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

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

Tributes.

Ms. Duncan:   I rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus to pay tribute to World Health Day, April 7. World Health Day is recognized in 191 countries. This year, the theme for World Health Day is "Road Safety is No Accident."

Mr. Speaker, it is no accident of policy that an individual must be considered responsible in a graduated way in the Yukon in order to operate a motor vehicle. We treasure our vehicles as transportation. We must respect them as dangerous when operated under the influence or unsafely. Today and every day, I encourage all Yukoners — it isn’t just about obeying the rules of the road; it’s about practising safe driving habits today and every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   On behalf of the government, I rise today to pay tribute to World Health Day, April 7.

Approximately 200 countries in the world recognize this day. This year’s theme of World Health Day is road safety and today we recognize that, in order to encourage road safety, we obey the rules of the road, we adhere to them and we practise defensive driving. Mr. Speaker, these are just some of the areas and the manner in which we, as responsible citizens, should be conducting ourselves.

Further to that, we have all come to rely on our vehicles as the prime mode of transportation. Indeed, here in the Yukon, Yukoners use their vehicles more on a mileage basis than any other jurisdiction in North America — it’s the highest. That said, we have a responsibility to ensure that we abide by the rules of the road and practise safe driving.

Mr. Fairclough:   On this World Health Day, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the official opposition to celebrate and recognize today, the anniversary of the founding of the World Health Organization. The theme of World Health Day for 2004 is "Road Safety is No Accident".

Around the world, road injury statistics are extremely high, and the Yukon is no exception. We are a society that is reliant on our automobiles and our roads for daily living. Motor vehicle accidents are a major cause of injury and death, and many of these accidents are caused by impaired drivers. Impairment combined with, of course, excessive speeds, and the non-use of seatbelts increases the risk of injury and death enormously.

In 2001, 38 percent of the fatally injured drivers in Canada who were tested had been drinking. Of these, 85 percent had blood alcohol levels above the legal limit. Alcohol use is less than it was a decade ago but is still unacceptably high. The efforts of organizations such as MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving, have helped to increase awareness and reduce fatal accidents, and we now have a local chapter of this valuable organization.

Road safety not only involves drivers of vehicles, but includes pedestrians and riders of bicycles and motorcycles and ATVs.

Most accidents are preventable when due caution is observed. The use of bicycle helmets is mandated in six provinces and should be the same here. The design of roadways and sidewalks needs to be taken into consideration as pedestrian and bike riders are at risk every day. We would do well to take these issues seriously here in the Yukon.

I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, who has developed a national plan of action called "Road Safety Vision 2010", making roads the safest in the world.

More locally, the City of Whitehorse has endorsed a safe communities initiative, being developed by several volunteers and agencies — the development of programs to support safety and prevention of injury. I encourage all members to become aware of their objectives and support their efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Introduction of visitors.

Speaker:   Under tabling returns and documents, I have for tabling a report from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly on the absence of members from sittings of the Legislative Assembly and its committees.

Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I have for tabling today a detailed breakdown of the capital expenditures, community by community, as requested by the opposition.

Speaker:   Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I rise today to respond to Petition No. 2, tabled on December 16, 2003, presented by the leader of the official opposition concerning the outstanding loans owed to the government. On December 11, 2003, our government released a three-point plan for dealing with the issue of outstanding loans that has plagued successive Yukon governments.

The first step involved the forgiveness of loans for four non-governmental organizations. The loans that were forgiven included the Great Northern Ski Society, known as Mount Sima, for a total of $395,000; the Yukon Rodeo Association, for a total of $44,974; the Yukon Quest Society, $29,400; and the Northern Lights School of Dance, $15,472. The overall total, Mr. Speaker, is somewhat less than $500,000. This first step has been completed.

The second step involves allowing borrowers to restructure their loans under the Business Development Assistance Act. Under the regulations to this act, borrowers can apply to have the interest rate of their loans decreased to the current rate established by the Bank of Canada. Interest on these loans is being weighed for three years. This loan restructuring offer was not made available to companies in which any member of the Cabinet is involved. This step was initiated on January 1, 2004, and will remain in effect until June 30, 2004.

The Government of Canada has indicated that it will repatriate and manage the collection of its loan portfolio. That includes small-business incentive, Canada-Yukon tourism subagreement, economic development agreement, renewable and economic development agreement, tourism, and small business support.

The total value of this federal portfolio is $607,000. The Industry Canada component is $504,000, with Yukon’s portion being $172,000. The third step involves the sale of all the government loans, including all those that have been restructured, to a private company or financial institution commencing July 1, 2004.

The condition of sale will be that the company or financial institution that purchases the loans will respect the repayment arrangements in place at the time of sale. A consultant has been engaged to develop a tender package that will be issued in the very near future. To date, four companies have already expressed an interest in looking at the loans portfolio.

The government will sell the loan portfolio to the company or financial institution that provides the best financial return to taxpayers while minimizing the risk of business foreclosures and impact on borrowers.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House appreciate the fact that there is no magic solution to this complex, intricate and long-standing problem that has plagued successive governments for the last two decades. Our government believes it is time to bring this matter to an end. It is our contention that government should not be in the business of giving loans, as that is best left to the private sector.

We are well underway in implementing our three-step plan that will ultimately resolve the issue of these outstanding government loans.

Speaker:   Are there any petitions to be presented?

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

Mrs. Peter:   I give notice of the following motion:

THAT it is the opinion of this House that

(1) the Yukon Party election platform made a commitment to create safer communities;

(2) the Yukon has three times the national average of reported sexual assault;

(3) the use of the Yukon’s largest transition home has doubled over the past 10 years;

(4) aboriginal women experience three times the rate of spousal assault than non-aboriginal women;

(5) women in the Yukon are asking us all to break the silence and take a stand; and

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to demonstrate leadership at the highest level of government by speaking out and by taking positive action to address violence in the community.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a ministerial statement?

This then brings us to Question Period.

Mr. Cardiff:   I have a question for the Minister of Community Services today. Last night a well respected, long-time councillor in Dawson City resigned as a direct result of the minister’s interference with municipal affairs. Why does the minister continue to undermine the democratically elected council of Dawson to satisfy the political agenda of the Member for Klondike?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Let’s review the situation. Dawson City has financial problems, and I have stated that in this House many times and so has the previous government. In 1999, Dawson City had reserves of a little over $4.1 million, had a little over $1 million in the bank. Right now they owe more than $4 million, have no money in the bank and have very little funds in reserve. That’s a difference of approximately $8 million.

Secondly, we have a CFA with the City of Dawson that we signed over for $10.4 million during that period. Dawson is the only municipality that has borrowed beyond its municipal limit, albeit with the authority of the government at the time. They are at the full extent of the debenture that has been provided to them, except for a small amount. We have already provided Dawson with the monies that they require. There is also pending arbitration outstanding and it could take a couple more months for the final results of the arbitrator to bring forth that issue with regard to the City of Dawson. I believe that the mayor and council must now accept the fact that they are operating in a very tight environment on a financial basis.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the minister is not doing a lot to help them. It’s time to call a spade a shovel in the House. What the minister has been allowing to happen is appalling. Every municipal government across the territory should be very, very alarmed at what this government is doing.

The event that triggered the councillor’s resignation was pretty straightforward last night. The minister’s hand-picked supervisor from British Columbia ordered the mayor and council to do something that they felt was very wrong. Why did the minister, through his supervisor, give the municipal government an ultimatum to rip up a valid contract for waste management services or face expulsion from their elected positions?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   This government is concerned and is working on solutions for Dawson City. Not only does the situation affect the residents of Dawson but also the Yukon taxpayers.

As minister, I am responsible for the Municipal Act. A supervisor was put in place. A financial plan was written for the city and was agreed to by the city for them to follow. The supervisor is there to oversee the operations and the financial implications of that plan. The supervisor is currently in Dawson City as we speak.

Mr. Cardiff:   I know the Member for Klondike has his own cheering section in Dawson City but the majority of people in the Yukon think that the heavy-handed approach that this government is using is disgusting. The minister can stand there until he is blue in the face repeating his story about how the supervisor is just doing his job under the Municipal Act, but the bottom line is that the minister is using a bazooka to swat flies.

Now, the council has reluctantly broken the contract at the minister’s insistence. Is the minister going to pick up the tab for the lawsuit that could come out of this?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   Let’s review the situation. Dawson City is in debt, like I mentioned before. In fact, it’s some $4.3 million worth. Plus, we have a pending final arbitration decision that is still probably a couple of months away from being finalized. The mayor and council must adhere to the financial plan that they agreed to, for them to follow. They have very limited room in which to play. They have a long-term financial plan and it is going to take them many years to get out of the situation that they are in. So, it’s important that they follow that financial plan because there is very little room for error.

All of the spending must be scrutinized by the supervisor because of the state of the finances in Dawson. I would say that we are committed to assisting Dawson and assuring all taxpayers of reducing any further risk to them. We will try to solve this problem on behalf of Dawson City and Dawson City residents, as well as Yukon taxpayers.

Let’s review some of the other commitments for the region. We are looking at building a multi-care facility for Dawson City. We are looking at upgrading nearby roads within Dawson’s vicinity. We are also looking at work on the Dempster Highway and —

Speaker:   Order please. New question.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’m not quite finished with the Minister of Community Services and his micromanagement of Dawson City. Last night’s council meeting in Dawson City was to discuss the town’s draft budget and, as the minister pointed out, his supervisor was there last night, and he’s going to stick around for the weekend so he can have dinner with the Member for Klondike, probably. But the minister’s handpicked supervisor did not even participate or present any financial information at a meeting about the budget.

Will the minister confirm that the supervisor instructed the council to include a $25,000 contingency in the budget for an expected lawsuit as a result of being directed to break that waste management contract?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   The supervisor was in Dawson to review the budget plan and help assist with the development of the budget with mayor and council. Last night the mayor was not in Dawson City, and a couple of other council members were not there, so they didn’t have a quorum.

Mr. Cardiff:   I beg to differ. There was a quorum. There was a meeting. The mayor was on the phone, and they didn’t have a quorum after the councillor resigned.

The waste management contract that Dawson’s council accepted included a recycling component and a plan to clean up high-traffic areas in the town. It would have cost $22,000 more than the lowest bid, which did not have those environmental components. Under normal circumstances, you’d expect that the minister responsible for landfills would be supportive of an initiative like this and support the community — applaud them. But there are no normal circumstances in Dawson, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister explain the economic logic of spending $25,000 on a lawsuit to save $22,000 on an inferior garbage contract?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   I remind the member opposite that the $22,000 differential that he is advising the House on is for one year. This is a 10-year contract. That’s $220,000.

Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   And how long is the landfill going to last? Dawson’s budget also called for an increase in waste collection fees to cover those costs. Unfortunately, the Member for Klondike would have been impacted by those fee increases, but the chamber endorsed them. The budget also anticipated a small surplus, which is my understanding, and you would think the minister would encourage that as well. But the people in Dawson are furious, because this minister won’t explain why he’s treating the people of Dawson and the elected council this way. They’re furious that their MLA won’t even meet with them.

Since the minister and the MLA won’t answer, I have a question for the Premier. Will he put up the estimated $17,000 it would cost for the City of Dawson to get an inquiry into this by the Ombudsman so that the people of Dawson and Yukoners can get the answers that they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Hart:   We are dealing with the City of Dawson, and we’re working with them on their strict financial problems. I believe that the supervisor indicated that he is looking at the possibility of an inquiry for Dawson, and we’re considering that option.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the minister responsible for the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Long before this minister got in the business of denying health care benefits to adopted children, he was busy denying benefits to injured workers. There are some people who are owed money from Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board who want to receive it all at once in a lump sum. On February 17, a new policy was introduced regarding lump sum payments. The new policy ensures that these workers will never receive the money that they’re owed. One of the many conditions that the new policy imposes on injured workers is that they "must demonstrate the ability to manage his or her financial affairs" before being allowed to receive the money they’re owed.

Mr. Speaker, it’s ironic that the minister in charge of Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board has already demonstrated that he can’t manage his financial affairs. He owes taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and now he is making judgements on others. He would not qualify under this policy. Will the minister ensure that these conditions are dropped and give injured workers the money they’re owed?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   I’ll have my officials send over a copy of the structure of WCB and the member opposite will clearly see the role of the board. The role of the board is well-defined and the policies they bring forward are put in place by the board. It’s not the purview of the minister to interfere in that area whatsoever.

Ms. Duncan:   This minister has shown no hesitation in choosing ambulances and interfering all over the place. Injured workers are owed this money. If they want to receive it in a lump sum, they should be allowed to do so. The new rules imposed by this minister have put the bar so high that workers will never be able to satisfy all the conditions.

Mr. Speaker, this is the voice of the Yukon in early January, and it’s a quote. "I don’t believe that it’s their right and none of their business as to what I spend my money on. Do they account for the money they spend? Does their employer hold out on them because they might go and spend it somewhere foolishly, like on some other people or the Casa Loma bar? I don’t think they’re too concerned about injured workers at all. I don’t see how or why our great leader down at YTG is allowing this to happen. Before the election, he promised they were going to be doing things fairly and honest down there. He didn’t say they were going to be appointing the campaign manager as the chair."

That is a direct quote, Mr. Speaker, and it was aired on our public broadcast station.

Will the minister rescind the new policy that punishes workers?

Some Hon. Member:  (Inaudible)

Speaker:  Member for Klondike, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, I believe there’s a point of order there that the member opposite is imputing false or unavowed motives to me.

Speaker:   On the point of order, leader of the third party.

Ms. Duncan:   Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. I am stating the facts and I have stated a direct quote. I’m stating the facts as I know them to be. I would put to you that that is a dispute between members.

Speaker:   I’m going to ask the indulgence of the House. I’m going to take the opportunity to review the Blues and I’ll be back with a ruling on Tuesday. Please carry on.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite’s allegations are completely inaccurate, trying to attempt to suggest that the minister is responsible for these initiatives. They are clearly defined as board initiatives and they’re board responsibilities.

Ms. Duncan:   The minister has shown no hesitation in interfering in other issues and in speaking out. When on this side of the House, he has asked other ministers to speak out about policies. This is an example of "Father knows best", which this minister is well known for. It is an attitude that is becoming abundantly clear.

The minister owes Yukoners hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid loans. Now he’s telling injured workers that they won’t be paid the money that’s owed to them.

Passing judgement on how injured workers might manage their money is completely unfair. Will the minister stop hiding behind the board, rescind this new policy, which prevents workers from getting the money that they deserve and that they are owed? He has backed down on one bad policy this week; let’s make it two.

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The member opposite knows full well that the minister does not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the board of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, nor does it interfere with the policies of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board. That is completely mandated as a board-controlled initiative. I’m appalled, given the amount of time that the member opposite has spent in this Legislature, that she does not understand the basis of the workings of the Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The valuation report on the game farm shows that a lot more animals were destroyed because of Johne’s disease than we had previously known. On Monday I asked the minister when and how he first became aware that the former owner had destroyed some sheep on the property. His answers use the word "we", meaning the department, rather than "I", meaning the minister.

Let me be more specific: did the minister have any knowledge of the existence of Johne’s disease on the Yukon Game Farm before the former owner reported it to the department?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   No.

Mrs. Peter:   The minister had raised the matter of professional confidentiality and we respect that. However, the minister also took an oath to conduct the business of the Yukon public to the best of his ability. The minister has a responsibility to make sure Yukon people know all they need to know about issues that could affect their health or the health of Yukon animals.

Wildlife officials in his department asked him for relevant information and he didn’t provide it. We have asked him for relevant information and he isn’t providing it.

To the minister’s knowledge, how many domestic animals or game farm animals or wild animals in the Yukon have tested positive for Johne’s disease in the past five years?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I appreciate very much that the member opposite respects confidentiality, and that has certainly come out in other speeches she has given on the floor of the House — that there must be confidentiality, which brings me to the surprise that she would then ask me to stand up and breach confidentiality in matters that do not involve this House. I don’t care whether it’s a physician, a veterinarian, a chiropractor, a lawyer or a child psychologist — such matters are confidential and perhaps the member opposite would remember that in future speeches.

Mrs. Peter:   Mr. Speaker, we are asking the minister to be responsible in his capacity as an Environment minister. There’s a growing concern worldwide about animal diseases or diseases carried by animals that can also affect humans. Look at last year’s SARS epidemic; look at the BSE situation in Canada and the U.S.; look at the hantavirus or the West Nile virus.

Mr. Speaker, look at what’s happening south of here with the bird flu. There are 19 million birds being slaughtered and maybe many more to come. Public health and safety are probably the most important responsibilities on the shoulders of any elected official.

Will the minister agree to table, by next week at least, full answers to all the questions about Johne’s disease in the territory that have been raised by his department officials and in this House?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I remind the member opposite that, in fact, all that information is in the report that we tabled yesterday and I encourage the member opposite to read that report and spend some time thinking about it.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member opposite, however, that there are a number of issues out there that must be addressed and they are worldwide issues. This is why we have identified up to $150,000 for disease testing. We will be working with First Nation governments, with hunters and with renewable resource councils to determine what is out there. The threat comes from everywhere; the threat comes from rubber-tire traffic coming up the highway; it comes from deer wandering in.

I’d like to remind all of Yukon that Swan Haven is now open and we welcome the arrival of the swans, and I suggest that the member opposite give that some thought. Where does she think those swans were four days ago? Right over southern British Columbia.

Mr. Hardy:   After listening to what has taken place so far, I’m compelled to ask the Premier a question. Does the Premier consider the refusal of Cabinet ministers to answer legitimate and important public policy questions to be consistent with his campaign commitment to provide open, accountable, fiscally responsible government?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Considering that this situation that the member opposite, the leader of the official opposition, is inferring here on the floor is not taking place — in fact quite the contrary, as the government and its ministers are providing answers. We’ve seen that reflected day in and day out in this Legislature. The problem is that the opposition does not like the answers, but there’s a distinct difference between providing answers and an opposition not liking the answer.

Mr. Hardy:   The record will speak for exactly that issue and we will be proven right and he will be proven wrong. I’m sure that somewhere along life’s journey, this Premier has heard the expression about a good offence being the best defence, and we’re witnessing that on a daily basis. The point about that saying is that it requires a good offence, not a lame and predictable attack, and we have once again seen that. We see it again daily and weekly.

People are watching the government with growing alarm, and they don’t trust this government. The Premier might be very interested to read some of the things people are saying in Dawson City, and I hope he takes the time to actually see what is going on up there because it’s frightening.

Now, will the Premier direct the Minister of Environment to provide full and frank answers to the questions that have been addressed to him about the prevalence of Johne’s disease in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I think it’s important to note first and foremost that the government side, contrary again to the official opposition leader’s inference that we are on the offence, is here to defend the budget that we have tabled on behalf of the Yukon public. We await the debate for the budget from the members opposite.

In regard to the Minister of Environment, the issue that the official opposition is dealing with relates specifically to the game farm. I cannot expect this minister to know what’s going on in a microcosm out here in the Yukon land base or its wilderness, but when it comes to the game farm the minister did his work, the minister has tabled the relevant information. In the report, the tests show that Johne’s disease today at the game farm, among the game farm animals, is not prevalent.

Mr. Hardy:   I’d like to remind the Premier that it’s a game preserve.

The Premier leaves me no choice, and unlike some other members of this House, I have never been eager to call for the resignation of a Cabinet minister. I believe that is the last resort, Mr. Speaker, a measure that should only be used after a great deal of thought in regard to less drastic remedies to resolve this, and we have asked for those remedies. But given what we have seen this week and over the past 17 months, Mr. Speaker, I really am reconsidering my position on that. Questions regarding the health and safety of the Yukon people cannot be treated lightly, dismissed, nor refused to be answered in this Legislature. Will the Premier relieve the minister of his responsibilities for the Environment department?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Mr. Speaker, first, the government takes very seriously the health and well-being of Yukoners, its environment, its people, its animals, and all that goes with it. More importantly, we are here as a government to ensure that that health and well-being continues into the future.

Now, let’s get to the requests by the member opposite. There has been absolutely no reason for the government side to entertain any dismissals of any member. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the government side remains confident that its team that is put together — as elected by the Yukon public — is, in the best possible interests of the public, delivering what we have been elected to deliver. I would commend the Minister of Environment for his efforts when it came to the Wildlife Preserve. It was a long-standing issue. Other governments have not dealt with it; we have. More importantly, we as a government have lived up to and delivered on a very important recommendation from the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board — bravo, Minister of Environment.

Mrs. Peter:   I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister confirm that staff at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre had to transport a patient to Whitehorse General Hospital recently because no ambulance had arrived more than 20 minutes after they made a 911 call?

Hon. Ms. Taylor:   No, I am not aware of that situation.

Mrs. Peter:   On March 31, a call was made to 911 for medical assistance. The call came from Whitehorse Correctional Centre. After waiting 20 minutes for a response by the ambulance service, the officers at Whitehorse Correctional Centre took the matter into their own hands and transported the patient themselves to the Whitehorse General Hospital.

Has there been an internal investigation of this incident, and will the minister make that information available to this House?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Delays of which the member opposite is speaking have not been brought to my attention.

Mrs. Peter:   This is one more drastic example of the ambulance service being in disarray because of mismanagement by this government. This is a very dangerous incident that needs investigation. Once again, public health and safety are an issue with this government.

Will the minister at least take her colleague, the Minister of Health, aside and demand that he acknowledge the obvious problem that exists within the Yukon’s ambulance service?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Mr. Speaker, we are doing nothing as a government but improving the ambulance service. One only has to look at the budget that is before this House, which I’m sure the members opposite will vote against. What it does for the rural ambulance volunteers is increase their honoraria, something that hasn’t been done since the early 1970s. It provides them with a basic outfit — a jumpsuit and a coat — which is some $500 odd per individual.

Also, we are putting in place additional training. There are some trainers in rural Yukon; there are some trainers in Whitehorse. That is being instituted. We take the issue of public safety very, very much to heart, and we are addressing the needs of our public safety system — specifically emergency measures. We are doing that.

As to the allegations that there was a long time responding to the Whitehorse —

Speaker:   Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   This government has not been open and accountable in many cases. They have made many deals behind closed doors. The sell-off of the ambulance service to the Yukon Hospital Corporation is a prime example. There has been no consultation with ambulance services or the union and no notice to the public about their plans.

My question is to the minister: has the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board agreed in writing to take over the ambulance services from the Yukon government?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   The ambulance board, I believe, did so by resolution sometime last year. They are going to be taking over the management of emergency measures service. Government is not selling off anything. The management of the emergency measures service will be provided by the Whitehorse Hospital Corporation. It’s a hand-in-glove arrangement. It will provide a higher level — a more efficient level — of service than what we currently provide. That’s the exercise.

We are very concerned as a government. We are providing the highest possible level of service that we can. That’s where we are going, and with the aid and cooperation of the Yukon Hospital Corporation and their board, who requested that they take over the ambulance emergency medical services, we will be there soon.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, certainly the professionals don’t agree with this minister, and I don’t believe that the board has given the green light to take over the responsibility of the ambulance services.

No doubt the board knows that there are many outstanding issues that need to be addressed. Despite it all, the minister claims that everything is fine. Well, just look at the papers and what the ambulance attendants are saying publicly. Perhaps that’s why they are being silent. The minister cannot be trusted in this case. He is trying to save a dollar or two on the backs of Yukoners’ health and safety.

Why is the minister going ahead with this sale without first correcting the drastic problems that we are hearing every day? We understand about the clothing and the allowance, but the bigger issues that are still outstanding haven’t been addressed. Why haven’t they been taken care of first?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Well, for the record, the Yukon Hospital Corporation, the Whitehorse hospital, will be managing the emergency medical service. They won’t be selling it. We won’t be buying it. There’s no transfer of ownership. The Hospital Corporation manages it.

To that end, if the member opposite would get into the budget debate, they’d clearly identify about a half a million dollars in additional costs that our government is incurring this year as an injection into emergency medical services for the provision of clothing, training, more ambulances, and just to improve services overall. That’s where we’re at.

When in opposition, I always ensured that I knew the answer to a question before I asked it, and this member might want to understand that kind of premise before posing the questions like he is.

Mr. Fairclough:   Mr. Speaker, it’s obvious the minister doesn’t know the answers. I would say that he should be doing his homework. There has been no consultation with the union or ambulance attendants. The minister goes ahead and makes a decision. It sounds like the minister knows best. This is a top-down governing style, and people are recognizing it. This minister, Mr. Speaker, enjoys micromanaging, and he will get up and say he’s not doing that. He’s doing it in his department, but he’s not listening to people or the professionals. This minister said the sellout of the ambulance services is all about improving the service. How will the service improve when the hospital does not have the expertise in EMS, nor the experience with volunteer ambulance crews or in training capabilities?

Hon. Mr. Jenkins:   Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is not jumping to conclusions; he’s leaping to conclusions that are patently false. The Yukon Hospital Corporation, the Whitehorse Hospital, has the expertise. They have been examining this issue for some time, and their board has directed the management to begin discussions with the department so that they could take over the management. Nothing is being sold. They’re taking over the management. And if the member opposite wants to get into the budget, we can clearly identify where there is almost a half a million dollars of additional funding going into upgrading this emergency measures service, including two new ambulances, Mr. Speaker.

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

Clerk:   Motion No. 225, standing in the name of Mr. Cathers.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Member for Lake Laberge

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to construct a bridge over the Yukon River at Dawson City to enhance trade, tourism, and commerce.

Mr. Cathers:   It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to debate this motion.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the bridge at Dawson City is one that has had a long history of discussion in the public forum in the Yukon. In recent days, the opposition has continually suggested that our government has not made the business case for building a bridge at Dawson City and has called upon us to do so.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I found this rather surprising as it seems to me the business case for building a bridge at Dawson City is so simple and so clear that I would have thought it would have been immediately obvious to all members of this House.

I’ve spoken to many of my constituents about the possibility of building a bridge at Dawson and about the specific proposals that we as a government were considering, and this has included raising the issue for discussion during at least four of the public meetings I’ve held in my riding.

I’ve not run across a single one of my constituents to whom it has taken me more than three minutes to explain the business case. It’s very clear and it’s very simple.

The reasons for building a bridge at Dawson can be separated into two parts: firstly, the economic savings from building a bridge versus operating a ferry; and, secondly, the benefits to all Yukoners, and especially to residents of Dawson City, that will result from having constant access provided by a bridge rather than the unreliable modes of ferry and the ice bridge, not to mention the freeze-up and breakup times in-between when there’s no access.

Simply put, this can be compared to leasing a car versus buying a car. I’m sure that members of this House, as well as all Yukoners, would understand why it would make more sense to spend — taking round numbers just for simplicity — $1,000. If you went to purchase a new truck, would you be better off to spend $1,000 a month leasing the vehicle and, at the end of the term — three years, or whatever that term may be — you own nothing — you’ve given all the money away and you have nothing at the end of it — or would you be better to take that same money and to buy the vehicle and, at the end of that time, you would own the vehicle?

I think that’s fairly obvious. You’d be better off investing that same amount of money in purchasing the vehicle rather than simply renting it. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out, and it doesn’t take a team of high-priced accountants to do some sort of wondrous math to explain it here. It’s very simple. The Yukon government pays approximately a million dollars a year for the operation and maintenance of the ferry at Dawson City. There are a number of factors included in this, including the yearly shoring up of the riverbank to build the ramp, which has an adverse effect on the fish habitat.

So if you take that cost of approximately a million dollars a year, and instead of putting that money into fuel and other operations and maintenance costs that leave you nothing at the end of the day — if you had a private company build that under a public/private partnership and you paid them that same million dollars per year to buy that bridge back from them over that period of time, at the end of that time, whatever that time period would be — a number of years, 25 years, for example — you’d own the bridge instead of having thrown all of that money away into operations and maintenance of the ferry, including the environmental effects.

I mentioned the issue of fish habitat. There’s also the fact that a ferry burns diesel fuel. There are hydrocarbons coming out of that. There are greenhouse gases. It’s not a very sustainable method, and I’m surprised that the opposition would encourage us to use non-environmentally sustainable methods rather than a more environmentally respectful solution to this.

We have issued, at this point, a request for proposals for a bridge design consultant. The bridge design consultant — once that person or company is determined — will evaluate the design. From that point, we will determine the exact cost of the bridge, but we made it clear that we expect the cost to come somewhere around the $25-million to $30-million mark. The cost of this could very clearly be beneficial to the Yukon from the financial side, instead of throwing away $1 million a year in operation and maintenance that we get nothing for, by taking that money and using it to buy back that piece of infrastructure that a private company has built. There are a number of different options of how this can be structured with public/private partnership. There are options for partnering with others in this, such as the First Nation government, the federal government, the strategic infrastructure fund. These options may be open, but whether they come into play or not — even for the Yukon going alone as a territory to pursue this — it makes sense.

It is a sustainable option. It is far more economically sensible than just throwing money into the river, which is essentially what we are doing now. We are putting in place a fixed piece of infrastructure that has an expected design life of 75 years. There are other issues in addition to that operation and maintenance cost that have to be factored in. Currently the engines on the ferry have to be replaced about every three years. The cost of that is approximately $300,000 each time you do that. There is insurance for the ferry. Everyone knows that their car insurance rates have risen; their house insurance rates have risen, and the insurance rates for ferries have risen as well.

I believe the amount that’s required to be carried for insurance is $50 million under the Marine Liability Act that the federal government passed. To make this affordable for the Yukon government, we carry a deductible of about $2 million. The rates are high. The rates are increasing.

The ferry at Dawson City also has a limited lifetime. We expect to have to replace the ferry in approximately six years at an estimated cost of some $7 million. When you factor that into the equation as well — you add that on top of the yearly operation and maintenance cost for the ferry of a million dollars, which essentially we’re throwing into the river, achieving no fixed, long-term benefit for the Yukon. We’re just throwing the money away. If we build a bridge, we spend a similar amount of money in a year but instead of throwing it away for operations and maintenance, you are investing it in the purchase of a fixed asset, which will stay in place for an estimated 75 years.

There are also, on the other side of the equation, the benefits to Dawson City and to all of the Yukon from the value of having in place a fixed piece of infrastructure that will provide constant access rather than having the interruption that is currently faced with the ice bridge, with the ferry and with the intermittent period of freeze-up and breakup. Also those members of this House who have driven up to Dawson in the winter in the last few years, or have talked to people in Dawson, will probably recall that in the last few years there have been issues with the ice bridge at Dawson City. Some years they’ve had a problem with there being an open section of river where previously they have not had that problem, and having difficulty putting in an ice bridge that is capable of sustaining traffic. I believe that there was even one winter a few years ago when there was never a fully approved ice bridge put in in the winter. I could stand to be corrected on that. The Member for Klondike is nodding that there was a year within the past few years that the Department of Highways and Public Works never approved the ice bridge as being safe for traffic; it was used by residents to travel, but it was not considered safe officially for vehicle traffic. So there’s an issue regarding the safety of Yukoners, particularly residents of Dawson but also people going up for the Yukon Quest.

Of course, this is considered one of the key tourism events for the Yukon in the year. We try to attract visitors from both Canada and the United States and internationally to this event, and we’re putting efforts from the Department of Tourism into promoting this event. We try to attract them to come to Dawson City and then ask them to drive on an ice bridge that may not be safe for them. I would suggest that’s not really responsible as a government either. We have to take into account the safety of Yukoners, their ability to access things, and the ice bridge has proven unreliable within the past few years. So there are issues around safety for Yukoners, as well as the economic arguments.

There are other issues, such as the possibility of accessing the Top of the World Highway on a year-round basis, which would provide great economic opportunities and benefits for Yukoners. The Governor of Alaska has already made it clear that he is interested in looking at that, that if we were to build a bridge they would very, very seriously look at actions for keeping the Top of the World Highway open all winter.

Mr. Speaker, also, building a bridge has been something that has played a part in Yukon Party platforms since 1992. It has been a commitment, and the wording has remained essentially the same, that we would build a bridge at Dawson as soon as it became economically feasible to do so. Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that it is economically feasible to do so.

We’ve had the suggestion raised by members opposite that the only reason we’re considering a bridge at Dawson is because of the Member for Klondike. But I would like to point out that 1992 was prior to the Member for Klondike’s election and that this has been a long-standing commitment by our party. I would also like to point out, in view of the member of the third party’s attacks on this project and criticizing us on this issue, that this was a Liberal Party commitment in their 1996 election platform, which I believe the member of the third party ran on.

I’d like to question why they have changed their opinion on this and reversed their commitment to this. Perhaps the member of the third party will provide us with this information later on in debate.

Other economic opportunities that can be gained from this include the longer tourism season. Currently, companies such as Holland America with bus tours begin their operations through Dawson City — I believe that somewhere around May 15 is the earliest they will run their operations because they have concerns about the access, whether they will actually have a ferry that they can travel on at that point.

This would enable the tourism season at both ends of the year to be extended to major operators such as that. It will also extend the access for RV travellers — a factor that has been much underestimated, I believe, by the members opposite. It’s the number of tourists — particularly the RV travellers — who find the wait for the George Black ferry at Dawson City intolerable, or who come in to the visitor reception centre in Whitehorse and are considering where they are going to go on their journey and are told that they have to wait for the ferry at Dawson City. I am sure they ask how long that will be, in most cases, and I would assume and hope that the staff at the Tourism department are honest and inform them that in some cases it can be quite a number of hours during the summer. So what is the economic impact on Dawson from people simply choosing not to go there?

There has been a suggestion by some that Dawson City actually sees more economic benefit from people waiting for the ferry and having lunch while doing so.

Well, I would seriously question that, Mr. Speaker. I would wonder how many people leave their RVs, motor homes or their trucks in line waiting for the ferry, leave their vehicle there unattended and go have lunch. Perhaps some do choose to have lunch when they might otherwise have driven on and gone a little further, but it should be considered and recognized that, along the Top of the World Highway, the distance to the next source of food in a restaurant is quite a ways. I think the impact of that would be very minimal, and I can tell you from personal experience that when I have been up at Dawson City and when I and my family have been there in the context of our tourism business, we have chosen — with ourselves and with guests we’ve had up there, staying in a campground — not to go across for a lunch or for dinner because of the wait for the ferry.

If it were simple to pop across the river for an ice cream cone, you might do so. If it were simple to pop across and have a sandwich and coffee at — the name escapes me — the riverfront coffee place there in Dawson City, or any other of the shops there, a lot of people would choose to do so instead of camping in the campground, parking their RV or pitching their tent and deciding that they’re not going back across there for the day, because they don’t want to endure another wait of several hours for that ferry, on either side.

There’s also the benefit of jobs to Dawson City— jobs in construction, jobs in building the bridge. There will be tremendous economic benefit to Dawson City and, indeed, to Yukon companies that are, in many cases, based outside of Dawson City but would bid on the project or be suppliers for the project.

This creates a tremendous opportunity for money flowing through the Yukon economy and for turning over within the Yukon economy and creating short-term benefit. The economics of the bridge — I think I’ve made it fairly clear how it would be beneficial in the long term, and the mid-term benefit will flow through from tradespeople who would not be forced to leave the Yukon, from tradespeople who would probably move back to the Yukon because of opportunities such as building the bridge, such as the multiplex, which our government has committed money toward ensuring it is built in Whitehorse.

There has also been the question raised by members opposite about what happens to the current employees of the Department of Highways and Public Works who operate the ferry. The minister has made clear that although those jobs on the ferry will obviously no longer have a place on the ferry, they will not be given pink slips. They will be transferred to other responsibilities within the department.

Simply put, a ferry does not make any economic sense when compared, dollar for dollar, to a bridge over the long term. We have to evaluate this in the long term. If you look at the cost over two years, well of course it doesn’t make any sense, but this government takes the long view of things. We see the big picture; we see the long-term effect of this, and the costs of this project are intended to be spread over a number of years. The yearly cost should end up being no more, no greater, than the yearly operation and maintenance cost of the ferry, which it seems the opposition is proposing we just continue doing ad infinitum no matter the detrimental impact to tourism that ferry has, no matter the effects on fish, no matter the effects on the atmosphere from greenhouse gases.

This government is moving toward a sustainable and sensible piece of infrastructure that will have long-term benefits, that will be financially beneficial for the Yukon in the long run, rather than going with the unreliability of a ferry and rather than continually throwing money into the river, as has been done for years. I’m speaking somewhat metaphorically, of course, Mr. Speaker.

The opposition is also failing to acknowledge the fact that ferry traffic has grown slowly and steadily to the point where it’s up by approximately 80 percent over the period from 1983 to 2002. This increase, which, of course, from the tourism side we would hope would continue to climb, will continue to exacerbate the problem faced now with the long lineups for the ferry unless the Yukon were to purchase a larger ferry than the current one, approximately six years from now when we’re forced to retire the current ferry. And there is also the possibility that a larger ferry or a second vessel would have an additional cost on top of that. That’s not a very fiscally responsible way to do things. It’s not very environmentally responsible. And, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that’s just plain dumb.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, other factors are that this tender we’ve put forward, and the request for proposal in the current budget of $1.5 million for the design consultant, is to determine what the cost of this project will be. This government has not signed any blank cheques. We’re going to proceed in a sensible manner. All the indications and all the numbers we have at this moment point toward the determination that building a bridge is the sensible thing to do, so we’re taking the sensible and prudent step and getting the next piece of information. We expect those numbers will only confirm this position.

There will be consultation with the people of Dawson City. Efforts will be made to ensure that the overall look of the bridge is consistent with Dawson City’s gold rush era image.

A fact I have failed to mention is the benefits to the mining industry in the Yukon and the potential to increase mineral activity and exploration. It does impact very heavily on a company if their employees are forced to wait numerous hours for a ferry instead of being able to drive back and forth between job sites.

The bridge design is expected to be finalized by the spring of 2005. I could go on at some length on this, but I think the case has been made fairly clearly and fairly plainly. I hope that, based on the information presented, the opposition will take full time to consider this and will change their position from opposing the bridge to supporting moving forward on the construction of a bridge at Dawson City as being the sensible and prudent thing for the financial future of the Yukon, for the economic benefit of Yukoners and for the long-term prosperity of the territory.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McRobb:   Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a word to describe what we just heard but you ruled it unparliamentary yesterday. Let’s just say that there are a lot of clean hogs wandering around.

We definitely have a problem with this government’s position on this bridge. There are several very good reasons to back up our position. Probably at the top of the list is the failure of this government to provide a business case for this massive project. I will be getting to that in a little while, Mr. Speaker.

There is also a very good point that Yukoners were not asked whether they support a bridge across the Yukon River at Dawson City. We heard the Member for Lake Laberge talk about how it was in their campaign platform, but it was not worded such that this government would build a bridge. That promise was qualified and it said they would plan to build a bridge when it is economical to do so. So, there were two qualifiers in that statement, and I’ll get to that a little later as well.

There are several problems with some of the rationale we have heard from this government in support of the bridge. One of the points was that the ferry workers will not lose their jobs; they will be shifted to other jobs. Well, one problem with that logic is that even if that were the case, then other government workers are displaced from their jobs. Even if those jobs are casual positions, then other people won’t have the opportunity to fill those jobs.

The overall picture is such that there would be, I believe, 17 jobs lost in the Klondike region. I will be talking more extensively to that point later. There are so many aspects to this bridge that really cast the feasibility of the bridge in doubt, the timing of this project in question, and the affordability of this project is certainly not established given the projected economic picture for the Yukon Territory.

Each one of those is a major area that should cause a government that’s open to comments reason to reconsider its agenda to proceed with this bridge.

It would appear that this bridge is really an expensive pet project for the Member for Klondike. It has been labelled as such, even in this Legislature. The Member for Klondike has long lobbied for this bridge. Even back in 1992, when he was not an elected member, he lobbied for the bridge as a member of the Yukon Party.

That reveals the weakness in the argument just advanced from the Member for Lake Laberge. You don’t have to be an elected member to have influence on a party or a government; just being a big supporter and maybe a financial contributor to the party will do.

And certainly an argument could be made that his financial support at the time may have come from government money that was loaned and not repaid. So that’s probably a discussion for another day, but we do know the Member for Klondike owns at least one hotel in Dawson City. And we have a case where the Member for Klondike could be benefiting personally from the construction of a bridge. This is a matter that must be raised.

Mr. Speaker, if a bridge were constructed, you would have a large number of workers in Dawson for a short period of time. It is also reasonable to assume they’ll need hotel rooms. That could directly benefit the Member for Klondike.

In addition, the Member for Klondike himself has said that, with a bridge, people can go across the river and golf. Well, what a great thing to advertise to your clientele for the hotel. Go across the river and golf in the evening and come on back — no wait for a ferry. So once again, the Member for Klondike could be benefiting. And it goes on.

From what I understand, he has relatives who own property across the river, Mr. Speaker.

You know, we heard today in Question Period about the Member for Klondike’s holdings, and maybe it should be a matter for the Conflicts Commissioner. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I recall reading a newspaper story that revealed how that member’s holdings were all bundled up in a numbered company, which was stationed outside the territory, and it was impossible to find out exactly what he owned and did not own.

I would submit there’s a lot of confusion around the personal holdings of that member. It seems there’s a lot of confusion about the agenda at play and who might or might not benefit. When it comes to affordability, Mr. Speaker, we’re talking about a major project that could hit $50 million — and I throw that out because the price of steel is on the rise, and we know this bridge will be using steel in its construction. If it’s anything like the other recent mega-project that went way over budget, the Mayo-to-Dawson transmission line, then $50 million is not out of the question.

$50 million for a project to build a bridge to a back road in the far northern area of the Yukon — let’s put that into context. Let’s compare it with other projects. One other project that comes to mind was the Grey Mountain Primary School. We’ll remember that in here as the Achilles heel of the previous Liberal government. I seem to recall that project was valued at about $3.5 million.

This bridge, if it comes in with a final bill of $50 million, is easily a dozen Grey Mountain Schools — a dozen of them. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for years to come — not the Yukon Party, because the Yukon Party has already revealed its plan and its schedule for proceeding with this project. It’s spending $1.5 million in the coming year, and it plans to start construction just before the election.

So the burden to pay for this project will be foisted on future governments. It’s a huge project in terms of Yukon finances launched at the end of a term, to be paid for by future governments, which compromises the government’s ability to finance other projects and needs of Yukoners across the territory.

This bridge will jeopardize building schools in Whitehorse, in rural Yukon. It will jeopardize improving roads throughout the territory. It will jeopardize water and sewer projects throughout the territory. It will jeopardize other infrastructure projects throughout the territory — one of them I raised yesterday about expanding the cellular infrastructure network throughout the territory.

This huge project will dominate the budgets from the Yukon government for a number of years to come. It will be a big black hole and taxpayers’ money will get sucked into this big black hole for many years to come. And it will come at the expense of some of the projects I have identified and a whole lot more. There are program funds, like the community development fund, that will be put at risk. There is health care funding that will be put at risk. The ability to buy new equipment such as ambulances or fire trucks, what have you, will be put at risk.

This huge financial commitment will squeeze out other projects across the territory for years to come. They’ll push them onto the backburner and maybe off the stovetop altogether. I can think of one project in my riding — and I mentioned it last week — the sewage lagoon near Kluane Lake. What a disaster this has turned out to be. This government has stalled work on that project for the past two years. There has been a half a million dollars spent to advance that project, yet it has been stalled out by this Yukon Party government. The very environment at Kluane Lake is threatened by this delay, yet this government found it necessary to include in its budget an amount for advancing the bridge that is exactly triple the amount spent to prepare that lagoon in the past. What other projects have been pushed back because of the need to advance this bridge already? We’re only talking about a million and a half in the 2004-05 budget. Just wait until next year or the year after when the project is tendered. Then you’ll see a lot more in the way of spending.

This whole project raises a lot of concerns. It’s clear that it is a private agenda by some members in government. We know the Member for Klondike exerts a lot of power at the budget table, and certainly there is all kinds of evidence of that.

But I would have expected his colleagues to rise to the occasion and defend their constituents and do what’s best for the Yukon and try to stop this very expensive and unneeded project from proceeding. Maybe they tried to do that. Maybe I should forgive the members opposite, because maybe they argue on behalf of their constituents against this project. Maybe it was just the Member for Klondike and the Member for Lake Laberge, who raised this motion, who were in favour of it. I don’t know. There has also been talk that the real reason this project is proceeding is it was part of a deal to throw the leadership of the Yukon Party a couple years ago. That’s public information, right from transcripts from radio news.

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   On a point of order, Minister of Environment.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I think that, pursuant to our Standing Orders, the member opposite is getting a little far-fetched in his accusations and imputing motive. I don’t think it’s necessary to go into any more detail on that.

Speaker:   I think the member does have a point of order. I would ask the Member for Kluane, again — I know you don’t like the term "temperance". The Chair is uncomfortable with the approach of impugning individual members, and I would ask the member not to do it, please.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the word "temperance."

Some Hon. Member:   Point of order.

Speaker:   Member for Lake Laberge, on a point of order.

Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Chair, I believe it’s also against the Standing Orders to accuse a member of representing someone other than their constituents, and I believe a full retraction from the Member for Kluane is called for.

Speaker:   There is no point of order. The issue has been dealt with. I would ask the Member for Kluane to carry on.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, the truth is my comments are tempered a lot from what they otherwise would be. I respect your presence here today, because you are a major influence in that temperance.

If this discussion took place out in the parking lot or wherever, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the discussion would be far less tempered than what you’ll hear today.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   My colleague for Mayo-Tatchun adds to that. Also, if you go to public meetings in Dawson City you’ll find debate that is much less tempered than you’ll hear in this Chamber this afternoon. Although it might be appropriate that we hear of resignations in this Chamber, it’s very unlikely we’ll hear of that today.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of questions around this project. The government has had ample opportunity to make its business case and I want to talk about that now because we’ve been asking for a business case for a number of weeks. Last Thursday in here, I put the Premier on notice that I expected his government to produce a business case and, come Monday, there was nothing from this government. So I asked the minister again — I believe it was Tuesday afternoon — about a business case and he agreed to provide it on Thursday. That’s tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Then later on Tuesday, after the government side called the motion, I asked the minister if he would speed up the delivery of that material to allow us sufficient time to review his business case and the studies we expected to accompany it. He conceded that it might be possible to deliver the studies during the noon hour.

Well, that wouldn’t have left us very much time to review what we expected to be a considerable amount of information. Then, Mr. Speaker, a development — this afternoon at 1:08 p.m. precisely, a stack of reports was delivered to our office while we were all in here eagerly awaiting the commencement of Question Period. This stack of document is about a foot high — about .3 metres high.

I reviewed the information, and there are studies that go back to 1989 — many of them are from the early 1990s. The cover letter that accompanied this stack clearly spells it out. These studies comprise the government’s business case. It referred specifically to a 1995 report entitled Life Cycle Cost Analysis. So, I’ve had a minute and a half, or maybe two minutes, to review this document — this study — a study that is 321 pages long, complete with a very large amount of detail and tables and maps and schematics. But in the minute and a half or two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I was able to glean some information that led me to believe that already this business case is stale-dated. The dates referred to in this report have already passed.

Why is the government so eager to use this particular outdated report to pass for its business case? I don’t know; it doesn’t make sense to me.

Let’s think for a minute about what a business case really is. I know the government is reviving the old business development office as part of re-establishing the Department of Economic Development. Maybe these members across the way need to visit the business development office to ask them about what comprises a business case. I will just speculate what the answer might be.

First of all, it’s going to involve a business plan. Everybody who goes into business must have a plan. So far we haven’t seen a plan for this Yukon Party government. The only plan it has was that double-qualified promise from its election campaign. That’s it. If they had a plan, it would have been tabled as part of its business case, and it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, there wasn’t anything from the Yukon Party tabled in this .3-metre stack of information. This stack consists entirely of old reports, many of them done during the Ostashek regime prior to the NDP government’s 1996 election win.

So what else would comprise a business case? Well, maybe a pro forma analysis, a multi-year projection of costs and benefits. It could be reasonable to expect that. After all, any applicant who goes through that process must produce these very same things. Surely the government wouldn’t be asking Yukoners to do something it doesn’t uphold itself.

What about a market analysis? What about examining who the potential users of the bridge would be? Are they just the Member for Klondike and his hotel guests, or are there other people as well? We need to know. We need some recent information to determine the answer to that important question.

There are all kinds of other aspects to a business case. What financial model will be used? We still have not heard from this government what financial model they will use. We’re still up in the air. Here we are, midway through a motion debate on this, yet we’re left guessing about what model will be used. Will it be a P3 — public/private partnership? Will it be financed through the Yukon government? Will it be a toll bridge? Will the money be coming from Larry, according to the leader of the third party? Will it be from some other sugar daddy out there not identified in any business plan? We don’t know yet.

I retract that, Mr. Speaker. I’m not calling Larry a sugar daddy.

So back to the case of the business plan. I think we can all agree — maybe if we were out in the parking lot, the government side would also agree — that we really do need a business plan and none has been provided. There’s my point.

I want to move to some other aspects. What about cost to the bridge? And I’ve already mentioned how $50 million should not be ruled out. One of the main driving factors, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of steel. Has anybody checked into the rising cost of steel lately? Mr. Speaker, the members opposite should wake up and look at the price of steel.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   What will be stolen here is taxpayers’ hopes, dreams and wallets, Mr. Speaker. That will be the real steal.

But, Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, there is a lot of global pressure on the steel industry. We live in a changing world. We’re not stuck back in prehistoric times, as the Yukon Party would like to believe. From what I understand, China — this is very surprising — produces more steel than the U.S.A. and Japan combined. And China right now is on a mad buying spree for as many of the components that go into making steel as they can. That apparently is the main driving force behind skyrocketing steel prices.

So here we are in the Yukon. We have a small population. We have a small budget relative to China or anybody else, and this bridge has been talked about in the back rooms for decades. Think of the timing here, Mr. Speaker. This has to be the worst possible time to ever build a bridge in Dawson City, when the price of steel is going through the roof. You know, we need to have some sober thought here.

Well, the Member for Klondike is heckling from across the way. He is quite content to ride out this debate, because he knows he will be a big winner in the end, at a cost to all Yukon taxpayers. But one of my colleagues pointed out: what about the cost of a statue of the Member for Klondike on this bridge? Has that been taken into account?

Well, the Member for Porter Creek Centre says they budgeted for that. Well, where is it?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. McRobb:   It’s in the business plan. Excellent answer. Well, maybe if that business plan ever sees the light of day, we will be able to view that line item for ourselves. We don’t know yet.

There are all kinds of problems with this bridge — all kinds of problems. There are some major questions around this bridge, and we won’t be able to discuss them all in detail today, because the government has not provided us the business case. We do need some hard numbers. We need to test the government’s case.

I remind the government again for what I think is the third time in this fresh, eight-day sitting that a government is only as good as the opposition. If the government doesn’t improve the information flow to the opposition then it’s held less accountable. If the government is less accountable, we all know that we can lower our sights and expect all kinds of bad things down the road — scandals — you name it. For a good example of that, just look to our federal government and you’ll see this happening now, and it could happen in the territory.

In fact, if voters here weren’t so fickle, it might even happen again. They might be lured into re-electing this Yukon Party again, but we know that’s not going to happen, especially when it comes out before an election with a promise to build this big bridge. Nobody is going to go for that. And certainly after last night’s meeting in Dawson City, the Member for Klondike better start thinking about updating his resumé. Maybe he shouldn’t be too quick to do away with the ferry because he might just be in line for a job on that ferry.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I want to also introduce some discussion based on what I heard in my riding of Kluane because it is an area that could be directly affected by building this bridge. I have had the chance to discuss it with some constituents, and I’ll come back and say some are happy with it, some are rather discontent, and most are unsure. I fall into that last category because we have yet to see any convincing argument or business plan from this government to justify this bridge. There are questions about cost, about affordability, about tolls, about how it will be built, about how it will push projects from across the territory onto backburners or off the stovetop altogether for many years to come. The whole thing appears to be intended to satisfy some kind of arrangement that was made, and it definitely was not approved in the election because of the double qualifier on this particular promise from within the Yukon Party’s election platform.

I ask you on that point: if this government really wanted to get a mandate from the public to build this bridge, why didn’t it just put right in its platform, "We will build a bridge across the Yukon River at Dawson City"?

That would have completely disarmed the opposition parties after the election, because the government would simply stand up and say, "We have the mandate; you heard what the voters said, and we’re proceeding."

Well, Mr. Speaker, things are a little different because of the double qualifier. All this government said it was going to do was plan to build the bridge and only when it’s economical to do so. Again, none of those qualifiers has been satisfied.

Another concern is with the approach taken by this government toward announcing this project. It announced the project and also announced some drilling and studies would be happening the following week. Mr. Speaker, some investigation has revealed this government placed invitational tenders with some companies to do that work and, therefore, those tenders were not publicized in the normal fashion.

This government carefully planned this whole bridge to be a surprise announcement without any lead warning. Why was that? Well, obviously it didn’t want people to know. It wanted nobody to know in advance that it would be springing this bridge on them.

That’s not open or honest; that’s not being straightforward with Yukoners; that’s not a whole bunch of things. There’s a major point there and a major concern about what this government did to Yukoners in the process of how this announcement was made with the secret planning and advancement of the work. There was ample opportunity to go out and consult Yukoners, to ask them whether or not they wanted the bridge at Dawson.

You know, there’s a little more to it than that. You can ask Yukoners if they want the bridge, but most people will say, "Well, can we afford it?" And the last word they had on the territorial financial picture was the terrible trajectory, the need to rein in our spending, blah, blah, blah. They weren’t told about this upcoming record budget. They weren’t told this government was going on a spending spree. They weren’t told that this is a one-shot deal. They weren’t told any of that. For anybody to make a reasoned judgement on any particular project, they need to know the backdrop for that decision. Again, this government hid that information from them and sprung it only when it revealed the budget. And that’s wrong. That’s not open and accountable and all the other rhetoric we hear.

I know this is hard to take. These words are rather unpleasant, and I’ll take time to reflect on them this weekend, and hopefully we’ll heal in time for next week. But it is our job here, as members of the opposition, to bring some flame to the toes of the government members. In the case of this Dawson City bridge, we need a flamethrower for what they deserve because there is a lot of accountability yet to be had on this project, particularly with the way this government has treated Yukoners and not brought them in to the decision making.

Now, I want to turn back to some riding-related concerns, and one of the main concerns from people who are unsure about this project is: how will it affect transportation on the main route to Alaska?

Because let’s be clear — building this bridge upgrades the only other route to Alaska, so there is a direct connection. The present thinking is such that it could decrease traffic counts along the main Alaska Highway through the Kluane region; therefore, it would make it even tougher for a lot of the businesses who are struggling to survive and make it less feasible for future businesses to open. This bridge could have a negative economic impact. It might be the other way — it might be positive — but we don’t know.

It goes back to consulting with the public. I firmly believe that this government should have gone out to Haines Junction, Destruction Bay, Burwash Landing, and Beaver Creek, and ask the people about this project, being prepared with some information about how this project could impact traffic along the north Alaska Highway.

I could go on about how a lot of people have invested their lifetime earnings, and so on, into businesses in the Kluane region, but I assume everybody knows that.

There is another aspect — that is that the road from Haines Junction to Haines, Alaska, is also impacted. If you look at the profile of a lot of tourists nowadays who drive up the Alaska Highway, a lot of them are fly/drives from Europe. These are the very people who spend a lot more money than the basic Winnebago crowd.

The fly/drives usually enter the area at one of two locations: Anchorage, Alaska and Whitehorse, Yukon. They usually exit out of the same location. So a typical fly/drive tourist could fly into Anchorage, rent a vehicle, drive to Tok, Alaska, see the big display advertising the Klondike and a big picture of the new bridge and Diamond Tooth Gertie’s, and so on, and the brochure with the statue of the Member for Klondike. How could they possibly resist? So they end up in Dawson City. Then they go on to Whitehorse and from there a lot of them could fly back from Whitehorse to Anchorage or drive to Skagway and take the ferry back to Anchorage. What gets cut out of this loop — either one of those loops — is the Tok-to-Haines Junction and Whitehorse section, and the Tok-to-Haines Junction-to-Haines, Alaska section. A lot of people are concerned about this. I think to make a reasoned judgement on the feasibility of a bridge, we do need to have some information about how this bridge could impact traffic routes elsewhere in the territory.

That being said, this bridge also upgrades the Top of the World Highway alternative, and it could be called "the thin edge of the wedge" or "the step down the slippery slope", or both, because once there is a $50-million bridge in place, it becomes easier to spend $5 million or so every year to upgrade the Top of the World Highway.

That’s a never-ending project. It would be possible to sink $5 million a year into that highway for a lifetime — and that’s a lot of money. In itself, that will take away from other projects around the territory.

Apparently the amount to upgrade the Top of the World Highway has been estimated at some $60 million. Well, that’s an incredible figure, and there’s still the section in Alaska on the Taylor Highway. I know Governor Frank Murkowski came out and gave his blessings on the Dawson bridge, and out of respect for him, we should all bow down at least three times and build a bridge without any business case.

But, Mr. Speaker, we’re elected by Yukoners, not by Alaskans, and our first duty should be to the people back home. I know how the Alaskans view spending money on the Taylor Highway because I’ve talked to them about it. About three times now I’ve talked to senators and representatives in Juneau and about another three times when they have visited us over here. I’ve also been in meetings with the DOT — that’s the Department of Transportation — where the Member for Klondike was present, and I’ve heard the member speak up on upgrading that Taylor Highway. I’ve heard the reaction from officials within the DOT and they kept sloughing off the Member for Klondike, saying, "It’s not a priority to us, sorry. We’re actually thinking about closing that down even longer every winter." But the Member for Klondike is very persistent. He usually gets his way with his colleagues but it’s a different story when he goes outside his home jurisdiction. So the head of the DOT was rather unconvinced by the arguments advanced by the Member for Klondike.

I monitor the Anchorage Daily News rather closely, and there has been no indication that Alaska has changed. It’s a case of having a low priority on that section.

So why are we in a mad rush to throw away taxpayers’ dollars down the slippery slope for a Dawson bridge? This highway is only open for a few short months of every year. It doesn’t make sense. It’s probably the least travelled highway in the territory, with the possible exception of Highway 10, the Nahanni Range Road, because the Cantung mine is closed.

Its traffic count is very low, yet this government is rushing ahead to build what could be the most expensive megaproject in the history of the Yukon government, paid for by the Yukon government. I say that because no one else has been identified yet. It’s not like the Shakwak highway reconstruction project, which is paid for exclusively by the U.S. government. It’s not like other highway improvements, like the section west of Champagne that will be improved this summer, which is cost-shared with the federal government. It’s not shared with anybody that we know of yet. Even if it were cost-shared 50:50 with the federal government, that’s still taking money away from other projects.

So we pay in the end anyway. It simply doesn’t make sense for the government to rush into this until it convinces Yukoners that it has a sound business case and that the territory can afford this megaproject and that the timing is right, and most of all that it has a mandate to pursue and proceed with the construction of this project. Those are major shortcomings in the government’s plan.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Dawson has also identified several other priorities. I believe it still puts those other priorities ahead of a bridge. What about water and sewer construction in Dawson City? We have a case where Judge Heino Lilles has an order for Dawson City to uphold construction of a sewage treatment facility later this year, yet nothing is being done about it. This government is ignoring that issue, as the Member for Klondike has consistently ignored the Dawson sewage problem for decades. That’s a shame. I hope that people in Dawson reflect on this at the polls next time. And judging from the results of last night’s meeting, they’re starting to get that message, and that’s a good thing.

So there are all kinds of problems with what this government is trying to do.

I would like to remind all members of the motion that was put forward by the Member for Copperbelt last December 3, when the House was about to debate an opposition motion on the outstanding government loans. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we can recall that member saying, and I quote: "It is not necessary to debate this motion at this time." Then the member went on to move adjournment of debate.

I submit that it’s not appropriate to debate Motion No. 225 today because the side opposite has failed completely in its obligation to make the debate on its own motion a meaningful one.

I have here an enormous stack of documents related to what the Minister of Highways and Public Works seems to believe makes up a business case for building a bridge at Dawson City. The minister’s executive assistant delivered it this afternoon while we were here in Question Period. Like I said, we’ve had a minute or two to glance at some of those old reports and that stack, which is completely void of any business plan.

Now, I’m quite sure that even the sponsor of this motion, who has developed a certain notoriety for his ability to speak at length without saying anything, has not had an opportunity to familiarize himself with this information.

Mr. McRobb:   Accordingly, I move that this debate be now adjourned.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Kluane that debate on this motion be now adjourned. Such a motion is not subject to debate or amendment. The Chair therefore must put the question immediately. Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Some Hon. Members:   Disagreed.

Speaker:   I think the nays have it. I declare the motion defeated.

Speaker:   The Member for Kluane still has the floor.

Mr. McRobb:   What a travesty to justice that was. The members opposite insist we debate something without having the information. Why couldn’t they have waited another day, or maybe a few days, so that all members in here would be able to have some informed discussion? Obviously this government is hiding more than just a business case. Obviously we do need to turn up the burner on the toes of these members and bring home the reality of what accountability really means.

So our work is cut out for us in opposition in the days and weeks ahead, and hopefully not too many years, where we are forced to deal with a government that thinks it knows best, the government that has all the answers but really answers very few questions.

There is not much more I can say, given the lack of a business case and the inadequate period of time we’ve had to review the stack of old studies. I do say "old studies", Mr. Speaker. They are stale-dated but good enough for the Yukon Party.

So I would like to move an amendment to Motion No. 225.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, I move

THAT Motion No. 225 be amended by adding the following: ", only if a select committee of the Assembly recommends that it do so; and

THAT the membership and mandate of the select committee be established by a separate motion of the Assembly following consultation between the House leaders."

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Member for Kluane

THAT Motion No. 225 be amended by adding the following: ", only if a select committee of the Assembly recommends that it do so; and

THAT the membership and mandate of the select committee be established by a separate motion of the Assembly following consultation between the House leaders."

Mr. McRobb:   I think this is a great amendment. It’s the responsible thing to do, it’s the logical thing to do and it should be the respectful thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, it follows up on an idea from the government side only last week. And all the members voted for the use of a select committee. We would disagree that there was no need to shuffle off whistle-blower protection into an open-ended process but, nevertheless, the government side supported the establishment of a select committee.

So what this amendment does is follow up on the suggestion from the government side to establish a select committee to examine the appropriateness of the Dawson bridge. Such a process would be a fair one.

The committee itself would be established by a separate motion of the Assembly, following consultation between the House leaders. That would involve a representative from each of the three parties represented in this Legislature. So it’s a fair process and one that would be expected to launch a round of public discussion and consultation on this very expensive pet project that will put the territory in debt for many years to come.

The government side can use that process to tell Yukoners about the virtues of the project, but it should also be fair and identify the shortcomings and risks associated with the project, as well as the details of the project, including the cost and impact on the local economy from the loss of 17 jobs, the impact on other regions from the loss of traffic, and the impact on future budgets as we slide down the slippery slope of upgrading the Top of the World Highway — and all the impacts. Let’s put all the information out there for Yukoners, so they can get an accurate picture of what this project is really all about.

We owe that to Yukoners out of respect. Many Yukoners bring forward very constructive views, and a lot of times those views change the course of government and improve the path taken by government, and that’s exactly what this government should do. It should be open to those kinds of suggestions.

So all of those things would stem out of the process that has been identified in this amendment. All the more reason for all members in this Legislature to support this amendment tabled today.

I also want to review what happened just a few moments ago when the government side voted down the motion to adjourn debate. Moving the amendment was our second option. Moving a motion to adjourn debate was our first option.

As pointed out, this was an approach used by the government a few months ago when it suspended a motion brought forward by the Member for Whitehorse Centre around the repayment of the outstanding government loans. The motion by the government at the time was not supported by the opposition parties. It was sprung on us with no notice and with no legitimate reason, we felt.

To the contrary, the motion I introduced has a valid reason, such as the complete lack of information in the business plan. Those are things that have been established through the course of discussion this afternoon.

What has happened in the past few months is that we’ve got a Yukon Party government that voted for a motion to suspend debate that was based on rather shaky ground, and it was a rather undemocratic process — certainly no lack of notice. Yet we see four months later the same Yukon Party government voting against a very similar motion, but a motion that is substantiated because the information has not been provided.

Of course, I would expect all members would agree that in order to have constructive debate in this Legislature, we should all be provided with the best opportunity available to apprise ourselves of the facts of any issue. In order to do that, we need to receive the information. Because the government is the main proponent for the bridge across the Yukon River at Dawson City, the onus is upon it to provide that information. Chief among the information that should be provided is the business plan. Again, the government has not provided a business plan. It has only provided some old studies that have been around for years and years that contain stale-dated information.

Just to wrap up my explanation of the events that unfolded in here just 10 or 15 minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, we have a government that does what’s good for it, using a particular tool, yet it votes against anybody else trying to use the same tool to achieve something for the public good. So there’s a bit of a double standard. What we have in this amendment is the same thing. Only last Wednesday did this government use the same tool we’re using today, which is an amendment to a motion from the other side that basically refers an issue to a select committee. What I expect is going to happen is the government side will vote down this amendment and once again display its double standard in this House.

I would remind members that this double standard is embedded forever in Hansard and can be referred to by anybody at any time. Our Hansard is also online and can be accessed by anybody with Internet access at any time. So what it is about to do, again, to further its double-standard approach will be a matter of fact for anybody to see.

I would encourage members to think about their constituents and other constituents in the territory and of the territory itself and think about the long-term good of the territory. Can we really afford this very expensive project? This government is coming off a wild spending spree that is unprecedented in government history. I ask it to just rein in its spending a bit, which has gone out of control. There was no need to launch this expensive pet project on top of all the other spending included in this record budget. The Member for Klondike should have restrained himself at the budget table. The other members should have thought more about sober thought when it came to expressing their views on the budget. The government should have consulted with Yukoners more about this project.

That being said, I’m looking forward to the vote. I don’t expect it to approve because I think the government side will continue its double standard. If I’m proven wrong, I will be the first to apologize to the government. So let’s make that happen. I will gladly apologize to this government if it does something in the public interest like defer this matter to a select committee.

Thank you.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question on the amendment?

Are you agreed?

Some Hon. Members:   Agree.

Some Hon. Members:   Disgree.

Speaker:   Did somebody stand?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Speaker:   My apologies. Order please. I must take the word of the member if he said he was standing.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’d like to speak in favour of this amendment. I think that, given the things that have happened in Dawson recently, it would do well for this Legislature to listen to what people have to say, because the people in Dawson do have a lot to say these days.

There’s a lot of concern about the idea of having a bridge when there are other pressing needs in Dawson. They have problems with the rec centre; they have problems with the need for sewage treatment and waste management and water services.

So on one hand we have a bridge that they have done little consultation on. They basically want to impose a bridge on the citizens of Dawson and on all Yukoners, and the financial burden that it would cause on taxpayers.

Obviously members on the other side thought a select committee was good a week ago, so I don’t understand why a select committee was good last week but it’s not good this week. They were trying to disagree with the motion.

That doesn’t compute. You’ve got this situation in Dawson now, where you’ve got three-term councillors who have dedicated their lives to municipal politics in Dawson City resigning — but no consultation.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:   That’s right. The Member for Klondike is holding his hand over his heart and moaning.

Now, the situation in Dawson is pretty volatile right now. I think that a select committee that went around and talked to citizens, that presented the economic case that the Minister of the Department of Highways and Public Works — my understanding is that he provided it after we came into the Legislature today, but we haven’t had a chance to look at it. Has the public had a chance to look at it to see what the economic case is? A select committee could show the public the economic case that the government is trying to make.

I think that it’s important that all Yukoners get all information. That’s what open and accountable government is about. That’s what was in the Yukon Party platform. But what we see in Dawson, instead of cooperation and consultation, is micromanagement of municipal affairs. You can’t have a waste management plan that deals with environmental issues.

The Member for Lake Laberge was talking earlier about the environmental issues of the bridge.

A select committee could examine those issues — the environmental issues raised by the Member for Lake Laberge — about the ferry. Maybe they could compare them to the need for a sewage treatment plant or the waste management plan the City of Dawson wanted to put in place. The waste management plan was sound, by all accounts. It was about reducing the amount of garbage going into the landfill and extending the life of that landfill. I think that’s environmentally responsible, and I’m sure that a select committee looking at it would say that as well.

Maybe a select committee could look at the price of steel. I know the Member for Klondike knows a lot about the price of steel. He was telling me all about it, not that long ago, and how it related to the increased costs of the multiplex. He seems to know a lot about the price of steel, yet we don’t know about the price of the bridge. How is the price of steel going to affect the final cost of building this bridge?

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:   The Member for Klondike is suggesting that it could be made out of wood. Maybe a select committee could find out what the best material to build it from would be. Maybe they could build it from used lumber from hotels or something. Who knows?

But I think there are a lot of questions yet to be asked and a lot of questions that need to be answered about whether or not a bridge is needed in Dawson.

I think that we need to hear those questions; we need to hear those answers.

The Premier earlier today said something, actually, as well. He said the opposition doesn’t like the answers. You know, we’re over here asking questions and we don’t get the answers. He said we don’t like the answers. Well, maybe the Premier and the members opposite aren’t going to like the answers of a select committee. Maybe that won’t fit with their game plan and what they want to hear. Maybe that’s why they don’t want to have a select committee. I don’t know. Maybe one of them will stand up and tell us why a select committee is something that was, like I said earlier, good last week but not good this week. We need to have more discussion. This is a fairly large expenditure. You’ve committed $1.5 million to planning for a project for which we don’t really know the price, given the volatility of the materials.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, again, the Member for Klondike wants to make comments about lumber. If he paid attention, last year the cost of lumber was a big issue and it is still an issue. The price of plywood hasn’t gone down. So even if they build it out of concrete, it is going to be expensive because you use plywood to form concrete in a lot of instances.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, if the member was listening, he would have heard that it was concrete formed with plywood and steel. If you want to build it out of concrete, that’s what you form concrete with — plywood and steel. So again, there are volatile products adding to the cost.

The government hasn’t done its homework on that one, and they don’t want to hear the answers. The Premier says that we don’t want to hear the answers, we don’t like the answers we get, but they don’t even want to ask the hard questions and get the answers.

It’s interesting that the supervisor has informed the Dawson municipal council that he wants them to have a budget that’s pay-as-you-go. The Premier and the government want to mortgage Yukon’s future on a bridge while other things, like sewage treatment in many communities, are not being addressed — and other environmental concerns, like landfills and waste management, or the cleanup of toxic sites. There is a lot of work to be done that should be examined before we proceed with an expensive bridge, which we don’t even know the price of.

So the Member for Kluane has asked the House to consider amending this motion to allow for a select committee to take some time and look at the whole situation and involve the public in meaningful consultation. "Meaningful consultation" — that’s out of the 1992 Yukon Party platform, I believe. In the last platform, it was "open and accountable government", so I think it would be good if the government looked at its history and its past and look at its platform and did the right thing and agreed with this motion.

It would benefit all Yukoners; it would benefit the people in Dawson.

I think there is a lot of concern in Dawson about how much money gets spent and how little the real needs of Dawson are actually addressed — whether it be servicing its debt or the problems they’ve had with the multiplex. Those are all things that need to be considered before you build a bridge. What is in the best interest of the people of Dawson and of all Yukoners?

So I would urge the members — I’d be interested to hear what they have to say and I look forward to discussing this further.

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan:   I would like to address the amendment.

What immediately struck me about the amendment brought by the Member for Kluane is that turnabout is fair play, Mr. Speaker. This is what the members opposite did with respect to a motion on whistle-blower legislation, which is very important to Yukoners and was a platform commitment by the Yukon Party. They took what I thought, quite frankly, was well-thought-out legislation, which I was looking forward to debating, and referred it to a committee. They took a platform commitment and said — because the actual legislation was brought forward by somebody else — "No, let’s deal with this in Committee."

So now the government has said, "Well, no, but we want to discuss this platform commitment" — being the bridge — and in all fairness, other members in the House have said, "Look, let’s take that platform commitment and send it to a select committee of the House" — fair point.

That being said, I think we should have a committee take a good and serious look at the proposed bridge, because there are a great many issues to be discussed, including the foot-high stack of material that was delivered to us. I’m not using metric, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for using the old imperial measurements, but it is a significant amount of work that was delivered.

It’s a significant amount of material that was delivered, and it warrants a significant amount of debate by all members of this House — the proposal to construct the bridge — and use of a select committee, while not often used by this Legislature, is a good idea.

I would like to address the idea of the committee addressing the bridge. I had an opportunity to speak to a Yukon organization about the proposed bridge, Mr. Speaker, and I did note that there’s something good to be said about everybody, even if it’s only the fact that they can whistle. There are some good things to be said about the bridge.

I think of that expression for two reasons — the expression about there’s something good to be said about everybody even if it’s only that they can whistle — there’s something good to be said about the bridge. It should have a great deal of debate, and there’s an interesting reference to whistling because there’s a very famous tune that is whistled, and it’s from the movie, The Bridge on the River Kwai. It’s an Oscar-winning movie, as a matter of fact, and it’s about a prisoner-of-war camp where, under terrible starvation conditions, prisoners build a bridge that is continually being blown up.

Speaker:  The Chair is failing to find the connection —

Ms. Duncan:   Between the fact that I mentioned whistling, bridges and something good to be said, Mr. Speaker?

Speaker:   And the amendment. I’m sorry. I’m failing to make that connection. I’d ask the members to please focus on the amendment.

Ms. Duncan:   Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The amendment suggested that we deal with the subject of a proposed bridge via a select committee of this Legislature — now, such select committee to be established by a separate motion following consultation between House leaders. This was a suggestion that was made last week by the government and considered to be a very thoughtful, constructive suggestion. I see no reason why such a suggestion that was considered thoughtful and indeed democratic last week shouldn’t also be considered thoughtful and democratic this week.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Ms. Duncan:   The Member for Klondike is suggesting that I sit down and that the amendment be voted on.

Well, democracy is enabling everyone who wishes to speak to be heard, Mr. Speaker.

My point on this particular motion, as I have said, is that the amendment was considered a constructive suggestion last week. It should be considered a constructive suggestion this week. It again addresses an issue of the Yukon Party platform, and it would be worthwhile to have a select committee examine this proposal. And it would be worthwhile — although House leaders have not often been able to agree in this particular session, certainly a consultation with House leaders should be able to establish a select committee. And if House leaders are unable to agree, perhaps party leaders could.

However, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member for Kluane has brought forward an amendment that is certainly worthy of full consideration by all members of the House, and I look forward to their thoughtful consideration. If it was worthy of support last week, why isn’t it this week?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Hardy:   On the amendment — yes, I am standing to speak to the amendment. I believe it’s a very legitimate and good suggestion to resolve some of the outstanding issues that exist, and hopefully bridge the problems around this matter.

Now, unfortunately it has already been indicated to us, on this side of the House, that this amendment that the Member for Klondike has brought forward is not acceptable and there is no desire to have it sent to a select committee. That is kind of contrary to the position they took last week, when there was another issue before the Legislature that was brought forward by this side. It was an interesting process with respect to the amendments that were brought forward by the government members in relation to the motion we had — the bill — and then our attempt to try to find some common ground in that regard so that we could move forward on the whistle-blower legislation.

Unfortunately, nothing was acceptable because there was never an attempt to allow the whistle-blower legislation to move forward, therefore the amendments, similar to this one, ended up basically being stalled. I feel very strongly that we had gone the extra mile to try to deal with what we consider to be a very serious issue in the Yukon — and with the employees’ needs. Of course it wasn’t accepted very well.

So, taking that one week later, and thinking, "Okay, this is what the Yukon Party government believes in. They believe that select committees could be used to deal with some very difficult issues, such as spending situations like this proposed bridge over troubled water that exists around Dawson City." When I say "bridge over troubled water", I say it with all due respect because there is no question about it that the political waters in Dawson City are very, very disturbed.

There is a lot of hurt, a lot of underlying currents that are swirling around and have the potential to pull Dawson City down into a whirlpool of disaster if it continues along the way it is going.

I do not see this bridge as a solution for the troubled waters existing in Dawson today. I’d rather see this government take some of their money, take some of the attention they’re directing toward this project and apply it to waste management. That’s a long-standing issue, and I would hope that a select committee would look at that. Apply it there. I would rather see this government take some of the effort and some of the money they have and are directing toward this — like the $1.5 million — and apply it to resolve some of the financial difficulties Dawson City is experiencing. I’d rather see the Yukon Party government expend some positive energy and effort and not the negative attack that Dawson City council is experiencing. Use the energy, the will of this government, to go to Dawson, sit down, and resolve those issues without council feeling attacked, without council feeling betrayed, without council feeling that they have no role left to play in the city. I would rather see that. I believe a select committee has the ability to weigh all those aspects and hopefully deal with the troubles existing within Dawson and continue to grow.

This weekend there is the short-film festival up in Dawson City — a very exciting and interesting short-film festival in the Yukon, which will be attended by many people. I will be travelling to Dawson to participate in that and watch it and enjoy it.

I am hoping that the Member for Klondike will actually be in Dawson and be around the town and hopefully be able to answer many of the multitudes of questions that are swirling around the bridge project, as well as all the other aspects that seem to pool around this minister — often very, very difficult issues and problems that are created by the government and this minister. I am hoping that he is going to be in his community and answer the questions that I think many people do have, and resolve some of those issues.

This step would go a long way to addressing some of the concerns. A select committee would be able to travel to Dawson City, look at what’s being proposed, talk to the people who are most directly affected by a bridge up there, talk to the proponents, talk to the people who have major concerns and would rather see the money spent elsewhere, weigh the pros and cons, and out of that come forward with what I would believe would be hopefully a very good, sound solution that would be well-supported by the town itself as well as the rest of Yukon.

Do I have a lot of hope that that’s going to happen? Maybe I am being idealistic again, Mr. Speaker. So be it. I could hope that that will happen; however, I suspect it won’t. I expect, by the behaviour already of the Yukon Party in regard to this, in refusing even to speak to it, that they will want to remove this right out of it so they can move on with the original motion, which, unfortunately, we do have some concerns about. Of course, that’s why we are bringing an amendment forward.

Now, I’m not going to get into the discussions in regard to how great we work in here and how we accept each other’s amendments — not. Or how we try to resolve or work through bills and contribute equally so that the best bill comes forward — the best motion comes forward — that is representative of all the members of this Legislature. I’m not going to talk about that — it doesn’t happen.

On a rare occasion, on a very benign motion that most people would be foolish not to accept, yes, we do agree, but I would hope that the people in this Legislature are willing to take on the more difficult ones, have very vigorous debate and, at the end of the day, find some amendments and changes to it that accommodate the concerns and the wishes of all members in here and we can move forward.

Instead, all I see is a wish to have the most benign ones put on the table to have an agreement with but, for the difficult ones, to either try to talk out, shut down or change beyond recognition. This amendment is a reflection of the Yukon Party’s actions last week. This is what the Yukon Party government wanted last week and what they got. We have only copied them. We feel that they would be appreciative of this, that they would like us to react in the same manner they acted last week in bringing forward an amendment that is reflective of what they did last week and which allows the same type of solution, and they would step up to the plate and say, "Absolutely, let’s go for it. We agree with the select committee."

I’m going to stop my comments now to hear the other side speak and hopefully vote the same way they voted last week on almost the same wording, which would be for the select committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Peter:   It’s my pleasure to speak to this amendment to the motion put forward by my colleague. I would like to make my comments in regard to the bridge that’s being proposed in Dawson.

The cost of this bridge is estimated at $25 million to $35 million. I have heard both sides of the story, Mr. Speaker. I have some friends who live in Dawson, and I have been speaking with them.

It is amazing what a difference one week can make in this Legislature. We know what happened last week with the whistle-blower legislation that we put forward and how easily that legislation was put to a stop. We were bringing that legislation forward in regard to protection of workers. I believe in that type of legislation, Mr. Speaker. And here we are again, one week later: we’re proposing an amendment to a motion that was brought forward by the government in a spirit of cooperation. Again, it was mentioned by my colleagues that commitments were made in platforms and on the floor of this House on how we are going to work together and how we are going to come to some form of consensus on motions and bills and legislation that we bring forward on behalf of the Yukon people. Sometimes we can do that, and then other times, you know, we hear of many reasons put forward by this government why that can’t be. And a $25-million to $35-million project is a huge undertaking — a huge undertaking.

We’ve asked for information before debating this issue before us. I haven’t seen any of the information yet. It was given to my colleague, I believe, an hour or so before we had to address this issue. However, that being the case, we speak to this issue for those concerns. We’ve been asking for information on behalf of the Yukon people to bring the best case forward — the concerns the people have, the issues the people have — so the government can at least hear what we’re hearing in our offices.

Many a time I’ve said, you know, I’m not standing here speaking through my hat. There are people who phone and say, "These are the things that we are concerned about. Would you please bring these issues forward on my behalf?" And I do. That is our responsibility as elected officials in this Legislature.

The Yukon Party government in their platform promised the Yukon people to be open and accountable to the people who elected them and to the rest of the territory. When someone promises to be open and accountable, I usually take their word for it. That is part of our tradition. Your word is what counts.

The people of Dawson have been going through a very difficult situation in the last couple of weeks, and we don’t wish that on any one commu