Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 7, 1992 — 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will begin with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Introduction of Visitors.

Are there any Returns or Documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I have a legislative return for tabling.

Hon. Mr. Phelps: I have for tabling a letter from the Yukon Energy Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Devries: I have for tabling the Faro action plan.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions.

Introduction of Bills.

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers.

Are there any Notices of Motion?

Are there any Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Fees, permits and licences

Ms. Joe: I would like to follow up on some questions that I asked in the House yesterday. At the end of the questions yesterday on the increases and permits, the Minister suggested that we were confusing taxes and licence fee increases, but by the Yukon Party’s own definition, they are one and the same. Since the Government Leader has stated more than once that there would be no more tax increases, I would like to know why he is now choosing to raise fees, and when is he going to be telling the general public that he is going to be generating all of this revenue from the increase in licence and permit fees?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I think maybe I should clarify that for the Member opposite. I said that we were reviewing all licensing fees in Yukon, and there may be some that will be raised. The budget is tabled now and there are no fee increases in it. So, increases certainly will not come into effect in the next fiscal or calendar year, on whichever date they fall due, but they all are under review.

Ms. Joe: It is a pretty scary thing when the Minister of Finance announces in Dawson City that he is going to be raising taxes right across the board. In a question in the House previously asked by Mr. Lang, he states that when the budget came down the Minister of Finance took great pains to tell everybody in the Yukon that there was going to be an increase in taxation. If he knew there was going to be a 44 percent increase in licence fees, why did he make a statement that there would be no increase in taxation? I would like to ask: does the Government Leader not agree with his party that an increase in any licence fee is a tax increase?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: No, I do not agree that a licence fee is a tax increase; not at all; they are two different things. They both bring revenue for the government, there is no doubt. But, as I said before, all licences are under review. There is one that has been increased now, and I believe that is the liquor licence, which went up 20 percent and is due to go up another 20 percent on April 1, 1994. That is the only one that I am aware of that has been increased to date.

Ms. Joe: I have a supplementary for the Member for Riverdale North. In a question in the House previously on the increase in fishing licences, he stated that we are taxing the fishermen personally in quite a dramatic way. I would like to ask the Member for Riverdale North if he still considers an increase in a licence fee to be a tax increase, as he did when he was in the Opposition?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I do not think we are increasing the fishing licence fees, as far as I know.

Question re: Fees, permits and licences

Ms. Joe: I am trying to establish whether or not their philosophy on raising licence fees is still the same as when they were in Opposition.

Yesterday, the Minister suggested that I was making an issue out of something that was not. I suggest it is a very big issue and will affect hundreds of people and businesses. I would like to ask the Minister when he and his Cabinet colleagues approved this hidden tax increase and when he will announce it to the public.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I am a little amazed at how I am supposed to answer that. There is no increase in the fishing licences this year. A proposed one will be put in front of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board for next year. The reason this is being done is because it costs us more to administer it than we are taking in. We want to get the government straightened out so that we are not putting money out where we should not.

Ms. Joe: What we are trying to establish here in this House is that the Government Leader, the Minister of Finance, made a statement in Dawson City that they were going to be increasing fees for licenses, certificates, permits, or whatever, right across the board. That is pretty darn scary.

What we are suggesting is that it is a hidden tax to Yukoners. They do not know about it. We are trying to establish that the government’s philosophy is that raising taxes and increasing fees is one and the same.

I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources. When he was in Opposition, he asked a question in the debate on the Electrical Protection Act. He referred to an increase in electrical permits as a raise in direct taxes. I would like to ask him if he still agrees that the raising of fees for licences is an increase in taxation to the general public.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is simply a question of whether a business licence — I suppose if you want to get technical, and we have three lawyers here, we could debate this — is or is not a tax. I am not a lawyer; I am not going to get into the legal argument on this one.

Speaker: I would ask the Member to try to keep the preamble to the supplementary to one sentence or start a new question if it is a longer preamble.

Ms. Joe: I guess what we are going to have to do is turn this into many questions and that is a possibility. The increase for licence fees in the past, when we were in Opposition, would generate revenue of about $200,000 to $300,000. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what his estimate is for revenue from the increases in all fees for licences and permits. If Cabinet made the decision he must have an answer for that.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I am not sure that I made the statement that our fees will be going up across the board. I said they were all under review and we were looking at maybe increasing fees. We will continue to do that on an ongoing basis. The total amount of money that comes in — I am not sure at this point; I have no idea how much is raised by licence fees.

Question re: Whitehorse waterfront development

Mr. Cable: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. During the last election, one of the elements of the Yukon Party’s platform was the provision of funding to promote tourist infrastructure. Included in examples in the Yukon Party’s literature was the development of the Whitehorse waterfront. I understand that the Minister has recently been approached by the City of Whitehorse with a view to setting up a body to organize the development of the waterfront. Could the Minister advise this House as to the status of the negotiations, if I could call it that?

Hon. Mr. Fisher:  The City of Whitehorse has approached me with the idea of setting up a committee to investigate the waterfront question, and I have agreed to sit down with them and help establish that committee.

Mr. Cable: In view of the Yukon Party’s platform, would it be safe to say that it is the Minister’s present thinking that this body or committee or whatever it turns out to be will be charged with tourist development and economic development powers?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is a little premature at this point to say exactly what the committee will be charged with. I believe the Minister of Tourism announced in this House that he will also be sitting on that committee, so what we come up with I cannot say at this time.

Mr. Cable: I understand the City of Whitehorse would like the committee or board or whatever is set up to be membered with two people from the City of Whitehorse, one from CYI and one from the YTG. Is that the Minister’s present thinking?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: Again, I have not gone into it in that much detail. When we sit down with the City of Whitehorse, I want the Minister of Tourism to be involved; I also want to see the Minister of Community and Transportation Services — myself — involved in it. Beyond that, I cannot say at this time.

Question re: Tax increases

Mr. McDonald: I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Ever since the Minister tabled the main estimates in the Legislature, many groups and individuals, from the Association of Yukon Communities to Members of the Legislature, have indicated a desire to negotiate elements of the budget to make it more acceptable to the general public. Is the elimination of tax increases negotiable?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We have met with many groups and listened to their concerns. The simple answer to the question, is the elimination of tax measures negotiable, is no, it is not, certainly not in totality. We had to balance a budget, and we required the tax increases to do it.

Mr. McDonald: Given the fact that we have debated the budget in second reading, and there are some discussions taking place respecting it, is there any element or program negotiable for amendment to help the budget pass the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: Right now, we are listening to various groups in the community as to how they felt the budget should have been drafted. For me to stand here and say that everything is carved in stone, would be wrong. We are prepared to listen to recommendations to see what we can do.

Mr. McDonald: Let me ask a question that is typical of one my colleague from Riverside asks. Can the Government Leader keep us apprised of these negotiations while we are debating the budget in the Legislature, so we will know precisely which budget we are debating, while we debate it?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: We certainly will. We will also be listening to what Members in the Opposition have to say about what they would have liked to have seen in the budget.

Question re: Dawson City water and sewer

Mr. Harding: I have a question regarding the Dawson City water and sewage system, and the election promises made by the Yukon Party surrounding that issue.

In the Tuesday edition of the Whitehorse Star, the Government Leader was reported to have said that there was going to be money to help Dawson City with water and sewage issues, whether or not the money showed up in the budget. This was to follow up on election promises made by the Yukon Party candidate who is now sitting as the Member for Klondike.

Is it the policy of this government to honour all of the campaign promises made by the Member for Klondike in seeking a seat even though the Yukon Party has reneged on major election promises such as there would be no new taxes?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I wish I could stand up and say that this government is in a position to honour all of the commitments made to Dawson City and other areas of the Yukon, but the fact remains: the previous government forgot to leave us any money.

Mr. Harding: Again, the Government Leader absolves himself of any responsibility. I find it hard to believe that they have been in power for six months — they have recently received $483 million in new revenues, but still they have no money.

On the specifics of financial help for Dawson City’s water and sewer problems, and following up on the Government Leader’s reported conversation with the Member for Klondike, can the Government Leader confirm that the government is committed to providing relief to the Dawson City ratepayers, through forgiveness of the $300,000 water and sewer deficit debenture?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: It is difficult when two-sided questions are asked; should I answer the question or should the Government Leader answer?

The question regarding the $300,000 water and sewer operating deficit is not in the works at all. What we are willing to do is assist the City of Dawson with a very long-term problem they have with their water and sewer system. It does not mean we will reinstate the $300,000 water and sewer operating deficit.

Mr. Harding: Could I ask if the discussions taking place regarding debenture forgiveness are now off the table? Also, could the Minister of Community and Transportation Services indicate exactly how much money we are talking about to relieve the water and sewage problems, that was one of the election promises?

Hon. Mr. Fisher: The debenture has nothing to do with water and sewer operating deficits. The amount of money required is being negotiated while we speak. There are people in Dawson City, meeting with representatives of the City of Dawson about the overall agreement that we are trying to reach.

Question re: Faro contingency plan

Mr. Harding: We still cannot nail down the amount of that Dawson City election promise, but we will in subsequent discussions in this House. I have to move on, as much as it pains me to do so, to another subject. That is the Faro contingency plan. I have placed emphasis on what the government is doing to get the people who are out of work, back to work. I think that is the most important area. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development a question. Everything I have seen in the contingency plan seems to be designed to get people out of Faro. I want to say that there are a lot of people in Faro who wish to stay there forever and ever. I would like to ask the Minister if he plans to develop the Chateau Jomini project for construction and decentralization, as well as undertake the Grew Creek development infrastructure work, which could put some people to work in Faro and diversify the economy?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Yes, regarding the Chateau Jomini, there are ongoing discussions with the Town of Faro on what is going to happen with it. No firm decision has been made yet on whether it will be transferred back to the Town of Faro. There is nothing concrete there, but there are ongoing discussions.

My understanding is that there has been a change of ownership on the Grew Creek property, so that is a whole new ball game at this point.

Mr. Harding: It does not seem to me as if there are many definite plans, in terms of keeping people in my community; they do want to stay there. Basically, we have a “1-800-ITS-DOWN” line for my constituents to phone here in Whitehorse. I am not too happy about that. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development if he can tell me specifically, what other economic diversification initiatives they are working on to help my constituents stay in that community, rather than leave the Yukon?

Hon. Mr. Devries: As the Member for Faro very well knows, one of the things is we are still looking at stripping the Grum deposit. This is still being considered. Basically, at this point it will be up to the company and the Bank of Nova Scotia to decide whether that project goes ahead. There are other things being discussed at this point with input from the community. At this point, I do not have a list of the projects that have been approved to go ahead.

Mr. Harding: Again we have the vagueness of the plan for my community. It is quite disheartening. There was a commitment made that the school, as well as all other services, will remain open in my community. I would like to ask the Government Leader, no matter what happens, what is the length of this commitment they are making with regard to leaving those services and that school open?

Hon. Mr. Devries: My understanding is that there is a full commitment to maintain full services there as long as they are needed.

Question re: Faro contingency plan

Mr. Harding: I hope that “as long as they are needed” means as long as there are people in the community. I hope the government will undertake to come up with some economic initiatives to keep people there — the Grum stripping being my favourite one.

The point in the contingency plan was made that the Department of Education would be sending people in for career counselling and that sort of thing. Unfortunately, the impression I get is that the commitment is a short one. I would like to ask the Minister of Education and the Minister of Economic Development — whomever wants to answer — whether or not this commitment is going to be a permanent, ongoing undertaking by the government for my constituents.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The Department of Education plays a key role in the contingency team that is working in Faro. I want to give the Member for Faro and all of the people in Faro full assurances that all school facilities in Faro will be maintained. The training programs will be developed as needed in Faro to retrain people and provide jobs and opportunities for them. That is the purpose of the contingency plan; it is to work with the people of Faro and do whatever we can to help them. The Department of Education, in conjunction with other departments that are working in that community, is there to do just that.

Mr. Harding: With all due respect to the Member for Riverdale North, I did hear that they were going to make a commitment to it this week, but my specific question was: will there be someone staffed specifically for that task who will have some permanency in Faro and be available to work directly with my constituents on an ongoing basis, or will they have to dial the 800 number in Whitehorse?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: There is a fairly senior individual in the Department of Education who has been assigned to the Faro contingency plan. That individual will be working closely with the people in Faro on Education matters. I have listened to the advice of the Member for Faro and I will look at how we can more closely communicate with the people of Faro on issues.

Mr. Harding: I would like to ask a question of the Government Leader about the contingency plan. In his capacity as Minister of Finance, what commitment is the territorial government prepared to make with regard to severance for the people who are affected in my community, as well as moving expenses for people who have to move to try to find some alternate work, whether it be to elsewhere in the Yukon or outside?

Hon. Mr. Devries: For moving expenses, we are looking at approximately $500 to $600 as being an average payment, if people so choose. Presently, there is one additional social worker, one additional counsellor — who was half-time in Ross River and is now presently booked full-time in Faro. There is a 0.8 social services person dedicated to Faro to deal with social assistance applications, and there is a half-time secretary who has been increased to full-time, as well as an additional counsellor position while there is a high demand for counselling services.

Question re: Fuel tax, off-road vehicles

Mrs. Firth: My question is for the Minister of Finance, the Government Leader. A week ago, the Government Leader announced that his government was going to give a fuel tax break for users of off-road vehicles — snowmobiles, boats, motor bikes and ATVs — for recreational purposes. The Government Leader has not told Yukoners how this new tax exemption for recreational pursuits is going to be administered. I would like to ask the Government Leader if he will tell us now exactly how the department will administer this program.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I cannot tell the Member now exactly how it will be administered. Officials are looking for a plan that will be the least cumbersome and least expensive to administer.

Mrs. Firth: I have some more questions about how policy decisions are made within this government, but my second supplementary is: can the Government Leader tell us how much money the government is going to lose in revenues because of this policy announcement?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: It is very difficult to put an exact figure on it, but the estimate is that it could be somewhere in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

Mrs. Firth: It would be interesting to know if that is an accurate figure or an estimate or a guess.

I would like to ask the Minister another question: how much will be the administrative costs for this program?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I answered that in the first question — the officials are currently looking into what is the most cost-effective manner to administer the program.

Question re: Fuel tax, off-road vehicles

Mrs. Firth: I thank the Member for allowing me to follow up on this line of questioning.

The way policy decisions are made within this government gives me a great deal of concern. We have just had an announcement made about fuel tax increases and then, very shortly thereafter, another announcement was made about fuel tax exemptions. This afternoon, the Government Leader could not answer any of the questions about the costs or even how they were going to administer the program, so I would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us very specifically just how his government makes policy decisions without any analysis or impact and who asked for this particular policy change?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: The main reason for the exemption is because it was raised as a concern by the First Nations when the budget came out. There are already many categories of exemptions for fuel tax, and this is just another category to be added. With the increased number of people who might be using it, we are looking for a more cost-effective way to do it. Under the present system, one must obtain a tax number and fill out a bunch of forms to get the tax rebate.

We are overhauling the system and trying to make it more efficient.

Mrs. Firth: Surely the Government Leader is not saying that the First Nations people came and asked for all the snowmobilers, power boat users, ATV users and motorcycle users to get a fuel tax exemption, so I do not want to hear that statement again.

Was there any analysis done by this government prior to making this policy announcement? Obviously there was not.

The Government Leader has publicly mentioned that we may have to start using coloured gas. Is that an option this government is now looking at, after the fact?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: First of all, the Member asked a question and answered it herself. She then went on to ask several more questions.

We are looking at every way possible to make this as uncumbersome as possible. Coloured gas is an option, but it will have to be discussed with the fuel people to see what burden it would place upon them. It is used quite successfully in other jurisdictions.

Speaker: Before the Member asks her final supplementary, I would remind all Members that preambles to supplementaries should be one sentence.

Mrs. Firth: I need to be reminded of that from time to time.

Has the Government Leader had any discussions with the retailers prior to making the announcement of this policy?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: This is adding another category to the many areas that are exempt. It will be handled in a very efficient manner.

Question re: Contracts, project management

Mr. Cable: In the past, several large products in the Yukon developed by the government have been administered by project managers, as opposed to putting these large projects out to general contractors. The point of the exercise was to build up the local contracting community to increase its competitiveness. It allowed the local contractors who do not have the same bonding power and financial strength as larger contractors to bid on parts of the project rather than the whole project.

Is the Minister responsible for Government Services of the opinion that this practice increases the viability and competitiveness of the Yukon contracting community?

Hon. Mr. Devries: No, I would disagree. Our policy is to tender and contract out as many projects as we possibly can.

Mr. Cable: In view of the large size of the hospital contract and the probable inability of many Yukon contractors to bid on the project as a general contractor, is the Minister prepared to consider breaking the project up and managing the project through a project manager?

Hon. Mr. Devries: In the case of the hospital, Government Services will be overseeing the project and there will be a project manager onsite. The project will be divided up into as many subcontracts as possible, so Yukon contractors will have the ability to bid on this project and so that it can be divided among the contracting community in that manner.

Mr. Cable: I am not sure how I can reconcile that answer to the supplementary question. Let me ask this question: in view of the government holding out the promise of capital projects as a pillar of the economic strategy of the government, and in view of the possible shutdown of Curragh, can the Minister assure the House that everything reasonable will be done to ensure that Yukon businesses and Yukon employees are given first crack at this project?

Hon. Mr. Devries: Yes, we will do everything within the parameters of our contract guidelines to see that that happens.

Question re: Communications advisor

Ms. Moorcroft: On Monday the Government Leader said that the salary of the communications advisor was arrived at by the Public Service Commissioner. Can the Government Leader assure this House that there was no pressure placed on the Public Service Commissioner, who was still on a temporary six-month assignment, as far as we know in this House, to pay the new Cabinet communications advisor $20,000 more than his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: First of all, I would like to say there is a good possibility that my communications advisor is getting $4,000 less than the previous communications advisor, because I know what rate my communications advisor is getting. If the Members opposite would like to tell me what his predecessor was getting, we could maybe settle that question. There was no pressure put on the Commissioner.

Ms. Moorcroft: Perhaps Mr. Drown would be able to offer resume writing workshops to the unemployed people of Faro; he obviously has a knack for it.

The Government Leader claims he has reduced the overall cost of his Cabinet offices by downgrading some of the administrative assistant positions, jobs that are primarily held by women. I would like to ask the Government Leader: have the job descriptions for these positions changed, and could the Minister explain the rationale for his decision to pay the communications advisor more, while paying the secretaries less?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: That is a very interesting question. Nothing has been downgraded. We have hired three administrative assistants, instead of six. We have hired three stenographers, instead of another three administrative assistants.

Speaker: Before the Member asks her final supplementary — I have asked the Members to keep the preamble to the supplementary to one sentence. I would like to also remind Members that the preamble should relate to the question that they are going to ask.

Ms. Moorcroft: The Government Leader has said that by reducing the number of employees in his office by 2.5 positions, he is making substantial savings for the government, but we have already seen how these savings have been channeled back into the salary for the B.C. advisor.

Will the Government Leader tell us specifically, who received a reduction in pay, who else got a raise and how much has actually been saved?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: When we get into the debate on the budget, the Member will have full opportunity to ask questions.

Question re: Employment interviews for summer jobs

Mr. Joe: My question is about the lack of consultation. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission: in the past, when the government advertises for summer help, they hold interviews in all of the communities and that is one of the reasons people are employed in my riding. However, the government only held interviews in Carmacks and Dawson. Many people in my riding cannot afford to travel to these communities. I would like to know why interviews are not being held in all of the communities.

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I was not aware in which communities interviews were being held. I will check that for the Member opposite and advise him.

Mr. Joe: Will the Minister make sure that people from all of the communities are treated equally and given a chance to get a good summer job?

Hon. Mr. Ostashek: I certainly share the concern of the Member opposite. All Yukoners should have the opportunity to have summer jobs. I will check on this and get back to the Member.

Question re: Animal protection legislation

Mr. Penikett: I have a question for the favourite and most beloved Minister on the side opposite, the Minister of Renewable Resources.

Is the Minister aware that the Yukon Territory, and particularly the City of Whitehorse, has one of this continent’s highest rates of abandoned pets, or animals that must be destroyed annually, in part due to the lack of enforceable legislation to deal with the problem?

Hon. Mr. Brewster: I was not aware that it was one of the worst, but I am aware it is a great problem.

Mr. Penikett: Has the Minister been briefed on his department’s progress toward the drafting of new animal protection and animal health legislation — which has been going on for many months — to help deal with the care of neglected animals in the Yukon? Also, since he has become Minister, what consultation has taken place with the Humane Society, game growers, game farmers, farmers and other interested parties?

Hon. Mr. Brewster:  The last time I was briefed on it, I was told that they were holding up the legislation now at the request of several groups because they want to get together on the situation.

Mr. Penikett: The previous government had committed itself publicly to bringing in legislation on this question this spring. Could the Minister advise this House what status the proposed legislation has on his government’s legislative priority list, and indicate, in a general way, when the Legislature may be able to expect his bills on the subject.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: As soon as the groups get together and notify us that we can continue with the legislation, we will do it.

Question re: Hospital board

Ms. Moorcroft: The Minister of Health and Social Services told the House yesterday that some training of the new hospital board has begun. Could the Minister give the House an update on who the trainees were, and how many appointees to the board have already been chosen?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: As for the nominees, we have chosen 12 people. We are now waiting for an order-in-council for the official appointment.

Ms. Moorcroft: May 1, which is the second date the Minister has chosen for the new hospital board to take over, is only three weeks away. The Minister must have a good idea of the makeup of the board. Will he assure this House that there will be gender balance, and a proportionate rural-to-urban representation on the board?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Yes, although it may be weighted slightly in favour of the feminine gender. I hope she will not mind that.

Ms. Moorcroft: We certainly want a good board. The Council for Yukon Indians is entitled to two nominations to the board. I believe that Yukon First Nations should be consulted on the remaining 10 positions. Does the Minister agree?

Hon. Mr. Phelps: Well, if the hon. Member would read the Hospital Act, CYI is responsible for three of 12. As well, we, by law, are compelled to consult with them on the two members from the public at large. In fact, we have discussed all nominees with CYI.

Speaker: Time for Question Period has now elapsed.

We will proceed to Orders of the Day and Motions Other Than Government Motions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 25 — adjourned debate

Clerk: Motion No. 25, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Millar, debate adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Brewster: It is really truly amazing how the wheels of bureaucracy spin around in this world of politics and government. When I first came to this Legislature 12 years ago one of the first major projects I was on was hearings, sponsored by the federal government, to set up a review of placer mining regulations so that placer miners could operate without continual harassment. That was 12 years ago. It appears that only now, we have a set of regulations that most placer miners are able to work with.

The Implementation Review Committee has evidently provided a workable formula enabling all factions to work together.

I am happy to see that the efforts of the Department of Renewable Resources and the Department of Economic Development, along with the Yukon government’s negotiator, made it possible for the federal Department of Fisheries, the Department of Northern Affairs and the Klondike Placer Miners Association to get together and come up with a reasonable solution.

It is annoying that the Yukon representative had to travel to Vancouver to settle a Yukon problem. This has been annoying to me for 12 years with many other programs. However, at least it is reasonably settled now.

During the placer mining hearings that took place in 1982, I travelled with the Hon. Dan Lang on field trips to see placer miners at work. During that initial investigation, I was amazed to discover that there were no hearings scheduled for the Kluane area. I checked into the district’s placer mining industry and found out that there were over 1,000 active claims. Needless to say, the hearings were taken to Kluane. It is a very strange situation for a commission to tour without knowing where the people are that they are supposed to be interviewing.

I recall that during that time we flew along the Fortymile River. The aircraft pilot pointed out two rather large placer mines that had been shut down to protect the salmon stream. I noticed that the river was dirty above the two placer mines. I asked why they were shut down when the water was just as dirty above it as below it. The reply was that the water was from Alaska. I asked the pilot if we could fly into Alaska and see it and he said yes, as long as we did not land. We flew over the Alaska border and there was silt being dropped directly in the river. The Canadian companies were shut down to protect the stream while the Alaskans continued to mine. At the same time, Alaskans were catching the greatest share of the salmon. That is very sensible.

I found the whole process of those hearings very interesting, especially the slide show the board used. Several of us objected to those photographs, because the pictures were not even of the Yukon, but rather were taken in another province. In my opinion, the photos were unfairly used to condemn the placer mining industry.

When I first came to the Yukon, placer mining was the largest industry in the territory. There were placer companies who employed large numbers of people as well as numerous privately owned operations. Some of the family operations were being worked by the third generation of Yukoners.

I have watched this industry dying a slow death because of lobbying by the anti-mining groups, the crippling regulations and the harassment of miners by government officials — officials who contradict each other. Although the chart I will now hold up applies to hard rock mining, it clearly illustrates the bureaucracy and the tangle the mining companies are up against.

This is what Windy Craggy has to go through. I hope they have arms long enough to do it. Everybody should take a look at this. It represents a $50 million hearing before they can even start to mine. It was to begin in 1958; the hearings will be finished in 2001. Now we wonder why placer miners and others are having problems.

I feel it is necessary to mention that there is a great deal of natural sediment in Yukon creeks and rivers. If one takes, for example, the Donjek and the White rivers, one will notice that more silt is carried by those rivers in a 24-hour period than any other combination of placer mining through the entire Yukon. As silty as the Donjek and White rivers are, salmon still make their way up those rivers to spawn in the Kluane River.

In closing, I would like to point out that the Member for McIntyre-Takhini stated that the IRC was formed and active before our government took office. That is correct. However, the statement is only half true. The committee did exist, all right, but it was going nowhere. In five short months, we have managed to turn the situation around and reach an agreement that everybody can live with. They are not happy, but they can live with it.

I hear so often that the bureaucracy runs government. It is evident to me that when a government is prepared to govern bureaucracy, then the bureaucrats can follow instructions and achieve visible results.

Mrs. Firth: I want to begin my comments by first saying that I am going to be fairly brief because I think we have many other issues that Members would like to debate in this Legislature this afternoon, but we have to acknowledge and recognize that the Member who is representing the Klondike constituency has brought forward his first substantial motion to this Legislative Assembly; I would like to wish him well on the vote on his motion and thank him for presenting it today. I would also like to thank him for the research he did to give us a good outline of the background, and particularly to remind Yukoners about the history and significance of the placer mining industry in the Yukon. It is always good for new Yukoners to be reminded of our roots and of how the Yukon grew and developed.

Having said that, it was interesting to hear the Member for Klondike’s comments from a different perspective than most of us in the Legislature have — having been a placer miner himself; someone who is involved in a small family business. I can share some of the frustrations the Member has had to deal with. Any business that deals with government these days, no matter what the business or the activity that individuals pursue, they seem to be constantly coming up against government regulations, new rules, new laws and, in many circumstances, they feel nobody is on their side.

One particular incident I can personally remember was not last year, but the previous season. There were a lot of placer miners who lived in my constituency waiting for their water licences to be authorized by the federal Minister responsible. They had been waiting and waiting, and time was passing, and it was time they should have been running their businesses and starting their placer activities.

When I phoned the federal Minister to ask if he would try to expedite the permits that were sitting on his desk, I became very frustrated at the reluctance. As other Members have said, there seemed to be more of a concern about the environmentalists in Toronto than there was a concern about whether or not people in the Yukon were going to be able to start their jobs, buy supplies, buy gas and food, and get on with their lives.

I found that a very frustrating experience, and I want the Member for Klondike to know that there are many Members in this House who share his frustrations and have also had equally frustrating experiences dealing with government.

My understanding of this particular issue is that there is some urgency to having it dealt with because there has been so much work in the past years to get some realistic regulations in place. Now that there seems to be some kind of agreement among all the groups involved, it is important that we take some steps in a positive direction and get something finalized before another federal election is called. That does not give us a lot of time.

Perhaps, if this House urges the federal government to proceed, we can have some influence that way — as we are urging them to proceed with the land claims settlement.

We do not want to have to start the process all over again under a new federal government. I, personally, will be doing what I can, as a Member of this Assembly, to make requests that things proceed as quickly as possible.

We are also faced with some difficulties at the political level. In many instances, what we need at the political level are politicians who are prepared to make choices. I think in some cases, when you are trying to balance and trade off environmental concerns and issues, as opposed to business and development issues, it would be refreshing if we could find a politician or two who could just make a choice and stand up and enunciate that choice and let people get on with their lives. That seems to be a rare thing these days. It is hoped that the electorate will be wiser in choosing their politicians and will be careful that they choose people who can take positions, and who can represent the interests of people who are voting for them.

We are talking about small business here and the ability of small businesses to fulfill all the requirements that are needed just to start and carry on with their business as each placer mining season presents itself. Because I feel so strongly that small businesses, particularly family businesses — ma and pa businesses or whatever people choose to refer to them as — have limited resources, particularly limited time, I agree completely with the Member for Klondike that they do not have time to sit down and fill out reams and reams of paperwork and applications. I do not think they should have to hire consultants to do that for them either. In many instances, businesses are now faced with having to hire accountants and use more sophisticated accounting procedures because of tax laws and changes to the federal tax laws.

I think it would be incumbent on the federal government to put a system in place that small businesses could actually deal with in an efficient manner.

I have three recommendations to make to the federal government and to the committees who are pursuing this particular initiative. My first recommendation to them would be that they ensure that the procedure is a simplified one, so that small businesses can do it themselves, and can do it without having the procedure to be a very time-consuming one, as well as expensive because they have to hire expertise. My second recommendation would be that, once the paperwork is completed, the paperwork should pass through the process in a timely fashion. It should not be held up in the bureaucracy and keep people from actually proceeding with their work, particularly because it is seasonal work. My third and final recommendation is that the regulations and rules that are made and accepted should not be so rigid that they are absolutely impossible to achieve. I think in many instances that is what the problem was here. The demands and rules being placed by departments like Fisheries were just so rigid and they were asking for so much that is was impossible for a placer miner to comply with them and still keep themselves in operation.

In fact, I have had constituents who were placer miners and were unable to operate in the last year, and they probably will not be able to operate this year, because of rigid rules.

I think we have to be very careful that there is some common sense and practicality applied, and that the standards requested are standards that can actually be achieved. I will not take up any more time; I will give the time to other Members to state their positions on the record, so that we can proceed to other motions. Again, I thank the Member for presenting the motion for debate and wish him well on the final vote.

Ms. Joe: It has been two weeks since we debated this motion in the House. I remember taking all kinds of notes and wanting to respond to many things that were said.

First of all, I would like to thank the Member for Klondike for bringing this motion to the House, and for giving us a long history of the Yukon, the Klondike gold rush and many other things that went along with it.

I do not know if I am a real Yukoner or not but, when I first came to the Yukon in 1965, one of the very first things I did during my first few months here was to spend a lot of time at the library reading about the Dawson gold rush.

There are stories and diaries written by many people. I was absolutely impressed and, every time I read a book, I could almost see the history passing before my eyes. The first time I ever went to Dawson, the first thing I did was to go to Klondike Creek.

I have always been a fan of Dawson City, and I think it is one of the more interesting places to visit — that is not saying anything about all the other places in the Yukon, because they are also interesting.

One of the things I found lacking, as I was reading about the history of Dawson during the gold rush, was history about First Nations people. I found that lacking in almost every single book I picked up. I know that was not intentional, but I found out that it was something that might have been put in book form, and we should have been able to read the history of the First Nations people from that area.

The First Nations people in the Yukon suffered a great social change due to the gold rush. The gold rush was an onslaught of many tens of thousands of people who came to Dawson during that period of time.

One of the things that happened is that First Nation people did take advantage of the gold rush. They were employed doing many things, such as packing goods over the Chilkoot Pass. According to some of the history that I read in a book entitled Part of the Land, Part of the Water, which gives a great history of the First Nations people of the Yukon, even young children carried some of those small packs for the gold seekers. The men hunted for meat to sell in Dawson, they signed on as deck hands, and they cut wood. The women sewed mukluks, jackets and moccasins for the newcomers — they were entrepreneurs, even during that time.

They also, and I am sure he is familiar with this history as well, being a Dawsonite himself, cut wood and floated it down to Dawson to sell to white businessmen for fuel. One of the other things it did was to give families a chance to learn a new language — English.

Having come to the Yukon in 1965, I did not know anything about mining, either hard rock or placer. I grew up in an area where I did not have an opportunity to meet miners. It was with great delight that I learned a new part of the country and the history of it.

There has been, in the past, some controversy over whether or not mining was going to ruin the environment and in some cases people have suggested that that has happened. Certainly most of us here have the deepest respect for the environment, right across the country and all over the world. We are always looking at ways to improve the system to make sure that we are not causing a lot of ruin in the country.

It was even suggested, from the Member for Watson Lake, that our party, or former Cabinet, might not have been in full support of placer mining and I do not think whether or not every single Member agrees with something has any relevance because I am sure that they do not all agree with every decision that is made. What we do have is respect for the different geographical areas of the Yukon, the economy in those areas and the people who are part of that economy. I certainly want to see the continuation of placer mining in that part of the Yukon and I will continue to offer my support for that; I will continue to hold a strong view of the environment and what placer mining might do.

I am certainly in favour of the motion in the House that the committee recommend realistic placer mining regulations that will promote the development and growth of the placer mining industry while protecting the Yukon’s fishery resource. As a fisherperson, who loves the sport, certainly I would agree with that because I certainly want to be able to fish when I go to Dawson or anywhere else in the Yukon.

I will not speak long. I want the Member to know that I do appreciate his bringing this motion forward, and I do appreciate the long, very important speech he made that gave me a lot more information than I had prior to hearing him.

I will sit down and I will be supporting the motion.

Hon. Mr. Fisher: I, too, for the benefit of the Member opposite, am a fisherperson. I would like it to go on record that I fully support realistic placer mining regulations that will promote the development and growth of the placer mining industry while protecting the Yukon fishery resource.

We have all seen the glossy magazine pictures and accompanying articles depicting the environmental and aesthetic damage caused by mining activities, or the TV documentaries essentially created to lead viewers into believing that any operation in a remote location is environmentally unfriendly. I saw photos used in one CBC-TV documentary that attempted to lead viewers to believe that miners were at fault when, in reality, these pictures were taken on the North Canol Road and the damage was caused by the armed forces during the Second World War.

Many unknowing people in Europe and North America, as well as a lot of our own federal bureaucrats, believe that all mines are environmentally devastating, because of adverse propaganda, such as I have just described. I do not feel that there should be no regulations with respect to maintaining water quality, but I do think that the regulations should be reasonable.

The Thames River, in England, was likely the most polluted river in the world. It was polluted with industrial chemical waste, sewage, agricultural waste and a host of other pollutants. That pollution had been there, to various degrees, since before the Norman invasion in 1066 — over 1,000 years. There were no fish in the river, and even migratory birds did not use it. A few years ago, in the early 1970s, the people in England decided they were going to clean this river up. In 15 short years, England was able to reverse the situation. Now, the upper reaches of the Thames River again abound with fish and migratory birds.

The placer miners do not discharge harmful chemicals, nor sewage, into the creeks. They merely disturb the creek bed and cause solids to enter the stream, which settle out and cause little, if any, harmful effect on the fish that also use the creek. Anyone who has been on the White River or has even simply observed the Takhini River west of Whitehorse, is well aware that more natural solids enter those waters than is caused by all the placer mining in the Yukon. It has been said that either the spring thaw in the Yukon or a heavy summer rainfall will put far more solids into a stream than a placer miner does in a whole season.

My colleague, the Member for Klondike, has told this House that less than five percent of the creeks in the Yukon have mining activity. As most placer areas are known and mapped, it is unlikely that this number will increase, at least dramatically. The creeks that are mined now, in most cases, have been mined for nearly 100 years, yet there is no proof at all that the mining industry has adversely affected the fish population in the receding bodies of water.

I fully support realistic placer mining regulations and urge the Implementation Review Committee to recommend regulations that provide reasonable goals that will result in an opportunity for a very viable industry to pursue its objectives.

Ms. Moorcroft: I am pleased to be able to speak to this very important motion before us today. Indeed, it explores some very topical and relevant issues facing the Yukon today.

Mining is crucial to the economic life-blood of our territory and provides a job pool upon which we depend for our economic survival. However, I am pleased to see that this motion respects the important requirement to protect the Yukon’s fishery resource. The Yukon’s fish reserve is as important to the territory as mining is. I believe that, by considering and respecting these two different resources, it will be possible to work in harmony.

While I am not going to rival the Member for Klondike in the length of my speech, I do have a few words to say.

The Member for Klondike gave us a history lesson in introducing this motion. I would like to add some missing pieces to that history. On August 17, 1896, George Carmack and his Indian brothers-in-law, Tagish Charlie and Skookum Jim, staked a claim. What he failed to tell this House is that George Carmack had been prospecting since 1889 with his Tagish wife, Kate.

Before the arrival of the white people, the Athapaskans were matrolineal, meaning that lines of ancestry were traced through the kinship of the mother, or the female line. When George Carmack left Carcross to prospect the northern Yukon and did not return, Kate’s brothers left to look for her and her white husband.

It is just as possible that Kate discovered the first gold nuggets on Bonanza Creek in 1896 as that George or Charlie or Jim did. Nevertheless, George Carmack, Tagish Charlie and Skookum Jim staked claims No. 1 above and No. 1 below Discovery in 1896. The three men were partners in a lucrative gold operation until 1900, when Carmack sold out cheap. Carmack had, however, transferred most of his assets to Seattle properties in the name of his new American wife.

The Bonanza Creek area was staked by miners already prospecting at Fortymile throughout the 1896-1897 winter. When the first ships full of gold arrived in the ports of Seattle and San Francisco in 1897, a mad rush of humanity to the Klondike River valley began. Outfitted in the Lower 48, most stampeders hiked over the Chilkoot Trail from Skagway. The Royal Northwest Mounted Police required each person crossing the Canadian border to bring 2,000 pounds of supplies with them, a measure to prevent mass starvation. Indian packers could be hired to help carry gear over the Pass. At Lake Lindeman, a tent city erupted as the stampeders built rafts and boats while waiting for the lakes and rivers to thaw.

By 1898, Dawson City boasted a population of 40,000 — more than the total Yukon population today. William Ogilvie was sent to serve as Commissioner, collect gold royalties and administer the new Yukon Territory, carved out of the Northwest Territories. A territorial council was appointed under the Yukon Act, 1898. In 1900, the White Pass and Yukon Route railway was completed, linking tidewater at Skagway with the head of navigation on the Yukon River at Whitehorse. Many aboriginal people participated, working as steamboat deck-hands, longshore workers, woodcutters at the wood camps that fuelled the riverboats between Whitehorse and Dawson City, and as dredge and sawmill workers. Indian women made and sold mittens, moccasins and baskets. A group of Peel River Indians came over to Dawson City from Fort McPherson to work.

Repeatedly, the Member for Klondike stated that the Yukon Territory was born because of gold, that because of the gold rush thus began a stable Yukon population. Perhaps the Member has not been listening to his colleague, the Member for Vuntut Gwich’in. There has been a stable aboriginal population in the Yukon for as long as 20,000 years.

The Klondike Han, whose summer fish camp was located at the confluence of the Klondike and Yukon rivers, were displaced by the Klondike gold rush to Moosehide, three miles downriver from Dawson City. The federal government set aside about 160 acres of land at Moosehide as a reserve. The Anglican Church, which had been at Fortymile since the 1880s, established a mission school at Moosehide.

Far from being stable, the white population declined significantly after 1903. In 1902, Chief Jim Boss, hereditary chief of the southern Yukon Indian tribes, declared the right of Yukon Indians to compensation because white people had taken possession of their lands and hunting grounds. T.W. Jackson, a Whitehorse lawyer, wrote to the superintendent general of Indian Affairs on behalf of Chief Boss.

At that time, the Canadian government paid no heed to the First Nations’ claim to the land. The passage of land claims and self-government legislation in this House, earlier this session, is witness to the stable population and sovereignty of First Nations people long before the Klondike gold rush.

The Member for Klondike spoke with great passion about long soup lines that illustrated poverty and despair. He referred to unemployment and how gold mining is an important means of creating employment.

In 1937, there was an early Yukon labour standards law, entitled Ordinance Regulating the Hours of Labour and the Minimum Wage to be Paid in Mining Operations. Under that ordinance, hours of work could not exceed eight hours in 24, or 56 hours in a seven-day week. The minimum wage was 50 cents per hour. Overtime was permissible at an overtime rate of 56 cents per hour. The employer had to furnish proper room and board, or pay the employee an extra $2 per day. This law established minimum responsibilities and obligations for all employers at mining operations. Even today, these are disputed under current employment standards legislation.

Perhaps the Member for Klondike — given his concern about history repeating itself — would support a move to guarantee adequate accommodation, or payment in lieu of proper room and board, to mine employees, as was the case in 1937.

Placer mining is important to the NDP. While in government, this commitment was demonstrated through a variety of initiatives which, because mining is a federal responsibility, it was not obligated to carry out. However, the NDP government believed in the industry and made moves to prove this. The previous government worked with the placer industry associations, the Chamber of Mines, international markets, and supplied hundreds of thousands of dollars to Yukon placer miners.

Through the Yukon mining incentive program, which assists prospectors, exploration companies and placer miners, we supported, in 1991-92, $682,000 for 53 projects, with $400,000 of that money for 24 placer operations. In 1990-91, the YMIP supported 53 projects, and $223,000 of that money was for 21 placer operations.

The former NDP government also negotiated cost-sharing projects with the federal government, through the Economic Development Agreement, at the request of the Klondike Placer Miners Association.

It is clear from the comments of Opposition Members that mining is important to the Yukon. The environment is also important, and I say again how pleased I am that the government, in the wording of Motion No. 25, is also committed to this. Last week, we heard from the Government House Leader that the Yukon Party supported the Environment Act.

The Member for Klondike expressed dismay about the placer mining businesses being bombarded and abused with more regulations and legislation. I agree with him that there have to be reasons for regulations. The Yukon Arctic and sub-Arctic are fragile environments, yet the wilderness still supports a variety of fish, birds, mammals and flora.

The growth in wilderness tourism indicates the value of the land and the water, the mountains and the sky. Yukoners struggle to define an acceptable compromise between economic development and preservation of our historical, cultural and physical resources.

The Yukon’s fishery resource is one that must not be put in jeopardy. Our First Nations’ cultural survival depends on it. Many of the territory’s first citizens rely heavily on the assumption that our rivers and lakes will continue to produce and provide healthy, non-polluted fish. It is my hope that we will not continue to discover toxins in our fish and we must do what we can to take a preventive approach to this problem.

I find it reassuring to see mining associations, environmentalists and First Nations groups working together to find common ground, to respect differences and cooperate.

The Yukon Mining Advisory Committee is a broad-based coalition made up of members from the mining associations, including placer miners, business, aboriginal organizations, the Yukon Conservation Society and others. They have worked together to develop land use regulations under the Quartz Mining Act and the Placer Mining Act. As the Government Leader said, miners today recognize that they must be environmentally responsible, so they chose to participate in the committee to plan regulations everyone could live with. This type of cooperation is a very favourable trend and one that I support wholeheartedly.

The motion mentions recommending realistic placer mining regulations, while protecting the Yukon’s fishery resource. I believe that with the cooperative examples set by the YMAC, this goal is attainable.

It pleases me to hear the Member for Klondike speak about the placer mining industry earning its credibility by its commitment to respecting other points of view, while working toward consensus agreement.

All Yukon people and affected groups must have a voice. Only then, can true consensus be reached.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am pleased to rise in my place today to speak in favour of the motion put forward by the Member for Klondike. This motion is appropriate today because, aside from the problems the placer mining industry is experiencing, there are fairly severe problems in the mining industry in Yukon overall. Our major mine, Curragh Inc. in Faro, is currently shut down and struggling to even survive. I think it is extremely important that we give our support at this time to the other segment of our mining industry, the placer mining industry in the territory.

We should urge the federal officials, and people involved, to consider the importance of this industry to all Yukoners and to Yukon jobs in the future.

I have lived in the Yukon all my life and I have known quite a few placer miners from time to time. Many of them are like the Member for Klondike. They are involved in family businesses. It has been a family tradition for decades where many families have passed the business down from father to son, to daughter, to other members of the family like aunts and uncles who have come in and worked in the various mines, and it has provided a very lucrative income for some of those people. It has not been without some pain. There have been many years where there was no money made, or there were losses. Yet, those people worked hard and survived and the industry is still there today.

The Member for Mount Lorne talked about her concerns regarding pollution. She mentioned the toxins in fish and the fact that we always want to have good, clean fish in our Yukon lakes and rivers. Well, it will not be the placer mining industry that will do that. The placer mining industry does not put chemicals into the water, so I do not think we have to fear the placer mining industry in those kinds of problems that we may face in the future. The sewage flowing into the Yukon River will do that. Other industrial uses will do that, but placer mining will not.

This motion is a significant one for the Member for Klondike and his constituents. Like I said, I have lived here all my life and sometimes I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the Yukon’s history — that is, until I listened to the opening speech from the Member for Klondike. That Member provided all of us here with a great deal of insight and history into not only the placer mining industry, but also the problems the placer mining industry has faced over the last several years.

He provided us with very valuable information on the placer mining industry and those issues, and I thank him for that.

The placer mining industry has deep roots in the Yukon, and it is probably the main reason that most of the non-native people are in the Yukon. The First Nations, of course, had an economy here before non-natives arrived, but the placer mining industry brought many of our forefathers and foremothers here many years ago. Many of us are following in their footsteps, to build an economy that those individuals started.

The significance of placer mining is just as important today as it was almost 100 years ago when gold was discovered. It has contributed immensely to Yukon’s economy and still is today. It is not only a contribution to the mining economy but to the tourism economy of Yukon.

We are now starting to embark upon the decade of anniversaries. Mr. Speaker, I  know you have spent a great deal of time in Dawson City, and that 1996 and 1998 will be great years of celebration as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the discovery of gold and the 100th anniversary of the gold rush. I know that those two events will bring millions of dollars in tourism to this territory. We will be rich from those celebrations for many years to come.

I know that the spinoff from the Alaska Highway anniversary appears to be well on its way. It looks like this year will be as good a year as last year, barring some unforeseen disasters in the world to prevent people from coming here. All indications are that it is going to be a great year for tourism, and I would expect that as more people understand and hear about the anniversary celebrations for the gold rush, and the discovery of gold, that those types of spinoffs will carry on for many years to come after the celebrations are over.

I think it is probably one of the few events in history — the discovery of gold — that is known throughout the world. Many people know of Robert Service and the history of the Klondike and are looking forward to coming back, in 1996 and 1998, and partaking in those celebrations. I think that alone shows us in the Yukon that we owe a great deal of gratitude to the initial discoverers of gold, the placer miners of yesteryear and the placer miners of today for carrying on their tradition.

It is somewhat ironic that it is almost 100 years after the discovery of gold in the Klondike and we are here debating the future of this industry in the Yukon today. Regulations have always been a problem for the placer miners, not because they do not like them or will not obey them, but because they are never certain what will change next. I have known a great many placer miners in my time and I can say to you that they care greatly about the Yukon and would not deliberately harm the environment in any way.

It seems that when we deal with placer mining regulations and the problems we are told placer mining brings to the Yukon environment, we always seem to be dealing with nameless or faceless bureaucrats who never lived here, never will live here and are somewhere off in the great beyond. They have meetings in Vancouver or Ottawa and the placer miners must feel like they are fighting for their survival year after year. We have to provide some certainty to that industry in the very near future.

As many of you know, for many years I have been concerned with and involved in the protection of our fish stocks — specifically salmon. I know that these fish do need protection, especially of their habitat. The most important thing to those fish is their habitat. There are some areas where I believe that no industrial activity should take place, for the protection of these fish. That should not mean that because there is one fish in a creek that no activity could take place at all.

This is the 1990s; there are new and more modern methods of mining. Miners are more environmentally sensitive to the problems that mining can create. I think we can be environmentally sensitive in many areas. We need regulations to provide for that protection. We need to protect our habitat and our fish, so these regulations have to be reasonable and they have to make sense. That is all placer miners are looking for. They are looking for some certainty.

I would hope that government officials and others will consider the importance of the placer mining industry in the Yukon when they develop the new regulations. This has gone on far too long. It is time to adopt sensible and reasonable placer mining regulations to lead us into the 21st century and give more certainty to the placer mining industry.

Mr. Penikett: I am pleased to join this debate for a few minutes. I would like to begin by observing that it may not have been the single word, “gold”, that set off the Klondike gold rush, but the phrase, “a ton of gold”, by a reporter describing the arrival in Seattle of the first bounty from the creeks of the Klondike, which proves only that writers, including that reporter and people like Jack London, Robert Service and Pierre Burton, also contributed to the gold rushes as well as miners, and helped to make the Yukon what it is today.

I would ask your indulgence in addressing this question today, that I think it is necessary to understand that you cannot really talk about the Yukon placer mining industry without talking about the Yukon mining scene in general. I think it is rather difficult to talk about gold, without also talking about other minerals that are part of our mining way of life.

To state the obvious, the industry faces enormous and quite complex challenges in the 1990s. I do not believe that the attitudes of the 1950s, nor the philosophy of the 1950s, will give us what we need to address the realities of the 1990s. In speaking to this motion today, I would like to draw on the thinking of some intelligent people in some of our neighbouring jurisdictions to address the problems that we have. I think there are things that we can learn from what is happening elsewhere in our region.

I think it is quite obvious that to address the problems of the 1990s, all of us are going to need new strategies to deal with the mining sector. I think these strategies apply, as the Member for Riverdale North has just indicated, as much to the placer industry as they do to the mining industry in general. The attitudes about the environment, social responsibility and the desirability of sustainability have changed enormously in the last generation.

People I respect are arguing that there are really three key priorities in dealing with some of the problems the industry faces. First of all, we need to create a good climate for badly needed mineral exploration. Secondly, we need to do what we can to improve the competitiveness of the mineral producing sector. Thirdly, over the longer term, we need to improve the social and economic performance of this sector in terms of higher value added, better resource recovery and other socio-economic indicators.

I think there are a lot of things that governments such as ours can do to work with the industry. The first of these is to actually be involved together in a dialogue with each other and the public. I do think there is a need for better public understanding of the industry and the contributions the industry makes and I disagree with those who say that no more studies are needed and that we should just get on with the job. I do not think either the hard pro-development voices nor the hard anti-development voices are right in some of their claims about the effects, benefits or the costs of the mining industry in an area like ours, and I think there are many future development opportunities for the industry and there are opportunities to improve its competitiveness and its environmental performance.

We also have to realize that there is a certain amount of cynicism abroad about the mining industry. I do not claim that this is all the mining industry’s fault but I have been to many places in North America where people are almost viscerally anti-mining because of their perceptions of the beliefs about what mining does to the environment. Rightly or wrongly, they have an unfair image of mining. If one goes to the United States, it is quite common to hear Mark Twain’s description of a mine — the Member for Klondike is looking interested and, just for the record, I will quote it — and if I am quoting correctly, it is “a hole in the ground with a liar on top”.

There are a lot of negative feelings about the mining industry out there, and I want to talk about them. Even recently — witness an editorial in the Whitehorse Star — there was evidence of this cynicism when criticism was made of the Chamber of Mines, something to the effect that there was nothing in the new Yukon government’s budget but they supported it anyway. Similarly, after the change of government last fall, the manager of the Chamber of Mines was quoted as saying something partisan or negative about the previous government.

My guess is that most responsible leaders in industry associations recognize that they have to be much more professional in their dealings with governments, whatever their political stripe, and in their dealings with organizations such as environmental groups or aboriginal organizations than they used to be. The simple-minded political response will not get them very far with today’s public.

Obviously, there are some very key irritants affecting the mining industry here — not the least, the placer mining industry. Obviously, among them are the whole crises facing companies like Curragh and the crisis that has been ongoing for some time for the placer mining industry: whether or not the regulatory burden and the cost of meeting those regulations are going to enable it to survive and function here.

There are questions — or have been questions — about land and land tenure, which I want to say something more about. I believe we have gone a long way toward addressing those in terms of the land claims agreements, which we have been involved in negotiating the last few years. I think we have come a long way toward providing certainty about title to land and resources in those negotiations — something that cannot exist while the claims are under negotiation. We have, in those agreements, negotiated arrangements like surface rights boards and development assessment processes and other mechanisms to bring comfort to both the industry and the landowners.

Clearly, as we analyze what is happening in the world economy nowadays, we also have to understand the need to focus our efforts in areas like exploration and identifying key opportunities.

It is quite true that the federal government still has jurisdiction in this field for most of what we are talking about today, and they will cling to it tenaciously at some level at the constitutional table. I know this from discussions last summer; however, the federal government is also interested in deficit cutting. They are quite willing to off-load administrative responsibilities onto provinces and territories. As long as the terms are right, there will be opportunities for us to take more and more responsibility in the area of administering issues, programs and policies concerning the mining industry over the next few years. I think the mining industry would want that, but so also would all Yukoners, because it gives them greater opportunity for a say.

In general terms, we are also going to be seeing here something that is very desirable: an increasing number of opportunities for partnerships between the aboriginal community and the mining industry. We have seen some beginnings in the arrangements around Sa Dena Hes and some of the other properties that may be coming into production in the next few years. However, I think also that we will have to extend this sense of partnership to the people who live and work in the existing communities. When we are negotiating arrangements that involve First Nations and their lands and the companies they are going to be developing, the resources under those lands, we also need to be making sure that we involve other people in the neighbouring communities and the unions representing the workers in the industry.

Everywhere we are talking about mining, whether gold mining or base metal mining, there is a lot of concern about levels of taxation as they affect our competitive position.

I want to say more about that later. It seems to me that one of the few advantages the Yukon has had in recent years has been our relatively low rates of taxation. The fact that we had the lowest rates in a number of categories was to our advantage. The fact that we are now raising those rates will affect our competitive position negatively, and I think that is indisputable.

One of the most difficult and painful questions affecting the mining industry is the whole question of reclamation policies. The Member for Klondike is quite right that, in some sense, the tailings left over from the first run of the gold rush are, in themselves, a tourist attraction. He will also know, as a resident of Dawson — I am a former resident of Dawson — that there are tourists who will come and see placer operations where there is a large amount of material being moved, or a course of a river affected, who are not always inspired or attracted by what they see. The Member is quite right in talking about the extent to which a casual observer may misunderstand the long-term impacts. It is also true that the impact of placer mining on tourism is a little more complex than he has indicated.

In national terms, the problem is simply colossal. Some years ago, the Canadian Mining Association offered a few million dollars to deal with the problem of reclaiming sites where there was a problem of acid wastes. It was interesting that, almost within a week of the industry making the offer of several million dollars — I think the number was $5 million, but I cannot be completely sure — the federal government put out a report indicating the scale of the problem in Canada. The federal report claimed that, in fact, it was a $5 billion problem.

We would be naive here if we did not recognize that there is a significant body of public opinion that sees those kinds of problems as very serious problems of social responsibility, and which does not believe that we should be passing on the costs of that kind of clean-up to future generations. This is the kind of issue I think we need to talk very frankly about with the industry in the next few years.

Obviously, following the Friday and Monday news about the Curragh layoff notices and its bankruptcy protection application to court, we also have to be thinking about the community and labour adjustments, as mines open and mines close. From the beginning of our administration, my colleague, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini and a former miner, in his capacity as Minister of Education, was trying to work very hard for the industry on jointly-sponsored training programs to make sure that the skills miners had acquired on one property gave them mobility to move on to other areas in the Yukon.

The fact is, most of the operating mines here in Yukon either want to train their own employees, or if they wanted government assistance, they wanted it for either company-specific or site-specific training. That is not always the kind of training that employees need if they are to have a skill that is portable.

It is important to recognize the history of gold mining in the Yukon, but it is also important to understand that mining has been our leading export sector for a number of years — if you like, the cornerstone of our modern, industrial economy. It is also important to recognize that in some of the ways that I have mentioned, mining is in trouble; not only gold mining. It is the case, in the region in which we live, which includes Alaska, the Northwest Territories and most of western Canada, that many of the mines that are now operating are going to be closing in the next few years as their reserves are depleted. That is a problem, when you match that fact to the fact that exploration has also been declining, not only in Yukon, but everywhere in our region. This is a problem for both precious metals and base metals.

I believe there is a lot of ground for optimism. I think there are some basic strengths in the industry and I do think — while we have only had, in recent years, one world-class mine in Yukon: at Faro — we have the potential for more world-class mineral developments, including gold properties, in the next few years, and I think we have something to contribute in placer mining technologies and technical innovations in other parts of the sector.

I come back to my main point. I think we need more complex, subtle strategies to deal with the situation in the 1990s. We are not dealing with a economic environment that is anything like the situation that applied in the 1950s. We need to make sure that governments like ours are sensitive to the effects of their decisions on the mining industry. We also have to recognize that in a fiercely competitive, global economy we have to do everything we reasonably can to make sure there is a healthy climate for exploration and for operators in the Yukon, and that we do what we can to help make the operators competitive.

We also need to understand that mineral policies — the policies that will apply to industries like the placer industry — are in line with the public’s desire for modern and progressive environmental legislation and that the policies are also consistent with the vast majority of our citizens’ social goals, as well.

To survive, the industry, here and everywhere else in the country, has to have public support. I believe that public support can only be earned by the industry recognizing the social realities of the 1990s — the public’s wish to live in an environment with clean air and water. In this territory — we know this from the Yukon 2000 exercise — the vast majority of our citizens, including placer miners, see fishing as one of the principal forms of recreation.

We need strategies to ensure development opportunities for growth in the mineral sector. We need to make sure that we understand the new markets that are emerging and the potential for new products and technologies.

There are many ways by which a government like ours can contribute to that. They include everything from putting the kind of work we have put into negotiating and settling land claims here in a way that responds to some of the needs and wishes of the industry. We can also do it in very direct ways, by the support of such programs as have been developed by the YTG over the last few years, whether it was taking over the prospectors assistance program from the federal government when they dropped it, whether it is through the mineral incentives program, or whether it is through the development agreements we negotiated for opening the mine at Faro, Sa Dena Hes or Ketza River, or whether it is through the electrical infrastructure program announced by a former colleague, the Hon. Maurice Byblow, or whether it was by negotiating instruments like the Surface Rights Board or a one-window, expeditious-development-assessment process, which we tried to negotiate into the land claims agreement, as well as considering it in the Environment Act or, when we were debating that act, making sure that regulations that might affect the industry would not be put in place without full consultation with the people affected. There are many ways we can contribute.

We can also contribute by effectively lobbying the federal government to make sure that regulations that apply to the industry here are realistic and attainable — I want to say more about that. In the end, the big challenge for the placer industry is to see the great Gordian knot of legislation — including the waters act, the quartz act, the placer act, lands act, regulations, licences, and that whole regulatory confusion, — ultimately replaced by something clear, definite and effective in terms of environmental protection regulations for the industry.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in the Yukon is at least 100 years old. The Member for Klondike talked about Yukon history beginning with the Klondike gold rush. I think there are those in this House who would find that an ethnocentric point of view and would argue that aboriginal people were finding and employing metals in this territory for many thousands of years before the Klondike gold rush.

However, it is true that the modern history of this territory really did begin with the Klondike gold rush, and the character of this territory is affected by that, even today.

It is important, though, to see the mining industry not just as an industry with a history but also to see it as one with a future, and that future depends on us being able to discover new ore bodies and to see them come into production successfully. That, of course, involves ensuring that every step of the journey from discovery to production in the development of a mine is a logical and necessary step. The territorial government, the federal government, as well as the First Nations, the industry and the affected communities all have a role to play in making that a reality.

This territory was, of course, once known for its gold but, until recently, exports were more involved with lead and zinc; we have also had a history of silver and copper mining and the mining of lead as well as zinc. Everybody here knows that our two largest mines, until recently, were lead and zinc mines but it is quite possible that, with their closure, when we look at the economic statistics a year from now — and I say this with regret — gold may be king again, or number one again, because of the tragedy that has affected the mines at Faro and Watson Lake.

To state the obvious, I think over half of our exports are made up of mineral products, largely to Pacific Rim nations, Japan and Korea, but also to some extent to Europe. Most of our exports are in the form of concentrates and that, in itself, is a problem because the lack of further processing means that we are not getting the value added to our products or to the exports; we are not maximizing the value added and therefore we are not achieving the maximum possible value added and thereby the maximum possible sustainability that we might enjoy here.

The industry here employs, or has employed until recently, at least 1,000 people directly and probably 3,000 indirectly. As the Member for Klondike said, there are dozens and dozens of placer mining operations and there are probably hundreds of people involved in working in those operations every year.

Workers in the mineral sector are relatively well paid and that is an important point I want to come back to later. It is also true that many communities in the Yukon have a history of mining. Someone once said that it was interesting that, after only 100 years of non-native settlement in the Yukon, there were already more ghost towns than there were living communities; but it is true that many of our living communities, whether it is Whitehorse or Burwash or Dawson or Mayo or Elsa or Faro or Watson Lake, have been associated with the mining industry over the years and associated not only with gold and silver but also with tungsten and asbestos, lead, zinc and copper.

It is important to understand that the mining industry, including the placer industry, are key contributors to service industries in Whitehorse — including equipment supplier, geological engineering companies, banks, law firms, accounting firms, and anyone else who provides mining-related goods and services — and are all an important part of the economy here in Whitehorse. I would guess that the transportation of concentrates out of this territory makes up by far the largest part of the transportation industry in the Yukon, too, so the impacts here are very important.

The people involved in the mineral sector, whether they are people who are running placer mines — and the Member for Klondike gave us an example of how complex the management skills are for placer mining now, given the regulatory burden and the kind of paper work they have to handle — require skills that are very technical. That is also true of people who work in mines like Faro, whether they are working in the mill, the production line, maintenance or in the management offices.

I think for us here in the Yukon to remain competitive in the mining industry we have to ensure that we have, for years and years to come, well-trained, well-educated workers. We have to understand that we have a responsibility as a community to guarantee that.

I must say that I was very disappointed to hear a very long-term placer miner here, who is in fact not a resident but who placer mines here, complain to me about how much money we spend on education. I had a frank discussion with him. I told him he was wrong because I think the future of the whole industry depends upon having a well-educated population. I thought this particular gentleman was wrong, especially since he did not live here or pay income taxes here, to criticize the amount we were spending on education, because I think the only way we can guarantee a future for the industry is if we have young people coming out of our schools and college system who have the skills necessary to go to work in the mining industry and who are ready to contribute for years to come.

We also need to talk about revenues. We are not talking about the budget today but we all have taxes on our mind. I mentioned earlier that the Yukon tax rates are relatively low. Federal tax rates have been rising the last few years and the burden of tax has been moving away from the corporations onto individuals. Taxes like the GST have certainly affected industries like placer mining.

It is interesting to reflect that we do have relatively low royalties. In fact I was told by a federal official — I do not know if this is still true — that in all the years that mineral royalties have been collected in the Yukon there were only two years in which the actual revenues from the royalties actually exceeded the administrative cost of collecting them. The reason is that the royalties are relatively low.

I could tell an interesting story about royalties and gold mining. I would have to stray just over the border to Atlin. There was a Minister of Mines from British Columbia, about 20 years ago, who was being royally — some would say appropriately — abused by the miners in the Atlin area for some new tax that was being imposed by the provincial government.

He went to that community to have a public meeting. In the public meeting, the Minister of Mines sat at a table at this town meeting and listened as one after another miner got up and blasted him, telling him how this new tax was going to add $10,000 to their costs that year. Another miner said that $10,000 was nothing and that it was going to cost him $20,000. Another said that $20,000 was nothing and that it was going to cost him $50,000. The evening went on and on until everyone had their say. The Minister finally got up and said that he was extremely confused by what he had heard that night, because he kept a record of what was said. According to what they had said, the extra taxes on the Atlin gold placer miners was going to be in the order of a magnitude of several million dollars. This was difficult for him to explain because there was only $1 million in production reported out of that area the year previous. Most of the people left quietly shortly after that and went off into the night, leaving the Minister to deal with the perplexing problem of the tax burdens of the industry. I am sure that nothing like that would ever happen in the Yukon.

It is important for us to understand, as we look at our revenues, that one of the sources of revenue for us as a territory has been the taxes from the employees of the industry. The employees in this industry have been relatively well paid. I would argue that, for fiscal reasons among others, we have an interest in seeing that the employees in this industry be relatively well paid and, therefore, well trained, because it is well-trained workers who would be able to command those kinds of wages.

As you know, we cannot talk about the gold mining industry, or any part of the mining industry now, outside of the context of the global realities. The vast majority of the output of this territory goes to world markets and is sold at prices that, I would argue, are almost totally beyond our control. It has been argued that if we simply develop the infrastructure and make this an attractive place to invest by putting in roads, making power available and having a skilled workforce available and have programs like flow-through shares to attract investment, we will be assured of success. The problem is, because we cannot control prices or what investors are doing, even if we wanted to, that strategy in and of itself will not succeed; it is what my colleague, the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, has called the field-of-dreams strategy. It is the argument that if we build it, they will come. He has witnessed, of course, in his former constituency of Mayo, what happened when we improved the road to the mine at Elsa, built a dam to supply power to that mine, the federal government put millions of dollars in through flow-through shares to develop new ore bodies and we built a curling rink for the people of that community — these people had received practically nothing from the territorial government, even though they had been paying taxes to it for 50 or so years.

The chairman of the board of the operating company woke up with a headache one morning and shut the town down, sending some people packing who had been born and lived in that town for the best part of 40 years. There are some decisions that we cannot control.

Even the supplying of the necessary infrastructure of transportation, energy — even with the generous application of flow-through shares money — we could not bring those mines into production today, because silver prices are too low. While the new owner, I think, has developed some proposals on how the mines could come into production, I would guess the price would have to come up quite a bit before they would be profitable operations.

Most of our important minerals, and this includes gold, are facing lower prices in world markets. These market pressures reflect the impact of the economic recession that has been taking place, and we have to deal with that reality. We have to deal with the trends in world demand. We have to recognize that there are some things that we can control and some things that we cannot. We have to recognize that there are new supplies of mineral resources in the world — many of them in Latin America. We have to recognize that capital is highly mobile. We have to recognize the realities of our competitive position. We have to recognize the comments from the Member for Kluane that mines open and mines close, but we also have to recognize that we cannot talk mines into production.

We have to recognize that our strengths include political stability, strong business infrastructure, relatively high-skilled work force, attractive geological potential, fairly good transportation infrastructure, and energy — which is perhaps not as attractive as the industry would like to see, but let us say if Curragh goes down, we are going to have a large supply of hydro-electric energy.

We have had some negatives and uncertainties. We have had high labour costs from some people’s point of view. We have had increased federal taxes. We have had the regulatory burden and the complexity of the regulatory situation, which has been a real problem for the placer industry — in particular, the myriad of federal laws and regulations.

In conclusion, I want to say that we have to recognize all of these realities; we have to recognize that a major new mine with the scope of Faro would take $100 million of investment before it came into production. We have to encourage companies like Curragh to be reinvesting in developing new ore bodies, in places like the Yukon when they are here. We have to encourage innovation, value-added processing and long-term exploration.

In fairness, we have to recognize what has been done, and I will close with this point.

In the last few years, even though the Yukon government does not have jurisdiction, we have funded the prospectors assistance program, the mineral incentives program, off-road fuel tax cuts, the roads to resources transportation program — which has just been cut by the new government — the energy infrastructure program, development agreements for Faro, Ketza River and Sa Dena Hes, the development assessment process, the Environment Act and land claims, settling claims and we have contributed money to organizations such as Klondike Placer Miners Association.

The territorial government has not always received credit for doing that, but I think if we are going to make mining more sustainable and our communities sustainable — I think that is what people want — we are going to have to recognize and work with the mining industry.

The realities of the 1990s are different from what they were a few decades ago.

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

Mr. Millar: I have been listening today, and two weeks ago, with a great deal of interest to what everyone would have to say about the placer mining industry. I believe that some people have got a pretty good grasp of what I was trying to say, and understand a little bit about what the placer mining industry has been going through in recent history — the last 19 years — but I think there are some people in here who really missed the boat.

I am pleased almost everyone said that they were going to be supporting the motion and that everyone does realize that the placer mining industry is very important in the Yukon. That does please me, but some of the comments made by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini two weeks ago, and some of the comments made by the Member for Whitehorse Centre just now, are a real concern to me. The fact that they cannot separate the placer mining industry from the other mining industries in the territory really scares me. They are different industries. They are both mining industries, but they are very, very different from one another.

I would like to comment a little bit about some of the things that the Member for McIntyre-Takhini said. He said, “The fundamental issue, as I understand it for the placer mining industry, is that they need to be working and operating in an environment where they are aware of the pressures that they must face respecting environmental regulations.” Yes, I guess that is sort of true, but the fundamental issue, from my perspective and the placer mining perspective, is that we need to have legal certainty; we need to be able to carry on doing something that we have been doing for, in some cases, up to three generations now. That to me, is the fundamental issue.

He goes on to say that there is a considerable degree of luck involved in the placer mining industry, but I just do not buy that. To me, it is not right to put good, solid, environmentally sound regulations in the same sentence as the price of gold and the amount of gold in the ground. They are two different things. We have no control over the price of gold; we have no control over how much is in the ground, but we do have a little bit of control — especially those of us in this House — over the regulations and we should be standing up and speaking about them.

I know mining is a federal responsibility but the Yukon territorial government, through the IRC, does have a voice to be heard there.

The Member for McIntyre-Takhini said that the Minister of Economic Development had, in his own fashion, given us to believe that things had changed dramatically for the placer mining and mining industries, thanks to the last election. The Member for McIntyre-Takhini said he did not believe that statement. I can tell him, from the placer miner’s point of view, it has changed dramatically, very dramatically.

I am not trying to put down the people on the board who were representing the Yukon territorial government, because they were good people and I know them; but the direction they were given by the previous government — and I can really see it in listening to the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Member for McIntyre-Takhini — just was not the right direction. They were worrying about the wrong things. They were saying that the placer mining industry is hurting certain things, i.e. the environment and the fishing industry, but that just is not true.

I take a great deal of exception to that particular statement. I believe there has been a change in direction there.

He talked about consulting with the public and I would like to quote something from Hansard that he said about placer miners, “Of course, they also fix furnaces, plough roads and do a little work here and there to make up the balance of their income. Consequently, one should not be surprised at the anxiety of the government regulators here, when they hold public meetings in communities like Mayo.”

I guess that is true. He goes on to say that he attended meetings in the early 1980s. Again, on the subject of that change of direction of government,  I would like to know where the Members were in July and August when there were public meetings held all over the territory, and there was no one there to speak up on behalf of the placer mining industry, or even against it.

I have here a summary of those hearings. In early August, open houses were held in Whitehorse, Mayo and Dawson. These were followed by three hearings: one in Whitehorse, on August 24; one in Mayo, on August 25; and one in Dawson, on August 26.

Eighty-seven submissions were made at these hearings. There were 118 letters and briefs received by the chairman of the IRC — 74 briefs were from the placer mining industry, 21 from community groups, 20 from community and business people, and three represented the commercial fishermen and conservation interests.

There was also a petition, signed by over 2,000 people, which was given to the chairman of the IRC. That petition was analyzed. Forty-two percent of the total were from Dawson City, 75 percent of the signatures were Yukon residents, and eight percent were from outside Canada.

The back of this report is a list of the names, companies and everyone who made submissions or attended the meetings. Nowhere in this report is there mention of any of the people who were in the NDP government at that time or, for that matter, of any of them who are in that party and sitting in this House today.

There is definitely Yukon Party representation. That is significant and an important fact.

The IRC has one person from DIAND, one person from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, one person from the Yukon territorial government, and one person from the Klondike Placer Min