MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CE0DE1.0EDD2620" This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/office/webarchive.htm ------=_NextPart_01CE0DE1.0EDD2620 Content-Location: file:///C:/B13346D6/056.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
&n=
bsp;
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this t=
ime
with prayers.
&n=
bsp;
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of the Be The Change movemen=
t and
Stand Up Against Bullying Week
Hon.
Mr.
In 2007, a grade 9 student in
This year, people across the territ=
ory will
be joining millions of others around the world wearing pink in solidarity
against bullying in schools, families and workplaces.
Organizers and participants of
The powerful message of
I would like to take this opportuni=
ty to
recognize various organizations and members of the
Ms. White:= 8195; I rise on behal= f of the Official Opposition to pay tribute to bullying awareness week. Bullying awa= reness week is an opportunity for people at the grassroots level and communities around the world to get involved in this issue, not by waiting for someone = else to do something, but rather, for us to work together on preventing bullying= in our communities through education and awareness.
Bullying is a learned behaviour that rewards the aggressor with recognition and status. It is often the result of low self-esteem and can lead to increasing levels of depression and escalat= ing levels of aggressive and violent behaviour in both the victim and the victi= mizer. It must be stopped when it is initiated or it grows.
Often violence such as beatings, ra= pes, harassment and psychological and economic control begins with a child witne= ssing that same behaviour within the family, in the community or in groups that t= hey belong to. When this child grows toward adulthood, the learned pattern that violence is acceptable can already be well-established. He or she thinks bullying is simply a form of acceptable violence to get their way. <= /p>
We usually think of bullying as bei=
ng a
schoolyard phenomenon. Children use teasing, peer pressure and physical ass=
ault
to intimidate others. Rituals in sport are seen as a rite-of-passage for yo=
ung
athletes who want to be part of a team.
Bullying such as hazing is meant as= a way to build a team and to encourage bonding between its members. But activity = expected of someone joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses or endangers t= hem is teaching the abusers and the abused that this type of behaviour is acceptable and even expected. This kind of bullying has lifelong consequenc= es for both the person doing the bullying and the receiver of the bullying. It’s not something any of us should want for our children.
Workplace bullying is another examp= le of everyday violence — the kind of violence where an employee is threate= ned, injured, isolated or put in reasonable fear of injury if he or she does not comply with the demand or group attitude either from fellow employees or ev= en the employer. Many times the threat is implied that he or she will be dismi= ssed from their employment if a certain action is not done.
The intimidation of workplace bully= ing has far-reaching effects. If the employee survives either physical or emotional violence, they are still subject to the stress that comes from having been violated. This stress has a long-lasting effect on the employee and coworke= rs. It creates a culture of fear in the workplace. Others wonder if they might = be next. It causes disruption in the workplace with high employee turnover, ab= sences, stress-related illnesses and loss of productivity.
Research has shown that approximate=
ly 15
percent of a given population in a school or workplace are directly involved
with bullying. That leaves 85 percent as potential bystanders, or the silent
majority. Students all over the
Bullying is never acceptable. A sil= ent witness to bullying is as responsible for the hurt caused as the bullyer. I= f we can, we must respond in a timely and proactive fashion to disclosures of bullying whenever and wherever we are aware of it.
Bullying awareness week is not abou= t what others could or should be doing, but rather what we can do. In the words of= the Karen Mueller, author of Bully at Ambush Corner: “Often the ri= ght path is the one that may be hardest for you to follow. But the hard path is also the one that will make you grow as a human being.”
Mr.
Silver:&=
#8195; I rise today on=
behalf
of the Liberal caucus in recognition of the Be The Change movement and
This week brings to the forefront t= he devastating consequences of bullying and affirms that this destructive behaviour must be stopped. Bullying is an issue that touches all people, Mr. Speaker, directly and indirectly, regardless of age, culture, gender, relig= ion or nationality. It is a pattern of aggressive behaviour with negative inten= t, directed from one person to another, or from one group to another.= p>
Bullying can happen in the workplac=
e, in
the schools and in the home. It is also rampant in our on-line lives and in=
the
on-line lives of our students.
Bullying, harassment, discriminatio= n, and intimidation are methods of misusing power. It is pervasive, learned behavi= our where aggression gives the aggressor recognition and status. Bullying must = be stopped when it is first initiated, otherwise it perpetuates itself and gro= ws. Research has shown us that approximately 15 percent of any given population= in the school or workplace is directly involved with bullying. That leaves 85 percent as potential bystanders, or the silent majority. People who bully l= ove an audience. People who stand back and do nothing make bullying worse, especially if they support or cheer the person who is the bully. Don’= t be a bystander; speak up and stand out. Bullying will stop if someone steps in= and says something.
The
We would like to pay tribute to and
congratulate the many students, schools and teachers involved in the
anti-bullying and the Be The Change movement and the
Notice when people are being unfair= or unkind; choose what you’re going to accept and what you’re not going to accept; and act upon it. I would encourage anyone to take the pled= ge to end bullying, which states, “I believe that everybody has the righ= t to live in a community where they feel safe, included, valued and accepted regardless of differences. I pledge to be respectful of others and stand up against bullying whenever and wherever I see it.”
In recognition of Restorative Ju= stice Week
Hon.
Mr. Nixon: I rise on behalf of this House toda=
y in
recognition of Restorative Justice Week. Restorative Justice Week offers us=
the
opportunity to reflect on the efforts made to find alternative ways to deal
with harm caused by crime. The annual celebration of Restorative Justice We=
ek
was originally initiated in 1996 by the Correctional Service of Canada and =
has
since expanded throughout
Restorative justice is a process th= at seeks to repair the harm caused by crime by bringing together the community, vict= ims and offenders to find solutions.
Restorative justice processes recog= nize that offenders harm victims, communities and themselves. It’s an appr= oach that focuses on repairing and healing the harm caused by crime. It is groun= ded in values such as respect, inclusion, healing and compassion and it promotes community accountability and responsibility and responds to the needs of Fi= rst Nation communities.
The theme for Restorative Justice W= eek 2012, which runs this year from November 18 to 25, is “Diverse Needs; Unique Responses”. This theme recognizes that restorative justice is = an approach that addresses the various needs of people impacted by crime and conflict that are created when a person has been harmed or treated unfairly. Restorative justice processes in response to crime and conflict are highly adaptable to different people, environments, and systems as the identified needs of the people involved help formulate the unique response that can contribute to a person’s sense of safety, justice and well-being.
Yukon Department of Justice support=
s eight
community justice projects, in partnership with Justice
Through locally developed responses=
,
The Carcross-Tagish First Nation Fa=
mily
Council continues to be the link between the justice system and community
restitution. The Champagne and Aishihik and Haines Junction Community Justi=
ce
Committee promotes community healing; facilitates justice at a community le=
vel;
develops positive relationships within the community; educates the community
about justice alternatives that exist; demonstrates accountability to the
community regarding justice matters; and establishes a proactive approach to
healing with the long-term community wellness.
The Kwanlin Dun First Nation Social=
Justice
department works to provide a comprehensive range of justice, corrections,
child welfare and land-based healing-related programs and services to the c=
itizens
of Kwanlin Dun First Nation and others who reside on their traditional land=
s.
The Liard First Nation Justice depa= rtment, or Dena Keh, is based on a committee/council approach responding to communi= ty needs. There are three levels of referrals in the Dena Keh system: community referrals, RCMP referrals for pre-charge and Crown referrals for post-charg= e. The Liard First Nation Justice department supports victims, offenders, fami= ly supporters and the community willingness to participate in the offenderR= 17;s acceptance of responsibility within the cultural values of the Kaska First Nation people. These include circle sentencing, family group conferencing, court support, follow up and reintegration.
The Ross River Dena Council offers
community-based justice in
The Teslin Tlingit Council Peacemak= er diversion project is a combination of traditional Tlingit justice that shares other c= ultural beliefs with emphasis on acting on personal values; drawing upon mental, spiritual, emotional and physical dimensions of conflict; building better relationships through mutual respect and understanding, with the understand= ing that the victim is central in the process, creating shared responsibility f= or designing and running Peacemaker diversion. Peacemaker diversion aims to provide a greater benefit to the victim, society and the offender. It is intended to repair harm.
The Tr’ondëk Hwëch&=
#8217;in
assumed community restorative project responsibility this year from the Daw=
son
Community Group Conferencing Society. The justice committee and the staff a=
re
currently implementing the project while providing a high standard of servi=
ce
to their citizens and clients in the
As a government, we are proud to be=
working
on solutions that are based on restorative philosophy and to be working to
ensure that the positive impacts of restorative justice processes in the =
span>
As individuals, we all have a role = in creating safe and healthy communities beginning with how we deal with confl= ict. What can we do as caring citizens to promote restorative justice approaches= in our lives and in our communities? How do we work better together for positi= ve outcomes? Many of us work hard to support restorative and respectful proces= ses in our families, relationships and workplaces. It’s hard work, Mr. Speaker, but the results are clear: more productive and healthier relations= hips, less bullying and victimization, and stronger and safer communities.
At this time I would like to sincer=
ely
thank the individuals in the
These include First Nation official= s, members of community justice committees, community justice coordinators, go= vernment and government officials, families, elders, youth and individuals who take = part in restorative justice. Thank you for the important work that you do in our community and for our great territory.
In recognition of National Housi= ng Day
Hon.
Mr.
In Augu=
st of this
past year, the Housing Corporation announced a new 34-unit seniors complex =
that
will be constructed on the Alexander Street property in downtown Whitehorse.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or the CMHC, is Canada’s
national housing agency and one of Yukon Housing Corporation’s key
partners in addressing housing in the territory. CMHC is a tremendous resou=
rce
for a wide variety of housing issues and we are grateful for their continued
professional relationship with the Government of Yukon.
When the federal government announc=
ed its
economic action plan, or CEAP, to stimulate economic growth, the Government=
of
Yukon seized the opportunity to create new social housing projects to addre=
ss
some of
Successful housing development appr=
oaches
can become best practices for others to emulate in their local areas. One of
the most notable of these is Habitat for Humanity, which has grown into an
international force since its inception in 1976. Built on the idea of
partnership housing, Habitat for Humanity volunteers give a hand up to thos=
e in
need by working side by side with them to build safe, comfortable and
affordable houses. Habitat for Humanity Yukon now boasts four completed hou=
sing
projects, and more are being planned for the future. Yukon Housing Corporat=
ion has
an operating agreement with Habitat for Humanity to provide the first mortg=
ages
of the Habitat homes so that the organization maintains its operating capit=
al
in order to continue to build new homes.
Additionally, the Department of Com= munity Services has provided a number of building lots, including lots in the curr= ent and future phases of the Whistle Bend subdivision. As the minister responsi= ble for the Yukon Housing Corporation, tomorrow, on National Housing Day, I wou= ld like to pay tribute to all those persons who continue their very good work seeking solutions to improve housing for all Canadians.
Ms. White:= 8195; I rise on behal= f of the Official Opposition and the Third Party to recognize tomorrow, November 22,= as National Housing Day. What does home mean to you? Is it the heart of the ci= ty or in a rural setting? Is it permanent or is it temporary? Is it bricks and mortar or so much more? Regardless of your idea of home, everyone needs a p= lace to live with a safe and adequate roof over their heads. Housing is a human right.
November 22 is National Housing Day.
Between 150,000 and 300,000 people are homeless in
Homelessness has reached crisis lev=
els. The
failure to respond to the homelessness crisis is in violation of internatio=
nal
commitments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It
also violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and
specifically section 7, which guarantees the right to life, liberty and
security of the person. It is estimated that 100 people are homeless in
Given the scope of the problem and = our resources, the solution requires a much larger and integrated strategy. All levels of government acknowledge that adequate housing impacts the health of their constituents, communities and country. In order to truly effect chang= e we encourage all levels of Canadian government to collaborate to make housing a national priority. We look forward to the day when we have a home for every= one.
Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: Before we continue I’d like to remind visitors in the g= allery that this is not a social event. If you want to have a conversation with ea= ch other, please step outside of the gallery and do so. If you’re in her= e, please take your seat and pay attention to the proceedings. Thank you.
In recognition of Canada Music W= eek
Hon.
Mr. Nixon: I’m pleased to rise today to =
pay
tribute to
The aims of Canada Music Week are t= o bring the attention of the public, through various means, the importance of Canad= ian music, to support composers and performers of Canadian music, to introduce contemporary music to young Canadians and stimulate a keener appreciation a= nd understanding of this music and to encourage music educators to widen their knowledge and experience of Canadian works.
Canadian Music Week is dedicated to=
music
in its fullest sense. Since 1967, particular focus has been on the Canadian
cultural content. Thousands of Canadians experience Canada Music Week
festivities each year in their communities. Here in Yukon
We are also proud to work with Yukon
My son Kyle takes guitar lessons fr= om Rob Hunter, and I can tell you that Kyle has benefited greatly from Rob’s dedication to teaching young people. Some of our teachers have taught generations of musicians and some have recently arrived. We appreciate their commitment to such an important foundation of the music community. We appreciate the many arts organizations that are dedicated to educating musicians, creating and maintaining festivals and concerts and presenting top-notch music programs to the public.
These organizations, supported by a=
n army
of volunteers, board leadership, appreciative audiences and legions of arti=
sts
contribute to our quality of life and to our economy. They make
From time to time we hear about a <=
/span>
I’d like to say a word about = the music of Yukon First Nations. For generations, Yukon First Nations people marked occasions with drumming, dancing and singing. These songs were creat= ed, cherished and adapted over the years. There is a rebirth of these songs, and today our celebrations and community events include performances by our Fir= st Nations musicians.
On Saturday night at the Yukon Arts=
Centre,
the Yukon Women in Music will perform a special concert to release a new CD
called, “Song Rise”. The recording celebrates the work of 15
musicians. The group has been touring
Thank you specifically to a couple =
of
constituents in my riding of Porter Creek South who have also contributed to
the
Mr. Barr:= 195; It is with great pleasure today that I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition, the Third Party and the Independent member to pay tribute to Canada Music Week, which this year is November 18 to 24. A good friend of mine, John Layman, a local music lover, master calligrapher and supporter of the arts, shared with me a quote from the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, and I quote: “Music i= s a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.”<= /p>
I would like to say further that Ca=
nada
Music Week began in 1960 in order to commemorate the 25th
anniversary of the Canadian Federation of Music Teachers Association, or CF=
MTA.
This organization is committed to the promotion of professionalism and
professional development of its membership. It provides leadership and music
education and promotes high standards of education through exploring
instructional techniques, refining professional practices and broadening
teachers, both as educators and as individuals.
The CFMTA website offers resources = for teachers and students, educational articles, videos of artists, interviews, lectures and discussion forums. CFMTA offers and presents to members a certificate of recognition for professional achievement. The objectives of Canadian Music Week are to help us become aware of the importance of Canadi= an music, to support Canadian composers and performers, to introduce contempor= ary music to young Canadians and to stimulate a keener appreciation and understanding of this music. It also serves to encourage music educators to widen their knowledge and experience of Canadian works.
The accreditation of grades 10 to 1= 2 is given for passing music examinations through the Royal Conservatory of Music and Conservatory of Canada.
Music education in our schools is o=
ften set
aside for what is considered more practical or academic training. It’=
s a
shame, because music is a basic human need and is a powerful attraction to =
us.
It is transforming, touching all of us deeply. Music is communication act. =
It
crosses all boundaries.
I would like to also acknowledge th=
at
without the hand-clappers and the people listening out there and dancing to=
the
music, many of us, including the Member for
I encourage everyone here in this H= ouse to sing in the shower tomorrow morning. It will do you good. I partake in that myself once in awhile.
Locally, there is the Rotary Music =
Festival
in
These guys and women fell in love w=
ith the
In recognition of
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: I rise today on behalf of the Assem=
bly to
pay tribute to the Yukon Geological Survey on the occasion of their 20=
th
anniversary. Twenty years ago, the
Since devolution, the Yukon Geologi= cal Survey has been part of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and h= as provided geoscience and technical information to support the departmentR= 17;s mandate of responsible resource development and they have provided good technical information to the public.
Today the knowledge generated by th= e survey contributes to the economic growth and well-being of all Yukoners. Geologic maps improve the effectiveness of resource exploration, studies of surficial materials help to support infrastructure development and mitigate against geological hazards such as flooding and landslides. Monitoring of permafrost contributes to climate change research. The survey’s outreach activit= ies contribute to the professional development of our teachers and provide awar= eness of the geological processes that continue to shape our territory. = p>
I have had the opportunity on a few occasions to visit our geologists in the field and see first-hand their commitment and enthusiasm for their work. One of these occasions was this summer when my colleagues — the Minister of Environment and the Minis= ter of Education along with me — were able to visit geologists in the fie= ld doing work in the Rakla area. Once again, we appreciated their knowledge and the excellent job they do at explaining technical subjects to people who ar= e geologists by trade and providing a good explanation to us of both what was there and = how they knew what was there.
The commitment to excellence by the= Yukon Geological Survey has been recognized by the Fraser Institute, which ranks = the Yukon Geological Survey as one of the top in the world.
I invite all members to join me in congratulating the Yukon Geological Survey for 20 years of service, and I l= ook forward to the discoveries and achievements to be made by our staff during = the next 20 years.
In recognition of Air North̵=
7;s
millionth customer
Mr.
Elias:=
8195; I rise on behalf of the Assembly to congratulate Air North, <=
/span>
On
Since Air North introduced its sche=
duled
Boeing service 10 years ago it has increased the number of passengers flyin=
g in
and out of the Yukon by 75 percent. What’s more remarkable is that th=
ey
have lowered fares by 25 percent. It is important to recognize — as t=
his
House so often celebrates the overall economic success of the
In 2000, through the Vuntut Develop=
ment
Corporation the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation made an important strategic in=
vestment
in Air North. Our community recognizes the value that Air North represents =
not
just to Old Crow but to the Yukon
It is with a special pride that the citizens of Old Crow and all Yukoners alike celebrate Air North’s landmark accomplishment today; one million passengers — that’s = an awful lot of cheesecake. I’d like to say congratulations and mahsi= 217; cho for the many years of service and for bringing the world and its wealth= to our territory.
In closing, I’d also like to = wish Air North many more years and decades of continued success. I will look forward= to celebrating a million more passengers who will be visitors to our territory experiencing its grandeur as well as loyal Yukoners whose continued support make the airline a resounding success.
Hon. Mr. Dixon: I’d like to rise on behalf of= the government to congratulate Air North, Yukon’s airline, on this significant achievement — a milestone of their one millionth customer aboard their Boeing jets. I had the pleasure of dropping off my partner Brittany at the airport this morning and she was on the same flight as Wendy, whom the member opposite mentioned. I know that she had a chance to partake in some of the celebratory cake that was offered to all those flying on Air North’s flight today.
While a million passengers is a sig=
nificant
achievement, we are very excited about what lies in the future for Air Nort=
h,
Speaker: Are there any other tributes?
Introduction of visitors. = p>
INTRODUCTION OF VISITO=
RS
Mr. Elias:= 8195; I ask all members to join me in welcoming Richard Wyman, the president of Northern Cross (Yukon) and former planning team member of the Fishing Branch protected area in north Yukon, David Thompson, Chief Executi= ve Officer of Northern Cross (Yukon) and Greg Charlie, manager of government a= nd community relations for Northern Cross (Yukon) and former co-chair of the F= ishing Branch Local Planning Team in north Yukon. Welcome.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Graham:=
8195; I have for tabl=
ing the
Hon.
Mr. Nixon: I have for tabling today the
I also have for tabling the =
I also have for tabling the Yukon Geographical Place Names Board 2011-2012 Annual Report.
I have for tabling the Yukon Govern= ment 2013 Vacation Planner.
I have for tabling the Crime Pre=
vention
and Victim Services Trust Fund 2011/2012 Annual Report.
I have for tabling the book publish=
ed by
the Friends of the Yukon Archives Society. It’s a very interesting
history of the
Speaker: Are there any other returns or documents for tabling?<= /p>
Are there reports of committees?
Are there any petitions to be prese= nted?
PETITIONS
Petition No. 7
Mr. Tredger: I have for pres= entation the following petition. It has been signed by 1,806 persons.
The petition of the undersigned sho=
ws:
THAT, as there are significant conc= erns about negative effects of hydraulic fracturing related to oil and gas exploration and extraction on environmental interests and related social an= d economic interests in the Yukon; and
THAT, as there are significant conc=
erns
about negative effects of coal-bed methane exploration and extraction on en=
vironmental
interests and related social and economic interests in the
THEREFORE, the undersigned ask the = Yukon Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Yukon to introduce to the Le= gislative Assembly legislation to:
(a) ban the use of hydraulic fractu= ring for the exploration or extraction of oil and gas resources; and
(b) ban the exploration or extracti= on of coal-bed methane;
AND to implement an immediate morat= orium on:
(a) the use of hydraulic fracturing= for the exploration or extraction of oil and gas resources; and
(b) the exploration or extraction of coal-bed methane.
Speaker: Are there any other petitions for presentation?
Are there any bills to be introduce= d?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Hassard: I give notice of the following moti= on:
THAT this House urges the Governmen= t of Yukon to work with Yukon College, the Mine Training Association and the min= ing and exploration industries to train and develop a skilled workforce made up= of Yukon residents to help meet the current and future needs of the mining and resource sectors, and to use the centre for northern innovation in mining as the vehicle to deliver the mining and industrial training.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I give notice of the following moti= on:
THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments as established by Motion No. 8 in the Fi= rst Session of the 33rd Legislative Assembly, be amended by:<= /p>
(1) rescinding the appointment of D= arius Elias; and
(2) appointing Sandy Silver to the committee.
I give notice of the following moti= on:
THAT the Standing Committee on Publ= ic Accounts, as established by Motion No. 7 in the First Session of the 33rd Legislative Assembly, be amended by:
(1) rescinding the appointment of D= arius Elias; and
(2) appointing Sandy Silver to the committee.
I give notice of the following moti= on:
THAT the membership of the Standing Committee on Appointments to Major Government Boards and Committees, as established by Motion No. 4 in the first session of the 33rd Leg= islative Assembly, be amended by appointing the Hon. Scott Kent and Sandy Silver to = the committee.
Mr. Tredger:= I give notice t= o the following motion:
THAT this House urges the
(1) includes legislation to increase conservation and meets future demands by developing alternative energy sour= ces such as geothermal, wind and solar;
(2) provides energy options focused= on conservation and renewable energy for new off-grid industrial users; and
(3) provides support for demonstrat= ion projects.
Mr. Silver:&= #8195; I rise to give = notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Governmen= t of Yukon to bring forward an independent power producer policy (IPP), as reque= sted by the Yukon mining industry, without any further delay.
Speaker: Is there a statement by a minister?
Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: Order please. Before proceeding with Question Period, the Cha= ir will give a statement regarding the kinds of questions that may be asked du= ring Question Period about committee business.
During yesterday’s Question P=
eriod
the Member for Riverdale South asked questions regarding the Select Committ=
ee
on Whistle-blower Protection. The minister responsible for the Public Servi=
ce
Commission answered those questions.
Guideline 4 of the Guidelines fo= r Oral Question Period says, “A question must relate to a matter within = the administrative responsibility of the Government of Yukon.” The activi= ties of standing, select and special committees of the Yukon Legislative Assembl= y do not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Government of Yuko= n. All committee matters, including their membership and activities, are fully within the control of the Legislative Assembly and the committees themselve= s.
Guideline 13 says, “A questio= n is out of order if it seeks information from the Chair of a Committee about procee= dings in a Committee that has not yet made its report to the House, but is in ord= er if it asks only if the Committee has considered a certain matter, when the Committee will next meet, or when a Committee report will be tabled in the House.”
It is in order, therefore, for memb= ers to raise questions about committee business. However, these questions must be = answered by the Chair of the Committee, not a minister. Also, the range of questions that can be asked, as outlined in Guideline 13, is specific and limited.
I thank the members for their atten= tion.
We will proceed at this time to Que=
stion
Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Oil and Gas Act amendments
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; Mr. Speaker, th=
is
government has tried to ram through decisions that have long-term impacts f=
or
Yukoners, our land and our water. The Yukon Party’s approach divides =
our
community. The government’s failure to respect the Peel consultation
process and their forcing of amendments to the
While silencing Yukoners’ con= cerns, the government identified the Oil and Gas Act as a priority and continued with its behind-closed-door approach. The result: conflict and division. This is not respectful; it’s not good government. = p>
Will the government do the right th=
ing
— withdraw the amendments to the Oil and Gas Act and commit to
open consultation with all Yukoners about the potential benefits of, and
necessary safeguards for, oil and gas development in the
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: Really, one of the things that has =
led to
the current polarization of debate is the manner in which the NDP engage wi=
thin
this House and in public in characterizing issues. In the case of the Oil
and Gas Act, if the members were being accurate in their reflection of =
what
is there, they would see in fact that most of the amendments put forward be=
fore
this House are administrative in nature.&n=
bsp;
The substantive amendment to sectio= n 13 was consulted on in 2009, as were all other amendments, with the sole exception= of one that is an enabling clause that allows the government to develop regulations pertaining to the storage of liquefied natural gas, and that is time-sensitive because both utilities are looking at developing that as a cheaper alternative for power production than diesel. We do intend to consu= lt on those regulations themselves — it is only an enabling clause that = is in place — and there are other sections of the act that, in fact, strengthen our ability to responsibly regulate the existing activities that= are going on, including the work being done by Northern Cross in the Eagle Plai= ns area.
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; As the minister opposite demonstrates, rather than listen to =
and
consider the legitimate concerns of Yukoners, this government minimizes and
marginalizes them. The Yukon Geological Survey report released this week,
titled Scoping study of unconventional oil and gas potential, Yukon
Why is the government afraid to eng=
age with
Yukoners to consider their legitimate concerns and to work with them to dev=
elop
the necessary social licence for oil and gas development in
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Once again, as we have seen consistently, the Leader of the NDP is wrong. She is wrong, wrong and wrong again. The member consistently provides a degree of rhetoric on topics that does not connect well with what is actually there.<= /span>
Mr. Speaker, I would again remind t= he member that the amendments to the Oil and Gas Act — most of th= em, in fact — strengthen our ability to regulate the industry, including strengthening the provisions for holding previous developers liable for any problems that may be found after the fact.
I would point out, in the case of t=
he geological
survey work that was done, as the member knows, that was commissioned prior=
to
my time as minister. That was released to the public. The member also knows
very well that, when the application for areas within the Whitehorse Trough
came up earlier this year, the government listened to the public. During the
2011 election campaign, the Yukon Party talked about oil and gas developmen=
t in
north
We did not talk about the Whitehors= e Trough or have a position on it, since we did not expect interest in the area. We = listened to the public, and we heard from them. We are eager to engage with the publ= ic because the Leader of the NDP provides a characterization of events that ha= s no connection to the facts.
Question re: Peel watershed land use plan
Ms. White:= 8195; The government = likes to toot its own horn when it comes to the current Peel consultation process. T= his isn’t justified. They say the current consultation is meant to bring people together and be non-confrontational, yet on Monday the Minister of Environment implied in this House that people who oppose his governmentR= 17;s plans are radicals. They can’t have it both ways. Either they support meaningful public consultation that allows people to express their honest opinions, even if they oppose the government’s narrow agenda, or they don’t. Why is this government trying to silence critics of its propos= als to open up the Peel to massive development by calling them radicals and hol= ding public consultation that doesn’t allow for discussion?
Hon.
Mr. Dixon: I have to correct the member opposi=
te in
her assertions around the consultation process that’s underway curren=
tly.
Of course we’re eager to hear from all Yukoners about their opinions =
and
input — from a variety of Yukoners across the territory. We’re
hosting a number of public meetings in affected communities, and we have a =
very
interactive website, which we’ve unveiled recently to solicit input f=
rom
Yukoners across the territory.
As I’ve said a number of time= s, we’re very interested in soliciting constructive, thoughtful input fr= om Yukoners, and we hope that Yukoners provide that to us through the number of forums and discussion venues that are available.
Ms. White:= 8195; When you go on = to the current consultation website and enter information, there is no way to see = it publicly. That does not lead to a trustful relationship with citizens.
In the government’s public re= lations materials the Blackstone and Ogilvie rivers have mysteriously disappeared. = Colours that meant protection on the original maps mean development on the new maps. The final recommended plan from the Peel Watershed Planning Commission is buried. Few people believe the government is truly interested in their opinions.
How does the minister intend to rep= air the public trust that has been broken by the government’s phony approach = to consultation on the Peel?
Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: I ask the gentleman who insists on standing — I’m finding it disruptive. If that continues I’ll have to ask you to leav= e, please.
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: What we see again from the NDP is a
degree of rhetoric on these issues that could certainly lead to public
misunderstanding of what the facts are. The member knows very well that, du=
ring
the 2011 election campaign, the Yukon Party was clear about the fact that we
did not think the commission’s document was the best plan for the are=
a.
We committed to seeking modificatio= ns to be what we believe is more fair and balanced. We have and will continue to fol= low all our obligations under the process, including the commission’s pla= n in the documents included with the potential modifications that we have propos= ed. We’ve made it clear that we’re seeking thoughtful and constructive input on this approach, and what the members consistently fail to reflect in their comments is the fact that our middle-of-the-road approach is aimed at being fair to both mining and tourism, and it provides that by limiting the maxim= um footprint of activity in restricted-use wilderness areas and by protecting river corridors from staking or any surface dispositions of a permanent nat= ure. This would protect 99.8 percent of each and every land management unit designated as a restricted-use wilderness area; it would protect the river corridors and, in addition, protected areas would provide even greater protection to those existing values and interests.
Ms.
White: The minister’s opinions on t=
he NDP
are well known, and they’re wrong; they’re wrong; they’re
wrong. The fact is that the government participated in the Peel planning
process for almost seven years, then at the eleventh hour the government
decided it didn’t like the rules or the plan that resulted. Now, inst=
ead
of consulting on the final recommended plan, the government is promoting its
narrow vision for development over all other values. Before Yukoners visit =
the
government’s PR website, they should consider visiting www.protectpee=
l.ca
for the straight goods, then with some good information they could visit th=
e government
website or attend the public event and try to make their voices heard.
Would the minister agree that an in= formed discussion is a good discussion — that opinions of First Nations and conservationists are relevant to the Peel issue and encourage people to vis= it www.protectpeel.ca as well as the government site?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker, the member for the NDP= stood up and said that the government’s plan promotes development over all other values. That statement is absolutely incorrect. The member has had am= ple opportunity to become aware of the fact that what we have proposed is an approach that would manage the actual environmental impacts and effects of = all users in an equitable manner while providing greater protection for the existing users of the area, especially including wilderness tourism and big game outfitters.
We know that the NDP have a very ne=
gative
view of the mining industry. They don’t like to acknowledge the fact =
that
a lot of Yukoners have made their living out of exploration, including with=
in
the Peel area. Mineral exploration spending in the Peel region averaged $6
million per year from 2000 to 2008 and, in contrast, according to the Peel
commission, wilderness tourism’s total value over a six-year period w=
as
$3.67 million. So again, in fact, more Yukoners have been engaged in mineral
exploration in that area and derived their income from that area than did
wilderness tourism.
But we believe that everyone’s
livelihood matters, whether they be in mining exploration, wilderness touri=
sm,
big-game outfitting or other elements of the economy, and this government w=
ill
stand firmly committed to being fair to everyone, regardless of their livel=
ihood.
Question re: Land claims,
outstanding
Mr.
Silver:&=
#8195; I have a questi=
on for
the Premier on land claims negotiations. Eleven out of 14 Yukon First Natio=
ns
have signed final and self-government agreements. Three remain, and those a=
re
the
The last negotiations with these th= ree unsigned First Nations occurred almost a decade ago. Before any discussion = could begin, the Government of Canada would have to put forward a new mandate for negotiations. Has the Premier asked the federal Minister of Aboriginal Affa= irs to put in place a new mandate for negotiations and, if not, why not?=
Hon. Mr. Pasloski: The member opposite is correct in h= is statement in saying that there is no mandate to negotiate on behalf of the federal government, but what is also in play here is that the three First Nations who do not have self-government agreements have clearly articulated= and stated publicly many times that they have no interest in a self-government = agreement.
Mr.
Silver:&=
#8195; I can only gues=
s as to
why that is. It has been a decade since the Government of Yukon, the Govern=
ment
of Canada and the Kaska sat in a room and tried to negotiate a final agreem=
ent.
All three parties have an interest in working together in southeast =
We’ve suggested a different w=
ay
forward from the current course of action being taken by the
Will the Premier agree to approach = his federal counterpart, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Develo= pment, and try to get a new mandate to restart land claim negotiations with the Ka= ska?
Hon.
Mr. Pasloski: This government spends millions of
dollars every year with all First Nations over and above their obligations =
to
those First Nations. With regard to the Liard
We believe that
Mr.
Silver:&=
#8195; Ten years and $2
million — we’re talking about economic benefits to all Yukoners
that are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn’t just about
oil and gas; this is about seeing final agreements in place in the southeast
and also in the
We understand the government’s
frustration with not being able to proceed with development of oil and gas =
in
the southeast. However, the approach that they are taking is the wrong one.=
It
would lead to more confrontation and to court action. Instead of rolling the
dice that the government will win in court, it’s time for the Premier=
to
try and take negotiations back to the table. If the Premier can’t
convince
Will the Premier agree to try to re= start negotiations with the Kaska, instead of a veto against the Oil and Gas A= ct?
Hon.
Mr. Pasloski: It is the responsibility of the fed=
eral
government and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to have those ta=
lks
with them. As we have stated and as the Member for
Question re: Hydraulic fracturing
Mr.
Elias:=
8195; The oil and gas industry is heavily regulated in the <=
st1:State>
Even considering all of this legisl= ation, these regulations and administrative bodies, hydraulic fracturing presents = some unique risks. Can the minister assure Yukoners that we have a sufficient legislative and regulatory framework to evaluate, assess and administer oil= and gas licences that involve hydraulic fracturing in our territory?
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: I thank the Member for Vuntut Gwitc=
hin
for the question. We do have a very comprehensive set of regulations, as the
member noted. We have also heard from — notably, a joint letter from =
the
Yukon Conservation Society and Northern Cross (
I believe my time is almost up for =
this
response, but to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, we certainly appreciate th=
e importance
of this situation. As he knows, there is not currently an application for
hydraulic fracturing use in north
Mr. Elias:= 8195; There is obviously a lot of public interest in the practice of hydraulic fracturing right now in our territory. It’s incumbent upon = us as public representatives to foster an informed and intelligent discussion = that is frank, honest and open to public input. Yukoners want the truth about wh= at hydraulic fracturing is, when it might occur in our territory and how it might impact= us.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and R= esources has made it abundantly clear that fracking will not occur in the Yukon in t= he immediate future, and I take his word on that, but looking into the future,= it seems likely that oil and gas companies will consider fracking in the Yukon= to be a viable method for extracting gas at some point.
Will the minister, as soon as pract= ical, facilitate a series of objective and open public discussions on the issue of hydraulic fracturing so our Yukoners can be as informed as possible on this issue?
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: I thank the Member for Vuntut Gwitc=
hin
for his question. The simple answer is yes, we’re interested in doing
that.
We have heard the requests, includi= ng a joint request from Northern Cross and Yukon Conservation Society, and altho= ugh there are certainly some differences of viewpoint there, they were able to agree on some things, including the need for informed public dialogue. There are very diverse views on this subject, including people who are confident = that hydraulic fracturing is both safe and appropriate to do, and people who are very concerned about what they have heard about potential concerns from oth= er areas. We think a starting point is a focus on outcomes and figuring out — including working with stakeholders and Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation — about how best to foster an informed public dialogue of the subject= .
In the case, again, of north
Mr. Elias:= 8195; I appreciate those Yukoners who are raising public awareness = about this important issue because it shows that they care about our territory. Looking on the bright side of this issue, as a jurisdiction, we find oursel= ves in a good place, in my opinion. We have a combination of foresight and time= on our side. We are aware that hydraulic fracturing may come in time, but not immediately. This gives us an excellent opportunity to prepare for what see= ms inevitable. We can work together to establish a legislative and regulatory climate that promises opportunities and fair treatment to businesses that m= ight want to employ hydraulic fracturing, but it also protects the best interest= s of all Yukoners and our environment.
What is the minister prepared to do=
to
ensure the
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: I’d like to thank the Member =
for
Vuntut Gwitchin for that question. I know that this subject and the potenti=
al
of this is something that he, in representing his community — and the
Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation is the other local government in the area R=
12;
sees that there is potential benefit to citizens from oil and gas activity
occurring, but I think that he and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation share a=
similar
perspective to the Yukon government on this issue: want to see economic
benefits to Yukon citizens, but we also are very much focused on ensuring t=
hat
until and unless we are confident that something can safely occur and that
human health and the environment can be fully protected by the terms of any
licence and by any technically equipment in place, there should never be any
authorizations or permits issued which allow an activity to occur.
At this point, what I would say in = answer to some of the member’s questions is we think that there is a need for more dialogue and discussion about how to best work with others to facilita= te an informed public dialogue on matters, including hydraulic fracturing and = oil and gas in general. We haven’t made a definitive decision on how that would proceed, but we’re very interested in hearing members’ suggestions.
Question re: Renewable en=
ergy
strategy
Mr.
Tredger:=
This afternoon&=
#8217;s
debate will be focused specifically on fracking, but it is part of a bigger,
longer story — a story we are not hearing from this Yukon Party gover=
nment.
How did we get to this point where liquid natural gas is being promoting as=
the
best option to meet our energy needs? The conclusion that liquid natural ga=
s,
or LNG, is the best solution is based on some limitations: failure to imple=
ment
demand-side management effectively; suppression of information about renewa=
bles
like wind energy; and spinning LNG as an improvement on diesel, which it is=
not
if measured over its entire life cycle.
LNG is being labelled as a transiti= on fuel, but to what and when? What renewable source or sources of power is this gov= ernment committed to develop in order to reduce and eventually replace our reliance= on greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels?
Hon. Mr. Dixon: I thank the member opposite for the question. It is indeed a very valid one. As he knows, and as the members of this Legislature know, we had the pleasure earlier this year of releasing o= ur Climate Change Action Plan progress report which, under the electricity sector, makes a number of commitments for government to undertake.
With regard to those targets, one o=
f them
is reducing, by 2020, our emissions intensity of on-grid diesel power gener=
ation
by 20 percent and, by 2016, reducing on-grid electrical energy use through
demand-side management programs by five gigawatt hours. To meet those targe=
ts,
we’ve committed to a number of actions, including replacing existing
on-grid diesel generation with a lower carbon technology, determining the
feasibility of biomass in the territory, completing and implementing a
demand-side management plan, continuing to implement energy efficiency prog=
rams
through the Energy Solutions Centre, and completing a net metering policy, =
as
well as an independent power producer policy.
We’re very open to any type o= f new generation technology that presents itself, and we have a number of differe= nt programming opportunities and funding opportunities to meet those demands. =
I would point to the strategic indu= stries fund in the Department of Economic Development as one that has in the past funded renewable energy projects and certainly will do that in the future. =
So we have a very good plan, Mr. Sp= eaker, when it comes to the development and encouragement of renewable energy. I l= ook forward to discussing this more.
Mr. Tredger:= The NDP says it= ’s time to get past the transition phase. Let’s build the alternatives to get off fossil fuels altogether. The need for reliable, affordable, sustain= able and renewable power is what we all have in common. There is a wealth of information and resources this government is either ignoring or neglecting = in its rush to expedite the development of oil and gas. Individual Yukoners and businesses have been waiting to get on with creating a green, sustainable a= nd renewable future.
When will the government implement =
a green
energy strategy for the
Hon.
Mr. Dixon: We have a strategy. It’s not =
so limited
as the member opposite is requesting; it’s much broader and it’s
focused on mitigating the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the territo=
ry.
We have factored it down across four different sectors — transportation, electricity, industrial operations and buildings. We have a number of actions under each of those sectors, whi= ch we are taking action on currently. When it comes to a reduction of greenhou= se gas emissions, when we look around the world — and certainly to our southern neighbours — we have seen a dramatic decrease this year in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States as a result of the transfer to natural gas from coal. We don’t have any coal plants going in the territory, but we do have a significant amount of diesel, which as members = know is a relatively high greenhouse gas-emitting fuel. So if we are able to transfer away from those — and one option, of course, is natural gas — we would expect to see dramatic decreases in our greenhouse gas emi= ssions growth.
As I’ve said, we’re not=
just
focused on that. We’re focused on a broad range of different energy
options for
Question re: Lobbying leg=
islation
Ms.
Stick:=
8195; Most provincial
jurisdictions and the Government of Canada have lobbying legislation. Much =
of
When will the Premier commit to int= roducing lobbying legislation that would in fact strengthen our democratic society w= here free and open access to government is of public interest?
Hon. Mr. Pasloski: As I’ve stated in this House = before, this government has and will continue to speak to everybody. In a jurisdict= ion as small as this we constantly, as members of this caucus and specifically Cabinet ministers, are walking around this town or buying milk or we’= re engaged in many activities in support of many different organizations throughout this community and throughout this territory and while we do so = we continue to hear from people all the time. I have to ask the members opposi= te: Are we going to now create a registry where everybody needs to register as a lobbyist every time they have the courage, as they should, to speak to memb= ers of the government caucus or specifically to members of Cabinet?
Ms. Stick:= 8195; I’m glad = the Premier has said that we all lobby in one way or another in our small jurisdiction. We do and should talk to people on the street and in the groc= ery stores, but let me explain what a lobbyist is. In legislation in other juri= sdictions, a lobbyist is defined as a person who lobbies on behalf of clients for pay. There are in-house corporate lobbyists who are employees paid by corporatio= ns or profit or non-profit organizations, who are paid to communicate directly= or arrange meetings with public office holders — they’re paid. It = is not, as the Premier suggested, that a lobbyist is anyone we speak to on the street.
Will the Premier consider lobbying legislation that protects the public and keeps government open and accounta= ble?
Hon. Mr. Pasloski: We could talk for a considerable am= ount of time about asking questions as to who would be applicable and who wouldn’t. For example, all the NGOs that are funded by the government, would they then have to be registered as lobbyists? What about school counc= ils, which are paid for doing their work, the great work they do on behalf of the students of their school and also representing the parents? What about the Anti-Poverty Coalition? What about FASSY? What about the Salvation Army? Wh= at about the outfitters? What about municipalities? Would their paid employees= be lobbyists and need to also be registered?
Mr. Speaker, this government will c=
ontinue
to listen to Yukoners to ensure that we hear what the pulse is and ensure t=
hat
we know what the priorities are and we’ll continue to work for all
Yukoners.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; The answers we&= #8217;re hearing are troubling. It’s apparent that this Premier is not clear on lobbying or lobbyist legislation. We’re not trying to invent the wheel here. There is lobbying and lobbyist legislation across this country and in= the federal government. I would invite the Premier, if he is interested, to participate in a joint briefing on what lobbying and lobbyist legislation c= ould look at and ask if he would be interested in that.
Hon.
Mr. Pasloski: There are so many individuals; ther=
e are
so many groups out there who do represent and are salaried. We speak to the=
m on
a regular basis and we will continue to do that. We will continue to be
accountable for all of the decisions that we do make. We continue to work w=
ith
all organizations — those that have paid employees and even those tim=
es
when we get somebody who calls us and says that there is a streetlight or a
highway light that is out and then of course, we listen to that as well.
We’ll continue to work with a= ll of these groups — Kaushee’s Place, Many Rivers, Autism Yukon, Hosp= ice, Challenge — all of these people are out there: they’re organizations with paid employees and I can’t think that each time th= at we have the opportunity to do good work with these organizations that we ne= ed to continue to ensure that they reach some registry. Again, this is another example of the NDP motto of legislation and regulation for everything.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now pro= ceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
OPPOSITION PRIVATE
MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Motion No. 275 — adjourned debate
Clerk: Motion No. 275, standing in the name of Mr. Tredger; adjourned debate, Mr. Tredger.
Mr. Tredger: Thank you. I am honoured to rise to continue to speak to Motion No. 275:
THAT this House urges Government of= Yukon to:
(1) implement an immediate moratori= um;
(2) conduct a full and rigorous sci= entific review; and
(3) conduct a public consultation o=
n the
effects and desirability of hydraulic fracturing, also known as “frac=
king”,
before any regulatory approvals or permitting is allowed in
This topic engenders a lot of emoti= ons and a lot of concern. As the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin said, we’re in a = very fortunate spot in that we are able to debate this before fracturing happens. It’s important that everyone come in and consider what is at stake and what it means to us.
Sometimes — I shouldn’t= say sometimes — always elders’ words guide us. I can remember being= at a meeting with an elder near Carmacks, and somebody said to her, “How= can you not want oil and gas production when you drive a truck, and you heat yo= ur car or your house?”. She sort of chuckled and said, “How can you drive a truck if you don’t have clean air and clean water?”
I think that’s the essence of=
what
we’re looking at. Before we move any further, we need to consider the
costs as well as the benefits. We need open, informed discussion where peop=
le
can come together, share ideas, learn from one another and make an informed=
discussion
for this territory.
The NDP believes, as do many Yukone=
rs
believe, that we can build a prosperous economy that benefits everyone with=
out
destroying the environment. We understand and embrace the role of a
responsible, competitive resource extraction industry in our territory and =
its
contributions to our economy. We also take the role of government as stewar=
d of
our environment and our natural resources very seriously.
There is no doubt that the governme= nt plays an important role in creating attractive business environment in the territ= ory. Yet this role as economic facilitator must not come second to that of an environmental steward. As we all know, economic opportunities in the resour= ce sector come and go. They are subject to inevitable fluctuation in world commodity prices. Today, liquid natural gas may be cheap. We know it’s going to fluctuate. We also know that when our resources are gone, they are gone forever.
Our one environment is home to peop=
le,
animals and plants, has sustained us all these years and is forever. The el=
ders
tell us we are part of the land and part of the water. Yukoners know that o=
ur
wilderness is unique. We and all living beings in the
Yukon First Nations have depended o=
n this
environment since time immemorial. They are an important part of our identi=
ty
and our deep attachments to the
The First Nations have shown us the= way. They’ve shown us and shared their stories and told us about the importance of our land and where we are from, the importance of cooperating, collaborating and living together, learning from our experiences, growing f= rom our experiences and sharing our experiences. Our children, our childrenR= 17;s children and future generations will all depend on our environment to susta= in them. We must not sacrifice our irreplaceable environment in the name of ma= king a quick buck. What we enjoy today should also be a vital part of our legacy= for future generations.
The government’s reluctance t= o engage Yukoners on this important issue, to allow Yukoners’ voices to be hea= rd, is disconcerting.
By denying calls for public discuss= ion on fracking on the grounds that no fracking is currently proposed suggests a p= eculiar approach to governing. Instead of addressing the issue of fracking head on, this government seems to be burrowing its collective head in the sand. They= say that since there is no fracking plan for tomorrow, we shouldn’t bother discussing it today. This strikes me as incredibly shortsighted and counter= productive. As long as we continue to deny that fracking is on the horizon while most Yukoners and industry see it coming, members of the public will continue to= be concerned and mistrust and doubt in the government will continue to grow. T= his isn’t in anyone’s best interest. The way to embrace and engage = the industry is to ensure through public discussions, public participation, thr= ough rigorous scientific examination of both the pros and the cons, the positives and the negatives of industrial extraction that Yukoners will have the bene= fit of that extraction and the benefit of their land.
This is the way to cease the polari= zation. This is the way to engage Yukoners and to engage the industry and have prod= uctive and valuable resources.
As I said, contrary to what some of=
my
honourable colleagues across the floor might have Yukoners believe, the NDP=
has
a long and proud history of supporting and promoting responsible resource
extraction and development. We know oil and gas development is coming to th=
e
The issue before us today is about = Yukoners having a say. It’s about Yukoners having an informed say. It’s about sitting down and talking about it in an informed way and sharing idea= s. It’s not being told one thing or another.
First Nations often operate on cons=
ensus,
and many of our
Hydraulic fracturing is a powerful =
tool.
There is no doubt about that. The technology has opened up new areas for de=
velopment,
new areas for growth. But in doing so, by experimenting on the land through=
out
Is it wrong for the public to want =
to be
consulted on a technology and extraction process that has been directly lin=
ked
to human-created earthquake activity? Is it wrong for the public to want to=
be
consulted on risks to our rivers, waterways, lakes and groundwater supplies,
when we see our neighbours to the south where billions upon billions litres=
of
water are being taken out of the system? Is it wrong to ask companies and g=
overnments
what chemicals and potential toxins are hidden in the fracking mix — a
mix, I might add, that is hidden because laws allow the ingredients to be
treated as business secrets and kept from the public?
We in this Legislature have a trust= with the public, a trust that must always inform our decision-making. The public= expects that trust to be honoured. In this case, honouring that trust means that we= as a Legislative Assembly must ensure that Yukoners are heard and given an opportunity to participate in what may become one of the defining moments in our history.
It is of that trust that I speak to=
day. The
issues surrounding hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, fall in=
to a
number of areas. I will speak to several of them: the precautionary princip=
le;
human health impacts related to gas extraction and production methods;
emergency events, such as well blow-outs and pipeline breaks; truck spillag=
es
and accidents on our highways; chemicals used in drilling and well stimulat=
ion
techniques; chemicals in drilling waste and the related issues of on-site a=
nd
off-site waste management; air quality issues; transportation and disposal
activities; land reclamation activities; general quality of life issues;
climate change, earthquakes and seismic activity caused by fracking; impact=
s on
water — surface and groundwater, waste water and drilling mud; fracki=
ng
fluids and their often secret chemical mix of carcinogens and toxins and, of
course, the environmental impacts, including the effects on fish, wildlife =
and
habitat, and especially the cost to our water system.
However, when we and many other Yuk=
oners
look at fracking, we are not only speaking about the application of a speci=
fic
method of extracting non-conventional gas reserves, we are talking about the
impact on our health and the environment that a major industrialization of,
let’s say Watson Lake, would have on that community. This is also kno=
wn
as a “boom town effect”, a topic I will return to later.
But first, Mr. Speaker, for the rec=
ord,
fracking — also called “hydrofracking” or officially
“horizontal drilling coupled with multi-stage hydraulic fracturing=
221;
— is a relatively new process of gas extraction. Here’s a
step-by-step look: A well is drilled vertically to the desired depth, then
turns 90 degrees and continues horizontally for several thousand feet into =
the
shale believed to contain the trapped natural gas. In the
This contaminated waste water, betw=
een 10
percent and 80 percent of the original volume, is then stored on-site until=
it
can be treated or disposed of, and a long-term storage solution is often by
deep injection in oil and gas waste wells. This will create a particular
problem in the
Fracking is fundamentally different=
from
traditional gas extraction methods and has only reached this level of sophi=
stication
in the last decade. Fracking wells go thousands of feet deeper than traditi=
onal
wells. They will go to where the shale gas formations are, and we are not s=
ure
how deep they will be going in the
Fracking utilizes fracking fluid, a= mix of water, sand and a cocktail of toxic chemicals. While companies performing f= racking have resisted disclosure of the exact contents of the fracking fluid by cla= iming that this information is proprietary, studies of fracking waste indicate th= at the fluid contains formaldehyde and acetic, citric and boric acids, among hundreds of other chemical contaminants and carcinogens, like benzene. This technique has an environmental impact that has been unprecedented — t= he most dangerous impacts on people and ecosystems are widely unknown because = of the long infiltration periods of toxins and the limited amount of research = done today.
Recently, the
Absent effective control, public op=
position
will grow, thus putting continued production at risk. Moreover, with antici=
pated
increase in
I’ll speak for a moment about=
the
precautionary principle. There is a principle that underlines most discussi=
ons
and analysis around the environment, human health, and the impacts we creat=
e,
and that is the precautionary principle. In short, the precautionary princi=
ple
states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing
environmental or public harm, in the absence of scientific consensus that t=
he
action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful fal=
ls
on those taking the action.
In other words, the onus of proof t= hat something is not harmful lies with the person or company or government that wants to do the action. They are the ones who we need to demonstrate that i= t is safe.
During the public consultation on o=
il and
gas exploration in the Whitehorse Trough, one of the fundamental questions
asked repeatedly by Yukoners of government was of the safety of hydraulic
fracturing. The
Today I will lay out a range of iss= ues that are of concern to Yukoners, Canadians and people around the globe. Many of = the issues and concerns raised by members of the scientific community and the public have not been refuted and thus the precautionary principle applies. = It will be up to this government and to the industry to demonstrate to Yukoners that fracking is safe before any activity is permitted. The precautionary p= rinciple puts the onus on the government and the industry.
We have seen here in the
We believe these issues are worthy = of public discussion as well, as do many Yukoners, and we’re not alone.<= /span>
The Canadian Association of Energy = and Pipeline Landowner Associations noted in their recent report, A Revoluti= on Underground: A Sneak Peak, that, “Throughout the United St= ates and Canada, a growing number of farmers, ranchers, landowners, and others a= re claiming that hydraulic fracturing and related processes are the cause of health and environmental impacts ranging in severity from headaches and skin rashes to contaminated water and dead cattle to neurological disorders, tumours, radioactive wastes, and earthquakes. The oil and gas industry̵= 7;s response has been to deny even the possibility that hydraulic fracturing is= to blame, and to dismiss as ignorant those who would stand in the way of unconventional gas development.”
The report goes on to cite the comm= ents of Chesapeake Energy’s CEO, Aubrey McClendon, at an industry meeting in January, and I quote: “The low level of intelligence some people have about the [hydraulic fracturing] issue is disturbing. If you’re again= st fracking, you’re against natural gas.” It is that type of simplistic logic, avoidance and disparaging comments that undermine reasoned debate and the making of good public policy — policy that is in the b= est interests of the public and that balances economic development with other important values.
A report in a recent Scientific
Solutions looked at the impacts of drilling on air and water quality an=
d on
domestic animals as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health. The report
concludes by noting, and I quote: “Without rigorous scientific studie=
s, the
gas drilling boom sweeping the world will remain an uncontrolled health exp=
eriment
on an enormous scale.”
My concern for the
Recently, B.C. asked their chief of=
health
to do a risk assessment on health in the
This project contains three phases =
with the
aim of, and I quote: “…identify, explore and assess concerns ab=
out
human health risks relating to oil and gas development in
The three phases of the B.C. human = health risk assessment are: Phase 1: public engagement to inform the scope of term= s of reference and identify concerns relating to oil and gas development. Phase = 2: a human health risk assessment based on findings from phase 1 and a comprehen= sive scientific review of evidence. Phase 3: reporting of findings to the provin= ce, stakeholders and the public.
B.C.’s northeast is already b= eing fracked, and this is the government’s response to legitimate concerns raised by residents of the region. Belated, maybe, but at least that govern= ment is bringing issues to the table.
I would like to take a few more min= utes to note some of the more germane passages in this B.C. report. I ask the membe= rs opposite to remember that this portion of the project report speaks to process issue= s. These process issues, as shown in the report, are vital to ensure the trust= of the public and the public’s ability to meaningfully participate.
In the B.C. report, the authors sai=
d it
was, and I quote: “…noteworthy that concerns identified in Phas=
e 1
[of the assessment] relate to different aspects of oil and gas development,
including gas extraction and production methods, emergency events such as w=
ell
blowouts and pipeline breaks, chemicals used in drilling and well stimulati=
on
techniques, chemicals in drilling waste, air quality issues, on-site and of=
f-site
waste management, transportation and disposal activities, and land reclamat=
ion
activities.”
The report also notes that, and I q=
uote:
“…one of the most common issues raised was hydraulic fracturing=
and
the perception that this activity could lead to seismic activity, water qua=
lity
issues, or the potential to trigger sour gas releases.” The B.C. repo=
rt
also identified the concern of British Columbians of being adequately invol=
ved
in the process, and I quote: “…the overall concern of many
respondents was uncertainty and not being fully informed of the nature and
extent of possible long-term health effects on individuals and communities
within close proximity of oil and gas operations. Many believe their health=
and
the health of their families and friends has been adversely affected in the
future by an increase in oil and gas activity. Some are frustrated by this =
situation
and want help in having their concerns resolved by the regulator … the
provincial government, and organizations such as the Northern Health Author=
ity
and the oil and gas companies. There appears to be an opportunity here for =
all
concerned to work together in subsequent phases of this project.”
What this report shows us is that p= eople have legitimate concerns. They wish an opportunity to have their voices hea= rd. They want to have dialogue. They want to have the information before them, = and they want the process to be open and transparent. These are some of the val= ues we have been trying to communicate to the members opposite, and it is my ho= pe that they will endorse this motion.
We know this government wants to sl=
am the
door on public access to information so they can operate in secret. Despite
this, surely the members opposite can recognize the legitimate concerns of
Yukoners who want a say on a new industry that could change the landscape a=
nd
our lives forever. These concerns deserve to be heard and discussed. There
should be no fear of frank and open discussion. That is an essential part of
the
Contrary to what the minister oppos= ite has said, this is not fear-mongering. Instead, well-informed, scientifically grounded public discussion of issues like this should be a real routine function in a healthy democracy. When a government doesn’t listen to = citizens, it gives the impression it doesn’t care; it gives the impression it h= as something to hide. The only side creating fear and suspicion is the governm= ent side. Good, responsible governments embrace public calls for serious discus= sion on issues that matter. They don’t shy away from them.
With this motion, the NDP is callin=
g on the
government to engage the public and stakeholders in developing a public con=
sultation
process. This would include scope, terms of reference and mechanisms to be
used, and timelines; conduct open and transparent public consultation,
including full and adequate consultation with all First Nation governments;
conduct a full and rigorous scientific review, including a review of all sc=
ientific
literature; and human health risk assessments or health impact assessments =
and
an immediate moratorium on any fracking in the Yukon to allow time for a tr=
uly
open, transparent and informed public discussion. What we are proposing is =
not
radical. It is not risky. It is just good public policy and good democratic
policy.
I’d like to turn now to a rec=
ent
report, entitled Chief Medical Officer of Health’s Recommendation
Concerning Shale Gas Development in New Brunswick. The opening paragrap=
h of
the report puts a succinct argument for having a health impact assessment
before major projects are approved. Dr. Eilish Cleary notes, and I quote:
“While large-scale development of a shale gas industry in
The report states not only that tho= se proper controls should be put in place, but also that they, and I quote: “need to be put in place prior to further development as current infrastructure, capacity, processes and legislation are not adequate to meet these needs.”
I would submit that
The New Brunswick
Another area of concern that was no=
ted by
the
Especially relevant to
It should also be noted here that i=
ndustry
calculations indicate a failure of between one out of 50 to one out of 200
wells. A recent
We are talking here about casing fa=
ilures
and leakage of methane gas. To put this into more
perspective, just south of the
If the industry numbers are reliabl= e, then there may be as many as 50 to 200 wells that fail there in a given year and= release toxic substances into the atmosphere.
Failed wells release not only natur=
al gas,
but also fracking fluids with their mix of toxins and carcinogens, as well =
as
any other naturally occurring elements, like radium, that are picked up from
underground.
These failures can affect our water= , our health, our fish, our wildlife, our plants, our rivers, our lakes, our stre= ams and the environment. That’s a two-percent failure rate. When you̵= 7;re drilling, the number of wells that are being drilled — would you jump= in a plane if the pilot had a two-percent failure rate? I don’t think so= .
Environment Yukon’s interim s=
tate of
the environment report states that, and I quote: “the Intergovernment=
al
Panel on climate Change, a scientific body established to collect and
synthesize the world’s best research on climate change, considers glo=
bal
climate change to be the most significant threat this world’s environ=
ment
faces today.”
In a letter published in the peer r= eviewed journal, Climate Change, 2011 by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro an= d Anthony Ingraffea, the authors evaluated the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by high-volume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusin= g on methane emissions. The authors found, and I quote: “Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6 percent to 7.9 percent of the methane = from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well.”
The report further notes: “Th=
ese methane
emissions are at least 30 percent more than and perhaps more than twice as
great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas o=
ccur
at the time wells are hydraulically fractured… Methane is a powerful
greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than th=
at
of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few deca=
des
following emission… The footprint for shale gas is greater than that =
for
conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so
over 20 years.”
Today’s debate is a discussio= n focused specifically on fracking, but it is part of a bigger, longer story. How did= we get to this point where liquid natural gas is being promoted as the best op= tion to meet our energy needs? In short, it’s our failure to implement demand-side management effectively and this government’s failure to meaningfully pursue renewable energy resources.
In
When calculated on its full cycle &=
#8211;
from exploration to extraction, including the huge fuel and energy costs, to
transportation, natural gas falls far short of that green moniker and in so=
me
cases can have a worse net environmental impact than diesel. That’s
especially true in the
Right now I would like to turn to t=
he
underground elements that can be brought up to the surface by fracking. The=
se
include radioactive and other harmful elements. Once fracturing occurs, a p=
ortion
of the injected water flows back to the surface. This water is called ̶=
0;backflow”
or “waste water”. The volume of waste water varies between 15 a=
nd
90 percent of the injected water, depending on the rock formation. The proc=
ess
of hydraulic fracturing happens in average depths of 2,100 metres in the Ma=
rcellus
Shale but drilling can occur as deep as 4,500 metres. According to <=
st1:State>
One well can produce close to four = million litres of waste water that is laced with highly-corrosive salts, carcinogens and naturally occurring radioactive elements. Other toxic materials are add= ed to the wastewater by chemicals in the injected fluids, as well as radioacti= ve tracers. These radioactive tracers have a short half-life and are therefore= not a great environmental concern. However, a significant concern is deep in the earth, where naturally occurring radioactive elements occur.
A limited amount of international r= esearch has been done and the focus of one of the safety reports is radiation projection and management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industry. According to the reports, the produced wastewater from drilling contains uranium isotopes from the U-238 decay series. The only acceptable disposal method for these types of pollutants is containment in authorized waste disposal facilities. Discharge into seepage ponds is not a viable option. &= #8220;Mix-bury-cover” is not a viable option.
The law firm of Willms & Shier =
writes
in their Shale Gas issue newsletter of December 2011: “As energy
companies rush to exploit these largely untapped resources – and gove=
rnments
struggle to put the appropriate regulatory safeguards in place – a nu=
mber
of environmental cautions are being raised. Chief among these is the heavy
demand for fresh water that such extraction typically requires, coupled with
worries about air and water pollution, elevated greenhouse gas emissions, a=
nd
even increased seismic activities.”
In the
Transport of contaminated water and=
sand to
storage facilities would put an immense strain on our infrastructure. The
amount of truck traffic connected with waste water and sand transport would
cause significant damage to our highways, especially on the
Many of the chemicals and additives=
used in
fracking fluids are not public knowledge. Canadian laws protect these copyr=
ight
and proprietary interests and therefore keep them secret — secret from
you, from me and from the public. Veils of secrecy do not encourage public
trust, especially from a government with a track record of putting the
interests of big corporate profits ahead of the public interest.
As noted in the
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Deputy Speaker: Minister of Energy, Mi= nes and Resources, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: It has been ruled on many times in = this House that the members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. T= he Member for Mayo-Tatchun was clearly implying that this government was putti= ng corporate interests ahead of others, and the member knows that is not the c= ase. I’d ask you to direct him to retract that.
Deputy Speaker: House Leader for the N= DP, on the point of order.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; On the point of= order, I heard my colleague provide his opinion on the actions of the government, = and I would respectfully suggest that this is a dispute between members and not= a valid point of order.
Deputy Speaker’s ruling
Deputy Speaker: On the point of order,= there is no point of order. This is a dispute between members. However, I’m going to remind the members that if you wish to use strong language, the od= ds are everyone else will.
Mr. Tredger, you have the floor.
Mr.
Tredger:=
As noted in the=
“As their neighbours struggle= to contend with these impacts, they are unable to share their knowledge. Whole= communities are impacted as a result.”
In
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclu=
de this
section with a quote from a Department of Energy, Mines and Resources minis=
terial
briefing note dated
The note indicated, and I quote: =
8220;concern
over water thickening agents is a fundamental public concern.” The =
span>
Mr. Speaker, when I was at the
One of the most disturbing things a= bout this impact is not that some of the companies in question readily admit to = this causation, but these earthquakes are happening in areas with limited or inactive seismic systems — Oklahoma, the United Kingdom, Ohio, and ev= en in the nearby Horn River Basin in B.C. I will reference only a few of the r= ecent reports in this area, all of which link hydraulic fracturing with human-cau= sed earthquakes.
The Examination of Possibly Induced
Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Okla=
homa,
from the Oklahoma Geological Survey, 2012; Preese Hall Shale Gas Fracturing:
Review and Recommendations for Induced Seismic Mitigation from the Departme=
nt
of Energy and Climate Change, Government of the United Kingdom, 2012;
Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II Injection Well and the Seism=
ic
Events in the Youngstown, Ohio, Area from the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, 2012; Induced Seismicity in the UK and its Relevance to Hydraulic
Stimulation for Exploration for Shale Gas by Professor Peter Styles of Keele
University and Dr. Brian Baptie of the British Geological Survey, 2012; Inv=
estigation
of Observed Seismicity in the Horn River Basin from the BC Oil and Gas
Commission, August 2012.
In
Again I will reiterate that during = the Whitehorse Trough oil and gas dispositions, people of Carmacks expressed th= eir concerns regarding seismic activity in their area and this needs to be addressed.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
INTRODUCTION OF VISITO=
RS
Speaker: Hon. Premier, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Pasloski: I just would like to take the oppor= tunity to say that my incredible wife Tammie has joined us in the gallery today, so I’d like to welcome her.
Mr. Tredger:= Thank you, Mr. = Speaker, and welcome, Tammie.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Enviro=
nment
recently said in this House, and I quote: “Generating a better
understanding of
It seems that the Minister of Envir=
onment
understands there are too many unknowns, too little data and too little
analysis when it comes to our precious water.
A December 2011 internal review by Environment Yukon of information proposed for the Department of Energy, Min= es and Resources’ webpage on fracking states, and I quote: “Under = the question ‘Is fracking dangerous for the environment?’, the pote= ntial threats of both leaving the water in the ground as well as removing contaminated wastewater are not addressed in-depth. After the mixture of sa= nd, chemicals and water is pumped into the ground, depending on the project 20-= 85 percent of the water stays in the ground and the remainder is removed as wastewater. For the portion of the mixture that remains in the ground, this water may not be of immediate concern because of the depth that fracking ta= kes place at. However, the long-term consequences of this still remain unclear = and need to be further investigated.”
I would like to add there too that =
one of
the lessons we learned in dealing with pollution was that putting a higher
smokestack up only spreads the pollution further. Pumping the waste water f=
rom
our cities further into the ocean only polluted the whole ocean.
Pumping waste water down into our e= arth without knowing the consequences may cause problems for future generations,= because by the very act of fracking, we are encouraging that gas and that water to migrate. It will migrate, and it will migrate up. It may take five years; it may take 50 years; it may take 500 years. But as we learned, to our detrime= nt, with air pollution and with the pollution of our oceans, this too may come = back to haunt us. I note this is another example of a document that will soon be= out of reach if the Yukon Party’s attack on access to information laws co= ntinue.
But back to my point — hydrau=
lic
fracturing requires 4 million to 40 million litres of water per well. This =
is
an immense amount of water. As I discussed, much of that water may be lost =
deep
underground forever.
The water that is recovered is high=
ly toxic
and may contain radioactive elements. In some cases, this water cannot even=
be
safely treated, so it is disposed of back into the hydrosphere – the
water bodies, the water tables and aquifers we rely on. Hydraulic fracturing
and the industry around it have been linked to pollution of groundwater,
aquifers, creeks, streams, rivers, lakes and other water bodies in many
jurisdictions. Significant research and investigations have been undertaken,
and are continuing, in the
Last Sunday, while listening to CBC=
, they
were interviewing some people from
In
The industry has not yet managed to=
improve
the well integrity on the corner, the 90-degree turn that the wells go down=
. Consequently,
fracturing wells leak far more methane than the conventional wells. A very
thorough report is Water Pollution Risk Associated with Natural Gas
Extraction from the Marcellus Shale. In this study the researchers foun=
d,
“…even in the best case scenario, an individual well would
potentially release at least 200 [cubic metres] of contaminated fluids.R=
21;
The authors identified five ways in= which fracking could contaminate water supplies: transportation spills, well-casi= ng leaks, leaks through fractured rock, drilling site discharge and waste-water disposal. The highest potential contamination risk was from waste water disposal because while some well operators recycle and reuse frack fluids, three quarters do not due to the cost of separation and filtration. I quote: “Instead, the used hydraulic fracturing fluid is transported to a wastewater treatment facility and discharged to streams”.
Some companies have found a cost-ef=
fective
way to deal with contaminated waste water is to re-inject it back into the
ground at depths where it is completely lost to the hydrosphere, but this w=
ater
is likely lost for good. However, there remains the possibility of the toxi=
ns
and carcinogens being transported back into the hydrosphere through natural
process and through recently fracked rock formations. That is the migration=
I
was speaking of earlier.
In its May 2009 fact sheet titled, =
Water Resources and Natural Gas Produc=
tion
from the Marcellus Shale, the U.S. Geological Survey noted: “While
the technology of drilling directional boreholes, and the use of sophistica=
ted
hydraulic fracturing processes to extract gas resources have improved over =
the
last few decades, the knowledge of how this might affect water resources has
not kept pace.”
A few other relevant reports on the
potential toxicity of hydraulic fracturing are Shale Gas in
In addition, Business Week r=
eported
in November 2008 on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report that noted
fracturing fluids migrated unpredictably through rock layers in half the ca=
ses
studied and that injected fluids are likely to be transported by groundwate=
r. More
recent research has shown that the injected frack fluids — also known=
as stimulation
fluids — have travelled underground as far as 900 metres from a natur=
al
gas well.
Hydraulic fracturing uses a huge vo=
lume of
water mixed with sand and chemicals to break up rock formations and to rele=
ase
the natural gas. This water has to be supplied by surface, groundwater,
recycled water or brought to the site with water trucks. Investigations have
shown that the average well in the Marcellus Shale uses 19 million litres of
water with a flow back of 60-percent wastewater. These numbers are site
specific, though it can be stated with certainty that copious amounts of wa=
ter
are necessary to apply this technique and that a large amount of water is l=
ost
from the hydrosphere as it is left deep underground.
Our water flow in the
As noted in a report by William Koo=
p, dated
In some cases to avoid the use of p=
otable
water, companies are using municipal wastewater. Shell
This House and the general public m=
ay not
be aware but B.C.’s Oil and Gas Commission just lifted some water res=
trictions
for oil and gas companies in the
Some of these water restrictions re=
main in
place, Mr. Speaker, as some water levels continue to be lower than normal. =
The
massive use of water for fracking exacerbated a very dry summer in B.C.R=
17;s
northeast and contributed to drought conditions for local farmers and ranch=
ers.
Grand Chief Stewart Philip of the <=
/span>
I would also add: that it is true o=
f all
Yukoners.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter t=
hat any
government should take lightly, especially in the
This is important because fracking =
can
result in the permanent loss to the hydrosphere of up to 80 percent of the =
water
used as it remains deep underground. Such a practice does not seem sustaina=
ble.
In addition, chapter 14 of the
It is unclear to me how the governm=
ent
would hope to balance this massive use of water for fracking, the permanent
loss of water, and the contamination of the water that is recovered from
fracking with its obligations to maintain the water of the Yukon in a natur=
al
condition while providing for sustainable use and to protect water supplies
from contamination and degradation.
Recently, Northern Cross (Yukon) Li=
mited
proposed a system of “mix-and-bury-cover” at a site along the <=
/span>
Although Northern Cross has withdra=
wn the
fracking portion of their proposal, it is worth noting that this is an inad=
equate
solution to deal with wastes that may be highly toxic, radioactive and that=
may
contain carcinogens.
Although the percentage of chemical
additives is only about .5 percent of the total volume pumped into the grou=
nd,
the authors of the U.S. Geological Survey document titled, Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale=
, that I referenced earlier sta=
te:
“… the quantity of fluid used in these hydrofracs is so large t=
hat
the additives in a three million gallon hydrofrac job, for example, would
result in about 15,000 gallons of chemicals in the waste.”
To again reference Environment
Yukon’s December 2011 internal review of the content for the Departme=
nt
of Energy, Mines and Resources’ webpage on hydraulic fracturing, I qu=
ote:
“As for the wastewater, in the United States there are some documents
being produced that indicate that hydraulic fracking wastewater is polluted
consisting of highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioact=
ive
elements like radium and uranium. This wastewater is deposited at treatment
facilities. Although this appears to be a good approach, the wastewater
treatment facilities are not necessarily designed to treat it. According to=
a
study by the EPA, the level of radioactivity in the water is at a higher le=
vel
than federal regulators say is safe to handle. This wastewater that is rele=
ased
back into the hydrosphere (usually lakes and rivers) may be of concern, par=
ticularly
because these toxic chemicals will enter the food chain through fishing or
farming.”
A 2012 report for the European Comm=
ission
noted, “Wells also produce cuttings which need to be properly handled.
For example, a vertical well with surface, intermediate and production casi=
ng
drilled to a total depth of 2,100 metres produces approximately 120 cubic
metres of cuttings, while a horizontally drilled well with the same casing
program to the same target depth with an example 1,200 metre lateral sectio=
n produces
a total volume of approximately 170 cubic metres of cuttings (i.e., about 40
percent more)… It is important to ensure proper storage and disposal =
of
cuttings.”
I refer also to the
The United States Forest Service re=
ported
on a study last year in the Journal of Environmental Quality where 150 trees
were sprayed with chemical-laced waste-water resulting from natural gas
drilling. The result was, and I quote: “…patch of national fore=
st
in
Several states in the
Mr. Speaker, recently the Premier r=
eceived
a joint letter from the Yukon Conservation Society and Northern Cross (
So, it is in this context that Nort= hern Cross removed any reference to fracking in its Eagle Plains plan and spoke = with the Yukon Conservation Society about moving the issue forward together.
Both parties seem to recognize the =
intense
interest Yukoners have in the development of oil and gas resources in the t=
erritory
and about the practice of fracking. Toward this end, these two groups have =
come
together to ask the Premier for a meeting in which they want to discuss sev=
eral
issues, including an open public consultation process. I hope the Premier=
8217;s
repeated reference to this letter means he is open to such a public consult=
ation
process. Thousands of Yukoners, who want their voices heard in an open and
transparent setting, are waiting.
Numerous jurisdictions around the w=
orld
have implemented moratoria or outright bans on hydraulic fracturing. These
include, but are not limited to
In addition, there are numerous sma=
ller
jurisdictions that have declared moratoria on hydraulic fracturing. For exa=
mple,
the Delaware River Basin Commission declared a moratorium on the gas wells =
in
the
The Minister of Energy, Mines and R=
esources
likes to incorrectly attribute a “no moratorium” comment to
What the minister should also know = is that —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Government House Leader, on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The Member for Mayo-Tatchun just cl= aimed I attributed something to someone that I did not, in fact, do.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; On the point of= order, to allow me to appropriately respond, Mr. Speaker, could you or the member please clarify which Standing Order has allegedly been breached?
Speaker’s ruling = p>
Speaker: There is no point of order. This is a dispute between members. Member for Mayo-Tatchun, please continue.
Mr.
Tredger:=
Thank you. As I=
said,
Professor Laprairie did note there are serious concerns about the environme=
ntal
and health effects of hydraulic fracturing. What the minister should also k=
now
is that
The German Environment Minister sai=
d, and I
quote: “The study’s results and recommendations are a major step
forward in the discussion about fracking… All concerns must be allevi=
ated
before fracking is used.” In addition, the European Union has begun to
examine the effects and impacts of hydraulic fracturing and the EU is explo=
ring
the possibility of a moratorium.
So, Mr. Speaker, this government ne=
ed not
fear if it listens to Yukoners and brings forward a moratorium — the =
When the Minister of Energy, Mines =
and
Resources proclaims to this House that fracking is not going to happen tomo=
rrow,
he is more or less correct. Northern Cross (Yukon
An example of fracking is from the
Houston-based Apache Corp., which has secured 174,000 hectares of land in t=
he
To return to the amount of water, t= hat means 5.6 million barrels of water is the equivalent of 890,303 cubic metre= s. This is a huge amount of water. When one considers a permanent loss of water deep underground of 60 to 90 percent for just exploratory fracking, this is unacceptable and not sustainable.
Just after they finished, Encana co=
nducted
another frack — the largest then in the world — of about 1.5 ti=
mes
the Apache frack. The size and scope of the fracking being done is growing
exponentially. As it grows exponentially the effects on our water system and
our environment are also growing exponentially. Apache Corporation has tout=
ed
the B.C. portion of the
For example, just recently, Nexen a=
pplied
to withdraw two billion litres of water per year out of the lake near
Even closer to home, we have EFL Ov=
erseas
purchasing a controlling interest in the Kotaneelee gas project in southeas=
t
EFL Overseas goes on to state that = they are interested in, quote: “pursuing additional interests at Kotaneelee and the surrounding area.”
By way of interest, I noticed that =
in the
supplementary budget, the conventional gas in Kotaneelee is rapidly running
out. If EFL plans to expand, they will expand through fracking. Let me be
clear: both Apache Corporation and EFL Overseas want to frack the
This is the information that the Mi=
nister
of Energy, Mines and Resources should be well-aware of: a briefing note from
the Oil and Gas branch to the Deputy Minister Oversight Committee stated, a=
nd I
quote: “lease holders in the Kotaneelee gas field are currently in
negotiations that may result in the sale of some or all portions of their
interests. The proposed new lease holder has ambitious and immediate plans
should they successfully negotiate acquisition of the Kotaneelee interests =
and
assets.”
The note further explains that the
prospective owners have suggested, and I quote: “the existing B-38 we=
ll …
as the venue to target the “Flett” formation to test the shale =
gas
potential in that zone…”
Finally, the briefing informs the m= inister, and I quote: “these activities could be completed by the first quarte= r of 2013.”
The minister has previously said in= the Legislature that any fracking activity is years away. This information conf= irms that the keen interest of the industry, combined with the concerns of thous= ands of Yukoners, demonstrates the clear need for a moratorium and an immediate perusal of regulations.
Regardless of the government’s
predisposition toward industrial development, regardless of the cost and ah=
ead
of all other values, I hope that I have laid out a compelling argument today
— an argument based on science, research, the views of Yukoners and t=
he
facts on the ground.
It is incumbent upon the government=
, as
steward of our resources, to hear this argument and accept it in good faith,
with which it has been delivered. I hope the government recognizes that it
speaks truth for many Yukoners. A good government, with good leadership
qualities would take this government seriously and act. Addressing the impa=
cts
of the oil and gas industry in general, and of fracking, in particular,
requires forethought, planning, public engagement and follow-through. We ar=
e a
small jurisdiction, and there are many capacity challenges, but we cannot d=
rop
the ball on this one. The health and well-being of Yukoners and our environ=
ment
count on it, as does our potential economic prosperity. The Willms & Sh=
ier
article I referred to previously notes, and I quote: “The rush to sta=
ke a
claim in the shale gas development across
There are too many real unknowns fo=
r this
territory to open up the doors to fracking. Instead of playing catch-up, we
have an opportunity.
Let us put in place a moratorium, e= ngage Yukoners and First Nation governments, and conduct the kind of rigorous ass= essment that Yukoners want.
Professor Laprairie, who conducted = a study for the Government of New Brunswick, reflected in his report that — a= nd I quote: “During my tour of New Brunswick, I became convinced that a rational, science-based process and structured dialogue is needed to proper= ly determine whether there is a viable shale gas industry in New Brunswick and= if that economic potential can be realized in a safe manner…The path for= ward that I have outlined here is based on experience I have gained in other sim= ilar roles and I encourage all parties in New Brunswick to renew their efforts to establish a working process that facilitates discourse and that will help citizens make an informed choice.”
Mr. Speaker, taking into account the precautionary principle, the complexity of hydrology, waste water, and dril= ling mud, and cuttings disposal, and taking into account climate change, the lac= k of a thorough understanding of northern ecosystems, the potential negative imp= acts of human and environmental health, I ask this House today to unanimously ur= ge the Government of Yukon to: (1) implement an immediate moratorium; (2) cond= uct a full and rigorous scientific review; and (3) conduct a public consultatio= n on the effects and desirability of hydraulic fracturing, also known as frackin= g, before any regulatory approvals or permitting is allowed in the Yukon.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Well, first of all, I’d like = to thank the member for the two-hour speech he gave us on this topic. This is —
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Order please. The applause from the members is their own R= 12; it’s their House. Visitors in the gallery are here to observe, not to participate in the discussion at all. That includes applauding and showing appreciation for one side over the other.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: In beginning my response to this, t= here are a few things I have to point out. The consistent representations we hear from the NDP that do not accurately reflect the facts are very frustrating = for this government and me.
I have to begin my response by remi= nding the NDP and the Member for Mayo-Tatchun of their record on the Whitehorse Trough when, as I indicated from the start, government had received a reque= st that we were surprised to receive. We indicated that, as far as we were concerned, there were three options we would consider during the review, wh= ich included public consultation — and that mainly being to issue all of = the areas, none of the areas, or some of the areas. The members, the NDP consistently in this House and outside, stated something different and caus= ed a lot of unnecessary public concern. NDP members inside this House and outside repeatedly insisted and declared that government had already made up its mi= nd and they knew that government had already decided and was pushing forward w= ith what they referred to as “government plans” to develop the Whitehorse Trough when they had ample opportunity to have been made aware of the fact that such statements were grossly incorrect.
I’m going to begin by reading= briefly from what I said in response to Petition No. 3 presented to the Legislative Assembly on March 29 and which I responded to on April 16.
What I noted in responding to the p= etition is that, “…when the Yukon government received the request for postings, the request came as a surprise, and we had not decided whether or= not any oil and gas rights for exploration would be issued in the Whitehorse Tr= ough area. The process for review of a request for postings is set out by regula= tions under the Oil and Gas Act and it gives companies the ability to nomi= nate areas, after which government does a technical review and a 60-day public consultation.
“Following that technical rev= iew and public consultation, the government needs to decide whether to allow bids in all of the areas, some of the areas, or none of the areas. As I indicated at the beginning of February, all three options were being considered by the government and were out for both technical review and public feedback.̶= 1;
Again, as I said on April 16: ̶= 0;Public consultation is now complete. What we heard is that there are a lot of Yuko= ners who have concerns and questions about oil and gas exploration and developme= nt in the Whitehorse Trough at this time. The government is going to consider = the many questions and issues that were raised.”
Then again, in responding to that p=
etition,
Mr. Speaker, I stated the following: “In the 2011 election campaign, =
the
Yukon Party talked about oil and gas development in north
Again, the record is very clear on =
how the
government responded on that and will show that we did exactly what I said =
we
would do on the first day of public consultation on the Whitehorse Trough a=
rea:
consider all three options for the unexpected request. We had not stated a
position on that and had not campaigned on that. However, what I must draw
members’ attention to is that we did, in the 2011 election campaign, =
talk
about oil and gas development in north
What we have stated a number of tim=
es is
the fact that in any type of activity — and particularly in this spec=
ific
case — if any oil and gas activities are to be permitted or licences =
issued,
our expectation and direction, and the direction we provided to officials, =
is
that until and unless we are fully confident that activities can be respons=
ibly
regulated and we are fully confident that human health and safety and the
environment can be fully protected, no permits, licences or authorization
should be issued.
What the NDP either don’t und= erstand or choose not to recognize is that not declaring a moratorium on something doesn’t mean automatically that the activity will be allowed. They se= em to see it as either a yes or no, a red light or a green light. That is not = in keeping with this government’s position, and it’s not in keeping with modern environmental assessment and permitting processes for oil and g= as or any number of resource development and management processes and permitti= ng.
So, again, let me state emphaticall=
y that from
the government’s perspective, not declaring a moratorium on something=
does
not necessarily mean an activity will be allowed. It speaks to the expectat=
ion
that an activity will be reviewed on the basis of science and on public inp=
ut
through due processes. In this case, and I’m speaking generally about=
all
oil and gas development — in the case of oil and gas development, the
permitting process and the licensing process — both for the wells and
other activities which may occur around them — do have to go through =
the
Yukon Environment and Socio-economic Assessment Board process.
There is opportunity for both scien= tific review and public input, and I have to emphasize the fact that saying that = you might be prepared to permit something if it could be responsibly and fully demonstrated that something could safety occur is a far cry from saying that you would allow that activity to occur. Considering science is not the same= as indicating that something will be allowed to proceed regardless of the scie= nce — which is the picture that the NDP consistently paints.
I’d like to move briefly to w=
hat we
received recently — the joint letter signed by Northern Cross (
While it should be noted that North= ern Cross and the Yukon Conservation Society do have differences of opinion on = what should occur and what can and should be allowed to take place, we really welcome the fact that they came together and came up with two areas of agreement. Notably — and I’ll quote from the letter that has be= en tabled in this House: “There is confusion about the YESAB process, the roles and responsibility of assessors and regulators and what oil and gas activities trigger YESAB assessments …” and “There is a n= eed for the public to be engaged in an open and informed discussion about the o= il and gas industry, including the benefits and risks of various oil and gas activities, such as hydraulic fracture stimulation and how Yukon’s regulations govern those activities.”
They also identified that they thin= k there should logically be reviews at different stages in oil and gas, particularly that YESAB assessments and regulatory reviews should be required at each st= age of oil and gas development, exploration/appraisal, production and abandonment/reclamation.
So first of all, in speaking to thi= s, what I’d like to note is that we welcome this joint approach. The Premier,= the Minister of Environment and I met with Northern Cross and with the Yukon Conservation Society this morning. We appreciate the time that they took to further explain their perspective and some of their ideas for how an inform= ed dialogue could take place. We will certainly give full consideration to the= ir ideas and think that it is a positive step forward in moving toward what we hope will be a discussion based on outcomes rather than a debate —
Is the heckling from the Leader of = the NDP part of this debate or not?
What I would again point out is tha=
t we
appreciate the work that has been done, the concerns they’ve identifi=
ed,
and certainly with one thing that should be noted with the YESAA legislation
which, properly speaking, is the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic
Assessment Act out of which the more commonly known acronym, YESAB, ref=
ers
to the board that is empowered under that act. That legislation took effect
after devolution, and so the processes that occur under it have been a
relatively recent experience and they have been, in some cases, land
applications, power line permits — both personal and large — an=
d in
the case of driveway construction, for example — or I think I mention=
ed
land applications — agricultural applications, mining applications. T=
here
are a number of things where there is quite a bit of experience from the as=
sessors
and the regulators in dealing with permitting, whereas oil and gas activiti=
es
have not had much activity recently in the
What is forgotten is that, in fact,=
the
I should point out, contrary to wha= t the Member for Mayo-Tatchun asserted, drilling more wells in the Kotaneelee are= a, should that occur at some point in future, does not guarantee that those we= lls would not be conventional wells. I will not state that it’s impossible that someone could have their preferred method be fracturing. That would de= pend upon the application and such an application would be subject to an assessm= ent.
Another thing that should be noted = that was not clearly understood within the review of the recent project by Northern Cross (Yukon) and the exploration wells is that any process that uses large amounts of water, which would include multi-stage hydraulic fracturing, tri= ggers the Waters Act and triggers that licensing process under the jurisdiction of the Water Board — and that is regardless of whether i= t is a mining claim, irrigation for a farm or an application to use water in an = oil and gas context. There are triggers set out in the Waters Act that go through that process under the jurisdiction of that board. That is something some may have deliberately not noted during the review in the summer and I think, in some cases, there was a genuine misunderstanding or lack of aware= ness that that was the case.
Again in reference to what we heard= from Northern Cross and the Yukon Conservation Society, we think the points they’ve made do require additional consideration by government. We ag= ree that there could have been a better job of clearly explaining what activiti= es trigger what assessments and that it’s incumbent upon government and YESAB to work together to ensure that there’s a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities, as well as the ability to explain that to affec= ted parties, stakeholders and the general public who wish to gain an understand= ing of that.
So to that end, we are very much re=
ceptive
to their request that we look at figuring out what would be involved in hav=
ing
an informed dialogue on matters pertaining to the regulation of oil and gas
activities.
One thing this government finds very frustrating and frankly offensive to hear from the NDP is the characterizat= ion that they consistently use of accusing the government of putting resource development ahead of other activities.
If the members actually pay attenti=
on to
what we’re saying and what we’re doing, we’ve made it cle=
ar
that we believe that everyone’s livelihood matters and that responsib=
le
Yukon economy does include resource usage, whether it be usage of personal
firewood, or picking of berries for subsistence purposes, or hunting wildli=
fe,
or milling Yukon logs to build houses in the Yukon, or whether it be the us=
e of
our mineral resources to provide jobs for people and provide benefit to the
Yukon economy or the responsible development of oil and gas. Our focus is on
responsibly managing those activities and their potential environmental eff=
ects
and ensuring that the right steps are taken to protect public health and to=
protect
the environment, including water, air and so on.
But I do have to point out to the m= embers of the NDP that when they argue — and when the Member for Mayo-Tatchun says that government should move away from oil and gas dependence and places — he asserted that if a demand-side management program were developed that that would eliminate the need for liquefied natural gas as a component= of electrical supply — and the member is quite incorrect in that asserti= on.
The demand — the increase in =
usage of
energy has been driven not just by industrial customers, but by the fact th=
at
people are themselves often and typically using more energy per person thro=
ugh
things like laptops and 60-inch plasma TVs and the tendency of people to le=
ave
computers on, to have their cellphones on, and so on and so on. Typically
speaking, the average consumer is using more energy than they would have in
previous decades. I would suggest to the members of the NDP — in
particular, the Member for Mayo-Tatchun — that they might want to sta=
rt
by looking at their own activities in that area.
The government and the utilities ha=
ve taken
steps on demand-side management. The government has for years now offered t=
he
good energy rebate program, which is offered under my Department of Energy,=
Mines
and Resources, through the Energy Solutions Centre. I don’t have the
statistics right at hand of the reduction of kilowatt hours of usage that h=
ave
resulted from giving people rebates to encourage the purchase of more
energy-efficient appliances, but it is quite significant. That is something=
we
have continued to support, and that has also covered things like outboard
motors to encourage people to move to engines that do not belch clouds of b=
lack
smoke. This is one component of reducing energy consumption, but I do have =
to
point out that anyone who uses oil and gas — anyone who uses energy
— should consider their own activities. I’m not saying that they
should not profess an opinion or profess a concern on the activities of oth=
ers
or the policies of government, but I would encourage people to begin, first=
and
foremost, with personal responsibility. What the members are suggesting, as
we’ve heard from the NDP and from some people who have expressed in
columns in the paper concern about the biggest problem with the use of the
development of natural gas being — as some have put it — the fa=
ct
that it continues our addiction to the use of non-renewable resources.
If those people are continuing to c=
onsume
significant amounts of non-renewable resources, it’s hard not to see =
that
behaviour as being a bit hypocritical. There are people who, for reasons of
principle — in most cases, religious principle — have chosen no=
t to
use elements of modern technology, like Old Order Mennonites and Amish peop=
le.
If you look in southern
I have to point out a few other exa=
mples
and the point of one reason why developing and responsibly managing oil and=
gas
activity in your own country may be better for the global environment and f=
or
human rights.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Motion =
No. 275,
I appreciate their concerns about management of oil and gas activities and =
we
are very interested in ensuring that there is an informed dialogue. But what
I’m trying to get across to the members of the NDP is that, as long as
they’re saying they don’t believe the activity can occur safely,
but they’re perfectly okay with it happening in somebody else’s
backyard, they should really consider seriously the role that they themselv=
es
are playing in causing the activities described by the Member for Mayo-Tatc=
hun
and other examples such as the ones I just spoke to.
The top oil-producing countries in = the world are, in order: Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, China, Iran, Canada — at number six — United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Brazil a= nd Kuwait. All of the non-renewable resources that we import, all of the oil we import from overseas, emit carbon and other emissions while it is being bro= ught over. As I just spoke to, there are other human and environmental consequen= ces in these jurisdictions that take place as well. Whenever resource developme= nt is occurring, there are times when it may be better to ensure that it is do= ne right in your own backyard, as global citizens, than to inflict the impacts= of that on someone in a Third World country where they genuinely don’t c= are about responsible protection of the environment and responsible protection = of their citizens.
Top world oil net exporters 2011: S=
audi
Arabia, followed by Russia, followed by United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Niger=
ia,
Iran, Iraq, Norway, Angola, Venezuela, Algeria, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Canada at
14, and Mexico.
Another point in the global context=
that I
need to make is the fact that, if you look around the world, the world econ=
omy
is in trouble. There are many areas where people are very concerned about h=
ow
they’re going to feed their families. That includes countries that for
years have been very comfortable
As I pointed out to the members ear=
lier on
in Question Period, in the Peel area, which the members like to characteriz=
e as
something only used by wilderness tourism, the annual spending from 2000 to
2008 on mineral exploration in those years was $6 million per year, or $48
million over that time period.
Over a six-year period, as reported=
by the
Peel planning commission, the combined total of all river-based wilderness
tourism in a six-year period from 2001 to 2006 was $3.67 million, or roughly
$600,000 per year. Our point — which we have consistently emphasized =
and
will continue to do so — is that we believe that mining, tourism and =
big
game outfitting are all important parts of the overall Yukon economy and we=
recognize
how many Yukoners depend on their livelihoods or a portion of their income =
from
all of those activities. We are focused on managing them responsibly, on
protecting the environment responsibly and, where there are conflicts betwe=
en
various user groups, on working with those groups to try to find solutions =
that
are respectful to their various needs and the livelihoods of all concerned.=
So another thing that I need to poi=
nt out
is that, as I’ve mentioned before in this House, the
An example of what this means in th=
e mining
sector in terms of change in activities is, in previous years, the practice=
used
to be that the federal government would simply permit a mine without the
requirement for appropriate security. The
I do have to point out that, in con=
trast to
what we hear from the NDP, what we really appreciated hearing recently is t=
he
worldwide survey of people’s happiness. As you know,
There are a couple of other areas I=
’d
like to touch on. One is, in talking about chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing, what the members fail to note is that there are many other prod=
ucts
that we use that have a consequence. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun cited dema=
nd
side management as the solution to all problems. One of the most common too=
ls
used to reduce electric consumption — fluorescent light bulbs —
themselves create an environmental issue and has led to federal and provinc=
ial
discussion around extended producer responsibility because of the mercury
that’s in those light bulbs. A number of the chemicals to which the
member refers are probably present in the member’s own house, includi=
ng
formaldehyde, which is likely in the walls and perhaps in the building
materials.
But what I want to say just in over=
all
context is that a number of jurisdictions that have declared moratoriums on=
it
while they were doing reviews have done reviews and are coming to the stage=
of
lifting those moratoriums or declaring that they’re being removed. We
have not declared any moratorium with regard to this activity, but neither =
have
we decided that it would be allowed because, as I’ve consistently
reminded the member, this is not an imminent prospect. I think the Member f=
or
Mayo-Tatchun was unfair to Northern Cross in his characterization that they
floated a trial balloon in terms of proposing to do hydraulic fracturing in
north Yukon because, in fact, they were initially advised by YESAB that, if
they thought they ever might want to apply to do it, they needed to include=
it
in the project application. So they were following the advice of YESAB and =
that
is something that is one of the areas that we acknowledge as a part where t=
he
process can be improved, because it’s not fair to that company to hav=
e the
Official Opposition stand up and hurl accusations at them as a result of co=
nfusion
within the regulatory process, where in future we need to ensure that the Y=
ukon
government and YESAB have worked together to better clarify, both to propon=
ents
and to their own staff, what activities require what assessments.
I have to emphasize that — co= ntrary to the NDP’s position that they see it as either a yes or a no or a r= ed light or a green light — we believe that modern environmental assessm= ent and permitting mean assessing proposed activities on the basis of science, = and that includes, in reviewing that, that if a proponent cannot meet the test = of demonstrating that the activity can safely occur, permits don’t get i= ssued for that activity. Contrary to what the NDP says, we have not decided to al= low fracking nor are we promoting it.
The member of the NDP talks about 1=
0,000
oil wells in an area. There is a big difference between having zero wells i=
n an
area or having an area such as Kotaneelee that has two wells or in the case=
of
north
The member referred to environmental
contamination that has occurred from the oil and gas industry, but contrary=
to
what the member said, that contamination is not necessarily linked to hydra=
ulic
fracturing. We have heard from other jurisdictions, including the Environme=
ntal
Protection Agency in the
The work that everyone is doing so =
far
suggests that it probably can be allowed safely and that the major issues a=
re
improper casing of wells and discharging waste water at ground, which the
Member for Mayo-Tatchun referred to — that is a practice which is
absolutely unacceptable and would not be legal in the
Another example is that in some of = the cases where fracturing has been an issue, there is evidence to show that fr= acturing done at too low a depth can have an impact on water tables. That’s why we’ve said we would never allow it at shallow depths.
Again what has to be emphasized to =
the
members — simply because you haven’t declared that you would ne=
ver
look at the science of something does not mean that an activity would be
permitted. Just the same, I may point out, as in the case of the Peel water=
shed
where the Member for Mayo-Tatchun said he’d really hate to see a movie
about it called “A Road Runs Through It” when in fact the Demps=
ter
Highway has been there for longer than I’ve been alive and longer than
some other members of this House have been alive. I hope the NDP is not tak=
ing
the position of wanting to rip up the
I would point out that as far as th=
e Peel
region goes, there has never been a prohibition on people applying to put r=
oads
in the area. The last time someone applied to upgrade an existing road, they
were not approved. By the way, the same goes for
We really can’t agree to the = wording presented by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, but we do think that there is the opportunity to amend the motion to make it more positive, including seizing= the opportunity created by the opening of dialogue between Northern Cross and Y= ukon Conservation Society who have said — I’m looking for the right = line here — “Because we represent two perceived sides of a polarized= spectrum, we believe we can help to encourage and support the public dialogue.”=
Prior to moving an amendment, the l=
ast
thing I would note is, in fact, in the case of the recent application by
Northern Cross to develop exploration wells in north Yukon, not only was th=
at
recommended for approval by YESAB, but this week, the Yukon government and
Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation government jointly issued the decision documen=
t on
that matter, because there is an overlap between the two governments. Again,
that was a collaborative process that involved us jointly agreeing to issue=
a
decision document recommending it go ahead with mitigations.
As I indicated earlier in this Hous= e, one of the things the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation asked for is our assurance t= hat if, at some point, Northern Cross were to apply to do hydraulic fracturing = in north Yukon, we would commit to consulting with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, fully considering their opinion and we gladly gave that commitment.=
Amendment proposed
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Accordingly, I move that Motion No.= 275 be amended by:
(1) deleting the words “imple=
ment an
immediate moratorium” in clause (1), and replacing them with the words
“respond positively to the joint request by the Yukon Conservation
Society and Northern Cross (
(2) adding the words “of any = proposed oil and gas project at each of the following stages of oil and gas developm= ent, exploration, production and reclamation;” after the word “revie= w” in clause (2); and
(3) deleting the words “condu= ct a public consultation on the effects and desirability and replacing them with= the words “work with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and stakeholders to facilitate an informed public dialogue about the oil and gas industry, incl= uding risks and benefits” in clause (3); and
(4) deleting the words “is allowed” in clause (3) and replacing them with the words “allows the use of this activity.”
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Member for Riverdale South, on a point of order.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; I would ask tha= t this amendment be ruled out of order as it completely changes the intent of the original motion.
Speaker: Once I have a copy of the amendment and I get to see it in fu= ll context, I will make a ruling on that.
Speaker’s ruling = p>
Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Member for Riverdale Sout= h, to constitute an inappropriate amendment it would have to be a direct negative, which could be resolved through the vote. This amendment is in order as it presents a different perspective for the House to look at.
It reads:
It has been moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
THAT Motion No. 275 be amended by: =
(1) deleting the words “imple=
ment an
immediate moratorium” in clause (1), and replacing them with the words
“respond positively to the joint request by the Yukon Conservation
Society and Northern Cross (
(2) adding the words “of any = proposed oil and gas project at each of the following stages of oil and gas developm= ent, exploration, production and reclamation;” after the word “revie= w” in clause (2); and
(3) deleting the words “condu= ct a public consultation on the effects and desirability and replacing them with= the words “work with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and stakeholders to facilitate an informed public dialogue about the oil and gas industry, incl= uding risks and benefits” in clause (3); and
(4) deleting the words “is allowed” in clause (3) and replacing them with the words “allows the use of this activity.”
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I’m going to speak very brief= ly to the amendment. Again, as I noted in my comments on the main motion, we see = the joint request by the Yukon Conservation Society and Northern Cross as a positive step. We acknowledge that there is room for improvement and that t= here should be an open and informed discussion about the oil and gas industry, including benefits and risks of various oil and gas industry activities, including hydraulic fracture stimulation.
For members who may not have seen i=
t, or
for those who may be listening, I will read the motion as it would read if =
the
amendment passed this House.
This House urges the Government of = Yukon to:
(1) respond positively to the joint=
request
by the Yukon Conservation Society and Northern Cross (
(2) conduct a full and scientific r= eview of any proposed oil and gas project at each of the following stages of oil and= gas development: exploration, production and reclamation; and
(3) work with the Vuntut Gwitchin F= irst Nation and stakeholders to facilitate an informed public dialogue about the= oil and gas industry, including risks and benefits of hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, before any regulatory approvals or permitting allows the= use of this activity in the Yukon.
So, again, I suspect that the NDP w=
ill not
respond positively to this because we’re not supporting one of their =
many
requests for moratoriums on everything that moves. I hope the Independent
member and member of the Liberal Party and Yukoners who are concerned about=
oil
and gas activities and who have real questions, concerns and a desire to be
involved in public discussion about this industry before significant activi=
ties
occur in the Yukon will see this as positive, because the amendment, again,
does speak to urging the government to work with Vuntut Gwitchin First Nati=
on
as a First Nation that has activity going on in their territory and has dem=
onstrated
and indicated an interest in working with the Yukon government to ensure th=
at
any activity that occurs is done in a way that respects the needs of their
citizens and their commitment — our shared commitment — to
environmental protection.
The amendment to the motion would c= ommit to working with Vuntut Gwitchin and other stakeholders — which we would = envision including the Yukon Conservation Society and Northern Cross and potentially other stakeholders as well — in facilitating that informed dialogue a= nd working together to discuss what that might look like and what is the best = way to get a discussion that is focused on outcomes of science and a good discussion of the risks and benefits of oil and gas activity and whether ac= tion is needed to make any adjustments on the government’s part, or YESAB’s part, to better regulate this activity, or whether certain activities should not be allowed.
So, with that, I will look forward = to hearing from other members.
Mr.
Tredger:=
In speaking to =
the
amendment, the amendment as proposed completely changes the intent of the
motion and it does a couple of things. It takes the
We know that oil and gas is coming =
to the
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)=
Point of order
Speaker: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on a point of or=
der.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The Member for Mayo-Tatchun just contravened section 19(g), which speaks to imputing false or unavowed motiv= es to another member. The member just stated that I wanted a closed discussion involving only an industry group. That is not only imputing motives, which I have not avowed and do not exist, but in fact, is also contrary to the amendment that seeks to inform the public dialogue and involve everyone.
Speaker: Member for Riverdale South, on the point of order.
Ms.
Stick:=
8195; On the point of=
order,
I heard my colleague give his own personal opinion and it was an assessment=
. I
believe that this is just a dispute between members.
Speaker’s ruling = p>
Speaker: There is no point of order. It is a dispute between members, = but I would caution every member here to use their words carefully and cautiously. We’re in a very sensitive subject area for both sides of the House. A= lso, at the present time, members must keep their comments relevant to the motio= n or the amendment to the motion.
Mr.
Tredger:=
In light of tha=
t, I
will also correct an earlier statement I made. I may have inadvertently bla=
med
Northern Cross for floating a trial balloon. It was the regulatory system on
the advice from the
Once again, I ask the minister oppo=
site: Is
it wrong for the
Is it wrong to ask companies and in=
dustry
to work with this government and with all
The public expects that trust to be
honoured and trust in this case means that we as the Legislative Assembly m=
ust
ensure that all Yukoners are heard and all Yukoners are given an opportunit=
y to
participate in what may become one of the defining moments in our territory.
When I speak of the trust, I speak of the trust that is engendered by the
Legislature and the need for all Yukoners to have a say, the need for all
Yukoners to know that the precautionary principle must be applied and for t=
hem
to be convinced, not when some segment of the minister’s choosing dec=
ides
to sit down and talk about it; not when some people think it’s time to
talk, but now.
It’s important that we all do=
it and
we all do it now. This isn’t a game; it’s not a football game; =
this
is our lives; this is our environment; this is our economy. We’re not
here for fun and games. We’re talking about human health and the impa=
cts
on people in the
I talked about air quality issues. = Air quality issues are not limited to one part or another part. If you’re going to consult on air quality issues, you need to consult with all Yukoners. I tal= ked about transportation and disposal activities — again, it’s impo= rtant that all Yukoners are consulted and involved in that.
I don’t know that this govern=
ment
understands consultation. Consultation is the opportunity for all Yukoners =
to
come together to look at the information that’s presented, to build
consensus, to hear from our neighbours, to hear from the industry, to hear =
from
our scientists and together, as we discuss it, as we go about it, we gather
consensus. Consultation is not sending a letter of ultimatum after a period=
of
silence for five years, saying do it within the next two weeks. Consultatio=
n is
not when you have some information sharing and call it consultation, saying,
“Well, we can’t have consultation because people are afraid.=
221;
That’s why there is the opportunity to consult on the Internet.
That’s why people are able to set up times to meet with their politic=
ians
and with their MLAs.
Consultation means: sitting down in=
a room
with people; talking to people; sharing their ideas; building that consensu=
s;
listening to the elders; beginning with a prayer, much like we do in the
Legislature; asking everyone to come with their ideas, to come with their
thoughts, to come with their hopes and with their fears and talk together u=
ntil
we can resolve them. That’s what consultation is and this amendment
changes the whole integrity of it. I understand that the Yukon Party may no=
t be
ready to put everything on the table.
They may not be ready to talk in a =
frank,
open and honest manner, but Yukoners are. I had a petition today that 1,806=
people
have signed and more are signing as we sit here, saying, “We are
concerned. We need a moratorium. We need to understand what is happening to=
our
territory or what could happen.” When I look at the implications that
this amendment implies, when we have such a serious matter to consider, it
concerns me because government governs with the trust of the people. Govern=
ment
means representing everyone, whether they’re in your riding or in ano=
ther
riding, whether they voted for you or not, whether they made campaign donat=
ions
to your party or to another party.
When we are in government, we are h=
eld to a
higher standard and we need to tread very lightly when we take the trust of
people for granted. I heard characterization of some consultation processes=
in
the oil and gas as “fear-mongering” and “divisive.”=
Mr.
Speaker, I attended a meeting in Carmacks that was very respectful. People =
were
concerned; they raised their issues. The elders spoke about how important t=
he
land was. They spoke about how important the rivers were. The Little
Salmon-Carmacks First Nation is known as the “big river people.”
That’s how important water is to them. I think they wouldn’t be
happy to see this amendment.
I think the elders would be upset t= hat they are being cut out by deals being made without them.
The most dangerous impacts on peopl= e and the ecosystems caused by fracturing are unknown — widely unknown because = of the relative newness of this and the ever-increasing scope and drive coming from this. More and more people are being concerned.
When I was crafting this motion I l=
imited
it to the people of the America
My fear is that Yukoners are losing=
trust
in our government. My fear is that people are saying, “Where’s =
the
consultation?” As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, this is one of t=
he
most critical and seminal times in
You know, we need to listen to peop=
le
— people who have reasonable, rational, scientifically grounded conce=
rns
about fracking; people who think they are worth a public discussion; people=
who
are getting a little bit tired of being shuffled to the side; people who li=
ve
in the Yukon because they love it; people who have been taught and grown up=
to
believe in a democracy; people who hope, work for, and sit on boards and
committees to make Yukon a better place and to participate in our democracy.
The whole intent of my motion was to put a moratorium on fracking until it =
can
be proven to be safe. That assurance is what
I talked about the precautionary pr=
inciple
— the onus is upon the government and those industries who want to pa=
rticipate
to show and prove beyond a doubt that it is safe. Yukoners want to particip=
ate.
The intent of this amendment is to cut out the
I believe in that motion. I brought= it forward. It reflects the views of my constituents and many, many Yukoners. = They want to be safe; they want a full, informed, scientifically based discussio= n; and they want to know that their best interests — the interests of th= eir children and their children’s children — are being looked after= .
Again I will say, “Be careful= . Be careful. Be careful.” It’s incumbent upon this government to ho= ld a full and public consultation that involves all Yukoners in the process and = that proves to all that we have a trustworthy government. I oppose the amendment, and I will oppose it continuously. Thank you.
Mr.
Elias:=
8195; I feel an obligation to get on my feet today and speak to the
amendment because I have heard a lot of things that have been said about my
riding and about the Vuntut Gwitchin people and about the Vuntut Gwitchin F=
irst
Nation. My elders would be upset too if I didn’t get on my feet today
because there is an aspect about this debate that hasn’t been spoken =
of
and that the general public needs to know.
When people talk about hydraulic fracturing, every single party in this Legislative Assembly had a chance to forensically deal with this and consult Yukoners and they chose not to. They chose not to. They chose not to, and now I have to stand on the floor of the House today and go over a history lesson about the waters that flow in my riding and the blood, sweat and tears, and people’s lives, and the sacrifice that has gone on in north Yukon with regard to protecting the num= ber one issue, which is water.
In their first contact with governm=
ent
officials 63 years ago, elders of my First Nation said, “We want to
protect our watersheds.” I’m going to go over them briefly: 4,3=
45
square kilometres in
Every drip of water that flows past=
our community
from the
I’ll move on to another water=
shed
that’s 19,000 square kilometres wide, and that’s the Old Crow F=
lats
protected area that was protected in 2006 on August 14.
I’m going to move on to Ni=
217;iinlii
Njik, Fishing Branch: 6,700 square kilometres of the headwaters of the
I’m going to move on and say = that 37,789 square kilometres of watershed has been protected in my riding. When= we talk about First Nation final agreements and public consultation — I = put a motion forward the other day so that we can ensure the most informed deci= sion possible or that Yukoners can develop the most defendable opinion possible,= so that we can talk about it.
I know that the First Nation that I=
’m
a citizen of wants to know that every well that is drilled has
government-to-government consultation done because we are not ignorant of t=
he
risks of each well. We’ve been given the mandate to watch this very
closely.
I was on the premises with the Prem= ier, the Environment minister and Chief Joe Linklater twice this summer to see an op= erational oil well that’s going on in my territory because I have the mandate to watch this really closely — really closely — because the years = of sacrifice and sweat and blood and tears to protect our number-one priority resource — water — will not be compromised.
All of the agreements that I mentio=
ned
today in Question Period — with the
I referenced a chapter that no one = else has mentioned here; it’s under chapter 14.8.0, which says: “Protect= ion of Quantity, Quality and Rate of Flow of Water.”
Clause 14.8.1 says, “Subject =
to the
rights of Water users authorized in accordance with this chapter and Laws of
General Application, a Yukon First Nation has the right to have Water which=
is
on or flowing through or adjacent to its Settlement Land remain substantial=
ly
unaltered as to quantity, quality and rate of flow, including seasonal rate=
of
flow.”
That agreement that we agreed to is
protected under the Constitution of this country. None of all the other pie=
ces
of legislation, territorial or federal, has that distinction and so when we
have this debate here, when I see the progress of this debate going on in o=
ur
territory and when I see the Whitehorse Trough, where 90 percent of this
territory’s electorate live — 90 percent — when I hear
ring-tones of electioneering in the same sentence as my riding and the Vunt=
ut
Gwitchin people, I take issue with that. All governments had the chance to =
look
at this issue forensically and they chose not to. Everyone in here, ask the=
mselves
why.
This is an emotional issue and I to= ok some time to provide some history here because it’s important, because we = need to look at this issue in an educated way, in a systematic way and that̵= 7;s why I called upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to lead this effort for Yukoners, because this is not a good place to start. This is not= a good place to start. It needs to start with the people out there and I salu= te each and every one of the Yukoners who brought this issue forward. I salute= you because you care about our territory. We all care about our territory, but = we have to do this in a good way.
The late Joe Kikavichik made the be= st water speech I’ve ever heard in my entire life. He talked about water, about how bumblebees use it, right up to the biggest animal and all parts in betw= een. That’s why it’s the number one priority. Without it, everything else is unhealthy.
Every one of the Gwich’in nam=
es that
I mentioned today has a water connotation to it, from the salmon that spawn=
at
Fishing Branch in
I appreciate the words that have be= en said here today from the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, the Member for Lake Laberge — thank you — but let’s not do this in a divisive way; let’s do this is a united way. That’s what’s happening he= re; that’s the road that we’re going down here. That’s not the example that we want to set for those little youngsters who are learning ab= out our territory in school and about something as important as water. Do it in= a good way — a way that can be respectful and that 20 years down the ro= ad each and every one of you can stand up and say, “We did something good about water during our time, when Yukoners were looking to us for leadership.”
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; I stand to oppo=
se this
amendment because, in effect, this amendment — as my colleague from
Mayo-Tatchun said — expressly changes the whole intent and purpose of=
the
motion, and the very impassioned speech from the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin
— I echo it.
This is about the whole
With respect, when we tabled the mo=
tion
this afternoon, and when the Member for Mayo-Tatchun spoke to it, it was not
about Yukon Conservation Society or Northern Cross or YESAB. It was about t=
he
issues that are encompassed with respect to the need for all Yukoners to ha=
ve
the opportunity to engage in a full and rigorous discussion and review base=
d on
evidence. It’s not the intention of the New Democratic Party to get i=
nvolved
in the process that the minister opposite and the Premier have reflected.
It’s great to see the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources engaging with Yukon Conservation Society and with Northern Cross =
to
recognize that they have created some internal confusion with respect to
process and how that might work out.
But I do believe, and I look at the= joint letter — they also talked about a need for the public to be engaged in open and informed discussion. That’s the essence of this motion that = we spoke to. So I would urge the minister — if he wants to bring forward= the motion, as he has suggested, as an amended motion — he could make that motion on his own, but it’s fundamentally different — fundament= ally different from the motion that was brought forward by the Member for Mayo-Tatchun. So I have no choice but to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Silver:&= #8195; Mr. Speaker, we= have heard some very compelling arguments here today — absolutely. We see = a divide as to the future of liquefied natural gas. Is it a short-term solution for = our energy needs? It seems the mining industry believes so; it seems that Yukon Energy does as well. I’m still very concerned as to what the long-term solution is, and it seems that everyone is still very divided on this.
As for the specific motion and the
amendment and how that goes — and please, to the members of the Offic=
ial
Opposition here, I say this with all due respect — I believe the NDP =
may
be a little bit too focused on their original motion to see the successes f=
or
their cause that we have actually witnessed here today. I had a pretty good
idea today that the Yukon Party was not going to support the original motio=
n,
and I guess I’m not really alone on this side of the House with that
thought, but today I saw huge steps forward on this issue.
Today alone, the nature of the frac=
king
debate in the
We also heard him admit that there = was a need for a better job in explaining oil and gas development to Yukoners in = general. Again, this is the first time that I’ve heard this from the governmen= t. The minister also committed to holding public discussions on this entire is= sue — this is new ground for the government and it also represents progress. Nort= hern Cross and the Yukon Conservation Society also deserve some credit for getti= ng together in a certain direction.
We’ve heard a lot of politica= l speak here today. This day and this motion was an education in politics. This amendment, in my opinion, is a common ground, one that I really did not bel= ieve we would be seeing today. It is a start that we need to take politics out of the debate and we need to involve Yukoners and educate the general public. I believe that’s what the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin was talking about = in his very impassioned speech.
It may not be the original intent o= f the motion and I agree with the NDP on that, and I do also applaud the Member f= or Mayo-Tatchun for his work and for his passion on this issue, but it is a commitment that we have not heard from this government before, and for that reason alone I do support this amendment.
Ms.
Stick:=
8195; I cannot suppor=
t this
amendment as proposed by the member opposite because I feel that it does ch=
ange
the intent. I listened to the Member for
It’s a motion, I believe, tha= t the member opposite should bring forward in the House at another time as a tota= lly separate motion, and that would be fine, but it changes the intent. It chan= ges what was meant to be something for all Yukoners to look at. It’s what we’ve been hearing. It’s what people who come into our office t= alk about. We weren’t saying never frack. We weren’t saying never to oil and gas. We asked for a moratorium.
This one says nothing about morator= iums or waiting or looking. It’s not the same, and I feel strongly that the intent of it has been totally taken out of context and something else put in its place. I cannot and will not support this amendment.
Ms.
White:=
8195; On the amendmen=
t, I
think the fact that the petition was filed today with 1,806 signatures, kno=
wing
that that is far more than the members of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation;
knowing that our original motion asked for the people of the Yukon — =
the
35,000 or so — be able to sit down around a table and have this
discussion about this very large, crazy industry that is knocking at our do=
or
with this technique that has proven so unsafe in so many other places. We h=
ave
eight people who have sat here for four and a half hours because they want a
chance to be able to talk about this. This changes that; this takes away th=
eir
voice. Those 1,800 people who signed that petition — they want their
voices heard. The eight people who are sitting in the House — they wa=
nt
their voices heard. So, as it stands, the Member for
Mr.
Barr:=
195; I would also li=
ke to
stand and say I will not be supporting this amendment to this motion. It do=
es derail
from the people who would like to come out here with the government officia=
ls,
sit down in the same room — it excludes that opportunity.
I know that the Member for <= st1:place>Klondike — and I&= #8217;ve heard the minister opposite state that there is progress or there is a willingness to do this, but doing something and saying something are two different things.
When I think about the consultation= on the Peel and how this has changed direction — this is a government that is asking us to trust that, as we move forward — “Yeah, okay, now we’ll talk.” Well, I just don’t really think I believe th= at. Therefore, when trust is broken, trust is earned back. I think that in earn= ing back trust, it’s fair to say, “Yeah, we’re changing our d= irections here, and we’ll change our direction here, so we will put a moratoriu= m to build back the trust. There will be certainty that we will sit down and talk with all Yukoners.” More than 1,800 Yukoners signed this who want the chance to participate and who do not feel heard. Yes, there was —
Speaker: Order please. The hour being
Debate on Motion No. 275 and the
amendment accordingly adjourned
The House adjourned at =
i>
The following Sessional Papers were tabled
November 21, 2012:
33-1-54=
Yukon H=
eritage
Resources Board April 1, 2011- March 31, 2012 Annual Report (Nixon)
33-1-55=
Yukon A=
rts Centre
2011-2012 Annual Report (Nixon)
33-1-56=
Crime P=
revention
and Victim Services Trust Fund 2011/2012 Annual Report (Nixon)
The =
following
document was filed November 21, 2012:
33-1-29=
Whiteho=
rse
General Hospital Campus, Strategic Facilities Plan and Master Plan, Phase 2
Report (dated September 27, 2012) Submitted by Stantec Architecture Ltd.
33-1-30=
Yukon
Geographical Place Names Board 2011-2012 Annual Report (Nixon)
1646 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; HANSARD &n=
bsp;  =
;