Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 1, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

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

Are there any tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Forestry training (Yukon) agreement

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Strengthening and diversifying the Yukon economy is a major policy commitment of our government. I am pleased to rise today to announce an important new trust fund agreement with the Canadian Institute of Forestry (Yukon).

The Yukon forestry training agreement designates $200,000 for training in the forestry industry as part of this government's overall commitment of $1.5 million for training trust funds in the 1998-99 budget.

Yukon's forests are a vital part of our natural heritage. Our government believes it is possible to develop a sustainable, community-based forest industry that provides jobs and economic opportunities for Yukon people while still maintaining the environmental integrity of our forests for the use and enjoyment of everyone.

The Yukon forest commission, which is headed by my colleague, the MLA for Watson Lake, has been extremely busy working with a wide variety of groups to develop a made-in-the-Yukon forest policy in preparation for the transfer of authority for natural resources from the federal government to Yukon control.

The forestry training agreement that was signed today will make a significant contribution toward providing a pool of well-trained workers to meet the needs of a sustainable forest industry in the territory.

Mr. Speaker, a sustainable forest industry requires a broad range of knowledge and skills, including engineering, grading, forest science and silviculture, to name just a few. With the Yukon forestry training agreement, workers in many Yukon communities will have an opportunity to acquire the skills they need to find good jobs in this important sector of the Yukon's economy. Advanced education, the Klondike chapter of the Canadian Institute of Forestry and the Yukon forest commission have been partners in finalizing this $200,000 training trust fund agreement.

A key objective in designing this agreement was to ensure that training would match the needs of individual Yukon communities. This agreement will enable the Klondike forestry chapter to work with local people to set the course for training in the industry. In the next six months, the forestry chapter will establish a training board with representatives of industry and rural communities, develop a training plan to address the industry's training needs, and establish a training fund and criteria for applications.

Mr. Speaker, this fund represents a significant investment in Yukon people and Yukon communities.

By helping prepare Yukon workers to take on new responsibilities in the forest industry, our government is creating jobs and economic opportunities now and building foundations for a stronger, more diversified economy in the future.

Thank you.

Mr. Phillips: On behalf of the Yukon Party caucus and the office of the official opposition, I rise to respond to the minister's statement regarding the Yukon forest training agreement. While we on this side of the House support training initiatives as a means to provide opportunities to acquire the skills and knowledge needed to find jobs, we believe that there must be jobs waiting for Yukoners once training is completed.

As Yukoners are aware, Yukon's forest industry has been suffering for some time as a result of not having a forest policy that's acceptable and suitable to all Yukoners. Consequently, communities such as the Town of Watson Lake have been particularly hard hit with high unemployment, no jobs and not much hope of things getting any better. This can be attributed directly to the forestry fiasco.

As outlined in A Better Way, the government made a commitment to produce a made-in-Yukon forest policy. What we have seen so far, however, is anything but that.

While in opposition, the members opposite were severely critical of the Yukon Party government for its forestry policy development process, and promised they could do better. Now that the members opposite are in government, it would appear that the only thing that's changed is their tune.

The government has been in office for over a year and a half and all we have seen is the creation of an expensive Cabinet commission that's done nothing but duplicate the work of the previous government and organized walks in the woods. Perhaps if this government would stop wandering through the woods studying bats and bugs and do something to help put Yukoners to work, maybe we could have some optimism and hope.

Again, I would like to make it clear that we, on this side of the House, are in support of training initiatives to help put Yukoners to work. But, to put Yukoners to work, we need jobs. In the forest sector, we need to create year-round jobs in the lumber manufacturing industry, as well as employ the loggers who are an integral part of the industry. In fact, just recently, this week or last week, we heard some of the loggers in the Watson Lake area expressing concern over recent federal changes, saying that they were selling their equipment and were going to have to leave, because there were going to be no opportunities for them.

To do this, we need a policy and regulation changes that will create a viable and sustainable forest industry that includes the reduction of raw log exports to keep the jobs in the Yukon, as well as an economic climate that's conducive to long-term growth.

So, while we support the minister's initiative to designate monies for training in the forest industry, we urge the Government of the Yukon to honour its election commitment to produce a comprehensive forest policy that is acceptable and suitable to all Yukoners and keeps Yukoners working.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions about the announcement that the minister made today. I would like to know from the minister how many workers they plan to train and what field are they going to be training these workers in? And will the $200,000 be solely directed to training initiatives or will the monies be directed to setting up a training board and a plan? It's important to know that because, if it has to be set up and the board has to put together the plan, $200,000 won't go very far in training very many people.

Perhaps the minister could provide some details about the Klondike chapter of the Canadian Institute of Forestry, members of the chapter, terms of reference, and how long they've been in existence.

Also, were there any discussions with the Southeast Yukon Lumberman's Association regarding this particular initiative, and what forest groups were consulted, if any?

Is the federal government providing any funds to kick in and supplement this particular training initiative or is this completely the Yukon government, and how does this initiative fit in with the Teslin alternative silviculture systems demonstration that provides training to selected First Nation members in the forestry work?

We'd like the minister, when she rises to respond, to try and answer the questions that I've posed.

Ms. Duncan: I rise to respond to today's ministerial statement on the Yukon forestry training agreement on behalf of the Yukon Liberal Party caucus.

Our caucus is supportive of a trained, knowledgeable workforce. We are even more supportive of jobs for that workforce. The difficulty that we have with today's ministerial statement is that the government has put the cart before the horse. We would have far preferred to thoroughly review the made-in-Yukon forest policy that we understand is to be announced this month by the Yukon forest commissioner prior to announcing the training trust fund. In other words, it would be helpful to know exactly what we are training people for, other than in the broad terms of the announcement of a sustainable community-based forest industry that provides jobs and economic opportunities while maintaining the environmental integrity. In other words, it would have been far more helpful to have had the opportunity to review the Yukon forest commissioner's forthcoming statement prior to the announcement of this training trust.

Perhaps the minister, in her response, could indicate a more definitive date when we will be hearing from the Yukon forest commissioner.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I wish I could say that I was surprised to hear the comments from the members opposite, but I guess it's not very surprising that they are not being supportive of a significant initiative like this one, which will benefit Yukon communities, that will benefit people who are able to take advantage of training, and it will benefit the development of the industry in the territory.

I think the Member for Riverdale North is lost in the woods. They were in government for four years. They did not make developing a forestry policy a priority. They had no accomplishments to show at the end of their term in office, and we have significant work being done on a made-in-Yukon forest policy.

This particular agreement builds partnership with industry. Training is a good place to start. I will be very happy to provide for the members opposite a copy of the agreement itself, which will answer some of their technical questions.

The federal government has not, at this time, offered to supplement the forestry training trust fund. It would certainly be nice if they did. One of the real strengths of training trust funds, which this government has supported, both during its previous term in government and in our present term in government, is that they've been a wonderful opportunity to lever money from other agencies, including the federal government on occasion, foundations, and community groups.

The forestry industry is, in setting up their training plan, going to ensure that that work is done to try and help get funds from other agencies.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm really happy to be announcing this forestry training agreement. I think it will be a really good initiative to create jobs and economic opportunities and to provide for training for a Yukon work force and a sound, sustainable forest industry development in the territory.

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: The forest cabinet commissioner.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, I would request unanimous consent to return to Tabling Returns and Documents, please.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: Unanimous consent has been granted.

The forest cabinet commissioner.

Mr. Fentie: I offer for tabling today a document on developing fire-safe communities.

Speaker: This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Faro community development fund contribution

Mr. Ostashek: On March 24, my colleague, the Member for Klondike, asked the Minister of Health and Social Services about social assistance costs in Faro and about this government's contingency plan to reduce those costs and to help the unemployed workers in Faro find new jobs.

The Minister of Economic Development chose to answer the questions and, in view of the fact that he's responsible for the Faro contingency fund, I will direct my question to him.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he can confirm the fact that he has awarded $100,000 under the CDF to the Town of Faro, with a matching $127,000 contribution from the town, to provide for a ball field, skateboard park, a giant chess board, a shelter and a mobile "weenie wagon", as well as washrooms, access roads and parking facilities. Can the minister tell us if that's part of his contingency plan to put Faro workers back to work?

Hon. Mr. Harding: There were many projects handed out to many different Yukon communities - Dawson City, the community of Whitehorse, Watson Lake, Mayo, Faro, Ross River. I don't know the exact details of the contribution that was made to the community of Faro. I know a proposal was put forward by the Town of Faro for a significant contribution from them to improving recreational facilities. There was a desire by this government to create some short-term employment in the community of Faro and also to participate with the town's proposal and request. I believe the contribution was $100,000, and that was to be used for a ball field and, as well, for work to create a skateboard park, which was identified through a school survey by the kids of the community as their number-one recreational priority and request.

Mr. Ostashek: I appreciate that this NDP government has considerable expertise in the area of recreational facilities, such as we've seen in the Government Leader's former riding of Elsa, with construction of a $1-million curling rink that opened after all of the people had left the community, including himself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that members on this side of the House have absolutely the greatest support for recreation facilities in rural and all communities in the Yukon. But my question to the minister is this: does the minister really believe that this is the best way to spend $227,000 at this time in Faro? Does he not believe the money could have been better spent in helping unemployed Faro workers put food on the table and find employment and jobs elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear where the leader of the official opposition of the Yukon Party comes from with Faro. I want to tell that member something. The mine may be down, but the community of Faro is still there. There are still 167 kids in that school and this government will not abandon that community or those people. I don't care how many times the Yukon Party and the opposition wants us to do that, we will not succumb to their mean-spirited request.

We have people in that community who are on the food bank - 50 families. We're helping contribute to that. Some of my caucus members and myself are even going to chip in this weekend to support the Lions, who so graciously, with a number of Yukon businesses, are doing some food bank work to try to support the community. We're investing in training. We're investing in recreational opportunities.

The contribution of $100,000 for these long-standing concerns in the community was put forward by the Town of Faro. Most of the expenditure is being made by the municipal government. We're supporting their priorities, their directives to develop some things for the kids and for the people of the community.

And I haven't given up on the Faro mine either. The members opposite may have, but I certainly haven't, because there are a lot of jobs there for Yukoners.

Mr. Ostashek: I didn't realize the Member for Faro was so sensitive on this issue. It seems like it's because of lack of initiative by his government in being able to accomplish anything that he has to go on the defensive.

Mr. Speaker, we're not talking about whether there are people left in Faro at this time or not; we're talking about the best use of taxpayers' money to help these people. We can build all the recreational facilities we like. There may be 167 children there today, but if the mine doesn't go back in operation - and the Member for Faro can say that he has great confidence that it will, but that's not what he's saying in public. He's not saying that in public at all. In fact, he's rung the death knell for the mine.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like the minister to explain to Yukoners how he believes that building recreational facilities is going to help the 400 unemployed workers in the community today to find jobs. We've heard this minister chastising the federal government for no relocation money, yet this government is doing absolutely nothing to help.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must take issue with the statement by the member opposite that I've rung the death knell for the mine. It's completely the opposite. I've expressed concern about the CCAA, the length of time that it's taking, the price of the metal, but certainly, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be there for the long haul. We know that mine has a future.

There are people in that community who have been there for 29 years. There are three generations in that community of people who are Faroites. Mr. Speaker, we are investing in recreation, we are investing in training, we have an industrial adjustment services committee, which is assisting with helping people find work, alternative employment, both here in the Yukon and abroad.

I've been to Ottawa to lobby for the mine reclamation trust monies. There is $14 million there that can start to be used on the mine site to do reclamation work that has to be done one way or the other. That would provide some employment for the community and for other Yukoners in the meantime as we wait for a return to a better pricing of the metals.

That is just one small outline of the many various activities that we are undertaking, improving and investing in the community. The businesses that are still in that community, who deserve and expect their government to treat it like a community, want no less of their government and we will give them our support.

Question re: Community development fund, Teslin

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Economic Development on the community development fund, this time in the community of Teslin. On March 23, I wrote a letter to the minister raising concerns about the awarding of the $99,100 contract under the CDF to the Teslin Tlingit Council for a forestry management and timber harvesting demonstration project in the community. And, while the Teslin Tlingit Council received the money, a commercial operator, Yukon Timber, who I understand is wholly owned by the Teslin Tlingit First Nation, is actually undertaking the work.

I asked the minister for an explanation on how a commercial company became eligible for the funding in view of the CDF guideline restrictions on funding for non-commercial development companies.

I would ask the minister if he could answer that question for me now.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I can, Mr. Speaker. First of all, regarding the application from the Teslin Tlingit Council, the money hasn't flowed. We communicated directly to the First Nation that the money was approved in principle. There were still some issues about the timing of the training, given the federal permitting and the limitations that were placed on the First Nation in receipt of the permit.

The project was a good one, I think. It was generated by a federal government initiative, and we always know that CDF projects are often carried out by contractors, whether it's building projects for communities - whatever the case may be. However, we were not able to overcome the time constraints surrounding the training and, therefore, we did not flow the money to the project. But, I understand the federal government worked with the Teslin Tlingit Council to see it through.

Mr. Ostashek: I find that quite startling, Mr. Speaker, because the minister put out a press release and took credit for awarding the money to the Teslin Tlingit Council. I have not seen another press release coming out saying that the money wasn't awarded. He still was taking credit for it up until I asked the question in the Legislature.

It is my understanding that about 125 loads of logs will be harvested, yet none of the local loggers or truckers in the Teslin area have had any opportunity to participate in this project, and they remain idle while this work is going on. The logs were reportedly going to be hauled out by trucks from Watson Lake. Can the minister explain why local loggers and truckers in the Teslin area weren't afforded the opportunity to participate in this forestry demonstration?

Hon. Mr. Harding: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we know that the official opposition is very opposed to the initiative by the Teslin Tlingit Council. We know that they do not want to see the First Nation advance in these forestry harvesting techniques nor in training their people. I think that the people of the Teslin Tlingit Council understand that and we'll be certain to ensure that they understand exactly where the Yukon Party stands on this.

With regard to the specifics of the community development fund, I can only repeat again that there were some issues around the permit and the length of time of the training program which, when we approved it in principle, could not be overcome; therefore, we did not flow the money through the CDF. The federal government, to their credit, continued on with this fine project, and we'll see it through. I hope many Yukoners will benefit from it - not just the Teslin Tlingit Council. I understand that some people from Watson Lake, for example, have got jobs on the project. Hopefully, that's an economic benefit. I think it is.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when the members opposite are trying to hide something. You hear all the kibitzing from the back benches and how defensive they get.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said today that the money has been flowing, but yet, I think the minister bears some responsibility in this in the fact that he approved the money in principle, and it was done so in a letter of support from the Village of Teslin, in which the support was very qualified, that the people in Teslin were put to work from this project.

Mr. Speaker, it's also our understanding that some of the logs are going to be utilized for the construction of the Teslin Tlingit Council First Nation heritage centre, a centennial anniversaries project. Can the minister advise this House if the Teslin Tlingit First Nation is being paid both to cut the logs and is again going to be paid for utilizing them in the heritage centre, irrespective of whether CDF money is used or not? The money is going to come from somewhere, and it's still coming from taxpayers. I'd like the minister to clarify this.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the member's question is a stretch. I hope that the Chief of the Teslin Tlingit Council can respond. There are some pretty significant sort of innuendoes and allegations being made here against the First Nation. I think the member should think twice about that before he does that on the floor of this Legislature.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the project was a good one. Unfortunately, it didn't meet the CDF criteria. We would have liked to have supported it. The federal government, I think, worked on a good initiative. I know some people from around the Yukon have worked on the project, and I think the agreement in principle we gave could not be overcome on the length of the time given the permitting and that type of issue, so we felt it was best to allow the proponents to proceed. The federal government worked that arrangement out with the Teslin Tlingit First Nation.

And insofar as who is being paid for what, that is not within the purview of my jurisdiction. We were not contributors or handlers of the project, and the member should perhaps call the First Nation themselves and try and get some answers rather than make some attempt at gaining some political mileage in this Legislature to their detriment.

Question re: Watson Lake multi-level care facility

Mrs. Edelman: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services, and it concerns the multi-level health care facility, or the lack thereof, in Watson Lake.

I understand the minister received a letter today from the Town of Watson Lake, and I'd like to file that letter with the Clerk. One of the points made in the letter was that health care is a territorial responsibility, not a municipal responsibility. Responsibility for funding something like Signpost Seniors, or a multi-level health care facility, lies with the territorial government.

Mr. Speaker, I know this government is fond of blaming others for their own failings. Can the minister tell this House when this government plans to begin work on a multi-level care facility for Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I think, as I informed the member the other day, we're looking at all the seniors' needs throughout the territory, not the least of which is Watson Lake. We're looking at all seniors' needs, particularly in the realm of continuing care. We have done a bit of an assessment on what is available down there and what some of our opportunities are, and we're continuing with our community consultations to take a look at how we can best meet the needs.

Mrs. Edelman: The letter just recently filed also states that the minister's comments maligned the Town of Watson Lake and the people who are on the town council and misrepresented the municipality. After reading the letter, I'm sure the minister regrets the information that he provided to this House yesterday about the town trying to collect back taxes from the Signpost Seniors, because that information is wrong.

I hope he can correct that information for the public record today. Will the minister correct that information and make a public apology to the people of Watson Lake?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I would say that if I misrepresented the information, I certainly do apologize for that. However, I would say that, having lived in the community for a sizeable length of time, knowing most of the players there, and having still many contacts with the community, I do think that, just from my own opinion, there are realms and areas in which the municipality could be assisting seniors more.

Mrs. Edelman: The final line of the letter asks the minister to work with the community to construct a multi-level care facility for Watson Lake. The real issue is making that happen, and the minister still has not answered the question. Is the minister prepared to do this? Is the territorial government prepared to do this, and is the minister content to personally attack anyone who raises these concerns?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: If it is a cheque, it certainly isn't from the federal Liberal government, which is one of the problems. I note that at the Liberal convention last weekend, they identified health as the number one priority. It's just unfortunate that they haven't put their money where their mouth is. If we had considerably more money in the Canada health and social transfer, perhaps we would have more latitude.

I think the member has alluded to the idea of building a multi-level facility, and that's an assumption she and some other individuals have made as being the only option that is available. I think that what we're committed to doing is working with the community and seeing what other options, if any, exist in the community and how we can maximize the benefit for the seniors of Watson Lake.

Question re: Tourism marketing tender

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, and it concerns the recent award of the multi-million dollar tourism marketing contract to the Calgary company, Parallel Strategies. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the minister and for the record that I understand this company has an emerging strong reputation in the advertising industry. The minister mentioned yesterday that he met with Mr. Miles Prodan on or about March 3. Would the minister confirm that Mr. Prodan is the executive who will now be in charge of the Yukon account for Parallel Strategies?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because I do not have that knowledge. That might be absolutely correct but, as I said yesterday, I will reiterate that I had absolutely no involvement in the selection process. I had tabled the tender process to the leader of the third party, and I would also like to reiterate for the record that Parallel was the agency of record at the time of my visit. Now who, in turn, is absolutely in charge of it there is not within my knowledge base.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it's my very clear understanding that Mr. Prodan is the account executive in charge of the Yukon account for Parallel Strategies.

Mr. Speaker, in the tourism industry, the desire for a full-service agency and for strong independent representation is very clear.

Is the minister aware that this individual in charge of the Yukon account for Parallel Strategies, Mr. Miles Prodan, is also a shareholder in Beringia Tours, a Whitehorse tour company?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: No, Mr. Speaker, that certainly again is not within my knowledge. I go back to the process. The process is a process that has been led - well, as the member opposite knows full well, it's not even led by anybody within the Tourism marketing department. Certainly we play the advisory role on it. I think it was done through, I must say, a squeaky-clean process.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the minister's department has awarded a contract worth about $1.5 million to advertise the Yukon as a tourism destination. The individual who is now in charge of directing that advertising is also in a position to be promoting his own private enterprise. The minister has said he's not aware of this information of a real or perceived conflict of interest. Why isn't the minister aware of this information and what steps does he intend to take to make himself aware of it?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Well, Mr. Speaker, it will not be the first time that I've been accused of incompetence in the House; nor likely the last time. But certainly it is not incompetence; it is the development of a tender process that has been done with and for the industry. The industry has full involvement within the process.

I must, again, lay out the fact that Parallel Strategies, at the time of my visit, certainly was the agency in charge of our desires to move forward, supported by a full-service agency. I know not what more I could say to the member. Certainly we have a very good relationship with the Tourism Industry Association, with the association at large throughout the Yukon, and tend to work with them in as many cases as I can.

So, certainly we will check out the allegation that the leader of the third party has brought forth at this time.

Question re: Workers' Compensation Board, administration costs

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Last fall in the Legislature I raised the issue of the high administration cost of operating the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have the highest administration costs in Canada, based on the number of workers served and total annual premiums.

Employers at that time were not at all pleased to pay these high premiums and, at the same time, injured workers were far from happy about the assistance they were receiving.

The one bright spot on the whole WCB picture is the workers' advocate. But other than that, all that appears to have changed is the person chairing the board.

I want to give the chair some time to implement changes but, in view of the fact injured workers and employers currently are not receiving value for their money, when can we expect some dramatic changes, what will these changes be, and would the minister elaborate with a timetable for these changes?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, Mr. Speaker, in one Question Period I'm interfering in boards; then there's another Question Period and questions are asked, asking for me as a minister to do just that.

I will, Mr. Speaker, give the same answer I gave the member last year when he raised this question. The board has done an extensive comparison of boards across the country as to administrative costs. They are lower now, I believe, comparatively speaking, than when the Yukon Party administration was in power. They are going to be releasing that to the public and the stakeholders.

The board has undertaken numerous initiatives, such as having more appeal hearings to move people through the process, striking up advisory groups, working with stakeholders on a legislative review that should come forward in the fall of 1999. All of these things are being done to make the board a better place in terms of responding to injured workers and also to employers.

Mr. Jenkins: Well, Mr. Speaker, workers' compensation premiums are continuing to escalate. The rebate program for employers has been cancelled. The number of workers in the territory continues to decrease. Because of the poor economic performance of this government in helping to create permanent jobs, we are paying more for less. The administration costs of WCB are still high while providing a service to fewer and fewer workers. Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture, and the minister who had all the answers in opposition has done nothing in a year and a half in office, other than politically interfere with the board.

Can the minister advise the House when the 50 recommendations outlined in the Gladish report will be fully implemented? Will it be within this current century, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm so pleased to answer the last of the big time spenders opposite. Mr. Speaker, I've got to take issue with a couple of statements that he made. First of all, he said that premiums continue to escalate. The only increase in premiums was the one that was delivered by the former chair, which was under the Yukon Party administration. It was first announced to the public through the stakeholders. I'm not saying that as a criticism; I'm just pointing out the facts.

Secondly, the member opposite talks about the poor economic performance. I would say to the member that the economy could be performing better; there's no doubt about it. However, if you look comparatively at our government's record, unemployment rates and all the statistics, we are weathering the storm better than when the Yukon Party administration was in and they had similar circumstances when the Faro mine went off the grid and no longer was producing and we lost those very important jobs.

So, the facts bear that out. We have a very strong economic agenda, which I have outlined in this House many times over. And in Question Period, it's difficult to hit all of the highlights, but I just want to say that the board is working very diligently. I'll certainly pass on the member's concerns to the representatives of the employer and employees on the board and to the chair as well.

Mr. Jenkins: The opposition has already offered to sit on a Tuesday or Thursday evening, in order to not impede the business of the Legislature, and to have the chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board appear before this Legislature. Will the minister now have his official appear before this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, we have an agreement on House sitting. It is a 35-day sitting. There's nothing in the agreement about Tuesday and Thursday nights. There are 17 days left, I believe.

I want to say to the members opposite that if they want to be briefed by the board, I will make it available. They can phone them up. It is interesting to note the reversal in the position of the member opposite. At the annual information session, he just stayed in the room long enough to count the people in the room and then he ran out the back door. There was lots of information provided and lots of exchange between the stakeholders and the board members, but obviously the member wasn't too interested. It's only on the floor of this Legislature, for obvious political gamesmanship, that he tries to ask these questions. He's not interested in the real information. If he wanted it, he could get it. I will make it available and I'll make the board available.

Question re: Human Rights Act, amendments re hate literature

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Justice on the Human Rights Act. Three years ago, the Human Rights Commission appeared before the House and urged us to consider changes to the Human Rights Act. They had three areas of concern, where they thought amendments to the act would be appropriate. One of these areas was the area of hate literature. The commission took the position that the Criminal Code had a gap in it in relation to hate literature. The commission then provided to us a number of examples of that sort of literature, where they were having trouble dealing with the people who were putting this material out.

Does this minister share the commissioner's and commission's concerns about hate literature circulating in the territory and the commission's inability to deal with the hate literature circulating in the territory?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The short answer to the member's question is yes, that I do share concerns about having protection of human rights in the Yukon Territory. That's one of the reasons that the New Democratic government previously brought forward the Yukon Human Rights Act, which was passed in 1987.

Mr. Cable: One of the other concerns the Yukon Human Rights Commission put out was the need to revise the act to prohibit discrimination based on source of income. That's where a landlord, for example, would refuse to rent an apartment to somebody on social assistance. Now there's a motion on the Order Paper by the minister's colleague urging the government to amend the Human Rights Act to provide protection from discrimination based on source of income.

Does this minister and does this government agree with the motion, as put forward by her colleague?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I would point out for the member opposite that we have not had a chance to debate that motion yet, but he can certainly anticipate, as I indicated in response to his first question, that we are strongly in support of human rights for all Yukon residents and are open to considering amendments to the legislation to look at the question of source of income as a prohibited ground for discrimination, as was brought forward in the motion by my colleague, the Member for Whitehorse Centre.

Mr. Cable: The question isn't now, then, whether the minister's interested. The question is how interested is she? Is she interested enough to bring in legislation?

I went through the Hansard from the evening when the Human Rights Commission appeared before us, and this minister expressed considerable umbrage against hateful comments that were made against a female member of the Whitehorse City Council, and I have the impression that this minister and her party were very receptive to the proposed amendments to the Human Rights Act.

Will this minister today make a commitment to review the act and to bring forth formal amendments in the fall session?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'd like to state for the benefit of the member opposite that I have met with the Yukon Human Rights Commission to discuss any topics they wanted to bring forth, including the topics of possible changes to the act. We are interested in continuing to work with the Yukon Human Rights Commission on possible amendments to the act to respond to the concerns they bring forward, based on their experience of working with community members.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed, and we will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVILEGED MOTION

Motion No. 112

Clerk: Motion No. 112, standing in the name of Mr. Ostashek.

Speaker: It is moved by the leader of the official opposition that Robert Bruce, Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, cease to be the Speaker of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I believe that this is a very sad day for the Yukon Legislature. It is a day that I tried hard to avoid having to face. Mr. Speaker, you and I met on several occasions. I'm not going to be long in laying out my argument today, but I think there are important things that need to be said for the record. What I intend to cover today is a brief history of what transpired to get us to the position where I felt that I had no choice but to put this motion on the floor. I want to review some precedents in other legislatures of other Speakers, who were caught in similar circumstances, with personal problems. Lastly, I want to say why I believe that you should step down as Speaker of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, when you didn't show up for work last week, I and the leader of the third party, the Liberal Party, took it upon ourselves to meet with the Government Leader. We did that, Mr. Speaker, because we don't believe that this Legislature belongs to any political party. Regardless of the number of seats that are in this Legislature, I believe all political parties are equal.

We tried to avoid the spectacle of having to go through this debate today, by asking the Government Leader to speak with you, and we indicated to him that we felt the honourable thing would be for you to step aside at this time.

It appears that the Government Leader has chosen not to go that route and you, Mr. Speaker, have chosen not to go that route, so we felt that we had no alternative but to bring this motion forward.

You did approach me, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for it, seeking my advice. I gave you my advice. And I want to say it for the record, because you know that I did not mislead you. I told you at the time that we could not support you staying in the Chair and I told you that we felt the honourable thing would be for you to step aside at this time.

When you chose not to do that, I also informed you that, if you decided to stay in the Chair, I would have no alternative but to come forward with this motion that we are debating this afternoon.

So, we've been very upfront with this situation from day one.

Your personal problems are very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and we sympathize with you. But having said that, you are the Speaker of the Legislature and it is a position that's respected highly in the general public. Not only your capabilities of keeping order in this Legislature are your responsibility, but also your actions and your code of conduct in the general public.

That may be unfortunate, but you are held to a higher standard of conduct than most citizens in this country. In fact, Mr. Speaker, your position as Speaker of this Legislature is held in the same esteem as the Government Leader and the Commissioner of the Yukon. I believe, Mr. Speaker, being elevated to that position, you are to set an example, not only for us in the Legislature, but for all Yukoners. Yukoners expect and deserve that their elected representatives conduct themselves in a manner that will bring honour to this Legislature, to this House.

Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly is an institution in a democratic society and as the Speaker, you are a representative not only of this institution but of all members in it. What you do in your private life, unfortunately, reflects on the institution and on all members in it. That is what the public tells us and they expect a very high standard of a code of conduct.

Mr. Speaker, in order for any Speaker to function as a Speaker in a legislature in Canada, and for the Legislature to function fairly and properly, the Speaker must enjoy support of both sides of the House. Mr. Speaker, you know that when you were elected, you were nominated by the Government Leader and your nomination was seconded by me. The Government Leader and I, and the leader of the third party at the time, walked you to your chair, showing the public that you had support of all parties in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, when you ran into personal difficulties a year ago, we continued to support you. We continued to support you, but unfortunately, such conduct cannot continue to be sanctioned by my party.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House ought not to be put in a position of setting a limit on the number of transgressions of a code of conduct that this House should permit. We ought not to be put in that position, but unfortunately we have been. Your position, as I've said, is a very important position.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that you have full support of the NDP caucus, and let me tell you here today that I would not have expected otherwise. But I also believe that the decision to stay or leave that chair should not be the decision of the NDP caucus, but it ought to be your decision and your decision alone.

Mr. Speaker, when I say that you are elevated to a higher stature than other Yukoners - when I was doing some research this morning and looking in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, where it comes to the Speaker as presiding officer of the House of Commons, a position that's similar to the one you're in in the Yukon - it says in here that the essential ingredient of Speakership is found in the status of the Speaker as a servant of the House. The presiding officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by the individual members because the office embodies the power, dignity and the honour of the House itself.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was referring to when I said that there's a higher code of conduct that's expected from you than ordinary citizens - and from us as legislators.

Mr. Speaker, had you chosen to step down, you wouldn't have been the first Speaker in Canadian history to do that. There have been several precedents - probably many more - but I was able to find two this morning. One was very recent, in the Ontario Legislature, in 1996. I'm talking about a Speaker stepping down because of personal problems; nothing to do with how they conducted themselves in the Legislature. In 1996, the Speaker voluntarily stepped down on the morning that the motion was to be debated, rather than face the debate of a personal problem.

One of our own people in history, during the 1930s - and I'm speaking of the hon. George Black, who was made Speaker by Prime Minister R.B. Bennett in 1930, became the first person west of the Manitoba border to hold that office. Unfortunately, he had some personal problems and his Speakership was marred by personal and financial problems. In 1935, he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

Prime Minister Bennett, at the time, drafted a letter of resignation on behalf of his Speaker, dispatched it by his private secretary to find Mr. Black. Mr. Black signed it, and no mention was made of the illnesses or the problems that were facing him. That's the way I would have preferred things to have happened here, rather than going through this debate today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I felt it was important when I talked to you and I told you that we could not go on without speaking out about this. As I said, we supported you when you admitted to your personal problem a year ago. It appears you've had a relapse. That's unfortunate. You did not advise the Legislature that you would not be here on the two days last week. The Government Leader, when asked, could not even acknowledge that he had been in touch with you, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we do have to set examples for all Yukoners. We have many government employees who work and are listening to this debate today, and they're wondering if they would be given special treatment if, in fact, they happened to fall into the same circumstances that you are in. I think not, Mr. Speaker, and I believe, in the fairness of our democratic society, all people should be treated equally.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, if they win the vote today - there's no doubt that you will win the vote - but I don't believe that that's the end of the story. It is you who will still have to make the decision as to whether you can reside over a House when you know you do not have the confidence of the entire House. That is a decision that you're still going to have to make, regardless of the vote.

As I said, this Legislature does not belong to any one political party, regardless of the numbers of members who sit in it. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry this debate had to take place today, but we felt it was the only solution that was left to us.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult for you to preside over this discussion this afternoon, which is exclusively about you but for which you have no voice. Let me briefly outline our thoughts for all members on the proposition put forward by the Member for Porter Creek North, leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Speaker, you have admitted, publicly and honestly, that you have a personal problem, a personal health problem that caused you to miss two sitting days last week. You, like many Yukoners, have struggled with alcohol-related problems and will likely have to keep up the struggle for the rest of your life. On that, our hearts and our sympathy are with you on your personal journey.

You and I have spoken in the last few days and you indicated to me deep regret for the inconvenience and the public notice your short absence has caused. However, you have also said that you wish to not only continue serving your constituents well but also to continue serving this Legislature, an institution for which you and we have the greatest respect. Furthermore, you indicated to me that you will commit to all members that you will faithfully attend to your duties in the Legislature as Speaker, if given the opportunity to continue.

My colleagues and I believe that you are sincere. We believe in your fundamental integrity. You have been honest with us and the public at every turn. I am sure the temptation to be less forthcoming would, at times, have been overwhelming.

Your commitment to your constituents, to your colleagues and to this Legislature, as well as your honesty about this situation, will be rewarded by our support for you as a man, as a member and as the Speaker.

The proposition has been put forward that your recent absence has brought the Legislature to disrepute. Well, I think you have personally lost some esteem in the minds of some. You've retained the support of many others. I do not believe the reputation of the institution of this Legislature has suffered from recent events.

I draw the members' attention to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says, in part, "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality." It goes on to say that "confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of the procedure and many conventions exist which have, as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker, but also to ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized."

There is no question that you, Mr. Speaker, have conducted yourself in a fair and impartial manner. You've not been partisan in any statement either inside or outside the House. Your rulings and occasional admonishments have been fair and even-handed. You are obviously performing your duties in the Chair very well and, by any objective standards, your actions have not called into question the most important and vital role for which you were elected to perform. If there were such actions made or questions raised, there could possibly be a case for a substantive motion to have the Speaker step down. This clearly is not the case and no such case has been made this afternoon.

As for the reasons for the leader of the official opposition bringing forth this motion, let me remind all members that the leader of the official opposition resisted your appointment, Mr. Speaker, in the first place.

He made it very clear that he wanted someone else - anyone else - and tried to direct the government caucus as to who the candidate should be. He clearly would like to use this opportunity to meet his original aim, and he is correct that he has been consistent on this point from the beginning of this legislative session, after the election took place.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you wish that this Legislature could be debating any other matter this afternoon than this one at this time, and I can tell you I share that view. As you have made solemn commitments to us and to this Legislature, we will stand with you. Consequently, we in the government caucus will not support this motion.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Yukon Liberal party caucus to address the motion before us.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that it would be most appropriate for the Speaker to have voluntarily resigned from this position. I have personally communicated this position to the Speaker. We would hope that any individual reaching a personal, soul-searching decision would have the ability to reach that decision on their own, without the noise and arguments of others' voices. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and it is not the case in this instance.

The Speaker has had time to reflect on the conversations that I and others have had with him and has chosen to remain in the Chair. It then falls to us, as legislators, to express publicly our views on what is the best course of action.

It must be absolutely clear that our focus is not the individual, who must reach that decision on their own. Rather, we must decide what is right for the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

We, as members of this House, elect an individual to represent us as the Speaker, and we act as employers of that individual. The Speaker was elected with the backing and confidence of all members of this House.

The question, then, is what procedure should be used when dealing with an employee experiencing personal difficulties. The Government of Yukon, as an employer, advises supervisory staff that every case must be examined individually. In general terms, however, notice is served by the employer that personal issues are interfering with one's work. In this case, as I have already mentioned, this step has been taken. Once an employee has concurred that a problem exists, every effort is made to be supportive, to suggest options, treatment, counselling, medical care, whatever is necessary and most appropriate. If the situation persists, one then suggests that one take leave from additional responsibilities until such time as the situation has been resolved.

Clearly, the Yukon Legislative Assembly, if one were to view the Speaker as an employee of this House, has followed this recommended course of action. I, along with the leader of the official opposition, have met with the Government Leader to discuss this situation and with the Speaker. Unfortunately, it is now time to recommend that a leave occur until such time as there has been a clear demonstration that the additional duties can be resumed. That is what this motion before us today recommends.

I have described this situation in terms of an employer-employee relationship, and we in the Liberal Party caucus feel satisfied that we have fully met all requirements of a professional relationship. This relationship between the Speaker and the Yukon Legislative Assembly is far, far more than this. We, as elected representatives of the Yukon people, must follow standards that are acceptable to our constituents. It reflects poorly on every one of us if we do not.

The role of Speaker, as defined by Beauchesne and as mentioned by others, is the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignities. Indeed, further in Beauchesne, one will find that one is not out of order if one refers to the Speaker as "Your Honour." What standard, then, does one expect from the Speaker's Chair and how does it reflect on everyone in this House, in the Yukon and on elected individuals generally. One expects the highest possible standard of impartiality, fairness and personal behaviour.

Mr. Speaker exhibited all of these qualities until personal difficulties overcame him. As colleagues, we offer him our personal sympathies and our wholehearted support in his recovery. However, we also, for the good of the institution that we serve, must respectfully request that he step aside from his duties until the struggle has subsided and his personal difficulties have eased.

Our institution, that belongs to all Yukoners, must not be called into question. We, as members in the service of the public, must hold ourselves to the highest possible standards. In the case of the current Speaker, we feel that these standards have not been met, and we have lost confidence in the Speaker's ability to carry out his duties. We will, regretfully, be supporting this motion.

Speaker: If the member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, I realize how uncomfortable this is for you. I will not be very long in my wrap-up, but there are a few things that I do need to say.

I'm a little disappointed in our Government Leader, who is trying to turn this debate today into a personal agenda of mine, Mr. Speaker, that I didn't support you. While I may have had thoughts at the start of somebody different for the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I did second your nomination. I have supported you and continue to do so. And I take exception to the Government Leader trying to turn this into a personal vendetta.

Mr. Speaker, you know, and every Yukoner who has been following this debate knows, that the reason for this debate and the responsibility for it can only fall on your shoulders and your actions, not on something that the leader of the official opposition has done.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in our Government Leader in the lack of leadership that he has shown in this situation. It appears that he feels, because he has a majority in this House, that he can just dictate, and I believe that he's provided a lack of leadership in encouraging you to stay in your position because he has that majority.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Leader, too, sets an example for Yukoners and for all government employees whether they're in this Legislature or working for the civil service. And it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that he doesn't have much respect for the elevation of your position when he thinks all you need to do is show up for work, as it's quoted in the paper. I am very disappointed in that. There were options that we gave the Government Leader so he wouldn't come to this debate today, but he didn't take them.

Mr. Speaker, every day when you open this Assembly, you appeal to the Divine Spirit to be with us and to guide us in our deliberations. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to that Divine Spirit today to be with you when you're making your decision because, as I said earlier, regardless of the vote in this House today, it's still a decision that you're going to have to make, and it is a decision that is so important to all the people of the Yukon and to our fundamental beliefs in democracy and in our fundamental respect for this institution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Member: Division.

Speaker: Division has been called.

Mr. Clerk, would you kindly poll the House.

Division

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Disagree.

Mr. McRobb: Disagree.

Mr. Fentie: Disagree.

Mr. Livingston: Disagree.

Mr. Ostashek: Agree.

Mr. Phillips: Agree.

Mr. Jenkins: Agree.

Ms. Duncan: Agree.

Mr. Cable: Agree.

Mrs. Edelman: Agree.

Clerk: Mr. Speaker, the results are six yea, nine nay.

Speaker: The nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.

Privileged Motion No. 112 negatived

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 103

Clerk: Motion No. 103, standing in the name of Mr. Fentie.

Speaker: It is moved by the Member for Watson Lake that this House recognizes that

(a) fire safety around Yukon communities is a significant concern; and

(b) there are opportunities to lessen the fire risk around communities while creating jobs and accessing fibre for Yukon's forest industry;

THAT it is the opinion of this House that a community fire safety program could reduce the fire risk around our communities and create jobs by helping to address the allocation needs of the forest industry; and

THAT the federal, Yukon, First Nation and municipal governments should work together to achieve these goals.

Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak to this motion today. The issues within this motion are inherent to every community in the Yukon Territory. And also, Mr. Speaker, given the animosity in this Legislature over the last couple of days, it's also an opportunity for the opposite side of the House to get back to reality and become more of a constructive opposition instead of playing party politics and lobbing grenades over here trying to see if they can come up with some wounded. It gives them an opportunity to work with the government and Yukoners on issues that are extremely important and of a great concern to every Yukon community in this territory.

Mr. Speaker, "fire-safe communities" is more than just a catch-phrase. It's about planning and managing the forest and fuels around the communities in the territory to lessen the risk of wildfire and the obvious results that would happen should that reach any of the communities here.

There are a number of factors involved in fire risk today in the Yukon. One of the major factors is that every community here is built within the boreal forest and that forest is a very combustible type of fuel, should the right conditions prevail and a fire spark start a fire.

One of the biggest worries right now and one of the major concerns, Mr. Speaker, is that as our forests age, the risk of wildfire increases in conjunction with that age.

Let's take, for example, my community, Watson Lake. The forests around Watson Lake are of an even age - somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80 to 100 years old. And we are reaching the peak of the cycle - and the cycle, Mr. Speaker, is one in which every so often - periodically - a fire will burn virtually in the same areas. This is a major component of our upland forests in the Yukon and is one of the influences that our environment not only endures, but it is necessary for the rejuvenation and the sustainability of our forests.

So, when we speak of risk factors, we must also look at the need to develop plans and methods to lessen those risks. In the past, Mr. Speaker, fire suppression and developing methods of lessening risks around communities was to build fire breaks - the fire break being merely a cut-line or a sizeable amount of forest taken out and usually ringing the community. However, one could understsand fully that a fire break of 20 metres wide, for instance, is hardly an instrument to protect communities, given the fact that wildfires, if the right conditions prevail, jump rivers. So, we have to come up with different methods, much more comprehensive plans of managing wildfire in the Yukon as it relates to the risk in our communities. That type of approach is called fuel management.

So, when we speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker, the idea of increasing safety and lessening risk in our communities in the Yukon Territory is to take a fuel-management approach and to then lessen the fuels around our communities by a number of methods.

One of the most important features of this concept is that, in the old style of fire breaks, we would take out all vegetation. The idea of fuel management is to take out the coniferous, or combustible, forests and leave deciduous; for example, aspen, birch or willow, which are very low risk, very low-spark combustible material.

So, this idea or this concept of managing fuels to lessen risk in communities becomes a very important component of forest management planning. It's a phase of forest management planning that is derived in an area in close proximity to communities, and includes subdivisions like Whitehorse peripheral buildings, residences and so on.

When we speak of fuel risk, there's an important factor to remember here, that the only thing we can do by way of solid fire suppression is manipulating and managing the fuels. W

e should ask ourselves why this is so important today. As I alluded to earlier, as our forests age, our risks increase.

So, the time is now. The time is now to get beyond the talking and to the doing. That is what this motion speaks to. It's about getting on with the plan. It's about lessening the fire risk in Yukon communities today.

It also factors in another very important issue here in Yukon communities. It's about partnerships. The report we just tabled today in the Legislature was derived and developed by partnerships: the Department of Community and Transportation Services, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Yukon forest commission.

There are more partners to involve in this process: First Nations, municipalities, industry and, indeed, the Yukon public, can all become partners in an initiative that would result in fire-safe communities and would also derive for us economic benefits from the extraction of the resource.

So when we look at the idea of fuel management lessening fire risk, it also brings to bear a number of opportunities. Through the planning process, we can do fuel inventories around communities. We can develop the plan that ensures that the job we do will give the personnel, should the fire occur, should the situation arise, enough time to have every opportunity to make sure that there is no damage or loss of life in communities here in the Yukon today.

When we look at the economic benefits, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas where Yukon people can become involved. The first step through the planning process in doing the inventories puts people to work in this territory today who not only are involved in the forest industry, but have the knowledge of the surrounding forest in each particular community, and they also have the knowledge of how to do these inventories and do the initial stages of planning.

From that process, we then can put more Yukoners to work extracting what may be merchantable timber. There's the opportunity for fuel woods, for fire woods, for communities; there are a number of areas of site preparation that would take place after extraction.

An example that comes to mind would be scarifying any particular cut block to ensure that cones from coniferous growth would be turned underground and we would enhance the growth of deciduous plants and vegetation.

There's also another important factor when we consider this issue, Mr. Speaker, and it is that this type of approach would give to the Yukon industry of the day - sawmills, loggers, and so on - access to fibre, access to fibre that most certainly does not compromise the future but enhances the future by creating economic benefits and fire-safe communities, and it also assists in lessening the pressure and demand on resource as we work toward and finalize forest management planning in the Yukon Territory.

So, I think this is a motion, Mr. Speaker, that, firstly, will bring unanimous support in this Legislature, support throughout the Yukon in communities, support from all levels of government, all orders of government, and I really, truly believe that this is a very important approach. And this approach for fire-safe communities in the Yukon must begin today, and it is our duty in this Legislature to begin that process.

I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to hearing from my colleagues and the members opposite, to help enhance this concept, to bring forward their ideas to make this something that all Yukoners will firstly find comfort in and be proud of and that will help us in the area of jobs and economic benefit in the short term here in the Yukon.

One view that could be taken to ensure that we start and commence this plan in the right way would be to choose a particular community in the Yukon, develop the plan and, using the concept of a template, then apply what we have developed throughout communities in the Yukon Territory.

Every community is at risk, so this is something that all of us here today can come to terms with in how best to approach that concept.

One of the things we must do is focus our attention, and where do we focus that first? I think that has to be within communities. We have to go out and focus the attention in communities on where to start and what their views are, how far the perimeter should be, and what the size of the areas that we extract fuels from should be.

Another question we should answer is, who needs to be involved? That means, Mr. Speaker, in this instance, all orders of government, First Nations and Yukon people in general should be involved in this process.

The idea of starting is one of the most important steps that, for decades, we have talked about, year by year, safety from forest fire, safety from wildfire. Through the research that the federal government has done, that the Yukon government has done, and many other agencies, it has become quite evident that we cannot stop fire, it is with us, no matter what we do. But it has also become evident that there are a number of things we can do in the area of being proactive that will most certainly help the situation, should the right conditions arise and a fire begin in close proximity to any community here in the territory.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. Again, I say I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the members opposite, so that we may come up with a thoughtful, deliberate approach to fire-safe communities here in the Yukon Territory today.

Thank you.

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this motion today in this Legislature.

I must take exception, though, to the Member for Watson Lake being presumptuous in thinking he has unanimous support of the House prior to anyone having a chance to speak, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see this type of motion, one that I can support without any difficulty, and hopefully the end result will be that we will accomplish something constructive for our citizens as well as provide a measure of safety.

I'll not be long in my debate today. I have a few comments to make. I thank the Member for Watson Lake for handing out this summary of the workshops that they had on developing fire-safe communities in the Yukon.

I believe it's a good exercise to undertake, both from a point of safety, which should be our first concern, and also the opportunity to create a few local jobs for a short period of time.

I'm a little skeptical as to how much fibre we will actually salvage. When I look at communities in the Yukon, there are some that we'll probably salvage a lot. I guess it will depend on how wide this fire-guard is going to be. I know that in the book here, and I just happened to glance through it, Mr. Speaker, it says, "A jump-fire can reach a house more than a kilometre away." Well, I've had some experience fighting forest fires - quite a lot in my younger days - and I've seen fires jump five miles.

So, I certainly don't think it was the intention of the Member for Watson Lake to put a fire-break around the community that was that large. I think he's talking about putting a fire-break that would give time to mobilize crews to be able to stave off a wildfire, and so that we could save the communities at a lot lower cost than it's costing us today when the fire goes on.

I think one of the reasons that I'm very supportive of this motion today is that, having had the experience of the Pelly Crossing fire and having reviewed the history of the Old Crow fire a few years back with the evacuation of the communities - and where we all know, in the territory, that forestry is clearly a responsibility of the federal Liberal government - my understanding is that we're still trying to collect from them for the evacuation of those communities. Another case of downloading. So, anything we can do to reduce the cost - and especially if we can get a few bucks out of the feds to help us - would certainly be a tremendous benefit to all people of the Yukon.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: The member opposite said, "Good luck." I agree with him. Good luck. But the fact remains that there is a substantial amount of money outstanding that the federal government owes the territorial government in areas that were clearly their responsibility. Mind you, these are not the only areas. We can just look at the Minister of Health and Social Services' department and see the outstanding bills that are there from the federal government, and it does make it very difficult when the Liberals won't break open their purses and pay the bills that are owing and honour their commitments. That's what it is.

Mr. Speaker, as I spoke earlier, I believe that this is a very good idea. I will be interested in hearing the Member for Watson Lake's closing comments as to how much fibre - even has any idea - can be salvaged in such an undertaking as a fire suppression plan for each of the communities.

One needs only look at a community like Destruction Bay. I don't think you're going to get a lot of fibre. There are quite a few communities in the Yukon like that. But, in his own home community, I could see a substantial amount of fibre being salvaged and giving great protection to the community of Watson Lake - and other communities in the Yukon.

I think the plan has merit in the fact that we're talking only of taking the fuel and not taking the trees that actually act like a fire break - the aspen, the poplar and the willow. They act like a natural fire-break.

The Member for Watson Lake made a comment that we cannot stop wildfires. I just want to expand that and say nor do I think that we should stop all wildfires. But, that has been one of the mistakes in the past in the Yukon, where we spent millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars trying to suppress fires, and then end up in a situation where now we're having to build fire-guards, because the fuel has built up to such a level in our forests that when we have a fire, it's not just a normal fire; it's a very hot fire. As a result, it causes severe damage.

Nevertheless, having been in the outfitting business for many years and having lived in the woods all my life and knowing the value of wildfires to the enhancement of wildlife populations in the territory, there are a lot of areas where there is no fibre that is worthy of mention, as far as harvesting for our sawmills and our domestic use. I believe these areas would be better burned, so that we could create new growth and enhance wildlife populations in the Yukon.

In fact, many jurisdictions in North America today use fire as a wildlife management tool to burn off old growth where there is no marketable timber in order to expand the range for wildlife populations.

So I agree with the member opposite. I don't think for a minute - I'm not trying to get into a hostile debate here - I don't believe he's trying to say that all wildfires are bad, because I certainly don't believe that all wildfires are bad, but we certainly don't want them creating a hazard for our communities and our citizens. Regardless of whether the federal government pays the bill or not, we certainly still don't want to have that. So this is one way that we can do this, and I want to thank the Member for Watson Lake for bringing a motion of this type forward that has a lot of common sense behind it. It's a motion that most members in this House should be able to support without much hesitation.

The motion itself says it recognizes the significance of the fire safety problem, it recognizes the opportunities to lessen that fire risk and create safer communities and create jobs, and that a community's fire safety program could reduce the fire risk around the communities, create jobs, be helpful to allocation needs, and that the federal, Yukon, First Nation and municipal governments should work together to achieve these goals.

I don't have any problem at all supporting the member and supporting this government in embarking on that process. I see the DIAND book that's been handed out here says we're looking at a target date of the year 2005, I believe it is. I can appreciate that it would take that long - have a short-term plan in place by the year 2000 or 2001, and have all Yukon communities fire safe by the year 2005. It's a long-range plan. There are going to be many meetings and many controversial positions taken by many different interest groups in the territory, but that's nothing new to us here.

It's "save our economy and our civilization" around the world, but a lot of controversy and different interest groups who have different ideas, and we need to come up with a resolution.

However, I believe when we're embarking on an initiative of protection, it may be a lot easier to sell than some other initiatives that governments or private industry may want to undertake.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have had a substantial amount of experience and have been involved in living in communities that were threatened by fire for many, many years, not only in the Yukon but when I was in Alberta and lived in the mining communities that only had enough of the vegetation carved out to put up the houses, with the trees right to our back door. Every time there was a fire, there was a tremendous risk of losing a community. Not much thought was given in those days to spending money to protect the community. Times have changed, and we are doing that now.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I don't have much to say to this motion. I don't have any difficulty with it. I don't even have a lot of questions on it. I just want to thank the Member for Watson Lake once more for bringing it forward, and he has my support on it.

Mr. Livingston: I rise in support of the motion as well, and was pleased to note the support of the member opposite for this motion. He spent some time talking about wildfires, and I think most people of the Yukon would recognize that fire is an important part of the forest cycle.

This motion, though, is about safe communities and about the kind of preventive measures that can be taken by people, particularly during a dry year that it looks like we may be in for, to ensure that we have safer communities, that we are taking some measures to ensure that we're putting up the best defence against wildfires and in protecting our homes and our families and our communities.

Of course, a considerable side benefit can be work for Yukon people, and that's another good reason, I believe, to support this particular motion.

The actions taken through this kind of initiative can be one component of a thoughtful forest management initiative. I believe the Yukon's Department of Community and Transportation Services, along with the Yukon forest commission, can work with DIAND, communities and First Nations in developing an action plan to develop fire-safe communities in the Yukon - I know that some work has already been done on that in their January workshops - working with fire experts, community planners and fire departments, as well as people from the various orders of government.

Fire safety around Yukon communities is a significant concern. In 1991, on June 20, the Haeckel Hill fire was started. It burned within three miles of Crestview, in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, and would have kept going if it had not been for the excellent work done by the Yukon forest service and, just as importantly, because of a change of wind - a pretty chance occurrence that, in the end, probably saved a part of our community. The situation was extremely volatile, and we got lucky that time.

In 1946, one end of the Carmacks community burned, including some buildings. In 1958, Whitehorse was spared, but not without total devastation between Kusawa, right to the outskirts of town. There was some considerable loss of buildings, and I know that today my home sits on land that was burned in that 1958 fire. In 1969, the new town of Faro was gutted by fire. Pelly was spared that year, but had a close brush with fire that time around, as well. Of course, in 1995, Pelly was again spared, but not without many cabins and countless square kilometers of forest being destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, there's a possibility every year that fire-storm conditions can occur in the Yukon, usually for a total of about two weeks. That's when the relative humidity is extremely low, ground moisture is extremely low, temperatures are high and the wind speed is high. When you add potential carelessness or lightning to that mix, you have a possible disaster just waiting to happen.

There have been a number of years where I was able to do a little bit of a survey and I counted eight years since the Second World War, since 1946, where these conditions have produced some devastating results. While the conditions are natural, the impact on communities to the potential fire zone, of course, is not and that's what this kind of an initiative can serve to protect.

Work involving reducing the risk of wildfires around communities can help create some short-term employment and also provide some access to timber for use by local processors.

Who needs to be involved, Mr. Speaker? I would anticipate that all orders of government need to be involved. The federal government, the Yukon government, First Nations and the municipal governments working on behalf of the people in their various jurisdictions can work together to improve the safety of Yukon people.

Communication will be critical - I think, for this kind of an initiative to be successful - between the forest industry operators, including loggers and millers and DIAND in terms of what timber will be allocated and what timber will be available.

And I note that today in the House the Yukon government announced a $200,000 training trust fund, and certainly there is some potential at least for funds available through that trust fund to support this kind of an initiative.

Risk assessment clearly needs to be carried out in order to identify areas to begin with and, as my colleague from Watson Lake talked about the potential of doing a pilot, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly encourage and support work to begin on this kind of an initiative just as quickly as possible.

We do anticipate that the moisture levels in the soil will be lower this year - less snowfall than usual. We anticipate that it could be quite a hot, dry summer, or at least if El Niño sticks around. And I think, for that reason alone, we need to be taking some extra cautions this year to ensure that our communities are going to be reasonably well protected.

I note from the workshop that was carried out in January a couple of interesting items. In 1995, a well site near Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories was left entirely unburned after a wildfire went through burning everything outside of its perimeter. Why was that particular block of land left? Because after the site was cleared, the regeneration around this well site was poplar and other deciduous bushes, and that deciduous forest, Mr. Speaker, can act as a buffer around homes and communities, protecting them from wildfire.

Of course, there are a number of types of work that might be included under this kind of an initiative that can lessen the chances for disaster, and that includes things like thinning of the forest by creating fire-breaks, and by removing some of the existing fuel within the forests. That's one of the best solutions. The fire-breaks, of course, also help, because typically we get deciduous trees. Particularly when we're paying attention to that, we get deciduous trees growing back up.

So, the answer has to be to involve individual communities, the Yukon government, the federal government and First Nation governments to work together to help plan the safety of these communities and to give us an opportunity to manage these resources.

Through such things as education awareness and these kinds of active programs in the woods, we can expect to see safer communities - communities that are protected.

I hope that we're able to take some action on this initiative, because I know that people in my riding will be well-served by it. We have a number of areas, such as Crestview, MacPherson and Hidden Valley - its always the rural parts of the riding that are at risk because of their close proximity to conifers, the coniferous forests. This would be a significant step toward ensuring a safer environment for everyone this summer.

Mrs. Edelman: This is a good topic for debate today and certainly the Yukon Liberal caucus will be supporting the motion as presented today. Obviously, it makes sense to do something to try to prevent our territory from burning down. And this, as a solution, has been looked at by quite a number of different groups and it's been around for a very long time. The important elements here are jobs for Yukoners and, primarily, the most important issue, of course, is safety and what's good for our forests.

In a very micro kind of way, there was a project around my riding. One was a clearcut and one was the type of cut that the Member for Watson Lake is speaking about today. The clearcut went right down the power line behind Riverdale. It was a sight to behold. You could see quite a ways, because it was quite a large clear cut.

One of the things the company said was that one of the reasons for doing the clearcut, apparently, was to prevent fire from getting into Riverdale.

And, of course, as we all know, fire jumps. It goes down roots, it goes up tops, it goes everywhere, and the little tiny cut, defensive as it was, would have done nothing to protect Riverdale.

At the same time, there was a micro project that took place by some students from the college, and it was the type of cut that the Member for Watson Lake speaks of today. They got rid of a coniferous forest just beside the trail going into Grey Mountain Primary School from the greenbelt. This has actually become quite a lovely trail system for a number of the residents in the area. It is very hard to find, and I think that is what's most interesting about the whole issue.

I suppose that that's the thing. If we can protect our communities without having these very bad aesthetic impacts on our communities, then that's probably the best.

Here in the Yukon in the past, we have had a number of firebreaks. There was a huge fire-break that the Member for Laberge might be interested in that was actually built around Crestview when the military was here in the '40s and, indeed, that fire-break did absolutely nothing to protect Crestview in the Haeckel Hill fire. But it was quite a large fire-break that was built.

And there are people, in the federal government in particular, who have said that this approach is the only one that makes sense. I know one particular federal employee who has been saying this for as long as I can remember, and it makes a lot of sense. It's a proactive approach. It lessens the fuels around communities. It gets rid of coniferous and leaves the deciduous.

And, as we were mentioning before, there are three steps: the first is inventory of the production, extraction of the fibre, and clean up afterwards. All of these bring jobs and bring money into communities. All of these increase safety for those communities and all of these things are good for our forest.

There have been comments made in the House about previous fires, and of course there have been a number - there is a fire every year. Besides floods, forest fires are a most common occurrence here in the Yukon Territory.

The fire in 1969 that threatened Whitehorse stopped only because of a change in the wind, much like the fire out on Haeckel Hill that was also only stopped by a change in the wind. And indeed, there is a problem with this every year.

In the Minto and Pelly and as well as in the Old Crow fire, Emergency Measures was completely mobilized and there were people who were sent out to these communities. Indeed, the work in Old Crow in particular continued for, I think, almost two months. There were very few federal dollars that have been given back because of that. The cost to people was quite phenomenal. I mean, you're talking about uprooting people out of their community and moving them somewhere else. In this case, from Old Crow, they moved over to Inuvik, which was a whole different territory. That's the sort of thing we'd like to avoid in the future.

I'm not saying that this approach is going to stop forest fires in the Yukon, because it's not. I'm not going to say that this approach is going to save communities, because it may or may not do that, but I am saying it is a proactive approach. It's a supportable approach and our caucus certainly supports this approach. If there is something that we can do that's within our power, we would be more than happy to help in this process.

Of course, the important thing to remember, too, is that this is all being done in partnership with municipalities, with the federal government and with First Nations. These are important issues and the only way we're ever going to get anything done properly in the Yukon is if we keep those partnerships. Once again, we support that type of approach.

Mr. McRobb: I rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 103, brought forward by my colleague, the MLA for Watson Lake.

As you know, many communities in the territory are surrounded by boreal forests, making them particularly vulnerable to wildfires, which are a common occurrence throughout the summer months.

Over the years, many of our communities have been threatened by fire. In 1958, the City of Whitehorse was threatened, and some areas had to be evacuated. In 1969, a 200-hectare fire threatened local residences in the Crestview subdivision, and an evacuation was carried out. In that same year, a forest fire swept through and destroyed buildings and vehicles in Faro. In 1982, Stewart Crossing was threatened by fire. Recent fires resulted in evacuations at Old Crow, Pelly Crossing and the Whitehorse area. In the summer of 1997, a fire in the Haines Junction area burned a total of six hectares, and was controlled and extinguished only as a result of an extensive fire suppression operation.

I recall that fire, in particular, Mr. Speaker, as I joined with many concerned residents from the community atop Crocus Hill, it's called, and we watched the fire that was spreading near some houses in the area. This fire could have easily been a disaster and spread into the townsite of Haines Junction. We were very fortunate to bring it under control, given the dry circumstances and the fact that it happened to occur on a day that wasn't too windy. I think we all deserve to recognize the hard work and diligent efforts of the firefighters in the area to bring this fire under control, including the job well done by the helicopter pilots.

Mr. Speaker, this is to name just a few of the occurrences of life-threatening fires over the years. Astronomical amounts of human and financial resources are expended trying to put out fires that are burning out of control and threatening homes and communities. Much of this can be prevented if we all take responsibility for reducing the risk of forest fires in populated areas.

In the MacIntosh subdivision near Haines Junction, area residents expressed fear of the potential loss of lives and homes.

This concern was with the driving force behind the MacIntosh project, which was implemented in this past year. The MacIntosh project was arrived at through public consultation. The Alsek Renewable Resource Council debated the matter with public input and came to the determination of the plan, which met community approval. The resource council also took into consideration suggestions from the community about how the project should be established.

Mr. Speaker, although the concern about fire-breaks is very legitimate and necessary for the safety of our citizens, we mustn't use them as a tool to go logging in the absence of a sustainable forest management plan. And many people continue to hold that view, and I certainly support it and support the work of the Yukon forest commission in working toward the goal of a sustainable Yukon forest management plan.

The MacIntosh project was to establish a fire-break in the fuels between the MacIntosh subdivision and the large block of beetle-killed timber to the south. The long-term goal is to replace the spruce with willow and poplar, which is much more fire resistant than spruce. With the completion of this project, the Haines Junction community will be a much safer place to live in the short and long term, due to the reduced threat of fire.

In January of this year, a multi-government workshop, involving the Yukon forest commission, the Yukon Department of Community and Transportation Services and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, convened to discuss an action plan for fire-safe communities. A common theme was forwarded by First Nations and other representatives at this workshop - insistence that the process must remain community driven, and cooperation with the communities is necessary in developing coordination from the four levels of government.

I can recall, in attending the Association of Yukon Communities' annual general assembly last, I believe it was, May 2 in Watson Lake, officials from Alaska showed a video on wildfires that certainly had a significant impact upon those who viewed it. It was very startling and drove home the reality and the risk of forest fires to people living next to the boreal forest.

Initiatives like this will help us move toward developing fire-safe communities and a Yukon forest strategy. I commend the efforts of my colleague, Dennis Fentie, who continues to play a strong role in regional forest management and keeping our communities safe.

Last summer, the Mendenhall Community Association expressed concerns regarding the potential for a forest fire in this area. Mendenhall residents became increasingly concerned for their safety, given the volatile susceptibility to fire to wipe out their community. I also attended their pre-annual general meeting, Mr. Speaker, a week ago last Sunday, and this concern is still there in the community, and they'll be trying to establish a fire-break to protect them before the fire season gets too far along this year.

I wrote to the acting director general of DIAND and encouraged the development of improved fire protection measures and their implementation as soon as possible to prevent the loss of lives and homes. DIAND indicated that they are looking at strategies that are applicable to address these concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do more than look at strategies. We need to act now to make our communities safe. That is exactly what the Mendenhall Community Association intends to do. At a recent meeting of the association that I attended, as I said, it was clear that fire protection is a high priority among the residents there. The association has begun planning for a fire-break and, while this is still in the preliminary stages, their intention is to develop a proposal, in consultation with DIAND and other forestry officials, to ensure sound forest management and to provide maximum opportunity for the community.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the efforts of the Mendenhall Community Association and, as in the MacIntosh project, will do what I can to assist in seeing this project is completed to the satisfaction of the community. I'm sure, once the project is completed, the Mendenhall residents will sleep better at night.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this House to support this motion in an effort to make our communities a safer place to live.

Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. It's a good initiative. It will do a lot of service toward protecting our respective communities here in Yukon.

When I think back over the years, Mr. Speaker, I know, when I first arrived in Yukon, the second community I lived in was the Town of Faro, and it had just gone through a major fire, a major fire that devastated that townsite and burned to the ground a whole lot of homes that were under construction. In fact, there was a move afoot at that time to even not complete the Town of Faro but to go with a camp and rotate people in and out of Whitehorse. But that didn't come to pass.

I've gone through a history of many, many fires throughout the Yukon and Alaska, most recently the Old Crow fire and the Minto-Pelly fire and the fire around Tok, Alaska. The last two had quite an adverse effect on business, as they occurred in the summer and blocked the highways, impeded the flow of visitors and impeded the movement of goods and services that were needed in our respective communities.

So, anything we can do to protect our communities, such as what is being suggested with these fire-breaks, would be most welcome.

When I think back a couple of years to the fire-break that was located around our community, it was a big swath on the hillside that - well, the appearance was horrible and, from what I was told, if a fire did occur, it would jump that fire-break very, very quickly.

Having flown over the Minto-Pelly fire just a couple of years back and watching it go back and forth across the Yukon River, I can see that Mother Nature is a very, very powerful individual and can move tremendously. It was interesting to see how the fire would jump, and there'd be areas in its path that were left unscathed by that fire.

It was also interesting to go up into the Old Crow area a few years after the major fire. Previous to that, there'd been other fires on the tundra up there that were not fought. They are wildfires, yes, and there is not a need to contain them, but during the course of the winter, one would think that they would go out, but they just somehow go down into the ground and reappear the next spring. It's just an amazing phenomenon that took me very much by surprise.

I guess most of the criticism that has been offered the last few years has been the fire suppression that has been undertaken by the senior level of government here in the Yukon and supported by the Government of Yukon and the First Nations in the respective communities. One learns, when one gets into fire suppression, that the initial attack is the most formidable way of addressing any fire.

This is probably an area, though not the subject of this motion, that should be dealt with very, very quickly, and the lines of communication set and firmed up, so that we do not have a repeat of the Pelly-Minto situation that occurred a few years ago, where the fire was reported and no attack took place for a considerable length of time. I think a lot of the outcome and a lot of these subsequent workshops that came about are going to prove to be very, very beneficial, as they point out the need, not for just fire-breaks around communities, but a need for a cohesive approach to firefighting from all levels of government.

One has a different approach to firefighting when it's one's home in the approaching path of the fire. It is a scary, scary place to be in, having been through a number of fires, and one major flood - mind you, if I had my choice, I'd take the fire before the flood, but I don't want to see anyone blessed by either, or tainted or hurt by either one of these occurrences. They are both dramatic.

The other issue that the government is going to have to look at is to come to some undertaking as to the level of fire protection in the various areas, so that the insurance companies can come to some rationale for the rates they charge in rural Yukon for fire protection.

And, to a large part, they are considered unprotected areas, from a firefighting viewpoint, and one pays the highest rating of all for fire insurance in these areas - if indeed you can obtain it. So, perhaps the member in charge of the forestry commission can review these areas and come back with some further motion on these areas that I'm sure will be supported fully by both sides of this House.

The fire-guards or breaks that we have seen in the past around a number of communities don't appear to be worthy of the role that they were envisioned for, and I guess one has to look at the historical value of some of these fire-breaks and to look at the role that removing all the coniferous trees from the areas of the fire-breaks and adjacent to them would have. There appears to be a lot of benefit that would accrue to a fire-break of this nature. It wouldn't be a big, barren swath carved through the hillsides, like so many of the fire-breaks in the past have been, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have much further to say, other than that this is a very good initiative and that I will be in support of this motion.

Hon. Mr. Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief in my comments to this motion. I speak in support of this motion and thank the Member for Watson Lake for raising this issue.

We have noticed the weather outside, having an early spring, and the snow is going fast, and this raises a number of concerns about fires. The last year's fires in Alaska had major impacts and, Mr. Speaker, fires in my riding a few years ago certainly have affected my constituents. The years before that, I had worked as a firefighter for a number of years, so I'm quite aware of the impact and the magnitude of what forest fire brings and how scary it is. When a person is out there with a water hose, trying to make a fire-break with a water hose, and a fire comes up that has flames over 200 feet high, it's quite scary. Nothing stands in their way. No water bombers or fire-breaks are going to be stopping fires of that magnitude.

Now, the fire that was at Minto destroyed some buildings when it first started - some older buildings that were along the creek there - and that particular fire was very scary for people watching it. They had fireballs rolling across the road and the highway and, as the weather continued to be dry and windy, the fire moved quite quickly toward the Town of Pelly Crossing. That town had experienced fires nearby and throughout the community a few times before that, and they also know what the effects of a fire can be and how scary it can be.

As people are well-aware, the community was evacuated. During that time, it would have been smoke that did damage, rather than the flames themselves.

People in Pelly were describing the fire, as it was a very bright day - one a bit brighter than this, with the sun very high - and how once the smoke rolled into the communities it was pitch black out. Street lights came on, it was so dark there. It gives a person a very weird feeling of insecurity in terms of where they go from there, as people left - both north and south of the community - and the community was abandoned. What steps would they have taken to try to protect the community?

I know that some of the people in the community, including the former MLA for the Mayo-Tatchun area, Danny Joe, lost a cabin in the burn. There's no chance at all to go out there and try to cut a fire-break around the cabin, even though it was beside a lake and a swampy area. He felt a lot of loss in personal belongings. If you can think, I guess, on a bigger scale, about what can happen to a community, it can be fairly devastating.

My own community - the community of Carmacks - through stories I have heard about the 1969 or earlier fires, they have come right up to the top of the hill. You know how the town is situated. It came right up to the top of the hill and the people in the community could see the flames on the top of the hill.

There are some communities, I know, in the Yukon, that do have fire-breaks. Carmacks is one of them. It gives the people in the community a bit of a sense of security that there is something that they could use to fight the forest fires that are coming toward the community.

I just want to say that when there is a forest fire that is wild coming toward a community and it can be destroyed, of course the fire departments are put on full alert and that is their number-one priority: to make sure that the safety of the people in the community is their number-one priority. They'll work their hardest to bring that safety forward.

A fire-break is not just about having a fire come up to it and whether it jumps across it or not, it could be used in the way firefighters attack fires. They could use the fire-breaks as a point to back-burn. As you back-burn, you light the fire. The bigger head of the fire that's coming forward will suck the smaller one in and burn the fuels ahead of it. In theory, it should slow down the fire or stop it. Those are small types of ways firefighters use to combat fire in fighting fire with fire.

I know that we do appreciate the risk and threat to public safety. This is what this motion is all about: keeping communities safe. I think that in putting fire-breaks around communities, some may have to change, especially those that have boundary changes that are coming forward.

We could also do some inventory work while we make the fire-breaks. It will give the local people a little better understanding as to what exactly is out there.

Mr. Speaker, I know that what fires do and the effects of them, it's certainly - as some members have said - a natural part of our ecosystem.

It does provide back to the land, and it's not unusual to set forest fires. I know aboriginal people have burned off points in land, just so that it could be rejuvenated with new material, and so on, for the animals. In years after, it does attract a lot of moose, and so on, like the young willows that are out there. So, it's certainly a big part of the ecosystem and part of the circle of life in creating new habitat, and so on, for wildlife and freeing up nutrients for the soil. Living in the north, I think we should be prepared to accept this reality.

One of the things we need to think about and experience in dry seasons in the Yukon is the future and what the future has to hold. I believe that what we have been going through and what we have brought up, through the department and as a government in the past, is climate change. We believe that it's truly here and has showed signs of it many times. The projections indicate, of course, increased forest fires in the Yukon, along with other things.

With this in mind, and not knowing exactly what nature holds for us out there, in having drier weather and increased forest fires, a lot of our timber is burned in forest fires. Sometimes we don't realize how much of it, even, for example, the Minto fire, which took up a lot of the Selkirk First Nation traditional territory. They had 1,800 square miles of selected land, and that fire alone burned approximately 25 percent of their land selection.

There's value beyond the timber there, and that's why the land has been selected.

It makes sense, given the known and future risk, to take steps now that might improve the public safety around human settlements. I certainly support the need for the involvement of all levels of governments, and also it's important to inform and hear from the people that will be affected.

Some property in the highest demand around a community is heavily forested, and even though we do have firefighting equipment in the communities where there are settlements, it's good to know that we do and can have fuel-breaks around communities, and it would be nice to see us expand this down the road to settlements.

The one fire that we had a couple of years before the 1995 fire in Minto did burn some fairly significant settlements - and there's the Big Salmon village, for example. I know firefighters moved in, cleared out the brush around the cabins and actually saved the cabins by putting sprinklers on top of them, but the fire was so close that it did burn in and through the graveyard and a lot of the old wooden stakes that were among the graves.

There was another one just across the Yukon River from that. I'm not sure of the exact name, but I think it was Police Point, where there were cabins that were used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police years back, which not many people knew about at all, and those buildings are gone and never to be seen again, and we don't know what they even looked like.

We have a lot of settlements around the Yukon that are in that same situation. It would be nice in the future to go in there and clean these places up.

We have, as a government, put a lot of money into some of the settlements, like Fort Selkirk, for example. It would be a shame to see a settlement like that, with only a couple of people living there, destroyed by a wildfire, after putting all that money and effort into rebuilding and renovating buildings that are there.

Mr. Speaker, it's important that people living in these areas appreciate the support and this kind of initiative that has been brought forward, and to have information they need to take steps for themselves to protect their own properties. I think that they would best be able to make informed decisions about community initiatives. I appreciate the opportunities for employment, of course, that might be created by such initiatives, and also the information gathered by doing a resource inventory at the same time.

I know that some community mills would appreciate this type of timber, if it's large enough that they can use it and make products out of it, and would appreciate this initiative as brought forward by the forest commission.

If consensus can be reached on these kinds of projects, the confusion about the availability of timber supplies and all that, we know that it may allow an opportunity for better identification of timber resources.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I think that the work done by the forest commission and DIAND toward an action plan on this issue is good work. I'd just note the involvement of Community and Transportation Services in that work, as well. I particularly appreciate the emphasis on public education and the cooperative approach, and I believe that this could be a positive initiative, and I encourage all members to support this motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Cable: I would like to reiterate the last speaker's comments. It is a positive motion and I'm certain that all members will, in fact, be supporting it.

I had occasion to be driving down the Alaska Highway a few years ago on a hot summer day when Haeckel Hill was on fire. I have to say that the blues and purples and colour that came off that hill were beautiful in an awe-inspiring sort of way. I witnessed the power of nature and its awesome beauty. I witnessed also the fear in people who were living near the fire. That fear was palpable and could be tasted.

I had conversations with some of them later - some that lived up in the Crestview area - about what they thought about the fire. This was after the fire, and they told me about their fear and awe when they saw this evidence of nature's power moving down toward their houses.

We have to remember that, for most of our citizens, their home is their castle. It's their major investment in life. While we may be able to devise plans to evacuate people and make them safe and deal with personal safety, we cannot easily protect people's possessions and their homes without taking some steps before the fires strike. In a territory such as ours, which is sparsely populated, and with many, if not all, of our municipalities surrounded with considerable forest fuel, we need to be constantly concerned about the fire threat to our homes, our institutional buildings and our commercial buildings.

Whether it's Pelly Crossing a couple of summers ago, Crestview in 1991, Porter Creek about 30 years ago or Faro in 1969, we all have to be concerned with the easy threat that our environment poses to us in a hot and dry summer.

There's also a job creation aspect to the motion, and I commend the member for bringing the motion forward. I don't think it's any secret that, at this time, unemployment in the Yukon is high and it's likely to remain high in the near future. There's probably not a better time to get this type of initiative moving, and from a job creation standpoint, now is probably the time for the greatest return on public investment, more now that three or four years from now.

If the mover of the motion intends to close the motion later on and speak again, it would be useful to hear from him whether he thinks the time line or the agenda that has been struck and suggested in the publication that he provided to us may be moved up.

It would be useful also to hear from the member about the cost of making all our communities fire safe. Now, I don't pretend to think that he has got a dollar figure on the cost of the fire-breaks in all communities, but it would be useful to hear from him whether he has any ballpark costs - whether we're talking about $500,000 or $5 million or $10 million to construct the fire-breaks and cut down the timber and the brush and the wood fuel that surrounds our communities.

It would be useful to hear from him how far his thinking has advanced on the sale of the timber and the wood that would be taken out of the fire-break areas and whether that would balance a significant portion of the cost of cutting the firebreaks, or if in fact whether the whole exercise would be revenue-neutral.

I guess it's no secret that the forestry resource is a tangle up here of jurisdictional rights. Some trees and brush belonged to the federal Crown. Some were under the administration of the territorial government, in and around the municipalities. Some belong to the First Nations, under their settlement arrangements. Some belong to private individuals. Some of the wood is on institutional land. I think it's safe to say that members of this House aren't going to pack chainsaws on our back this afternoon and go out and start cutting down trees.

It would be useful for the member to tell us in response whether he has some sense of whether all the players - all the owners - of this resource are on side, and whether he knows of any opposition that may be in the wings to cutting down trees around the various municipalities. I take it from the fact that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada appears to have, not spearheaded, but worked with the territorial government in the development of a strategy, in a summary of a workshop, and that they're fully on side. Confirmation of that would be useful.

As I say, I look forward to the mover of the motion's comments, and I would say that the motion he has presented is fully supportable.

Mr. Phillips: I thought we'd be alternating, government and opposition, but I'm prepared to go at this time.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Phillips: The Member for Faro said they're finished. That's one other thing I could agree with today, as well - that they are finished.

I want to thank the Member for Watson Lake for bringing this motion forward here today. I think it's a timely motion. I certainly support the motion as presented by the member. I had a friendly amendment I was going to make to the motion, but I was talked out of it by the member, who convinced me that this motion was just fine the way it was and that we were all getting along so well I shouldn't upset the apple cart. So, I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to support the motion as presented by the member.

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking about this motion, and I've lived in this territory - I think, sometime next week it will be 50 years. I came here in April of 1948, and I've lived in Whitehorse and the Yukon ever since. I'm probably dating myself. I'd like to think of myself as a tree, because a tree is considered young at 50 years, and that's what we're talking about here today - trees.

Mr. Speaker, I can remember many of the fires that were here in the territory, and I can remember what we used to do about a lot of them and, years ago, fire-breaks were kind of a norm. When we built a community, they used to cut fire-breaks around the communities. Sometimes the military did it. Sometimes the government did it, but I can remember when I was a kid that we used to play in a lot of the fire-breaks, because it was a place where you could make a trail and ride your bike and hike or whatever. So, it used to be kind of the standard, and in the last few years, we've kind of got away from that a little bit.

I was here as well, Mr. Speaker, in 1958. I lived on Strickland Street, where I spent many of my years in our family home, and I can recall coming home from school in June 1958, and my mother getting my brother and me to go out and take the sprinkler and hose, and we were - actually, we didn't have sprinklers then. We just had a hose, and we hosed down the roof of the hose, because all the big cinders were floating around and it was quite smoky, and we'd had about three weeks of really warm weather and the fire hazard was high. And the fire that, I believe, started in the ground at Braeburn and worked its way over to the north Alaska Highway and worked its way- it eventually stopped, I think, at the Takhini River Bridge. That's where it really ended up stopping, but Whitehorse was cloaked in this sort of orange, hazy glow for days on end. There was not any clear air.

I know that there was quite a fear. I think a couple of times they had the Canadian military on standby with Hercules aircraft, and they were going to evacuate women and children from the City of Whitehorse. And it was quite - I suppose, not so much for us as kids, because we thought it was kind of fun to water the house, because you used to get heck for doing it when we just grabbed the hose and would hose down the house.

It must have been kind of trying and difficult for our parents, who were worried about what was going to happen to their community and their lives and jobs if the fire got out of hand and burned the community down.

Mr. Speaker, we've seen a few other things happen in the last few years in my life in the Yukon, and one of them is that our climate has changed somewhat, specifically in the last five or 10 years. It appears that we're getting drier years, less snowfall and rainfall. We've done a very good job of suppressing fires. We have spent a lot of effort, time and money in putting out every fire that's started. We've sort of added, I guess, without thinking, to the problem by building a huge supply of wood to burn when we do get a big fire.

Another thing I noticed that I didn't notice when I was a youngster in the Yukon was that we seem to be getting a lot more lightning fires than we did before. I can recall, as a kid, rarely hearing thunder and rarely seeing lightning happening; yet it is quite a common occurrence now in the summer. There are dozens - hundreds and thousands - of lightning strikes throughout the Yukon every year.

The other thing that happens from time to time, and seems to be happening more now because of our growing population, is that our local fire departments in our communities appear to be busier each spring putting our fires that are started by some people or kids out there playing with matches or building little fires, or even someone trying to burn some rubbish or dried grass in their backyard.

These fires have created a hazard, as well. In fact, I am very much aware of a fire that almost got out of hand last summer that would have been catastrophic if it had. It was out at March Lake at Judas Creek. Mid-week, there were a couple of kids playing with matches. They started a fire. Fortunately, it was noticed in time and put out. It was put out just as the winds were coming up. Within a half an hour of the fire being extinguished by the very quick action of many of the residents in Judas Creek, we had 60- and 70-mile-an-hour winds that would have taken that fire right through that whole community.

There would have been no hope of saving many of the houses, and we probably would have lost half of Judas Creek last summer in the fire. I think, if you spoke to the people on Emergency Measures in that area and other people who came out to fight the fire, they would tell you that they got by by the skin of their teeth that day and they know that it could happen again.

I would make a comment about the report. I think it's a very good report. It's useful to have. I made this comment before about some of the other reports that ministers have tabled in the House: if we're going to be discussing a certain issue and there's a report relating to it, maybe the government side could make an effort to provide the information to us at an earlier date. Then we could have some of the information that's provided in the report used for research as well. It would be useful that way, if we're going to be commenting on a document, as we are here today.

The strategy is a good one, but I share some of the problems that the last speaker had about this particular strategy, and that is that we're not going to see final results, I guess, until about 2005. The concern I have is, is any kind of contingency that going to be put in place ahead of that to look at some of the areas that right now I think are in fairly serious circumstances, where there is a large buildup of fuel around the communities?

We know it now. We don't have to make a lot of effort to study it. And my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that we've had several dry summers. We've had several dry winters. In fact, this winter in particular, in some areas of the Yukon we've seen very little snowfall, and if we get a mild or a warm and early spring - most of the snow at the Marsh Lake area is just about gone. Bare spots are showing up all over, and there's going to be very little moisture in the ground in the spring. And if it gets warm real fast and stays warm for a while this spring, 2005 or a strategy won't help us much at all in some of these areas.

So, that's the concern I have. This is a good idea, but in my view, it's almost five or six years behind. So, what I want to know from the member is if there are any plans at all to try to accelerate this kind of process where we can get a handle fairly quickly and get support of people in various communities and start to work on some of these fire-breaks now.

I also share the concern that my Liberal colleague mentioned with respect to unemployment. If we follow this forest strategy of developing fire-safe communities in the Yukon and we don't start on any of the work until a year or two from now, this isn't going to help our extremely high unemployment at the present time. So, there may be a way to look at some communities and providing some short-term employment in the near future, which might reduce the unemployment rate in general a