over to the Yukon and fish on our side of the border.

I think that our exchange visits with Alaska have provided us, as MLAs, some very valuable insight into our similarities and I think that it is time that we showed - as northerners on both sides of the border - that these visits can produce positive outcomes. Geography makes us neighbors and agreements like this certainly make us better friends. I hope that all Members on all sides of the House would support this motion.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I have no intention of amending this motion; I would like to say that, in my opinion, this one is in need of no amendment. I agree with it wholeheartedly. A sigh of relief could be heard over here about that news.

I would like to thank the Member opposite at this time also for raising it in his discussions along with the Member for Old Crow in his meetings with our Alaskan counterparts a few weeks ago in Juneau.

As I have already mentioned in the House during Question Period in response to this matter, I am fully supportive of this proposal and I would like to do whatever is necessary to bring it into force next year.

Hon. Ms. Joe: This government has developed an extremely good relationship with Alaska, and I would suggest that we continue to contribute to an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation. There are many major environmental issues that both the Yukon and Alaska should be concerned about - issues that can severely affect both of our jurisdictions. Certainly the recent oil spill is just one environmental disaster. What, while it has major implications in Alaska, we, here in the Yukon, may also be somewhat affected as it may be related to our fisheries in the future.

We all feel sympathy to the Alaskans during this disaster. We need to develop ties with Alaska that will enable us to work together in mutual support in times like this. One of the ways we can show our support and friendship is to examine the motion brought forward by the Member for Riverdale North. In speaking to this motion, I am reminded of the enjoyment many of our residents, including myself, get out of fishing, particularly the fishing opportunities that are available within a very short distance of our homes. We are most fortunate in residing in one of the most beautiful locations in the world today, as well as having some of the best fishing in the world. In my opinion, the next best fishing spot in the world is Alaska. Alaska and the Yukon share many picturesque rivers, mountains and lakes as well as friends and relatives. I personally feel we should work toward bettering our relationship with our neighbours. We share our sport fishing often and with great delight now. Why should we not try to better accommodate our neighbours by offering our cooperation in fishing license fees? I would like to support this motion and ask this government to negotiate an agreement for sport fishing license fees for continued mutual friendship between our two jurisdictions.

Ms. Kassi: I rise in support of this motion. Our people and the tribal people of Alaska have much in common. When I visited Juneau earlier this year my interest in the idea put forward in this motion was heightened. The management of natural resources is for the future of our people. Resource management conflicts must be avoided at all costs. If conflicts do occur, we must have mechanisms in place to deal with them. Environmental projects in one jurisdiction will affect the other jurisdiction. The government in Alaska must be aware of how seriously we take resource management. The people of Gwich’in Athapaskan have shown their intention to maintain their way of life just as we have protected the caribou for generations. We believe that we must continue to protect and manage our natural resources for future generations.

I attended meetings of the House Resource Committee and presented my views. The northern regions of Alaska and the Yukon have much in common. The co-chairs of the House Resource Committee wrote to me and I quote, “We share history, a border and an ancient people, a similar natural resource base and a bright future.” It is this bright future that we want to do everything we can to guarantee. The International Caribou Board is part of this building and positive working relationship. A reciprocal friendship agreement with the Government of Alaska would certainly help to avoid disputes such as we experienced around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Yukon salmon negotiations. An agreement on preferred fishing licence rates means that Yukoners that flood into Haines would pay less, and Alaskans coming here would benefit, too.

It is this kind of mutual, beneficial agreement that means a lot to us. Our reciprocal friendship agreement could also be structured to establish sustainable-yield rules and other environmental considerations. It would be an example of the kind of progressive, environmental legislation that will go a long way in protecting the Yukon as we know it. I want to close by restating my support for this motion.

Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if he now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Mr. Phillips: I would like to thank all Members who spoke in favour of this motion. I think it is a step in the right direction. We do have a lot in common with Alaska. I would suggest that we have more in common with Alaska than, in some cases, with the Canadians to the south of us. We deal a lot with Alaskans. Some of us are married to Alaskans and many of us are related to Alaskans. We do understand their problems and their lifestyle. This is in appreciation of our good feelings toward Alaskans. I can assure all Members that I, upon receiving Hansard tomorrow, will be sending Hansard to the Alaska State Legislature. I have talked to the House Resources Committee Co-chairperson and he knows we are dealing with this motion today. It is hoped they can use that in their final debate during the next few days when they discuss the issue there. I thank everyone for their support on this worthwhile motion.

Motion No. 32 agreed to

Motion No. 34

Clerk: Item No. 13 standing in the name of Mr. Devries.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Watson Lake

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Alaska Highway has been and continues to be an international transportation corridor of vital importance, both in peace and war, to the United States of America and Canada;

THAT this House supports the preparations both countries are making to celebrate, in 1992, the 50th anniversary of the construction of this historic highway;

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Alaska Highway currently is in such poor condition that it is adversely affecting the economies of the State of Alaska, the Province of British Columbia and Yukon Territory particularly with regard to tourism;

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to initiate the formation of a tripartite task force, comprised of senior representatives of the Government of Yukon, the Government of British Columbia and the Government of the State of Alaska, to lobby the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada urging them to provide suitable financing for the completion of the upgrading of the Alaska Highway; and

THAT a copy of this resolution should be forwarded to the respective legislatures of the Province of British Columbia and the State of Alaska.

Mr. Devries: This is a motion regarding one of the most important transportation links in Canada. It is also considered to be a transportation corridor between the lower 48 States and Alaska. The historic significance of the Alaska Highway should not be overlooked either. Two great countries worked side by side to accomplish one of the greatest feats of this century. Forty-seven years ago they built the Alaska Highway through muskeg, across rivers, along cold frozen lakes and endless miles of forests and mountains. The Alaska Highway has made the Yukon and all of the towns along its winding trail the pleasant memory of millions of tourists all over the world.

Today, as we sit here to discuss this motion I cannot help but wonder what is happening. Ottawa and Washington no longer seem to care about this road. Ten or 15 years ago, when the oil boom was on, all we heard was, “go for the pipeline, we will re-build your road”. Right of ways were cleared, sections of the highway were widened and realigned, but it did not take long until the oil boom was over and the surveyors left for other places. The highway started to deteriorate, especially where limited upgrading had been done.

At times, when you come to a corner in the dark of night, or through a cloud of flying dust, you are uncertain about whether to take the road or the freshly-cut right of way. You drive along the road and see blown tires and mufflers laying along the road. You cannot help but wonder if Ford, Michelin, or Walker Corporation votes are more important than Yukon votes. You cannot help but wonder when the last tourist is going to get up the courage to drive through the maze of potholes and atrocities.

To some tourists it may be a challenge to see if they can make it and with others it is the adventure - and some will go through almost anything to see the beauty of solitude of what we have to offer them. There are many, however, who cannot afford the risks of having their hard-earned motorhomes and vehicles slowly fall to pieces as they drive north.

Speaker: Order, please. The time now being 4:30, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 11(7) to interrupt proceedings and call for Bills Others Than Government Bills.

BILLS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 101: Third Reading

Clerk: Third reading, Bill No. 101, standing in the name of Mr. Lang.

Mr. Lang: I move that Bill No. 101, entitled An Act to Amend the Students Financial Assistance Act be now read a third time and do pass.

Speaker: It has been