Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-6, which is the result of approximately five years of negotiations in Yukon.
A lot of people have expressed interest in Bill C-6 and many of them either wrote to the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs or testified before the committee when it recently held hearings on these proposed changes to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
I want to begin my remarks today by praising those citizens who took the time and made the effort to communicate their views to all of us on the committee.
Even more, I want to praise the many citizens who volunteered their time and effort over the years of discussion and debate in Yukon as well as the many organizations and businesses which had such a strong commitment to the democratic process as to fund participation in such a decision making process. The give and take of discussion, the responsibility to whatever interest group one is representing and, most of all, the awareness that the YMAC discussions would probably impact the economy of Yukon more than anything other than land claims, were a weighty load for them to carry and they deserve our praise for their efforts.
YMAC stands for Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, the group which hammered out this agreement. It is almost entirely because of its efforts and the compromises which were reached in Yukon that the Reform caucus and I support Bill C-6. To state it simply, Bill C-6 represents a made in Yukon solution to Yukon problems. I do not want to see it changed to a made in Ottawa solution.
Yukon has a relatively small population, estimated to have grown to 31,452 as of July 1, 1996. Major sectors of that population were involved in the YMAC decision which debated how to change Yukon's mining legislation to accommodate environmental concerns such as ensuring adequate reclamation of mining sites and placing deposits to guarantee that the work is completed.
It was the recommendation of the House standing committee, just as it was the recommendation of the Government of Yukon representatives who testified before the committee, that Bill C-6 be passed as is with no amendments whatsoever. The reason for the importance of not meddling with Bill C-6 lies in the fact that YMAC reached a delicate balance about what should be done to accommodate those environmental and land use concerns surrounding the second most important primary economic generator in the Yukon Territory, mining.
To show how important mining is for those folks in Yukon, one who appeared before the committee kindly sent me figures for the amount of gold from placer mining in Yukon from the first shipments in 1885-86 up to and including 1995, a total of 110 years. The number of fine ounces of gold was 12.6 billion. In dollars which are current for the year when the gold was produced the value of the gold was $967,789,808,000. That does not mention jobs, personal and business taxes and the numerous spinoffs across the rest of the economy.
If we look at the value of total mineral production in Yukon, not just placer gold, only in the recent decade from 1985 to 1995 we see a value of $3.4 billion, according to the 1995 Yukon review. This is despite the fact that 1993 and 1994 were very bad years and that 1995 barely returned to the level of 1986 for total mineral production.
Mining means big money in Yukon in economic terms. Mining is called a primary economic generator. That means that it is not a spinoff from employment elsewhere as would be true, for example, of housing construction.
Unfortunately, according to research supplied by the Library of Parliament, the biggest primary economic generator for Yukon is transfer payments from the federal government. As a percentage of provincial revenue, Yukon Territory received 58.3 per cent of its estimated income for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996 from general purpose federal transfers plus an additional 12.8 per cent from specific purpose federal transfers for a total of 71.1 per cent of all Yukon government income.
By comparison, my province of British Columbia for the same period received 12.6 per cent of its income from specific purpose federal transfers and nothing whatsoever for general purpose transfers.
By raising 87.4 per cent of its revenue from internal sources B.C. was second by two-tenths of a per cent to the province of Alberta. Sadly, Yukon falls far behind and I hope that is something that can turn around in the future.
To see for myself and to deal directly with the people most involved in this legislation, this past summer I travelled around Yukon. I talked with many people there about Bill C-6 as well as other federal concerns. There is a lot of anxiety in Yukon in view of its huge dependence on Ottawa as to whether, in our present times of severe fiscal constraint, it will mean that the Government of Yukon as well as Yukon Indian bands have to stand on their own two feet financially.
A great many people in Yukon told me in no uncertain terms that the only hope Yukon has of becoming more financially independent from these federal transfers is the industry of mining. Many people said they were afraid that Bill C-6 would damage the Yukon mining industry, especially the vulnerable placer mining, where many claims are worked in the short northern summers by dad and mom and perhaps an adult child or a couple of hired helpers.
To see what the Yukon government revenue is like we might want to glance at the budget from last year. The 1995-96 budget estimated the territorial revenue would include $35.4 million from personal income tax, $10.3 million from corporate income tax and $7.1 million from fuel tax for a total of $52.8 million from its total revenue of $497.8 million.
I have supplied my hon. colleagues with some statistical data so that they can understand the profound concern in Yukon about whether these proposed changes from Bill C-6 are going to create an administrative tangle that will seriously damage the Yukon mining industry.
This legislation will be accompanied by many pages of new regulations and by a brand new process of obtaining permits for mineral exploration as well as getting a new mine into production. I raised these concerns during the departmental briefing provided last spring for the Reform Party by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It told me it was taking every precaution to ensure that Bill C-6 will not have a negative impact on Yukon mining.
At the time I was inclined to believe those assurances from the department but that was prior to a shocking event which took place August 8 with regard to what could become Canada's first diamond mine in Yukon's neighbour, the Northwest Territories.
To put what happened into perspective, my colleagues should be aware that in looking at provincial and territorial income, at the bottom of the heap in so far as paying for its own well-being stands the depressed economy of the Northwest Territories which received 72.2 per cent of its 1995 income from general purpose federal transfers, plus 10.7 per cent for specific purpose transfers for a total of 82.9 per cent of the income of the Northwest Territories coming from federal transfers. That is a tragic number and I ask my hon. colleagues to bear in mind as well the 71.1 per cent for Yukon as a percentage for territorial income provided by federal government transfers.
In both Yukon and the Northwest Territories jurisdiction over natural resources remains with the federal government although the northern accord gives the Northwest Territories more control over its energy resources. That gives Ottawa enormous control over the lives and activities of people in both territories. It is a profoundly serious responsibility which rests especially on the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
How has that minister discharged that enormous responsibility in the Northwest Territories? He has single handedly sent a very bad message to the international mining community. This is what happened. The BHP project has already invested about $200 million in trying to open Canada's first diamond mine in the Northwest Territories. BHP Diamonds plans to employ a yearly average of 830 people across the 25-year life of its project and 1,000 people during the construction. Two out of every three will very likely be northerners and one out of every three at least will be aboriginal.
My colleagues will remember the figures I supplied to them earlier. Currently the federal government provides 82.9 per cent of the revenue of the Northwest Territories through general transfers and specific purpose transfers. By contrast, the Northwest Territories had a total 1995-96 estimated revenue of $1.2 billion of which only $92.9 million came from personal and corporate income taxes. If it were not for well paid government employees paying taxes, the Northwest Territories would have very little revenue of any kind today.
Against the backdrop of that information I quote from an October 7 Calgary Sun article regarding the BHP diamond project: ``During the exploration phase, 60 per cent of BHP's workforce were northerners and 25 per cent were aboriginal. That is a welcome change from NWT's dependence on government jobs or welfare and should the final project go ahead, the private sector will flourish in the Arctic.
"The company has also trudged through the most excruciating and whimsical regulatory hurdles in the western world. It passed the arduous and intrusive federal environmental assessment review panel, a two-year trial. BHP's proposal is the only mining project except for uranium mines to ever complete such an investigation. BHP's environmental impact statement is eight volumes long and weighs 64 pounds. It went through the enviro-extremist wringer".
The columnist then went on to describe in his own terms what happened on August 8 when it was supposed to be announced that BHP had passed the environmental review board. Instead: "`The federal government will negotiate a binding environmental agreement with the company,' Irwin announced to a startled BHP. They had after all met every existing requirement".
The columnist again attributed a direct quote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: "The agreement will cover all of those issues not normally part of license terms and conditions".
The columnist then imagined the following comment from the minister: "Forget the law', said Irwin.I am the law. Sure you passed all our tests and paid all our fees but I want more"'. Then again the columnist attributed a direct quote to the minister: "I will be assessing progress on the environmental and benefits agreement before signing the water licence for the project". The columnist pointed out that the benefits agreement was voluntary in the first place.
I understand that due to unsettled land claims, BHP embarked on the remarkable project of negotiating four separate voluntary socioeconomic agreements or so-called impact benefits agreements, also known as IBAs with the Treaty 11 Dogribs, the Treaty 8 Yellowknives Dene, the Metis and the Inuit of Kugluktuk.
In view of Yukon land claims and Yukon self-government legislation, Bills C-33 and C-34, passed in the first session of the 35th Parliament, we can all see the handwriting on the wall with the BHP project. We can see what a major mining development in the Yukon will quite possibly have to go through before the Government of Canada allows the brave would be developers to invest their dollars in Canada's north.
That columnist in the Calgary Sun referred to the deadline imposed for all these additional totally unprecedented conditions being thrust on BHP as ``Irwin's 60-day temper tantrum''. I wish this issue was that simple.
The columnist went on to raise some of the fundamental questions to which the BHP experience must inevitably lead the international mining community. What comes next? What other gimmicks can the minister of Indian affairs invent to gum up the works for this private investment group which has already sunk about $200 million into trying to start Canada's first diamond mine?
The columnist raised a question with which I cannot help but agree: "If the major spin-offs went to Montreal instead of Edmonton, do you think Irwin's personal agenda would be allowed to get in the way?"
