Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.

Speaker:   Before proceeding with the Order Paper, I have the great pleasure of informing the House that Mr. Gordon McIntyre has been appointed as the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.

Mr. McIntyre has joined us today, and I would like to ask members to welcome him.

Speaker:   I would also like to provide members with a brief bit of Gordon’s history in the Yukon.

He first arrived in the Yukon in 1946 after having served two years in the Canadian Navy. He worked in the Klondike gold fields for two years before moving to Whitehorse, where he took employment with General Enterprises, at that time a new construction company.

Gordon worked for 30 years as an equipment operator on the construction and maintenance of Yukon highways, including the Klondike Highway, the Cassiar Road, the Campbell Highway and the Atlin Road.

Following completion of that career in 1979, he went to Atlin, B.C., to take up placer mining and has been involved in mining since then.

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

Tributes.

Introduction of visitors.

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

Mrs. Peter:   I have for tabling a letter addressed to all members of the United States Senate regarding the drilling in ANWR. This letter was supported by all three party leaders in this House, and I’m very pleased that the voting that took place today was in our favour.

Mahsi’ cho.

Speaker:   Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Mr. Cathers:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Salvation Army performs a valuable service to the Yukon by operating

(1) a 19-bed ARC halfway house for individuals completing their sentences;

(2) a 10-bed emergency shelter;

(3) a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week drop in centre;

(4) a youth outreach program for 25 children weekly; and

(5) a summer camp for underprivileged children;

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) the Government of Yukon currently provides $320,000 annually to support the programs of the Salvation Army: $280,000 from the Department of Justice for the Adult Residential Centre and $40,000 from the Department of Health and Social Services for the emergency shelter;

(2) despite the funding from the Government of Yukon the continued operation of these Salvation Army programs in the territory is dependent upon federal funding; and

(3) that this House urges the Government of Yukon to work with the Salvation Army to ensure the Government of Canada contributes its fair share to cover the program operational costs of the Salvation Army in the Yukon.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Ms. Duncan:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) appointments for both the chair and the employer representative of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board Appeal Tribunal have expired under the new minister;

(2) the new minister was informed about these impending vacancies upon taking office and has done nothing to fill them;

(3) hearings for injured workers are being delayed because the appeal tribunal cannot function properly without a chair;

(4) the appeal tribunal is going to court this week without its chair to defend a decision it has made against the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board; and

THAT this House urges the minister responsible to ensure that appointments to the appeal tribunal are made in a timely fashion so that injured workers receive the representation that they require.

Speaker:   Is there a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   For those who may be wondering why I hold this feather, it’s a traditional practice of mine that I wish to continue in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the issue of teacher staffing levels for the upcoming school year. It has come to my attention that there may be some misunderstanding on this matter, and I am on my feet today in this House to put that misunderstanding to rest.

There are no teachers being laid off. Teacher staffing is something that is adjusted from year to year, according to changes in enrolment and population. This is part of our normal planning process, and it occurs every year at this time.

At this point, our staffing projections are for 12 fewer teachers next year. I repeat: there are no teachers being laid off.

Teacher turnover occurs each year through transfers, retirements and resignations. The department will not have to lay off any teachers.

This is not a budgetary decision. Our staffing projections are based on projected student enrolment and, at the secondary school level, demand for courses. Enrolment in the Yukon is down by 101 students since September of this year. Since 1997, public school enrolment in the Yukon has declined by 12 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to figures related last year from the 2001 Canadian census. According to this information, the age of the average Yukoner has increased by a record five years during the previous 10-year period, mirroring a trend that is occurring nationally. In that same period, the number of preschool children aged 4 and under declined 30 percent. The population of school children aged 5 to 12 fell eight percent, and this group is expected to decline a further 28 percent in the next 10 years.

These trends are not specific to the Yukon. They are occurring all across Canada as our population ages. These are facts, Mr. Speaker.

We deal with these facts and we plan accordingly for the coming year. This is nothing more than sound administration, which is part of good governance on behalf of the Department of Education.

We informed school principals at a meeting on March 7 that we would be reducing teacher staffing levels. Again, this is a part of our normal planning process. Rather than adjusting staffing levels unilaterally, we asked them to look at their schools and identify where they could best manage reductions.

Once again, there will be no teachers laid off by this process. This will occur through normal turnover and is a part of our normal planning process.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Yukon currently has the lowest pupil-to-teacher ratio of any educational jurisdiction in Canada.

I would also like to point out that we will not be reducing staffing levels for educational assistants and remedial tutors. We will continue to ensure that the needs of our students on individualized education plans are being met.

I stand here in this House today and I can say that this will not affect the quality of education in this territory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’m pleased to respond to this ministerial statement. I believe that the Minister of Education is just trying to defuse an issue that has been bothering this government for awhile now, and that is the fact that this government is laying off people throughout the territory. I believe this isn’t a ministerial statement; it’s a pre-emptive strike on behalf of damage control.

Mr. Speaker, let’s look at what the ministerial statement says. First of all, we had a briefing yesterday in the Department of Education, and that’s where we learned that some teachers would be laid off. There was no misunderstanding on our part. In the bullet here, the minister is getting up to draw attention to the fact that there is a misunderstanding on this matter. Well, if there is a misunderstanding, it’s on that side of the House — on the government side. Let’s have a look at it.

The next bullet down says that there will be no teachers being laid off. This is the message the government wants to give — laid off, Mr. Speaker — and this is repeated about four times throughout the statement, over and over again. The fact of the matter is that one of their bullets says that there are going to be 12 fewer teachers. Well, what does that mean? Those are job cuts. It doesn’t matter how the minister says it, they are job cuts.

The way this minister would like to see a reduction of 12 teachers — and I’m pretty sure the minister is praying for this — is through the resignation of teachers, through retirement. And once those take place, if those take place, then those positions won’t be filled. That’s what the minister is saying. There will be fewer teachers in the Yukon — 12 fewer teachers.

Mr. Speaker, what happens if there are no retirements? What happens if there are no resignations of teachers? Well, the minister said in his statement that there would be 12 fewer teachers, which means there will be job cuts, and that’s the bottom line.

In the briefing yesterday, we were told that there will be eight fewer teachers next year — eight. In a matter of one day, it jumped from eight to 12. What happens next week? Do we see 20 teachers disappearing? Does the minister have to come back and do damage control?

We see it over and over again on that side of the House, where there are cover-ups about jobs that are disappearing from the territory.

Speaker:   The term "cover-up" is not parliamentary.

Mr. Fairclough:   Thank you. I’ll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

We’ve seen interpreters’ jobs cut from this government; we’ve seen family support workers disappear; yet this government maintains there are no job cuts. These are real cuts. They’re real jobs, they’re real paid positions, and now they’re disappearing.

Mr. Speaker, what is the normal process the member opposite is talking about? They already gave notice to the principals on March 7 to find a way to accommodate these reductions in the number of teachers. I believe this statement is just another piece of evidence and another step in government downsizing.

I would like to make this final statement, if my time is running out, Mr. Speaker: this ministerial statement is not good news. It does nothing to improve the quality of education in the Yukon.

Speaker:   Order please. The member’s time is up.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has risen to provide an update on the number of teachers in our schools. Only the Yukon Party could say with a straight face that 12 fewer teachers will be working next year, but there are no job losses in the territory. Yukoners are hearing these words in amazement and disbelief. All week we’ve heard from the Minister of Health that there have been no job cuts in his department, yet we have letters from his own staff confirming that there are no more hours of work for people. There have been layoffs; it just hasn’t been admitted by the Minister of Health. Today we heard the Minister of Education admit it. We will wait and see how many teachers will be in our schools next year. Until that time, the trust that Yukoners placed in the party and the members opposite is being washed away with their comments about staffing levels. And trust is required when parties meet at the negotiating table. I think Yukon teachers are quite looking forward to the next round of contract negotiations because, based on the salary increase that the Premier recently gave to his chief of staff and principal secretary, I guess teachers can expect a 20-percent pay raise for next year, unless of course the policy is going to continue of one line for Yukon Party friends and one line for other Yukoners.

Mr. Speaker, in his ministerial statement, the minister made much of the pupil-teacher ratio in the Yukon. That doesn’t address the very real issues that teachers are facing in our classrooms, that more and more has been asked of them, expected of them, that they are facing and dealing with Yukon families that are in crisis on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, in his statement, is proud of the fact that the government is not reducing staffing levels for educational assistants. Well, that’s nothing to be proud of. In the election campaign, in the news release dated October 22, the Yukon Party committed — committed in black and white — to Yukoners to hire additional educational assistants.

Just another broken promise from this government of broken promises.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I would like to thank the members for their comments. And as I mentioned, this reduction in teachers is to bring the student/teacher ratio more in line with the national average. The reduction will be managed without layoffs. Each year up to 30 teaching positions come vacant due to retirements and resignations. This is not a budgetary decision. Our staffing projections are based on projected student enrolment and at the secondary school level demand for courses. Since 1997, public school enrolment in the Yukon has declined by 12 percent. These trends are not specific to the Yukon. The rest of Canada is also dealing with an ageing population. The quality of education in this territory will be maintained.

Speaker:   This then brings us to Question Period.

Mrs. Peter:   My question today is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. The Dawson women’s shelter is in crisis as we speak. With no prior consultation with the Dawson shelter or the Dawson public, this government cut $50,000 from the shelter’s budget. Can this minister tell us why this was done and what impact he expects this cut to have on women and children who use the shelter?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   As the minister responsible for this funding, I deem it appropriate that I field the question.

The Dawson shelter is being funded to the tune of $142,500 by our government. Across the board we have recognized that in some areas the shelter usage has reduced. In other areas the shelter usage has increased. With respect to the shelter in Dawson, last year in January, February, March, April and May, there was no occupancy. In June there were four bed nights, in July there were four bed nights, in August there were 20 bed nights. There has been no usage in September, October, November or December. The reduction of $50,000 represents the cost of double staffing.

The need is in Whitehorse, where a lot of the rural ladies are choosing to come when they are in difficulty. Our government has recognized the need by addressing it. Kaushee’s Place is doing an excellent job. In fact, the problem is that Kaushee’s Place, more often than not, is running full or close to capacity, which is a need that our government will be addressing in due course.

Mrs. Peter:   According to the shelter staff, evening coverage is being cut back. Women and children in crisis will now be expected to phone Health and Social Services after-hours and get a voucher for a hotel room or else wait for transportation to Whitehorse. Neither of these options is realistic. A hotel room does not answer the need for protection, support and confidentiality in a crisis situation.

Why would the minister put women and children who are already facing and experiencing family crisis into a situation that could even be worse?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government is certainly not doing that. We are not jeopardizing the life and safety of anyone. That is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, our government is addressing the costs and the need for funding for Kaushee’s Place as and when required.

The procedure that the member opposite outlined is exactly what is taking place in Dawson City. Women in difficult times are calling the Law Line, they’re calling the social workers, and they’re choosing, more often than not, to come to Whitehorse. So, what is occurring is just being recognized by a movement of money by our government to address the need where the need exists. And if the need grows in Dawson, our government will address that need there.

Mrs. Peter:   The Yukon Party platform made a direct commitment to continue to secure funding for Yukon transition homes and safe houses and to ensure individuals who are in domestic violence situations have access to a safe place and support services. So now that the Yukon Party is in government, and with no consultation, they made another rash decision and a cut to the budget that seriously affect the women and children in this minister’s own community.

Will the minister now agree to honour his election promise to support women and children in crisis and reinstate the $50,000 for the Dawson women’s shelter?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Our government commitment is being honoured, has been honoured and will continue to be honoured. Our programming funding has had to be shifted because of the need that exists here in Whitehorse at Kaushee’s Place. That’s the bottom line, and our government has made a commitment to Kaushee’s Place that funding requirements there will be met. We know that facility is running at and close to capacity. That’s where the needs are.

I have the utmost respect and admiration for the women involved in the shelter in Dawson City, and they have enhanced the programs to a degree where now they have kids’ time, Canadian prenatal program, an outreach worker, shelter time-out, at-work centre, safe teen program, girls night out, a coffee house and grease-monkey girls program. These are all admirable undertakings, and we applaud them, but the bottom line is our government’s commitment to the shelter itself is being maintained, but you have to look at it across the Yukon. Our government has to address the need where it exists, and that need is at Kaushee’s Place, here in Whitehorse.

If there’s a need in the future —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member please conclude his answer.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   If there’s a need in the future in Dawson City to enhance and improve the funding because of demand, our government will meet that undertaking.

Mr. Fairclough:   My question is for the Minister of Education. Approximately 35 grade 11 and 12 students from three schools — Porter Creek, F.H. Collins and Vanier — planned a battlefield tour trip to Europe. The students were excited about this trip, and it was scheduled to depart the Yukon two days from now, but they were only to learn yesterday that the Department of Education cancelled these trips.

Mr. Speaker, the students and parents are very upset with this decision. We’ve had numerous phone calls and emails from parents on this issue, and they want answers. This is a very easy question for the minister. It has been all over the news, and we’d like it for the record. Was the minister consulted before the decision was made, or was he advised about it afterward?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the member opposite, I say that I learned of it after the fact and I find no fault in the department for the decisions that were made, and it is sort of a situation that could be very explosive and quite understandable.

Mr. Fairclough:   I was hoping that the minister could have looked at this a little bit more carefully.

According to the media, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the department is now backpedalling. The trip organizers followed the department rules. They bought insurance. They checked the Canadian consular Web site for travel advisories, and if External Affairs were to issue a travel advisory, then the students would get their money back on plane tickets. That’s the insurance they had. I would like to ask the minister, then: on what basis was this unilateral decision made to change the rules at the last minute?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   To the member opposite, I would like to state at this time that there has been no firm decision made at this point in time.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the minister getting his information from? It’s quite obvious that a decision was made. It has been on the news. Students were interviewed, and they were told by the deputy minister that the trips were cancelled. They were told that, Mr. Speaker, and now the department is backpedalling. They will look at it a little more carefully. The students and the families could be seriously out of pocket through no fault of their own. We were informed that the cost of these trips could be as high as $3,500. That’s 35 students; that’s a lot of money. That’s over $100,000.

I would like to ask the minister this, and hopefully we’ll get a yes answer from the minister. If the money already paid out can’t be recovered, will the minister direct his department to pick up the tab so that these students and their families don’t have to bear the burden of the department’s unilateral decision? Will he do that? I’m hoping for a yes answer.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member for that question; however, as I stated earlier, there has been no decision with regard to this trip yet. I believe that the members opposite are probably aware that travelling overseas could be a very dangerous situation and the department will handle this situation appropriately. We intend to work to the best interest of everyone.

Ms. Duncan:   Yesterday the government responded to questions surrounding job losses throughout the territory as a result of budget cuts by the government. As a Yukoner I am deeply concerned about these auxiliary and on-call workers and how they are going to be able to continue to feed their families. I am also deeply concerned about the families and children that these workers serve.

Earlier today in Question Period, we heard from the Minister of Health and Social Services about his lack of understanding of women and families in crisis. My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. I am sure the minister is taking the time to meet with his department and his frontline staff who are working in this field and he has likely asked about their working conditions. Now, Mr. Speaker, the standards in other jurisdictions of number of files per worker is about 12 to 15 families per social worker. Can the Minister of Health and Social Services confirm that my understanding that Kaushee’s Place is full and the social workers in family and children support are dealing with as many as 50 families per social worker as opposed to the industry norm of 12 to 15?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   With respect to the number of files that each social worker has, I am not aware of those details. I know that in some areas we have an additional load. I know that, overall, the load is not as significant as the member opposite makes it out to be.

Ms. Duncan:   The existing caseworkers have more families in crisis than they can reasonably be expected to assist. Now the auxiliary and on-call workers will not be available because they still have a job but they’ve got no hours to work. We know the government can’t answer the question of when is a job not a job? Maybe the government can answer, when is burnout not burnout?

The minister can say that the population is down but the need very clearly is there. The minister himself noted that, with the increased numbers at Kaushee’s Place.

The minister said yesterday in this House, and I quote, "We will meet the demands." The demand is very, very clear for Yukon families. The minister in the past has stated his support for reviews and recommendations that have been made to the government. The Child Welfare League of Canada’s number one recommendation is to address social worker —

Speaker:   Order please. Would the member ask the question?

Ms. Duncan:   I will.

The Child Welfare League of Canada’s number one recommendation is to address social worker and supervisor staffing shortfalls. When does the minister intend to do this?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   If there is a vacancy rate, which I am sure there is across the department, Mr. Speaker, we’re making every effort to fill it.

But let me share with the House what an auxiliary on-call employee is. It is those employees who can have one or more work assignments, whether full-time, part-time or seasonal, that normally reoccurs depending on the call of the employer. In the case of seasonal auxiliaries, they can work no less than three and no more than 10 consecutive months. Those auxiliaries on-call who are not seasonal can work part-time or full-time on an hourly, daily or periodic basis by the call of the employer.

So what I stated previously in this Legislature still stands. There have been no job cuts. When a demand exists and on-call workers are there, they will be utilized.

Ms. Duncan:   The demand is very clear. There are Yukon families in crisis. Our existing social workers and staff are dealing with far more cases than what is recognized throughout Canada as reasonable and professional. Yet the minister opposite has cut the auxiliary and on-call workers. Maybe the minister wants to entertain a discussion with the union about the phrase "contracting out".

The fact is, the minister needs to commit on the floor of this House that additional Health money will be used to assist Yukon families in crisis by dealing with the staffing shortfalls. There are staffing shortfalls in the Department of Health and Social Services, in family and social workers dealing with families in crisis.

Will the minister assist and put his money where one should and assist in providing and dealing with these staffing levels, as opposed to cutting the auxiliary and on-call hours?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to no job losses in the public sector and no program reductions. All these areas are being undertaken by this government. Through the efforts of the Premier of the Yukon, an initiative was made in Ottawa at the federal level to achieve a core funding for north of 60. That money has yet to be determined, and I’m sure there’ll be no lack of suggestions as to how we can spend this additional money, but the bottom line is that our government has made no cuts in the number of employees and no cuts in the programs. We are making a best effort to serve the cause and needs of Yukoners. We have, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Minister of Education to follow up on news releases and the stress the families out there are facing about the travel abroad that has been planned for many, many months. I would like to know very clearly from this minister if a contingency plan was put in place leading up to this, because it has been no secret that the U.S. has been planning to attack Iraq. Even to say that they have given notice of a few days — the people of the Yukon had notice about this, and the people who were going to be travelling had notice, the department had notice and the minister had notice about this.

So, was a contingency put in place to deal with something like this? Or, as the minister has already said that he learned about this after the fact, is this a spur-of-the-minute decision that has put many people’s money and travel arrangements in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for the question. Again, I will confirm what I said earlier. These are circumstances around an event that could create any kind of explosion. To the best of my knowledge, no contingency plan was put in place.

Mr. Hardy:   Well, that’s a shame because we’ve known about this situation for a long, long time. The families, teachers, department and minister have known about these travel arrangements for a long, long time, and a contingency plan should have been put in place. Because of that, we are now facing the situation where families are wondering what’s happening to their deposit, if the children are going on the trip, and if the situation is even safe over there. Because we still haven’t received an answer from the Canadian consular services about whether travelling to France is safe or not; supposedly it is.

I’m quite distressed that the minister doesn’t seem to have a clue about what’s going on over there and seems to indicate that a decision on this matter was made without his knowledge.

So, I have a more direct question: who made a decision to cancel leave for the teachers in this regard? That was a decision that was made.

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for the question. At this point in time, I would like to state that with regard to this issue, the Education department will be attending a meeting tonight at the F.H. Collins School, and the parents will be involved in making this decision with regard to the trip.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   Mr. Speaker, it’s very, very difficult, it seems, on this side, to get any answers from the other side, and if they would just listen to the question that we asked and give us the answer, we could move on, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we seem to be having to constantly ask the same question, constantly try to come at it from a different angle, and we keep struggling to try to get an answer and they keep evading that responsibility in the Legislature.

What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is willing to do this, is give a chronological order of events of what has happened since — I guess it would be since Monday when possibly the department, without the minister’s knowledge, started to make a move in a direction that would be cancelling this travel in regard to safety and how they conveyed it to the teachers, how the parents received it. If it’s possible, would the minister share with us the chronological order of how this has led up to this point here, so we can understand what actually happened and why it wasn’t handled better for the students, the families, the teachers, the people who have been putting this trip together for at least the last six months? Is the minister willing to give us assurances that he’ll give us a chronological order of how this has happened?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   With regard to this question, I would have some difficulty doing that, as it appears that the other side is in error. As the minister I knew everything about this trip and where it was going all along. Mr. Speaker, this issue only came to my attention very recently, and I can assure the members opposite that it’s going to be handled in a very professional manner and one that’s going to satisfy the people in question.

Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Education as well.

A few minutes ago we listened to the minister try out the newest version of this job’s mantra about no job cuts. In spite of the minister’s protests, the bottom line is that there are 12 fewer teachers on the payroll next year. Will the minister tell us what he plans to do if no teachers resign, retire or move at the end of this school year? Will those positions continue or will there actually be layoffs then?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   The government is committed to supporting education and training in the Yukon. In spite of a tight economy, we manage to hold the reduction to our education budget to only one percent in the year 2003-04. We also increased the College training trust funds by $1 million. So, to me, this is a very clear indication that education is important to this government.

Mr. Cardiff:   Again, the minister didn’t answer the question. We have a lot of trouble accepting this minister’s and the government’s assurances, especially since they don’t seem to know when a job cut is a job cut. They don’t know whether it’s a job or isn’t a job. So far, we have established that auxiliary positions aren’t jobs, seasonal positions aren’t jobs and casual positions aren’t jobs. So we wonder if teachers’ positions are jobs.

Now, the minister’s budget for education support services shows a $300,000 cut in personnel spending. How is the minister going to cut personnel spending in this area without any job cuts? How can he do that?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   I thank the member opposite for that question but the Yukon student/teacher ratio is the lowest in Canada in the Yukon. We have the lowest. In recent years an average of 30 teachers a year — 30 teachers a year — have retired or resigned in the territory. We will be using the opportunity provided by these departures to re-examine our student/teacher ratio and bring it into line with other jurisdictions.

Mr. Cardiff:   Again we didn’t get an answer. So sometimes there are 30 retirements. What happens if there isn’t? A few pages down the budget in education support services budget we see a 17-percent cut in the line for personnel and advanced education. That is another one-quarter of a million attack on the big bad trajectory. Can the minister explain how he can cut this amount from the advanced education budget for personnel without any job cuts? Or maybe he would just prefer to modify the statement that he has made previously in this House that there won’t be any diminishing of any kind of the government workforce?

Hon. Mr. Edzerza:   We are dealing with a number of years of declining student enrolments and in the Yukon we have lost over 11-percent base since 1995-96 school year. In the past years the department has issued layoff notices to some teachers. So far we have managed to find work for those people using temporary positions, and the department will continue to be responsible for good governance of their departments, and that is common practice that government will continue to do.

Mr. McRobb:   The other day, I asked the minister of Community Services about the breakwater in Destruction Bay. Today I’m hoping he can provide some useful information. To recap, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon government promised a breakwater to my constituents in Destruction Bay. The Yukon government paid for this project, oversaw this project, and took the lead on this project, but now the Yukon government appears to be running and hiding from this project.

Can the minister advise this House exactly what he’s doing to ensure the completion of this community project?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   To the member opposite, there was funding provided to his constituency at Destruction Bay for this breakwater project. A survey was done; a consultant was hired; and the format in which they should build the breakwater was provided. Unfortunately, the association did not build a breakwater in compliance with the orders given through the consultant.

Mr. McRobb:   I didn’t ask for another recap of the project. I asked the minister what he would do to ensure the completion of this community project so, once again, the minister has two questions to answer.

The latest word is that the Yukon government wants to remove all the material from the lake that was put there to build this breakwater. That includes all the huge buggy tires that were the very building blocks of this breakwater. Well, isn’t that fantastic, Mr. Speaker? Now we’re back to square one. The hopes and dreams of the community have been washed away, along with a sizable investment from Yukon taxpayers. All told, the cost is estimated at some $100,000 if all the time and costs are factored.

Can the minister tell us how much it will cost to remove all the material from the lake?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   There is an issue with regard to the breakwater, with regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because the applicant didn’t build the facility, breakwater, in accordance with the consultant’s report and in conjunction with Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It has to be removed.

Mr. McRobb:   The minister is digging himself a hole, Mr. Speaker. Now he has three questions to answer.

It’s really unfortunate when the government puts politics ahead of the people. The government has bailed out on this project and has pointed the finger at the previous Liberal government.

I want to ask the minister what he plans to do about the huge mountain of buggy tires that will soon end up at the local dump. Let’s see if the minister can connect the dots. Dot one, four years ago, there was a disastrous fire started from this same dump that almost wiped out all buildings in the whole vicinity; dot two, two weeks ago, there was a fire at the other dump near the community; and dot three, the Yukon government has the responsibility and is liable for this dump. What is the minister going to do about these tires?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:  The member opposite’s question has gone over into the tire issue, and we on this side share that concern very, very much. Tires are actually covered under the Ministry of the Environment, and it has been our intention for some time now to deal with this in a solid waste regulation.

In the spirit of good government, Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for over a week and a half to contact the members opposite to meet with them, to go over these regulations, to discuss them, and to deal with those sorts of problems — a week and a half. We have not had a response to phone calls; we have not had a response to recent e-mails. We would be very pleased to sit down and discuss that tire issue or be instructed by the members opposite to act unilaterally.

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

Clerk:   Motion No. 36, standing in the name of Mr. Hassard.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin

THAT it is the opinion of this House that there would be significant economic benefits for Yukon should a railroad be built connecting Alaska through Yukon to the southern United States;

THAT this House recognizes that

(1) The Alaska House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill setting aside land for a railroad right-of-way up to the Yukon border; and

(2) Senator John Cowdery, of the Alaska State Legislature, has tabled a bill entitled An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of the Alaska Railroad to Canada and for the extension of the Alaska Railroad to connect with the North American Railroad system; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada, the Government of Yukon and the Yukon First Nations whose land the railroad would cross to express their willingness to consider the Alaskan railroad proposal, including the setting aside of lands for a railroad right-of-way through Yukon; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada, with the full participation of the Government of Yukon and Yukon First Nation governments affected, to commence discussions with the Government of the United States and the State of Alaska about establishing a mechanism such as an international joint commission to expedite the development of the Alaska railroad proposal.

Mr. Hassard:   It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion. I feel it is timely, given the fact that we will have a delegation from the Alaska State Legislature visiting us at the end of this month.

It is my hope that this House will unanimously support this motion. I feel it is important that we encourage the federal government to commence discussions with the Government of the United States about establishing an international joint commission to expedite the development of the Alaska railroad proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the recent election of Governor Murkowski in Alaska, and his well-known support of this commission, provides us with an excellent opportunity. Governor Murkowski has already sent a letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien on this matter. Our Premier has drafted a letter to the Prime Minister as well. I believe it goes out today. The unanimous support of this House would go a long way to support this letter. Understanding the federal government’s decision regarding the bilateral commission is coming soon, we need to act quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to all members that we are looking to the federal government and the U.S. government to pay for this commission. The United States Senate has recently approved the Rails to Resources Act, 2000. This bill seeks an appropriation of $6 million U.S. over a three-year period to conduct a study into the feasibility of connecting the railroad system in Alaska with British Columbia. Canada needs to match that contribution.

We would also want the offices for this commission on the Canadian side to be in Whitehorse and the U.S. side to be in Juneau. This provides us with a more hands-on approach. Going through the devolution process recently, we all know what it’s like to have those decisions made here. One of those decisions, I feel, would be deciding a route for this railroad. I believe there are many opportunities for us to look at.

Mr. Speaker, I would also add that it is imperative to keep First Nations involved every step of the way. We are dealing with First Nation land issues every day.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some examples of how I feel a railroad would benefit Yukon and Canada. First and foremost are the economic opportunities to Yukon from the building of the railroad. We hear all the criticism of our budget, of the lack of large projects for our contractors. This would be a fantastic opportunity and a fantastic amount of work for Yukon contractors — the jobs that are needed by Yukoners, construction workers, the high pay that goes with those jobs, the spinoffs in housing markets, building of houses for workers, and the growth in the number of people living in the Yukon.

We know what will happen to our federal transfer payment if we do not have people living in the Yukon. I believe there is huge potential for growth in the private sector when it comes to building this railroad. We can also look at the opportunities for resource development. We can start with mining. We know what freight costs do to our resources. We have to get them out. If we look at the projects that are on the shelf right now, the projects that are not viable because of transportation costs, a railroad would go a long way to making those projects viable. Along one proposed route alone, the Yukon hosts 17 major base metal deposits containing approximately $50 billion in metals. Right now these are unlikely to be viable, but with transportation infrastructure that a railroad can bring, these become possible.

The logging industry in the Yukon is suffering greatly. Again, transportation costs of getting our logs to market are very high. Trucking costs are very high. The waste from these sawmills right now is either burned or piled and left to rot. If we can get those wastes, as they are now, on a railcar and get them to a market, they become a saleable product. I believe the Yukon mills have no markets in Alaska as they just can’t afford to haul their product there.

In the oil and gas sector, we have talked about the massive amounts of material that need to be transported north to build a pipeline. I recently read that a University of Alaska report figures it would take one million trips for trucks to haul the lengths of pipe in order to construct a 4,000-mile pipeline between the North Slope and Chicago. Imagine what that would do to our highways.

I believe the amount of money we spend on road maintenance today is very high. Could you imagine what would happen if we put that many trucks on the road? There’s also the safety issue of having that many trucks on the road. With our tourism industry, do we really want that many trucks on the road in conjunction with all the tourism traffic?

Mr. Speaker, I believe a railroad could also be discussed in terms of the environmental aspects, as well — reduced emissions when comparing truck traffic to rail service. Obviously, if we have fewer engines running, we will have fewer emissions released into the atmosphere.

Something else that was brought to my attention recently: what are the possibilities of the United States showing up on our doorstep, much as they did in regard to the Alaska Highway, and saying that it’s an issue of national security that they want to build a railway? If they do it in the same manner as the Alaska Highway, how many Yukoners will get work from that? I believe we want to avoid that at all costs. If we can build it on our time, by our schedule, we can benefit from it, always remembering that we want the federal government to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from all other members. I want to hear their thoughts on this matter. I’m sure there are many questions. I’m sure there are many questions on potential environmental impacts from building a railroad, and I believe these questions can best be answered by the bilateral commission. Therein lies one of the very reasons for establishing this commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion. I’m glad the mover of the motion didn’t take too long to speak to it because I think it’s something that is fairly simple for us in this Legislature to address. I’m not aware of anybody who is against this proposed railroad project. I haven’t talked to anybody ever since being first elected who was opposed to the project. So it’s something that I think we can all generally agree with in here.

I think the bigger question is what is this Yukon government doing to advance this project? And there are some serious questions in that area. Some of us are familiar with the recent history regarding the proposed railroad. I know I’ve personally discussed it with former Senator Jeannette James from North Pole, Alaska, while visiting the Alaskan legislators as part of the annual exchange, and I’ve discussed it with senators and legislators when they’ve visited us here in the Yukon, as well.

The trip for this coming year, Mr. Speaker, is now less than two weeks away. There will be another opportunity to discuss this matter with the Alaskans; personally, I’m hoping to do that at the earliest opportunity, but we have to be somewhat realistic. It is a little far-fetched for us to stand here or for the government to take the position that the railroad is coming soon. It would be nice. In our dreams it would come soon, but in reality it’s wrong to raise the hopes and expectations of Yukoners and anybody else that soon we’ll have an international railway, because this project is huge when it comes to cost. It’s expected this project would dwarf the cost of the proposed Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. There are many phases to the proposed railroad. At one point, I have heard it referred to as a rail link between England and the south tip of South America, where eventually, someday, passengers would be able to make the whole journey.

Mr. Speaker, that would be great. It would be great for Yukoners to have the option of taking a railroad Outside. That would add to the limited options currently at our disposal. From a tourism perspective, it would also offer an alternative route for our visitors in that they could take the marine highway or drive the Alaska Highway one way and return or arrive here using the railroad.

This is all good stuff. We know that it would generate hundreds if not thousands of jobs in its construction and probably dozens of jobs in the ongoing operations of the railroad, if it ever happened.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee that this railroad will ever happen, and the reason is the enormous cost and the legwork involved in putting this project together. One question is: who would ever take the lead on this project?

Now I know that some prospective proponents have indicated that they might be interested, but it has been awhile since we have heard from them. This issue isn’t really a hot one on the radar screen for us to deal with. Going back a few years, it was an issue that the Yukon was unable to pony up the dollars, along with Alaska and others, to do a study for the proposed railroad. I questioned the previous Minister of Infrastructure on the Liberal government’s attempts at trying to get the federal government to pitch in some money to help with the proposed study. At that time he informed the House that there had never been an official request from Washington.

Well, since I last talked to the minister, I understand that finally there was an official request from Washington for Ottawa’s participation in this project. So the question is: where is the federal money?

Now, if the federal government isn’t coming up with the few dollars necessary to do the study for this project, then how real is it to expect this project to show up anytime soon? Where is the Yukon government’s commitment to this project? You know, it is possible for this Yukon government — if it is a high enough priority — to pony up the study money necessary in order to do the studies necessary.

Aside from that, Mr. Speaker, I referred earlier to the legwork necessary before this project proceeds. What I’m talking about is community consultation, consultation with First Nations — in particular, regarding the right-of-way through their traditional territories — and other governments and people in the territory who might be affected by this railroad. It wasn’t long ago when I heard the Minister of Education talk about the three comings of the white man and one of them was the building of the Alaska Highway. Well, this is of the magnitude where it would be the fourth. So, we all must understand that this is a huge project with long-term impacts on the Yukon — mostly good, I would imagine. Nevertheless, both sides of the issue must be explored.

Now, the Yukon government has the responsibility to do that here in the territory. What’s it doing? Not much from what I can see, except the odd headline or the odd motion tabled by a government backbencher to make the unsuspecting believe that something is happening on the railroad. But reality paints a different picture.

There is nothing much happening on this proposed railroad. If the government considers it to be a high enough priority, it will do something.

When I see a motion brought forward like this, I also expect it to be accompanied by some action plan supported by the government, indicating what it will be doing toward this project. But nothing was there.

The government’s commitments are completely hollow in that regard, just like the other budget items — completely hollow when it comes to planting seeds for economic growth and for raising the hopes of Yukoners that there will be a better Yukon tomorrow — completely void of anything substantial.

Now, I have a lot of material on the railroad, and if I decided to address it all, we’d be here all afternoon, and I don’t intend to do that. I would like to hear what other members have to say.

One of the items that deserves attention regarding this railroad is the proposed routing. This should be a high priority when it comes to consulting Yukoners. The previous government seemed to favour the backcountry route, which stemmed up from Watson Lake through Faro and out the Ladue Valley just south of Dawson.

Senator Jeannette James, on the other hand, pointed out — at one point, at least — that it made sense to follow the Alaska Highway pipeline route and establish more of a utility corridor following the Alaska Highway. It would also aid in the construction of a pipeline, should that project follow the railroad. That seems to make sense.

So already we have two varying options that carry a magnitude of impacts, good and bad, for the Yukon as a whole. Have Yukoners heard this discussion? Have they been asked which route they would prefer? Have there been any studies to indicate which route would be more favourable for a railroad?

No, there haven’t been. I recall one study about a year ago that indicated all these billions of dollars worth of minerals to be harvested from the Tintina Trench route, and that seemed to imply that it would be a favoured route for such a railroad. But, Mr. Speaker, it didn’t carry the whole gamut of issues that should be addressed when dealing with a matter this substantial.

I remember from a few weeks back when the Premier was in Ottawa, he indicated that this matter was on his list of discussion points with the federal government. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see anything following from that. Unfortunately, the mover of this motion didn’t — not that I am aware — give any information that might shed light on what transpired from that discussion. And that is unfortunate, because the government should be free with the information if it truly believes this is an issue that is good and important to all Yukoners. It shouldn’t be claiming ownership of any developments and information around this issue. It should be free with that information, and I beg it to consider that.

So I think I have covered the main points of this matter. It is one of these projects that would be great to have, but just where is it on the calendar? Where is it in reality and how pertinent is it to our discussion today? I know the members opposite raised a question of relevance regarding our motion last week on the Iraq war, and we heard from Yukoners how they disagreed with this Yukon Party government on that matter.

I would throw this back at those members and really ask them to examine the relevance of the motion they chose to bring forward today, especially in the context of the lack of information, a lack of any development by this government in pushing this issue ahead. I’m looking forward to their comments, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Mr. Arntzen:   Well, there is no doubt in my mind that a railroad being built through the Yukon would be a great benefit. I think we agree on that. For example, we would be able to access our resources, which we have plenty of, and ship them to the marketplace at competitive rates for competing mines or forest industries throughout the world, as one or two examples.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the last big mine that operated in the Yukon, Anvil Range mine, was very dependent on the cost of transportation of its product to the marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I also know that the high cost of transportation of concentrate to the tidewater became a very important part in the decision to discontinue operating that mine. This mine employed many, many Yukoners. It was of great importance to us and would provide great economic benefits to us.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States signed a roads-to-resources bill in the year 2000, which provided the United States and Canada to jointly form a commission to conduct a study to build a rail link between Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia. It also meant a road to resources for us in the Yukon. For example, the mineral-rich Tintina Trench would be accessible, along with the oil and gas fields in southeast Yukon, as well as the forest-rich corner of southeast Yukon.

Mr. Speaker, all these areas are in line with where that resource road would be built. The member opposite referred to two possible routes. That is entirely possible, and there might even be a third.

Furthermore, the tourism potential this railroad would create is unlimited. Just think of the small communities along the way that are not accessible, at this point, due to the fact that only major airports, such as Whitehorse, can handle large aircraft from Europe.

Speaking of Europe, Mr. Speaker, this railroad could potentially link us to Europe, via Russia, into the rail system throughout the rest of Europe and also potentially to Asia, but I guess we will speak on that another day. Asia is big.

As I pointed out earlier, the benefit of this railroad is unlimited in many ways and could be the cornerstone for all Yukoners to build from for a prosperous future for our children of tomorrow.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   There are some interesting things to consider on this proposal. I think that one thing that has been a bit missed in the debate so far is that the proposal isn’t necessarily to build a railroad, but the proposal is to get things going to look at building a railroad. There are a number of different aspects of this.

Early in the year 2000, the United States President signed what was called the Rails to Resources Act into law. This bill provided for the United States involvement in a joint United States/Canada commission to conduct a feasibility study for the building of a rail link between Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia. There are a number of aspects to this. This is a project that has been under review for a long, long time. I suppose it has sort of the mystique of the Orient Express and everything else. It’s for travel of all sorts. It’s for moving around minerals and resources of all sorts.

Some proposals have shown this railway to go out by the Aleutian Islands, across, by one means or another, a bridge — however that would be done — and to flow into eastern Russia, across Russia, into Europe. This is a very far-reaching goal, a very far-reaching vision. It’s something that a lot of people have worked on for a long, long time.

While I have to admit that I’m not into railroads, I suppose, and I have a hard time imagining getting a train across the Aleutian Islands and across what should be left of the land bridge and into Siberia — I have a hard time with that — there are a lot of people who have worked on this for a long, long time and who believe this is so.

You also look at what it can do and what the steps can do within Alaska, Yukon, down into British Columbia, Alberta, into the United States, and what those things can do, and there are great benefits. The Rails to Resources Act, basically, in the United States began to look at that. And the committee that was set up to examine this was structured within that bill. It was structured to be a binational committee or commission — I think the terms are used interchangeably in there. It was estimated, at that point in time, that the costs would be roughly $20 million Canadian.

The funding portion for the United States is virtually in place. It was their bill; it would be pretty embarrassing not to fund it. Also, with the election recently in the State of Alaska with Governor Murkowski coming into power and the Republicans coming into power, that has a great number of benefits; it has a great number of problems. When we look at projects like ANWR and oil drilling and such, as we mentioned earlier in the House today, Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem with that.

But in terms of the railroad, I think we can count on support there. That’s something that we would like to actively talk about with the Alaskan legislators coming on the weekend. The member opposite suggested what we would do to get this going — two weeks, you’re right. Time goes fast when you’re having fun.

But that’s certainly a start, to get that dialogue going. But the funding for the Canadian portion has to come from the Government of Canada, and that commitment hasn’t been forthcoming yet at all, and that’s what the motion really is about, to try to encourage the Canadian federal government to get moving on this to establish this commission.

Our vision is that this committee — or council or commission or whatever you want to call it — be established with the United States by their recommendation’s side of that commission centred in Juneau. Our vision is to centre it in Whitehorse. I think through DIAND, Indian Affairs, DFO — God forbid we mention that word — with all of these things controlling the Yukon from 3,000 miles away, I think we have good and ample evidence that it doesn’t work. There are major, major problems with that.

We see the Canadian side of the commission being centred in Whitehorse. That is roughly $10 million that would come into Whitehorse to begin this process that the member opposite has asked that he would like to start. He is right; we have to get that process started, and it is through the establishment of this commission that we would start that.

Senator John Cowdery, who is the Chair of the Alaskan Senate Transportation Committee, introduced Bill SB-31 on January 21 of this year, and noted in a motion entitled, An Act relating to a railroad utility corridor for extension of the Alaska Railroad to Canada and to extension of the Alaska Railroad to connect with the North American railroad system — and we think our bills are long, Mr. Speaker. That entire thing is the name of the act, for the benefit of our friends in Hansard. They have already started to indicate that they would like this project to go. They would have liked at least to have this commission started, funded, put into place and beginning to look at this issue. It is very, very important.

Senator Fred Dyson from Alaska is also a very strong supporter of the railroad. A number of the people from the Alaskan State Legislature are very, very strong supporters.

As this railroad forms and as it comes together, there are a number of issues to look at. The members opposite are quite correct — we have to look at the route; we have to look at what goes where, why, how big. One can make the big assumption that it’s not going to be a narrow gauge railroad like Skagway but, at the same time, there is a part of a spur, and in the very near future we certainly hope that there is a complete spur to the tidewater in Skagway and, currently, that is narrow gauge. That’s another problem. There aren’t that many narrow gauge railroads left in the world, and there may be some problems in terms of trying to get the two to communicate, but those are problems that can be worked out. There are ways around them.

When you look at the benefits of the railroad and what we can accomplish with a railroad — a previous speaker alluded to the number of trucks necessary to carry the pipe for a pipeline, if and when that goes. I think it probably will go; we don’t know when; it’s not something that’s government driven. The user will have to determine when it goes in, but at some point, Mr. Speaker, it will go. When that happens, we have a whack of pipe to move up here. We have a pile of equipment, supplies, et cetera. There’s a huge benefit to this territory and to everyone along the pipeline.

By putting the railroad in ahead of time, we accomplish two things. We not only get an easier and perhaps cheaper pipeline cost — and these are things that that commission has to look at. They can’t simply say, "Well, it’s this or that." It’s not this or that. Both go together. It’s a cheaper way to bring the equipment in for a pipeline.

The railroad could also go in concurrently with a pipeline. Move both; build the bed as you go, build the pipe as you go, and build them together. That’s an option.

Is that a reasonable option? We don’t know. We need this commission to make that determination. The fuel costs were alluded to. The fuel cost of running some of these trucks and equipment up and down the highway is staggering and will be staggering over time — not only the cost of the fuel, but the cost of the maintenance equipment, the cost of running the maintenance equipment, buying the maintenance equipment. I mean, all of the infrastructure in there is staggering, way beyond what we look at that highway, in terms of simply tourist travel.

It’s interesting to note, too, that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from the viewpoint of the environment, trains are much more efficient. They will have much less impact on the environment, in terms of ozone layer and just general pollution, the things we have to concern ourselves with. There are huge environmental impacts from that.

And that’s one thing we do have to look at. I agree with the members opposite, whom I have spoken with about this. One of the things about railroads — a line that came up the other day in a discussion is, "Railroads opening vast access." Look at the western part of North America and what it was before the railroad, and look at what it was after the railroad, and you can see the impact a railroad can have. That’s got to be part of it.

Does that mean running it up the Alaska Highway is the benefit because you don’t go into pristine areas? Possible. Does it mean that you want it to run up the highway because that’s where the jobs and support will be? Also possible. These are things the commission has to look at, and we have to get this commission going — not only to encourage our federal government to put the money in, but we have this huge pot of U.S. government money that we would certainly like to be sharing in to get these questions answered.

As you look at those options, there are other sides to the coin. People have mentioned the possibility of bringing the railroad up the Tintina Trench — also a good possibility for a number of reasons. That’s where the minerals are. That’s where the wealth is. Geologically, that’s hard to argue with. There are also some very pristine areas through the Tintina Trench. Do you really want to go into there? But if you’re going to bring a railroad up to do mineral development, obviously if that’s where the minerals are, it’s going to be impacted anyway. We need people to be looking at this. We need environmental assessments done.

The other aspect to that, too, is knowing that there’s something in the Tintina Trench, you put the railroad outside of it, Mr. Speaker. Now, how are you going to get it out? So, now you have to have your access corridors, you need roads, you possibly need rail spurs. I have mentioned all of these things to illustrate the huge number of problems that this commission is going to have to be looking at, and it is imperative that we get this commission going.

There are some interesting things that we have stumbled into, Mr. Speaker, in looking at this. The federal railroad administration, which is part of the United States Department of Transportation — I don’t refer to the Canadian — has said that, "Railroads are inherently efficient in moving passengers and shipping many classes of freight. On average, U.S. railroads shipped freight at an increasing rate of 386 revenue ton miles per gallon in 1990." That’s from the Association of American Railroads.

Transport 2000, which is a document, has stated, "Emission reductions must not only be achieved through such measures as cleaner fuels. These must also be achieved with optimum vehicle distances and with the most efficient mode of transportation." Among some recommendations, the document Transport 2000 is encouraging a "model shift from trucking toward rail transportation over significant distances to achieve goods transport with fewer emissions."

So I think this is a good example of some of the environmental impacts that we can be looking at. Another interesting document comes out of the Railway Association of Canada, so we’ll bring it home a little bit more. And I quote, "With respect to greenhouse gas, rail’s performance is different, positive and sustainable. Canada’s railways are Kyoto compliant, according to the latest Environment Canada data. From 1990 to 1999, greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian railways decreased by 8.5 percent. It’s easy, as an aside, to initially look at that and say the railways have sort of been falling down lately, but this is while managing growth in 30 percent in business levels since 1990. There are few energy consuming industries that can claim such results, and certainly no other in the transportation sector." And that comes from the Railway Association of Canada.

In doing a comparison of heavy-duty trucks and railways, the Railway Association of Canada found that, "In all cases, rail outperformed trucks in grams-per-tonne kilometre of emissions…." the best measure of emissions per unit of work, Mr. Speaker. In the case of emissions that are linked to smog production, particularly nitrogen oxides, the story was very much the same.

An Environment Canada fact sheet, Fact Sheet 3, if anyone really wants to look it up, from January 2002, between 1990 and 1999, this sector, referring to the transportation sector, contributed 33 percent of Canada’s emissions growth of 91.4 metric tonne from 1990 to 1999. In 1990, transportation is estimated to have emitted 146 metric tonne in 1999. This has risen 21 percent to 176.6. Almost all of the growth in emissions since 1999 can be contributed to three subsections, specifically, light-duty gasoline trucks — the category including sport utility vehicles, or SUVs and minivans — contributed 42 percent or 13 metric tonnes, of the sector growth; heavy-duty diesel vehicles contributed 40 percent, or 12.3 metric tonnes; and off-road diesel vehicles were responsible for 15 percent, or 4.4 metric tonnes, of the overall sectoral growth.

Those are very significant figures, Mr. Speaker.

The railroads have proven themselves to be more energy efficient, to be less polluting, to carry more material and really do give us a number of opportunities to begin to move our goods and materials and to do it in such a way that it is the easiest on the environment. That’s what we have to look for — a balance. We always have to find that balance between what we can produce, the economy we can have and the environment that we all love and wish to protect so much.

I go back to earlier discussions in this House — without an economy, without resources moving, without having the jobs, money and wherewithal to protect this environment, we can’t do it. If we don’t have the money to fly the helicopters, to employ the conservation officers, to employ the environmental assessment people — if these people aren’t out there and they don’t have the resources to work, they simply can’t. That’s just the easiest way to put it.

With those words I will happily yield the floor to others here who wish to speak to this good motion. I certainly urge all members of the House to give it support, to encourage our federal government to strike this commission to evaluate how this railroad can be built, where it can be built, and to give their valued input at that time.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise to make a couple of comments on the record and to ensure that members opposite are aware of my particular views on the subject and the work that has been done.

First of all, as a party, the Yukon Liberal Party has been, and continues to be, supportive of the railway concept. We have demonstrated that in the past, and I think we would be remiss if, at some point in our remarks, we didn’t acknowledge the work of Jeannette James, who, I understand, is no longer in the Alaska State Legislature. However, she was, and am sure continues to be, a tireless supporter of the railway.

And there are a number of rail buffs throughout the Yukon as well who have supported this idea and made sure it stayed on the radar screen of the government, politicians and the public. Most notably of these, of course, is Don Taylor, the former Speaker of this Legislature. Our government hired Mr. Taylor and asked him to act as a consultant for the government on this particular project because he — and to quote words I have used before — worked tirelessly from his camp at Stewart Lake to promote this particular initiative. He was hired by the Liberal government to follow and monitor the progress of the railway very closely, which he has done an admirable job of, and I thank him publicly for his efforts.

The U.S./Canada commission that is funded by the U.S. Senate bill was for $6 million, over three to five years, and was sponsored by Senator Murkowski. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 27, 2000. So, how the good Member for Porter Creek North got from $6 million to $10 million is, I guess, another example of Yukon Party math.

The money will not be spent until a commission is struck. The difficulty is that, as of January 2000, once the bill had been signed by the President — it was signed in 2000, and as of March 2001, the Canadian government still had not been formally contacted to participate. What happened is that the U.S. Legislature signs a bill and says, "We’re going to spend $6 million. It’s going to be a joint commission. But, by the way, maybe somebody should have talked to Canada about it."

I met in late January 2001 with then Minister of Transport Collenette who, as I said, had not received any kind of an invitation or formal delegation or any kind of formal representation from the U.S. on this particular bill. In fact, it wasn’t until March 2001 that Senator Murkowski was able to meet with Minister Collenette.

Minister Collenette’s response at the time was caution, given that we are looking at a Canadian government that was no longer in the business at that point in time of building railways, and I note there was additional money in the last federal budget for railways. The view at that time was the private sector, which I am sure that members opposite can recognize that the private sector is important in these projects and that was Minister Collenette’s view, especially with a $1.23-billion to $3-billion price tag attached to this particular proposal. So following the representation with Minister Collenette, I also met with the Prime Minister on this, who, as people are aware, has a strong record and a vision of the north and an understanding of northern development as, of course, he was the former minister. He at that point indicated to me that if the Americans were coming with a proposal we would certainly look at it and we would be interested in it, but we haven’t had an invitation. So that was where, other than continuing to put it on the radar screen with Ottawa and anticipate with eagerness the American proposal, our government, working with others, worked toward establishment of this commission and looked forward to the expenditure of American dollars into the feasibility of this potential.

We support the notion, applaud what the American legislators have done, look forward to it, would welcome and would participate and, of course, would support such an initiative. This could truly be a tremendous jolt to our Yukon economy.

I support the motion, but the question before us is: what has the side opposite done? It’s nice and a good idea to put these motions on the floor and to support the motion, but what have they actually done in support of this proposal? I find it fascinating to go back through the old media releases from the Yukon Party caucus. Of course, that was then and this is now, Mr. Speaker. It’s amazing that the former member, sole representative of that particular party, was suggesting that I wasn’t doing enough, that it wasn’t good enough to just do motions. One had to walk the talk. Well, the shoe is on the other foot. What is the government going to do to walk the talk?

I support the motion. I’ll vote in favour of it. I agree that the railway is a good idea. I support the establishment of the commission, urge Canada to accept, come to the table, have a 20/24 — it’s interesting that the money didn’t grow, but the size of the commission has grown in the various media reports over time.

Mr. Speaker, I’m urging the Yukon Party to adopt their former recommendations and walk the talk and actually do something to promote this proposal, other than the motion, which I support. I look forward to the other comments from the members opposite on this particular initiative.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Lang:   I would like to thank the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin for bringing this motion forward. I would also like to thank the opposition for their support of this motion. I would also like to remind the leader of the third party that U.S. $6 million is $10 million in Canadian. That’s the exchange rate on American money as of today.

What are we doing? Well, we are going to pass this motion and then we’re going to meet with the Alaska delegation and we’re hopefully going to have some input on this vision.

Now, it’s funny this vision that we’re picturing now with the railroad — I was discussing this 20 years ago with a group of Mannix construction executives from America, from Nebraska. They were sent up by the American government to look at the engineering behind crossing the Bering Sea with a railroad. So this railroad has not just started in concept in the United States. This idea has been going through many, many periods of ups and downs.

So as far as new ideas, this certainly isn’t a new idea. But I think it’s a positive move for our government — the opposition and the government side — to encourage the federal government to participate financially and physically in a commission to look at all aspects of rail link between B.C., Yukon and Alaska.

I and the government recommend that the Canadian commission should be headquartered in Whitehorse for many reasons: input from northerners, First Nations. All sorts of northern people could have an input on the commission because that’s where the decision should be made.

We are encouraged by the Alaska government’s position and their forward-looking vision of the benefits of an extension of the B.C. Rail and Alaska railroad to incorporate Yukon and what this would do to improve North America’s transportation grid.

Let’s say the difference between the difference between Russia and America was transportation. The Russians had 11 times zones — that is how big Russia is — couldn’t get the product to the truck. America always had a transportation grid, always had vision and that vision came from when they were expanding into Nebraska, Oklahoma, those areas, followed with transportation grids. In the beginning, their transportation grids were railroads. They always crisscrossed North America with railroads. We followed that with our concept of a railroad coast-to-coast, and that was important. That meant a guy in B.C. could communicate and do trade with a guy in New Brunswick. That is the difference between North America and Asia.

Now I think we as Canadians have sort of lost that vision. The Americans always have had that vision. They are not looking at tying Alaska into North America; they are looking at expanding it into Russia, into Asia and into Europe, so one day one of the members opposite can put their Suburban on a train and can go to Paris. Now that concept is out there. Now this isn’t going to happen tomorrow, but the vision is there that one day, as the world shrinks, we will be able to be tied in with railroad so we can tie in, as the member opposite said, from London to Washington, D.C.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, a railroad would benefit the resource industry and encourage the economic development in Yukon. I mean, if we are just going to be self-serving and talk about the Yukon, the railroad would definitely be a big plus. The Minister of Environment talks about where the railroads are going to go, we are going to need roads to it, we are going to need spur lines, we are going to need all these other issues that will come up with building the railroad, but those are issues that we will decide on a local basis.

Now, the mineral exploration in the Yukon would — again, we’re dealing with a product and we’re dealing with price and we’re dealing with transportation. Again, with the figures that the Environment minister gave us, the economics of a railroad for us make total sense in opening up the north.

Forestry, another one of my departments, again is about price, transportation, location, all those things. We have forestry, we have — what do we have in forestry? We can cut down logs. We can make lumber. We could make pulp. We could make a regrind, which is before pulp. That all needs transportation and it all costs money to get it to market. Whether it’s in the Yukon or outside the Yukon, we have to take our resources from where we get them to the market. So, there you go. There’s your price. So the railroad would definitely be a benefit.

Now, if you talk about the Alaska Highway pipeline, which is another — as the member opposite talks about lack of vision and what do we do on this side besides move motions and all this stuff. Well, everything starts somewhere. We are on this side of the House looking at a vision of the Yukon. We have been given a mandate for the next three and a half or four years to bring that forward. This motion is the start of what we’re going to do to facilitate the railroad when it comes through the Yukon, if in fact it does come through the Yukon. Of course, the member opposite says it might not. Well, we might be hit with a bolt of lightning.

But what I’m telling you is that the Government of Yukon is not going to pay to build a railroad, Mr. Speaker. I can say that to the member across there. We will participate where we can. We do not have the resources to build a railroad, and he knows that as well as I know that.

We are going to work with the Alaska government, the B.C. government, the federal Canadian government and the federal American government. Those are four big issues we have to work with to get this railroad done. We are very pleased to see the delegation coming from Alaska. Now, that delegation is coming from Alaska to introduce themselves to us as a government. Hopefully, everybody takes advantage of that meeting and meets these people. They’re probably going to bring up this railroad idea — this vision. We’ll definitely address that vision.

Are we, on this side of the House — all of us — are we for a railroad? Well, we’re for talking about the railroad and eventually getting the railroad done. Will we get it done in three and a half or four years? I doubt it. But I’ll tell you one thing about this side of the House — we are more than vision. We will go to work and see if this thing is viable, and we will work with the parties that are concerned about the railroad and make the railroad a positive thing in the Yukon.

Now, as far as the pipeline is concerned, when it comes down the Alaska Highway, or when it comes down through the Yukon — not down the Alaska Highway — there is a concept out there, as the Minister of Environment said; there are questions about the environment; there are issues about First Nations; there are issues with northerners. There is a list of issues out there — a checklist of challenges.

See, that is the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We look at challenges; they talk about problems. We are here to solve the challenges that are put before the Yukon with respect to the railroad. Now, if we had a perfect world — we don’t live in a perfect world, but in a perfect world — if we were to build a pipeline and a railroad, now that would be mind-boggling. Talk about the vision there, Mr. Speaker.

But what I’m saying to you is that we’re working with the Alaskans, the American government. We’re recommending that the commissioner’s office is here and the money that that would generate alone in this economic time that we find ourselves in now would be definitely a boost to our economy. It would be $10 million Canadian, and for the third party, it would be somewhere between $6 million and $10 million in American, depending on the exchange.

So we want to see the commission stationed here. We want to work with Alaska. We want the Canadian government to participate financially because this is a huge federal issue. It is not some issue the Yukon government could financially take on. We want them to participate, and we want to participate with them.

So, Mr. Speaker, the vision on this side of the House is that the railroad would certainly be a positive economic growth tool for the Yukon. In fact, if you were to look at figures, it would be much larger and much more beneficial than a pipeline. So what I’m saying to the House today, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is that we are looking forward to working with the Alaskans, the Canadians, British Columbians and our fellow citizens to make this railroad a realistic thing in the near future. So stay tuned. Hopefully the railroad will come through.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my comments to this motion put forward by the government side. This is not a new issue that has been brought to the Yukon, to the floor of this Legislature. It has been dealt with in the past, and it is not a new concept. It’s something that is brought forward again that possibly could boost the economy in the Yukon Territory, and that’s why it has been brought forward — and also with the interests in Alaska.

We met with the politicians in Alaska — the Member for Kluane, at the time it was the MLA for Whitehorse Centre and the MLA for Faro. We went over there to talk about the pipeline, pipeline issues and so on, and we wanted to get information flowing back and forth on this issue. To our surprise, the biggest issue over the pipeline that the Alaskans talked about was the railway connecting through the Yukon to the south, to Alaska. This was talked about more than the pipeline itself.

Certainly we see the benefits. We know approximately, I guess, where this railway may go — down the Tintina Trench. It does affect a lot of communities, lots of First Nations along this way, and it certainly brings all kinds of issues forward.

No doubt, the members opposite know, I guess, concerns that people have in regard to the environmental impacts of the pipeline running through the Yukon Territory. Well, this is no different and members opposite know that.

We know that should a decision of this type happen, that it does take time for it to go through. But we’ve seen things happen in the Yukon with tremendous speed. I know the members opposite complain about five months in government and it’s hard to even read a briefing book, but the Alaska Highway was built in nine months. This type of thing could be moved very quickly depending on who’s behind it, how hard it’s pushed by the Alaskans and Americans in wanting to ensure that there is a transportation linkage from the south to the north.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more than the railroad itself that needs to be talked about with the commission. First of all, we need to recognize that we are in First Nation traditional territories, with the possibility of crossing settlement lands and so on. But the Alaskans are talking quite a bit more than just the railway. The discussions with the pipeline, for example, talked about possibly having a railway right-of-way down the pipeline corridor in some sections. But they’re not only talking about that — and here’s the bigger impasse. The positive part would be if they’re really talking about a fibre optic line down this corridor.

The other thing that’s talked about quite a bit by the Americans is piping water — a water pipeline, which for Yukon, and Canada as a whole, is quite a big issue. Now, throw all this into a discussion about a railway right-of-way through the territory and you’re going to generate a huge amount of discussion with the people here in the territory. I know the member opposite, the previous speaker, just talked about how this is a huge federal issue. Well, this is a huge Yukon issue, and it will have a lasting impact on the territory, like the highway did. It opens up land, access to land, and that is something that we, on this side of the House, have concerns with, ensuring that, of course, those issues are dealt with in the proper manner.

We have talked a lot about how this government promised consultation throughout their term in government. Well, this is one that needs extensive consultation — extensive consultation.

Like the pipeline, like the environmental impacts that still need to be done with the pipeline, this is another that would have a huge, huge impact and we all know that the benefits of having a railway and having a train going through the Yukon Territory, linking us with the south, is something that I think a lot of people thought about. It just doesn’t seem real or realistic, and we really have a push from Alaska to get this done, pressuring, I guess, Canada and the Yukon to buy into this concept. And this is not something new that the Government of Yukon has faced. Previous governments have faced the same thing.

What we are asking in this motion is to put together basically a very, very high level commission, an international joint commission, to deal with this, and I think that is where it should go. But we shouldn’t leave out Yukoners born and raised here and who will spend the rest of their lives here and will feel the impact of this development, should it ever take place.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments I would like to introduce a friendly amendment to this motion and ask the government to seriously consider this, and I would like to speak on it afterwards too.

Mr. Fairclough:   I move

THAT Motion No. 36 be amended by replacing the first clause that begins with the phrase "THAT this House urges" with the following: "THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work closely with the Government of Canada and with Yukon First Nation governments whose land the railroad would cross to identify and explore all areas of mutual interest related to the Alaska railway proposal and…"

Speaker:   It has been moved by the hon. Member for Mayo-Tatchun that Motion No. 36 be amended by replacing the first clause that begins with the phrase, "THAT this House urges" with the following: THAT this House urges the Government of the Yukon to work closely with the Government of Canada and with Yukon First Nation governments whose land the railroad would cross to identify and explore all areas of mutual interest related to the Alaskan railroad proposal and..."

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, one of the things that this change does is focus the attention on good consultation between the Yukon and the Canadian government. I guess the bottom line is that we don’t want to see this derailed, and I say this because of past experience on how the governments have tried to get into areas of high mineral deposits — and I’m referring to the Casino Trail, for example — which runs down the Tintina Trench. It was surveyed. A lot of slashing took place. There was a major highway corridor, and very little took place in consultation with First Nations. This was before, of course, their final agreements, and the whole project was shut down and we lost the opportunity to access a huge area of land that could have been used for extraction of minerals and so on. Just to give people an idea, for example, Casino mines, which is a bit north of Prospector Mountain, which would have been hauling ore out on the Casino Trail, which is the Freegold Trail right now, would have been taking out four to five times the ore that the Faro mine took out in a day, and that’s a huge quantity ore, and a good transportation route would have been necessary for that to happen.

The other thing is that we have final agreements and First Nation settlement lands, and we’re not exactly sure where this railway is even going. Also, we left the final clause out to form this international joint commission. That part is okay and it’s good, but the need to do our homework is very much essential, and I don’t believe that it changes the intent of the motion at all — it just commits the Yukon government to work with First Nation governments and the Government of Canada to focus our energies and ensure that we have mutual interests being worked on right now.

We, on this side of the House, obviously support this and we’re certainly willing to pass this motion should the government side support this amendment — this is a friendly amendment, it’s not one that changes it a whole lot. Even myself — the railway is close to me. My father did some surveying of a portion of the railway up near Faro many, many years ago, so this is not something new that is coming across our desks on this side of the House. It has been talked about by my family members for years. There is very much an interest to do this. We just want governments to work closer together, and the amendment just focuses on that.

Mr. Hassard:   Yes, I would like to say that we do agree with this amendment, and we can support the motion, as amended, and we would like to close the debate.

Speaker:   Is there any more debate on the main motion, as amended? If the member now speaks, he will close debate. Does any other member wish to be heard?

Mr. Hassard:   I would like to thank all members for their comments.

Clerk:   Motion No. 32, standing in the name of Mr. Rouble.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Member for Southern Lakes

THAT this House recognize that:

(1) every Canadian citizen deserves to receive adequate health care, regardless of where they live;

(2) the cost of maintaining the current level of health care in Yukon has been increasing at an annual rate of $7 million to $10 million dollars, while transfer payments from the Government of Canada have been decreasing;

(3) the Canada health and social transfer, which is based on per capita funding, does not address the specialized needs of the three northern territories that have small populations separated by vast distances and high transportation costs; and

(4) the recently negotiated health care fund, while a step in the right direction, will only cover the annual increases in health care costs; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to work together with the three northern territories to develop a permanent pan-northern solution to address the health care needs in the north.

Mr. Rouble:   Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address a motion that recognizes an urgent need of many, if not all, Yukoners, and a motion that also proposes a resolution to the situation. I would ask all members to support this motion that looks at addressing this issue. We propose a way of solving this situation by way of developing a permanent pan-northern solution to address health care needs across the north.

Mr. Speaker, I’m fairly confident that we can all agree that every Canadian citizen deserves to receive adequate health care, regardless of where they live. That was put forward in the Canadian Medical Health Act of 1968, which guarantees every Canadian citizen the same level of health care regardless of economic or geographic position. We all deserve health care, whether we live in Whitehorse, Old Crow, Toronto or St. John’s.

And, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure we all recognize the rising health care costs. As I researched this, I was looking at some of the figures and was astounded and shocked by the drastic increases that we have seen — 30 percent over the last five years. It’s obviously difficult for the Yukon to continue to carry those costs.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian health and social transfer, which is based on per capita funding, isn’t solving our problems either. We’re in a situation where we have a declining population and increasing costs. So it’s costing us more dollars per person and we’re getting fewer dollars in return because we have fewer people. We need a different solution.

Also, the north faces some very specialized needs. We are a vast distance with a very small population, and we share these characteristics with our neighbours to the east. We are in a situation with ageing demographics. In recent years, our average age has changed from 31 years to a little over 36 years. Our population is getting older and, with it, there are increasing health care demands.

In addition, recent technological changes have come forward that increase costs further. Years ago, we wouldn’t have worried about bringing in a CAT scan machine, but we have that now and it is expected now. Years ago, we wouldn’t have expected to have an automatic heart defibrillator, but now they are expected and now communities are running bake sales and dinners in order to raise the funds for those types of machines.

Some of the other specialized needs of northern citizens include the high instance of diabetes, fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and alcoholism. Again, these are issues that we share with our neighbours to the east and also, because of our distance from major centers and some of the other challenges that our communities face, we have a problem attracting qualified medical staff — again, another challenge faced by our neighbours to the east.

We share so many common problems with our neighbours to the east that I think it just makes sense to partner and work with others we share common problems with and work with them toward a solution.

Mr. Speaker, this motion does that. It encourages the Government of Canada to work together with the three northern territories to develop a permanent pan-northern solution to address the health care needs of the north. The recently negotiated health care fund, while it’s a step in the right direction, doesn’t give us a long-term, permanent solution to this. The health care fund, though, Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to announce, has increased the funds available for health care in the north, and I understand that it will help to fund some of the specialized equipment that is needed in our communities, things like the automatic heart defibrillators. I’m very encouraged to hear that those are coming to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I’d ask that all members support a motion such as this. Again, it puts forward the issue of creating a partnership to work collectively to come to a solution. It’s another instance where, if we work together, we can be stronger. And I would expect that we can all agree on most of the premises that this motion is based on. This is a pressing issue that all Yukoners face, and I’m sure that all of us heard that health care was an incredibly important issue when we travelled door to door in the recent campaigns. I know that, in the Marsh Lake, Tagish and Carcross areas, this issue was brought up quite a bit. Health care is important to people. We as Canadians have an expectation of health care. With that expectation we have a responsibility to satisfy that. That’s one of the key responsibilities of government in Canadian government. The universal health care is a badge of honour that all of us as Canadians proudly wear.

I would ask that all members, then, support this motion so that we can then work toward a permanent solution, not a stop-gap solution. While it’s a good one, it doesn’t go far enough in addressing our long-term needs.

We’re on a bit of a roll now working with our neighbours. The folks in Ottawa are becoming accustomed to the three of us making a presentation at their door. I think we should continue that, continue to work with our northern partners to satisfy some of our common problems. We certainly face a lot of these similar issues all the way across the north. If we can work together on this issue, I believe it will help to foster further relationships. It already has. When Premier Kakfwi was recently here, he commented on how well we could work together on this health care accord, and he commented that he hoped it would lead to further accords and working together on future solutions.

In closing, I would again urge the House to stand and support this motion and to stand and support a motion where we could work with our common northern partners on resolving an issue that is of key importance to all Yukoners.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   I’ll be short in my comments to this motion also.

What we’re asking, I guess — we’re urging the Government of Canada to work with the north, and we do this by putting together a team between the three territories. It only makes common sense. We certainly support this motion. It’s not something new to say that the three territories haven’t worked together in the past. We just had the formation of Nunavut, and before that it was just basically the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. On many fronts, ministers of the north, in meeting with other ministers across Canada — provincial ministers and the federal ministers — always teamed up and tried to move northern issues forward.

At times, we came close to moving things great distances. Many times, though, we were just kind of shut out because the Yukon and the Northwest Territories were territories; they didn’t have provincial-type powers. More and more, as we voice ourselves, we are being heard as an equivalent, I suppose, to a province. Devolution certainly pushes us a bit further toward that. I remember myself, as an Environment minister, working with Stephen Kakfwi at the time, who was also an Environment minister, and teaming up on many fronts when it came to national issues.

I’m not exactly sure what the percentage is, but certainly the north makes up a huge land mass of Canada itself, and we can’t ignore that. When it comes to climate change, for example, we need to be speaking with one voice as having the impact of climate change in the north — having the biggest impact. That reflects right down to our health and the health of people. If our animals and our birds are not healthy, it reflects back on our health. Some people depend more on wildlife than others. In the north, the Gwitchin, for example, depend on the caribou and, if they’re not around, that health diminishes, particularly with our elders. Certainly we believe that the animals we eat eat the plants that have the medicines that keep us healthy, and that’s why so many people are eating wild meat.

Mr. Speaker, we’d like to see that continue, and the way it can continue is if the north works together.

Now, we’re faced, I think, with some tough times in front of us — some challenges, I should say — for example, ensuring that we do have adequate numbers of nurses and doctors here in the Yukon. Some of the numbers that have been put forward by the nursing association are just staggering, and we’re going to be competing with the provinces, with the other territories, with the south, the States and so on for the nurses we produce through our universities here in Canada.

For example, we produce about 5,000 nurses out of our education institutes every year and, over the next three years, we are looking at 30,000 nurses disappearing from our system — either retiring or moving south — so our numbers can’t even sustain us over the next three years. And over the next five or 10 years, I think that number just jumps way up to 80,000, and we are not going to be filling those positions, so Yukon has a challenge to ensure that we have the nurses and doctors that we need here and can be attracted to the north. How some provinces are doing it is through better housing, better wages and better benefits, and we need to address that as well. I think the north together can address those issues so we can find a way to attract nurses and doctors here.

I agree with the member opposite that we have an ageing population here in the territory and the cost of health care is certainly going up. It is going up because of the kinds of equipment we are bringing in like the CAT scan, for example. It costs $400,000 to run that a year and we don’t even have the professional people here to read it so we have to have it read and analyzed down south and brought up here so we can have a proper reading of it. That is a huge cost to the territory. Now we have other equipment that is state of the art, and it’s the same thing. We have to have educated people here to deal with this equipment. There are other things we could do too. We haven’t put a lot of emphasis on things like First Nation medicines, traditional medicines and so on; that hasn’t really found its way into a solid treatment system. I would have to say that the Yukon Territory is far above, say, Alberta or B.C. or any other province in Canada in how we deal with First Nation medicines.

For example, here in Whitehorse Hospital, we can bring in traditional foods. The doctors do allow patients to take traditional medicines. It could be as simple as a drink, a daily drink, a sip or so of medicines that can combat, say, cancer and so on, that First Nations feel is helping. If that same patient goes down to Alberta, they would not be allowed to take any of those traditional medicines. It’s all based in science. So I think we can make some real improvement here in the Yukon. We already, I think, are leaders in that area, but I think we can define it a little bit more. Sometimes it just takes a matter of money and resources to do it, and if the territories can work together on this, all the better. We on this side of the House support this motion.

Mr. Arntzen:   Mr. Speaker, I agree. Health care is very important to the north. Pan-northern agreements are very important, and I am rising today to speak to this motion, more to tell a story. The Member for Mayo-Tatchun is correct. This is not the first time that agreements between the territories have happened, but this one is a rather successful story.

I’ll take you back to a related course of action that I personally experienced back in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when we in the Yukon were starting up what’s known today as the Yukon ski division.

That relates to how we worked together back then to accomplish bigger and better things.

Mr. Speaker, it was then, as it is now, a numbers game played by Ottawa. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories; we could not qualify for funding and we could also not participate on our own on national issues. The Yukon had to belong to the British Columbia ski division, and the Northwest Territories had to join the Alberta ski division in order to get to the nationals or participate in any way, shape or form. We first had to compete in B.C. in order to qualify to go on to Canadian championships, et cetera, et cetera.

Both territories realized that this was not bringing us forward at all. We had to do something about it. We then formed an alliance between the Yukon and Northwest Territories ski divisions, which they were not called at the time, went to Ottawa and requested from the national organization that we would like to form a northern ski division. Together with the Northwest Territories, we now had the magic number that Ottawa required in order to form our own division.

That allowed us to grow as an organization, and it also allowed us to put programs forward to benefit both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories until we, as individual territories, had the magic number of growth in our ski clubs and divisions that was required by the national body in Ottawa for us to become two individual ski divisions — Yukon on its own and the Northwest Territories on its own.

So it was a numbers game that we couldn’t play alone.

The fruit of that decision, made way back in the early 1970s, can be seen today and have been seen for the last 30 some years. Mr. Speaker, I have to mention that we have received a lot of benefits, economically and socially, and I venture to say that it has improved our health in the north, as well.

For example, in the Yukon, in Whitehorse, we have some of the best ski trail systems in North America. They’re the envy of the world, actually, because we did host a World Cup in Whitehorse some years ago, and it was the envy of skiers from all over the world — what we had as a trails system.

We’ve also hosted multiple Canadian and western Canadian championships over the last few years. We have developed tremendous athletes and I could mention a few because it will tie into what this has done for us. Let’s go to Old Crow and the Frosts, the Benjamins, the Linklaters, the Tizyas, the Peters and the Charlies, just to mention a few. In Haines Junction, we have the Taits, the Tomlins, the Washingtons, the Bakkes, and in Whitehorse we could mention our Olympian Lucy Steele, the Waterreus family, the Schiffkorns, Middlebrooks, Watts, the Frasers, Hendricksons, the Bakers, the Baileys and the Sumaniks. I’ve mentioned them because they are today our up and coming leaders in the community. I could go on with lots of other names as I am sure I forgot some, but I will leave that.

We also can’t forget the Firth twins, Shirley and Sharon Firth — Olympians many, many times over.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, I could go on and talk about older people as well who benefited from that program. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we are stuck in Ottawa’s numbers game and we can’t play it alone. So a pan-northern or pan-Arctic alliance is very important to us. I think it’s the right way to go and I support this motion.

I guess establishing a strong relationship with neighbouring jurisdictions and working together on matters of mutual benefit can only benefit us all in the end.

I do support this motion.

Mr. Hassard:   I also rise in support of this motion.

As the motion indicates, every Canadian citizen deserves to receive adequate health care. I think health care is something that we too often take for granted. I know I have in the past.

In the past few years I’ve seen friends move to the United States for whatever reason. When I talk to them now, they remind me again and again of how fortunate Canadians are when it comes to health care. I don’t understand the U.S. system particularly but I understand that it costs, out of an individual’s pocket, whereas perhaps we don’t have that.

More recently, I had the pleasure of becoming a father. I go back to this story too often maybe, but my son was born six weeks premature. He was born in Whitehorse, at the hospital, and fortunately he was able to stay there and didn’t have to be flown to Vancouver.

I have nothing but the highest praise for the people who dealt with him and my family at that time. It was unbelievable. I never would have believed that someone would be given a place to stay at the hospital while their child was there. Everything was provided. It was quite unbelievable. It became very evident that we are indeed fortunate to have the health care system that we have. It also became evident that there must be a substantial cost to that as well.

This motion speaks to dealing with the federal government. And I agree that we have to work with the other territories to lobby the Government of Canada, as our Premier recently has, to ensure that we receive the necessary funding. As our population ages, demands on our health care system will continue to grow.

The question that comes to mind is: can we ever do enough with respect to health care to keep everyone happy? Well, I don’t know if we can keep everyone happy, but can we keep everyone healthy? I don’t think we have a choice. It’s our job.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve been fortunate in my time to not have needed the health care system yet — touch wood. However, I do recognize the need to continue to increase the support of it.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   I listened very closely to the comments by the last two speakers particularly, and it’s interesting to note that I doubt if there’s any disagreement at all in this House regarding the care that Canada has for its people in regard to health.

You have to go a long way to find somebody who would actually say that we really should shift to an American system, or a system similar to the United States’, and get rid of ours, but you can find people like that. They have been working and making a case that we go more into a private type of delivery, a pay-as-you-go type of system.

When I listened to the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin, it was interesting. He talked about his young child who was born recently and the care he got and the fact that the child was premature. If you ever sat down to figure out the cost — because he did mention the cost as well — but if you ever sat down and figured out the cost he would have had to pay out of his own pocket, there would probably be no way in the world that he would have been able to have done it. Or, if he had done it, he would have mortgaged his house; he would probably have gone into debt for many, many years, and realistically not have been able to even pay off the amount that it would have cost to have that kind of care in time to deal with other health care issues that might arise. When you have a child, there’s no question about it that the child comes with a cost and often, in our day and age right now, there is a health cost. Children do get sick and parents worry and will often go to the doctor or to emergency. I know. I have four children and I have been in emergency with my children for a multitude of illnesses and injuries. I also have a granddaughter who was born on October 4 and, yes, it has been quite an interesting period.

What I went through that day was an amazing experience because it was substantially different from when my wife and I had our four children many years ago. Twenty years ago, there was a maternity room, and you would come in when the mother was experiencing labour. You would come in and be rolled into a maternity room, and then after so many hours the baby would be born. You would then be rolled out of the maternity room and the baby was separated, often, taken into another room and isolated from the parents; then they did some testing and other issues, and then they brought the child back.

Well, it was very, very different this time, when my daughter had my grandchild. When I got to the hospital, she was in a room, one of the normal rooms where a person will stay the whole time. There are no maternity rooms any more. The bed is set up to allow birthing in a multitude of ways, depending on the situation that the mother may be experiencing or the comfort that she may need. The family is invited in the room. I was there at the birth. I helped coach my daughter through it, along with my wife. There was a doctor there. There were family friends there. It all happened in a very, very comfortable room, as I’m sure the Member for Pelly-Nisutlin is familiar. It was a very comfortable room, very nice. The child was born, and the child did not leave our sight. Everything happened in that room. It was almost like a natural childbirth in the sense that there was no separation.

The reason I’m talking about that is I’m just illustrating how much change there has been in 20 years in the approach of one type of delivery of health care. It’s an approach into more of a holistic manner. Before it was very institutional and now it has moved into a much more holistic, welcoming environment, and that’s part of the system that we have that we are allowed to develop along that line, and it’s not constrained by financial pressure on the individual’s ability to pay.

So, going back to my point earlier, the health care system that we have in Canada is a treasure. It’s considered by many in the world as one of the best systems in the world, if not the best. On a per capita basis, it is not a huge amount. But there have been pressures put on it over the years, most noticeably by the withdrawal of the federal government and its payments from the health care system and its transfer payments to the provinces and, of course, the territories.

That withdrawal of the funding, of course, was funnelled into paying down a debt that was created by probably poor management by a government. The pressure that it has created has, in many ways, now come home to roost here in the Yukon.

In the Yukon we share many of the common problems that the provinces share as well. This motion talks about a pan-northern solution. And there is no question about it. There are very, very distinct issues that the people of the north and governments of the north face. But there are also very, very common issues that are faced all across Canada. Maybe that’s the second part of a motion that we may need as well, or maybe that’s just a different topic.

But we have to work together — all the provinces, territories and the federal government — to find a way to ensure that the public health care system that we have today continues, and continues in a manner that’s affordable, continues in a manner that allows it to continue to develop — just as in the example I used with the maternity area — in a way that delivers a better care, a more holistic care, one that recognizes not just the physical needs in health but also the mental and spiritual needs in health.

There’s also the other side that’s so extremely important, and that is the preventive side of health care, and that’s very important.

The Member for Copperbelt talked about the ski program, the TEST program — I’m familiar with the TEST program, as my children were in it, and I was in it as a very young person at Takhini Elementary, under Don Sumanik when he was starting it there. In some ways, I think he was referring to the type of activities we do that we support, that we encourage in our youth and include for our seniors, that do have an effect upon the health care system. Study after study have shown that an active person will have less illness and fewer injuries in their life. If that’s the case, if that’s what happens, then of course the strain upon the system is lessened.

So not only do we have to talk about health care, but we have to talk about preventive care, and preventive care is activity. We look at schools, and there was a huge holding back in the schools in the physical education. Since that time, they have realized that physical education plays a very big role in people’s lives, not only in learning, because people do need a break from classroom to classroom to be able to express themselves through physical movement. The mind is stimulated differently in that area, and it allows it to be refreshed — that has been proven. Not only that, though, but it instills lifelong habits that will benefit the person physically, mentally and spiritually.

It allows the young child to recognize the need to exercise. It allows the benefits and joy of exercise. When you connect that to health care, you see the investment that encouragement of physical activities at that age pays dividends down the road, because there is less pressure on and usage of the health care system. So it just keeps spreading out. As we start to look at our society, and how the activities we do and decisions we make impact, we realize how interconnected they are.