Larry Bagnell

[Landmines, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday night was the Night of a Thousand Dinners when thousands of people around the world held events to fundraise for the removal of landmines.

Landmines kill and mutilate over 8,000 children every year. The worst thing about them is that they continue to kill innocent people long after the war is over.

Landmines rob people not only of their lives but also their freedom. In countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, where recreational activities flourished in the pristine mountain landscape, people can no longer hike, ski and picnic in many parts of the country. Children cannot play in the forest or run in the grass. Lives are limited to cement and pavement. People risk their lives just to walk through a graveyard to mourn their relatives who were killed in the war. In many countries simply going out to fetch water can be a deadly activity. Landmines kill not only people but their spirit as well.

Landmines affect the economy by preventing agricultural activity and reconstruction after a conflict has ended and hindering tourism and peacekeeping efforts. It only costs $3 to plant a landmine and $1,000 to remove one. I take this moment to thank all those who participated in the numerous events across the country.

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments and clarifications.

First, I am glad the last two members mentioned the mines closing in Yukon in 1982. That was our biggest economy. That was similar to closing down the wheat fields in the prairies, the fish on the east coast or lumbering in B.C. If I am seen back in the House asking for economic development money to solve the problem, members will know why. The softwood lumber problem also hurt Yukon badly.

I have a question about provincial status being a baby step. Transferring all the land and resources of an area as big as countries in Europe I do not think is really a baby step. The only thing left that has not been transferred is the crown attorney. Basically, Yukon has 99% provincial powers now.

The vetoes the member talked about had never been exercised even before we took this step of responsible government. I am not so worried about that. Some of the powers of the commissioner under clause 68 expire after 10 years.

Just in the spirit of co-operation I would like to recall that the party of Erik Nielsen in the past also helped lead us on the road to responsible government in Yukon.

I think the member was the last speaker, so I would like to conclude with one comment. It was great to hear the co-operation from all parties in the House. They are sensitive to the needs of northerners in the riding which is the farthest away from this place. They understand the needs of Yukoners and offer them the same type of responsible decision making and opportunities that Canadians have across the country.

This is a great day for Yukoners. It is a great day for the north. I thank all my colleagues for their tremendous co-operation.

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was great to hear about that sense of peace because I get that sense of peace when I drive from the Tantina trench down into Dawson City, and, as Robert Service said, “It is a stillness that fills me with peace”.

The hon. member mentioned placer mining and Yukon is probably the only part of the country where placer mining is such a major industry. Some of the members may not know what placer mining is, but it is part of the magic and mystery of the Yukon. Could the member explain it to the members and people of Canada? It is another great asset of my riding.

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to comment on a couple of items that came up during the last three speeches.

I want to comment on the length of the bill so people will understand its structure. The transfer agreement, which contains a lot of detail, is about half an inch thick. The main portion of the bill has about 21 pages. There are also 67 pages related to the transitional functions and amendments to other bills.

The bill would not transfer the actual title to land to the Yukon government. It would be the management of the land. Three governments are involved in our land claim negotiations: the first nation governments, the territorial government and the federal government. That will always be the case.

Since I became a member of parliament, the question I have been asked most often has been whether I enjoy it. I always find that question funny because I did not come here for a good time. On a personal note, which I did not want to include in my technical speech, when I attended committee and the members of all parties were so unanimous and so enthusiastic about pushing this forward, including the members who already spoke, it was emotional for me. In a place where the watchwords are controversy and conflict, the sense of co-operation, support and how things should work gave me a sense of pride in knowing how things can be brought forward positively.

At the beginning of my speech I said that along with the freedom to make decisions comes the responsibility to be wise stewards of our magnificent lands. Over the years the NDP members have been excellent stewards in relation to the environment.

Because my colleague has lived in Yukon, could he explain a bit more the magnificent environment and our responsibility to be stewards of it? If I were to explain it, as I have many times in the House, it would appear to be in my own self-interest as I would be talking about my own riding. It would be great to hear someone else describe to the people of Canada such a magnificent place and the reasons we have to preserve it.

[Yukon Act, December 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Yukoners stand today on the threshold of a dream that many have had for decades, the possibility that northerners would be able to make their own decisions on their own land in the north. With the freedom to make those decisions comes a responsibility for us to be wise stewards of our magnificent land for future generations.

It is very gratifying to stand before the House today to advance Bill C-39 at third reading surrounded by hon. members from all over the country who clearly recognize its merits. As pleased as I was by the positive response to the legislation received from all parties at second reading, I was even more delighted by the tremendous reception the revised Yukon Act received when it went to committee. It was most rewarding to have earned the unanimous approval of committee members present and to experience the tremendous spirit of co-operation and support for Yukon from all parties in the House.

I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and all my hon. colleagues for their strong support and valuable insight as this bill has worked its way through this place. This legislation is a testament of what we can achieve together when we work in partnership.

I would like to thank the minister for all the time and effort he has given to Yukoners, especially for land claims and for the devolution transfer agreement. I also thank him for allowing me this historic opportunity to present the bill both at second reading and at third reading, speeches the minister would normally give. I reserve my greatest praise for the people of Yukon, whose patience, hard work and persistence for years in pursuit of a fair deal for territorial residents have resulted in this historic legislation.

One of the strengths of this devolution initiative and Yukon Act is that at the beginning of the process several years ago, the time was taken to ask the people of Yukon what they wanted. In fact, one of the most persuasive arguments for supporting this legislation is that the modernized Yukon Act and the devolution transfer agreement that underlies it are the result of several years of extensive negotiations. Yukoners have outlined their expectations, something which has made this initiative even stronger.

The premier of Yukon told members at committee “We appreciated the opportunity to participate in this process and despite the occasional frustrations on either side, the final text is all the better for this collaboration”.

We have worked closely with our partners in Yukon to make sure that we would address the needs and interests of various parties and to ensure that the act truly represented local priorities. We recognize that people at the grassroots level are far closer to both the challenges and solutions so we attempted to reflect their ideas in this legislation which affects their lives and their livelihoods.

Before we began drafting the bill, the Yukon government carried out extensive public consultations in Yukon. Based on the input gained from these consultations, it made a number of recommendations. The bill in front of us is based upon this body of knowledge. Successive drafts of this bill were discussed with representatives of the territorial government and the first nations through the years 2000 and 2001.

During the negotiation process on both the transfer agreement and the bill, these representatives in turn provided progress reports to their constituents. The draft bill was also shared with the Gwich'in Tribal Council and the Inuvialuit Regional Council, as both organizations represent first nations which have signed land claims and have interests in Yukon.

Public opinion polling conducted by Ekos in April 2001 confirms that a large majority of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal residents support the transfer of specific authorities from the federal government to northern governments.

This is one of a number of devolutions of provincial-like powers to the Yukon territorial government that have occurred over the years. As in any such transfer, there will always be those who wish it went faster or slower, with more powers or fewer powers. About half a dozen individuals or groups have approached me in Ottawa with such suggestions.

Most of these suggestions, such as the fact that several first nations would have preferred to have their land claims completed before devolution, were noted during second reading and/or in the premier's comments before committee. I will review some of these points.

One individual brought forward the following suggestions: finalizing the offshore boundary in the Beaufort Sea, transferring title to all public lands, ensuring more clarity of the commissioner's role after 10 years and providing more consultation.

One first nation that would have preferred its land claims to be settled first is the Kaska band. It has elaborated on this with several points.

First, it does not believe the package before parliament is consistent with the agreement between it and the territorial government concerning devolution.

Second, it believes the agreements provide that devolution would not apply to traditional Kaska territory in Yukon without the band's consent in the event devolution is completed before its claim is completed.

Third, it believes the Yukon government has not provided safeguards for the protocol of lands and resources in the traditional territory for Yukon first nations and transboundary claimant groups.

Fourth, it believes that because of the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory order of 1870 the Government of Canada cannot transfer responsibility before a Kaska claim is settled over lands in traditional Kaska territory without upholding its fiduciary responsibility to protect Kaska interests.

Finally, the Kaska band feels that in conjunction with the Yukon government's involvement in transboundary claims as defined in the umbrella final agreement it would be much harder to obtain a fair settlement of its land claim.

The French community would like to ensure it is acknowledged and its rights are protected. One day perhaps the federal government could provide a stronger acknowledgement and recognition of the municipal order of government in Canada.

We are working with first nations and the Yukon government to settle outstanding land claims as a matter of highest priority. Moreover, due to the types of concerns I have outlined, the devolution transfer agreement contains measures to protect Yukon first nations who have not yet completed land claims agreements. There are numerous safeguards and conditions to ensure the rights of first nations would not in any way be compromised.

First nations would directly benefit from the package being considered today. While first nation interests are reflected in numerous provisions in the transfer agreement and the bill, among the most significant accomplishments of the initiative is its commitment to closer co-operation and enhanced communication between the Yukon government and first nations. The initiative would strengthen intergovernmental relationships in Yukon.

Decisions about sustainable development that are made in Whitehorse instead of Ottawa would invariably be more sensitive and responsive to the concerns and priorities of different groups of Yukoners. Minority populations in the territory would have their interests safeguarded under the legislation.

For example, Bill C-39 upholds the protection of minority linguistic rights in the Yukon. The Yukon government recognizes its obligation to provide communications in both of Canada's official languages.

According to the devolution transfer agreement, after the transfer, service delivery in both official languages of Canada must satisfy the criteria set out in the Official Languages Act.

The Yukon government has made a commitment to incorporate the standards of service consistent with the Official Languages Act into territorial legislation governing lands and resources management programs.

The legislation would be a fair deal for all affected federal employees. Under the terms of the devolution transfer agreement each of the affected 240 federal employees working for the northern affairs program in Yukon would receive an offer of employment from the Yukon government no later than six months prior to the date of devolution.

The offer would be for a position whose duties and responsibilities match as closely as possible those of the person's federal position. The salary of any federal staff member who accepted a position with the Yukon government would be equal to the employee's base federal salary plus the environmental allowance and cost of living allowance components of the federal isolated post allowance.

The terms and conditions set out in the devolution transfer agreement not only meet but in some cases exceed the requirements of the alternative service delivery type 2 transfer the federal government negotiated with federal employee unions.

While the initiative has carefully balanced the rights and interests of stakeholders, what is most exciting about it are the unprecedented opportunities it would create for Yukoners.

Once approved by parliament, Bill C-39 would transfer significant new lawmaking powers to the Yukon legislature. It would transfer to the Yukon government land and resource management in the territory including forests, mines, minerals and water rights. This would give Yukoners real decision making authority over matters fundamental to the well-being of the territory. This long awaited development is welcomed by a majority of Yukon residents.

After devolution takes effect on April 1, 2003, the Yukon government will have the necessary financial resources to carry out the work. It will receive the funds currently utilized by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to carry out the responsibilities plus significant one time funding to ensure a smooth transition.

In addition, the agreement would ensure the territorial government received a net fiscal benefit from the new resource revenues it would collect. The Yukon government would be able to keep the first $3 million raised from resource revenues with no impact on the territory's formula financing grant. These revenues would be over and above the proceeds the territorial government already receives from an earlier agreement on oil and gas.

Bill C-39 acknowledges that the Yukon government has taken on increasing levels of responsibility and proven its capacity to administer territorial affairs. The bill recognizes that there is responsible government in Yukon and that it has a system of government similar in principle to that of Canada.

Bill C-39 would place resource management decision making in the hands of northerners, the people most knowledgeable about local conditions and most affected by the consequences of those decisions. These powers would rest where they rightfully belong.

This is in keeping with our government's conviction that the key to building strong, prosperous communities is to foster local solutions to local challenges. It is equally a reflection of our government's commitment to renewed federalism.

We have before us a progressive and necessary piece of legislation that deserves the House's endorsement. It is progressive for Yukoners and all Canadians. There is widespread support for the agreement. The changes before us have been long in the making and are long overdue.

I hope I can count on the support of my hon. colleagues to help us move the legislation through to the Senate for final approval. We can then contribute to our common objective of building a more self-sufficient and prosperous Yukon that can make an even stronger contribution to our great Canadian federation.

[Broadcasting Act, November 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill this evening. To some extent it is a minor technical amendment but it is important. More important, I am happy to speak philosophically about the importance of public participation in hearings such as this.

The CRTC is definitely very important for a riding like mine in Yukon. It is distant. We have had lots of hearings concerning Tagish Tel. From my perspective, it was a very bitter hearing related to local telephone access rates when I and others in the Anti-poverty Coalition were trying to make sure that telephone rates remained down. It is very important to all segments of society to be heard at hearings like this.

I also want to commend, as have previous members, Senator Sheila Finestone. I really have been impressed by her work over the years and this is just another example. I also commend the hon. member for Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia for bringing forward the bill.

I would like Yukoners especially to know how helpful the member has been to us. He chairs the western caucus and, in that role, he has always made sure that Yukon issues get out to all members in cabinet. He has been very helpful to us and I am pleased he is proposing the bill that I am supporting.

One of the reasons I am happy to be in the House of Commons is that in my career I have always tried to make sure that monopolies are figured into our society in the way they should. They can have a big effect on society. I have always believed in a free market capital society and in such a society monopolies must have a role, but we need to make sure they are under appropriate controls so they do not run roughshod over consumers and those who cannot afford to pay.

There are several ways to achieve that. The first way, and I think the best way, is to increase competition. The industry committee right now is trying to improve the Competition Act in the area of the airlines and in other areas where monopolies, quasi-monopolies or oligopolies might occur and people may feel helpless or our of control from those monopolies.

As far as not being able to put competition into place, in today's world there are very few instances where competition cannot be put into place. In days gone by, because of infrastructure, such as sewer lines, hydro lines, telephone lines and economies of scale in industries like the airline industry, it was not possible to have competition. There were more oligopolies or monopolies. In today's world I think it is possible to have competition in almost every field and sector. We are seeing this as communities progress.

However there are times when there is not competition. In those cases there needs to be regulation. As I said, it is second best because sometimes it pushes up prices but at least it is a control over monopolies and the people who have the only access, such as one telephone company in Yukon, for example, or certain broadcasters.

For that reason, in a regulated field when there are applications there are hearings. Everyone should have access to those hearings. For a moment I would like to try to explain the importance of those hearings.

Another example of a problem we have in Yukon with a quasi-monopoly is with Air Canada. Last week, very close to Christmas, Air Canada increased the points from 25,000 to 40,000 if someone needed to obtain a ticket. When this is the only way out and people depend on seeing their families, many of whom do not live there, it angered many of my constituents, and rightly so, to have such a surprise. It seemed fairly callous to me. I use this as an example to show why regulation or competition is needed.

I will try to explain a few items related to the bill. I will try something I have not done before. I will explain it in more simple English for people who are not used to legislation or for people of less means who wanted to appear before a hearing when they did not want their telephone rates to increase. It is important that these people have access to public processes without too much legal jargon.

For people who are not familiar with this, when a telephone company with a monopoly wants to increase prices, it must make an application because it is the only telephone company and society needs some control. If the company wants to increase prices, public hearings are held and people attend these hearings.

What if the subscribers are from Yukon, from a rural area, from a first nation or a trapper's cabin and the hearing is in the capital city. It would be almost impossible for those subscribers to be there. They could not afford it on their income.

What happens is the regulatory body, the CRTC, has the ability to pay for some of their costs to go to such a hearing. This already exists for the telecommunications industry but does not exist for the broadcasting industry. That is the purpose of this bill today.

Of course, as we all know, broadcasting in today's world is becoming much more important as there is more and more of it. Therefore it is very important that we have what we want and that Canadians have what they ought to in that field.

However there is no such remedy in the broadcasting field. There is no such provision where the CRTC can award costs to people and groups who appear before such hearings. Some might say that this could become a runaway proposal and could get out of control with everyone travelling all over to hearings. However there are very specific controls on such things.

Normally commercial entities and municipalities have not been funded in the past. I suppose I should speak up for municipalities in Yukon as not all of them have a lot of money and perhaps one day should have some funding. However, this helps keep the costs down.

First, people who are eligible are those who can show that they have an interest in the outcome.

Second, they show that they have participated responsibly in the hearings and have contributed something new to the understanding so that it is worth covering their costs. With this money they can also assemble legal and technical arguments. It just balances the public interest with industry and government interests.

In closing, this helps with public participation. People who might not be able to attend such hearings to given input would now be able to attend. This would allow more groups and more people to offer important input at such hearings. When we have more input, obviously we have better outcomes and better decisions for Canadians and Yukoners.

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, in my riding in Yukon there is a wide diversity of opinions on this bill and certainly there is across the country. That is not unexpected on a bill that is so important to us all. It is not necessarily bad because hopefully the dialectic debate among those opinions will help us come up with the best bill possible.

Certainly some of my constituents share the fear experienced since September 11 and would like to feel more secure, but they also agree that in providing this protection every effort should be made to maintain the type of society and personal freedoms and human rights that we enjoy today. I have talked to people in Dawson City, I have received e-mails on concerns and I have talked to at least one constituent who does not feel the bill is necessary at all.

It is for these reasons and concerns that I am very appreciative that lawyers reviewed the bill with regard to its relationship to human rights before releasing it. It is also why I was very encouraged to hear that the all party justice committee recently met until 3 o'clock in the morning to make a number of amendments related to these major concerns with the bill before completing its work.

Today I want to talk about one of those technical amendments in regard to the review mechanism for the attorney general's certificates. There is a basic, major reason for this section of the bill. If foreign countries have information on terrorism that can help prevent an act in Canada but cannot release it to us without protection and certification that we are protected, they may not be able to give it to us. This would allow them to give information that may protect Canadians from injury and we could provide protection for that information.

A great deal has been said about these attorney general's certificates. In response to comments received from witnesses a number of changes were made in committee, on government motions, concerning these certificates. Following is a list of some of these changes.

The first change is that the certificate can no longer be issued at any time but only after an order or decision for disclosure, for example, by a federal court judge in a proceeding.

The second change, and a major one, is that the life of the certificate is limited to 15 years unless the certificate is reissued.

The third change is that the certificate would be published in the Canada Gazette .

The fourth change is that the certificate would be subject to a review by a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.

Finally, the existing provisions and process for the collection, use and protection of information are preserved under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Bill C-36 would allow the attorney general to issue a certificate in connection with a proceeding under the Canada Evidence Act to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purpose of protecting national defence, national security and information obtained in confidence from or in relation to a foreign country.

The attorney general's certificate process is intended to apply in exceptional cases only as the ultimate guarantee that ensures the protection of very sensitive information by the Government of Canada. The protection of this information is of particular concern in relation to information obtained from our allies.

When information is given on the condition that it not be released to a third party without the consent of the originating country, and where the consent is not given for such release, we must be in a position to meet our obligation. The attorney general's certificate provides the means to do so. It provides an insurance and an absolute guarantee that this information will be protected. The certificate could only be issued personally by the Attorney General of Canada and only where very sensitive information is threatened by disclosure in individual proceedings. It does not exempt entire departments or all information from the Privacy Act or the Access to Information Act.

Where a certificate has been issued it would also prevent the disclosure of the same information contained in a record under the Access to Information Act or the same personal information of a specific individual under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. It would be pointless to protect information from being disclosed in proceedings when the same information could be disclosed under the Access to Information Act. The certificate would also suspend only the right of access under the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, but the existing provisions and process for the collection, use and protection of personal information would be preserved under these acts.

The amendments made in the committee restrict the timing of issuance of a certificate. Initially the wording of the bill allowed for the attorney general's certificate to be issued at any time. The bill now has been amended to stipulate that the certificate could only be issued after an order or a decision for disclosure of that information has been made in a proceeding.

Some concerns have also been expressed that in the absence of a review mechanism and a specific limit on certificates, the power to prevent disclosure could be used too broadly. The government has listened closely to Canadians on this issue. The certificate process was amended so that a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal would be given an independent review role to ensure that the limited scope of information for which the certificates may be issued under the legislation is respected. Further, the certificate is now limited in time. It expires after 15 years but could be reissued by the attorney general. Finally, each certificate would be published in the Canada Gazette .

These provisions allow the government to continue to continue to protect highly sensitive information. This stability is essential in order for Canada to play a meaningful role with its international partners in confronting terrorism, both at home and abroad.

To conclude, I cannot help but think of the people in the World Trade towers a few minutes before the planes hit, the secretaries and other workers who were mothers and fathers, and more important, of their children who were at daycare, in school or at home. I cannot help but think that every day innocent Canadians, innocent parents, also go to their workplaces. Hopefully we can do anything in our power so that these parents who are in the workplace every day in Canada will return home that evening and not be prevented from doing so by some ruthless terrorist attack.

[Yukon, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank all parties in the House for their tremendous support of Yukon and the Yukon Act.

I would also like to say a few words on an important issue.

In the Yukon, there is a dynamic and productive francophone community. Over the past 20 years, that community has succeeded in slowing down assimilation and it is actually growing. It is an economic asset for the Yukon. Today, a few members of the Franco-Yukon community are with us. I welcome them here.

Along with their allies, francophones in the Yukon are building Canadian unity and contributing to the success of the coexistence of Canada's two official languages.

As regards health services, the Franco-Yukon community has been trying to be recognized by Health Canada since 1993.

It also wants the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to recognize it as a legitimate nordic people. Francophones in the Yukon are asking that their rights be clearly included in the new Yukon Act.

For the sake of Canadian unity, a sin of repetition is better than a sin of omission.

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa today are two important groups. First, I recognize the cruise industry that is an important and strong contributor to our tourism industry.

Second, I recognize Chief Joe Linklater from the Vuntut Gwitchin first nation in Old Crow, the farthest northwestern community in Canada. The Old Crow people are the ones who depend on the caribou herd we have been fighting so hard in the Canadian government to save.

I salute the heroic efforts of Chief Joe Linklater and the Vuntut Gwitchin people who have fought for years a heroic battle against the large oil companies to save their lifestyle, a very important way of life in far northwestern Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members from all sides of the House have been speaking tonight about this serious issue in our economy. I appreciate that we have all been working on this for the better part of this year. We need to because this is a major impediment in the Canadian economy.

Last spring I was a member of the parliamentary association that spoke with congressmen and senators. As on every occasion when we can talk about trade disputes, we raise the issue of softwood lumber. All members of parliament have been working hard on this. We need to raise it time and time again so that those people in the United States who are taking these unfair remedies realize our point of view and the facts of the situation.

I will speak, as I did the last time we had a special debate on softwood lumber, to any American friends who may be watching. I would remind them that because a few lobbyists have put this in place in the United States it increases housing prices, and, in this fragile time in the U.S. economy, this is the last thing to help the economy.

I urge Americans to speak to their congressmen and make sure that these trade remedies are removed and we can get back to free trade in lumber.

In my riding of Yukon, in the far north, this action by the U.S. hurts my constituents. We have a very small margin of profit in the north. We have some significant forest resources in the Liard basin and we have some very unique forest resources in lodgepole pine and white spruce. White spruce is a specialty market because it takes so long to grow. It is very fine grained and fine furniture can be made from it. However it takes a long time to mature, is expensive to harvest in the north and does not replenish itself quickly.

How can this be a threat to anyone when one thinks of the extra heating costs for production facilities, the wages for employees and the transportation costs in the Yukon? Most of our lumber is hundreds of miles from tidewater. With these costs of producing it is hard to imagine how anyone could think that we could hurt them or compete with them, but in this round, although it was not in the last round, Yukon lumber has also been attached to these duties.

We have to keep on fighting, as we have tonight and as we have all year, to ensure that a fair remedy is won through the World Trade Organization. We also have to educate the people in the United States so they realize what is happening and how important trade is between our two countries and how unfair this situation is.

Canada and the U.S. have the biggest trade in the world and free trade is important for both of our economies at a time like this, especially our fragile lumber economy in Yukon.

We will continue to fight and make sure that in the end a fair remedy is found.