Speaker:=
195; I will now call the House to order. We w=
ill
proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker:=
195; We will proceed at this time with the Or=
der Paper.
TRI=
BUTES
In remembrance of Polish airplane accident victims
Speaker: Under tributes, on behalf of all Yukoner=
s, I
would like to express our condolences to the people of
It is tragical=
ly
ironic that the president and his entourage were travelling to Russia to ma=
rk
the 70th anniversary of the 1940 massacre of thousands of Polish
officials near Katyn during World War II — another tremendous loss of
life that deeply affected the Polish nation.
Poles and Cana=
dians of
Polish descent are in mourning. It is difficult for us to imagine the effect
that this tragedy will have on the country of
I would ask al=
l members
of this Assembly to send their prayers and best wishes to all of them. I ask
all members of this House and all Yukoners to think of them in their hearts=
and
prayers as well. This is a difficult time for the Polish people, and they
should know that they have the support of the Members of the Yukon Legislat=
ive
Assembly and the people of the
In recognition of International Day of Pink
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> I rise today on behalf of all Members of=
this
Legislative Assembly to mark Day of Pink. Day of Pink is an international d=
ay
against bullying, discrimination, and homophobia in schools and communities.
Along with this, what really moved the national capital region GSA network =
to
create and share this day with the world is the third annual Pink Shirt Day=
in
Canada. This anti-bullying day is normally the last Wednesday in February, =
but
in order to keep the focus on this very important issue, it was moved, so a=
s to
not conflict with the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
The premise be=
hind
Pink Shirt Day was begun by David Shepherd and Travis Price who, at the tim=
e,
were two grade 12 students in
These young me=
n had
heard that a grade 9 boy had been harassed for wearing a pink shirt on the
first day of school. They went out and bought 50 pink shirts and then e-mai=
led
their friends with the idea of them wearing pink shirts the next day at sch=
ool.
They called their campaign, “The Sea of Pink”. The following da=
y,
dressed in pink shirts and armed with all other pink shirts, they headed of=
f to
school. When they arrived at school and were getting ready to hand out the =
pink
shirts, they discovered that many kids had already heard of their plan and =
had come
to school dressed in pink. This seemingly small action by these two men to
stand up for a boy they did not even know has not only led to a following in
Nova Scotia and Canada, but now an International Day of Pink.
Across the wor=
ld,
discrimination continues to be the leading source of conflict. Discriminati=
on
is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and many others. These social
diseases affect how we work, how we study and treat one another and they cr=
eate
barriers, bullying, harassment, hate and violence.
Day of Pink is=
more
than just a symbol of a shared belief in celebrating diversity. It is also a
commitment to being open-minded and understanding of differences and to
learning to respect one another regardless of our backgrounds and our belie=
fs.
Discrimination=
and
bullying go hand in hand. Everyone can relate to bullying in one form or
another. Not one person I’m sure can say that they have never been
touched in some form by this destructive behaviour regardless, of their gen=
der,
age, culture, religion, sexual orientation or nationality.
Bullying is a =
misuse
of power and must be stopped. As the young man in Nova Scotia found out, al=
l it
takes is standing up and stating that what is happening is wrong and will n=
ot
be tolerated. One simple act of wearing a pink shirt started the movement to
say no to any form of bullying. This act shows everyone that it is okay to =
come
forward and stand up for others who may not have the means to stand up for
themselves. Wearing pink emphasizes the importance of taking a stand against
all bullying at home, at school and in the workplace.
We may never
completely eliminate bullying from our society, but to do nothing makes us
truly part of the problem. Now is the time to make each and every one of us
part of the solution. Do your part and stand up to any and all bullying. Th=
ank
you, Mr. Speaker.
In recognition of the Yukon Environment Fair
Hon. Mr. Edzerza: <=
/span>I
rise today on behalf of all members of this House to pay tribute to the
Environment Fair and Environment After Hours to be held this weekend in
Mr. Speaker, t=
he
Government of Yukon works to maintain a biologically diverse environment, i=
ncluding
the sustainable use of natural resources. Each of us has the ability to cho=
ose
wisely, in ways big and small, how we can help conserve our environment. Wi=
th
awareness and education, this becomes much easier. To this end, I am please=
d to
advise this House of the Environment Fair to take place in
Dozens of
organizations and department branches are working creatively and cooperativ=
ely
on the Environment Fair. I invite all MLAs to join me on Saturday, April 17=
, at
the Canada Games Centre. I commend the good work of the organizers and orga=
nizations
involved in the Environment Fair. It is through efforts like this that
government can foster broad public support for, and participation in, our
efforts to manage
Environment Yu=
kon has
also organized an evening event to cap off the day. Environment After Hours=
is
a free public event that is part of the department’s ongoing commitme=
nt
to open meaningful communications with Yukoners. We are delighted to have
award-winning anthropologist Wade Davis as the guest speaker. Dr. Davis has=
a
unique way of expressing how one can live in and appreciate the environment=
in
its entirety.
Each of us has=
the
ability to choose wisely when it comes to actions that affect the diverse r=
ange
of our life in our environment. I hope that the Environment Fair and the
Environment After Hours presentations will help us all remember the importa=
nce of
biodiversity and recognize the environment as more than water, trees, anima=
ls
and rocks and how we are all connected.
In recognition of National Volunteer Week
Hon. Mr. Lang:
If we take a m=
oment to
think about the role of volunteers in our day-to-day lives, we can probably
find few areas that are not enriched by the good work of our volunteers. Ye=
t if
you were to ask Yukoners who volunteer, many of them probably give little
thought to their volunteer activities because as individuals and as a cultu=
re,
this is just simply what we do. We give back to our communities and in doing
so, we make them better places to live.
Consider the m=
any
services we enjoy, and the many events that fill our monthly calendars and
shape the culture of our communities. Volunteers help to provide these serv=
ices
and make these events succeed — whether sporting events, cultural eve=
nts,
music festivals or other events that make our communities vibrant places to
live.
I want to draw=
your
attention to two groups of volunteers that help achieve the mandate of the
Department of Community Services. First, I wish to highlight the contributi=
on
of the volunteers who support the involvement of Yukoners in sports and
recreation. Promoting active and healthy lifestyles through sport and
recreation contributes to our healthy communities. While much attention is
given to the achievement of our athletes and teams, we can scarcely speak a=
bout
sport and recreation events without acknowledging the contribution of our v=
olunteers.
Through their efforts,
I also would l=
ike to
draw attention to another group of volunteers who help us when we need help
most. You have heard me before praising the many women and men who serve in=
our
volunteer emergency response organizations throughout the territory. Those =
who
serve as emergency medical responders, volunteer firefighters, and search a=
nd
rescue team members are most worthy of our praise, and they deserve the tha=
nks
of all of us and all of the
In closing, Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank our sports and recreation volunteers, our emergency
response volunteers and all Yukoners who volunteer their time. They contrib=
ute
so much to our families, our communities and of course the territory. We si=
mply
cannot do without you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Any further tributes?
Introduction of
visitors.
INT=
RODUCTION
OF VISITORS
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Hon. Ms. Horne: ̳=
4; <=
/span>I
am pleased to ask the House to recognize Mickey Fisher of Faro. Mickey was a
former minister of the
Applause
Speaker: Any other introduction of visitors?
Returns or doc=
uments
for tabling.
TABLING RETURNS
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Hon. Mr. Hart: =
; <=
/span>I
have for tabling today the Yukon Hospital Corporation audited financial
statements for
Mr. Cardiff: I have a document for tabling, entitled “Riding
Report McIntyre-Takhini, Winter 2009”.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: =
I have for tabling or, in fact, have alr=
eady
tabled one of our recycled bags from the Yukon Liquor Corporation, which are
currently being released. One has been provided to each member of the House=
.
Speaker: Any further documents for tabling?
Any reports of
committees?
Any petitions?=
Any bills to be
introduced?
Any notices of=
motion?
NOT= ICES OF MOTION
Mr. Cardiff: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon gov= ernment to delay debate on Bill No. 82, Civ= il Forfeiture Act, until a further sitting to allow sufficient time to have meaningful public consultation on its implications for Yukoners.
Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?
Is there a ministerial statement?
This then brings us to Question Per= iod.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Thomson Centre reopening
Mr. Mitchell: The Minister of Health and Social S= ervices has a few problems with his budget this year. Estimates presented earlier t= his sitting show the minister plans to spend $18 million less than last year on health care. We don’t believe this number and neither does the public= .
Health care costs have been rising = steadily for the last 15 years at least and there is no reason to think this will no= t be the case this year as well. The numbers are not realistic.
One of the ways the minister has re= duced his budget has been to simply leave projects off the books even if they are happening anyway. The government has promised to reopen the Thomson Centre = in October of this year but there is no money in the budget for it — no money for construction, no money for staff, and no money for operating the facility.
We know the minister is under press= ure from the Premier to lower costs to ensure the government doesn’t run a def= icit for two years in a row, but we know this project has to be paid for somehow= .
How much will it cost to operate th=
is
facility and why was that number left out of the budget?
Hon. Mr. Hart:
As such, we al=
so are
working with the Hospital Corporation on the facility across the way —=
; a
new residence for visiting physicians who come to the Yukon to provide those
valuable services to all Yukoners ensuring that we get the best, valuable
service that’s available and have them done here in the Yukon. That
facility is deemed to be very necessary, because it does provide adequate
facilities for the specialists coming in to the Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Mr. Hart: We are working=
with
the Yukon Hospital Corporation on the estimates, with the consultant on a
design, dealing with the construction costs, dealing with what needs to be
completed, as far as each individual room goes, what’s required to me=
et
the new code for a long-term continuing care. We are in that process right =
now.
We anticipate getting the finalization of that information. We hope to have=
an
RFP out later on in May, with completion of that work to be over the summer=
and
into the fall. Mr. Mitchell: The announcement on reopening the T=
homson
Centre was made long before the 2010-11 budgets were tabled, yet we donR=
17;t
see the money in it to do this. This government has off-loaded the
responsibility for capital projects in the health care field to the Yukon
Hospital Corporation. This has allowed the government to move some $67 mill=
ion
in borrowing off of the main estimates, and it makes the budget, as present=
ed
in this House, look a lot rosier than it really is. It is also said health =
care
costs will be $18 million less than last year. Nobody trusts that number, j=
ust
like nobody trusts this government. Now, as we head toward an election, the
government is busy saying the Thomson Centre will be open in October of this
year, just like they did in the lead up to the last election in 2006, four =
long
years ago. It has announc=
ed the
project, but it hasn’t bothered to put any money in place to complete=
it
or to operate the facility once it opens. What is the estimated cost of
operating the new facility, why is there no money in the budget to pay for =
it,
and who is going to pay for it? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Once again, the Leader of the Official
Opposition has made reference to the fact that the figures in the budgets
— whether it be this budget for 2010-11 or past budgets — have =
been
presented in a manner that creates a rosier picture than is in fact reality.
Let me caution the member on what he’s saying. He’s suggesting =
that
all public accounts over the last seven years — the numbers in those
public accounts vis-à-vis the budgets that create those public accou=
nts
and all expenditures that go forward in a fiscal year — have been pre=
sented
in a manner that does not reflect fact. Now he’s questioning the Audi=
tor
General’s audit and review of the The member sho=
uld
stand up and admit his mistake, correct the record, and apologize to all of
those hard-working, committed professionals who would do no such thing. Question re:
State of the environment report Mr.
Fairclough: I’m hoping that the current Environment
minister will be able to accomplish something that his predecessors failed =
to
do. Four different Yukon Party ministers haven’t managed to table the
state of the environment report on time, as required by Given that muc=
h of the
work has already been done for him, when will this minister produce the long
overdue state of the environment report? Hon. Mr. Edzerza: <=
/span>As
the member just stated, it will be presented in due time. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Well, Mr. Speaker, that member is falling
right into the Yukon Party trap. It’s about integrity. When that memb=
er
was in opposition — Speaker’s statement Speaker: Order. Did I hear the honourable member
question the integrity of another member? That’s the way the Chair is
hearing it, so be careful that it is the situation, not the individual, ple=
ase. You have the f=
loor. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> When the member was in opposition, he as=
ked
the Environment minister of the day, and I quote: “Does the minister
believe this report is very valuable and does he agree it should be complet=
ed
and put forward as soon as possible?” Yukoners alrea=
dy know
that when this minister crossed the floor, the Environment priorities he had
didn’t come with him. For example, before he moved, he wanted, and I
quote: “permanent protection for McIntyre Creek.” When asked ho=
w he
would act on that commitment now that he’s Environment minister, he s=
aid
that he wouldn’t. Does the minis=
ter
still feel the report should be put forward as soon as possible or has he
changed his mind, like he did with McIntyre Creek? Hon. Mr. Edzerza: For the record, I would like to sta=
te
that this minister does not live in the past; I live in the present. I will
also state that, yes, it will be presented in due time. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Well, they haven’t been able to fo=
llow
the law, as it was required to be tabled in this House. The Environment
minister received his surprise appointment to the Environment portfolio more
than two months ago, but it’s hard to see what he has accomplished in
that time. He hasn’t taken action on McIntyre Creek, and he doesnR=
17;t
intend to. He can’t tell Yukoners anything about his government’=
;s
plan for the Peel watershed, or he isn’t allowed to, and he hasn̵=
7;t
produced a state of the environment report. As far as Yuko=
ners can
tell, all the minister has accomplished is moving into his new office. So w=
hen
will this minister start carrying out the responsibilities of his office? Or
like the last Environment minister, does he not run his department at all?<=
o:p> Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member oppos=
ite
seems to have pretty good recollection of history and the member opposite m=
ay
want to go back to 1998 when that member was the Environment minister ̵=
2;
which to date, the report has never been tabled and we’re still looki=
ng
for it, Mr. Speaker. I can guarantee that this environment report will be
tabled in the near future. Question re:
McIntyre Creek protection Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, on the first day of this sitting, the MLA
for McIntyre-Takhini, the new Minister of Environment long known as an advo=
cate
to protect McIntyre Creek gave his mea culpa. “When I raised those
questions,” he said, “I did it as an Independent member.”=
Mr.
Speaker, that statement is incorrect. He was a New Democrat, voted in by his
constituents as a New Democrat, a part of a New Democrat caucus, representi=
ng
New Democrats, and his name, motions, questions, letters and newsletters ap=
peared
showing his support for protecting McIntyre Creek. I would like to give the
minister a chance to correct the record and explain how his point of view h=
as
changed since changing parties. Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Well, Mr. Speaker, my point of view=
has
never changed from day one. I do believe in looking after the environment. =
If I
made a mistake on dates or whatever on the floor of this Legislative Assemb=
ly,
I will apologize for that. Otherwise, I will continue on in my role as the
minister and do my job with the environment. Thank you. Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, as well, as a New Democrat, the minister
wrote this in a constituency letter, which I’ve tabled: “I cont=
inue
to advocate for the protection of McIntyre Creek. I think this watershed sh=
ould
be turned into a park and I’ve met many Yukoners who agree.” Mr. Speaker, a=
s a New
Democrat, he wrote to the Kwanlin Dun leadership urging them to support a
proposal from the Friends of McIntyre Creek that would seek permanent prote=
ction
for the area. He attended meetings with Friends of McIntyre Creek. He was an
advocate to protect this area and as a colleague, it was one of the issues
dearest to him, and I can attest to that. Will the minis=
ter
inform many Yukoners he met as a New Democrat why his position on protecting
McIntyre Creek has changed? Hon. Mr. Edzerza: <=
/span>I
thank the member opposite for reciting how seriously I take my job as an MLA
for McIntyre-Takhini — which I do. I take everything very seriously. =
Whether
I was in as an Independent or whether I was with the Green Party or whateve=
r, I
would take my job seriously. As a member of the Yukon Party, which I’m
proud to be, I will do my very best to be able to work with my constituents=
. I want to say =
for the record
that yes, I did contact Kwanlin Dun. But, to date, I have had no response f=
rom
Kwanlin Dun, and they have not returned any of the written information that=
I
sent to them. So, I have done my work as the MLA. I cannot force any other
government to do anything that is against their wishes. If Kwanlin Dun was
thoroughly interested in what’s happening with the McIntyre Creek are=
a, I
would believe they would have already been very vocal and present. Mr. Cardiff: Well, the member’s passion for this issue while=
he
was a New Democrat has waned. In fact, since joining the government side, t=
he
minister’s position on McIntyre Creek has become very passive. He now
refrains from taking a position other than letting other levels of governme=
nt
decide. Just a year ag=
o,
though, as a New Democrat, his position was much different. In fact, he wor=
ked
to persuade the Elders Council of Kwanlin Dun First Nation to give unanimou=
s consent
to a motion to protect and preserve the McIntyre Creek corridor. Although t=
he
minister doesn’t live in the past, he wrote to the Kwanlin Dun Chief =
and
Council urging them to consider using special management provisions under t=
he
self-government agreement in order to, and I quote: “Honour the memor=
y of
our ancestors by protecting some of the things that they taught us to treas=
ure
and respect.” Has the
minister’s point of view on McIntyre Creek changed because he now bel=
ongs
to a party with a different political philosophy? Hon. Mr. Edzerza: For the record, I might like to state no=
w that
maybe I didn’t have the support of the leader and my colleague from t=
he
New Democrats, because we never, ever met as a team with other governments
involved with this issue. I did it as a lone individual. Again, I want to s=
tate
for the record that, yes, my beliefs were genuine and they still are today.=
I
have no reason to change anything that’s within my train of thought a=
nd I
don’t intend to. If there’=
;s a
request from the interested parties to the government with regard to McInty=
re
Creek, of course the government would have to entertain whatever the request
may be. Question re:
Mr. Cathers: The Ibex Valley Local Advisory Coun=
cil
proposed an amendment to reduce minimum lot size and allow owners of large
residential lots to subdivide. That change was supported by the majority of=
my
constituents who provided their views to their LAC. Deep Creek residents are
still waiting for their draft zoning regulations to be approved, as demonst=
rated
by the letter the minister received from 29 property owners and e-mails from
other residents. Yesterday I re=
minded
the minister that, as of late summer 2009, both initiatives were on track t=
o be
in front of Cabinet by the end of the year. Both targets were missed. Yeste=
rday
he assured me these files are priorities but, unfortunately, did not provide
timelines. I’ll give him an opportunity to correct that today. What are the c=
urrent
target dates of completion of the Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
<=
/span>I
appreciate the question coming from the Independent Member for There were a n=
umber of
issues that still require attention. This government is providing attention=
to
those, and I am meeting on a regular basis with the Department of Energy, M=
ines
and Resources, which is responsible for these areas, and we expect to see t=
hem
concluded in the near future. Mr. Cathers: When the Land Planning branch becam=
e part
of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources a year ago this month, the
objective was to improve the ability of the Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the quest=
ion
coming from the Independent member. I do agree there were a number of files
that were half done when he chose not to continue to work on them. It’=
;s
curious that there are other files that he has not included in his list. Th=
ere
are constituents who call me and ask me how come progress wasn’t made=
on
other issues. Again, for the member opposite, I’ve taken the issue
seriously. I’ve discussed it with the department. I’ve made a
commitment to him to address this in due course through the appropriate
procedures and working with the affected constituents. There are a number of
other issues regarding land planning throughout the area, not only in the
riding of Laberge, and this government will give strong consideration to al=
l of
those issues as well. This is not to say that we will ignore Mr. Cathers: <=
/span>I
would remind the minister again: as of late summer, the initiatives I’=
;ve
mentioned were on track with target dates to have them completed and before
Cabinet by the end of the year. Somehow, it seems that this has not been fo=
llowed
up on, and other land planning initiatives — don’t worry,
I’ll get to more on the list for the minister — another land
planning initiative delayed significantly beyond the timeline identified fo=
r it
is development of a local area plan for south Fox Lake. The first publ=
ic
meeting to start developing a south Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
<=
/span>I
appreciate that there are a number of issues regarding land planning throug=
hout
the territory. I can assure all members here that this minister will give d=
ue
consideration and attention to all of the issues. We don’t play
favourites with the issues we choose to address. We’ll take a look at=
all
of the issues that come in. Now, I have
corresponded with the member about the Deep Creek area development regulati=
ons
and about the Question re:
Mayo B project Mr.
McRobb: Ye=
sterday,
the Premier avoided answering questions shedding light on his secret parall=
el
negotiating process to sell out Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I guess one would expect this type of
interpretation from the Member for Kluane for whatever matter is brought be=
fore
the House — whether by tabling of documents, the budget, or witnesses=
and
what they say. I think the witness was very clear. In fact, the witness said
these were the numbers being used, but over time, as they developed and
evolved, the numbers do get refined. Of course, the
government presented to the public what was already in the public domain, a=
nd
the Energy Corporation was very astute in developing the business case for =
Mayo
B. That’s essentially why the federal government, after doing due
diligence, invested the level of monies, the fiscal resources, toward the
project, some $71 million. Mr. McRobb: Before we examine what the YEC president=
put
on the record Monday afternoon, let’s be clear about what numbers are=
at
issue here. The Premier’s budget speech said Mayo B would save $20
million in diesel cost, starting in the year 2012; therefore, the question =
is
crystal clear: what are Mayo B diesel cost savings in 2012? Let’s al=
so put
on record what the issue is not: the total diesel forecast in 2012 without =
Mayo
B. But that’s how this Premier is trying to redefine the issue. We kn=
ow
Mayo B can only displace a fraction of the forecast total. Even so, the
forecast total is $5 million below the Premier’s number. Again, why did=
the
Premier choose to use the obsolete numbers, which were outdated months befo=
re
the budget speech? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Mr. Speaker, now that we’re talking
about things that are obsolete, I would submit to the House that it is the
Member for Kluane’s script that is obsolete. In fact, the witness was
clear, as the member puts it, “crystal clear” in the fact that =
the
values as presented, all-inclusive, were indeed right. Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, you know, it is really stun=
ning to
realize it was this same Premier who tried to sell out One last time:=
why did
the Premier choose to use the obsolete numbers, which were outdated months
before the budget speech? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
The government side need not question a
witness’s statements and evidence brought before the House, including=
the
members opposite whose very own evidence shows there was no sale of assets.=
But the member
mentioned that the government side is in it together. Yeah, we are in it
together, Mr. Speaker, and have been for some seven years. That’s why=
the
quality of life in the Question re:
Yukon Energy Corporation/ Mr. McRobb: Let’s turn now to the Premier̵=
7;s
denials from yesterday’s questions about his secret parallel negotiat=
ing
process to sell out He further sai=
d:
“I can’t, under the terms of the confidentiality agreement I
signed, provide details.” Yet the Premie=
r denied
there were any gag orders. This government is stuck in denial. Let’s
approach this question from a different angle. Can the Premier confirm or d=
eny
these gag orders were put in place at the request of the private company fr=
om Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Well, having not been part of those
discussions, Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me to give any detail in
that regard. But as I understand it, and most people who have been involved=
in
any matter such as this with the corporate community — this is pretty
standard practice. This is between corporations and individuals involved in
discussions. So, the member is referencing this as a “gag order.̶=
1; I
think that’s an affront to the professional people who are involved in
matters such as these. It’s an affront to Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, I agree these gag orders ar=
e an
affront to Yukoners, but it’s the same old story: deny, deny, deny.
Yesterday the Premier denied his end-runs around two of his ministers with
energy-related portfolios. The evidence on public record has revealed the
Premier required certain officials to keep their activities on this file se=
cret
from the ministers to whom they report. One of these former ministers spill=
ed
the beans when he resigned his portfolio and crossed the floor. The evidenc=
e is
there. The other stil=
l backs
the Premier, although he lost his portfolio to the Premier himself. Does the Premi=
er
believe the practice of circumventing the authority of a minister, and
requiring a minister’s officials to keep their activities secret from
their minister, is consistent with being an open, accountable and transpare=
nt
government? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
There is no reasonable, rational answer =
to
that question because, quite frankly, it’s nonsense. Speaking of deny=
ing
— Unparliamentary language Speaker: Order please. The term “nonsense” is not an appro=
priate
term to use in the context of the member’s question, because I think =
it
reflects — it’s a personal comment as opposed to a more
broader-based comment, so the Hon. Premier, just keep that in mind. You have
the floor. Hon.
Mr. Fentie: Thank you, Mr. Spea=
ker.
Speaking of denying, all information evidence, including the witness before
this House two days ago — the member suggests that we used incorrect
numbers or inflated numbers, even. The evidence by the witness shows that n=
ot
to be the case. The Member for=
Kluane
denies that fact. The Member for Kluane continues to suggest secret
negotiations took place. All evidence presented — even the witness who
was here in the House two days ago — made that very clear. The Member=
for
Kluane continues to deny that fact. It goes on. The Member for=
Kluane
suggested that there were negotiations. Again, all evidence, information
— and even including the witness of two days ago before the House =
212;
made that clear that no, there were no negotiations; there were discussions.
The Member for Kluane denies that fact. We’re speaking of denial here.
The Member for Kluane insists that there has been a sale of assets — =
we
all know that not to be the case. The Member for Kluane denies that fact. Mr. McRobb: The Premier denied several other matters
yesterday, despite the evidence on the public record. He denied being invol=
ved
in the negotiations, despite his own letter to Yukoners deman=
d good
governance. Is there not anyone sitting in the Yukon Party benches who is
willing to stand up for Yukoners’ interests, or are they all still in
this together? Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Well, I think the issue that we’re
really dealing with here today is this: the Member for Kluane continues to =
deny
the facts, all the evidence, all the information and the witnesses’
presentations. Despite all that, the Member for Kluane continues to deny the
facts. Nothing more can be said about that. But as far as
“all in this together” — yes, the government is collectiv=
ely
together on investing in Speaker: The time for Question of Period has now
elapsed. We’ll proceed to Orders of the Day. Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) INT=
RODUCTION
OF VISITORS Mr. Nordick: Mr. Speaker, if I could get all my =
colleagues’
help to recognize another citizen from the Applause ORD=
ERS OF THE
OPP=
OSITION
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS MOTIONS OTHER THAN
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Motion No. 992 Clerk: Motion No. 992, standing in the name of Mr. Cardiff.
Speaker: It is moved by the Member for THAT this House urges the Yukon gov=
ernment
to introduce amendments to Yukon’s Quartz
Mining Act and Yukon’s Pl=
acer
Mining Act to bring them into harmony with the values of today’s
society concerning the critical issues of: (1) conflicts inherent in surface r=
ights
versus mining rights within the mineral tenure system and security of
investment, or free-entry staking, particular within municipal boundaries;<=
/span> (2) prioritization of land claim
settlements in disputes around mineral staking; and (3) maintenance of the mineral
industry’s contribution to Mr.
Cardiff:=
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to discuss what I
consider to be a very import=
ant
issue. I’d like to begin by saying that I know it could be awfully
tempting for some members in the Legislative Assembly to suggest during
today’s debate on this motion that Yukon New Democrats do not support
business or mining. But in the hope of avoiding that sort of misinformation
this afternoon, instead of having a constructive debate about a number of
complex issues, I’d like to begin by taking a few moments to remind t=
he
House that this May will mark the 25th anniversary of the Yukon =
New
Democrats forming government in the I know, for in=
stance,
that the Premier will have little difficulty remembering the strong economic
strategy of the Yukon New Democrats during those years in government, resul=
ting
in such ongoing benefits to Yukon industry such as the tourism marketing fu=
nd,
the trade development fund the small business investment tax credit, the ru=
ral
road upgrade fund, the transfer of power generation assets from the Northern
Canada Power Commission and the establishment of the Yukon Energy Corporati=
on,
the transfer of the management of oil and gas resources from Indian and
Northern Affairs Canada and the passing of the Yukon Oil and Gas Act, which led to territory’s first land sale=
in
over 20 years. I’d also=
like to
remind the Premier and his government about the Yukon New Democrat
government’s creation of the My goal in bri=
nging
forward this motion is to encourage this government to amend the It is my inten=
tion
today to describe how the current free-entry system is outdated and why it
compromises the values of today’s society, as has been described in
Motion No. 992. I’ll pro=
vide a
brief general overview of the current free-entry system and following that
brief outline only a few of the constraints of the current system as they
relate to each of the three critical issues described in the motion. I want=
to
be sure to give all other members in this Legislative Assembly sufficient t=
ime
to be heard here today, and I’m very much looking forward to hearing
their contributions on this debate. For the purpos=
es of
background to this debate, I suggest to the members that the law of free en=
try
is based now on the following premises: (1) mining prevails over private
property rights; (2) mining is the highest and best use of Crown lands; (3)=
all
Crown lands are open for staking and mineral exploration unless they are
expressly excluded or withdrawn by statute. Mining prevail=
s over
aboriginal land rights. Mineral tenures are appropriately granted on a
first-come, first-served basis, and mineral potential is so valuable that it
warrants leaving the staked areas essentially unregulated and potentially u=
nusable
for other resource interests. The system as =
it is
now precludes any sort of land planning process, which I believe is somethi=
ng
that Yukoners have expressed very passionately and succinctly is very impor=
tant,
and I believe that this government supports land planning. They may not be
moving forward on it, as we heard in Question Period earlier today, as fast=
as
many Yukoners would like to see it happen, but I believe that it is an
important issue. The system as it is now — the free-entry system
precludes the land use planning processes that we have. Under the free-entry
system in the
The miner then
registers the claim at the mining recorder’s office for a fee of $10 =
per
claim and in doing so obtains the right to enter the area claim and to expl=
ore
for minerals. This right can currently be maintained indefinitely as long as
they do $100 worth of work on the claim annually. The Quartz Mining Act does not specify the work that has to be
performed except in dollar terms.
If the miner d=
oes not
complete the representation work in any one year, he has the option of payi=
ng a
fee of $100 annually to maintain his right to that claim indefinitely.
All exploration
activities have to adhere to the standard operating conditions outlined in =
the
quartz mining land use regulations. These regulations categorize exploration
activities into four classes, according to the activity’s potential to
cause adverse environmental impacts. Class 1 programs are defined as grassr=
oots
exploration with low potential to cause adverse environmental effects and w=
hich
are completed within one year. Exploration programs that are categorized as
class 2, 3 or 4 as outlined in those regulations are assessed under the
In these cases=
, the
YESAA-designated office conducts an assessment of a project proposal by see=
king
input from
The
Quartz leases =
are
issued for 21 years and can be renewed for another 21 years. To obtain the
lease, the miner or the company must perform $500 worth of work or provide
payment in lieu of that work. Once the miner has a lease, he does not have =
to
do the annual work on the claim any more.
The fee for ob=
taining
a lease includes a $10 application fee and a $50 rental fee for a 21-year t=
erm
for 51.65 acres, or 20 hectares or less, and a $20 rental fee for each acre
over the 51.65. The government, and indeed Yukoners, will not collect royal=
ties
from staked land unless and until a mine is actually developed. Even if the
claims are sold to another prospector or to another exploration company, the
government and indeed the taxpayers of the
Lands exempt f=
rom
pre-staking include private lands where mineral rights are not owned by the
Crown. For instance, First Nation category A settlement lands are exempt, as
the First Nations own the subsurface mineral rights on these lands. However,
category B settlement lands are not off limits, nor are most private proper=
ties
in the
I’m sure=
that
members in this Legislative Assembly will remember it was only a few short
years ago when I was raising this issue in the Legislative Assembly where c=
onstituents
in Spruce Hill — a rural country residential subdivision of Whitehors=
e,
which the minister drives by on a regular basis on his way home to the
beautiful Southern Lakes riding — had claims staked right in their ba=
ck
yard, and that caused a lot of concern for residents, and indeed for
municipalities.
We know that t=
he
Association of Yukon Communities is meeting and that municipal governments =
are
going to be discussing these issues this weekend, and they have concerns ab=
out
allowing this to happen.
Also exempt ar=
e the
following specific lands outlined in the Quartz
Mining Act section 14(1), which is land occupied by buildings, land wit=
hin
the immediate vicinity of a dwelling, land valuable for water power purposes
— and water is a very important issue, not just for power generation,=
but
indeed for human survival. Water, in this territory and around the world
— when we look at what’s happening around the world — wat=
er
is the most valuable resource that we have.
It is essentia=
l and it
should be a human right for every citizen on the planet. But the free-entry
system would say that the first and best use of land is mining.
Other areas th=
at are
exempt are land under cultivation, churches and cemeteries and land already
lawfully occupied for mining purposes. Other exempt areas are those where t=
he
subsurface rights have already been legally withdrawn by ministerial order
— for park creation as an example.
So the first c=
ritical
issue in the motion that we’ve identified is the conflicts inherent in
subsurface rights versus mining rights within the mineral tenure system and=
the
security of investment or the free-entry staking, particularly within munic=
ipal
boundaries. We believe that the system that we have now is not fair; it is =
not
a balanced way to manage public lands in the territory. It isn’t a
rational and thoughtful approach. We are now in the 21st century.
The premise of the free-entry system — and I’ll mention this ag=
ain
later — comes from the 19th century. It can be seen now th=
at
the free-entry system encourages companies to stake claims over as much
territory as possible, with little investment requirement and little
encouragement to take greater advantage of today’s advanced geological
assessment technology. Technologies have changed in 150 years as well.
The
free-entry system today still asserts that miners need access to the entire
land base but the reality of new mining sciences encourages greater
discrimination in the selection of potential mineral exploration sites.
It was just a =
few
short years ago, as well, when the Peel Watershed Planning Commission began=
its
land use planning process for the region. I believe it was in October 2004 =
or
somewhere around there. Before the commission was established, there were 1=
,658
active claims in that region.
We can now ref=
er to
the planning commission report to learn that a total of 8,460 active quartz
claims existed in the planning region as of
Now, having th=
ese
claims staked limited the land planning process. It limited other land valu=
es
and other land use options that need to be considered for that area under l=
and
use planning, and the land use planning process has been agreed to by three=
levels
of government. The land use planning process, which is intended to determine
how to best address all land values of the land base, has to consider third=
party
mining rights to the land given under the free-entry system, but it’s=
after
the fact.
Even if conser=
vation
interests are highlighted early on in the planning process, there was no
associated third party right for those values, unless the land had been leg=
ally
withdrawn or was already protected in some way, which it wasn’t. Once=
a
claim is staked, resource management and land use planning must work around
existing mining claims, which are considered to be existing third party
interests. This process reaffirms, as a false premise, that the free-entry
system is the first and the best use of public land. How is it possible that
the public interest is not considered at some point prior to the release of
lands for mining or exploration?
Now, as I said
earlier, and I have just pointed out, the system that we have now is not fa=
ir.
It’s not a balanced way to manage public lands in the territory, and =
it
is not a rational or a thoughtful approach. That’s all we’re as=
king
the government to do today — is to look at this and to take a thought=
ful
and a rational approach to the management of public lands and to take the
public interest to heart. There is no point where the public can question
whether or not it wants exploration in a specific region. They don’t =
have
that right, or they can’t question whether exploration can take place=
for
a specific mineral, such as uranium.
It is not resp=
onsible
governance when the free-entry system does not enable a consideration of wh=
at
other values that land holds, including conservation, recreation such as the
ski trails at
The initial ri=
ghts
obtained can lead to more extensive mineral exploration and eventually to a
mine without the critical questions of whether or not mining is the best us=
e of
that area or whether mining should occur on the landscape even being addres=
sed.
The issue of staking on private land has already led to many conflicts in o=
ther
jurisdictions, and it’s leading to increased conflicts here in the
We’ve he=
ard of
other conflicts in communities as I’ve pointed out — staking in=
the
backyards of residents in Spruce Hill, mills being erected almost right sma=
ck
in the middle of small communities.
There are
environmental issues that are still relatively new to us, and we’re s=
till
gaining the perspective and the knowledge to address these issues. Quite
frankly, 150 years ago, I don’t believe that we had those perspective=
s. I
don’t think we had the knowledge to address those issues, but we̵=
7;ve
become a much more sophisticated society — much more knowledgeable, m=
uch
more concerned. Around the world, and most definitely here in the
The piece of
legislation does not provide fair consideration of those values that people=
now
hold dear. It’s very clear that the free-entry system compromises env=
ironmental
protection objectives and it threatens the environmental integrity in a var=
iety
of ways. We’ve seen it right here in the
We all know th=
ere have
been surveys done. People have spoken out on this issue, including the Memb=
er
for McIntyre-Takhini, about how Yukoners feel about this problem. The Yukon
Chapter of the
The second pie=
ce of
the motion speaks to the prioritization of land claim settlements and dispu=
tes
around mineral staking. Now, I may not have the figures, as of today, but t=
he
figures I do have indicate that in January 2008, 79 percent of
There are crit=
ical
wildlife, recreational, spiritual and First Nation values that should not be
disrupted because they are equally important to our social and economic
well-being. These values need to be considered on an even footing, alongside
all other values, rather than having to be considered only after the landsc=
ape
has been claimed for mineral exploration.
In addition to=
the
mining rights established through the free-entry system, the exploration
activity itself has potential environmental impacts. Roads are built to cre=
ate access
and to explore claims. This fragments wildlife habitat and leads to increas=
ed
hunting pressures and poaching activities where First Nations are living and
using the land — and indeed, other Yukoners as well.
Environmental =
impacts
as a result of these kinds of disturbances are unnecessary if the mineral
deposits are not found to be economic, which is true with the vast majority=
of
claims that are staked. And since the government has no discretion over the=
allocation
of mineral tenure at this stage
— at the staking stage — it cannot choose among the
preferred clients to assess alternative means of conducting exploration
activities that might have fewer impacts on the environment.
Mr. Speaker, t=
he role
of aboriginal peoples in long-term land use planning and decision-making is
critical. Recent legal and political developments demonstrate that First Na=
tion
governments want to ensure responsible development in their traditional ter=
ritories
or near their communities.
I don’t =
believe
that they’re against mining or exploration but they want it to be done
fairly and they want their issues and their concerns and the values that th=
ey
place on the land and that their communities place on the land to be consid=
ered
prior to that land being released.
In addition to=
the
land claims processes, the assertion of aboriginal rights and title is
increasingly becoming a tool by which First Nations can ensure that industr=
ial
activity in their traditional territories is consistent with aboriginal val=
ues
and the uses of the land. Canadian constitutional law requires that aborigi=
nal
people are meaningfully consulted where alienation or resources on their
traditional lands and territories may occur, and in the opinion of some exp=
erts
it is questionable whether or not the principle of free entry is consistent
with aboriginal case law.
I’m not =
going to
go into detail or specific cases to illustrate this, but for members’
reference purposes, the legal framework for these issues arises out of a se=
ries
of cases successfully argued by B.C. First Nations before the Supreme Court=
of
The third issu=
e that
is identified in the motion is the maintenance of the mineral industry̵=
7;s
contribution to the
We need to ens=
ure that
the systems that are in place for granting tenure to the land for explorati=
on
and for mining reflect the values that are currently held by people today. =
The
underlying philosophy back then was that mining was the best use of Crown l=
and.
Land values and mining technology have changed, as I said earlier; yet this
outdated law remains. Society has changed and as societies have evolved
we’ve changed the laws. We’ve done it many times in this
Legislative Assembly. We did it with the Human
Rights Act, although much work needs to be done still. We are proposing=
to
do changes to the Landlord and Tena=
nt Act.
These pieces of legislation are much newer than the piece of legislation th=
at
contains the free-entry system.
This is an out=
dated
piece of legislation that needs to be updated. Members on the other side of=
the
House might even want to refer to it as “housekeeping”.
Reforms in oth=
er
jurisdictions are now being undertaken where mining activity continues to
flourish. If we want to ensure that we manage our lands and our communities
into the future, we must now find a way to bring mining needs into balance =
with
other newly recognized needs, such as clean water, clean air, special
management areas protection, protection of First Nation interests, and the
protection of private property interests.
Some provinces=
have
either moved away from free entry or have modified it considerably. Element=
s of
these approaches could be used to inform consideration of alternatives to f=
ree
entry here in the
In
When
Manitoba’=
;s Mines and Minerals Act contains a =
number
of modern provisions that make it progressive relative to many other jurisd=
ictions,
notably that a miner must obtain consent from the surface rights owner or t=
he
occupant if he wishes to explore for Crown minerals on privately held land.=
One of the imp=
ortant
things is that these are Crown minerals. These minerals belong to the citiz=
ens
of the territory or the citizens of
As I said, min=
ing in
The
In closing, th=
e
The situation =
today is
that the free-entry system is creating unnecessary conflicts between miners=
and
other users of the lands and especially within the boundaries of municipali=
ties
— specifically, recently in
According to a
discussion paper that was done in 2004 by West Coast Environmental Law that was entitled, “Undermin=
ing
Our Future: How Mining’s Privileged Access to Land Harms People and t=
he
Environment”, the free-entry staking process does not allow for the
consideration of factors other than the right to mine when considering mine
exploration. It thwarts sensible land use planning and elevates one form of
industry — mining — to a forum of extraordinary privilege. It
interferes with the exercise of aboriginal title and rights and the exercis=
e of
individual property rights.
There is an im=
mediate
need to reduce the perception and the reality of the privileged access to l=
ands
the mining industry receives today. I don’t believe that’s goin=
g to
hinder the industry. The industry can still thrive. They want certainty too.
Our discussions this afternoon should lead to major changes in the free-ent=
ry
staking process. I know there are other opinions. There are better ways of
handing out rights to explore for minerals, and I’ve identified some =
of
those. The
I’d like=
to say
it one more time: the system that we have now is not fair and it’s not
balanced. It’s not the way to manage public lands in the territory.
It’s not rational and it’s not thoughtful. I would encourage the
minister to look at some of the more rational and thoughtful approaches that
I’ve outlined in other jurisdictions. That’s what I’m loo=
king
for today. I’m looking for a constructive debate. I would like to
encourage other members in this debate to come together here in the House t=
oday
and support this motion. I know that we can do that; I know we can be assur=
ed
of supporting the development of a progressive and environmentally responsi=
ble
mining industry for the betterment of
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Mr. Speaker, it’s my honour a=
nd
pleasure to rise today to debate the motion put forward by the Member for <=
/span>
The member opp=
osite is
very correct in his introductory comments where he identified that this was=
a
complex issue — one that is interwoven with a number of different iss=
ues,
one that is compounded in its complexity by =
history,
practice and legislation not only here in Yukon but also in other jurisdict=
ions
in Canada, and indeed around the world.
The mineral re=
source
industry is a global one and while different politicians recognize the bord=
ers,
the geology certainly doesn’t. Mineral companies will go where the
resources are and they will go where they can work with the local people in=
order
to responsibility extract them and then take them to market. It was said at=
a
recent Prospectors and Developers Association conference in
I can assure a=
ll
members here that the most responsible type of operation would happen in
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
The Member for
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Well, there is the issue of where d=
oes
one put the boundary line, and that has been an issue with municipalities t=
hat
have grown and grown or changed their boundaries.
I appreciate t=
he
Member for
One of the key=
points,
though, is to assure people that staking placer claims within a municipalit=
y is
prohibited and that there are significant criteria on staking claims under =
the Quartz Mining Act. There are two
different pieces of legislation, two different kinds of mining and there are
indeed levels of protection afforded to Yukoners in both of those acts.
I’ll go into those in a bit more detail a little bit later.
Mr. Speaker, t=
his is a
very complex and interwoven motion that has been presented by the New
Democratic Party and it has a number of different issues, concerns and prem=
ises
with it. First, it’s calling on the government to amend legislation to
bring the legislation into harmony with the values of today’s society.
Implicit in that is a thought that the current legislation is not in harmony
and is not consistent with the values of today’s society. That’s
certainly a matter for debate and one worth hearing about.
There are a nu=
mber of
different issues here that we all need to be aware of. One of the things th=
at
we value in our society is competitive forces between companies, the issue =
of
risk and reward and also the value to our society that these economic
opportunities raise for us. I, for one, recognize the significant economic =
impact
that mining industries have on the territory and the benefit that that brin=
gs
to the territory as a whole. We only have to look back a couple of years ag=
o to
the time right before the Yukon Party was elected, where we were seeing abo=
ut
$6 million a year invested in mineral exploration. That’s substantial=
ly
different from today. There is a great deal more invested each year in this
industry and those investments do come in to our transportation companies, =
to
our hotels, to our restaurants, to the airline companies and to the paycheq=
ues
of Yukoners.
They do get mu=
ltiplied
through many different levels of expenditure and make a significant impact =
on
The motion goe=
s on to
discuss that there are inherent conflicts and that there are conflicts about
free-entry staking. When we discuss land use issues, I would suggest that
that’s one of the most contentious types of issues out there — =
that
there are conflicts between people who want to have a farm and people who
don’t want to have a farm; people who want to see a road upgraded or =
not
upgraded.
In my riding, =
I know
that conflicts have been created about putting in playgrounds in
neighbourhoods. If we believe that conflict is inherent in many of these
different levels of our society, then it’s incumbent upon us to put in
place appropriate conflict resolution tools — ways that we can work
through many of these different and sometimes competing interests — a=
way
of ordering projects and a way of mitigating some of the impacts.
But if we as a=
society
say that we do value something, and we value something else, too, and
they’re in conflict, what can we do to mitigate or lessen one project=
on
to another? That’s an important point that we’ll come back to m=
ore
and more over the course of the afternoon about what can we do in order to
mitigate some of the effects of staking, and then also of the regulated
activities that could then take place on some of these claims.
The motion goe=
s on to
discuss the issue of staking within municipal boundaries, and indeed that d=
oes
add a very significant layer of complexity to the issue. As I have reminded
members, our current Placer Mining =
Act prohibits
staking within municipalities. However, that does not alleviate the challen=
ge
of dealing with historic claims. There are placer claims in some communities
that have been there for literally decades, if not for over a hundred years.
Those third party interests are a responsibility that we have to address and
that the responsible orders of government also have to address.
I was reminded=
from
the Klondike Placer Miners Association recently that when we saw the changes
— I believe it was 1987 — to the boundaries of
However, there=
was
recognition that there was a responsibility to continue to work with the due
processes and appropriate channels to address the interests of placer miner=
s in
that community, which has literally been built on a bedrock of mining explo=
ration.
The motion the=
n goes
on to address a concern regarding land claim settlements and disputes around
mineral staking, and that is a significant issue that we have in the territ=
ory.
One of the strengths of the territory that we have is the significant progr=
ess
that Yukon First Nations have made on having self-government agreements and
land claim settlements recognized. There has been literally decades of work=
and
thousands of hours, thousands of discussions, many emotionally involved
discussions, to bring many of these agreements to conclusion.
There was a
significant amount of clarity that was provided to
Also in that p=
rocess
areas were identified where there were likely to be disputes in the future =
and
of course then a dispute reconciliation method was put into place.
The motion the=
n goes
on to discuss the mineral industry’s contribution to
When one looks=
at this
government’s track record in working with industries as diverse as the
recording industry or the film and sound industries or manufacturing
industries, one can see that we have worked not only on increasing educatio=
nal
opportunities, but also worked at reducing regulatory barriers. We’ve
increased funding and resources to expand many of these issues, and we̵=
7;ll
continue to work to diversify the economy.
That being sai=
d, part
of a strong, diverse
Yes, we certai=
nly
appreciate previous initiatives that other governments have started, like t=
he
mining incentive program — and this government has recognized that and
valued it. We have seen the improvements it has made in the industry and th=
e effect
that it has had on the community and have also increased the investment in
that.
The member opp=
osite
indicated that this was a significantly complex issue, and I certainly
appreciate that. I know the last couple of months, as the minister responsi=
ble
for Energy, Mines and Resources, have been very enlightening for me. There
isn’t a day that goes by where I’m not in a position of learning
something new or finding out something more about the industry or the depar=
tment
and the work that we do.
In discussing =
this
motion today, I will be putting forward a number of different thoughts and
concerns, and shedding some light and providing more information on a numbe=
r of
different issues that have been brought forward. This afternoon, I’ll=
be
looking at a brief history of mining and its significant impacts on Yukon I
will provide a brief discussion on the free-entry system and how it works a=
nd
how it does benefit Yukon. I’ll provide an examination of the legisla=
tion
that’s on the books today, including a look at the Quartz Mining Act,
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Quorum count
Speaker: The Minister of Highways and Public Work=
s, on
a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Lang:
Speaker: Order please. According to Standing Order 3(2), if, at any time during the sitting of the Assembly, the Speaker’= ;s attention is drawn to the fact that there does not appear to be a quorum, t= he Speaker will cause the bells to ring for four minutes and then do a count.<= o:p>
Bells
Speaker: I have shut off the bells and I will now=
do a
count. There are 13 members present. A quorum is present. We will now conti=
nue
debate.
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Mr. Speaker, as we were discussing =
this
afternoon, I will provide a bit more background on the history of mining and
its significant impacts on Yukon, a discussion on the free-entry system and=
how
it works and how it benefits Yukon, provide information on the legislation =
that
is on the books today, including the Quartz
Mining Act and Yukon’s Pl=
acer
Mining Act and that process, provide a discussion about the limitations=
on
staking provided for in our existing legislation, provide more background a=
nd
information on the rights and responsibilities of a claims holder, and then=
provide
a discussion on the process required to conduct activity on a claim. That&#=
8217;ll
be an important issue that we discuss.
Earlier,
we heard the member opposite characterize some of these issues as being
“unregulated” and “wanting to promote or prevent
irresponsible development”. I certainly want to go over some of the p=
rocesses
that are required in order to conduct an activity on a claim. These include
looking at the Yukon environmental socio-economic assessment process, the
mining authorization process that’s required, water licences, land use
permits, as well as the additional other permits or behaviors that are requ=
ired
in order to conduct activities on a claim. We’ll also take a look at =
the
municipality in the process, if this is an activity that is taking place wi=
thin
a municipality or looking at how a municipality through a process such as i=
ts
official community plan, its zoning bylaws, or other activities can either
allow or disallow certain activities in the community. We’ll al=
so look
at how the municipalities can work with the Government of Yukon through the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and through the Community Services
branch in order to help address some of their concerns. Also, as we have
discussed already, there are likely to be disputes regarding a variety of
different uses for land. We’ll provide a background on the dispute
resolution processes available around mineral staking, including taking a l=
ook
at the Surface Rights Board, its role, responsibility and mandate. We’ll al=
so put
some information about the mineral industry’s contribution to =
We’ll al=
so take
a look at the process that had been established during the devolution
negotiations on how successor legislation — those pieces of legislati=
on
to replace the mirror legislation — were to be prepared, whom they we=
re
to include, and the process we were obligated to follow in order to address
those.
Starting with =
a bit
more context about what mining means in
We are certain=
ly known
around the world for our rich resources and
I know through=
the
work that the Yukon Geological Survey does in
While we do kn=
ow quite
a bit about
That’s p=
art of
the competitive process between mining companies, and that’s part of
having a skilled prospector who can find a property and provide some kind of
tenure on it so they can then do the due diligence in order to raise the mo=
ney,
in order to provide for additional resources to do the extensive research.
There has to be some security for the person doing the expenditure, that
they’ll have some title to the process to ensure the security of their
investment that they need to make in order to identify a potential resource
— but I’m getting a bit sidetracked here.
Some of the ot=
her
advantages of
We also have t=
he
strength of the
Another one of=
our
strengths is the unparalleled data and research. As I mentioned, the Yukon
Geological Survey maintains extensive scientific and technical data on the
geology, mineral tenure and mineral deposits of the territory. This includes
comprehensive, up-to-date databases and interactive mapping tools and the
wealth of information and knowledge from the Yukon Geological Survey staff,=
who
work in many different opportunities and capacities to share their knowledg=
e,
expertise and information with people in the industry. Whether that’s
done one on one or through the release of technical journals, or through
information sessions at events such as Roundup or the Prospectors and
Developers Association of Canada annual meeting, Yukon geologists and those
involved in the Yukon Geological Survey are renowned for their professional=
ism,
their wealth of knowledge and their encouragement and enthusiasm for the in=
dustry.
Additionally, =
Mr.
Deputy Speaker,
The industry a=
lso
fully appreciates the responsive nature of this government that has proacti=
vely
addressed issues regarding legislation, regarding royalties and making that
much more straightforward through investments in programs such as
Also, Mr. Spea=
ker, I
can tell members that the mineral industry is also very excited about
Just as an asi=
de, Mr.
Speaker — I’m sorry, was there a comment from the Member for
But it is impo=
rtant to
have accurate background information on this issue; unfortunately, I have
noticed there has been a — well, a misunderstanding, I guess, is prob=
ably
the best way to characterize it — about some of the situations or som=
e of
the processes in Yukon. That has led to a lot of confusion around this issu=
e,
and that type of thing doesn’t help anyone.
On the issue, =
though,
of settling confusion, one of the other factors that Yukon can lay claim to=
is
that we have many settled land claims and regulatory certainty and that Yuk=
on
is at the forefront of land claims negotiations in Canada with many Yukon F=
irst
Nations having finalized their land claims. Additionally, mineral rights and
tenure rights in these areas provide regulatory certainty to both the
Another streng=
th the
Finally, an ad=
ditional
strength that
Just earlier t=
oday I
was having a discussion with a Yukoner who works in the mineral industry an=
d he
was telling me about coming back from
I should also =
add here
that recent developments, such as the Yukon Mine Training Association, whic=
h is
a cooperative agreement between industry and Yukon First Nation governments=
to
develop training opportunities for Yukoners, is welcomed throughout the
community and is having significant benefits. Both the Government of Yukon =
and
Government of Canada have provided resources to YMTA and we are seeing
significant returns on these types of investments.
People are inc=
reasing
their capacity and their skills and becoming more involved in the economy a=
nd
in an employment situation. We are seeing a tremendous growth in this sector
and seeing young people getting skills, earning their certifications and th=
en
becoming employed. It’s certainly great to see
So obviously t=
he
Indeed, weR=
17;ve
all heard the announcement from Kinross, one of the largest gold mining
companies on the planet, of their interest in property outside of
Mr. Speaker, t=
here are
a couple of different facets to mining in
In
2004, 163 placer mines produced over 100,000 ounces of crude gold, which is
worth about $43 million. Placer mining and its history continue to be a maj=
or
tourist attraction in the
About 90 to 100
family-owned and operated placer mines are in the
Many of the te=
chniques
used in modern placer mining really only use water and gravity to recover t=
heir
gold. Reclamation is mandatory. Additionally, a reclamation plan must be
approved before licences are issued. That is an important process, and I wi=
ll
get to that in just a moment.
There seems to=
be some
misunderstanding in some circles that as soon as a claim is staked unregula=
ted
and unrestrained activity is permitted. Well, it simply doesn’t. There
are regulations that have to be followed, processes that have to be adhered=
to,
inspections that are done. It’s not a Wild West in today’s mini=
ng
industry and it should be noted that
I think many Y=
ukoners
are very proud of the activities and practices that
Just to take a=
nother
approach, one only has to look at operations like Brewery Creek today and s=
ee
the tremendous amount of work that has been done there to return it to as n=
atural
a state as possible. These activities are done because of the strong standa=
rds
of our operators, in addition to the regulatory regime that we have in place
and the conditions that the Government of Yukon and others put on their
activities, and the requirements to have things like reclamation plans in p=
lace
prior to activity happening, or to have bonds posted to ensure there are the
financial resources in place in order to cover these costs.
This discussio=
n has
also gone into the area of municipalities and the issue of mining in
In
I’m sure=
many of
us are familiar with the hardrock mining operation that ran just on the oth=
er
side of the
It is importan=
t to
note that the
And just by wa=
y of
closing this out, Mr. Speaker, the total value of minerals mined near
Whitehorse was almost $500 million and the certainly had a positive impact =
on
the Whitehorse and Yukon economy.
That is just a=
bit of
a background about mining and its significant impacts on
It had been di=
scussed
that this was a way of trying to develop a new frontier, so I’ll give=
the
member some credit for that. It is certainly a way of trying to develop
additional knowledge, to develop new frontiers, and to develop new opportun=
ities.
But I’m going to disagree with the Member for
Mineral tenure=
is
granted under the free-entry system in Yukon. This system gives individuals
exclusive rights to publicly owned mineral substances from the surface of t=
heir
claim to an unlimited extension vertically downward from the boundary of the
claim or lease. All Commissioner’s lands are open for staking and min=
eral
exploration, unless they are expressly excluded or withdrawn by
orders-in-council, for example, parks, interim protected lands, or lands th=
at
have received protection after their interim protection has been withdrawn,
buildings, dwelling houses, cemeteries, agricultural lands and settlement l=
ands
— and I’ll go into more details regarding the special conditions
that the Placer Mining Act and =
the Quartz Mining Act put on these
exemptions.
This is rooted=
in the
customary laws that have prevailed in parts of medieval
Free entry ena=
bles the
continued growth of the mineral industry for two significant reasons: it
increases the odds of a discovery and, additionally, it offers the protecti=
on
of proprietary knowledge — and this is an important aspect in our free
market economy.
On the issue of
increasing the odds, mineral exploration is the first phase of the mining c=
ycle
that can — it’s a big if, though — lead to a productive m=
ine.
But it is extremely rare that any mineral discoveries advance to become min=
es.
The success rate for exploration is extremely low for grassroots exploratio=
n.
In fact, according to the statistics, fewer than one in 10,000 mineral show=
ings
discovered actually becomes a mine.
So, it's impor=
tant to
note that we have to do an awful lot of grassroots discovery in order to
actually get to a productive mine. I’m reminded of the White Gold
property in
The proponent =
behind
the project has released estimates on the size of the deposit, but the port=
ion
that pokes out at the top of it — the portion that can actually be wa=
lked
on and prospected — is very, very small. The actual top of the deposit
was found by one soil sample. I understand that when prospectors were
researching the area, they conducted a soil sample there and found one
anomalous sample and then, based upon the one sample, they conducted further
exploration. On the merits of the one sample, they were able to invest
additional dollars and resources into looking deeper. Because they had tenu=
re
to the property — some sort of security — they were able to make
that additional expenditure into exploration in order to prove out whether
there was a deposit there or not. If they didn’t have that tenure or
security that they would be able to keep that deposit that they found, what
would be the point of making the investment? That goes hand in hand with the
free-entry system.
It is importan=
t to
encourage the grassroots exploration. That is how we’ll find these ty=
pes
of deposits, and we do have significant areas throughout the Yukon that rea=
lly
are undiscovered and we don’t know where many of the mineral deposits
lie, and it is because there are people on the ground or in helicopters or
doing stream sediment sampling or doing soil lines or other innovative
techniques that we actually prove out many of these resources. Now these
prospectors are continuing to use the information provided by the Yukon
Geological Survey and their own knowledge and also knowledge about other
geological formations that are around the world. They’re looking for
those same types of models here in Yukon. It requires someone to actually b=
e on
the ground with a pair of boots on it to stick a shovel in the ground to ta=
ke a
sample and then pay for the assay of that sample in order to prove out a
resource
The other impo=
rtant
issue here is the protection of proprietary knowledge. The industry does go=
out
and explore and discover, and they do utilize the scientific knowledge base
that I’ve discussed previously to guide their exploration. But the
knowledge they gain as a company is of value. As members know, knowledge
— and having facts that other people don’t have — is
important and can be a tangible matter and one that does assist in the rais=
ing
of capital in this industry.
Mineral explor=
ation
involves significant scientific understanding of geology and extensive rese=
arch
and, most significantly, the development of proprietary knowledge. And as e=
xploration
companies expand their proprietary knowledge, innovation is fostered and
exploration can advance to new levels of sophistication and refinement.
We see those
characteristics every day in this industry, whether it’s introducing a
new shovelling technique — and believe me, there are advancements in
shovelling techniques that have increased the efficiency and the effectiven=
ess
of prospectors in this industry — to the use of unmanned aerial vehic=
les
that are being used to overfly certain mineral deposits in order to gain
additional technical information about them.
The industry is
certainly progressing in its sophistication and its refinement. Also, by
focusing public reviews and processes on activities and not just the initial
claim, the modern free entry protects the investment in proprietary knowled=
ge
and expertise. Also, it should be important to note that the suggestion that
free entry somehow allows miners to trample over others’ rights or th=
at
mining prevails over property rights is patently false.
All that staki=
ng a
claim does is convey the right to sole benefit from the mines and minerals =
and
limited surface rights to allow access to these rights. It does not displace
the rights of the surface owner, any more than the surface owner displaces =
the
rights of miners. The system is a balanced one with ample process to address
areas of overlap. And again, I want to emphasize “ample due process&#=
8221;.
Free entry is simply a system that allows the entrepreneurial spirit to exi=
st,
but it in no way reduces anyone else’s legitimate rights.
We have severa=
l pieces
of legislation on our books today that do address, regulate and legislate m=
any
of the activities that we’re discussing in this motion. These include=
the
Quartz Mining Act and
The Quartz Mining Act was enacted by t=
he
Government of Yukon in 2003 in accordance with the devolution of control and
administration of mineral rights from the federal government to the =
The Quartz Mining Act governs the auth=
ority
to stake, record and maintain mining claims for the purpose of exploration
and/or development. The act also enables the Government of Yukon to issue
licences and regulate developments as they proceed from design through to
construction, operation, reclamation, decommissioning and, finally, closure=
.
As the sole
administrator of the mine licensing process, Government of Yukon officials =
can
respond with greater local capacity to the unique physical, social and econ=
omic
settings found within
A key purpose =
of the Quartz Mining Act is to encourage
prospecting, exploration, staking and development of mineral resources by
providing an orderly system of allocation of exclusive rights to minerals. =
The Quartz Mining Act and associated
regulations provide detailed guidance on how claims are staked and how
exploration and mining activities must be conducted.
The mining ten= ure process is initiated through claims staking. Just for clarity, Mr. Speaker,= a claim is defined as a parcel of land located or granted for hardrock mining= . A claim is a rectangular plot of ground that does not exceed 1,500 feet by 1,= 500 feet and all angles of the claim must be right angles except where a bounda= ry line of a previously located claim is adopted as common to both locations.<= o:p>
Before staking=
a
claim, prospectors are encouraged to reference the relevant maps available =
at a
mining recorder office — these are also available on-line — in
order to determine where land is available for staking and where areas have
been withdrawn from staking.
The Member for=
From the Membe=
r for
Mount Lorne’s comments earlier, it seemed that he felt this wasn̵=
7;t
a substantive amount of work to be done, and I’d just like to get a b=
it
more clarity on that one — if he’s thinking that maybe that fig=
ure
is too low and should be increased or if our expectations about the work pe=
ople
are responsible for doing when they do have a claim should be changed someh=
ow.
We’ve al=
so had
some significant discussions in the past on grouping claims, so I won’=
;t
go into that today. It is important to note that the quartz mining land use
regulations consist of a classification system based on varying levels of
specific activities. These threshold levels categorize exploration activiti=
es
into four classes of operation, those being classes one through four. They
represent activities with increasing potential to cause adverse environment=
al
impacts. Now we’re starting to get into the process of regulation and
recognizing the activity that may occur on a claim, and starting to quantify
the type of work that’s being done and therefore the permitting that =
needs
to go with it. The upper limit of an activity or element permissible within
each class of operation is clearly defined. If an exploration operation exc=
eeds
even one of the criteria identified, it would move up into the next class of
operation. Activities with a class 1 program are defined as grassroots expl=
oration
with low potential to cause adverse environmental effects, and where activi=
ties
and reclamation work is completed within the year.
A class 1 prog=
ram does
not require government approval and the operator must comply with the opera=
ting
conditions. An assessment under the
The Member for
Currently ther=
e is no
requirement for any background or history of this. It’s really left u=
p to
the market to decide their faith in the individual or his or her skill at
finding a mineral deposit. I’d just like a little bit more clarity fr=
om
the NDP, or from others, about whether they’re actually proposing tha=
t we
start to license or regulate prospectors in some way, shape or form.
Moving on to c=
lass 2
programs — they are considered to represent the upper level of grassr=
oots
exploration activities. A notification is submitted through the mining lands
office that outlines the activities and how they are reclaimed. Class 2 pro=
grams
are comprised of activities that have a moderate potential to cause diverse
environmental effects and therefore require an assessment through YESAA, and
all work and reclamation must be completed within one year.
All class 3 and class 4 programs re=
quire a
submission of a detailed operating plan to the mining lands office — a
YESAA assessment is required. The
operating plan must be approved before any exploration activity can proceed=
. So
obviously there are significant regulations in place that govern the differ=
ent
levels of activity on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, a=
major hardrock
mining project in the
Proponents are
encouraged to first contact the staff of the Energy, Mines and Resources,
Mineral Resource branch, for preliminary discussions on regulatory
requirements. The
Following the =
YESAB
assessment and after the decision document has been issued by the designated
decision body, government regulators may — and I want to underline
“may” — issue the required permits and licences. Any oper=
ator
who wishes to construct a facility or do physical work in support of the
commercial production of most minerals will require a quartz mining licence.
This applies to all mines, whether or not they have an existing water licen=
ce.
A quartz mining licence is required before development or production can be=
gin.
All exploration
activities that are not related to the delineation of known mineable reserv=
es
of a deposit under development and production are regulated under the quartz
mining land use regulation. This allows the company to retain maximum
flexibility in its exploration activities at the mine under their operating
plan. Timing for the licence application process for new projects varies,
depending on the complexity of the project. It is important for proponents =
to
contact the mineral resource branches as early as possible in the planning
process to discuss their project. Review of the application and the develop=
ment
of the quartz mining licence may occur concurrently with the YESAA assessme=
nt.
However, a licence cannot be issued until a final decision document has been
signed by the decision body. When it has been determined that the mining
operation has been terminated, and all conditions of the licence in the Quartz Mining Act have been compli=
ed
with, the
Reclamation un=
der the
quartz mining licence includes terrestrial impacts of the mining operations.
Activities related to the use of water or deposit of waste into water will
continue to be covered under the mine’s water licence.
In some instan=
ces,
mine reclamation requirements could be considered both terrestrial and water
related. In these instances, the terms and conditions of the quartz mining
licence will be designed so as to not conflict with the water licence requi=
rements.
However, the quartz mining licence may require additional mitigation beyond=
the
water licence requirements.
Under the Quartz Mining Act, royalty is a sh=
are of
profits from a mine in the
Mineral rights=
over
most of the
Some of these =
lands
— commonly referred to as category A settlement lands — are sub=
ject
to existing mineral claims held by third parties. It’s important to n=
ote
that when many of the agreements were transferred to
The placer ind=
ustry is
a bit different and the guidance provided by the Placer Mining Act and its regulations are also different. I
appreciate that they’re both lumped together in this one motion, but =
they
are different pieces of legislation and do have different areas that they
regulate.
The Placer Mining Act and associated
regulations provide clear and comprehensive direction on the requirements f=
or
claims staking and the wide range of activities associated with placer mini=
ng.
The Placer Mining Act is the pr=
imary
piece of legislation governing placer mining activities on lands in =
It’s imp=
ortant
to note that new placer claims cannot be staked within any
I would just l=
ike to
go to the Placer Mining Act and=
bring
members’ attention to section 17(1) of the act, which states:
“Subject to this Act, any individual eighteen years of age or over, on
their own behalf, on behalf of any corporation authorized to carry on busin=
ess
in the Yukon, or on behalf of any other individual eighteen years of age or
over, may enter for mining purposes, locate, prospect, and mine for gold and
other precious minerals or stones on any lands in the Yukon.”
Continuing on =
to
17(2): “Subsection (1) does not apply to lands (a) entry on which for=
the
purpose of locating a claim or prospecting for gold or other precious miner=
als
or stones is prohibited by an order under section 98, except on the terms a=
nd
conditions, if any, set out by the order; (b) used as a cemetery or burial
ground; (c) lawfully occupied for placer mining p=
urposes;
(d) set apart and appropriated by the Commissioner in Executive Council to
enable the Government of the Yukon to fulfil its obligations under land cla=
ims
settlements; (e) within the boundaries of a city, town, or village, as defi=
ned
in the Municipal Act, unless under regulations approved by the Commissioner=
in
Executive Council; or (f) occupied by a building or within the curtilage of=
a
dwelling-house.”
I think this i=
s an
important point and I certainly want to emphasize for members here that the=
Placer Mining Act does already cur=
rently
prohibit the staking of claims within the boundaries of a city, town or
village, as defined by the Municipa=
l Act.
I hope this pu=
ts to
rest any further confusion around this area that people might fear placer
claims being staked within the boundaries that are prohibited. I hope that
clears up some of the issues regarding that.
I should also =
identify
the Quartz Mining Act regulatio=
ns. I
know I went over that one a moment ago and jumped into placer. I apologize,=
Mr.
Speaker, but I’m just going to have to return here to the Quartz Mining Act for a moment.
Mr. Speaker, s=
ection
12 of the Quartz Mining Act dea=
ls
with the right to acquire mineral claims. It provides direction that,
“Any individual eighteen years of age or ov=
er may
enter, locate, prospect, and mine for minerals on (a) any vacant territorial
lands; and (b) any lands in respect of which the right to enter, prospect, =
and
mine for minerals is under the administration and control of the Commission=
er.”
There are cert=
ain
exceptions to this. Section 14(1): “There s=
hall
be excepted from the provisions of section 12 any land occupied by any
building, any land falling within the curtilage of any dwelling-house, and =
any
land valuable for water-power purposes, or for the time being actually under
cultivation, unless with the written consent of the owner, lessee, or locat=
ee,
or of the person in whom the legal estate in it is vested, any land on which
any church or cemetery is situated, and any land lawfully occupied for mini=
ng
purposes, except as provided by section 16.”
The act also g=
oes on
in section 15(1) to identify additional exceptions: “Section 12 does =
not
apply to lands entry on which for the purpose of locating a claim or
prospecting or mining for minerals is prohibited by an order under subsecti=
on
(2), except on the terms and conditions, if any, set out in the order;
“(2) Whe=
re, in
the opinion of the Commissioner in Executive Council, any land in the Terri=
tory
may be required for harbour, airfield, road, bridge or other public work or=
for
a park, historic site or town site, the settlement of aboriginal land claim=
s or
any other public purpose, the Commissioner in Executive Council may, by ord=
er,
prohibit entry on that land for the purpose of locating a claim or prospect=
ing
or mining for minerals except on such terms and conditions as the Commissio=
ner
in Executive Council may prescribe.”
There are a fe=
w other
conditions on this, but I’ll leave it up to members to conduct a bit =
more
of their own research on section 15.
I do want to j=
ust note
that there is section 16(1), which deals with security and that it states t=
hat,
“No person shall enter on for mining purposes or shall mine on lands
owned or lawfully occupied by another person until adequate security has be=
en
given, to the satisfaction of a mining recorder, for any loss or damage that
may be thereby caused; (2) Any dispute respecting a decision of the mining
recorder under subsection (1) as to the security to be given shall be heard=
and
determined by the Yukon Surface Rights Board in accordance with the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act (Ca=
nada)
on application by the person who is to give the security or the owner or la=
wful
occupant of the lands.”
I think that&#=
8217;s
an important point to note, in that when this piece of mirror legislation w=
as
put in place, there was an acknowledgment of the Yukon Surface Rights Board.
This is a board that was established pursuant to self-government agreements=
in
I would just l=
ike to
continue on now about some of the situations regarding placer mining and the
legislation and regulations pursuant to it. The purpose of the Placer Mining Act is to encourage
prospecting, exploration, staking and development of placer resources by
providing an orderly system of allocation of exclusive rights to minerals. =
Also, I want to once again reaffirm=
that
it’s important to note that new placer claims cannot be staked with a=
ny
Mineral tenure=
for
placer mining is granted under the free-entry system in
There’s =
a bit
more information regarding size of claims or how they’re plotted out.=
I
think we can skip over a bit of that work. There has been discussion in the
past about the processes for staking claims, the issue of changing claim po=
sts
and that type of thing.
What I really =
want to
focus in on is some of the activities that can be done and that are regulat=
ed
in regard to the placer mining land use regulations. These regulations clas=
sify
exploration activities based on varying levels of specific activities. Plac=
er
mining exploration activities are also organized into four classes. There i=
s an
upper limit for activity permissible within that class of operation, detail=
ed
by specific criteria. If an exploration operation exceeds even one of the
criterion identified, it would move up into the next class of operation.
Different appr=
ovals
and permits apply for each class. Off-claim activity in support of a placer
claim can also require a separate land use permit. Activities that typically
require a land use permit for off-claim land use include site clearing or e=
arthwork,
construction of a new road, trail or access, clearing or installing a utili=
ty
right-of-way, quarrying or extracting aggregate, conducting geotechnical or
hydrological studies, temporarily using or occupying Yukon land, such as for
activities such as a construction camp, and oil and gas and seismic activit=
ies.
Other types of
activities that generally do not require a land use permit can include thin=
gs
like trail cutting. This is for a trail less than 1.5 metres wide and less =
than
four hectares in area. A land use permit allows a person to do a specific
activity over a specified period of time. The permit does not give any
exclusive rights or tenure to the land.
If a proponent=
wants
to do work within a
Placer mining =
in
Lastly, all wo=
rk
performed on placer claims must also conform to the occupational health and
safety regulations in connection with mine safety and section 15 of the
The issue of l=
and
claims and the mineral industry has also been raised. I would like to provi=
de a
bit more information and background on this issue.
These land cla=
im
agreements were developed over more than 20 years to provide this clarity.
Indeed, there are many people in this Chamber and outside who spent countle=
ss
hours working through these issues to ensure that they were addressed
appropriately. In addition, the Government of Yukon is working with Yukon F=
irst
Nations as full partners in resource development and involving them in
Some recent ex=
amples
of collaboration and cooperation between Energy, Mines and Resources and Yu=
kon
First Nations relating to Yukon’s mineral industry include major mine
permitting: Energy, Mines and Resources ensures participation and consultat=
ions
with First Nations throughout the assessment and regulatory phases of resou=
rce
development. Additionally, we’ve been involved in supporting the
involvement of First Nations in the mining industry. Ongoing initiatives
include funding the Yukon Chamber of Mines to support First Nation
participation at mining workshops and training courses, support for First
Nation representatives to attend the annual mineral exploration round up in
Vancouver and funding to assist with the annual pipeline and mining forum,
hosted by the Liard First Nation Development Corporation.
Also it should=
be noted
that just recently, in March, the
It was also
encouraging to see that many people were interested in being involved in the
economic opportunities around these, whether it was the establishment of new
service businesses, helping to introduce new technological services, the
provision of additional support services, such as things like water quality
testing and for those activities to be done here in the territory, or some =
of
the ancillary services around the mineral industry. It was very encouraging=
to
see the Yukon First Nations’ level of activity in many of these initi=
atives.
Businesses and
employment opportunities for First Nations exist for care and maintenance at
abandoned type 2 mine sites. Energy, Mines and Resources Assessment and
Abandoned Mines branch continues to provide funding that supports training =
for
affected First Nations and provides business and employment opportunities
related to the care and maintenance and closure implementation at abandoned
type 2 mine sites.
We had an oppo=
rtunity
to discuss a bit about this yesterday during the budget debate about how th=
ere
are training programs now in place. These training programs are being done =
in
cooperation, I understand, with
It’s very
encouraging to see the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and First
Nations working to ensure that Yukoners are being trained and prepared to t=
ake
advantage of
Additional ini=
tiatives
the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources conducts are the establishmen=
t of
district offices and liaisons with Yukon First Nations. Natural resource
offices develop and maintain on-the-ground informal working relationships w=
ith
First Nations, advising on timber, lands and mining issues. They are in reg=
ular
contact with their First Nation counterparts concerning joint field work and
inspections and work together with them wherever possible.
Clearly, we ha=
ve some
strong pieces of legislation in place. These include the Quartz Mining Act and the Placer
Mining Act. This came about during the
I don’t =
think I
need to go into all of the criteria for class 1 but, just for members’
clarity, it means that the number of person-days in a camp cannot exceed 25=
0,
the number of people in a camp at any one time cannot exceed 10. There are
conservative limits on the amount of fuel stored on-site, limitations on
construction of cut lines and, as I mentioned, they are not to exceed 1.5
metres in width and are to be cut by hand with handheld tools.
Additionally, =
there
are restrictions on the number of clearings per claim, including the number=
of
clearings for helicopter pads and the like. Establishing new access roads is
not authorized; upgrading of access roads is not authorized; establishment =
of
trails other than temporary trails per exploration program is not authorize=
d.
So there are some very specific limits on the activity that can happen just=
by
having a claim.
Off-road vehic=
le use
in summer can only be done with a low-ground pressure vehicle. Really, just
having a claim allows one to undertake a class 1 activity which, as we can
clearly see by the limitations on these activities, is not expected to have=
any
long-term deleterious effects on the environment, on the community or on the
land.
The next proce=
ss I
would like to identify is the process required to conduct activity on a cla=
im,
including the YESAA process, the mining authorization process, the water
licence process and the land use permits. What I’m trying to do, real=
ly,
is to overcome the misperception that simply having a claim allows for extr=
eme
land uses and irresponsible land use.
What I want to
hopefully clear up for members is that by simply having a claim, you are on=
ly
able to perform a very limited amount of activity. If we do start looking at
increased activity or mine development, there are very significant processes
that the proponents behind this type of development would have to go throug=
h,
including the YESAA process, mining authorization process, water licence, l=
and
use permits, et cetera.
If we go throu=
gh the
placer permitting process, the first step is to determine available land. O=
ne
does that by reviewing the claims map, identifying those areas that are alr=
eady
staked, identifying those areas that are withdrawn, and identifying those t=
hat
are prohibited from staking. The proponent would then review the staking
guidelines, contract the district mining records officer if they have any
questions and consult the placer staking guide and placer maps.
They would the=
n stake
the claims or prospecting lease, record the claims or the prospecting lease,
submit the application form, fees and the sketch with the mining recorder
office. The mining recorder office would then assess the claim or lease app=
lication
and either reject or approve it. If the claim or lease is granted and then
claim tags are issued, the claim holder must then affix tags on the claim
posts. Then any land base access to claim or lease may require a land use
permit. They would then refer someone to how to obtain a land use permit ch=
art
and to go through that process. At that point, they would also determine wh=
at
permits may be required and refer to the placer mining land use regulations=
.
Following a cl=
ass 2
type of operation, the proponent would contact the mining lands officer to
ensure the program is within the threshold limits, ensure information provi=
ded
is complete, complete the notification form, describe the proposed work and=
outline
the reclamation and proposed mitigation work. =
It is an impor=
tant
point to note that the mitigation work would have to be identified at this =
stage
and committed to. It would then be determined if the program needs to be bu=
mped
to a different class, and that decision would be made at the local office. =
If
YESAB determines the process is adequate, they would then begin to do an
environmental and socio-economic assessment which would involve a notice of
assessment to be published for public comments. There would then be a perio=
d of
public comments and contact with affected First Nations. The YESAB district
office would then complete an evaluation report which includes a recommenda=
tion.
The report would then be sent to the government decision body and other dec=
ision
bodies. I should note too that a decision body — the decision document
does not allow any dirt to be moved. There are still further regulatory
processes that have to be worked through. The Government of Yukon would then
issue a decision document to accept, vary or reject the recommendation
Any additional
mitigation identified in the decision document must be included and agreed =
to
by the applicant in their class 2 notification. It should be noted that oft=
en
applications from a beginning stage through to a final approved process mig=
ht
change a bit. There might be ideas floated at the beginning that the propon=
ent
no longer wishes to pursue. There might be additional mitigated measures th=
at
may be proposed. Some of these may then be discussed in the appropriate tim=
elines,
but there is an opportunity to work with the decision body to address
additional concerns in order to make the proposed project more acceptable. =
Once
this is completed, Mr. Speaker, then the proponent proceeds with their
exploration process. If they’re going through a class 3 approval proc=
ess,
again, it’s a much stricter type of process.
There is furth=
er
determination whether or not water licences are required. There are further
discussions about the impacts of the situation, looking at the environmental
and socio-economic impacts. This would then lead to additional permitting
processes, such as how to obtain a land use permit. In this case, the propo=
nent
would submit a land use permit application form to the Land Management bran=
ch.
The Land Management branch would then review the application, determine whe=
ther
or not it meets the YESAA thresholds. If yes, the applicant would be direct=
ed
to the YESAB designated office to complete and submit a YESAA form 1 and a =
copy
of the land use application to the YESAB district office. The YESAB district
office would then determine if the proposal is adequate. If it’s not,
clarification and additional information may be requested by the district
office. The YESAB district office would then begin the environmental and
socio-economic assessment.
A notice of as=
sessment
is then published and open for public comments. Contact with affected Yukon
First Nations is then recommended. The YESAB district office then completes=
an
evaluation report, which is included in its recommendations, and the report=
is
sent to a Government of Yukon decision body, at which point the Government =
of
Yukon issues a decision document to either accept or reject the recommendat=
ion.
The Government of Yukon approves or rejects the application. This would then
lead to the approval of the land use process.
Clearly, there=
are
significant steps for a proponent to take in order to carry on additional
activity on the land. Clearly, simply having a claim does not allow an
individual to partake in irresponsible, unregulated activities. Clearly,
Our internal-t=
o-Yukon
YESAB process and the fact that we have a one-window approach to these type=
s of
issues is a strong asset that the territory has in competing on the world
market in attracting responsible resource companies. In the discussions tha=
t I
have had with resource companies — and I am sure other members will
attest to this — they appreciate the level of scrutiny of the YESAB
process, the level of detail, the level of certainty and the level of timel=
ines.
They recognize that the bar is very high, the expectations are very high and
the requirements are very high for
Now,
on the hardrock side of things, there are also other pieces of legislation =
that
affect quartz or hardrock mining. Again, this is different; this is under a
different legislative act. This is the Quartz
Mining Act as opposed to the Pl=
acer
Mining Act.
The Quartz Mining Act and quartz minin=
g land
use regulations guide hardrock exploration and mining in the
Also, Mr. Spea=
ker,
information is provided to proponents in these areas, including guidelines =
for
claims staking, a handbook on reclamation techniques and mining land use
practices, mine reclamation and closure policies and guidelines, and royalty
guidelines. Again, there is not an open licence to conduct activities based=
on
the establishment of a quartz claim. Instead, there is a very well-thought-=
out,
methodical, logical process that protects the interests of
It is not a ca=
se where
the simple existence of a quartz claim allows for unregulated, irresponsible
activity. I hope that message is getting through.
There is more =
information
regarding the mining authorization process and the water licence process.
I’ll leave it up to other members to look into those in a bit more
detail. Information is available on-line about the process and some of the =
expectations
that have to be met. In issuing mining authorizations, we do take into
consideration the comments from people who may be affected by it. It very o=
ften
results in mitigative steps or changes in activity being committed to by the
proponent. This could be things like changing the hours of operation or
changing the routing of a road or the establishment of noise or dust buffer=
s.
There are legi=
timate
concerns that can be raised by others and then, wherever possible, the
proponent tries to find ways of lessening the impact of their activities on
others. The mining authorization would then entrench some of those activiti=
es
into their authorization and make the performance of what they’ve
committed to mandatory.
This now bring=
s us to
the next issue, which is the role of a municipality in this type of situati=
on.
I’ll go into a bit of detail here regarding the areas that can be cov=
ered
under an official community plan and the issue of zoning. I want to make it
very clear right at the beginning of my comments on this section that the Y=
ukon
government will continue to work with Yukon communities to address the
challenges presented by different land uses within municipal boundaries. We
will continue to work, for example, with the City of
The City of
Claims staking=
within
municipal boundaries has occurred infrequently. In the past it has been very
limited in scope. I want to once again state that new placer claims cannot =
be
staked within any
The Quartz Mining Act expressly prohib=
its
the staking of any claims on land occupied by any building or anywhere near=
a
residence and any land under cultivation, unless with the written consent of
the owner or lessee of the land.
Addressing the=
issue
on a case-by-case basis, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources ensu=
res
that the rights of both property owners with surface rights and miners with=
subsurface
rights are protected. And a thorough regulatory process must be followed be=
fore
the development of any mineral claim in
It was certainly anticipated during=
the
land claim process, where the issue of a common or joint review process or =
YESAA
process was created, that there could be the potential for conflict and tha=
t we
would need some form of dispute resolution process around a variety of
different issues in the territory.
I think weR=
17;re
all aware of the contentious nature of land in the territory. It’s al=
ways
a surprise to a newcomer to the territory when they see the amount of land =
we
have and then find out the challenges in obtaining some of it. We are a
territory that certainly respects the rights of individuals and certainly t=
ries
to take into consideration their thoughts and comments whenever we have any
land activity. Well, I don’t think we need to go into some of the
discussions people have had.
I do remember,=
in a
discussion with some land planners a couple of years ago, that they
characterized certain areas in the
That was a tho=
ught
that appeared to be very prevalent among many people. I’m not sure, b=
ut I
think were trying to be a little hipper than using the standard
“NIMBY” refrain.
I also mention=
ed earlier
that we can have disagreements about issues that many people would see to be
very benign, such as the establishment of a community park or the establish=
ment
of a hockey arena, but we do have those issues that do come about. I expect
that was part of the rationale of why — through the land claims proce=
ss,
the successor legislation and the devolution process — we saw the
creation of the Yukon Surface Rights Board. The Yukon Surface Rights Board =
is a
tribunal whose primary role is to resolve access disputes between those own=
ing
or having an interest in the surface of the land and others with access rig=
hts
to the land. These disputes are primarily related to accessing or using Yuk=
on
First Nation settlement land and, in certain circumstances, disputes involv=
ing
access to or use of non-settlement land.
For example, t=
he
board’s responsibilities under the Placer
Mining Act and the Quartz Minin=
g Act
are to hear and determine disputes about compensation to be paid under those
acts for loss or damages or about the adequacy of security required by the =
mining
recorder. The Yukon Surface Rights Board has jurisdiction to resolve disput=
es
over access to privately held land, including Yukon First Nations settlement
land. It also has jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the competing right=
s of
surface and subsurface users of land, including settlement land. The Surface
Rights Board will also determine compensation for the expropriation of sett=
lement
land and an order of the Surface Rights Board will have the same legal effe=
ct
as an order of the Yukon Supreme Court. The board’s process starts wh=
en
the parties are unable to reach an agreement and a party applies to the boa=
rd.
The board is intended to be the last means of resolving disputes. Consequen=
tly,
applicants must attempt to resolve their disputes through negotiation before
they apply to the board for an order. When the board accepts an application=
, it
will first offer mediation to the parties.
If mediation is
unsuccessful, the board will proceed with a hearing. Hearing procedures will
follow the format prescribed in the Yukon
Surface Rights Board Act and the board’s rules of procedure. Orde=
rs
of the board are binding and may be enforced in the same manner as an order
from the Yukon Supreme Court. There is an office for the Yukon Surface Righ=
ts
Board. They are located in the Horwood’s Mall. They have jurisdiction
derived from several different statutes. The prime authority for the board =
is
the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act<=
/i> of
When there is =
an issue
that is brought to their attention, they will try to work through a negotia=
tion
process or through a mediation process, and then ultimately through a board
hearing. But this is one other example of how there was considerable thought
and attention put forward to these issues prior to devolution.
One of the iss=
ues that
came forward in this motion was that the mover was interested in “prioritization of land claim settlements in disputes around mi=
neral
staking.” We’ve gone through several pieces of legislation right
now and I think there are significant areas of that legislation also in
practice that have addressed many of these concerns. Also, there has been t=
he
establishment of additional processes, specifically through the Yukon Surfa=
ce
Rights Board, which will address many of the concerns that may arise into t=
he
future.
The Member for=
Hundreds more =
are
working in placer mining operations and in mineral exploration projects
throughout the
The Quartz Mining Act and the Placer Mining Act were both modern=
ized
in the late 1990s, with advice from a multi-stakeholder committee.
The recommenda=
tions
led to the enactment of part 2 of each act, which governs exploration and m=
ine
land use and reclamation of land. This is among the most modern of such reg=
imes
in
Additionally, =
by
recognizing the importance of the mineral industry to Yukoners, we have
continued to improve Yukon’s investment climate by providing regulato=
ry
certainty and a streamlined regulatory regime, including completing amendme=
nts
to the claims administration and finalizing amendments to royalty provision=
s of
the Quartz Mining Act that allo=
w government
to be more responsive to this dynamic and evolving industry and will provide
direct benefits to claims holders and to mine developers.
We finalized
amendments to the Miners Lien Act, =
which
modernized the legislation and assists in the ability for the industry to
quantify risk while, at the same time, not to diminish the rights of
Government of =
Mr. Speaker, t=
he
Government of Yukon is continuing to strengthen its relationship with indus=
try
and with First Nations through ongoing partnerships, such as the Yukon Mine=
ral
Advisory Board and the Yukon Mine Training Association. I have recently met
with the chair of the Yukon Mineral Advisory Board. We had a very positive
discussion about some of the recent activities happening in
I should note =
that the
responsible mineral companies are not interested in seeing a degradation of
environmental standards; instead, they are seeking a greater clarity of the=
standards
that are to be met and timelines they are to be met within. This will then =
give
them a greater certainty in their operations. They are certainly eager to
operate in
It wasn’=
t that
long ago that the We saw a situa=
tion
where we were down to, I believe, less than $6 million a year in annual
expenditures. When you take that much of an investment out of an economy, it
has disastrous effects on the whole territory. We only have to look back a
couple of years ago to remember — it has been referred to as “t=
he
U-Haul economy” — where people were leaving the territory howev=
er
they could; and we’re still recovering from that. We saw the lea=
ving of
the 25- to 45-year old cohort in the late 1990s. It has had tremendous impa=
cts
on One only has t=
o look
at the attendance at our schools where really we’re down about a thou=
sand
students from only 10 years ago. It’s because we lost a whole portion=
of
our population and they took their children with them. We went from having
6,000 students to below 5,000 students now today, which creates other
challenges for us. Also, we saw an increase in our average population. As t=
he
population ages, we have to work very hard to attract that next generation =
back
to the Now, through h=
aving
appropriate policies in place, through working progressively with sectors s=
uch
as the mineral industry and working progressively with others, we’re
seeing an expansion of the economy — an increase in the number of peo=
ple
employed in the territory, an increase in the number of longer term positio=
ns
— and we’re seeing the return of responsible resource extractio=
n. I
believe that this will form an important part of One of the way=
s of
nurturing the growth and development of this is through working with others=
on
training. We have a strong organization now, through the Yukon Mine Training
Association, established with Additionally, =
the
Government of Yukon has made significant investments in infrastructure to
assist Yukoners, the visiting public and also the mining industry. These include:=
$31
million to improve and upgrade infrastructure on the southern Robert Campbe=
ll
Highway over the next few years; improving the resource access roads progra=
m,
which will provide $500,000 over the next four years to address the increas=
e in
demand for upgrading and improving public roads, specifically those to acce=
ss
natural resources; and providing resources for the construction of phase 1 =
of
the Carmacks to Stewart Crossing transmission line, which is part of the Ma=
yo B
project. Throughout the
Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, we have implemented a culture of
client service and support by establishing a project facilitation process to
help mining companies with larger and more advanced projects secure permits=
and
resolve issues in the development stage. On this issue we’re not lowe=
ring
the bar or lowering the standards; instead, we’re working to ensure t=
hat
companies know what the standards are, know where the goalposts are, and kn=
ow
what they have to do in order to meet them. Eligible compa=
nies can
also request a dedicated project facilitator who will assist with the
regulatory reviews and timely resolution of issues as they occur. Also, Mr.
Speaker, the The mining inc=
entive
program will see a $1.1-million increase to YMIP in the 2009-10 budget. This
brings the total annual support for this program to $1.8 million. The curre=
nt
funding levels are maintained for 2010-11 as well. A total of 106 mineral e=
xploration
projects were approved through the program, which was fully subscribed in
2009-10. I had the oppo=
rtunity
to talk to some prospectors earlier this summer, and one was a fellow who w=
as
very involved with the White Gold discovery. This is an on-the-ground type =
of
prospector. He does some helicopter work, but certainly goes through a numb=
er
of hiking boots throughout the course of a season. He had signifi=
cant
praise and accolades for the Yukon Geological Survey, for the data that it
provides and the information that it conveys to people in the industry. He =
had
taken a look at the information that was being provided and looked at other
models of mineralization from other areas in So when I see =
that
kind of relationship between an individual gaining information from one sec=
tor
of Energy, Mines and Resources, of working with others in the community =
212;
I believe he also works with YMTA and uses some of the folks who have been
trained through some of their programs — who then leverages some
additional resources to put in place an on-the-ground exploration program t=
hat
then conducts the staking on that type of project so that he can have some
certainty over that, which would then allow that asset, that certainty or
tenure, to find additional resources and then prove that up and now see that
take the next step of being invested to — I’m not sure if all of
the processes have gone through or if all of the stock exchange requirements
have concluded or if the deal has indeed been done about Kinross being invo=
lved
in the White Gold property, but it is tremendous to see initiatives like th=
at
happen. I think it is
initiatives like that that all members in this Assembly are in support of:
where we have a Yukon prospector who goes out and does the research and sta=
kes
the ground and leverages that into conducting additional research and then =
goes
through the permitting processes and now will ultimately go out to the mark=
et
to raise additional resources, seeing a substantial investment by a world-c=
lass
company — by Kinross, one that is responsible and responsive in their
operations — I think it’s that kind of evolution and that kind =
of
development that we all want to see in the industry and in the territory. <=
o:p> I’m not =
sure if
there is anyone here who wants to discourage that kind of thing. But from my
discussions with people in the industry, they are very concerned about a ch=
ange
from what has been described as one of the best policies and practices in <=
/span> What kind of f=
ear
would that send or create in the industry? And then, what kind of impact wo=
uld
that have on the territory? I don’t think anyone would want to see us
return to the 2002 levels of exploration or mining activity. If there is an=
yone
in the Legislature who would like to see us return to that level of activit=
y, I
would like to hear that. I would like them to come forward and hear that
because we’re not hearing that. We’re hearing that the three
parties in this Assembly and Yukoners in general are supportive of seeing r=
esponsible
mineral extraction, and that it would play an important part of our diversi=
fied
economy. If there are others who have different perspective on that, I would
certainly like to hear that. Mr. Speaker, w=
e are
also working very hard to support Capstone Minin=
g has
been in commercial production for almost three years with great success and=
all
indications support Capstone looking to expand the life of the Minto mine f=
or a
significant period of time. Our strong com=
mitment
to Now I would ne=
xt like
to get into the issue of the process that has been developed under the
devolution agreement for the creation of successor legislation. I appreciate
the members’ indulgence today. There has indeed been a considerable
amount of information to put out and put on to the record. I trust that it =
has
done a lot to clear up some misconceptions or misunderstandings that have b=
een
out there. I appreciate
we’ve had the opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues and now I
would like to continue to take a look at the devolution agreement and the
process that has been established for the creation of successor legislation=
. Now, when I should cauti=
on
members, too, there is also federal legislation regarding this in the bulk
waters act. The key point that I would like to bring out here, Mr. Speaker,=
is
section 2.8.1, “The administration and cont=
rol of
It was laid out in the devolution t=
ransfer
agreement that That included =
becoming
responsible for some of the historical issuances of lands, rights, titles or
claims that have been put forward by the federal government, who had previo=
usly
been responsible for it. So it ensures or mandates that That means tha=
t we
have a continued responsibility to the third party land interests in the
territory. Those people who have had claims, who have established them in t=
he
past, and have kept them in good standing, who continue to have expectation=
s of
the potential for their property, and that following the appropriate proces=
ses
I’ve laid out in some detail, they, too, could implement their
exploration processes, and following the appropriate permitting — aga=
in,
turn that into a mine and potentially reap some economic reward. That’=
;s
an important point to mention and to revisit. The additional=
issue
I’d like to bring forward from the devolution transfer agreement is t=
he
issue of successor legislation. Section 2.27 states: “Section =
A of Appendix B (YTG-First Nation Agreements) contains an agreement betwe=
en
the YTG and First Nations that=
are
Parties to this Agreement which sets out cooperative working arrangements in
respect of the development of a workplan and preparation of successor
territorial legislation pertaining to the administration and control of Pub=
lic
Land and the administration and control of rights in respect of Waters.R=
21; When we go further into this, into Append=
ix
B, it details the successor resource legislation. The successor resource
legislation is legislation, then, that would update these pieces of legisla=
tion
we’re referring to today. The purpose of the successor resource
legislation section is to set
out the approach to be followed by the territorial government and First Nat=
ions
that are parties to the agreement. It acknowledges “…the respec=
tive
authority and the jurisdiction of the YTG pursuant to the Yukon Act (Canada) and Yukon First Nations as set out in Yukon
First Nation Final Agreements and Self-Government Agreements in respect of
certain natural resource management, the YTG and First Nations recognize th=
ere
may be benefits realized from working together to develop compatible or, wh=
ere
appropriate, common natural resource management and legislative regimes in =
the
Yukon.” “…=
3.2
Nothing in this section shall be construed as: (a) limiting or otherwise
affecting any authority or jurisdiction of the YTG or First Nations; or (b)
limiting or otherwise affecting the legislative processes of the YTG or Fir=
st
Nations.” The successor =
resource
legislation working group is also put forward in this agreement: “4.1=
The
YTG and First Nations that are Parties to this Agreement shall create, prio=
r to
the Effective Date, a successor resource legislation working group (the
“Working Group”) consisting of representatives of both the YTG =
and
the First Nations.” “The Wor=
king
Group shall serve as the cooperative working arrangement between the YTG and
First Nations in respect of the development of successor resource legislati=
on
following the Effective Date and its overall role shall be to make recommen=
dations
to the YTG and First Nations in respect of such legislation, as set out in =
this
Section. “The Wor=
king
Group shall initially be responsible for providing recommendations to the Y=
TG
and the First Nations in respect of: (a) priorities for development of
successor resource legislation; (b) any opportunities identified for the
development of a common or compatible regime in respect of particular succe=
ssor
resource legislation and First Nations’ legislation; and (c) specific
arrangements as may be appropriate for the development of particular succes=
sor
resource legislation.” “4.4 The=
Working
Group shall be responsible for providing recommendations regarding the
development of each particular piece of successor resource legislation,
however, the specific functions of the Working Group in making such recomme=
ndations,
following the Effective Date, will vary depending upon: (a) the subject mat=
ter
of the legislative regime to be developed; (b) the respective jurisdictions=
of
the YTG and First Nations; “(c) the extent =
to
which there may be an opportunity to develop common or compatible regimes in
respect of the successor resource legislation and First Nations' legislatio=
n;
and (d) such other matters as may be appropriate in the circumstances. “4.5 The Working Group shall
endeavour to operate on the basis of consensus in developing its
recommendations but if there is no consensus, the representatives of the Fi=
rst
Nations may make their recommendations to First Nations and the representat=
ives
of the YTG may make their recommendations to the YTG.” This section also identified public
participation: “5.1 In
addition to the arrangements set out in this Section, the YTG and First Nat=
ions
acknowledge that consultation with the public and with stakeholders is an
important element in the development of any successor resource
legislation.” It’s cle=
ar from
the devolution transfer agreement that we need to follow a process that we =
have
agreed to with regard to updating these pieces of legislation. I think
that’s an important point to recognize and somehow should be captured=
in
this motion. I appreciate t=
he
opportunity today to provide some more information and background on the
history of mining and its significant impacts on We’ve ha=
d an
opportunity to look in a bit more detail into the Quartz Mining Act and We’ve al=
so had
the discussion on the other limitations regarding staking in the Quartz Mining Act. We had an oppor=
tunity
to have a discussion about some of the rights and responsibilities of a cla=
im
holder. We’ve also heard a bit more detail about the processes requir=
ed
to conduct activity on a claim. This isn’t a situation where, if an
individual receives a claim, that they have the ability to conduct unregula=
ted
activities, indeed, for our funding. We’ve ha=
d a
discussion about the requirements under YESAA, under the activities that are
permissible without a review. We’ve taken a look at the activities th=
at
require review. We’ve also taken a look at the other activities that =
may
take place on a claim and the process for their application, whether those =
be
the mining authorization process, the application for a water licence or ot=
her
land use permitting processes. Indeed, there are strong tools and regulatio=
ns
in place in order to address many of the concerns of people regarding the e=
nvironment
or the impact on others. We’ve al=
so had
an opportunity to briefly discuss the role of the municipality in the proce=
ss
and to see that, through the official community plan or through the designa=
tion
of bylaws or zoning, that they have the ability to determine the activities
that are taking place within their municipal boundaries. We’ve had an
opportunity to briefly look at some of the other activities that occur in a=
municipality.
I do think it’s important to note too that there are other activities
that occur in a municipality other than those of a residential nature. Yes,
municipalities and communities are very important because of the nature of
establishing homes for individuals, but there are also other aspects that a=
re
important to have in a municipality and those also have to be covered in
planning issues. Healthy munici=
palities
also have to have other structures, such as places for sewage disposal, or
septic disposal or those types of things. There has to be access to gravel =
for
construction materials — that typically means access to gravel pits.
There also need to be other areas for power generation and that might inclu=
de
things like the diesel plants that, were it not for increased investments in
hydroelectricity capacity, we’d have to start up more often in the
future. There are other aspects in a community that also need to be address=
ed. Also, Mr. Spea=
ker,
we’ve had an opportunity to discuss the Surface Rights Board and how =
that
plays a role in addressing dispute around some of these issues. We’ve
also had an opportunity to talk about the mineral industry’s contribu=
tion
to Also, last but=
not least,
Mr. Speaker, I’ve had an opportunity to discuss the devolution transf=
er
agreement that Yukon is party to and a requirement under that agreement to =
work
through a process with Yukon First Nations on establishing successor legisl=
ation. With that bein=
g said,
Mr. Speaker, I took considerable notes during the presentation from the Mem=
ber
by Speaker: Order please. The time being Debate on Motion No. 992 accordingly adjo=
urned The House adjourned at The followi=
ng
Sessional Paper was tabled 10-1-152 Yukon Hospital
Corporation Financial Statements (audited),
|
|
&n=
bsp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; HANSARD &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp;
|
|