001a
Whitehorse, Yukon
Monday, October 25, 2004 — 1:00 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.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: I rise today in this House to recognize Breast Cancer Awareness Month and to pay tribute to 11 very special Yukon women. Mr. Speaker, these women have shared their stories and bared their souls with the intent of helping other Yukon women learn about how to take care of themselves and practise good breast health, to take responsibility for themselves.
002a
Eight are living with breast cancer, and three are women who, like our wives, daughters and mothers, know what they need to do to keep themselves healthy and want to share that information with others.
This Friday at the High Country Inn they will be seen on the big screen during the premiere of a Yukon-made educational video on breast health during a women-only launch.
This video has been funded jointly by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Whitehorse General Hospital and the Department of Health and Social Services. It will be used throughout the Yukon as an educational tool.
This video is 18 minutes long and speaks about the importance of breast self-examination, regular clinical exams by a health professional and regular mammography screening. What makes this such a good tool, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it features Yukon women speaking to other Yukon women. They should all be very proud of their contribution in creating this tool to assist in promoting good breast health for women.
One in nine women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year.
003a
We would like to again acknowledge the 11 participants and also acknowledge and pay tribute to all women everywhere who live with and battle this disease, and we applaud those who support them.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McRobb: I am also proud to rise today on behalf of the official opposition to tribute October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This awareness month is especially important because the first step in the fight against any type of cancer is education. The more we know about the cause, symptoms and prevention of all types of cancer, the greater chance we have of decreasing the number of deaths caused by this dreadful disease. We have seen several events already this month increasing our awareness of breast cancer and raising money for research. We applaud these national and local efforts and all the volunteers and organizers involved.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in Canadian women. More than 10 percent of them will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. Four hundred women in Canada are diagnosed with breast cancer every week; 100 of them will die. This disease is not limited to women. Although the numbers are much smaller for men, it is still important for all of us to be aware of its symptoms and preventive measures.
The cause of breast cancer is still unknown. Many people with breast cancer don’t have a family history of identified risks. Some of these deaths could be prevented with early detection and screening. The good news is that rates for this disease have stabilized and death rates have declined steadily. Research is still needed, particularly in the relationship between all types of cancer and environmental pollution.
004a
It is important for all of us to continue to support fundraising and educational events put on by the Canadian Cancer Society. Research and support can give us hope that in the future we will have beaten this disease.
Ms. Duncan: I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to recognize national Breast Cancer Awareness Month. October 2004 marks the 20th annual national Breast Cancer Awareness Month — 20 years in educating women and men about breast cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment.
During national Breast Cancer Awareness Month we recognize that progress is being made in the treatment of this disease. Each and every one of us has been touched in some way by breast cancer, be it a mother, grandmother, sister, aunt or a very dear friend.
We in the Yukon on Mother’s Day walk, bike or run in the Run for Mom for breast cancer awareness. Mammograms are the most reliable breast cancer screening tool available today. Regular mammograms can spot a breast tumour while it’s still small and easier to treat, boosting a woman’s chance of surviving this disease.
005a
National Breast Cancer Awareness Month provides a reminder to all women to perform a breast self-examination and schedule a mammogram. Please remind all of the women in your life to do the same.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In recognition of Peggy Sue Schadl
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: I rise today on behalf of the House to inform the members of a prestigious award bestowed on a Yukon student in Watson Lake.
Peggy Sue Schadl, a grade 5 student at Johnson Elementary School, received a national award from World Literacy Canada. Peggy Sue was recognized for her excellent poem entitled Living in the Yukon. Her poem was one of 1,500 entries from grade 4 and 5 students across Canada, and it was picked as the prize winner for the Yukon Territory.
I am honoured to rise in this House today to pay tribute to Peggy Sue for making the Yukon come alive in her award-winning poem. I would also like to take this moment to acknowledge the teachers, staff and students at Johnson Elementary and Peggy Sue’s parents for supporting her in her writing.
Thank you.
006a
Speaker: Are there any further tributes?
Introduction of visitors.
Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, I have for tabling the interim report from the Senior Advisor on Electoral Reform.
Speaker: Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?
Are there any reports of committees?
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mr. Hardy: I have for tabling the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the 31st Yukon Legislature. The report is based on public hearings held in February of this year and was released to the public on July 15, 2004.
Speaker: Petitions.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 4 — received
Clerk: Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to review a petition, being Petition No. 4 of the First Session of the 31st Legislative Assembly, as presented by the leader of the official opposition on October 21, 2004. This petition meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Speaker: Petition No. 4 is, accordingly, deemed to be read and received.
Are there any petitions to be presented?
007a
Are there any bills to be introduced?
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill No. 52: Introduction and First Reading
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I move that Bill No. 52, entitled Act to Amend the Education Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. minister responsible for the Public Service Commission that Bill No. 52, entitled Act to Amend the Education Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be now introduced and read a first time.
Motion for introduction and first reading of Bill No. 52 agreed to
Speaker: Are there any further bills for introduction?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Hassard: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to reinstate its funding to Skills Canada.
Mr. Fairclough: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT it is the opinion of this House that
(1) in the contract between the Department of Education, the University of Regina and Yukon College, an evaluation of the Yukon native teacher education program is required every five years;
(2) in the 14 years since its inception YNTEP has been evaluated twice and neither evaluation was acceptable to the parties; and
THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to fund a competent, thorough evaluation of YNTEP before making any further decision on its future.
008a
Mr. Rouble: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the federal Liberal government to reinstate its funding to the Committee on Abuse in Residential Schools Society.
Mr. Cardiff: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to deny outstanding rural residential land applications made as a result of a change in the rural residential land application policy effective June 1, 2004; and
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to impose a moratorium on future rural residential land sales within 30 kilometres of community boundaries until proper consultation has taken place and an appropriate land use plan has been developed for the area in question.
Mr. Cathers: I rise today to give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to streamline the land application process and make more land available to Yukoners.
009a
Ms. Duncan: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House recognizes that the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly require all members to attend the Legislature unless leave of absence has been granted by the Speaker; and
THAT convention and past practice have outlined a number of absences that may be granted by the Speaker; and
THAT this House recommends that parental leave be considered by the Speaker to be just cause for absence from the Legislature until such time as the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges can address this issue.
Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?
Is there a statement by a minister?
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Caribou permit allocation
Mr. McRobb: As you know, Thursday marked the first day of this fourth sitting under this Yukon Party regime. It also marked the first time this new Environment minister has bothered to comment publicly on his unilateral decision that has infuriated many Yukoners. I am speaking about the hunting allocation for the Aishihik caribou herd where he decreased the number of animals available to resident hunters and First Nation hunters and transferred those animals to the outfitter.
010a
Mr. Speaker, this overruling of local boards and committees by the minister occurred within a couple weeks of his assumption of the post previously held by his colleague from Porter Creek North. It infuriated members of boards and committees across the territory. It has infuriated local hunters and many other people.
On Thursday he indicated that there was some process matter that —
Speaker: Order please. Would the member ask the question, please?
Mr. McRobb: Certainly.
Would the minister now shed some light on what he has cited as the reason, the “tenets of natural justice”?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: The question has been asked. The question has been answered.
Mr. McRobb: The question has not been answered. I asked him to explain what he meant by “tenets of natural justice” and so far he has refused to do so. The record will speak for itself.
So I will ask the minister to explain not only the first question, but also my second question, which is: the CHON transcript from Friday indicates that he had a problem with the fact that the resource council did not provide reasons for its decision. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Umbrella Final Agreement section 16.8.4 indicates the minister must provide written reasons for decisions within 60 days of overriding any council. Has he done that?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: As stated previously, the issue is one of natural justice, which must prevail. Everyone has a responsibility in this process. The Alsek Renewable Resource Council, the affected outfitters, the Outfitter Quota Appeal Committee and the Department of Environment — we all have a responsibility.
As minister responsible for the Department of Environment, my responsibility is to ensure that the processes are followed, adhered to and reported on in a timely fashion. That is where we are at today, and what happened at the end of the period of time is the same numbers of animals were harvested this year as were harvested last year.
011a
Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, the minister is avoiding the questions. He did not answer the question whether he has provided written reasons for his decision to overrule the Alsek Renewable Resource Council. He also has not answered the first question as to what he meant by “the tenets of natural justice were not followed during the procedure”. Mr. Speaker, it’s time for this minister to tell this House and Yukoners the real reasons he overrode the process and his former colleague. Can he do that now?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, that was explained thoroughly on a number of occasions, and I would encourage the member opposite to go back and review Hansard.
Question re: Land applications, Fish Lake Road
Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have corresponded with the minister on a couple of occasions regarding the rural residential land application policy. I have a letter from the minister stating that he would like to confirm that no major changes have occurred to the federal program. The former policy was a federal policy, and now as of June 1, 2004, it’s a Yukon government policy. The fact of the matter is that under the federal policy there were no applications being entertained within 30 kilometres of municipal boundaries. The new policy allows for land applications within that 30-kilometre boundary. So in light of the land rush that’s occurring, does the minister not feel that this is in fact a major change in policy?
Hon. Mr. Lang: The answer to that is no. We did mirror what the federal government had done in the past. We are working within that policy to answer the questions about the land that had been staked and put in front of us since June of this year. There has been land applied for in that area over the last five or 10 years. There are people who live there on the Fish Lake Road who acquired land through the same process as the people are today.
012a
Mr. Cardiff: This is causing a lot of problems and it’s causing a lot of concern here in Whitehorse and in the communities surrounding Whitehorse. The minister has an obligation to ensure that community development happens in a planned and responsible manner. There is a whole department upstairs in community services. He should talk to his colleague about that. We’re not making good, effective use of it.
I have raised this issue with the minister in budget debate, my colleague raised it in the spring — about a big land sale — and the minister thought that was a great idea. But what we have is development with no planning. The minister should get his act together. They’ve had five months since we raised these questions in the spring about responsible land planning and spot land applications in the Hamlet of Mount Lorne and other areas. Why was there no responsible land planning being done prior to this land rush?
Hon. Mr. Lang: We have been looking at and working with responsible land planning, but I remind the member opposite that we do take seriously their questions in the House here and we work with them. But we do have an obligation to follow the policies in place. Nobody out there broke any laws. They have to go through the system to acquire their land. The land will be assessed. There are all sorts of steps to go through before this land is put into private hands. So this is the first step on a long road, and these people will be treated like any other Yukoner who makes that request in the lands office.
Mr. Cardiff: Well, the minister should read the policy because it says, right here on the front page of the policy, “…to ensure community interests are protected with respect to the management and disposition of land.” Well, community interests aren’t being protected. There are lots of people who are concerned. What the minister needs to do is immediately rethink this policy. An NDP government would immediately put a halt to this present land rush and a freeze on all land dispositions until a planned, responsible land development policy is developed through full and fair consultation with Yukoners, local advisory committees, hamlet councils, municipalities — that’s what we would do.
013a
I want to know if the minister will now admit that the real problem is the current policy, and will he commit to placing a moratorium on rural residential land applications until there is a full consultative process with all Yukoners? Will he do that?
Hon. Mr. Lang: Isn’t the Yukon in good shape that it doesn’t have an NDP government?
We aren’t in the process of micromanaging policies that are in place nor short-circuiting policies. The policies are in place for all Yukoners, and at the end of the day there is a process. For the member opposite to insinuate that we’re going outside the parameters of that policy — he’s dead wrong. The government of the day — the Government of the Yukon Territory — will honour the policies that are in place. The people in question will have their day in court and the policy will unfold the way it should.
Question re: Land applications
Ms. Duncan: I also have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Yukon is currently experiencing a staking rush, and it’s not for mineral claims. Almost 60 new land applications have been received since August, and many of those are for prime locations around the City of Whitehorse. There has been a great deal of speculation over why this has happened. It has been reported that the main reason these lots are being grabbed up is because the rules have changed since the Yukon government took over the process in April of 2003.
I’d like to start this afternoon by asking the minister about that rule change. Can the minister tell the public if any rules, regulations, laws or policies have been changed since the Government of Yukon took over the sale and land application process in 2003?
Hon. Mr. Lang: When Energy, Mines and Resources took over the land from the federal government in April of last year, it mirrored the legislation, and we had a commitment. As the member opposite says, there are 60 applications before the land office today. I hardly call that a land rush.
014a
That’s the lands office doing the job we set them out to do: to get land in the hands of Yukoners so that they can all benefit from the use of that land.
Ms. Duncan: Under this Yukon Party government, land is being made available in an entirely new way. According to a document on the Government of Yukon’s own Web page, the policy for land applications has been changed. The date on the document is June 1, 2004. Under the new policy, applications are now being accepted for land within 30 kilometres of municipalities. Previously, application of the former federal policy was limited to 30 kilometres outside. There was a change. It’s on the minister’s own Web site.
The public has never been informed of this change. There has been no public information session. No notification to the public that this policy change occurred within the minister’s own department on June 1, 2004.
How does the minister stand and explain to the public that they weren’t notified on this policy change? How does he explain that?
Hon. Mr. Lang: In answering that question, anybody in the Yukon who is interested in the land policy, I recommend they go to the lands office and get updated on the land policy on the Yukon. There’s nothing secretive about the office. The office is open from 9 to 5 every day. It’s available to the general public to answer those questions.
Ms. Duncan: The Yukon Party government has made a policy change. They have a responsibility to tell the public about it in an open and public manner. The policy change was made in June of this year and the Yukon Party government didn’t bother to tell anybody. There was absolutely no public notification of a significant change in policy and the result is a free for all on land around the City of Whitehorse.
Can the minister confirm that the Yukon Party government had no consultation with either the City of Whitehorse or the Kwanlin Dun on these important changes to land policy?
015a
Hon. Mr. Lang: In answering that question, again I go back to the policy. The policy is in place for all Yukoners to take advantage of. We’ve had some issues on the Fish Lake Road, which we addressed through the policy. Certainly all First Nations have — the LARC process is in place. The public has some input in there. There are checks and balances on the way the land is handed out.
As far as knowing about policy or whatever, we have a very active lands office and we are answering the concerns of Yukoners. The people who staked the land did nothing wrong. They will be put into the process and they will be processed according to, I guess, what point they put their proposals in. But at the end of the day we have a responsibility to follow the policy in place, go forward with that and work with Yukoners to get land into the hands of Yukoners so they can build their homes and their dreams in the Yukon.
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Order. Prior to the member asking the next question, I would just like to remind all members of the House that extraneous chatter is not allowed. I would ask the members to restrain themselves while another member is speaking.
Question re: Tantalus School, Yukon College campus at
Mr. Fairclough: My question is for the Minister of Education. On opening day of this Legislature, we saw dozens of people in the front of this building protesting the minister’s decision about the placement of the College campus in Carmacks. The minister didn’t listen to them. This government’s relationship with the Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation and other First Nation governments has gone down the drain over a very simple matter.
How has the protest on Thursday affected the minister’s view? Is he still insisting on going against his own democratically appointed planning committee?
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: I guess I would have to say that I respect everybody’s point of view. That’s my job. I went to Carmacks. I listened to all of the people. I didn’t select whom I would listen to. I came back with a lot of information that was very valuable in making the decision that was made.
016a
And I want to remind the member opposite of how the children’s safety is paramount over everything, including becoming a political football with this school.
The school in Carmacks is not wheelchair-friendly, and I honestly believe that even elders would have a very difficult time trying to manoeuvre around in that school. It’s a very unsafe situation for the children.
Mr. Speaker, both opposition parties had the opportunity to build a new school. Neither did. This government will attempt to build a new school, and we will accomplish this task.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Fairclough: Well, I hear his colleagues cheering him on in this matter, Mr. Speaker, but the minister didn’t hear the question. I’m talking about the community campus, and the minister decided to read notes that were given to him. I’d like him to maybe concentrate on the first question and try to answer this next question.
For over 10 years, the College has provided excellent training opportunities for adults in Carmacks in its present location. The relationship the College has with the people of Carmacks and the First Nation couldn’t be better, yet this minister thinks he can improve on excellence. He wants to reinvent the wheel. Does the minister believe that the Carmacks campus is not meeting the needs of the community?
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Well, I’d like to clarify something for the member opposite. This is an issue that this minister has been dealing with for some time and really doesn’t have to read notes. I have listened to the people in Carmacks.
Mr. Speaker, the government does have a responsibility. That responsibility is to ensure that public infrastructures are built throughout the territory. Schools so happen to be public infrastructures, and the Yukon College campus is also a public infrastructure. It is in every community. It is in Whitehorse, and I don’t think it should be any different anywhere else. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that by building this infrastructure, it’s only going to boost the morale of all people, and I think this building needs to be given a chance, and not condemned before the first nail is driven to even start the project.
017a
Mr. Fairclough: Well, then, the minister needs to follow his own words and not try to delay this project. He said he would listen to the people in Carmacks. Well, why were they protesting outside this building? Because they weren’t heard and the minister didn’t go to them and ask them the questions. Neither did he ask his own committee, Mr. Speaker, so the member opposite really needs to hear what is being said here.
Until this minister came into office, the opportunity was always given to each community where new schools were being built. They were asked to choose where they wanted to see the College campus located.
Watson Lake, Ross River and Mayo chose to have the campus in their schools. That’s their privilege. Dawson City, Pelly Crossing and Haines Junction chose not to have the campus attached to their schools. Carmacks wants the same opportunity.
Will the minister tell Carmacks publicly why they are being treated with less respect than those other six communities?
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: I believe in my heart that that’s only the member opposite’s own opinion of things.
The thing I did hear from Carmacks when I was there was that that member never did consult with the people in Carmacks. There was some question as to how his government could be in power for eight years and never, ever build a school or consult with the people about how and when they needed a new school.
This government believes that there is a very real need for a college in Carmacks and again, Mr. Speaker, certainty is a very important factor here.
The Little Salmon-Carmacks First Nation is now self-governing. They have responsibilities in their government. At any given date they could grow to the size where they need every available inch of their own band administration office. Then what happens with the Yukon College campus? There is no other place in Carmacks to put a college at this point in time.
It’s important to build one so that certainty is there and so that it will be there for many years to come and it will be an infrastructure that all the people in Carmacks can be proud of. I’m very positive that they will enjoy this new building.
018a
Question re: Dawson City, proposed UNESCO world heritage site designation
Mrs. Peter: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Dawson City is one of 10 Canadian sites being considered for a world heritage status through the United Nations Economical, Social and Cultural Organization. I’m sure the minister is aware of the tremendous impact a world heritage designation would have on Dawson’s tourism industry and Yukon tourism in general.
If she needs an example, she could look at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, where tourism has grown by 10 percent a year since the town was declared a world heritage site in 1995.
What steps has the minister taken to support this nomination, and will she provide us with an update on the status of this nomination?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: We on this side of the House are very supportive of the Klondike region and their many efforts over many years to protect and to preserve their long heritage pertaining to the Klondike region.
The world heritage designation is something that has been in the works over the last 10 years, I understand. It is one of two sites actually on the preliminary list to be designated. We on this side of the House are supportive of the efforts of the community of Klondike and the efforts of Parks Canada, and we encourage Parks Canada again to step up to the plate to increase resources to heritage preservation.
On this side of the House, we’re doing our part by actually reinvesting and investing more and more dollars into heritage.
I should add that our heritage dollars over the last two years have actually doubled compared to the previous government. So we on this side of the House are doing our part.
Mrs. Peter: Dawson City’s planning board has expressed concern about what impact the proposed location of a new bridge in Dawson might have on the application for the world heritage status. The Yukon’s representative on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has also expressed concern about the proposed location of the bridge.
Does the minister share those concerns and has she brought them to the attention of the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Highways and Public Works?
019a
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Again, it was part of our party platform during the last election to commit to the construction of a bridge over the Yukon River in Dawson City, and we’re just doing that.
There is a bridge planning committee in place and they are doing their due diligence. They are working with the community and its residents to ensure that whatever option is an option that is supported by the majority of those residents in the community of Dawson City. Again, our department has been involved with respect to the planning, the design, the construction of the bridge, and certainly we are very much in tune with the needs and the aspirations of the community of Dawson City when it comes to the bridge, and we will do the right thing when it comes down to the actual location of the bridge as well as the design.
Mrs. Peter: I hope the minister is listening to the concerns being raised by the very knowledgeable people in Dawson. I don’t recall her mentioning this issue at the Tourism Industry Association Roundup this past weekend. Choosing the wrong location for a bridge could have a very damaging effect on our tourism economy. I hope we’re not seeing another Yukon Party project where the government acts first and consults later. Will the minister give her assurance that there will be a proper review and consultation that considers the heritage and tourism implications of the bridge before a final decision is made on where this bridge will be built?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I should also add that I have been in Dawson City. I’ve been to Dawson City on a number of occasions over the last summer. I’ve met with a number of stakeholders, including the Klondike Visitors Association, the Dawson City Chamber of Commerce, the Klondike Institute of Art and Culture, to which we are also providing support with respect to heritage preservation. We’re very supportive of their efforts. That city is going through some difficult times, and we on this side of the House are very supportive to assist wherever we can.
The Premier was just recently in Dawson City as well, as part of his community tour, and he took part in those discussions with respect to the construction, planning and preliminary design of the bridge. He also committed to ensure that the heritage preservation would also be a very important priority when it comes down to the location as well as the preliminary design of the bridge.
020a
Question re: Refugee claimants
Mr. Hardy: Just over a month ago the Minister of Health and Social Services made some very distasteful remarks on the radio about a number of refugee claimants who moved to Whitehorse over the summer. Among other things, the minister said this: “Currently of the 52, I believe all but one is receiving social assistance here in the Yukon.” These are the minister’s actual words and he can’t claim that the media was making it up.
It is absolutely wrong for ministers to disclose information publicly that would identify someone’s health record or their social assistance status. Ministers have been forced to resign for doing just that in other jurisdictions, and I hope we’re not less than other jurisdictions in this matter.
Will the minister now apologize to the people whose privacy he breached with his unacceptable remarks?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: Our government welcomes to the Yukon new Yukoners from any walk of life, from any region in Canada. To that end, we have a whole series of areas where our government provides assistance to newly arriving people in the Yukon. One of the many facets is the social assistance area. But the bottom line is that we welcome to the Yukon new Yukoners. They are the people who have built the Yukon, along with the First Nation people who were originally here.
If you look back to when the Yukon was first created, about 80 percent of the people who came to the Yukon were from a foreign country. That was during the gold rush. These people have remained; they have been augmented with people from other countries, they’ve returned and come to the Yukon, and they have provided the backbone that has developed the Yukon into the wonderful place that it is today. Along with the First Nation population, there has been a tremendous asset and wealth of people from all countries in the world. And our government welcomes them.
021a
Mr. Hardy: Mr. Speaker, this government, the Yukon Party government, does not welcome people of the Yukon unless they are of the type that they like.
Now, this minister refuses to listen, and let’s see how he actually welcomes them. Last year, he was blaming single, employable males from B.C. for spiking social assistance costs — a $1-million spike in social assistance costs — yet he offered no proof for those allegations. Now, this year the target is the refugee claimants. Once again the minister hasn’t produced a shred of evidence to support his claim. Here’s more of what the minister said last month: “Some appear to have different reasons for coming here other than gainful employment, but some of them do have work permits from the federal government.” Now, why does the minister think it is acceptable to make comments like that about an identifiable group of people, especially in a small jurisdiction like the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, our government welcomes to the Yukon anyone who wants to come here and get involved in the community and provide a meaningful way of life for themselves and their families. That said, it was our party that urged the House — the Member for Southern Lakes urged the House by way of a motion to have the Immigration and Refugee Board expeditiously schedule a hearing here in the Yukon. We’ve taken unprecedented steps in many, many areas to ensure that any one among these groups of refugees has an opportunity to become meaningful members of Canada and of the Yukon.
022a
Mr. Hardy: What doublespeak, Mr. Speaker, what doublespeak. I’ve never heard anything like it in my life.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the interview in question…
Unparliamentary language
Speaker: Order please. I believe we went through the whole issue of doublespeak during the last session, and we had decided collectively, if I remember, that we weren’t going to use that term any more. I would ask the member not to do that.
Please carry on.
Mr. Hardy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The interview in question was aired on CBC on Wednesday, September 15. It is now October 25, and the minister hasn’t issued a word of apology.
Even worse, the Premier of the Yukon Territory defends this minister’s comments. It is not acceptable for any leader in any community or the official leader of the territory to support those kinds of comments made by that minister on public airways.
Now, people in Whitehorse and across the territory are appalled at the callousness of the minister’s statements. I’ve had people tell me that they consider this nothing less that racial profiling. At the very least, it is demeaning to people who come here to find a better life and it marginalizes them according to their economic situation.
Now, will the minister agree to take a course in cross-cultural awareness before he finds himself tempted to make similar disparaging remarks about people he has the responsibility to help as the Minister of Health and Social Services?
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: As I pointed out earlier, it was this side that moved the motion asking the Immigration and Refugee Board to hold the hearings here in the Yukon.
To that end, I would like to table two letters — one to the Hon. Judy Sgro, the Citizenship and Immigration minister, asking of her the same, as well as our Member of Parliament.
The question that should be asked is: what initiatives have the member opposite and the official opposition party taken in this area, and what lobbying have they done on behalf of these people to make them welcome here in the Yukon and make their transition to becoming Canadian citizens and Yukoners in an expeditious manner?
023a
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 46: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 46, standing in the name of the Hon. Mr. Lang.
Hon. Mr. Lang: I move that Bill No. 46, entitled Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that Bill No. 46, entitled Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Lang: I stand before this Legislature today to speak to the amendment to the Yukon Oil and Gas Act. These amendments to the act were developed in partnership with Yukon First Nations and enforce the commitment to provide a common oil and gas regime.
The intent of the common oil and gas regime is to provide a consistent, streamlined legislative process for managing oil and gas resources throughout the Yukon on public and settlement land.
Since the passing of the Yukon Oil and Gas Act in 1997, the oil and gas management branch has kept an ongoing list of required amendments in order to bring the act up to date and to correct any minor drafting errors that were overlooked in the original bill.
024a
This list has now been transformed into the 2004 proposed amendments. The amendments will also correct minor oversights in the original legislation and provide the oil and gas management branch with more comprehensive and flexible regulatory tools.
There are a total of 32 amendments, 19 minor and 13 substantive. The minor amendments are required to maintain legal clarity throughout the Oil and Gas Act, and in their absence there exists the possibility of interpreting certain provisions in a manner different from the original intent by the Legislature. The substantive amendments arise from an administrative duty of the oil and gas management branch to undertake the general Oil and Gas Act housekeeping on a continued basis. These amendments are designed to create consistency between the Oil and Gas Act and the incoming Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act, create consistency between the Oil and Gas Act and its regulations, revive the definition of “minister” and “department” to reflect the substantive changes in responsibility for the administration of the Oil and Gas Act from the Minister of Economic Development to the minister responsible for the act, reconcile Oil and Gas Act with the new Yukon Act R.S. 2002, create a regulatory mechanism that reflects more appropriately the current administration of the Oil and Gas Act. The MOA oil and gas working group, which represents Yukon, Council of Yukon First Nations, KDFN and the Kaska, has reviewed the amendments and recommends that their respective principals adopt them as an integral part of the common oil and gas regime.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the opposition on this bill and addressing any of their concerns. I urge all members of this House to support these amendments so that we, as legislators, can create legislative certainty, stability, clarity and simplicity by reinforcing a regulatory regime that is legal and operationally sound.
025a
Mr. McRobb: I’m a little surprised at the brevity of the minister’s comments about the bill. At this opportunity in second reading, it’s commonplace for the minister to not only stand up and fully explain the proposed amendment, but defend the amendments as well. The minister didn’t do that. What we heard instead was a brief advertisement of this Yukon Party’s record in this area, which we know represents his view only.
This Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act, or Bill No. 46, is something that we will be addressing in greater detail once the bill reaches the Committee stage. We have plenty of questions about it. Just this morning we had a briefing with departmental officials on the bill, and I would like to thank both officials for the information they provided. It was very interesting to have a discussion on the Oil and Gas Act.
It has been some time now since this Legislature has debated this very issue. I recall, from I believe it was five or six years ago when the previous NDP government brought in the act, speaking to it at length, and some of the discussion this morning rekindled many of the thoughts I recall from — I think it was 1998 — when the act was brought in.
The act, when it was introduced and passed — “promulgated” back then — took into consideration many concerns of Yukoners. The government worked with what was referred to as the MOA group and that group was comprised of various Yukoners, including Yukon First Nations, who worked together with the Yukon government in drafting the legislation.
026a
At the time, it was considered quite a good piece of legislation, especially under the circumstances, where there was a lot of pressure to bring in legislation to deal with this emerging industry in the territory and provide some legislation to help regulate it. In the course of the number of years since then, Yukoners have had opportunity to reflect back on the act and identify a number of areas that need to be addressed and to tune in the Oil and Gas Act with what we know as Yukon realities. Yukon realities, Mr. Speaker, are factors such as the Umbrella Final Agreement and specific First Nations agreements, as well as other factors that we know describe the Yukon, such as the large land base, the small population base, and the regional aspects of the territory, including our own specific environmental legislation and so on and so forth. Those are what are referred to as Yukon realities.
Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed this morning in the briefing when I asked the officials how this act compared to other oil and gas acts elsewhere in Canada, and their response to me was that it’s virtually the same. Well, if it’s virtually the same, where are the provisions for these Yukon realities? Mr. Speaker, I think it’s time for some closer inspection of the act and that opportunity will come in second reading. The opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, is for us to identify some areas of concern and interest on the record.
Mr. Speaker, there were also some issues that have arisen both nationally and internationally with respect to oil and gas development.
027a
Some of the issues pertain to what is deemed to be unnecessary regulation that constrains the industry; but, moreover, there are concerns about the impact of the industry on other parties. I think that the Committee debate will be an opportunity to explore both sides of the issues — at least I hope so.
On the side of the issue with respect to people’s concerns — public concerns are some issues pertaining to the development of oil and gas and how it might compromise public values and property owner values.
In Alaska, we see how people have tried to rise up against the development plans of the oil and gas industry. Such cases mainly involve property owners and the dispute they have with developers drilling on their property and the set of conditions under which any drilling would take place.
We know that property owners have very little control of whether the industry has access to the resources beneath the surface of their land. This act is quite light in addressing that concern. We would like to know what the Yukon Party plans to do with respect to protecting the rights of property owners.
We also see examples of this concern from our own Canadian provinces. Alberta is one where, on the television quite regularly, we will be exposed to the concerns of property owners — mainly ranchers and farmers — who have had difficulty dealing with the oil and gas industry and drilling on their property, along with its impacts on their livestock, families and the very land.
These are issues that are of importance. These issues should especially be important to Yukoners, because we are at the forefront of this emerging industry. If we don’t integrate proper constraints and regulations into the act that governs this industry, it will be a lot more difficult to do so later on, so I’m wondering why the minister neglected this area for consideration in the amendments he brought before this House.
028a
Was he not doing his homework over the summer? Was he not listening to Yukoners? Was he not watching the television? Was he not reading the Edmonton Journal or Anchorage Daily News, or did he not care? I suppose either one is possible or perhaps several of the above are possible. But, Mr. Speaker, that’s why this Legislature has an official opposition: to point out deficiencies in what the government does or does not do. I feel I have highlighted this particular deficiency and hope to explore it in greater detail when this bill reaches the Committee stage.
What about coal-bed methane? This is raising all kinds of concerns in Alberta and B.C., as well as south of the 49th parallel. In the spring sitting I asked the minister whether he would impose a moratorium on coal-bed methane and he refused to do so. This amendment to the Oil and Gas Act could have had a moratorium as part of it until such time as coal-bed methane was properly regulated and controlled within the Yukon’s boundaries, and certainly a period of public consultation is vital before any decision can ever take place on opening up the territory to coal-bed methane production, unless the minister, of course, is prepared to throw away these types of issues and just blindly march ahead with his pro-development banner, which would not surprise me.
029a
We have not heard much out of this minister in way of balance when it comes to weighing development and environmental and socio-economic concerns. There is not much there for balance at all. It’s all pro-development. It’s like the current land grab we see in the territory. There was no balance. It’s like so many of the other ministers’ decisions that have created uproars in this territory. Overruling boards and committees is another example.
When it comes to the Oil and Gas Act there is plenty this government has to answer for. And speaking of answers, today we saw another Question Period where there was very little of substantive answers. Hopefully the Yukon Party ministers will be prepared to provide some answers when this bill reaches the Committee stage and the bright lights of the camera are off. Maybe then it will stray from the small message box each one of the ministers has been ordered to stay within and not answer questions directly but just read the answers. Maybe then we can open up and have a little touch of democracy in this House.
Let’s find out what each of the members across the way really feels about oil and gas issues and development and so on. Let’s find out. Let’s get them out of the box because those tight message boxes don’t serve anybody’s interests. I believe Yukoners reject that kind of an approach. It’s anti-democratic. This government should be responding to questions and then simply sit down. But we see a totally different approach in this Yukon Party. And if they don’t know it by now, they should know, and that is that voters can be very fickle in this territory and this next election could be five in a row. These ministers should consider that when they stand up and give non-answers and only read some “thank you very much, we’re doing that” routine and not answer the questions directly. So the Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act, Bill No. 46, is an opportunity in Committee for them to get out of the box.
030a
Let’s hear what they have to say. Let’s find out what the Minister of Education has to say about oil and gas development in Kwanlin Dun’s First Nation territory. Let’s find out what the Minister of Economic Development has to say about oil and gas development in the Whitehorse Trough, whether it could be marketable, whether it makes sense, how many press releases he’s going to issue and so on. Let’s find out what’s going on. Let’s find out what each and every one of them really thinks. There is no need for the backbenchers to be ashamed or too guarded. This is an opportunity for them to speak their minds. If we don’t hear much, then I suppose their level of thought will be taken into consideration by the voters in their riding. So with that inspiration, I’m sure the private members will resort to pen and paper, take out the Oil and Gas Act and do their homework and prepare some considerable notes they can relay to this House at the next opportunity. And I’ll be looking forward to that, as I’m sure all Yukoners will be.
There are many other concerns with this act that I’d like to flag at this time. I’ve talked about coal-bed methane; I’ve talked about subsurface rights and the intrusive aspect on property owners and so on. There are plenty of other issues. What about the issue of actually following the five-step process for public consultation? This past summer, we saw a prime example of how this Yukon Party just walks over process and sort of draws up its own rules as it goes along.
031a
Blank
032a
In the case of the Turner wetlands — now, to refresh people’s memories, the Chief of the Na Cho Nyäk Dun First Nation put on record very strong opinions against the development of the Turner wetlands in the Peel River Plateau. But the minister overrode the First Nation’s concerns and plunged ahead and issued the exploration rights to a southern company, regardless of what the First Nation said. Yet, in the next breath we will hear the same minister and his colleagues get up and pronounce how great their government is in respecting First Nation agreements and working hand in hand with First Nations to better the Yukon and improve the economy, and blah, blah, blah, blah — it goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.
Well, words are nice, but actions are a lot better. In the case of the Turner wetlands, we saw the actions of this government and we saw how the actions of this government go against the rhetoric. So, why isn’t a provision included in the Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act, Bill No. 46, to plug that loophole?
This government should not be — nor any of its successors, which should be starting within two years, Mr. Speaker —allowed to override the public statements and dire concerns of the First Nation with respect to tendering oil and gas bids and issuing the permits as this Yukon Party government did.
It should be against the law for a government to promote its relations with First Nations and yet, on the other hand, act completely differently.
Well, one would figure that this act here before us today would have been a good example to include something to make government better. Is there something in here to make government better in that respect? The answer, sadly enough, is no.
033a
That jogs my memory back to day one under this Yukon Party. The first piece of legislation they ever brought into this House — guess what it was? I don’t see the lights coming on over there, so I’ll have to tell the members. It was an act to repeal the Government Accountability Act. Shame on them. The first action — legislation by this Yukon Party government — was to remove government accountability. It repealed the previous government’s Government Accountability Act and so far has it replaced it with a better act? No. With a lesser act? No. How about no act? Because this government, when it comes to action, is silent on government accountability. And that’s quite evident to viewers of Question Period, listeners of Question Period. I especially refer them to the first question today when the minister referred to Hansard. Well, look at Hansard, check out the Web site, look at the Hansard. You’ll find out that the minister was completely out of synch with any reference in Hansard. There is none.
So we’ve talked about this government’s priorities and, as far as legislation, how it really doesn’t want to promote good government, how it is ignoring interests of the people, how it really didn’t do much over the summer. I know there was lots of cake-eating and maybe there were some ribbons cut, but those ribbons were bound around projects from previous governments and had very little to do with anything initiated by this government.
034a
This government is quite adept at taking credit for things it has very little to do with, yet when it has an opportunity to do something substantial, to improve life for Yukoners, to make the Yukon a better place, it still comes up empty-handed. I say, “Shame on this government for that.”
Mr. Speaker, how many public consultation processes are ongoing in the territory now? How many have there been in the last two years? The answer is: not very many. In fact, a couple of the main ones have been stalled and delayed and they’re in some kind of regulatory limbo. When are we going to see the Education Act or the Liquor Act or the Workers’ Compensation Act? Where is that legislation Yukoners have been waiting for? Where is it? We don’t know where it is. They’re not telling us.
Instead, we saw the backbenchers go out and consult on whether a big fish should be allowed in the territory. That shows where this government’s priorities are. I think a lot of Yukoners are thinking it looks pretty fishy to them. It won’t be long before everybody catches on.
035a
There are some other concerns I want to identify at this opportunity. Some of them have been publicized already. What about the issue of identifying who bidders are on oil and gas leases. I raised this in an article in, I believe, the Yukon News earlier this summer. There is nothing from the minister about that. The State of Alaska identifies who the bidders on oil and gas leases are, but the Yukon doesn’t. Why not? This is an opportunity to be more open and accountable. Maybe that explains why there is nothing in the act, because we’re getting to the stage where we know how this government really is vis-à-vis repealing the Government Accountability Act and so many other examples. So, identifying bidders by name, immediately, should be part of this act.
What about compensation to property owners? What about reclamation on any land developed or impacted or ruined by the oil and gas industry? What about the impact on wildlife? This is an opportunity to address important issues such as these, yet when it came time for the Yukon Party to step up to the plate, its performance resembled nothing greater than the great Casey at the bat — they simply struck out.
It’s another failed opportunity by this government to improve the legislation. Instead we see proposed amendments to Bill No. 46 that are almost totally housekeeping in nature, and a good opportunity has been bypassed to do anything substantive.
036a
We also want to explore areas on how First Nations might be regulating the oil and gas industry on their lands and what types of processes should be followed, et cetera. I look forward to that discussion with the minister.
What about land use planning? What about activity on First Nation land and cases where there is no settled land claim agreement? What about the R15 block in southeast Yukon? What about the Kaska First Nation and its priorities and concerns for oil and gas development on land it has set aside? What rules apply in those cases and, similarly, to all First Nation lands, from Beaver Creek to Carcross and elsewhere? The minister has a lot of explaining to do.
I want to go back to a point I mentioned earlier when the officials mentioned that this act does not differ very much from other acts in Canada. We were also told that the main person in drafting this act was from Alberta and the amendments to this act were relying on 50 years of experience in Alberta. Well, this is no time to simply template the situation in Alberta and apply it to the Yukon. To the contrary, I say this is the time for some examination of what has happened in Alberta over the past half century and to try to fix that legislation before templating it in the Yukon. There are known problems. There are holes in the regulations and legislation that apply in Alberta. This is the time to address those concerns before simply reapplying Alberta laws to the Yukon.
037a
With that, I’ll pass the floor over and I look forward to further debate later on.
Ms. Duncan: If memory serves me correctly, YOGA — Yukon Oil and Gas Act — was officially passed in 1998, and I believe it had the full support of all parties in the House. The reasons that this particular piece of legislation, which was very complex and detailed, had the full support of all members of the Legislature were twofold: number one, because it was an initiative not solely of the government that presented it, but of the John Ostashek government that preceded it, and it was concluded and brought forward then by the McDonald government.
Throughout that piece of legislation, which was very complex, coming forward, all members of the Legislature who availed themselves of the opportunity were provided the detailed information. We were walked through that very technical piece of legislation step by step by step, and in plenty of time so there was opportunity to fully understand all the details of the legislation.
I would just like to note for the minister’s information that it’s for the betterment of the Legislature, our work as legislators, and for the legislation itself if there’s a greater degree of cooperation with all members in terms of briefings and information in a timely manner. It’s a constructive suggestion for the minister. Unfortunately that constructive suggestion has fallen on deaf ears with the House leader.
The other key factor in the Yukon Oil and Gas Act being such strong legislation is that full credit has to be given to the public administrators and officials who developed the legislation. I’m referring to the public servants who work for the Government of Yukon, the officials with the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Kwanlin Dun First Nation and the Kaska, and the representatives of the third sector, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. All of those — I’m going to use the term “officials” — and public servants were all involved and worked with the drafting team on the Yukon Oil and Gas Act and on these amendments that are before us today. They have their full support. They’ve argued out at the technical level the details of this legislation and I want to thank all of them — both those who work for the Government of Yukon and representatives of the First Nations, and the third sector, CAPP — for their efforts. They’ve done an admirable job on the original act and on these amendments on behalf of all Yukoners. I thank them for that, and those who provided the briefing this morning.
038a
Legislation that passes this House can pass in spite of everybody’s best efforts. Change occurs. There are errors that occur in drafting. It doesn’t matter how many times we all proofread it, sometimes errors occur. We are all human, after all. The other thing that occurs is change. For a very good example, DAP — we all recognize that name — has become YESAA, the Yukon Environmental Socio-economic Assessment Act, so the changes have to be reflected in the legislation. I understand that, from the briefing this morning and the quick review of the amendments to the Oil and Gas Act, that what are before us in second reading are largely administrative changes, like I mentioned — changes that catch up with the errors that occurred when we originally passed this act and the change that has occurred in our society and in other references. The Minister of Economic Development, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources — those sorts of changes, we have to catch up. We have to do it in acts like this. Those are the administrative — or what we sometimes refer to as “housekeeping” amendments. I have no difficulty with those.
There is a number of what are called “substantive changes” to this legislation. I understand that “substantive” is used in the legal sense in this legislation, in that these are not huge direction changes. They are not changes in, for example, the common regime, of which all the governments are very proud in this legislation and work within. These are changes that are more in the legal sense. Fundamentally, the Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act does not represent a major departure from what we have on the books, a major change in the common regime philosophy or any of the major tenets of the act that were developed so well some time ago.
039a
For that reason I support this particular piece of legislation. I do concur, as the Member for Kluane has noted, that discussing this act does provide us an opportunity to discuss our oil and gas industry in the Yukon, current developments and, of course, other current issues and developments in the industry worldwide that affect the Yukon as well. So I certainly look forward to that debate. If such a fulsome debate occurs, I certainly look forward to it. Otherwise I would indicate to the minister that Bill No. 46 at second reading has my support, as I understand its intent and the effort by all of the professional public servants that has gone into it.
Speaker: If the member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Lang: I appreciate the members opposite commenting on the member from the opposition’s comments and understanding that his comments lead to many discussions, one of them being his real knowledge of the Yukon oil and gas legislation, and it’s limited. So what we have to do in the debate is bring him up to date on the makeup of this bill and move ahead in the oil and gas industry in the Yukon.
040a
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 46 agreed to
Bill No. 53: Second Reading
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No 53, standing in the name of Mr. Hart.
Hon. Mr. Hart: I move that Bill No. 53, Act to Amend the Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Community Services that Bill No 53, entitled Act to Amend the Insurance Act, be now read a second time.
Hon. Mr. Hart: I am pleased to rise today about another example of this government’s commitment to putting Yukoners first and improving the relationship with our communities. The Association of Yukon Communities wrote a letter to this government in July of this year asking us to make changes to the Insurance Act. The association was looking into alternatives to their conventional insurance program that would stabilize costs for member municipalities. The option preferred by the association and its members requires that amendments be made to the Insurance Act before proceeding.
This government listened. This initiative is in direct response to the needs articulated by the Yukon municipalities, through the Association of Yukon Communities. The amendments requested by the association will enable the formation and licensing of an insurance instrument called a “municipal exchange”. An exchange also known as a “reciprocal or inter-insurance exchange” is formed when a group of subscribers, or individuals with common interests, agree to share the risks and losses associated with their activities. Risk is shared and subscribers are assessed for losses in a manner similar to that of conventional insurance companies. An exchange is, in essence, a form of self-insurance.
This type of agreement is used by municipalities and other jurisdictions as an option to addressing their insurance needs in an affordable manner. Like conventional insurance companies that offer insurance to the public, an exchange is formally licensed and regulated by the Insurance Act. There are currently three exchange licences in the Yukon.
041a
The existing legislation permits the superintendent of insurance to license and exchange only if it holds a valid licence in another jurisdiction. In 1988, amendments were made to the Insurance Act to allow for the registration and licensing of existing exchanges. The volume of exchanges wanting to do business here was low and there was not sufficient opportunity to develop our internal expertise in this area.
The requirement for an exchange to be registered in another jurisdiction reflects the decision of the government of the day to rely on the expertise present in outside jurisdictions. Municipal exchanges as defined by this amendment will not be required to be licensed in another jurisdiction before being considered.
Mr. Speaker, while we are pleased to be able to offer this option to the municipalities, we are also mindful of the need for protection of the public. If municipalities decide to pursue an exchange to meet their insurance needs, the municipal exchange will be formally licensed and regulated under the Insurance Act. A municipal exchange will provide the same level of protection to the public as insurance provided by a conventional insurance company licensed under the act.
The exchange was essentially the insurance policy and is subject to the approval of the superintendent of insurance. Yukon municipalities have consulted with their experts in the insurance industry to determine whether an exchange is a viable option to meet their insurance needs. Experts have indicated that an exchange with a $250,000 limit would both meet the needs of the municipalities and ensure the protection of the Yukon public. Experts have advised that $250,000 is the optimum level because savings are negligible beyond that amount.
Municipalities will purchase conventional insurance for risks over the $250,000.
We believe this bill is an important step in supporting responsible government in our communities. Municipalities will be able to choose how they address their insurance needs and any cost-savings realized from the use of the exchange will benefit the taxpayers.
We have worked in partnership with the Yukon municipalities and the Association of Yukon Communities to produce these amendments, effectively restating our commitment to improve relationships with the communities. With the passage of this bill, we will be showing Yukoners once again that this government is listening and is responsive to their needs.
042a
Mr. Cardiff: It gives me pleasure today to rise and speak to Bill No. 53, Act to Amend the Insurance Act.
I thank the minister and his officials for the briefing that was provided today. We understand that this is facilitating something that has been requested by municipalities and the Association of Yukon Communities, and we feel that it is a good idea.
It is interesting that the government acts in such a speedy way on this matter. We realize that there are time constraints and that this needs to be dealt with in order for it to become effective.
What is unfortunate is that the government hasn’t been listening to what the general public has been saying about insurance in general. While these amendments to the act are good and can be supported and will provide benefits to municipalities and to the taxpayers in those municipalities as well, one thing that is on the minds of many Yukoners is the insurance rates that they pay on other insurance. It is my understanding and belief that those rates are also regulated through this act. Now, maybe the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s the way I read it — a quick scan of the 118 pages of the act. It allows the superintendent to approve rates so filed or to disallow the rates — that’s on automobile insurance, in section 25 of the Insurance Act, on page 31.
So it’s not just car insurance; it’s house insurance, it’s life insurance, it’s liability insurance. This is also a concern for community associations and hamlet councils, local advisory councils — the liability insurance that they are required to carry.
043a
The insurance industry — they changed the reporting structure — used to report quarterly on their profits; now they report annually because basically the public couldn’t stand all the bad news: good news for the insurance companies, bad news for those people, the consumer. The consumers are the ones we should be concerned about. The Insurance Act is administered by consumer services branch. Well, the municipalities are consumers in the insurance industry. So is every person on the street just about in the Yukon. They buy car insurance, they buy house insurance, and we need to look at the record profits that insurance companies report across this country every year. Yet why are the consumers — the people who drive cars and insure their houses — paying such high rates? This isn’t new. All you have to do is listen to the radio, read the newspaper: insurance rates have been a big issue for a long time in just about every jurisdiction in Canada, to the point where the government in New Brunswick has brought in legislation around insurance rates.
So while we support this, it’s too bad that this government didn’t listen to Yukoners, didn’t pay attention to issues and has not done its work to protect the average consumer in this area. So we’ll look forward to discussing this further when we get into Committee of the Whole. I would like to thank the minister for bringing this forward.
044a
Ms. Duncan: Bill No. 53, Act to Amend the Insurance Act, is reflective of the current struggle with insurance that has become commonplace on the nightly news. Everywhere throughout our country, we are hearing of struggles by industry, by municipalities, individuals with the current situation around insurance and the high rates of insurance and how to deal with them.
Examples close to home include wilderness tourism outfitters in the outfitting industry that have issues with insurance companies and gaining insurance. Sports groups that contribute a great deal to our community, such as the Klondike Snowmobile Association and their maintenance of the Trans Canada Trail, have issues with insurance, as well. Yukoners and the oil tanks that are in some homes — issues around gaining insurance once those homes are sold. It is a struggle right now; it’s an issue — a major issue — and municipalities are not exempt from having to deal with that particular issue around high rates of insurance. Municipalities, the Association of Yukon Communities, came to previous governments as this situation worsened and asked, “How do we deal with it? How can you help?”
Our government worked with the Association of Yukon Communities, and the solution that has come forward in that work and in that effort is before us in terms of changes to the Insurance Act and in this municipal reciprocal or inter-insurance exchange that is the suggested solution for municipalities in dealing with these insurance issues. It has, as I understand it, come from Association of Yukon Communities in their homework that was done with the assistance of the Yukon government, including the previous Yukon government. This amendment requires timely passage in order that the municipalities can act upon this proposed solution. I understand that this amendment does not in any way create an additional liability for the Government of Yukon. I appreciate the work by all officials in that respect.
I also look forward to the opportunity and the government working with those organizations, for the lack of a better word, that are not defined as municipalities, such as the hamlets and the organized communities and how they might also be able to deal with the insurance issues that are before them.
045a
I also understand that this is not a departure — it’s not precedent setting in that the Government of Yukon has this sort of reciprocal insurance with the Yukon lawyers insurance society in Canada, the asset protection, as well as the health care insurance. So it’s not precedent setting. It works. It will work for municipalities. It will be of benefit to municipalities and, of course, all of the taxpayers therein, and overall a benefit to all Yukoners in terms of assisting municipalities in dealing with these insurance issues, for lack of a better term.
For those reasons, I support Bill No. 53, and I urge its passage through the House is a timely manner in order to facilitate this solution for the municipalities and for all Yukoners.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: If the member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?
Hon. Mr. Hart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the members opposite for their support for these amendments. I look forward to discussions on many of the issues they brought forward.
I will state that this is an important element with our communities. We have worked together with them fairly closely to reach this objective. We also have looked at the risks to the Yukon government, ensuring that they will not be increased, and we are looking at dealing with it. It’s a situation that provides a win-win situation for both the municipalities and the Yukon government.
In relation to the member opposite’s question with regard to general insurance, I will advise that the Yukon is a very small player in the insurance industry in Canada — I mean very small. It is, in comparison to other jurisdictions in Canada. We have a very limited leverage to deal with the insurance companies but, as I mentioned earlier, we are willing to sit and discuss the issue with you. We also, I believe, previously offered to the members opposite an all-party committee to address the issue of insurance and the rising costs. So we will be looking forward to some of their ideas on that particular issue and look forward to further discussion.
046a
Motion for second reading of Bill No. 53 agreed to
Hon. Mr. Jenkins: I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the government House leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Chair: Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 46, Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act.
Before we begin, do members wish a brief recess?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: We will take a 15-minute recess.
Recess
047a
Bill No. 46 — Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act
Chair: Committee of the Whole will now come to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 46, Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act. We will begin general debate.
Mr. McRobb: Let me begin by saying that it’s somewhat of a surprise that we’re dealing with this bill in Committee today. That is because we were not notified at House leaders’ meeting this morning that we would be at this stage. As you know, it’s incumbent upon a government, especially a government that considers itself to be accountable, to advise the opposition parties of when bills would be called and particular stages of review held. At this morning’s meeting we just heard there would be second reading without any Committee debate, and the third item of business was supposed to be the Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, second reading.
So I want to put on record our disappointment and dismay with the government. They have pulled a fast one. They’ve changed the tables on the opposition. That’s fine. We’ll roll with the punches, but those members should be warned: the knockout punch will be coming on election day and they’re going to be flat on their backs because if the public understands how it treats the opposition parties and how it treats the democratic process, then this government will be rejected at the polls. So let’s let the actions of this government speak for themselves.
048a
I identified a number of concerns in second reading that we will begin to explore. One of the first ones was the question why this government felt it necessary to adopt what is basically an Alberta template, and reapply it in the Yukon . Did it not take Yukon realities into consideration?
Hon. Mr. Lang: Certainly we did. And in the future we will always take into consideration the uniqueness of our territory. The member opposite, if he were to look through YOGA, would see a lot of changes that would benefit all Yukoners. Certainly we take into consideration Alberta’s leadership in the oil and gas industry in Canada. They’ve had 50 years of experience, and we certainly respect that experience. But when we template anything, we take into consideration the uniqueness of the territory.
049a
Mr. McRobb: Those words ring pretty hollow. We see nothing in these amendments to substantiate that this government has factored any type of Yukon realities into the drafting of these amendments. We were told this is basically the Alberta model. It’s a template of 50 years of experience in Alberta that this minister is trying to apply here. He’s ignoring the essence of the question. He’s trying to stick to his message box.
Mr. Chair, I’d invite him to loosen up a little bit and let us hear how he feels about this act.
This Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Act is of paramount importance to the territory. Oil and gas prices are at unprecedented high levels; the industry is in a boom; there are pipelines being considered for both the Alaska Highway and the Mackenzie Valley; there are all kinds of additional pressure on the Yukon in terms of oil and gas development.
This minister had an opportunity to incorporate concerns into the amendments to the act, but he neglected to do so. He had the opportunity but he didn’t feel it was important enough, so here we are today with a few suggested housekeeping amendments to the bill. What a farce this is, Mr. Chair. What was the minister doing all summer?
050a
Now, it’s left up to us on short notice to try possibly to make some suggestions, but we know how this Yukon Party treats those types of suggestions from the opposition. The government says it’s open to suggestion, even tries to put some pressure on the opposition parties to produce suggestions. Mr. Chair, we’ve been there; we’ve done that. The net result is the Yukon Party does what it sees fit. It doesn’t listen to anybody other than itself or its close circle of buddies. Mr. Chair, decisions are made in advance of public consultation. When there is public consultation, it’s on issues that really don’t matter. On items that do matter, there is no consultation. It’s the Yukon Party cherry-picking what it wants to involve the public in and what it doesn’t want to involve the public in.
And we have a bill here, the Oil and Gas Act, that is up for amendment. The Yukon is at a crossroads. Either we can go the way of Alberta with all the problems inherent with its legislation, or we can stop and check those concerns by responding to what are known as Yukon realities on behalf of the Yukon public, to plug those loopholes, to stop those inequities, to make this bill a better bill that is more fair to Yukoners and as well fair to industry. So where is that balance? We don’t see that balance from this minister in these amendments or in anything else this government puts forward. There is no balance. It is full steam ahead on one side only, and it’s full steam ahead with the blinders on. This government doesn’t care much about what anybody else thinks. It already knows where it’s going, and the race to it is how fast it can get there.
051a
Mr. Chair, why should we adopt the Alberta template without fixing it and amending it to what Yukoners want? Why should we allow oil and gas companies to push land owners off their property to drill beneath the surface for possible resources? Why should we let that happen? Why should we allow the coal-bed methane industry to develop in the territory to a stage where it could be too late to introduce changes? Why should we let things slide down the slippery slope, Mr. Chair? Once the door is open, it will be pushed wide open.
The opportunity is now to do something about the problems inherent with regulating this industry and how it operates on public land.
So, the minister likes to get up and give brief little quips that he thinks sound snazzy, but there is very little substance behind them. What I’m looking for is some explanation from this minister as to why he is prepared to accept the Alberta model, the Alberta template, and just apply it to the Yukon without addressing some of the problems inherent in the industry in that province?
Hon. Mr. Lang: In commenting to the member opposite, I’d like to remind the member opposite that YOGA was structured under the government of the day, which was an NDP government. So we’ve been working with a faulty bill since it obviously was put in place by his government.
What we are doing here today is working with tweaking and modernizing an act that is built for all Yukoners on how we are going to manage oil and gas in the Yukon.
As far as the concern about pushing property owners off property or public land or whatever, those questions are answered in YOGA. There is a process for private land owners. There is a process there for Yukoners. There is a process at the end of the day that we all participate in under YOGA.
052a
For instance, things that aren’t in the Alberta legislation, things that YOGA did, his government did, we did as Yukoners, was make sure that permafrost was part of the scenario. They don’t have permafrost in Alberta. A tight window — in other words we do have an ecological situation in the Yukon where areas are not accessible at certain times of the year. That has been addressed. Well abandonment deposits have been put in place so that if wells are abandoned, there’s a process. It’s a common regime. It’s a regime that has been built by all Yukoners in conjunction with the First Nations so that we can have a common regime in Yukon. Those are not part of the Alberta legislation, so it isn’t an exact template of Alberta. But I think we as a government or we as a community, as Yukon, would not be doing our due diligence if we didn’t take into consideration other jurisdictions and how they managed their oil and gas industries.
As the member opposite says, we are in our infancy in oil and gas. By the way, for the first time in 30 years, we are going to have roughly between $20 million and $30 million spent in our jurisdiction this year in the oil and gas industry.
So we are making small steps to improve the lives of all Yukoners. So when the member opposite says that we aren’t doing our due diligence, we aren’t doing our job, he’s wrong. He’s wrong because he obviously hasn’t read the act. The act is very self-explanatory on how this process works.
So for him to come into the House so ill-prepared does a folly to not only the members of the opposition who in fact were the ones who put this into legislation, and to stand up and make comments that are misleading to not only —
Chair: Order please.
053a
Unparliamentary language
Chair: The member is fully aware that indicating that a member is misleading is entirely out of order. I’d like the member to retract that statement.
Withdrawal of statement
Hon. Mr. Lang: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I retract the last statement questioning the man’s whatever.
Anyway, the member opposite is grandstanding for political reasons; it’s not working toward a positive thing in the Oil and Gas Act. I find it amazing. This act will reflect on all Yukoners. This act is an act that will cover how we manage that resource and at the end of the day, it will benefit all of us as Yukoners.
So, Mr. Chair, I say to you that this is housekeeping; this is just a process. The NDP, when they were in power, put this act together. If it was such a bad act, why would they have brought this forward for Yukoners? Why is it up to us — if it’s such a bad act — to change the whole act, because in fact he’s admitting that his government did not originally do a good job on the act.
I hope that we can move ahead in this debate. I hope that we can pass this and go on with managing the oil and gas industry in the Yukon.
054a
Mr. McRobb: Well, Mr. Chair, very interesting indeed. You know what comes to mind, if the minister wants to dub the bill “a bad act”, is what does he think about his Premier? Because the leader of the Yukon Party was one of the main proponents of this Oil and Gas Act when it was brought in in 1998. So if this minister is calling it a bad act, is he in fact calling the Premier a bad actor? Is that what he’s doing? Because, Mr. Chair, it would call that into question.
The minister is attacking a bill that this Premier was a part of. And other criticisms levied by the minister — ones that you, Mr. Chair, didn’t call out of order that I suppose are allowed in here but are nevertheless are unsubstantiated — include a lack of knowledge of the bill on my part. Mr. Chair, I don’t know where this member was back in 1998, nor do I really care to find out, but I can tell you where I was. I was sitting next to where he now sits, reading the Oil and Gas Act. So I was familiar with this bill long before he even knew it existed. So, Mr. Chair, let’s try to get some substantial debate here this afternoon and less criticism.
I asked the minister why he didn’t bring forward amendments to address issues regarding property rights and so on that are significant public concerns in the Province of Alberta, where the template for this legislation came from? Why didn’t he do that?
Hon. Mr. Lang: To clear up a few points on whether or not I was questioning the act, I am certainly not questioning the act. I’m just reminding the member opposite that he was part of the original act and that I find it amazing that he’s so critical of it at the moment. I just consider the situation, and I’ll overlook that. But the property rights, all the issues that pertain to ownership of land, drilling rights, how it unfolds and the process, are all addressed in YOGA, Mr. Chair. It’s there for the benefit of all Yukoners to make sure that when the oil and gas companies come to Yukon, that they do address private property; they do address environmental questions; they do address the industry as a whole to make sure that it benefits and it doesn’t reflect in a negative way on the Yukon population. So as far as property rights are concerned, there is consent. They need consent to do these things on private land. There is also a form of rebuttal if something happens between the oil company and the private individuals, or if they have a question, there is a mediating system. So at the end of the day, I think this act is pretty good, and I would like to compliment the government that put this act in, that it did cover those things. So at the end of the day, we have an act that works for all Yukoners, a common regime between us and all the First Nations so that we can address this industry in a very productive way as it comes to the Yukon.
055a
Mr. McRobb: As the minister was going on, it gave me time for a period of reflection. I think where the problem lies here is that there seems to be a misunderstanding that we are criticizing the act. If the minister will refer to my comments in the second reading speech he will discover that I clearly indicated the act was good legislation at the time it was brought in. There was a need to bring in legislation in 1998 in order to help regulate this emerging industry and the legislation was best efforts at the time.
Mr. Chair, I’ll also give a plug for all of those who worked on drafting the legislation because they did a remarkable job under the circumstances. I recall one of the aspects of the oil and gas legislation was how quickly it was developed and brought to this House. If I recall correctly, I think it was unanimously supported by all 17 MLAs at the time.
Maybe we can agree to that point that the act was good at the time. My point is somewhat different. My point is that, in the six years hence, it has given the Yukon an opportunity to think about how the act should be changed to better reflect Yukon realities and prevent some of the problems experienced elsewhere, most notably in the Province of Alberta, with respect to oil and gas development.
056a
Mr. Chair, the Yukon Party struck a red-tape committee headed by the backbenchers that was going to review legislation and dust off legislation on the shelf and help tune it in with the times and bring it forward in the Legislature.
Well, where is it? What has that committee done? It has had a long time now — at least a year. What has the minister done? What have the others done?
What about notes accumulated perhaps by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and other departments, including the Department of Environment, regarding this file over the past six years? What has happened to those notes and those concerns about this legislation? Were they brushed aside?
We all have to recognize that we are seriously at a crossroads in oil and gas development in the territory. This industry is on fire, and the Yukon is wide open.
We could see significant changes in the next couple of years to our territory because of oil and gas development. So why didn’t the Yukon Party roll up the notes? Why didn’t its Red Tape Review Committee provide some recommendations? Why haven’t the other ministers and backbenchers brought forward suggestions? And moreover, why hasn’t this government appealed to others in the territory, to the opposition parties, for suggestions to improve this act? Why hasn’t it done any of those things?
Well, I can only speculate, and I won’t bother doing that because it would sound too critical and, as members know, I try to stay positive in here and avoid criticism even when it is substantiated and deserved. I try to avoid it — just dish it out in small amounts. Hopefully that will nurture the members opposite to becoming better MLAs and giving better answers.
I am beginning to think, though, that I’m using the wrong kind of fertilizer, based on what we heard in Question Period today, because certainly the answers aren’t getting any better or fertile. They seem to be wilting away.
057a
Back to the act. I asked the minister what provisions in these amendments and the existing Yukon Oil and Gas Act provide property owners with rights that Albertans don’t have, and I want him to answer that question because on television — I’ve alluded to this already — we see ranchers, farmers, other property owners giving rather convincing testimonies about how the industry is running them off their land. In Alaska we read accounts that are very similar. Do we want the same thing to happen in the Yukon? So the minister hopefully is listening and can respond to that point.
I want to give him another minute to think about it, and in the meantime I want to emphasize a little more how we are at the crossroads here in the territory. We all know about the Alaska natural gas pipeline that’s proposed down the Alaska Highway corridor. That’s a $20-billion megaproject. There have been recent developments, including an incentive package, passed through the Senate and Congress. It has been signed off by the U.S. president, who, I must add, is hopefully at the helm for his final week. There are all sorts of steps and hurdles that are being brushed aside to expedite the development of this industry in the territory. Once the gas pipeline is here, well, of course that makes it more feasible and economical and practical to extract oil and gas from elsewhere within the territory, and we could see a secondary boom in the territory to carry that out.
058a
All of this can bring massive change for the Yukon. And once those companies are here and established, it’s awfully hard to make any substantive changes, especially if they involve constraints to the way they operate.
As we heard at this morning’s briefing, one of the things the industry likes is certainty. That means things spelled out very clearly, no doublespeak. I certainly hope they don’t read Hansard from today’s Question Period and misinterpret that as oil and gas legislation.
But anyway, they want certainty, they also want stability, they want clarity, and the industry wants simplicity. Those are all things the oil company executives want from the territory.
We can speculate on other things it wants. We would get into the area of incentives and tax breaks and whatever else it can extract out of the territory before actually extracting the resource itself.
We also know that the oil and gas industry hates government. That’s a situation this Yukon Party has to deal with. It’s sort of ironic yet consistent that it’s finding itself more hated within the territory all the time but it goes Outside and finds that industry even hates it as well. It’s having to work with people who aren’t favourable toward you and make best efforts to do what’s right for the territory.
059a
When the minister is down in Calgary, toasting and wailing away with his buddies in the oil and gas industry, and whatever — you know, Mr. Chair, birds of a feather — he should remember how people feel in Old Crow or in Whitehorse or Watson Lake or Ross River, Mayo, Dawson City, Haines Junction or Beaver Creek. He should remember how those people feel when he has his arm around the CEO of some oil company and he’s having a great time, and the ballroom is lit up with the fever currently being experienced in the oil and gas industry. He should remember the poor folks back home and how their concerns should be expressed by him. He shouldn’t lose touch with reality. He should remember that these are the people who elected him, not the oil barons from Texas and elsewhere, but the people back home.
So this is a serious issue. It raises the question of why the Yukon Party didn’t do its homework. After six years one could assume this is a reasonable juncture in which to reflect back on the act and look ahead, and that’s what I’m speaking to — looking ahead. That’s why we’re at a crossroads now.
The minister has only looked back. He didn’t look ahead. That’s why we’re dealing only with housekeeping amendments here, Mr. Chair. We know, as opposition parties, that we don’t have to strictly go by the government’s agenda and only deal with what it proposes, because whenever an act is tabled in this House, we get an opportunity to do as I’m doing now, and that is to stand up and speak to the act at a higher, more general level.
060a
And these concerns I’m speaking about aren’t included in the amendments, but they should have been. And failing that, they should have been identified by the minister, that there was something cooking on the back burner. He could have identified the processes and timelines and so on as to when Yukoners would expect an opportunity to address the act at a higher level. Did we hear that? Did the minister say anything about that? No. The minister failed us again. He wants us to all hop in his little car, putting along in reverse, and he’s driving through the rear-view mirror.
Mr. Chair, the oil industry isn’t satisfied with that course of action, and neither are Yukoners. This is the time to look ahead and recognize that the road we’re on is merging with a five-lane freeway. The traffic is rolling along at a fast pace, and we’ve got to speed up to join in in order to do what’s right to regulate this industry before it’s too late. Instead, the minister is in reverse, driving through the rear-view mirror. He’s failing to look ahead. He doesn’t even know there is a five-lane freeway around the corner. The minister is completely lost, and it’s shameful. Instead we hear him stand up and talk about due diligence — well, that’s an oxymoron for this minister.
Mr. Chair, I want him to specifically address my question: what provisions for assistance to property owners are afforded in this legislation that extend beyond what is provided in Alberta? Can he tell us that?
061a
Hon. Mr. Lang: In answering that last statement, in YOGA, in section 69, there is consent needed to conduct activity on private land. In other words, if somebody is a title holder on a piece of land that an oil company is interested in, they have to get consent. If they can’t get consent, then it goes to the Surface Rights Board to deal with the issue on private property. We do have checks and balances for the average Yukoner to make sure that oil and gas companies don’t infringe on their rights. There are checks and balances, like there are in all jurisdictions in Canada.
As far as industry hating governments, that’s folly. Industry works with governments all over the world. The oil and gas industry is in almost every part of the world and they work with governments all over the world. So, as far as hating the government — that would be very unproductive for any oil and gas industry to hate the government of the day. They certainly don’t. But they do appreciate a straightforward regime and a competitive regime.
We are in a competitive world. There are oil and gas companies and there is oil and gas all over the world.
As the member opposite said, we in the Yukon are just starting out in the oil and gas industry. We do have things — we have been working on this act for five years. Have we been doing nothing? Have we been sitting still? I say to the member opposite that we have just enacted the licence administration regulations. We have also put the geoscience exploration regulations together. We’ve also had the drilling and production regulations put together. We’ll also be looking at the royalty regulations in the spring. We have been moving. That department has been working on a daily basis to upgrade our regulations and get them in place so oil and gas companies that come to Yukon — the questions are answered.
What oil and gas companies want is certainty, certainly, and to protect their investment. In that, they have to work within a structure. That’s what YOGA does. That act makes the oil and gas companies confident that things won’t change down the road, and it doesn’t.
Now, as far as tweaking the system so that at the end of the day we have a modern oil and gas act, that will go on as we move through the industry. I remind the member opposite that in southeast Yukon we do have a $20-million exploration well being dug right at the moment — a three-decker rig is down there employing Yukoners and moving ahead in the oil and gas industry.
We have some potential in north Yukon with the same corporation doing a drilling program and also a geoscience program. So there is another $10 million or $12 million. So we will grow into this industry. I understand the concerns of the members opposite on how we are going to proceed with it, but I think that YOGA is in place to answer those questions.
So as he gets more informed on YOGA, he will be more comfortable with the act, and I am sure that it will benefit all Yukoners to make sure what comes out of this House is factual, that they can work with YOGA and, at the end of the day, that we modernize it. So it’s not unusual for us to modernize bills so that we can move ahead in the industry.
062a
Mr. McRobb: I suppose I’d feel more comfortable with the act if the minister responded to the question. I want to ask him again: what added protection is afforded Yukon landowners that is not afforded Alberta landowners?
Hon. Mr. Lang: Again, look at section 69 in YOGA. There is a process how we address private landowners.
What I’d like to remind the member opposite is that section 69 addresses just that question. In the Yukon, if you’re a private property owner you have the surface rights and the subsurface rights are owned by another agency — in other words, an oil and gas company. They have to address the private landowner and there’s a process on how that unfolds. First of all, they have to have consent to go across the property. If they can’t negotiate consent, then it has to be taken to the next step and the Surface Rights Board addresses those issues. So there are checks and balances and, again, industry will know what the procedure is, how this thing unfolds, and it is no different from any other jurisdiction in Canada. The subsurface rights are owned by either the mineral holder or the oil and gas holder, but the landowner — the surface right holder — has to be addressed. There is a process on how that is done.
In YOGA we have a consent thing where the oil and gas company has to come to a consent agreement with the landowner.
063a
If in fact that’s impossible, then we have to take it to the next step and we have to go to the Surface Rights Board, which has the responsibility to address those questions. When the member opposite questions landowners and title holders of property who might be affected by oil and gas or mineral, there is a process where their rights can be protected. Surface right is protected in YOGA. There is no doubt about it. There is a process in place there, and it was put in place for just the reason the member opposite questioned: what are we going to do with the surface right holder? Well it’s there in black and white in section 69. How will that be addressed? In YOGA it is addressed.
Mr. McRobb: But, Mr. Chair, he didn’t tell us what added protection is afforded Yukoners that isn’t afforded Albertans. He didn’t relate it to the terms in which the question was asked.
The minister can get up and rant and rave, but at the end of the day, if you sift through his answer, it’s nuggetless. There’s nothing there you can go on; it’s just a bunch of empty words.
If the member had been around 106 years ago during the Klondike Gold Rush and he had been prospecting for gold, I would suggest that his times would have been pretty darn lean indeed, because he’s certainly not very good at goldpanning the nuggets. I wo