Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 8, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will now call the House to order.

We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

TRIBUTES

In recognition of Law Day

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I rise to note that today is Law Day across Canada. As most members are aware, the Canadian Bar Association has sponsored this national event since 1983 to commemorate the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As it is every year, the general theme of Law Day events is access to justice. That theme is particularly relevant this year as we mark the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Observing Law Day gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to justice and help to educate the general public about their legal rights and about the various organizations that make up the legal system.

This year, the Law Society of the Yukon has planned school visits, tours of the courthouse, a five-kilometre fun run and radio appearances by various local lawyers to discuss human rights, legal myths and restorative justice.

The Law Day charity fun run and walk will be raising funds for Crime Stoppers. This run will take place next Wednesday, April 15.

I encourage members of this House and all Yukon people to participate in the Law Day events that are being held. I also want to pay tribute to the organizers of these events for their dedication to Law Day.

Having safe, healthy communities requires that government departments, justice and law enforcement officials, women's groups, social agencies and all Yukon people work together to achieve our common goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Phillips: First of all, let me say that I applaud the efforts of the individuals who are helping to make the general public more aware of our justice system.

Today, it gives me very little pleasure to rise and acknowledge Law Day. Law Day is supposed to be a day wherein the general public learns how the legal system works. I choose my words carefully, Mr. Speaker; I call it the legal system, rather than the justice system, because Yukoners have come to learn all too well that there is very little justice in the Yukon's legal system.

Yukoners have come to learn the hard way that the legal system does not work. It's a system that costs us millions of dollars and produces little other than heartache and pain for many individuals. It's a system which seems to uphold the rights of murderers and criminals to the utmost, but tramples on the rights of the victims, and often persecutes them more by re-victimizing them. It's a system that finds everyone else to blame for a crime, other than the criminal himself.

The blind system of justice has dropped her scales, Mr. Speaker, and can't find them. There is no balance in our legal system, as recent court decisions in the Yukon have clearly shown.

Ask the family and friends of Susan Klassen if they believe justice has been done. Ask the family and friends and relatives of Maranda Peter if they believe justice has been done. I give a warning here today to all legislators, lawyers, judges and prosecutors that we are dangerously close to losing the public's confidence in the legal system, if we're not there already. Lectures from on high about how the public just doesn't understand the workings of the legal system just don't sell to the public that it's supposed to serve, Mr. Speaker.

Every law-abiding citizen in this country has an innate sense of what is right and what is wrong. When the legal system, in its decisions, offends this basic sense of fairness and decency, it's in danger of losing our confidence. Yukon's legal system, like the legal systems in every jurisdiction in this country, is in need of a major overhaul, and the time to start the overhaul is now, is today.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the time that members of this House will be able to rise in this House and pay tribute to our Law Day, a day that commemorates an effective and efficient justice system that is fair to all. It will be a day that the lady of justice will once again have her scales in hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cable: I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to pay tribute both to the 50th anniversary of the universal Declaration of Human Rights and to Law Day 1998. This year's theme for Law Day is access to justice and, in my view, it is appropriate because it draws attention to the link between human rights legislation and the ability of citizens to make use of that legislation. Much of our rights in law and our protection have been created and explored by members of the law profession incensed over the misuse of power in society, and I am sure that this contribution will continue.

Now, just for the benefit of the House, there are 204 lawyers on our Law Society's rolls, 103 of whom are Yukon residents and 61 of whom are in private practice. I'm sure that within those ranks, there are many who will keep the idealism of law school alive and will continue to act as a buttress against discrimination and other misuses of power.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Are there any statements by ministers?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Capital project funds: Dawson City and Whitehorse

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to outline a few major initiatives that clearly demonstrate our government's commitment to the future of Yukon communities. They also reflect our policy of involving people in the decisions that affect them.

Specifically, I'd like to advise members of how we are planning for community capital needs throughout the 1998-99 budget.

The cities of Dawson and Whitehorse have identified major capital projects that will provide employment and enhance the quality of community life. To help them attain their goals, our government is providing long-term financial support to these projects in these two communities that will amount collectively to $16 million.

Nine million dollars of this funding is targeted to help Dawson City meet the capital costs of a new sewage treatment facility, as required in the town's water licence. We have taken the first steps in this year's capital budget with the announcement of the first of nine annual installments of $1 million each to the Dawson capital fund.

Under the terms of its water licence, the municipality must build a secondary sewage treatment facility by January 29, 2000. According to studies undertaken by municipal officials, the proposed facility would cost approximately $8.5 million to $11 million.

The town has informed our government that it will request an extension of its current licence from the Water Board later this month. If the Water Board grants this extension, the creation of a secondary sewage facility might not be necessary.

In such a case, our government would be willing to make a portion of the capital fund available for another capital project identified as a community priority.

In determining where to make capital expenditures, the Yukon government must balance a number of factors. The first priority of the government is to ensure the protection of the environment. However, we also believe in giving the people of Dawson a choice in making major capital expenditures for their community - a choice is there, Mr. Speaker.

The town has expressed interest in a cost-sharing agreement with the Yukon government for a new community centre. The estimated cost of this centre is $9.5 million. The proposed complex would include an indoor swimming pool, hockey arena and tourist facilities, which would improve year-round recreational opportunities for Dawson residents and visitors alike.

Another example of our government's commitment to meet future challenges with funding and community-based decision making is the Canada Winter Games trust fund. With this year's budget, we will make the first $1 million installment to this $7 million fund.

The impetus from this project stems from the bid by the City of Whitehorse to host the 2007 Canada Winter Games. This exciting opportunity will create many benefits for the City of Whitehorse, and our government is prepared to help the city attain these benefits.

The funds dedicated to this project will be held in a trust account by the Canada Winter Games Host Society. This organization will be formed during this fiscal year, and will consist of representatives of the Government of Yukon, the City of Whitehorse, Sport Yukon, the Yukon Lottery Commission and the general public.

The Yukon government can specify the purposes for which the money will be used, but will not control the funding directly once it is handed over.

Interest that accumulates in the fund will be distributed by the society, along with the fund's principal.

A recent study has shown that hosting the Canada Winter Games would bring many benefits to the city, including tourism, job opportunities and long-term recreation advantages for residents and visitors through improved recreation facilities.

The government is building foundations for the future by working together with Yukon communities to help them achieve their goals and take advantage of opportunities for growth.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jenkins: On behalf of the Yukon Party and also the official opposition, I'm responding to the minister's statement today.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of ministerial statements is to announce a new initiative. This announcement is a re-announcement of an announcement that was announced over two months ago, when the Government Leader gave the budget presentation. I'm pleased, however, to have another opportunity to respond to the minister's statement regarding the Dawson and Whitehorse capital projects.

Mr. Speaker, on a positive note, we applaud this government for following through on an initiative of the previous Yukon Party government to establish a Canada Winter Games trust fund. Back in the fall of 1995, the then Minister of Community and Transportation Services, the hon. Bill Brewster, announced that he proposed to have Yukon added to the hosting cycle for the Canada Winter Games. He'd received the endorsement of provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sports and recreation, providing Yukon with an opportunity to host the Winter Games in the year 2007.

In response, an election commitment was made by the Yukon Party to establish a Canada Winter Games trust fund to assist in the planning and development needed to host the Canada Winter Games in the year 2007. As many of us know, this is a major sports and cultural event that has the potential to benefit all Yukoners in so many different ways.

It is a tremendous opportunity for Yukoners to work together as a community to showcase our northern sports, arts and culture, but to do this properly, we need a long-range planning and development strategy in the Yukon that will include all communities and all levels of government, Mr. Speaker. Not only will this event provide numerous economic opportunities to the Yukon, it will provide an excellent opportunity to develop and modernize our facilities for sports events.

I'd like to pay tribute to Mr. Brewster for starting this initiative and would like to pay thanks to the Government of the Yukon for following through with the work already completed.

The situation with respect to the capital project for Dawson is another issue all together, Mr. Speaker. We, on this side of the House, applaud the efforts of the Government of the Yukon for setting monies aside to help Dawson meet the capital costs of a new sewage treatment facility as well as the possible replacement of Dawson's faltering recreational facilities. I do hope that the government is sincere in following through with its commitments, as these projects are not expected to reach fruition for at least another decade, if not longer.

What we have here is a side-stepping of the government's responsibilities. In the event that secondary sewage treatment is mandated by the regulatory authorities for Dawson City, it will be contingent on the Government of the Yukon to fund that capital infrastructure to the same level as has been done in other areas. About 85 percent of that cost will be borne by the Government of the Yukon. That was the case in Whitehorse, Mr. Speaker, when some $19 million of the secondary sewage treatment was funded.

I'd like to remind the minister that the City of Dawson is the second-largest based community in the Yukon, population-wise. It has the only producing mine in the Yukon, it has a growing population and is in dire need of recreational facilities.

As for the minister's statement regarding the construction of a secondary sewage treatment plant, the Water Board has ruled that the City of Dawson should have one.

Dawson's concentration of all of their municipal officials, for the last several decades, has been that of improving, upgrading and installing a water and sewer system that meets the needs of its residents and the regulatory authorities. The city has required virtually all of its attention, this past while, to meet those obligations. Recreational facilities have been left to languish. This is an obligation of the Government of Yukon for this community, and it should be met.

As for the rest of the Yukon, it looks as if TROY is once again alive, but not very well. One only has to look to the Town of Watson Lake, of which the government's 1998-99 capital budget failed to include anything for the town, at a time when unemployment claims are up by some 21.1 percent from December to January alone.

Perhaps the minister could explain what he and his government intends to do to get our economy back on track and get Yukoners back to work, particularly those in rural communities, where jobs are so badly needed these days.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Yukon Liberal caucus to respond to the ministerial statement on Dawson and Whitehorse capital project funds. Mr. Speaker, recreational facilities that allow for and promote physical fitness are always good news. A fit individual is a person who takes fewer sick days, has a happier disposition, looks good and lives longer - and how can you go wrong with that?

Although there is no guarantee that the money being put aside today will go toward a recreational facility for Dawson, there is still money being put aside to address local needs.

Local decision making must always be respected and supported. If this money does eventually fund a recreation centre for Dawson City, the citizens of that town will enjoy year-round swimming, be able to develop an even better hockey team - and they're already awesome - and promote other recreational pursuits. If Dawson's hotels are going to be users of this facility, I can see this as an additional servicing of an emerging tourism market. Travellers want fitness opportunities at their destination. In Dawson, I can imagine how much a traveller who has spent all day on a long bus ride will enjoy swimming out the kinks in the new pool or taking a biathlon approach by adding a run up the Dome to add to those few laps in the pool.

Having the foresight to start putting money away to address the facility needs for the upcoming 2007 Canada Winter Games to be held here in Whitehorse is also good. All Yukoners, in particular the people of Whitehorse, will enjoy the legacy of improved recreational facilities long after the games are over.

Beyond the development of recreational facilities, we have to think about the effect the construction of these facilities will have on our economy. Construction of recreational facilities, if we hire locally, will produce many new jobs at the same time as developing a lasting infrastructure. Opportunities for public and private partnerships in the development of both these recreation facilities will ensure that dollars will circulate and grow in the private sector and in our Yukon economy.

Our caucus supports development of the local project in Dawson and the construction of appropriate recreational facilities so that we can host the 2007 Canada Games here in Whitehorse.

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Mr. Speaker, certainly I know many people over here would like to stand up and provide some rebuttal, but it is certainly indeed my pleasure to have the opportunity to do that.

I would first of all like to thank the critic from the third party for seeing the positiveness within what we're doing and working toward that positiveness with us on a Yukon basis.

As for the other rhetoric that came out, I, too, would also like to pay tribute to Bill Brewster for carrying on the fine work that Maurice Byblow certainly initiated. Much, much ado for Mr. Byblow and also for Mr. Brewster for carrying on that work.

Certainly, I just don't know what to say. I don't where to start. Certainly this government believes in involving people and will continue to involve people within our decision-making process, and certainly the government in the previous administration had the opportunity. Did they take the opportunity? Nope. Absolutely not because they're too - I don't know what they're too. Well, they're obviously over there, so I just don't know what they're up to, actually.

But what are we doing? Let's talk about the economy. Let's talk a little bit about that. The Yukon Party's last budget in the year of their administration was $300,000 for the Town of Watson Lake and this budget is over $5 million. That's positive, my friend. That's very positive.

What else are we doing? In spite of the declining revenues, we're creating jobs by putting more than $70 million back into the economy in capital spending. We're spending more than twice as much of our total budget on capital as any of the provinces and nearly four percent more than the Northwest Territories.

What are we also doing? We're protecting health services. We're protecting Education and we're doing it without increasing taxes. I don't think those folks know what that means over there. We're not imposing health care. So, we're spending less, we're spending smarter and we're building foundations for the future by involving people. Hence, example, the 2007 games building coming up. We're working with the people of Dawson. I mean, they're just good fruitful things - certainly, some things that I don't think will ever be recognized across the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: This then brings us to the Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Air traffic control tower

Mr. Jenkins: My question is for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, who also serves as our Minister of Tourism. Mr. Speaker, the minister is well-aware of the fact that if Yukon is to be successful in becoming a tourism destination, it must have an airport that can handle wide-bodied aircraft. This means that the airport must be of sufficient length and have all the facilities, services and infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of these aircraft. As the minister is also aware, many of the air charter companies we are trying to attract will not fly into uncontrolled airports. Can the minister advise the House if he is aware of this problem and if he is working hard to ensure that the Whitehorse International Airport control tower remains operational?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you very much. We are - no elaboration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Whitehorse International Airport is an economic tool very much like the Alaska Highway that can be utilized to attract tourists to the Yukon. NavCanada, however, operates purely on a cost-recovery basis, which is volume driven. NavCanada does not acknowledge or appear to care about the Yukon's successful tourism marketing initiatives. Yukon needs a strong ally in its corner, and in the past, that ally has been the Hon. Judd Buchanan, the chair of the Board of the Canadian Tourism Commission, who has the ear of the Prime Minister of Canada - one of those Liberals in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister contacted Mr. Buchanan's office seeking his support for the Yukon's case, and if not, will he do so?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there is more than contacting just one person. There are many people that we are willing to contact for this endeavour that the member opposite is talking about. The member opposite also knows that we have put $70,000 into this year's budget for the geotechnical work, and we are certainly looking to proceed with the results of the study so that we might be able to improve our airport. Certainly that is the total thrust of it.

Mr. Jenkins: Earlier this week, the minister and his department were criticized by the Yukon's main carrier, Canadian Airlines International, at the Northern Air Transportation Association annual meeting, for providing ground support equipment to service Air Transat wide-bodied aircraft. The minister knows that if he didn't provide this equipment, it is highly unlikely that these seasonal charter operators would fly to the Yukon, as it wouldn't be cost-effective.

Has the minister assured Canadian Airlines that it could use this equipment, and has he had any discussions with the manager of commercial operations about what the Yukon government can do to encourage Canadian Airlines to market Yukon tourism in the Pacific Rim countries that it flies to?

Would Canadian Airlines be prepared to bring in one of its own wide-bodied aircraft carrying Asian tourists directly to Whitehorse? Has this possibility been discussed with Canadian?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, Mr. Speaker - absolutely. The deputy minister's comments of yesterday, as reported on the radio today, were that Canadian Airlines is more than welcome to be using it. It's not for one airline. It is for the encouragement of many, many airlines that come here, and certainly the department and I are working with due diligence so that we can certainly encourage the atmosphere as it is. Certainly, that in itself should go a long way to convincing NavCan that the possible service reduction they're speaking about is definitely not warranted here in the Yukon, as we proceed to a world-class destination.

Question re: Film production, tax incentives

Mr. Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Tourism.

Just over a week ago, I attended a going away party for a highly respected Yukon civil servant. I'm speaking, of course, of Yukon's film commissioner, Patti Howlett. Ms. Howlett was a major player in putting Yukon on the film site location map with many production companies in the south. I would personally like to thank Ms. Howlett for her excellent work.

In an interview she gave to local media, she talked about the successes in the future of attracting more production companies north. Ms. Howlett pointed out that the competition is great for these productions, as they can leave millions in our locations. And we know that, from some of the companies that have come here already. Most other jurisdictions are now offering tax incentives to these production companies, to entice them into their area, and it's a common question that Ms. Howlett received at the trade shows.

So, I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: is this government prepared to make the necessary changes to any legislation - and any changes we have to make to our tax system - so that we can offer similar incentives to these film site production companies, so that we can compete with our competitors in the south?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I was not able to make the going away party for Ms. Howlett. It's unfortunate that I wasn't there, but I certainly would also like to take the time and opportunity right now to applaud the fine work that was done by her.

Yes, many different areas and provinces in Canada have different options. I have taken it up with the Finance minister and we certainly intend to explore initiatives of other provinces and consider options for the future. So, yes, we are working toward that end now.

Mr. Phillips: Since the minister has taken it up with the Finance minister, can he tell this House today what kind of tax incentives other jurisdictions are using and what we are suggesting that we use in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, there are other examples from Alberta right through to the "movie of the week" television type of productions that are done across Canada. Certainly, there are many options. As I have said, I'm working with the Finance department to look at all options, of which the tax incentive is one, but there might be others. We are certainly looking at it in that manner and in that light.

Mr. Phillips: I didn't really get an answer to my question. Is the minister telling us that all he did was meet with the Finance minister and say, "Look at some options"? Did he provide the Finance minister with some ideas, as I would have thought the Tourism department would have done - some suggested ideas with respect to tax incentives, as other jurisdictions do.

What exactly did he present to the Finance minister? Was it just a casual conversation, discussing that we might do it?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Keenan: Yes, exactly. A four-year tenure and nothing was done. Certainly, this government is moving. Whether I meet with the Finance minister on a casual basis or a formal basis is not the point here. What is the point is that we are going out and doing something that should have been done long ago. We are intending to explore the initiatives of the other provinces and consider the options. Certainly we have provided information and an exchange of information and ideas.

Certainly, I think the Member for Riverdale North should take comfort in the fact that we are moving in that direction and looking at the different options.

Question re: Kwanlin Dun aboriginal justice program

Mr. Cable: I have some questions for the Minister of Justice on the funding arrangement for the Kwanlin Dun aboriginal justice program. On the radio this morning, representatives of the Kwanlin Dun were complaining about the Yukon government cuts leaving their aboriginal justice program high and dry. Yet on the noon news, I understood the minister to say the deal to fund the program was in place.

Just to clear the air and the confusion, would the minister tell the House whether there is, in fact, a deal, and whether she's prepared to provide a copy to us by legislative return?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The answer I would give to the member is something that he may have heard as well when he was listening to the news earlier today. The Yukon government has been, and remains, supportive of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation community justice project. The Yukon government has also informed the leadership of Kwanlin Dun First Nation that we are not only funding Kwanlin Dun for the 1997-98 program, but that we will fund them for 1998-99.

Mr. Cable: I'll take it, then, that the minister's saying there is, in fact, a deal.

Now, on a related issue, Mr. Speaker, it appears that a gag order was placed on the Justice department staff. According to the media, they were told - this is the Justice department staff were told - they aren't allowed to speak to the media on the issue.

The minister's staff has spoken to the media before on various issues. Could the minister tell us why the gag order and how this sits with the NDP's platform of open and accountable government?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: There was, in fact, no gag order. The member is misinformed. Officials in the Department of Justice have not at any time been instructed to refuse to answer questions from the media.

Mr. Cable: The media report is erroneous, I take it, then? We will report this back to the media.

Now, this program money was originally requested before last Christmas, and the government took until now to make up its mind, and the people had to be laid off because of lack of action by the minister. Now that the decision has finally been made - and I take it from the minister's comments that it has in fact been made - would the minister tell the House when the money will actually be flowing so the people can get back to work on this very worthwhile program?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, the member's facts, as outlined in his preamble, are simply wrong. The Department of Justice has had an ongoing commitment and has had ongoing discussions with Kwanlin Dun to confirm that their 1997-98 contribution for the community justice program was forthcoming and that the Yukon government will continue to fund the Kwanlin Dun First Nation community justice project in 1998-99.

The cheque for the 1997-98 program will be cut today and discussions to finalize the arrangements for 1998 have not been signed, but the Yukon government confirmed on March 30 that it will match the federal government contribution.

Under the aboriginal justice strategy, the Yukon Department of Justice is contributing $60,000 toward the Kwanlin Dun First Nation community justice project. Health and Social Services are prepared to second a youth probation worker, with a value of $70,000, to fulfill the commitment to match the approved federal funding.

In all, there will be $115,000 available from the aboriginal justice secretariat and $115,000 in direct funding and equivalent services from the Yukon government to support Kwanlin Dun's community-based restorative justice project.

Kwanlin Dun was formally advised of that fact on March 30. There was no need for them to lay off their staff, and officials in my department were not advised that Kwanlin Dun would be closing their offices.

Question re: Regulation updates, professional acts

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. The Family Violence Prevention Act was passed last December, four months ago. It was my understanding that the regulations on this act would be developed over the course of one year. I have spoken with quite a few organizations now that have heard nothing from the department about the consultations on these regulations. There are only eight months left in the year, and consultation during the summer months is a difficult process because of staff shortages. Could the minister update this House on the progress of that consultative process?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: I'm very happy to update the members of the House and the public about progress on the implementation of the Family Violence Prevention Act. An implementation advisory committee has been struck to form the process of developing regulations. The membership of that committee includes representation from the RCMP, the Yukon Indian Women's Association, the Watson Lake shelter, the Carmacks safe home, the Dawson shelter, two representatives from Kaushee's Place, a representative nominated by the Yukon Status of Women Council, the Canadian Bar Association family law subsection, as well as representatives from the family violence prevention unit, the Department of Justice and the Women's Directorate.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, I still haven't heard about the plan for consultation, although it's a very interesting committee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been corresponding with the Minister of Health about the progress of the review of the Yukon Mental Health Act. Now, it is my understanding that this review includes some internal changes as well as some proposed amendments.

Can the minister update this House on the progress of those internal procedural changes as well as the proposed legislative amendments, and will they be coming forward in the fall?

Hon. Ms. Moorcroft: The member's supplementary seems to be a new question for the Minister of Health and Social Services, and I would encourage the member to pursue that line of questioning with the Minister of Health as a new question.

However, since in her preamble the member made some comments about not feeling that the Family Violence Prevention Act implementation was proceeding properly, I wanted to provide her with some further information on that.

In response to a keen interest on the part of the Yukon public to be involved in the Family Violence Prevention Act implementation, we have struck a committee. I just gave the member details about who was on that committee.

It did take some time to finalize the membership because a number of the groups that are represented took some time to respond to the letters that were sent out to them after the fall legislative session.

The consultation document was distributed in the early fall of 1997. The committee has now been struck and the implementation plan will proceed with the advice of the implementation committee.

Mrs. Edelman: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting, because when I ask about health legislation like the Pharmacists Act, I am told to speak to the Justice minister. When I ask about consultation, I'm supposed to talk to the Health minister, yet nobody seems to be taking a coordinating role on this type of legislation, one way or another. I've still heard nothing about the Mental Health Act and whoever is doing any sort of consultation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, during the fall sitting last year, the Health minister stated that he was reviewing a number of professional acts. Can the minister indicate whether she or the Minister of Health and Social Services will be conducting consultations on changes to the Nursing Professions Act or the Pharmacists Act in the next year?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'll try to weave my way through the labyrinth here.

First of all, I think we've got a couple of issues going on here. The professional acts, which we do work with - we consult with our friends in Justice - fall really into the realm of Justice for questions such as drafting and things of that nature.

With regard to reviewing the Mental Health Act review, we have undertaken some preliminary steps for the review of the Mental Health Act. We've identified issues, as expressed by key stakeholders, and we've also identified some, but by no means all, of the problems that would require legislative change.

We have worked with the support of the chair of the Mental Health Review Board to undertake some research in identifying clinical, legal and procedural issues that have arisen. We will also be looking at what kinds of legislative amendments and reforms would be needed, such as procedural change, professional development, et cetera.

Any amendments that we would undertake with the Mental Health Act would be undertaken in parallel with some other issues that I've mentioned here before, such as adult guardianship and supported decision making. I think I've indicated before that we are trying to wrap these all together. I don't know if that has addressed all the issues the member has brought up, but if she has further questions in that regard, we can certainly try to address them.

Question re: Drug abuse in the Yukon

Mr. Jenkins: I'm following up with the Minister of Health and Social Services on the same topic that I raised in this House earlier this week - alcohol abuse and drug addiction.

There are also major problems in the non-native community. The minister, in closing down Crossroads after some 26 years of service, gave, as one of his reasons, that Crossroads wasn't culturally sensitive to First Nations and that his department's funding of wilderness camps for both First Nation youth and adults is intended to address this concern.

My question to the minister is what programs and facilities is the minister going to be making available in rural Yukon communities to address the needs of non-native Yukoners suffering from alcohol and drug abuse? First Nation healing camps wouldn't be appropriate for these people, so what is the minister going to be providing in this area?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: First of all, I think I would like to refute an allegation - the statement the member made - when he said that First Nation healing camps would not be appropriate for individuals. I think anyone who is struggling with personal addiction issues could benefit from an appropriate placement. Certainly, in the discussions that I have had with some of the First Nations who have proposed this, none of them have suggested that it should be for First Nation members only. As a matter of fact, a couple of them have suggested that they would be more than amenable to, and in fact would encourage, all people of all backgrounds to take advantage of such a situation. So, first of all, that needs to be refuted.

With regard to the kinds of programs that we are providing, one of the advantages that we see with this particular alcohol and drug program that we're proposing is that it has a measure of portability, that it can be taken into communities, that the training - because it's not necessarily a residentially based program - can be taken out to communities, and we have already taken it into, for example, Kwanlin Dun, and we could take it to other communities that request it. As a matter of fact, I believe that a couple of communities are scheduled for this.

Mr. Jenkins: The minister stood up and refuted my suggestion that there might be difficulties with non-First Nations people attending the wilderness camps. He can't have it both ways. The First Nations were reluctant to attend Crossroads because it wasn't culturally sensitive, and there's going to be the same situation on the other hand, with individuals going to attend First Nations healing camps. There are going to be difficulties there.

The minister is just totally ignoring this area. Let's just explore with the minister how many staff are going to be providing the alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs in Whitehorse that were previously provided by the Crossroads treatment centre? What is going to be the cost of the staffing?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I thought I went over this in some considerable detail before, and certainly when we get into Health and Social Services, I can give the member more detail. Basically we're running our current programs with two counsellors. There is additional support staff in it, but we are able to offer that program with our two counsellors.

So I don't have any concerns that we have an issue of adequate staffing. I think we have the ability to do that, but what I do take serious exception to is the member's contention of trying to drive a wedge between people, people who suffer from personal problems, and the suggestion that one group of people can only be responded to in one way, and another group has to be responded to in another way.

When we said that we looked at some of the concerns around Crossroads, those were reflections of what we were hearing from First Nations people. First Nations people told us about the question of coming into town, of leaving support networks at home, and of moving into a treatment program that had a particular kind of philosophical base. Those were real difficulties for them.

We've tried to create a program which is able to respond to all groups, and not merely by issues surrounding race, but also groups with age concerns, groups that have gender concerns. So, I think what we're trying to do is be more responsive across the board. Quite frankly, I think the member - as does everyone, First Nation or non-First Nation - a serious disservice when he makes those kinds of allegations.

Mr. Jenkins: But, Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who is driving the wedge, setting up two distinctly different systems. That's what's driving the wedge. What we need is to treat the problem, and the problem is growing, and it's alarming in its growth. When we look at the minister's initial statement after Crossroads was shut down by his department, he was going to save some $100,000 a year. That is yet to be proven.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the minister doesn't have a handle whatsoever on Yukon's alcohol and drug treatment program in relation to what is going to be provided to Yukon's First Nations and what is going to be provided to non-native Yukoners, and the services that are going to be provided here in Whitehorse and in rural Yukon. We've got a mesh of four or five different situations, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister is going to do all the things he claims he is going to do, the alcohol and drug service budget would have to be increased by several millions of dollars, rather than having it reduced. How does the minister account for this financial discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: First of all, that member, the Member for Klondike, I think, Mr. Speaker, is making some fairly absurd allegations. Yesterday, he began trying to do some extrapolation from wilderness treatment camps for youth onto the concept of First Nations healing camps. First of all, he didn't even have his facts right. There are five First Nation healing camps. His facts are so weak, they are so faulty, that I can't begin to know where to start.

What I can say is that he makes a - he's beginning with the assumption that we are going to take on the funding of all First Nation healing camps. We never said that. We said what we were willing to do would be to enter into partnerships with our First Nation citizens and our First Nation communities in trying to support some of these First Nation healing camps. We are not suggesting that we take on the full funding of these, nor has it even been suggested by the First Nation communities that we take on full funding of these.

What we have said is that we are interested in working with them, we are interested in finding programs that are appropriate for all citizens that people can access. And we are interested in trying to work out an arrangement, likely through a per diem system.

But for us to suggest that we would take on all the First Nations is absolutely absurd. The member knows it. He doesn't have his facts right, and I do wish he would do some homework.

Question re: Taylor House, occupancy

Ms. Duncan: My question is for the Minister of Government Services and it concerns the empty Taylor House.

Mr. Speaker, about this time last year, the government purchased this building with much fanfare. In questions put to the minister last fall, he said he hoped to have a group occupying the building by early spring. Well, it certainly looks like early spring to me. However, when I drove by the Taylor House, it didn't look occupied.

Could the minister tell this House if or when a group is moving into the Taylor House?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I'm delighted to respond to that question. If the member did more than perhaps drive by - as a matter of fact I could arrange for her to take a tour - she'll see that there's a considerable amount of work that has been done in terms of restoration. I was over there I believe just a bit over a week ago with not one but two groups that are interested in going in there.

As a matter of fact, the one group that has expressed, very recently, an interest in going in there with a great deal of ardor is the -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Sloan: No, as a matter of fact the Member for Riverdale North is wrong. It is not the Girl Guides. It is in fact the Arctic Winter Games organizing committee, an organizing team for the forthcoming games in Whitehorse.

We had a tour. We showed them the facility. We showed them what was in place, what needed yet to be done. We talked about their space requirements and, following that, they had some subsequent discussions with the group that had identified itself as wanting to go in there to see about the idea of shared facilities, shared arrangements and things like that.

There are some very positive discussions going on. I'm encouraging both groups to see if there are ways that we can partner on this to maximize the usage of the building.

I, for example, would be very supportive of the Arctic Winter Games going in. I think it would be a good opportunity for them to find a facility.

So we are proceeding with this, and I'm quite enthused about the use of heritage buildings. That's something I feel very strongly about - the idea that we can maximize our use of heritage buildings.

As a matter of fact, I believe next Tuesday or Wednesday, the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce is having a person speak on how to utilize heritage buildings in a maximum way, and I would encourage the member to join me there.

Ms. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, if I'm not mistaken, I not only heard the minister offer me a tour but lunch as well. So, I'll consider it.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan: On his nickel, yes.

The minister has just very appropriately mentioned the use of heritage buildings and a forthcoming speaker at the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce monthly luncheon. Can the minister tell this House if he has given any consideration to, or made any plans for, the Mast House, which has been in the news of late?

It now appears that that heritage building is going to be destroyed. Does the Government of the Yukon have any plans to purchase the Mast House?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: To be very frank, no, we have not been approached, and I don't think I would be the appropriate person to approach in that regard. What I was charged with was the responsibility - I'm not the Minister of Heritage, by the way - of trying to undertake the renovations of the building and finding appropriate tenants for the building. So, at this point, no, I have no knowledge of the Mast House.

Ms. Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the obvious question is, of course, why the Taylor House and why not the Mast House? However, I'll leave that to another day and ask the minister another question.

He's repeatedly mentioned renovations to bring the Taylor House up to code. Would the minister indicate the cost of those renovations, how much has been spent to date and what's the estimate to finish the work?

Hon. Mr. Sloan: I can get the information back to the member in more detail, particularly as we move into Government Services, but I believe that at one point the overall estimate was around $180,000. Subsequent to that, we've discovered that there is some log work, particularly around the base.

The building has a rather unfortunate configuration on the site. The drainage has actually been into the building. The water has been flowing in there, so we may have a bit more to do on that.

However, just with regard to the Mast House, and I think there's an interesting point. The reason we intervened, in particular, with the Taylor House was because at the time the City of Whitehorse did not have anything in place in terms of heritage bylaws to designate a property and to take any steps toward the preservation and raising public awareness.

So, the City of Whitehorse heritage advisory committee had been established to advise the city on the designation of such issues, and we acted, quite frankly, because the previous government had been so derelict in its duty on enacting the legislation which would provide the ability of the city to take such steps. So, what had happened was - and if I could just cut to the chase here - the previous government had been very, very derelict in enacting this legislation and it really fell on us, because they had been so slow in it, to take a step to save this important historical building.

Some Hon. Member: Point of order.

Point of order

Speaker: Point of order has been called. Member for Riverdale North.

Mr. Phillips: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, when he mentions the previous government, I understand he's talking about the previous NDP government, who failed to take the heritage legislation across the street in two weeks when they were in government.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, brought the legislation forward and passed it in this House, so it could be enacted by the City of Whitehorse. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: Member for Faro, on the point of order.

Hon. Mr. Harding: Actually, no. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the member's talking about the Yukon Party government, which failed, in a very derelict way, to bring forward the Historic Resources Act after four years, and forced us to step in to save the Taylor House.

Speaker's ruling

Speaker: There is no point of order. The member can continue.

Hon. Mr. Sloan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague has pointed out, it didn't take us four years to cross the road, as it did the previous government.

However, what I can say is that we did act because there was the necessity to save an important building, an important element of the Yukon's heritage. We're pleased that we did. The public response has been very good and what, I think, has been particularly encouraging to me has been the desire of community groups to go into the Taylor House. I think that reflects very well on the importance that people attach to heritage in this territory.

In particular, I would like to say that I'm very pleased to be able to bring this project to fruition in the heritage year - the 1998 year. That's something I find very personally rewarding.

Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Clerk: Motion No. 116, standing in the name of Ms. Duncan.

Motion No. 116

Speaker: It is moved by the leader of the third party

THAT this House recognizes that governments everywhere are seeking innovative ways to finance public projects; and

THAT this House strongly recommends that the Government of Yukon actively review the public-private partnership model used extensively throughout Canada for the development of such projects throughout Yukon.

Ms. Duncan: It is a real pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion put forward by me and our party and our caucus regarding the investigation by the Government of Yukon of the public-private partnership model.

Many of us come to this House from a background of service on volunteer boards or professional organizations and, in those models, members of the boards or organizations discuss and evaluate ideas, fine-tune them, explore options, and they end up ultimately reaching the right decision for their particular organization and for Yukoners as a whole.

Although many of us come from a background of arriving at decisions made in this manner, it's not the way, we have discovered, somewhat to our disappointment, in this House that decisions are arrived at. Unfortunately, we aren't all in the room when decisions are made that affect the lives of everyday Yukoners and, in my short experience in this House, I haven't seen many amendments to programs go through - a few but not many.

No, the real opportunity for us as members to discuss good ideas is motion day, and I welcome the opportunity to have a thorough, frank discussion of what I believe is an idea that has merit and is worthy of exploration and discussion - the public-private partnership model.

Burdened by increasing debt levels and rising requests, governments around the globe are focusing on new ways to efficiently deliver services and build and finance infrastructure. Public-private partnerships bring together the strength of both the public and the private sectors.

They are innovative tools of public policy. In addition to maximizing efficiencies and innovations of private enterprise, public-private partnerships can provide much needed capital to finance government programs and projects of a commercial nature, thereby freeing public funds for core economic and social programs.

Public and private interests have already worked together in many cases in Canada to bring us new and important infrastructure development critical to maintaining Canada's competitiveness. The link between the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island over Northumberland Strait is a perfect example.

Many new projects are expected to be developed in the near future on a partnership basis, including the development of important highways in Canada. Municipal governments are looking closely at cooperative projects with the private sector in areas ranging from municipal recycling to water and waste-water projects.

Public-private partnerships are not entirely new. What is new, however, are the creative ways they are being used by all levels of government and even between levels of government. In short, a minor revolution is occurring.

Public-private partnerships can work in the provision of services, financing and development of infrastructure and administration of government.

The re-thinking of the role of government has also been at the root of the concept of public-private partnerships.

The traditional role of government has been under attack from both the far right, which would promote the downsizing of government, and from the far left, which would promote the increased participation of citizens in their own governance.

From a less ideological perspective, there has been general public pressure for a more efficient government and cost-effective use of taxpayers' money. The public-private partnership, as a mechanism, which, at its best, taps into the unique strengths of the public and private sector, has a potential to address at least some of these concerns.

The private sector is viewed as being more flexible and responsible than the slow-moving governments, a characteristic necessary in a rapidly changing world. On the other hand, it's not clear that all individuals are, in fact, empowered through the marketplace. Government must continue to participate to ensure that services are accessible for all citizens.

What is the public-private partnership model? Well, there has always been some measure of interaction and cooperation between the private sector and government. In the past, government has often provided low interest loans or grants to the private sector, often with the aim of increasing employment.

What is it that differentiates public-private partnerships from these more traditional arrangements? Discussion about public-private partnerships is an area where practice has actually preceded the theory. Consequently, the idea of partnerships has been very loosely defined and can mean different things to different people. It's a word we often hear used in this House and see examples every day of partnerships meaning different things to different people.

In one respect, a loose definition is an asset, since it allows for the full range of creative solutions to a number of problems; however, to undertake any sort of study of public-private partnerships, and to outline the model further, I think it's important that we lay out in our discussion today some basic guidelines.

A partnership is an arrangement in which two or more parties agree to work cooperatively toward a mutual goal that the partners, acting on their own, would be unable to attain. Now, that arrangement can be formalized through legal agreements or memorandums of understanding; however, there doesn't have to be a formalized agreement. It's not a fundamental requirement to moving forward.

Implied in the agreement to work cooperatively is the requirement that all parties be involved, to some degree, in the planning phase of the partnership.

Thirdly, there's a shared commitment of the partners to the mutual goal. This commitment usually manifests itself in the commitment of cash or in-kind resources, such as human capital, information, equipment or physical facilities. As a side-bar to the shared commitment, there's an element of shared risk as well among the partners for the planned result. This might entail the sharing of the financial and the technical risks or the liability.

True partnerships offer mutual benefit to all partners. Public-private partnerships require the additional dimension that they be involved in the delivery of a public good or service.

There are some 20-odd pages that list a variety of public-private partnerships, which are - well, not exhaustive, as this is a growing field - certainly worthy of exploration and discussion.

For example, in Canada, there is the Arctic ice project, which trains Russians in the design of ice and meteorological GIS. There's a broad-band applications lab, for those interested in the communication field, which is testing new broad-band applications. There's a public-private partnership to create a national communication structure. There are partnerships to conduct research to develop Canada's mineral and energy resources, and there is Canadian Coals, a public-private partnership to conduct research on Canadian coal.

Many Yukoners and individuals in this House will be familiar with the Canadian student loans program. There are charter schools, and there are computers for schools, wherein used government computers are donated to a variety of schools.

There are many, many examples, and it's a growing list.

One of the points that I would like to outline for members this afternoon is the best of what public-private partnerships demonstrate and what they have to offer.

Successful public-private partnerships are built on a firm understanding and mutual benefits. They work best when government and the private sector relate to each other on a business-to-business level where there are mutually recognized benefits for all parties.

The public sector cannot expect the private, for-profit, sector to act out of some altruistic motivation. In fact, the private sector is faced with the same need to exercise fiscal restraint as is the public sector. Neither can government compel the private sector to become a partner by means of legislation, because true partnerships are voluntary relationships. All parties must recognize that these arrangements serve their own interests.

It's not enough to acknowledge that one's self-interest is served by a partnership. Without the belief that the partnership serves a vital need, the partnership will fail. All partners must be sincerely committed to the success of the initiative. In other words, partners must be stakeholders, not merely shareholders.

Public-private partnerships can create efficiencies which are beneficial for both government and the private sector. Besides creating efficiencies in the use of budgets, the different capacities which public and private organizations bring to a partnership promote other kinds of efficiencies. The public partner has a unique legislative and planning capacity, which may save the private sector wasted effort in the formulation of proposals for infrastructure development, urban renewal and housing. On the other hand, the private sector may be able to access capital which, because of the regulation of public borrowing, is unavailable to government.

By involving a private sector partner, government may be able to circumvent the inertia of large institutions which interferes with the rapid delivery of goods and services by the public sector.

It's interesting to note that many American states have made use of such arrangements in order to respond quickly to various situations and needs within their communities.

Public-private partnerships can be an appropriate response to a short-term crisis. Because of this potential of public-private partnerships to respond quickly to perceived needs, these arrangements can be an appropriate response to short-term crisis. In fact, when a crisis in service delivery threatens the interest of the private sector, it may itself initiate a formation of public-private partnerships.

I have an American example. The Michigan Chemical Council worked together with the state's Department of Natural Resources to address the backlog of applications for air permits, which was interfering with the flexibility of business and industry.

In cases where the crisis less clearly reflects private sector interests, the public sector can access the flexibility of the private sector through the contracting out of services.

It's important to our discussion today to note that public-private partnerships can be initiated in every sphere of government activity. Conventional types of public-private partnerships may be initiated in service delivery areas where the private sector has traditionally had little involvement - schools and education are one example - and completely new types of relationships are possible.

Traditional types of billed, operate, transfer and other partnerships have been initiated in areas of government activity where typically the private sector has not played a role.

Even more interesting is the evolution of new types of relationships with the private sector. Some of these, I noted in the growing list of partnerships in Canada.

Public-private partnerships need not be confined to conventional relationships. Governments can partner with both for-profit and non-profit organizations - and we've seen examples of this in the Yukon as we go through our budget debate.

Many non-profit organizations share compatible objectives and goals with government. Because the involvement of these organizations is determined by the project goal rather than the "bottom line" considerations, partnerships with the non-profit organizations may be particularly critical in supporting the delivery of services that are not inherently profitable.

Non-profit organizations have access to considerable financial and human resources and may be able to channel the considerable energy of volunteers toward the project.

Non-profit organizations can build general support for these projects among their constituencies, thus lending a special legitimacy to these efforts.

Of course, non-profit organizations can serve as the bridge between public sector and the private, for-profit sector.

Another important point that we are learning from this model is coalition building. It seems a critical step in the formation of public-private partnerships. When we move beyond a discussion of public-private partnerships in infrastructure to one concerning the use of public-private partnerships in the delivery of social services, we move away from the discussion of partnerships in purely economic terms, such as leveraging funds, or sharing risk, to focus on the process itself and the importance of real participation in decision making.

Coalitions are one means by which the relationship with service users can be transformed from one in which they are passively cared or provided for, to one in which they can actively participate in designing the services.

Successful public-private partnerships make explicit the mutual goals of the partners. An initial step in the formation of successful public-private partnerships is the clarification of mutual goals and unity of purpose. The process may be as simple as negotiating and signing a memorandum of understanding, as I noted in the beginning of my remarks, or as complex as initiating a visioning process by which all stakeholders reach a consensus.

Government can play a catalytic role in the formation of partnerships.

As a catalyst, government can facilitate the formation of partnerships among other organizations without becoming directly involved in their specific activities. This catalytic role can take many forms of financial or legislative inducements to encourage others to seek out innovative partnerships. There is an example in Alaska of the allocation of community development quotas to local communities, which provided an incentive for commercial fisheries to partner with communities.

In another case, by assuming some of the risk involved in setting up a trade office through granting an interest-free loan, Industry and Science Canada enabled 12 Canadian environmental engineering firms to create a partnership to promote their services to our neighbours to the south.

Another important lesson we've learned from the models and from the examples to date is that, with the increased participation from the private sector in the provision of public goods and services, government then defines its own niche. This evolution of public-private partnerships can be seen as part of a current process to redefine the role of government. Partnerships allow government to do what it does best. The challenge for government is to determine just what it does do best and where government activity is both legitimate and necessary. Defining its special niche within public-private partnerships is one of the important tasks.

The very best public-private partnerships are proactive and innovative. There are a number of examples specific to one of my critic areas, namely education, that have been used in other provinces and perhaps, in my closing remarks today, I could elaborate further on that.

The point that I wanted to make this afternoon, and that I wanted to emphasize to all members, is that it is possible to adopt this model for use in the Yukon.

The opportunity and, I sense, in some quarters, a desire exists to make public-private partnerships work, and by this motion, our caucus wanted to express to the government our strong desire to thoroughly review the public-private partnership model, to examine its effectiveness for Yukon, and to hopefully challenge all Yukoners to seriously consider these ideas and how they might work within the organizations that we volunteer for or are employed by or work with.

The fundamental question is this: can and should the private sector be involved in the delivery of public goods and services? We believe that the answer is yes. It should not be involved merely as a contractor or as a source of capital. The involvement of the private sector does not negate the important role of government in the delivery of services. What there is is a need for comprehensive programs to which all partners can contribute their strengths, and that has to be the key goal of any partnership - to create a whole greater than the sum of its individual actions and decisions. Public-private partnerships can provide a bridge of trust that is based on similar goals but allows for differences in roles.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this model, and I look forward to hearing what examples other members have researched and what ideas they have on how this model might be used in the Yukon. I look forward to a positive and constructive discussion on this model.

I will leave my remarks at that point, Mr. Speaker, and invite others to share their thoughts on this subject, and I look forward to the debate this afternoon.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Harding: I'm pleased today to speak to the motion put before us. We, in this government, are prepared to support the notion of investigating so-called public-private sector partnerships. We would never want, as a government, to send the signal that we are not prepared to fully analyze ideas that are put forward from other jurisdictions or within the Yukon.

Having said that, I want to say that the idea behind so-called public-private sector partnerships is one that has been around in an ever-increasing fashion over the last few years as governments have had to make political statements and take practical actions to deal with debts and deficit. That has become a preoccupation in the country. Governments of all stripes have had to deal with it.

However, with that particular direction has come no limitation on the number of requests that are made to governments for infrastructure, for schools, hospitals, roads - all the things that cost money - and for jails. These types of requests have not subsided. In fact, in the Yukon, I would say that they are on the increase, particularly from the Liberal and Yukon Party opposition benches.

We struggle with that, because we said to Yukoners that we are going to be a pay-as-you-go government. That means that we pay as we go. That means that we maintain a steady level of an accumulated surplus bank account and we spend at a sustainable level. That means that there will be times that we have current-year deficits, but, at least in the main estimates, normally at the end of the year, they become a surplus as a result of lapsed funding.

We sometimes budget current year deficits in order to facilitate those expenditures that we need to make in the territory but also to keep a bank account so that the Yukon does not have an accumulated debt. That is a goal that we've stated to the public of the Yukon and we have kept it in our last two budgets. Our main estimates have tabled surpluses or bank accounts of $15 million. We intend to continue on in that vein.

The other fundamental commitment we made was that we were not going to initiate any tax rate increases in this term. We have managed to accomplish that in our last two budgets and we intend to continue on.

So we have a revenue problem and that certainly makes things more challenging. As well, the loss of the Faro mine, although it's not a tax issue as it pertains to revenue, because of the perversity factor and how we're funded, it is a revenue issue in many other ways as it does have a negative impact overall on the ability of the Government of the Yukon to generate monies to spend and invest in Yukon.

So, we have many challenges and there have been many, many requests for funding around the territory, and it has been a difficult juggling act to prioritize these requests. But in the context of tough times, with the loss of the Faro mine and a downturn worldwide in the mining industry and nothing like the Shakwak this year or the hospital to fill in the slack, we have been steadfast in our resolve to continue to keep our commitment to Yukoners to be "pay as we go". There's tremendous pressure on government to succumb to the charming buzzwords or catch-phrases that are often put around an issue that, in many eyes, has been known as a creative way to explain debt financing, a creative way to hide debt financing by governments.

I'll give you an example. In the last provincial election in Nova Scotia just recently, the premier of the province, the Liberal premier, promised 31 schools would be built over the next couple of years through so-called public-private partnerships.

This will be done without adding one penny of accumulated debt to the Nova Scotia budget. That's half true, because there would have been money put forward by the private sector to build schools. They would have built them. The government was prepared to enter into very long-term leases and the students would have used them and it wouldn't have been debt, per supplementary estimate.

However, there is a price to pay. There is a lease every year that has to be paid on 31 schools. There is the cost of borrowing to the private sector - which is usually done at a higher level than the government can get money - which has to be paid. There is the reality that at the end of the projects, in many cases, the actual assets, when the lease is finished, does even revert back to the public sector. It is in the hands of the private sector, so no longer do you own the asset at the end of the day; it's not in public hands. That, in this case, raised a lot of questions in Nova Scotia in the minds of Nova Scotians.

They were making a decision for 31 schools four days before an election campaign to essentially limit the choices of the next generation because the next generation or the next two or three governments would end up having - before they even started their budgeting process - to carve out their lease payments plus the costs of that borrowing to whomever the private sector owners are before they even begin to make their budgetary decisions.

So, there is a cost, and that means fewer choices for future governments and future generations. That has to be considered when people talk about public-private partnerships.

The second, and I think a very salient point is, if you're talking about true public-private sector partnerships, then I think, and I fundamentally believe, that the private sector must share a portion of the risk. Now, in many of the models that I have seen proposed, that is not the case.

The monies borrowed by the private sector - there's a guarantee given, usually with a profit factored in in some way for the private sector. The risk sometimes is that they will give a contract price for whatever the item is to be built, and that's it - that's their risk.

Now, in discussions I've had with some people in the private sector, I've heard things like, "Well, you can't expect the private sector to take much risk, because government establishes policy, and they don't have any control over that." I say that that's not correct. Government does establish policy. The people have a lot of say in the policy development, but a second, more important point is that governments fall victim to the same financial implications of world-wide market forces that a business does.

If you look at the fallout of Bre-X and its impact on exploration in Canada, if you look at the impact of the Asian market crisis on the royalties that governments receive from, say, oil and gas, if you look at what they've received in forestry as a result of this, they too are impacted and suffer from risks that they have no control over, or very little control over.

So I think there must be, in terms of principle, a genuine shared risk. Access to capital for government is not an issue. The government could run out tomorrow and borrow, probably in this jurisdiction, $100 million - no problem. There'd be any number of people prepared to lend that money.

This government, if they wanted to take an easy route, could probably put everybody to work - every carpenter, every person working for any major contractors - this summer, if we wanted to. However, the bill for that work would be due for a very, very, very long time to come, and it would mean fewer choices when you sat down the following year - or for many years to come - to carve out the budget and deal with the request for health care, for education, for social services, for highway maintenance - all those things we deal with. There'd be these huge chunks carved out for payments for this infrastructure or roads or schools, or whatever the case may be, that was put forward through this public-private sector partnership.

Any way you slice it, you are spending money today that has a bill to pay later. It doesn't show up like the traditional methods of going out, as government has done in the past, and getting debentures or issuing bonds - all of those things that have allowed them to deficit finance. But it does still come with a price, whether it's in the form of a lease or some other payment option.

The other thing that makes some people nervous about public-private sector partnerships, as they are often called, is when other elements are put in. I remember the Liberal Party, in the last election campaign in the Yukon, talked about just such a thing with the Dawson bridge, where they would have a toll booth on the bridge. Somehow, this was to self-finance this $20 million or $25 million in debt that would have been borrowed to pay for the infrastructure. Well, there are a couple of issues there. First of all, the level of traffic would have had to have been immense to generate those kinds of revenues. Or, the other option would have been that the toll would have had to have been immense to generate those kinds of revenues.

If you talk to companies that have to pay that toll, they are not all that in favour of those kinds of fees. I don't want to get too specific, but I have talked to some companies about some elements of so-called public-private sector partnerships in this territory that make the companies who see themselves at the end of the toll booth having to utilize the result of this so-called public-private sector partnership and the infrastructure. I have heard them express grave concerns that they, as the end user, will be expected to provide the funding for the infrastructure, and that governments will target them unnecessarily. So, we have to be very careful about that.

One of the major concerns that I also have, when we consider this idea, is how we deal with the question of levels of expectation.

You take the Liberal commitment on the Dawson bridge. You break away as a government in the Yukon from the notion of paying as we go. Money is put up by somebody - it doesn't matter by whom. It's really not that different whether it's the private sector or a bank. It's just finding money through one vehicle or another. That private sector proponent is going to want to make a profit; a bank is going to want to make a return. What you have, in fact, is the money has been procured one way or another, or has been made available; the project is built; one way or another - either government through leasing, or the private sector through use, or government through fees or some way or another - pay it back over time.

The problem is that once you have ascertained a level of expectation for Yukoners that you've established can be met, that becomes somewhat entrenched in the minds of Yukoners. There's a level of limitation as to the request. You break that principle for one project - say the Dawson bridge, in the case of the Liberal election commitment - what happens to all the other projects that people can come up with, because there can be an extremely vociferous debate in the Yukon about what is the priority for this public-private partnership.

There are all kinds of ideas, and I'm sure that if you were to enter down that path, you would have a tough time checking those demands, and there would be campaigns organized by the different proponents to support their particular idea of what the future infrastructure of the Yukon should look like, or who needs a particular school, or whether there should be a new jail built, or all of those various things that have been dealt with in this territory, as ideas that need to be looked at in the minds of many.

So, where do we find the private sector taking the risk? To me, that's the antithesis of the debate.

I think we should look at private-public sector partnerships, but I want to know what the true risk is that the private sector will bear. I have yet to see too many proposals that indicate that level of shared risk with the public sector. That, to me, is what would make it more enticing.

Now, the Yukon Housing Corporation and the Energy Corporation, which are Crown entities, have engaged in deficit financing, as Crown corporations - particularly the Energy Corporation. The Energy Corporation, however, I would argue, is somewhat different than the Government of the Yukon as an entity. It is a Crown corporation. It generates revenue through the operation of a business. It is essentially an arms-length entity from government that has a fairly regimented way of collecting money to pay for debt financing. When they need to pay for the cost of debt, such as the fourth wheel, they essentially go to the ratepayer.

Now, in the Yukon, we don't have that option as a government, because we are not going to go to the taxpayer. The Yukon government has made a commitment not to raise tax rates. In the sense of the Yukon Energy Corporation, they are a regulated utility and they have an ability to go out and generate the monies to cover off the cost of that debt.

Many Yukoners don't quite understand that the reason the Faro mine, when it goes down, can create increases for Yukon ratepayers, is that when Anvil is in operation, there is a commitment or a contribution toward paying the mortgage, lease payment or debt that is due on a monthly basis.

That's why, when the mine goes down, that money is shared among the other ratepayers. That payment is still due, whether or not the mine's up or down. And that is the reason that trouble could arise.

The same thing could happen if you picked an infrastructure area and, if it was built on the basis of a toll of some kind or another and the pressures on the usage were not there and you couldn't raise the revenues, what then would you do? What risk would the private sector share in that scenario? Because, if it all falls on government in that situation, either through tax increases or through some other cutting of service, like health care education, to free up more money for this commitment that was made perhaps five, six, seven, eight, 10 years ago, then I think that is a difficult tying of the hands that you inflict on another government - and I say another government generically.

So, one has to be cautious about breaking away from paying as you go. It's been couched in many clever terms, but the reality is, instead of traditional borrowing, it's borrowing through another vehicle.

Now, Finance has looked at a lot of options and a lot of different numbers surrounding this question. One of the things that they have illustrated is that if, for example, you picked a hypothetical project that was built by the Government of the Yukon for, say, $12.5 million - it could be a school, could be a highway, could be whatever - if there was a lease with no profit built in - i.e. the private sector went out, got the money and they built it and you amortized it over, say, 20 years, the cost of the construction of this infrastructure - the actual cost with no profit would be over $20 million over the life of that project.

If you build in profit, the cost would be around $25 million. So, one can see that nothing in this world is free. There would be a cost of that capital associated with that infrastructure development - a cost of that capital that would be borne by future governments and give them fewer choices.

People are not unable to deal with this question. I think a Nova Scotia example bears that out quite strongly. People realize that it's just too good to be true, when you say you'll build all this stuff and you'll have no more debt - 31 schools. People wondered where the money was going to come from; how it could be that you could build all this infrastructure, put everybody to work building it, and yet have essentially no other implications for your ability to pay for it. I don't think in a lot of cases - although I'm sure the demands were extremely strong for, say, in Nova Scotia, new schools - that people looked twice at the situation.

I think we have to do the same thing here. In the case of the Housing Corporation, I think that, as a Crown corporation that has some interests and generates some revenues, they should be looking at different ways they can participate with the private sector in the economy, but they have to be mindful, as does the rest of government, of the implications on future generations. We have to be careful about mortgaging the futures of our children to solve some immediate problem today.

There will be problems five years from now. Our economy has traditionally been very cyclical. 1993 was a very bad year for the economy. 1994 was not a great year for the economy.

In those years, we had major megaprojects, like the Shakwak and the hospital, to tide us over. Who knows what will be around in five or 10 years? It's very difficult to say, but there will be tough times to face then, I'm sure, for any government that may be in power five or 10 years from now. There will be problems of downturn. There will be areas of downturn, and I think for one government to succumb to that and to try and generate something that will have long-standing implications, they have got to be very careful. They've got to think it through very well. They've got to investigate fully exactly what they are doing and what implications it will have.

The other questions that I think are important are, when you go down this route, the government - because they're not building it - loses any control over certain objectives, or it's more difficult, let me say, to inflict public policy priorities on the project that's being built. So, if you have, for example, a private sector operator building something, and that private sector operator doesn't believe in paying their workers very well or doesn't believe in local hire, if it's not expressly part of any arrangement, it will be very, very difficult to inflict that will upon the private sector operator.

That is a significant and important issue that has to be considered by government. There is also the issue of who we are cutting out of the equation. Obviously, those who can raise good quantities of money in the private sector can participate. Larger companies would have no problem if they were to expand and move into this area in any heavy way. That would not be a difficult thing for the larger companies to do.

There are a lot of smaller companies - contractors, people who work in construction and highway-building - who would have a difficult time getting a piece of the pie if they were not able to raise the kind of money that the larger firms could raise. I think that that's an important consideration that should be looked at.

I have another concern, and that is what are the banks doing in the country and in the territory? Why are governments having to resort to these unique forms of deficit financing to accomplish public objectives? Are the banks indeed investing in communities, in the country, in the territory? Are they helping small business generate opportunities? I would say that part of the reason that they are making incredibly massive returns is that they are much more risk-adverse than perhaps is always good for our economy.

That, I think, is a question that many Canadians are asking. I don't think that they mind, obviously, that banks make a profit. Absolutely, most people accept that that's the nature of the game.

I guess the question is, when I talk to small business people, they find it extremely frustrating to deal with the lack of initiative on the part of the banks to assume risk in business ventures. And I guess, from a banker's point of view, that just makes perfect business sense, but as a society, as people involved in an economy, as a government, we find that very frustrating. Often the residue of their policies ends up in the government's lap, and while we see billion-dollar profits being made, it can pose some difficult challenges for government and can force government, in some cases, to involve itself in arrangements that will yield debt for a considerable time to come.

The leader of the Liberal Party said that public-private partnerships could be called a new revolution. I don't see it as quite a visionary concept, because of the concerns that I have identified. If the questions that are raised can be answered to some more tolerable level, then I think there could be a winner. But so far, in my own mind, I have not been able to be comfortable with binding the children and the governments of tomorrow with deficit financing. I believe strongly in the concept of pay as you go.

Now, that is a commitment that we've made. It would be so easy - and I think people would probably welcome it, particularly those who are unemployed - to go down this road, to put a marvellous spin on this type of initiative. And when people go to work, maybe they're not looking five years down the road or 10 years down the road. Maybe they're just looking at the here and now, and that's perfectly understandable. But I think that governments and people in a leadership position, and legislators, have to be mindful of what the implications are of what they do now for people tomorrow.

There will be, whether we like to say so or not, implications as a result of this kind of approach, and they have not been fully fleshed out in the territory. I would hate to engage in a debate on a plane that is simply rhetoric caught up in buzz words.

I hope that this debate this afternoon actually deals with the substantive issues. I think the substantive issues are the types that we have raised, and the answers that I have put forward are that, if this is truly to be pursued, then we have to have a very firm discussion with the private sector about their risk and what it is they intend to bring to this equation. If it's just money, with a guarantee we'll pay for the cost of borrowing for them in some fashion, then that is not entirely a mutually beneficial proposition, because we can get the money. The government can get the money. That is not the issue.

The issue is the cost of paying for the borrowing, and I would suggest that governments around the country are engaging in a new way of characterizing debt financing. I think that's something that will catch up with us.

Trudeau often used to say that debt financing in building infrastructure was visionary, and he took us down a long, long line of deficit budgets and really started building up the debt in this country. However, what we all learned as Canadians is that we're still paying for that debt. There's something like $860 billion of accumulated debt in this country that was financed through debt from one vehicle or another - private sector, banking industry, directly by government and, in some cases, put forward by the private sector.

The long and short of it is that it's still debt. It still has to be paid for. In many cases, the government used to go out and directly borrow the money and do the work with the private sector. Or, in some cases, the private sector put it up. The end result is the same. Instead of a lease payment to the private sector, or some form of a payment to cover their cost of capital, they were paying bond holders.

One has only to witness the political pressure that bond holders can bring to bear on governments, in terms of public policy making. They exert immense pressure on government, in terms of democratic policy making. I think that that is an issue that has to be of concern.

In Nova Scotia, one of the issues that was raised with regard to the 31 schools was: what level of control over the education system in these private sector schools would the government have? Would the private sector be able to exert more control as a result of the agreements? I'm not familiar with the answers to that question, because I was too distant from the debate, but it was an interesting question and an interesting item for discussion.

So, I guess in closing, I would just say that I think the idea, in many cases, could have some utility, but there are a significant number of cautions and questions that Yukoners have to deal with surrounding what level of debt financing they wish to embrace, what projects they might want to embrace, how they can reconcile their expectations, given the doors are blown off the concept of pay-as-you-go, the cost of capital and the fact that we would be borrowing capital, in most cases, at a rate that is higher than we would pay if we borrowed it directly as a government.

We would have to deal with the fact that there will be fewer choices for future Yukoners, future governments. There will be excess pressures on the budgets of the territory, less choice in the budget-making process, because your payments due to the private sector or your commitments through these arrangements for all the infrastructure of one sort or another that you build have to be paid. Regardless of what your revenue generation is, 10 years from now, that payment will be due, and there will be some profit attached to it that will have to be dealt with.

So, there are also questions around control of the institutions or the things that are created and the fact that the government does not end up owning the asset at the end of it. That could be a concern, and I see the leader of the official opposition shaking her head. I can tell the member opposite that in many cases the asset is not owned but -

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Harding: The member opposite, obviously, thinks that somehow the situation is that in all cases of the public-private partnerships, the asset is owned by the government. That's completely ridiculous. I can give him examples.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Harding: Pardon me?

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Harding: Well, the Liberal leader is saying that it's up to the partners. Well, what the member is saying then, I guess, is that, in some cases, the governments chose not to own the assets, say, the schools, in some of these so-called models. I would suggest that that's not the case. I would suggest that what you have is a situation where there's immense public pressure to do something about the need for a school, and governments have extremely limited leverage to negotiate the types of arrangements that would ultimately lead them to conclude a deal that would have the asset end up in their hands.

This stuff doesn't just happen because government is a nice person and the private sector are nice people and they sit down and arrange some cordial relationship. This is a business deal and it's all about leverage and what position or what strength you bring to the bargaining table - or the deal that you can cut.

I can't imagine, even though there are so many models where the government doesn't end up owning the asset, any situation where the government wouldn't say, given that they have the leverage that they needed, that they wanted to own that asset at the end of the day. I can't think of any off the top of my head, when I think of schools or the link across the bridge to PEI or any of those things, where you wouldn't want as a government to ultimately have the ability to own that asset, seeing as you paid for it.

So, I think we should be clear and realistic about what we're talking about here. The members opposite are talking about negative vibes. I think there are negative vibes when you're talking about deficit financing and the implications on future generations in this territory, and I have concerns about that.

They may be big, free spenders. It's obvious that they are. The Yukon Party didn't worry about tax increases; they brought in the biggest in Yukon history. Obviously, they would be more than prepared to pay for any of these infrastructure projects that they got some people to work on in the short term by raising people's taxes. That was their philosophy in government. That was the way they approached government. We don't take that approach.

The Yukon Party believes in looking at the world through a 12-month window. If people are out of work now, you do whatever it takes, whether you have to go into debt or raise taxes, to jump up some artificial economy and spend big government money and that solves the economic problem.

What they forget is that you've got to take a longer approach to the economy beyond 12 months. You've got to think about the implications of your spending decisions now, and the fact that those tax increases that they want to bring forward can have some implications on the economy as well.

So, our view is a much longer one for the territory. Our view is one that raises the questions, that examines the issues very carefully, that we think about it very much before we enter down the path. If the opposition feels very strongly that deficit financing is the way to go, then I welcome them to stand up and say that. That's why we're having this debate, and I'm sure it will be a fruitful one.

So, I look forward to hearing from the leader of the official opposition, who has a strong record of major tax increases, and I'm keen to hear how he - as one who used to say he didn't support mortgaging the future of children - reconciles these issues.

Mr. Ostashek: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that I have only 20 minutes to reply to all of that political rhetoric, lack of vision and lack of faith in the Yukon, as has been set out by our Minister of Economic Development. I feel sorry for Yukoners, exceptionally sorry for them, after them listening to the Economic Development minister's view of the future of the Yukon.

We've said time and time again in this House this government doesn't have any vision, and the Economic Development minister has just reinforced that. Hopefully, when his leader gets up, he will provide a more positive outlook on the future of the Yukon than what his Economic Development minister has.

Mr. Speaker, the motion is a very simple motion. It doesn't bind this government to anything; it just asks the government to explore and actively review the public-private partnership model used extensively throughout Canada.

I will have something to say on the model because I believe that may be overstating the case, but I don't have any difficulty supporting the motion, because the motion is just asking the government to explore. What I find very troublesome is the speech by the Economic Development minister that they have no idea how to even approach this outside of deficit financing. That seems to be the only thought that he has in mind.

And he says it wouldn't belong to government in the end. Well, it appears that he isn't able to comprehend two thoughts at the same time: that if it's a private-public partnership it has to automatically revert to the private sector. I think he's wrong on that, totally wrong. It could revert to the private sector, but it could also revert to the government.

Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)

Mr. Ostashek: Mr. Speaker, he tells me to tell him where. I'll try to do that in the 20 minutes that I'm allotted here to speak today.

Private-public partnerships are not anything new. We have entered into them in the Yukon - on a very small scale, but we have done it - and it's worked. And it could work on a much larger scale.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me make it very, very clear. I don't believe that we can go out on a public-private partnership just for the sake of building something. We need to build something that is in immediate demand. We need to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we need to go into debt to do that. I don't believe we need to mortgage the future of our children. I would not be in favour of that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development went on and on and on about buildings, as if that was the be-all and end-all of public-private partnerships - putting up buildings.

That's the furthest thought from my mind, even though I believe it also has some merit and could be explored. The fact remains that the majority of the office space this government occupies is leased office space. Are we mortgaging the future of our children because we haven't put all the buildings up ourselves?

The Minister of Economic Development thinks that, if we put a building up ourselves, we pay cash for it up front, that we have saved something for the future of our children. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those buildings do wear out. They do require a substantial amount of upkeep. So there is no free ride, as he said. Even if the government builds it themselves, there's no free ride.

What government needs to do is explore all options that are available to them without mortgaging the future of our children and be able to provide the necessary infrastructure that's going to enhance economic activity in our territory. The other side of the curb, Mr. Speaker, is to provide more revenues to the territorial government, more people paying taxes, more people using services. Nothing in this world is free, and members opposite ought to know that.

When I listen to the Minister of Economic Development talking, it reminded me of a quote I heard last night, when I went to listen to a very prominent Canadian speaking on his philosophy of the NDP. Nothing could have rung truer than the Minister of Economic Development standing up there today, espousing his political rhetoric and being very negative, and not having any thought.

Mr. Speaker, that Canadian's thought of NDP philosophy is that it is where every person waits for a ship to come in, even though they never sent one out, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Economic Development just said, "Right on" - that statement's true, from his speech.

He doesn't have any thought of the future - it's "What's in this for me?" not "I'm going to invest in the future of the Yukon because I believe in the future of the Yukon."

Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the minister saying that the government can't end up with the asset in the end, because that's simply not true. I want to say to the members opposite that we in the Yukon Party entered into one small public-private partnership that has paid off for the Yukon, and the Yukon retains the asset.

That was the loan to Loki under the industrial support policy. It wasn't given to them up front. It was paid out to them over a period of three years - only if they lived up to their commitments. They put the money up front, and the government will end up with the asset.

Now, that's a very small public-private partnership, but the private sector is prepared to go into those kinds of partnerships if they need the asset that's being built. Loki needed it, and they were prepared to do it. And it worked very well, and it's creating jobs for Yukoners now, where little else is going on in the Yukon. I believe that the last payment the government will make to them will be this year, and that will be the end of the government's commitment to it.

That didn't mortgage the future of our children. That created some economic activity in the territory and created some jobs for Yukoners. What the government has to do, Mr. Speaker, is to weigh that all out. They need to see what's going to happen with the investment - in this case, infrastructure. Is it going to bring an economic return to the territory? Is it going to advance the territory?

Those are the kinds of decisions that have to be made. While we can stand here and debate the principles of the public-private partnership, I, for one, don't have the answers, and I don't believe anybody else in this Legislature does.

The leader of the third party is asking the government to investigate it. Each case will be different, and that's where I don't believe that there is a Canadian public-private partnership model that fits everything. I think that what we need is the basic principle that we're prepared to explore this kind of a situation.

Now, I don't believe we should just go out and build it just for the sake of building it for creating short-term jobs because, if there's no use for the asset when it's finished, everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, we just can't afford to spend taxpayers' money that way nowadays. We need to be able to get the return on the investment. But just suppose an industrial development was going to go into an area where there was a required infrastructure, maybe it's a - whatever it is. Be it a mine, be it whatever. But they need to get into an area. They need to be able to get supplies in. They need to be able to get their product out, whatever it is. And the infrastructure is lacking. I believe it's government's role to provide infrastructure for the private sector to be able to create jobs in the territory. We don't believe that the government can create all the jobs.

But also, we have a government that doesn't have that kind of money to make that huge investment. But I believe that if you sat down with the proponents of the project, an accommodation could be made very similar to what we did at Loki. Let them put some of the money up front based on the commitment that they're going to create so many jobs for so many years, and it's paid back to them over a period of time so that at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the government would own the asset, and the company would have had the infrastructure supplied by the government. They would have got paid back over a period of time.

I don't think it's an unreasonable position to go into negotiation for the government, to help the private sector move ahead in the Yukon. Will that work in every instance? Probably not, but I think it merits being fully explored, and that would be a way that the government could provide infrastructure that, if we don't build it, our children are going to have to build it anyhow, at some point.

It would be best to have it built when there is an immediate use for it.

This could work not only with highways. This could work with power. This could work with telecommunications, the three basic pieces of infrastructure that are required for the advancement of an economic base in the territory. It could work in the logging industry. It could work in oil and gas. It could work in mining. It could work in various places.

Some of them have shorter paybacks, some of them have longer paybacks.

And, Mr. Speaker, it could work with buildings, too, but I don't believe the need is as great with buildings right now as it is with other infrastructure. But it could work with buildings, and the government could end up with the building at the end of the lease.

We go out and lease vehicles now, but there's a buy-out at the end of the lease. Does it cost more than buying it up front? Well, yes and no. You don't have to put that big chunk of capital up front. You may pay a little more in the end. Some companies believe in leases. That's all they do. Even Government Services leases vehicles from the private sector when they're short of vehicles. It's not unheard of, not unknown.

And, as I said, we lease numerous buildings around this community and we have done so for many, many, many years - the same buildings.

So, what we're looking at on the building side is probably a longer lease, with a buy-out at the end, where the government could retain the asset.

If we needed a building badly enough, it may be something that the government can explore. I'm not saying that it's the answer and the only way of providing the schools or hospitals or office space that the government needs, but it's another option that could be explored.

Any time that we invest in infrastructure, I believe that we're investing in the future of our children. I think that's the biggest difference between a Yukon Party government and an NDP government. A Yukon Party government sees infrastructure as investment, whereas we believe that this NDP government sees infrastructure as an expense and not as an investment.

There is not a province in Canada that would be at the state of development that it is today if their government had not invested in infrastructure, probably at times when there wasn't much demand for it, either. But, they did go into tremendous debt.

And I don't advocate that for one minute, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that there are other ways of doing it without going into debt and without mortgaging the future of our children.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Economic Development spoke about the Liberals' idea of the bridge in Dawson. I, for one, will say that I didn't agree with it. I didn't agree with their idea of a toll bridge - not for one minute. But, all infrastructure that we build does not need be built on the basis that it has to be paid back by a toll system. There are other ways of doing it. That's just one way of doing it.

So, I believe that the motion is worth debating in this Legislature, and I would encourage the government not to view the motion so negatively and not to find every reason in the world why they ought not to at least explore it, but to explore it in earnest, and maybe set down and set out some principles about what they would need to do to enter into a private-public partnership arrangement.

If I were in government, one of my principles would be that the government shall not go into debt to enter into a partnership. Another principle could be that it is something that is immediately required, not just something for the sake of doing it and creating some short-term jobs.

Is there such a project on the horizon now? I don't know, but there are many mines going through permitting and, at some point, they're going to want to go into production. So, I think it's probably the opportune time for government to be thinking about how they're going to finance this.

I believe that the Government Leader is just as concerned as I am that if the mine goes ahead on the Campbell Highway, the government will be called upon to upgrade the highway. Whether they can do it or they can't do it, they will be called upon to do it. If we can get creative, and once the development is going to go ahead and the people who are responsible for the development are prepared to get involved, then, I believe, it would be the time to sit down and talk about private-public partnerships and the upgrading of infrastructure.

There are many creative ways that a project of this type could happen, without compromising the financial position of the government and without undue risk to Yukoners and to future Yukoners. What we do need is a government who is enthusiastic and optimistic about exploring such a partnership and not being as negative as their Economic Development minister was in his presentation to this House, trying to find every excuse in the world of why they ought not to go ahead with it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me suggest to the government that they seriously consider this motion and that they seriously consider putting together -

Speaker: Order please. The member has two minutes to conclude his remarks.

Mr. Ostashek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I knew I was getting close to the end, so I'll wrap it up.

- seriously consider putting together some principles as to what they would negotiate under for such an arrangement and to seriously consider embarking on a pilot project so that they could have something that they could use as a yardstick and be able to measure for future projects in the Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing other members have their say on this motion and I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I found the discussion, so far, to be somewhat stimulating and interesting in some respects and certainly one afternoon's worth of debate will hardly do this particular subject matter justice, given its complexity and given the fact that, in many respects, the Yukon government, in terms of big projects involving so-called public-private partnerships, has very little experience. So, in some ways, even the investigation of this particular arena is new to the territory.

Both the Liberal leader and the opposition leader have laid out, I think, fairly accurately, the general principle behind what the Liberal leader has called the new, minor revolution of public-private partnerships,

While I have perhaps looked at this with a slightly more critical eye than the two members, I will tell the members now what I've told them privately, that this government will investigate public-private partnerships. We will investigate any idea put forward and assess the ideas on their merits.

As much as both the Liberal and the Yukon Party members have miscast the NDP philosophy and have misrepresented the NDP theory and principles, I will not respond in kind, because I don't believe there's much utility in that. I will say, though, that I'm hoping that we share the notion that we will not be burdening future generations with decisions that we are making today - burdening them with unreasonable expenditures. We have to remember that legislatures of 10 years from now will be wrestling with infrastructure needs that are probably quite different from those that exist today, or infrastructure requirements or desires that are quite different from what they are today.

Ten years ago, there was no discussion in this Legislature or anywhere about a Dawson bridge. The Dawson bridge is the flavour of the last couple of years. It was virtually unheard of. Now it happens to be topical.

We have to be careful in developing so-called creative arrangements that we are not solving difficult decisions that we have to make today in terms of allocation of resources simply by passing it to the next generation and limiting options that they may have. For them, the infrastructure project 10 years from now, the big one, may be a replacement for F.H. Collins Secondary School, and the Minister of Finance may stand up and say, "Well, I'd love to be able to do it, but we've got $10 million a year in interest payments for projects that a couple of legislatures ago people decided were good ideas."

We have to pay those, and we'll be paying those for the next 20 years, so everyone should just relax. I make the point that we have to be extremely careful.

Does the government work in partnership with the private sector? Is it willing to work in partnership with the private sector? I can only say that it does so every single day of the year. Some of the members have raised the fact that the Yukon Housing Corporation has a capital program which invests, along with the private sector, in various projects, to see them happen.

The Member for Porter Creek North mentioned the notion that the government leases office space. Indeed, that's true. Now, I make the caveat, of course, that the government doesn't agree to lease office space and pay for the full cost of the project when they agree to lease office space. They generally make a commitment for five years. The risk associated with the project is borne by the private sector developer. If the government were to come along and say to the private sector developer, "You build the project, and we will pay for the full cost of the construction and the cost of borrowing, and give you a profit for the entire project," then I would suspect that that proposition, on its face, would be a very controversial one in this Legislature.

There are issues that we have to deal with. The primary issue for me is the extent to which we are limiting future choices. Now, some of the public-private partnership models that people have identified so far are not showing up on the government books. They don't look like the government is associated with, or has accumulated, any debt obligations.

Well, that doesn't mean that there aren't debt obligations that the public still retains in those situations. If the government makes a deal with a private sector company to build a building, and the private sector company borrows the money and the government promises to essentially pay it back, then, whether the government shows it in its annual accounts or not, it's still a public obligation. So, presumably, the accounting industry would have to get better in touch with the full notion of government obligations, if the government were not to disclose, through its normal accounting process, the obligations that the government may be assuming. A lot of that has to do with how we capitalize public infrastructure. That's also a subject worthy of some discussion.

We have to decide, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing this particular area, when we would entertain a proposal from a private sector proponent. Do we take the first proponent that walks through the door and consider their notion? Or do we tender out the notion and invite people to essentially bid on a proposal? These are questions that we have not yet resolved.

We have to have some discussion around the notion of user-pay. This is not a practice that the territory has embraced fully. There are very few examples where users of facilities and general public infrastructure pay any user fees at all. We have to decide for ourselves if this is something we are going to embark on to ensure that those who take the greatest advantage of a particular public resource pay the most. That may be an option, and certainly the suggestion made by some private sector proponents recently to government and the opposition leaders suggested that that would be a way to help finance a major public expenditure in the construction of the Campbell Highway.

Now, as members know, the notion was leaked, I guess, or was made known to the people who were expected to pay the toll, and to say that their reaction was negative would be an understatement. And they have reiterated that reaction to me on a couple of occasions, even unsolicited by me. So, I think that would be a discussion that we would also have to have.

Not all public-private sector partnerships involve the construction of anything. Sometimes there's a provision of a service, and where that's the case, certainly, there are other issues that we should be addressing. Certainly, we wouldn't want to see any public-private partnership, for example, that compromised workers' wages, that was seen to be just simply a way to take advantage of working people, something that was simply disguised to contract out public services.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the notion in terms of building infrastructure, new infrastructure, or if there's a need to build new infrastructure, is something that the government and the people of the territory have to wrestle with regularly. We have, up until now, of course, taken the position that we will build infrastructure as we can afford it, meaning we will build it as the revenues come in and we will not incur debt to build new infrastructure, or we will not partner with people to build debt to develop new core infrastructure for the territory.

It's a matter of some pride to most Yukoners that all the public infrastructure that you see - this building, the street outside, the highways, the rest of the public buildings - these buildings are all paid for. They have been expensed by our predecessors in previous legislatures. One way or another, what you see is pure ownership. To assume debt associated with a public infrastructure is something that we would have to be very careful about, in my view.

Now, there may be some projects that the government cannot undertake in a given year ever that still remain important public infrastructure works. The government may be faced with a project or two such as that in the future. In that case, the government can do one of three things. They can simply live without the infrastructure, they can save up for the infrastructure or they or their partners can incur debt and build the infrastructure. This may be something that the government may have to wrestle with. It certainly would have to be done very carefully.

With respect to the notion - and I've made this suggestion on a couple of occasions - that perhaps the cost of capital could be borne in the first year in the short term, perhaps, and then the future generations are not faced with the additional costs associated with a particular public work is a notion that we can explore as well. Certainly, as I have indicated to the private sector already and to some First Nations who have raised the notion of exploring public-private partnerships, this is something we will explore. We are preparing a draft - for members' information - on a draft discussion paper on public-private partnerships and it's on its way to being completed. When it is finished, I will share with the members.

A lot of work has been done in other jurisdictions to explore public-private partnerships, and I realize the members opposite think the NDP doesn't have any faith in this kind of model. Certainly other NDP governments do. They are practising some public-private sector partnerships in British Columbia, and there's been some interesting work done there in reviewing what is possible.

I would point out to members that one of the reasons why, in my view, other provincial governments are more enamoured with public-private sector partnerships is that a very large portion of their capital works is funded through debt. We don't fund our core public works through debt, generally speaking.

So this would be something new for the Yukon, there's no doubt about that. I don't wish to be critical of other governments. They have their own issues, their own imperatives, and they are certainly entitled to expend the taxpayers' money as they wish and to incur obligations on the future in a manner they feel is suitable.

However, limiting future options in this way will be something new for this territory.

One issue that has been raised in the last few months by some private sector proponents is that they would be able to find access to capital fairly easily if the government were a participant in a particular project. I have indicated to them, with the greatest respect, that that's not an issue for the government. The government, if it put out the call for loan capital, could find the cheapest loan capital in the country, and could find lots of it.

I suppose if we were to put ourselves in a situation similar to that of other governments, we could probably carry a debt load of a couple of hundred million dollars and support that debt load. Access to capital is not an issue. The issue is the cost of that capital, when we are talking about major public works. We're talking about public-private partnerships, or even public works, that will not be expensed in one year, but that will involve borrowed money and will involve paying back the cost of the capital, and perhaps paying for profit, if there's a private sector partner that wants to see a profit. For me, that is a significant issue that has to be addressed in any decision that we may make to build a particular public work.

The leader of the official opposition has indicated that one of the principles could be that the government should not incur debt. Well, if it's a major public work, I think that whether the government or the private sector incur the debt, the debt is incurred, and there is an obligation on the public to pay it back. We shouldn't disguise that fact. We should be honest about it.

The leader of the official opposition has said that one principle should be that it should only involve public works that are in greatest need. Certainly, I would agree with him. That certainly ought to be a guiding principle, but it would be a difficult principle to sustain because I know, even from talking to my own colleagues, that in terms of major public works, there is a wide variety of opinion as to which project ranks the most important. Certainly, there are some big capital projects potentially on the horizon.

Speaker: The member has two minutes to conclude his remarks.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say this to get the Member for Klondike's juices flowing. I'm certain that he may see public-private partnerships as a real opportunity. I know that he has been extraordinarily creative in putting suggestions on the floor of the Legislature about how government can spend infrastructure money. I think he had a record in putting $70 million worth of projects on the table. I'm certain that they're all desirable to one constituency or another.

We will investigate the public-private partnerships. We've already started investigating the principles behind public-private sector partnerships and we will share with other members the information that we develop. If there is a model that we can adopt that makes sense to the Legislature and to the government, I'm certain we'll explore that model. If it involves unnecessary or unreasonable obligations on future generations, I suspect that there will probably be some strong oppositio