The next government will inherit a huge array of issues related to the Yukon’s lands, waters and wildlife, ranging from work to overhaul the territory’s mining laws and cleaning up the Eagle Mine, to completing the Dawson Regional Land Use Plan and beginning land use planning with the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun. There is work towards co-management of lands between the Yukon, and First Nations governments, as well as work to establish new protected areas in the Peel Watershed and Chasàn Chùa, not to mention stewardship of fish and wildlife populations.   

Which issues related to the co-management of lands, water and wildlife do you see as the most pressing and where will you prioritize government funding and capacity?

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Great. Thanks. I keep going to go first. So, it’s a huge array of issues, but I think digging into them is really one of the biggest reasons why I’m actually running in this election. I think over the last nine years, the Liberals have made some pretty big strides on addressing these issues. You know, this includes several new management plans being completed, more lands and waters being protected, progress on implementing the Peel Plan, land use plans are underway or getting started across the territory, legislation either has been or is being renewed. So, I think there’s this really good foundation to be moving from, but we need to keep building on that foundation to strengthen our stewardship of lands and waters and wildlife. So, a few of the priorities that we see: number one, modernizing outdated laws. So, for example, the mining legislation and the Wildlife Act, they both fall short of honoring Indigenous and treaty rights and as well as the Parks and Land Certainty Act needs to be updated, to implement aspects of the Peel and use plan. The second: advancing land use planning across the territory, because so much really just flows from land use planning, and it needs to keep moving forward and being completed. And then the third is securing long term funding for conservation. So, with tools like the project finance for permits, if anyone’s aware of the PFP. These things are coming around, and we need to be looking at ways to secure that long term funding to support conservation across the territory.

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Okay, well, thank you for the question. First of all, we completely support the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Umbrella Final Agreement related to wildlife management and the establishment of the Fish and Wildlife Management Board and the Renewable Resource Councils as the primary instruments of fish and wildlife management in the Yukon. We want to restore the commitment to these co-management bodies outlined in Chapter 16, and restore the public engagement processes that have become an important part of their functioning. Next, we’re committed to completing the process of overhauling Yukon’s mineral legislation, along with First Nations. This is an important process that needs to be completed within the life of the next legislature and will require considerable attention and resources to complete. This is something that has to be done working closely with First Nations and industry to ensure that we can develop a system that enjoys the support of Yukoners, while also respecting our commitments to First Nations. And then next, we are committed to working with the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, the Gwich’in Tribal Council, and the Government of Canada to advance negotiations towards the creation of a national park in the Teetł’it Gwinjik or Peel River Watershed. We recognize the spiritual, cultural, environmental and socio-economic values of the region, and we’ll move forward with a process that will lead to a joint management plan, a joint management of the park by the GTC [Gwich’in Tribal Council], the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun, and Parks Canada. Thank you. 

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

Thank you for the question, because there is so much going on, and I know there’s people in this room who are working on things across the territory. Some of the projects mentioned – more than what’s been mentioned – because you can’t fit it all in the list during a debate. So how do we prioritize among all these really important things going on? I think the answer is in land use planning. That was the commitment under the UFA [Umbrella Final Agreement], but in decades, only a handful of land use plans have been completed. Those plans, once completed, give us our priorities. They start the conversations between us and First Nations partners that dictate those priorities. And of course, there are parts of the Yukon that don’t have agreements in place under the Umbrella Final Agreement, and those conversations still need to happen, just in a slightly different way. So, land use planning is the priority, and then the second piece of that is respecting those land use plans so that we don’t end up back in court like we did over the Peel like we’re seeing ongoing over the last eight years. So, land use planning and then respecting those plans.

In the last decade the Yukon government has lost a series of court cases related to land use planning and development. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Yukon government’s sweeping changes to the Final Recommended Peel plan did not respect the land use process in the Final Agreements. In 2024, the Yukon Court of Appeals ruled the Yukon government had failed in its duty consult the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun when approving mining development on the Nation’s territory, lands that the First Nation have pointed out are long overdue for land use planning. Earlier this year, the Yukon Supreme Court threw out a challenge by the Yukon government, which aimed to overturn a YESAB recommendation against a mining exploration project in the Peel Watershed.

What lessons do you take from these court rulings? Would your government take a different approach to land use planning-related issues than previous governments, so that questions around land planning and development don’t have to keep going to court?

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Okay, thank you. So, there’s three different court cases that are referenced here, so I’ll walk through them quickly. The first is the 2017 Supreme Court case, which basically the nub of that was that, the nub of that finding was that it was related to the ability of the parties to the process to make changes or modifications to the proposed planning documents created by the Planning Council, and the time at which those processes could be undertaken and changes could be made. My takeaway from that, from that process, was that in order to be successful, parties need to be as clear as possible, as early as possible, about their intentions and desired outcomes for the plan, and the need to communicate those as clearly as possible to the planning committee, consistently over the course of the planning committee’s work. The second one was a 2024 court decision as it pertained to the approval of activity in an area that was subject to a sub–regional land use plan. And that’s a little bit different, then of course the last one was the decision by the Yukon government to seek the overturning of a recommendation of YESAB [Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board] which, which I never quite understood because my understanding was always that the recommendations from YESAB could be accepted, rejected or modified by the Yukon government. So, I didn’t understand the purpose of that court case. However, the conclusion there is that if we want it, we need to do that things in a way that includes communication at early stages, consistently throughout the process, and that’s a lesson I think, that we’ve learned very much through our time with that court case.

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Thank you. I think if there’s anything that I’ve learned again and again in this line of work, it’s that land use activities and development of land use plans are complex and difficult and fraught with challenges, but the goal of land use planning really is to create certainty and clarity and decision making so that conflicts ideally do not arise, and ideally, again, they don’t end up in court. But I think many of us are really struggling and doing our best within a system that sometimes feels stuck, and there’s this, it does feel like there’s this kind of institutional momentum in government and in the processes, and a pull toward old ways that make things difficult to work. So, I think a really big part of it is moving forward those land use plans, but really trying to do so and working to reconcile them with the evolving relationship that we have Yukon First Nations and the land itself. So how do you do that? I think it’s by moving forward and striving for good, respectful relationships and putting the time in, putting the time in, in the advance. I think that’s where some of the what Currie‘s talking about as well, is really putting in the time and being clear in the intentions ahead of time. So right now, there is work going underway for two land use plans. Dawson’s nearly there. Na-Cho Nyäk Dun MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] is there. But I think the other thing that’s important to note is that a lot of First Nations are not able, or not willing, or not ready to take on land use planning at this time, and we need to work with them to work with them to build the capacity to be ready when they’re ready.

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

To be honest, with all due respect to my colleagues, the lesson I took away from those court cases is we need a government that isn’t going to fight First Nations in court. And here I sit before you trying to form that government. Reconciliation means upholding our commitments, living in a relationship, acting in good faith, listening, respecting our agreements. And I don’t see court cases to overrule land use plans as being in any way consistent with that. And I am a little concerned that the lessons that seem to have been taken away are about clarity and timing, rather than about consent and who are the decision makers and how we work together in partnership. So, one thing I’ve just got to throw out there. If you ever hear people saying it’s too expensive to protect the environment, I just want to throw out there that Yukon government has spent millions of dollars over the last decades fighting First Nations in court and losing, which just doesn’t seem like great fiscal policy to me. 

The proportion of electricity generated in the Yukon that is renewable is steadily slipping. New large hydroelectric projects are socially, culturally, and environmentally unacceptable and potentially connecting to the B.C. [British Columbia] grid is at least 10-15 years away.

Given these social and environmental considerations, would your government increase the proportion of renewable electricity, and if so, how?

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Thanks so much. So, off the top, I want to be really clear in saying that increasing the supply and proportion of renewable electricity is what we want to achieve. It’s as important as can be. So, over the past decade, renewables have supplied about 90% of electricity on our grid. This past year, that number was down to about 75% but that was due largely to low snow, low water in Aishihik, and then of the big hydro turbines being offline. So, I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as steadily slipping, but that said the Yukon’s population and energy demand is growing a lot, and so we need to, we need more renewable power to maintain and increase the proportion that we do have already. So to achieve that, we need to be working with the Yukon First Nations to identify and develop renewable projects. Right now, we’re working on three potential hydro projects with First Nations as well working on a second wind battery backup system with KDFN [Kwanlin Dün First Nation]. And then in the long term, I think we really do need to prioritize that grid connect, because what that does is it makes all of our existing and future renewable projects more cost effective as we can start to sell the excess that is available and which will allow us to continue to grow both the proportion and the supply of renewables long into the future.

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

I’d actually love to start this with a question for the room, can people hold up their hands if anyone has solar panels on their homes? That’s really exciting to see because years ago YG [Yukon government] put out a call to Yukoners to help build renewable energy. They asked individuals to put solar panels on their roofs. They asked First Nations Development Corporations and industry to come with to them with projects and that was really successful that built a lot of renewable energy very, very quickly. Unfortunately, those programs have all now been either shut down or paused without sign of starting again. What I’d like to see happen – I think there’s an argument to be made that what we need right now isn’t more solar, it’s wind, its winter power, it’s battery backup. I’d like to see those programs reopened and revamped to call for what we need right now, because we’ve seen that when we ask Yukoners to come to us with those renewable energy projects, they come through. They’ve done it before. They can do it again. And I’m actually really excited that on our team we have someone who’s directly responsible for one of those projects, John Vandermeer, who’s running in Kluane, is the President of Copper Niisüü, which is the White River First Nation’s Development Corporation. And they are just, I think, in the process of completing one of the largest diesel offset programs in the Yukon so really excited that that’s our goal and that we have the expertise on the team to do it. Thank you.

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Thank you. Well, I think that, based on what I’ve heard, I’m actually largely in agreement with my colleagues on the stage here today, but I think that there’s a question or a disagreement, sort of about the sequencing. I think over the next four years, what we can expect to see in the Yukon is the proportion of non-renewable energy increasing while we continue to invest in thermal generation in the short term that will allow us to stabilize our grid and provide the capacity necessary to continue to invest in the renewables that my colleagues have mentioned. So once we have that investment in place and we’ve created enough stability in our grid, we want to see the reinstatement and modernization of the micro generation policy that the Yukon Party brought in a number of years ago and has been so successful at allowing the development of both residential and commercial renewable projects around the Yukon. We want to see the modernization and reinvigoration of the independent power producer policy which allowed the creation of those renewable energy projects around the Yukon so far. And then finally, we want to advance for economic reconciliation by expediting First Nations led renewable energy projects. But all those need to have a stable grid with sufficient supply to meet our growing demand, and in order to get there, that that’s unfortunately going to start with thermal and then move to renewables once, once that investment’s been made.

Will your government commit to a full public inquiry into the Eagle Mine disaster? Why or why not, and what would that look like?

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

Um, yes. So short answer, yes, we will. We will. We’ve been standing with Na-Cho Nyäk Dun ever since they made that call for the independent inquiry. We will continue to do that. So that’s my answer, yes, but I will say a little more, because it does seem like a very obvious thing to do. I’ve been talking to Yukoners, and that is pretty much what I’m hearing. Why wouldn’t we want to know what went wrong? So, it has been disappointing that the Liberals haven’t done it so far. It’s also been really a little bit bizarre, actually, to see the Yukon Party suggesting that Victoria Gold should have been allowed to keep operating the site, even as cyanide was pouring into the water. But what I’ve heard from Yukoners is that this is a no brainer. I’m really proud that that’s our stance. And I want to speak a little bit to – I think what’s related is the money donated by mining companies to Yukon political parties. I think it would be naive to think that doesn’t affect the landscape. I’m very proud that the Yukon NDP doesn’t take corporate donations that we haven’t and never will take money from mining companies, and that the people we work for are Yukoners, but there are hundreds of thousands of dollars that have gone into other political parties in the Yukon from mining corporations, and I think that should be part of the conversation.

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Sure, so at present, the Eagle Mine is in the midst of a court order process that will determine the future ownership and the process for sale or transfer of that project. And while we didn’t agree with the Liberal government’s decision making around the process, the reality is the court process is underway, and whomever forms government will need to work within that process. We were supportive of the independent review board that looked at what happened at the mine site, and the report that they produced and the comprehensive recommendations for improved practices by industry and regulators. We want to see the implementation of those recommendations prioritized and advanced in a comprehensive way. We’ve expressed our skepticism about the need for another review under the under the Public Inquiries Act, because of the time and resources that that quasi-judicial process would require. With that being said, we’re willing to discuss the need for further review with the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyäk Dun. Our focus, in our view, is that our focus needs to be ensuring that the cleanup of the site begins as quickly as possible, and then the environmental and economic liability is removed from the backs of the Yukon public. Thanks.

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Sure. Thanks. Maybe not surprised for the I guess the centrist party going in the middle, to give a mushy middle answer on this, in a way, but right off the top, I want to be really clear and say that the priority again, is for mining to be done safely. And so, I think the Eagle Mine disaster has opened up a lot of people’s eyes, mine very much included, to the risks that are out there. Whether or not we go forward with public inquiry really depends on what we’re trying to achieve. And so, when the disaster happened, there were choices to be made about how to respond. The Liberal government took action. It was different than what the other parties proposed, but going through the receivership that the Liberals put in place, cyanide and other contaminants are now being addressed. The Independent Review Board is in place and has determined both the cause of the slide put forward a lot of recommendations on how to practice better, and those are being implemented and adopted. But there’s really no doubt that there’s a lot that can be learned from the disaster. You know how it happened, how it was dealt with, and then also how it’s going to continue to be dealt with in the future. And so, if the goal is to determine the blame and responsibility for the disaster, then we think that that should probably take place in the courts. If, on the other hand, the goal is to look at YG [Yukon government] and other government’s roles in the response disaster, so both in the past and going forward to learn and improve, then we entirely agree that that’s needed and open to the conversation about what mechanism that is.

Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow set a vision for Land Claims and Self-Government that guided the past 50 years. Today, the Reconnection Vision sets the vision for the next 50 years. The Vision is a societal shift guide and tool kit, focused on changing ‘how’ we educate, make decisions, and lead. Developed by Yukon First Nations youth, the Vision is endorsed as the Yukon First Nation’s unified approach to climate action.

The Reconnection Vision sees us living as whole people, and in good relationship with ourselves, each other, and the land, with the understanding that the mental health crisis and climate crisis are driven by the same root cause – disconnection. How can we, the Reconnection Vision team, help your party implement the Reconnection Vision and ensure decisions made today will still serve youth and future generations 50 years from now, rather than just the next election cycle?

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Great, thank you. So, when it comes to our response to climate change, we want to see the launch of a new climate change action plan, we want to see that plan focus on tangible actions that can actually work to mitigate and reduce our emissions here in the Yukon. We think that there’s been more of a focus over the last number of years on setting and breaking targets, as opposed to actually taking real actions that will make a difference. And so when it comes to Reconnecting Vision, the group you know, they submitted their proposal or their book and pamphlet information to us last year, there‘s some very interesting stuff in there and I’d love to work with Reconnecting Vision to consult on how we can come up with a climate change action plan that will serve the Yukon beyond just the next four years, and look to the future generations as well.  

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

So, I actually want to start by thanking the Yukon, or sorry the Reconnection Vision team. I don’t know how many of you in the room have had a chance to read that document, but you should. You should go read it. It is a groundbreaking piece of work. It entirely reframes the entire way we think about our relationship with each other and the environment. And I think it’s a complete paradigm shift that’s really, really important. And, you know, I went to, I went to see that that document be launched, and I kind of expected to show up in a room and have a presentation, as I’ve been to many of, and it wasn’t that it was a group of youth who had been tasked by the Yukon First Nations leadership to come up with this vision, and people stood in a circle in ceremony and talked together about what that looked like and how to move forward with that. And I just loved that right from the beginning it was different. So, I think it’s really amazing. And in the question about what do we need from the Reconnection Vision team to implement it, I think that often the Yukon government asks First Nations people to come to a very colonial table and sit at that table and have conversations on kind of colonial terms. And I want, I think that should be different. I think that needs to change. And so I would ask for from the team is, is their help in creating a different kind of space for a different kind of conversation that prioritizes us as whole people, and that means living in relationship with each other in the environment and having spaces that are Safe and collaborative, collaborative and respectful together. 

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Thanks, I agree. If anyone hasn’t read it, it is really quite an incredible document. I was curious if there’s anybody from the Reconnection Vision team here tonight. Okay, cool. Well, I guess my answer is sort of responsive. My answer is more directed to you, and that’s, I think what you’re doing is most helpful. So, by putting out a really clear, articulate, unified and inspiring vision for the future, and being here to press me and press us to sit with that discomfort and to challenge and sit with the discomfort and the challenge that vision creates. I think that’s what’s needed. I think the work is on, a lot of the work is on me to do this work like I don’t think we need to ask for the Reconnection Vision, to do the work on my behalf. I think there’s a lot of work I need to be doing on that front. And so I think it’s really easy to get lost in the intricacies of policies and legislative decisions and be really so focused on dealing with the weeds, they forget to look at the forest. So what I really liked in the Reconnection Vision was that invitation to dedicate time to sit with and reflect on it, because it really goes a long ways, and that’s something that personally I would like to be reminded of, you know, as I get lost in those weeds, be reminded of again and again to take that time and sit with it. So I think just thank you for putting it out, and please continue to remind me to do the work.

In 2024, climate change for the first time led to a temperature increase exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, triggering the beginning of predicted catastrophic and irreversible consequences on the planet. Meanwhile greenhouse gas emissions have only been increasing from the Yukon.

If elected, what measures is your party willing to take to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

Whenever I think about climate change, I think first about youth marching in the streets of Whitehorse chanting -and I always get emotional when I think about this, because it’s emotional stuff – chanting “you’ll die of old age, we will die of climate change”. And one of the most surreal moments of the last my last four years as an MLA was when I put forward an amendment in the legislature. I stood and I called for mining, the mining industry, to have to meet the same greenhouse gas emissions targets as every other industry in the Yukon. It was voted down by the Liberals and by the conservative Yukon Party, but the part I can’t get out of my head is that a Liberal Minister stood and said, not once, but twice, “we need to explain to the youth chanting that slogan, it’s not them that’s going to die of climate change. It’s other youth in other places.” So anyway, here’s a speed list of ways to reduce greenhouse gasses in the Yukon: accelerate the retrofitting of Yukon government buildings so that they are producing less greenhouse gas emissions through energy use, building more rental housing that meets energy standards so that they’re not producing the same greenhouse gasses through energy use. We already talked about increasing the percentage of renewable energy drastically, increasing the viability of local products, such as agriculture, such as consumer products, so that we’re tracking fewer and fewer things up the highway. I am running out of time, so please find me later and we can keep the list going. 

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Um, I’m still thinking about the chant. I think I sort of land in that space of you know, as a younger person, I’m getting old, but I’m not, it is such a huge problem. It is something that I am going to be dealing with for the rest of my life. And so, it’s so important. It’s so important for the North. The impacts are already here and more are coming, and I always feel a bit on the edge of my seat when every summer comes around and what’s going to happen with forest fires and flooding again and again. So yeah, I can’t reiterate enough that it is such a huge priority for me. The past few years, greenhouse gas emissions have increased. Admittedly, or I guess to be somewhat, I don’t know what, but slightly, these are only slightly, but despite the increase in population and energy use that is going on. Sorry, I’m muddling that, but energy, population and energy use have increased so significantly, but our greenhouse gas emissions have only increased slightly. So it does show me that we’re on the way towards the right track, and part of that is the plan that is in place and with Our Clean Future. And I know we’ve already talked a lot about the importance of renewable energy, and I think that’s a really huge component of it but the other part of it is transportation, because that’s over half of our emissions in the territory. So what can we do dealing with that? It’s a lot about looking at supporting local agriculture, so breaking down the – reducing the amount of food that’s shipped in, also dealing with active transportation.

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Thank you. As I mentioned before, I think that there’s been an inordinate focus over the last number of years debating about what’s the appropriate target? Is it 30% by 2030, or 45% by 2050, or any of these types of debates, and ultimately gets what gets lost in there is the need to actually take action today. And I actually agree with the list that the Lane started to provide there, and some of what Jon just said as well. But I think that we need to be taking action. We need to focus on what actions we could take that are, that are realistic and will actually have an effect of reducing emissions here in the Yukon.. The other part that I think we need to continue to focus on is adaptation. I think that we need to recognize that climate change is happening, that it’s happening in the north faster and more acutely than anywhere else in the country, and that we need to make sure that we’re responding appropriately. It’s incumbent on governments of all levels to recognize that we need to ensure that communities and community infrastructure are resilient and able to respond to a changing climate, and that means working with communities around the Yukon to ensure that they’ve got the ability to respond to things like forest fires, floods and other climate change induced challenges. And I think that in today’s world, given where we’re at, I think that we really need to focus on adaptation as well. Thank you.

The health of the Yukon River is central to our existence, both us and our other-than-human relations, such as Salmon. What do you think of personhood for the Yukon River as a way to protect the health of the Yukon River?

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

And yeah, it’s great question. I think it’s definitely a good idea and something that we should look at as a means of recognizing the rights and the cultural significance of the Yukon River. I remember being so inspired when I was doing my graduate work and first hearing about Ecuador and granting nature personhood. I thought it was such an innovative idea and such a just, just an inspiring way to go about it. And I could really spend ages talking about the whole division of nature and culture and what that means for our relationship with the world, but I’ll resist that little rabbit hole and just focus on saying that I think it is a good idea and but one that also should be looked at as part of this wider suite of ways to protect the health of the Yukon River. And you know, that includes land use plans, special management areas that are in there, includes the water board process, like we saw with the Whitehorse dam re–licensing. And there’s lots that can come through that process. And then also, of course, working with Alaska to address issues that are outside of the Yukon and so this is one of those ways that we can start to look creatively at exploring how best to support this holistic version of stewardship for the Yukon River.

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Yes, so I’ll start with some comments about the salmon piece, because I think it’s important. I think that we need to work with First Nations governments, Umbrella Final Agreement boards and committees, including the salmon subcommittee and other levels of government to respond to the recommendations of the Canadian parliamentary committee on Yukon River salmon. We also should be considering measures to restore Chinook salmon populations through habitat restoration, monitoring and potentially even a conservation hatchery by working with affected First Nations and groups like the salmon stewardship center, I think there’s a lot of potential there. I know hatcheries are in some ways controversial, but I think that that discussion needs to start happening. When it comes to the designation of personhood to the Yukon River, that’s not something that we’re currently considering. I don’t think that there’s the legislative framework for that today, and it’s not something that we’re looking at either. Thank you.  

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

I want to start this question by acknowledging the tragedy that is the loss of salmon in the Yukon and in particular, I want to acknowledge that is Yukon First Nations who have really borne that, that cost, that spiritual and cultural and physical cost that has come from that loss. When it comes to how to change that story and to prioritize the health of the Yukon River, and by doing that, prioritizing the health of everyone, I believe that every option needs to be on the table. So, I want to talk about aging infrastructure, the dam, and the fish ladder. Let’s talk about a salmon center and hatchery. Let’s talk about industrial impacts on the river and the habitat. Let’s talk about – absolutely, let’s talk about personhood for the Yukon River. I actually asked a question about this last spring in the legislature during question period. I’m really excited about this idea, in particular, because of the way it reframes the conversation from what are the rules for extracting a resource to how do we have a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the world around us?

The Yukon government has begun work on successor mineral legislation, a long-overdue overhaul of the laws that govern mining in the Yukon. These efforts are still unfinished, meaning that whoever forms government will inherit this responsibility.

Would you commit to addressing Yukon First Nations’ stated concerns with the draft legislative framework – namely that it does not do enough to respect First Nation rights and prevent another mining failure? If not, how do you propose to move forward with new mineral legislation?

Currie Dixon, Yukon Party:

Well, thank you. I should start by saying I haven’t actually seen the full legislative framework for the new minerals legislation. I know that I was briefed on it by the Council of Yukon First Nations, but we weren’t provided with the actual document, so we haven’t seen it ourselves. I’m aware from that briefing that the concerns about the legislative framework expressed by some First Nations are not shared unanimously by all First Nations. The Council of Yukon First Nations made it clear to us that that there was some solid work done on the legislative framework, and it should be thoughtfully considered as well. We firmly believe that we need to complete the process of overhauling the minerals legislation for the territory. We want to see that work done. We know it has to be done with Yukon First Nations. Not all Yukon First Nations agree exactly about the current state of that work. I know I’ve heard from individual First Nations that that have expressed concerns about it not going far enough. I’ve heard from some that think that it’s a good starting point and we should continue that conversation. So, I’m committed to completing that process of overhauling our mineral legislation, getting that job done in the next four years, and working closely with First Nations to achieve it. I’m not sure that we’ll always be able to find unanimity, but we certainly want to work together as closely as we can.

Lane Tredger, Yukon NDP:

So, I want to be really clear, there is no way forward for mining in the Yukon that does not involve meaningful partnerships with Yukon First Nations, and I don’t see that as being possible with the level of concern that we’ve heard about the current framework. If we want to avoid a future that is full of the court cases that have peppered the last eight years of Liberal governments and the many years of Yukon Party governments before that, then we need to have legislation that we all trust will help us move forward in a different way. So in terms of how to do it, one piece that’s been largely missing from the conversation is discussion of the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous people, or UNDRIP. That’s actually been missing a lot from our conversation about resources extraction in the Yukon overall. But Canada is committed to it. Canada is committed to implementing it. And so, if we look at how to implement it, both for traditional territories that are covered under land claim agreements and those that are not. I think that gives us a really solid blueprint to building mineral legislation that we all can trust will prevent the disasters that we’ve seen over and over.

Jon Weller, Yukon Liberal Party:

Thanks. It’s fun to go last, because I get to say that I agree on with both sides again. But I think we really do need legislation that we trust. I think it’s also really true to say that there is a lot of work that’s been done, and there is a lot there’s a lack of unanimity on what that looks like, and so doing the work to find a way forward where we all trust it and come to agreement is the is the work, and it’s unfortunate, the framework wasn’t completed before the election. It was close. But it’s a complex problem, and as Currie’s mentioned, it’s, as you can imagine, there’s not a singular perspective on what that should look like. So we’re definitely committed to working in that government to government relationship with First Nations to collaboratively rewrite the mineral legislation as well as the lands legislation, which will mean working to address concerns and find agreement. And this was something that was agreed through devolution and we are committed to getting it done. And we think that successor legislation really needs to reflect modern day treaties. It needs to protect the environment, it needs to build our communities, and needs to support a viable and responsible industry, and what some of that looks like. So the new mineral legislation should really improve the capacity for enforcement, as well as increasing or doing work on securities and royalties. And we need environmental nonprofits in the room and as well as industry there to help provide support and understanding and advising us as governments for what to do. So, yeah, I think it’s definitely a big process to go forward.