Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 12, 1989 - 1:30 p.m.

Speaker: I will call the House to order. We will proceed with Prayers.

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker: Introduction of Visitors?

Are there any Returns or Documents for Tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I have for tabling a couple of answers to questions raised by Members opposite.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have for tabling various answers to questions raised by Members of the House.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have for tabling responses to questions raised in the House.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I have three legislative returns for tabling.

Speaker: Are there any Reports of Committees?

Petitions?

Introduction of Bills?

Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers?

Notices of Motion?

Statements by Ministers?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re: Alaska Highway pipeline

Mr. Phelps: I have some questions for the Minister of Economic Development about the issue of gas pipelines. Potential gas producers in the Mackenzie River Delta are applying for export permits to the United States. If these permits are granted, the next step will entail various pipeline companies vying to build the appropriate pipeline to export this gas through Canada and down to the southern 48.

All this, of course, is going to have a bearing on the future of the Alaska Highway pipeline. Right now Foothills Pipe Lines are busy promoting their pipelines, which are consistent with the eventual building of the Alaska Highway pipeline from Prudhoe Bay down to Alberta and the southern 48 states.

Does this government have a basic position regarding the Alaska Highway pipeline? Does this government support that pipeline being built or is it against it?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member correctly identified that the National Energy Board is currently holding hearings with respect to export permit applications by three oil companies in the Beaufort region who hope to export natural gas from the Delta.

The Member correctly identified that, even though the issue is the transportation of gas, either from the Delta or from Prudhoe Bay, which I think is the real subject of the Member’s question, it is not an issue specifically identified in the NEB hearing; it is also intricately related to the hearing and will ultimately be brought up in cross-examination at the hearing in Inuvik.

As I indicated for the Member for Riverdale North recently, the Government of Yukon intends to make a presentation before the NEB to address those issues. I will be making a ministerial statement before the House early next week with respect to those matters.

With respect to the answer to the Member’s specific questions, without anticipating the substance of my remarks next Tuesday, I think it would be fair to say that the Yukon Government must show at least some preference to the Alaska Highway gas pipeline in comparison to the alternatives.

Mr. Phelps: If I understand the Minister’s answer to my simple, straightforward question, he is saying that when he does present this government’s position with regard to the export of national gas from the Mackenzie Delta that this position will be one that supports the eventual building of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. Is that the position?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think it is appropriate that we wait until Tuesday. As I indicated, the Government of Yukon would show preference to the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. However, I point out that not only is the NEB hearing about the export permits for the gas, but it is also about export permits for Delta gas, and not Prudhoe Bay gas.

The issues are, of course, integrally linked, and I think I have indicated the position with respect to the Alaska gas pipeline, but the NEB itself will be most interested in the issues with respect to the export permits per se.

Mr. Phelps: Has this government consulted with Foothills Pipe Lines in order to develop a position that would be supportive of the eventual building of the Alaska Highway pipeline?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I have had meetings with the various industry proponents, including Foothills Pipe Lines, which clearly has a prime interest in the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. They have indicated to me their plans with respect to the construction of the pipeline and also their plans with respect to their intervention before the NEB. Certainly, that consultation has taken place.

Question re: Alaska Highway pipeline

Mr. Phelps: I have met with the officials as well.

One competing transportation alternative to the Alaska Highway gas pipeline is an alternate route that would pipe the gas to a port near Valdez, in Alaska, and then ship gas from there in a liquefied state by liquid natural gas to markets in Asia or possibly some markets in California, in the United States.

Has this government communicated with the Government of Alaska to indicate that it supports the Alaska Highway route and would be against the LNG route?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: With respect to the government’s position about tanker traffic generally, I think that it would be fair to say the government is extremely concerned about any proposition to increase tanker traffic along the coast of Alaska or British Columbia, or certainly, and most especially, on the north coast of the Yukon.

That is taken as a given. I am certain Alaskan officials are aware of our concern. To my knowledge, while I have not communicated specifically with the governor’s office with respect to tanker traffic subsequent to the recent disaster at Valdez, I am certain the State of Alaska is aware of our concerns and is expressing their own.

Mr. Phelps: We share the concerns of the potential for environmental disaster. As well, we strongly support the Alaska Highway pipeline on other grounds, because the terms and conditions are extremely favourable to the Yukon Territory.

Will this government mount a communication or lobbying effort to put forward our position as a government in clear and no-uncertain terms to the Alaskan government? Those companies and consortiums in support of the tanker alternative have been working very diligently for the past 12 months or so.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I would like to be permitted to respond to the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition that we should lobby Alaskans in favour of the Alaska Highway route, or as Foothills proponents. I would first respond by indicating to the Member opposite that he may know that I have had several meetings with the Foothills people to talk about their general interest in resurrecting the proposal, which has been dormant for some time. We have had presentations with them about the economics of the proposal to pipe Prudhoe Bay gas south. As the Member will know, there is a lively debate about that question, especially given today’s prices.

We have also talked to them about their proposal to extend the prebuild to the boundary, which is a very interesting initiative and follows the National Energy Board decision to consider the export licence. Finally, we have talked frankly to them about the situation, in Washington and in Juneau and Anchorage, where there is currently little interest in the Alaska natural gas highway proposal. At this point, the politics in the State of Alaska are that there are other options, including the one being developed by Mr. Hickel, which seem to have received much more favourable attention from legislators in that state.

I am reporting on those discussions but, in answer to the Member opposite, we have not become a lobbyist or an advocate for Foothills interests at this moment in time, per se.

Mr. Phelps: Would the Government Leader not agree with me that it is rather important that this government make its preferences with regard to the alternate routes abundantly clear as soon as possible, because, right now, within Alaska, momentum is building for the LNG because there is more money being spent in the State of Alaska.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I understand very well the economics of the competing propositions as being described by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I am sure that in the statement by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, next week, our position will become much more clear. I am sure the Member opposite will have noticed that there is a profound irony in the position of some Alaskans who are arguing for opening up Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the basis of national energy self-sufficiency while, at the same time, promoting a project to export their scarce energy fuels to Asia.

The contradiction between those two positions has been noticed in Washington and the Foothills people, I am sure, are making that contradiction very apparent to certain members of Congress as they now consider both the ANWR question and the other issues arising from the recent tragedy in Valdez.

I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition will also note that there are some quite complex and difficult questions around the economics of all the competing proposals. There are many serious people in the industry who do not accept some of the assumptions made about escalating gas prices and the economics of any of the current proposals right now. Prudently, this government is wanting to take a very serious look at all those questions before we become a passionate advocate for any one of them at this point in time.

Question re: Alaska Highway pipeline

Mr. Phelps: There is the issue of supporting the Alaska Highway pipeline as the best route from Prudhoe Bay. There is also the issue of being against the LNG route, not only because it would nullify the Alaska Highway pipeline, but due to very valid environmental concerns. There is a host of other arguments and figures that would affect the equation.

I still feel this government ought to staking out its ground and making its position clear and communicating it clearly, not only to Alaska, but to the United States politicians as well. I would like to ask the Government Leader if this government will be taking a clear decision and communicating this position to Congress and the President in Washington.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I expect we shall. Whether we shall be doing all of the things contemplated in the Member’s question in the next few days or weeks, I think, will depend on our ability to satisfy ourselves as to the rightness of our positions on these questions.

The terms of the economic benefits to the Yukon of the competing proposals are quite clear. Obviously, the Alaska Highway gas pipeline has some obvious advantages, but as the Member also knows, there are consequences to each of the alternatives. Let me state one that he has not mentioned, but a factor that is very important to us. We fear that a Mackenzie Valley route, for example, might lead inevitably to proposals to build a North Slope pipeline, something to which we would be adamantly and absolutely opposed.

That leads inevitably to a position in support of the option of the Alaska Highway pipeline as well. But the Member will understand then that it leads to questions about the Dempster lateral, and there are obvious social and environmental questions that have to be addressed about that alternative as well.

Mr. Phelps: One of the ironies is that by strongly supporting the Alaska Highway pipeline and taking a very clear position to the Government of the United States and the Government of Alaska a lot of goals are accomplished. First of all, it goes without saying that that is the alternative to what was known as the Arctic Gas Pipeline across Yukon’s North Slope. It also enhances our reputation for being concerned about the environment, not only in the Yukon but also in other areas adjacent to the Yukon, so there are all kinds of good reasons...

Speaker: Order, please. Will the Member please get to the supplementary question?

Mr. Phelps: ...for pushing the Alaska Highway pipeline. My question is whether the government will at least consider giving this issue more priority and staking out its territory soon because time is wasting and other people’s positions are gaining momentum.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: This is a fascinating debate and I am sure we are just at the beginning of it. I understand the importance of this question and that is why we are dealing with it very seriously.

Let me say also, since he mentions our environmental credibility, that it is a critical point in all the policy questions around this. I am sure that the Leader of the Official Opposition would accept that if we were seen in other parts of this country, such as the Northwest Territories, as simply promoting the Alaska Highway alternative on the basis of competing economic agendas with them, our position would not have the same credibility as if it was taken in full consciousness of all the complex environmental and social questions that flow from an export position.

Mr. Phelps: The Government of Yukon is indeed fortunate that, through the Berger hearings and the socio-economic hearings on the Alaska Highway pipeline and the environmental hearings that accompanied the hearings in 1977, we have the data base to launch a very good position that would show our concern about the environment. Once again, I ask whether or not the government will move fairly quickly to get their position together and make it known.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We will indeed do that. Let me make a point to the Member that he did not make. Of course there is considerable research already done, but more importantly, there is legislation and licensing approval of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline, in terms of its positioning. Nonetheless, the fact that there is an act of Congress and legislation in Canada seems to have been ignored or forgotten. Political memories are sometimes very short. That seems to have been somewhat forgotten both in Juneau and Washington and that is a concern to us.

I would make the very important point that we cannot assume that, while there has been a lot of research done on the Mackenzie Valley and some research on the Alaska Highway, few would argue that adequate research has been done on the Dempster lateral, for example, which is one of the questions we have to keep in mind when we are considering all of these issues.

Question re: Fuel Oil Tax Act

Mr. Phillips: I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the Fuel Oil Tax Act. There are several categories under the act that are currently now exempt from the road tax, including fishing, trapping and farming, to mention a few. It has been brought to my attention that marine vessels in the Yukon are currently required to pay the road tax. For example, two commercial vessels operating in the Yukon this summer will purchase over 20,000 gallons of fuel. Under the current legislation, they will be required to pay road tax on this fuel. Will the Minister take steps to amend Section 6 of the Fuel Oil Tax Act so that marine use could be exempted from road tax?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: The Member captured the entire picture quite well in the preamble to his question. I am familiar with the issues that the Member has cited. At this point, I can only say that we will be taking the matter into consideration.

Mr. Phillips: I am glad to see that the Minister is going to be considering the idea. Will the Minister consider a simple amendment that will exempt all marine users, private and commercial, from paying the road tax and bring that legislation forward in this session so that commercial and private boaters can enjoy the benefits this summer?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I cannot give that absolute guarantee. I have indicated that I will be reviewing the matter with the appropriate people. A clear definition of any changes to any act would have to be determined. The impact on revenue would have to be determined. Those things would have to be considered in any responsible decision-making process. Those are the things that I will be considering, along with other matters.

Mr. Phillips: In many other provinces, marine users can purchase gas that is free from the road tax. For the House’s information, fishing, logging, hunting and outfitting, trapping, mining and farming are excluded. We now have several tourism-related boats that are working up and down the Yukon River and other Yukon rivers and we should give consideration to these off-road vehicles that should be exempt from this fuel tax. Would the Minister seriously consider doing that this session, so that these operators, some in their first year, would be exempt from this tax?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I will repeat my answer. The factors that the Member cited are relevant factors in the equation. The government will also take into consideration what our neighbours do. I know what the situation is with respect to the western provinces. There are other matters to be considered. If the decision was made to proceed there would have to be careful drafting. At this stage, those things have not been done, but consideration will be undertaken.

Question re: Whitehorse General Hospital transfer

Mrs. Firth: I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission regarding nurses. In correspondence from the Minister’s department to the employees of the Whitehorse General Hospital, the Government of Yukon is aiming for a transfer date of June 1990. Is the government on target with that date? Can it be realistically met?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I would have to find that information out and get it back to the Member. I have not had an update in the last couple of weeks.

Mrs. Firth: The memorandum went to the employees on January 31. Perhaps I could ask the Minister a further question: Since there is no structured system of appointed times to meet to deal with salaries and sick benefits, et cetera, can the Minister tell us how long the nurses will be given to decide whether to accept the offer or to look at leaving the Yukon to look for other employment?

Hon. Ms. Joe: I apologize. I would have to bring that information back. I can certainly try to have it, possibly, by tomorrow morning.

Question re: Nurses, wages and benefits

Mrs. Firth: Perhaps I could direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Health and see if he has any of the information at his fingertips. The nurses are fairly anxious to have some answers.

Could the Minister of Health tell us whether or not it is true that the Yukon government has refused to negotiate particulars such as wages and benefits for the nurses?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: No, of course not, but to be perfectly precise, as the Member may know, in law we are required to negotiate with people with whom we have a collective agreement. We do not have a collective agreement with the bargaining unit referred to by the Member. We have, of course, undertaken to consult, and have an ongoing dialogue, with them about some of the issues of concern. That communication is ongoing. We have indicated that the transfer will not happen until we have arrived at satisfaction for both parties, the employees and us, about the personnel matters. I have indicated that before, and that remains our position. The actual timetable of transfers will be made according to the other issues and, in the main, are largely financial ones in terms of our dealings with the federal government. They will proceed according to the negotiations that are now ongoing.

Question re: Nurses, wages and benefits

Mrs. Firth: I would like to direct my new question to whichever Minister can answer, again regarding the nurses.

There is some concern that the meetings that are ongoing are simply at the request of the nurses and that there does not seem to be a structured timetable when they meet on a regular basis.

I would like to say that the nurses do not appear to be any further ahead than they were before the election as to what will be offered by this government. Summer is coming and the kids are out of school and it is a time that people are making decisions about their lives and, with all due respect, they do not have time to wait for the government to negotiate with other levels of government. There is a shortage of nurses across Canada and we are concerned about the nursing situation here in the Yukon.

I would like to ask the Minister when the nurses are going to be given information about their wages and sick time and when that will be presented to them in order for them to make decisions?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I am sure that several of the assertions made by the Member are, in fact, just not supported by the facts. Substantial information has been provided by this government. A commitment was made by this government to meet further with nurses and other health care workers now employed by the federal government, to give them whatever further information they require. Commitments have been made to make sure that by the time that job offers are made as a consequence of a transfer decision, they will have satisfactory information about the kinds of salaries and benefits that they would contemplate under the employ of this government.

Mrs. Firth: I would like to be very specific with the Minister of Health. He talks in generalities, and the nurses want specific answers to their questions as they have to make important decisions. Are the nurses going to know what their wage scale is going to be before they are asked to accept the package the government is going to be offering to them?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Yes, they will. Let me respond to some of the assertions made at the beginning of this debate, including the notion that we have not responded. We waited a considerable time for a formal response from the bargaining agent for the employees under question. We are responding appropriately and fairly in a continuing dialogue with those employees.

To state the obvious, we are not going to be doing anything resembling contract negotiations or collective bargaining on the floor of this House. We are going to deal with the potential employees of this government fairly and responsibly.

Mrs. Firth: We will go back in history and see what happened. What really happened was this government presented a package and said to take it or leave it. They then fell over themselves during the election campaign to tell the nurses they were going to consult with them and that they were going to be involved in the discussions and negotiations and would be kept fully informed.

What is really going to happen is that the government is going to have negotiations with the federal government ...

Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the Member of Guideline 7, which states a one-sentence preamble ...

Mrs. Firth: Mr. Speaker, I am in the middle of my question.

Speaker: It states a one-sentence preamble for each supplementary question. Please get to the supplementary question now.

Mrs. Firth: I was in the middle of asking the question, Mr. Speaker.

Are the nurses going to have input regarding their job classifications?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I believe the Member is aware of how the classification process works in this government; there is a classification appeal process. I am sure there will be a dialogue between the employees and us prior to the classification. I apologize, but I am going to have to respond to the inaccurate preamble of the Member, too. She talked about history.

We did not make a take it or leave it offer to the nurses. Also, the Member opposite is on record as favouring an instant transfer of health facilities - a record by motions filed by her in this House. An instant transfer would have prohibited any kind of consultation at all, such as we are now engaged in.

Question re: Nurses, wages and benefits

Mrs. Firth: I am trying to find out some information for the nurses of the Whitehorse General Hospital. I hear very alarming comments from our nurses that I know the community wants to keep here in the territory. When are the nurses going to know where they stand with this government? There have been mixed messages, and the nurses are no further ahead now than they were when this government made all its election promises.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I disagree with the preamble, and I disagree with the premise of the question. We are consulting with the nurses. We are dealing with their responsible bargaining agent. I do not accept the proposition of the Member’s question at all.

Mrs. Firth: Could the Minister tell us whether or not the nurses have been told how much they are getting paid?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: When we know whether or not we have a transfer agreement, and when we know who is subject to transfer, the people who will be offered jobs at YTG will know what they will be paid.

Mrs. Firth: Have the nurses been told what will happen with their benefits, such as their sick time, housing and so on? Have they been told that?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: We are communicating through our officials in the Public Service Commission with the responsible officials representing the bargaining agent of the nurses and the other health care workers.

Question re: Nurses, wages and benefits

Mrs. Firth: The nurses have not been told one thing. They are no further ahead with information now than they were at election time with all the election promises.

I would like to ask the Minister why the nurses have not been given this information, if they keep having all these meetings like the Government Leader says?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member may not know much about industrial relations but, particularly if we were in the collective bargaining situation, we would be required to communicate with the designated bargaining agent of the nurses, which we are doing. In addition, we have committed ourselves to meetings between our officials and the nurses. Those meetings are going on and decisions that have been made by this government are communicated, I am assured, effectively and expeditiously with respect to exactly the matters raised by the Member opposite.

Whether or not that is being passed on by the organization to every single nurse is not our responsibility.

Mrs. Firth: I wish that the Minister of Health would just debate the issue and not attack us personally.

I would like to know if it has been communicated to the nurses what their sick time compensation is going to be and whether they will get housing or not and what their wages are going to be? Has that been communicated to them?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: Question Period is not about debate, it is for the purposes of establishing government policy. The government policy is that the nurses and other health care workers who may eventually, as a result of the health care and hospital transfer, come to work for this government, must be satisfied with the package that we are offering. We must be satisfied that the package that is going to come to these new employees is commensurate with the arrangements for our existing employees. Toward that end, we have committed ourselves to ongoing discussions with those people, carried on not only by officials from the Department of Health but also from the Public Service Commission. I am satisfied that dialogue will continue until such a time as both parties are happy.

Mrs. Firth: When are the nurses going to know this? I would like to ask the Minister when they are going to get this information? Perhaps when they have all left the Yukon and decided to take jobs elsewhere? Then I suppose this government is going to stand up and tell them what they are going to give them.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: The Member made a silly little speech there. I want to say in response that I will set our approach to the health care transfer. We committed ourselves, not the federal government and not the previous government, to consultation with the affected employees.

The Member opposite is on record as favoring a midnight, instant transfer with no consultation whatsoever with the previous employees. The record of the Conservatives on this is contracting out, privatization and the dismantling of health services. That is what we are opposed to.

Question re: Nurses, wages and benefits

Mr. Lang: There are nurses living in my constituency who are concerned about the lack of information that is being provided to them, collectively and individually. I do not understand how we can be speaking to any organization or individual about a transfer, unless we are going to tell them what they are going to be paid, so they can make their own personal decisions. Could the Minister tell us why they are not being told what they are going to be paid?

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I have previously answered that question. Once we know the positions that are going to be transferred as a result of negotiations with the federal government, then those positions can be classified according to our classification system. We will then know what the people are going to be paid.

At the current stage of negotiations with the federal government, we do not know which positions will be coming to us or if we will be able to make an offer to those people. Those people will know what they are going to be paid, when we make an offer to them.

Question re: Hazardous waste disposal

Mr. Nordling: Obviously, we are not going to get anywhere today with the Minister of Health or the Minister in charge of the Public Service Commission. I am sure we will come back to it.

I have a question for the Minister of Community and Transportation Services. There has been considerable discussion in this House and among the public about the storage of PCBs and Yukon’s hazardous waste. This House unanimously passed a motion that the Yukon play the lead role in locating and storing PCBs and chemical wastes away from heavily populated areas. Has a storage site been chosen?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: As the Member is aware, the entire issue of the storage and collection of hazardous wastes has taken on a much greater significance in the minds of the public and as a responsibility of this government. The motion the Member refers to is being respected. The Department of Community and Transportation Services, in conjunction with the Department of Renewable Resources, is developing a comprehensive strategy to deal with the approach on the expanded aspect of the problem. I am expecting to review that strategy shortly and will advise accordingly.

Mr. Nordling: Has a storage site been chosen?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The short answer is no. The longer answer is that we cannot select a site until we know the nature of the storage facility, in terms of the types of waste that are going to be stored. As I have indicated to the Member, that is a component of the activity that has to follow a more precise identification of the hazardous waste that the government will be responsible for collecting, including the private sector.

Mr. Nordling: In 1987, the Department of Renewable Resources was going to draft territorial legislation for the management of waste and hazardous waste disposal in the Yukon. Has that legislation been drafted? If so, why has it not come to the House? When will it come? When will these discussions be complete so that we can start looking for a site?

Hon. Mr. Byblow: The legislation the Member refers to is in the hands of the Renewable Resources department. I am sure the Minister will respond to the Member.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Introduction of visitors

Mr. Phillips: I would like to bring to the attention of the House several guests who have arrived in the gallery here today. We have the Grade 10 students from FH Collins, and their teacher, Mr. Dueling, as well as the Grade 11 students from FH Collins, and their teacher, Ms. Boughner. I would like all Members to make them welcome. They are here today to help gain a better understanding of how our Legislature works.

Applause

Hon. Mr. McDonald: As part of their first lesson, I would like to request unanimous consent to proceed as follows:

Based on an agreement between the House Leaders, I would request the unanimous consent of the House to proceed directly to Motions other than Government Motions, rather than calling  Motions for the Production of Papers. I would request the unanimous consent of the House to have only the first four motions called under Motions other than Government Motions.

I would note that it is understood that we will proceed to Bills other than Government Bills at either 4:30 p.m. or at the conclusion of consideration of Motion No. 25 on the Order Paper, whichever is earlier.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

All Hon. Members: Agreed.

Speaker: There is unanimous consent.

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 21 - adjourned debate

Clerk: Item No. 1, standing in the name of Ms. Hayden, debate adjourned, the hon. Mr. McDonald.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: To refresh Members’ memories, the motion that was put forward by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre indicated it should be the opinion of the Legislature that the Yukon should develop a public safety checklist to be used by the government in assessing proposals that involve toxic chemicals or hazardous wastes.

The motion also made reference to the desire and need for the Government of Yukon to work with municipal and federal governments to prohibit the use of dangerous chemicals until appropriate plans by respective authorities in the communities were developed and undertaken to protect the public in the event of accidents.

As we heard two weeks ago, the last time we discussed this matter, the Ministers on the front bench, and especially the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, had indicated that the government had made great strides to provide that checklist of information, to provide the necessary information for all appropriate authorities, in order that that information may be used to ensure that appropriate emergency procedures were in place in the event that accidents happened.

It also heightened people’s awareness, particularly people in the Whitehorse area, with respect to issues that were currently in the forefront of the media of the day with respect to the manufacture of substances that could be considered toxic.

No matter what one considers to be the relative merits or demerits of a particular proposal to manufacture chemicals or to use chemicals in the manufacturing process, or to otherwise use chemicals for educational purposes or otherwise, the fact of heightened awareness in the Yukon and in communities and by municipal councils and by this Legislature is testimony to the fact that people are not only concerned about the environment but that they are concerned that elected officials and appropriate administrations protect the interests of what otherwise might be an unwitting general public.

The information that was provided two weeks ago demonstrated as well that there is already a broad range of what are considered to be toxic chemicals already in use in the Yukon, including the school system. The question that was put forward today in Question Period, with respect to the handling of hazardous wastes, is also an appropriate appendage to the general policy question that is before the public at present.

I think that where I left off last week was a discussion with respect to the importance of a fundamental right of not only the public but also people in the workplace to know what kinds of chemicals they may be working with from time to time. We have heard numerous examples over the years of people who unwittingly worked in what was a hazardous environment, whether it be in coal mines or even mines such as those in Elsa, where people worked for many years underground with relatively poor ventilation in an environment that included radon gas. Twenty years after the fact, lung cancer struck down people who had worked there. The point of the matter is that people had unknowingly, unwittingly, and faithfully worked in those environments without knowing any better.

There is no fault to be imputed to anyone in particular with respect to the matter. It is important, however, that the right of people to know the environment in which they work, or about the chemicals with which they work, is a fundamental right. It is part of the triad of three fundamental rights that have always been considered to be extraordinarily important with respect to public safety. The first one is the right - and the one we are speaking of today - to know, the right to know what chemicals it is that you are working with, what your working environment contains.

The second is the right to refuse work that might endanger either you, your colleagues, your employees or the general public. That is a fundamental right as well. We remember instances in the past where it has not always been a recognized right: the right to refuse to do something that would otherwise endanger the public.

I think Members may recall the celebrated case in Quebec not long ago where a Quebec Hydro employee refused to dump toxic chemicals into the St. Lawrence River and was fired as a result. I think that it is obvious that we have come some distance since that time in recognizing the tremendous public service that person provided and the right of that person to exercise his right to refuse to do something that is unsafe. I think it is important that we remember and apply that right whenever we can.

The third right was always the right to participate in organizations, committees that were struck to consider the safety of the workplace. That is also the final element of the triad of fundamental rights.

I recall a miner who had been mining in Elsa for many many years, who indicated something that was very useful to me, a new miner in that potentially dangerous environment. He indicated that it is only dangerous for you if you are ignorant of the environment itself. It is only dangerous if you do not know the conditions under which you are working.

I think that would be particularly true of many workplaces in the territory. If you were to consider any operating mill at any operating mine in the territory, which has a floatation circuit, you would understand that there are numerous hazardous chemicals that are present and readily accessible in the workplace that could cause instant death if handled improperly. I think that the need for people to know how to handle those chemicals, to be trained to respond to emergencies, are essential elements in a safe environment. I think now that the debate has been carried into the public: the concerns about manufacturing chemicals, whether it be in downtown Whitehorse, or whether it be, for example, the Metafina plant at Faro, that heighten people’s awareness of what happens in our environment. We walk down the street. There are anonymous buildings on either side. Sometimes there are very significant and potentially dangerous things happening just beyond our reach, and it is absolutely essential that the public knows about that, individuals know about that, and the people who are charged with responsibilities of either manufacturing or working in this environment know about it and are able to take appropriate precautions.

The second part of the motion deals with the need to have intergovernmental cooperation in ensuring that the environment is safe. I think it is a truism to say that. It is something that is sometimes forgotten, especially when we have a situation in the Yukon which involves across-jurisdictional responsibilities between the municipalities, the Government of Yukon and the federal government with respect to the Legislative mandates. It is unacceptable to the public that any one level of government ignore the situation or try to pass it off as being the responsibility of someone else or some other level. It is the responsibility of all elected people to ensure that the necessary guidelines, training, and awareness are there to ensure the safety of the public.

Two weeks ago we head the Minister of Community and Transportation Services indicate that the government had already made substantial progress in helping municipalities train their fire departments, in taking a lead role with respect to the Emergency Measures Organization, in terms of establishing appropriate action plans for responding to accidents and dangerous situations. That planning was with the fire departments and with respective authorities in those communities. The training, in fact, was taking place as well. The training itself cannot be underestimated.

We know that in Whitehorse, there is a professional fire department that has professional training as part of the operating procedures of the fire department. We know that in Whitehorse the fire department is made aware of what kinds of toxic chemicals may be placed in any particular buildings so they can respond responsibly to those fires. What we have to understand is that, in many rural communities, fire departments are volunteers and not professional fire fighters - people like us who volunteer their time and put in a few hours per month to undertake the training.

In some communities, the dangers can be every bit as dangerous as in Whitehorse when a fire occurs. No matter how well equipped the fire department is, if the training has not been undertaken it can be considered to be tremendously dangerous for volunteers like ourselves to go into a situation of extreme danger, not knowing what it is that we may be dealing with.

One case that illustrates this point quite well is the situation that occurred in Chicago quite recently where professional fire fighters were fighting a major blaze. While leaving the building and walking away after the fire had effectively been put out, 27 fire fighters were covered by smoke and were promptly taken to hospital as they had been overcome by what had turned out to be extremely toxic fumes. These are professional fire fighters in an urban environment. It could happen to everybody, so training and knowledge are the fire fighters and the public’s only protection.

This is what the Department of Community and Transportation is doing with respect to analyzing the hazards. The Minster also mentioned the development of hazard analysis computer programs, which track the potential dangers that might come from any particular fire in any particular place. It tracks all the significant variables and I think that is a prudent and responsible course to take.

I think it is therefore obvious that I am happy to support the motion and I am particularly happy to see that the government, through various departments, is taking great strides to ensure that the public is more protected than it has been in the past. I am also pleased that both the federal and municipal governments are taking a keen interest to ensure that these same objectives are met.

Hon. Mr. Penikett: I want to join this debate briefly from the perspective of the Department of Health and Human Resources, for which I am now responsible. I want to begin by first of all complimenting the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing this motion before the House. It is a fine manifestation of her concern for the health and safety of workers and indeed for the health and safety of people and our environment.

I am pleased to speak to the motion because I think we have taken some initiatives here consistent with the policies espoused by the Yukon Economic Strategy and the Yukon Conservation Strategy to integrate economic and environmental considerations in management decisions for which we are responsible.

We do not have to spend much time watching television to be aware that disasters can happen anywhere without warning. The St. Baptiste du Grand fire a few months ago, the Valdez oil spill of just a while ago or the PCB transportation problems in Ontario a short while back, are reminders that these things can happen without warning and that the need for appropriate responses by the public sector is urgent. So too is the need for public information about the products and materials that are involved.

I would like to say something briefly about what already exists. My colleague, the Minister of Education, has spoken about it somewhat, based on his experience in the Department of Community and Transportation Services. I think Members know there is a comprehensive list now available through the Department of Justice, arising from the Workplace Hazardous Material Information System, which was developed by a federal/provincial/territorial committee, and a project that was approved by the Yukon Cabinet back in June of 1987.

WHMIS is a national system designed to ensure that all employers obtain the information they need to inform and train their employees properly about hazardous materials used in the workplace. There are several components to the WHMIS system, including the use of labels and other forms of warning in the workplace, the use of material safety data sheets - inevitably and regrettably reduced to an acronym, MSDS - for the use of control products used in the workplace. There is employee education and training on the handling and exposure to hazardous materials, which is extremely important for the purposes of our discussion today.

In the Department of Justice, we have hired a loss control officer for the purpose of training and promoting the general awareness of employers and employees throughout the territory through the provision of courses from our suppliers for the employees and workers. There have been more than 70 given already, and it is projected that there will be another 125 to 150 over the next two years.

There now is a comprehensive list of hazardous products, which is prepared by Environment Canada and which is published in a widely-available manual. It is distributed to all emergency agencies included in training delivered by the fire marshall’s office and the transportation of dangerous goods inspector. It is something we have debated in this House.

There is a Canadian Transportation Emergency Centre, which gives information to emergency personnel any time. I am sure Members will want to know that the Yukon Department of Health and Human Resources has assumed responsibility for emergency social services, should there ever be a disaster here. These services would include emergency lodging, feeding and clothing, registration and inquiry services, and personal social services that can result from such tragedies.

The Environmental Protection Service now maintains a 24-hour a day, seven day a week, call number for dealing with spills, and there is an intergovernmental committee sponsored by Environment Canada, with representation from people in this government, including Community and Transportation Services, Occupational Health and Safety, Renewable Resources and Education. It also includes the federal agencies of DIAND, Environment Canada, as well as the City of Whitehorse. This was set up to examine hazardous waste storage and disposal, something we have talked about before and will be debating further.

The Members will also have heard that the new federal Environmental Protection Act will provide the opportunity for the Yukon to continue to develop our legislation, as well as take over the management and assist in providing more responsive and effective action on local issues, and also to identify substances commercially used in Canada that will be subject to the new federal Environmental Protection Act.

Much work has been done, but there is still work to be done. In the next while, as a result of the environmental legislation to be brought forward, we will be finding a way to coordinate the above activities. In a large area, with a small population, we must know exactly what chemicals are toxic and to what degree. We must have appropriate methods available locally for handling them. We must know how to control their use and when to say no to proposals for the use and storage of dangerous chemicals.

It is important that the mechanisms we put in place and the listing of the materials we are talking about be technically accurate and current. As the Member for Mayo mentioned, new information is constantly available about the toxicity and the volatility of products that may have been available on the marketplace for some time.

It is also important, and this is a difficult point, to try to make those lists not only publicly available, but understandable to the layperson. Many people will be acquainted with toxic products from their commercial or trade name, which is often simple, but the chemical or technical name of the product is often unpronounceable to ordinary people. This is a barrier to understanding the nature of many of these products. Public education is critical and necessary, as we are finding out everywhere in the country.

As I mentioned, our principal method of ensuring safety will be the environmental protection legislation. It will have to be supported by education and a role will have to be played by business and labour in promoting awareness in the workplace.

As Members may know, the community services branch is planning to develop a hazardous analysis computer program to utilize data available in the existing manuals, including local mapping and weather information systems and site-specific data. This will help us handle problems under worse-case scenarios. This will also assist communities in decision-making involving chemicals and their location and their use, particular those that may be dangerous.

All jurisdictions in this country, including this one, have been increasingly involved in these matters over the past few months and years. The Government of Yukon is involved. There is still much to do. We are taking a responsible role in developing new legislation and new mechanisms respecting the management of hazardous wastes. It is important that the mechanisms put in place be cooperative ones and intergovernmental, involving responsible authorities both at the municipal and federal levels.

I compliment the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing forward this motion. I think it is a very constructive contribution to the debate, given some of the issues that have been happening in Whitehorse and the world recently. I think it is time to thank the Member for her intervention. I would be pleased to support the motion.

Speaker: The hon. Member will close debate if she now speaks. Does any other Member wish to be heard?

Ms. Hayden: Our environmental vulnerability as a northern community has been hit hard in recent weeks. Several speakers have outlined systems now in place to cope with such disasters, usually after they happen. There really is so little we can do once a disaster takes place. Our protection lies in prevention and emergency preparedness.

My purpose in bringing this motion forward is to raise public awareness, as many speakers have noted, to encourage cooperation between governments and to encourage the putting in place of a system that would, I believe, try to prevent disasters from happening in our communities.

A public safety checklist of dangerous substances is another step in preparing ourselves for emergency response. We have, as has been noted, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System. This is working to educate people about the chemicals they use in their daily lives and in their workplaces. This national program is a major step in employee awareness.

We also have a detailed list of hazardous products issued by Environment Canada. While there are no doubt other sources of information, it is imperative that we have what I would call a public safety checklist in place that would be required in assessing industrial proposals that involve toxic chemicals or other hazardous substances. A public checklist would help protect our communities by ensuring that intelligent, well-informed decisions are made involving dangerous chemicals.

I urge you to support this motion and I encourage the Government of Yukon to work with municipal and federal governments to prohibit the use of dangerous chemicals unless community, fire, and other emergency services are in place to protect the Yukon public. We have the information; it is available to us now, or at least most of it is. What we need to do is use it to prevent the disasters from happening in the first place.

Motion No. 21 agreed to

Motion No. 20

Clerk: Item No. 2, standing in the name of Ms. Hayden.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 2?

Ms. Hayden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse South Centre

THAT it is the opinion of this House that there is a shortage of park and playground areas in downtown Whitehorse; and

THAT it is also the opinion of this House that the site of the Jim Light Memorial Arena in downtown Whitehorse should become the Jim Light memorial park, playground and picnic area for the enjoyment and use primarily by downtown children and their families.

Ms. Hayden: If memory serves me correctly, the land that the old Jim Light Arena sits on has been zoned recreational since the early 1950s. I understand that it was transferred to the City of Whitehorse by White Pass with the understanding that it would always be used for recreational purposes. At the time, some Members will remember, there was a ball park, a drama club, an arena and a curling club on the site. Later, the YWCA was built as a residence and recreational program facility. Then the Lions Club built the swimming pool.

When an extension was built on the arena, it was renamed the Jim Light Memorial Arena in memory of a man who cared about what happened to kids in Whitehorse and especially downtown kids. There is not much left of that old arena and the curling rink is gone. There is just a bit of a concrete pad and a bit of vandalized property. The YWCA has become a privately owned apartment block and most of the lot seems to be used for parking and is wasted space. The pool, of course, is constantly in use.

All of this is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Families live there. The kids Jim Light cared so much about live there. But right now, the space that should be there for the neighborhood is nothing but an eyesore. A playground, park and picnic area for people must not be insignificant. It must not be an afterthought to community planning. It must be at the centre of the development that goes into the area. Administrative buildings are not recreation use, in the spirit in which the land first became city property.

Recreation is an activity. Close to 140 area residents have presented a petition to the City of Whitehorse about the arena site. They point out that families, including children and senior citizens, would all benefit from a park, playground and picnic area in the city core. Residents and visitors alike would enjoy this delightful green space. In a tourism-driven economy, this is important. Parks make you feel welcome. They have a sense of freedom and fun about them. I suspect that when you and your families visit a city, it is the parks you remember, certainly not the office buildings.

Children should be able to play somewhere other than on busy streets. There are apartments in the area and a lot of people, families and children live in the area. Many seniors and children do not have backyards and would enjoy a park close to them.

I have no objection to sport and recreation organizations having a joint office building; in fact I think that it is a very good idea. Given my history in recreational programming, I think the Members would recognize that I know the need for that kind of cooperation.

I strongly question the wisdom of planning to use this particular site for another office complex, even with a few additional recreational touches. What is more, I cannot imagine naming an office building after Jim Light. A park and playground seem a more fitting tribute. A beautiful park should be a part of our downtown planning. The residents of Whitehorse South Centre have said they want open space: a park, a playground and a picnic area. They are willing to work on it. In fact, they have been doing that.

The park is important to downtown people, and it is important to the City of Whitehorse and to the Yukon. We must continue to do all we can to support the development of an attractive, inviting, people-oriented city core in the capital of our territory.

We need the vision and the wisdom to build not only for the present, but to plan for the future.

Mr. Brewster: I would like to thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for the motion. I do have a few problems with it. One of the earliest lessons I learned in politics is that you do not sit in this Legislature and tell municipalities what to do. If you do, you are not going to last very long. I have a little problem, as a rural resident, directing the City of Whitehorse on what I think they should do.

I knew Jim Light personally, and I knew how hard he worked. I know how hard it was for him to get the arena, mainly for children. I spent a lot of time in that arena with him, bringing the children from the Haines Junction area in to play in there.

It is very fitting that his name be preserved by naming the children’s park at the old arena site after him. I do not want the debate on this motion to turn into a political football. However, as the motion now stands, it is somewhat deficient. Everyone who knew Jim Light knew how involved he was in encouraging young people to become included in sports. That is why the old arena bore his name; therefore, it is in keeping with his memory that sports should continue to be associated with this site. It was with this in mind that the Whitehorse South constituency association of the PC Yukon party presented the following motion to the annual general meeting of the PC Yukon party in November, 1988.

“Whereas the old Jim Light Arena site has been allowed to deteriorate since the removal of the arena,

“Whereas there are several multiple resident blocks and group homes in the area, and housing density is high,

“Whereas the local children in the area have very few places to play,

“Whereas residents near the Fourth Avenue lot have petitioned the City of Whitehorse to improve the condition of the lot by establishing a park for children on the site,

“Whereas the Sports Yukon is attempting to develop a sports hall of fame on the same site in a building that would be compatible with the park,

“Be it resolved that the Yukon party urges the City of Whitehorse, in consultation with the local residents and Sports Yukon to develop a children’s park in conjunction with the sports hall of fame on the site of the old Jim Light Arena.”

This motion was passed unanimously, which means not only the delegates from the Whitehorse area, but the delegates from all over the Yukon, agreed that this should be done.

The Member for Whitehorse South Centre is a little late in the day. The City of Whitehorse, Sports Yukon and others have already done a considerable amount of work on this particular project. I feel a little uncomfortable, in view of all this work, that this House now at this late stage appears to be trying to impose its will on the City of Whitehorse and local residents. The ultimate decision should be made by the city in consultation with the local residents.

I know what happens when senior government tries to interfere with junior governments, especially in the rural Yukon, especially in the small municipalities. Most rural Yukoners defend their freedom and do not like interference from senior government. I would suspect an awful lot of people in Whitehorse feel the same way.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Brewster:   Accordingly, I would like to propose the following amendment to this motion:

That Motion No. 20 be amended by deleting the second paragraph and substituting for it the following:

THAT this House commends the City of Whitehorse for allocating $100,000 to develop a park at the Jim Light Memorial Arena site in Whitehorse;

THAT this House commends the City of Whitehorse for encouraging the Yukon Arts and Sports Organization to examine the feasibility of building an administrative office building on a portion of the site to house the Yukon Lottery Commission, the Yukon Sports Federation, the Yukon Arts Council, the Government of Yukon Recreation Department and the Yukon Sports Hall of Fame; and

THAT this House recommends that the City of Whitehorse name the site after Jim Light.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Kluane that Motion No. 20 be amended by deleting the second paragraph and substituting for it the following:

THAT this House commends the City of Whitehorse for allocating $100,000 to develop a park at the Jim Light Memorial Arena site in Whitehorse;

THAT this House commends the City of Whitehorse for encouraging the Yukon Arts and Sports Organization to examine the feasibility of building an administration office building on a portion of the site to house the Yukon Lottery Commission, the Yukon Sports Federation, the Yukon Arts Council, The Government of Yukon Recreation Department and the Yukon Sports Hall of Fame; and

THAT this House recommends that the City of Whitehorse name the site after Jim Light.

Mr. Brewster: I will not say much more. I do not think the intent of the motion has been changed a great deal. It does, however, give authority back to the City of Whitehorse and the people in that area and I, personally, would certainly support this motion if the amendment is put in.

Hon. Mr. Byblow: I would like to speak briefly to the amendment. The amendment would appear to me to speak to providing a facility that is currently being objected to by the residents of the community. It is my understanding that people in the neighbourhood have voiced their objection to a facility being structured there that would restrict the park development from taking place.

I believe that the intent of the motion is substantially changed by this amendment. In essence, the amendment says that we want all these sports and cultural groups to locate on the site and thereby create substantial parking needs and tie up the entire lot in a majority fashion for administrative purposes.

I believe that I am listening to the residents of the neighborhood and they are saying they do not want that; they want more green space downtown. They want the site for recreational purposes that would provide for the kind of outdoor activity that would be very restricted by the creation of this office building. I certainly would invite further debate on the subject, but I think the amendment should not be allowed to stand because it virtually reinforces and endorses what is being objected to in the neighborhood and, I believe, is against the message that the Member for Whitehorse South Centre was trying to present.

While I am on my feet, I would just like to speak to the business of the administration building that is endorsed in this amendment. The administration building essentially calls for a centralized facility for sports and cultural administrative activity. As Members are aware, a number of groups have banded together and have begun an effort to determine the feasibility of putting together a single facility from which they could all work. Sports Yukon and the recreation branch of my department have been involved in a support position with the groups. The Arts Council has been involved as has the Lottery Commission.

I think that, conceptually, the idea of centralizing those kinds of facilities is good. I have already stated that the recreation branch of my department is involved in a support position by providing expertise and assisting the groups with examining this concept of centralizing recreation and cultural sources of administration. The concept is very good. There are a number of reasons why that idea could and should work if it is done. Right now, if you have to address arts business, you have to go to the old train station to see the Arts Council; if you want to see the government relating to programs or support, you have to go into the bowels of this building, weave your way down into the back of several corridors and find the recreation people. If you want to talk to Sports Yukon, you have to go to another location in town.

It makes very good sense to bring those agencies together. In that sense, the concept of centralizing an administrative facility for sports, recreation, and culture is a good idea. If you put them in one place you then have all of the programs in one location. You can deal with programs on a much better basis. A far greater cooperation would take place in the delivery of programs. The public to whom we are all responsible in providing services would have one place to go.

Essentially, what we are talking about is a one-stop shop. In that respect the concept is excellent, and I certainly support that principle. When we try to apply, however, that location, when we try to apply the site of the Jim Light Arena to the location of this facility, we are interfering with what the neighbourhood does not want. It is my understanding that the groups that have undertaken this exercise to examine a centralized facility for sports and recreation have undertaken to come up with some detailed options by July 1. In that respect I am sure that they are still examining it and this must certainly be a site that is being examined, but we are hearing from the neighbourhood that it is not a desirable site for that particular facility.

From my point of view, I do not think that the location of a centralized administration facility for recreational purposes is critical to be on this site. I would tell Members quite bluntly that if the issue of the recreation branch participation in some way is going to be an impediment to the wishes of the community being respected, then the recreation branch will withdraw its participation.

I think that there may be an opportunity - and I respect Members’ opinions on the matter - or room for a compromise in that the facility would not fill the entire site.

I might add, while I am on my feet, that I will be meeting with the sports and arts council groups next week, and I expect that this will be an issue for discussion. At the same time, I would point out that Members are quite correct when they suggest that this, in the final analysis, is a city responsibility, and the final decision is going to be made by the city. Members suggest that we do not have any business telling the city what to do, and certainly this government has had a longstanding position of devolving responsibility to municipalities and to communities. The decisions made by municipalities and communities are paramount in dealing with local decision-making.

At the same time we have a community here that is stating a position and I want to respect of that. I certainly am not going to encourage support of the amendment because it completely changes the intent of the original motion.

Mr. Lang: From a number of points of view, I want to commend the Member for Kluane for putting the amendment forward.

If we are going to be consistent with the principle expressed by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services that it is the city’s responsibility to make the decision as to how that land is utilized, then this House has no moral right to be sending city council almost an order regarding what they should be doing with that property. The writing in the initial motion gives direction to the city as to what it should be doing with that property.

As a Member from Whitehorse, and a proponent of the principle expressed by the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, I think that if we wish to give our opinion to the City of Whitehorse, we should be recommending something. We should not be telling them what they should be doing. That is why the motion commends the city for the work they have done. It would appear from the way the motion is written that the city has not been involved, nor do they care to be involved, with what happens to this piece of property. I think it should be pointed out that last year the city allocated dollars in the budget for the purpose of assessing what that land should be used for. These funds were not expended. They have put an additional $100,000 in this year to see what can be done with that land, with the prime purpose being a park area.

The other area that they are looking at is a feasibility study. They have not given their blessing to putting a building there, but they are examining the feasibility of putting a building there. The Minister of Community and Transportation Services referred earlier to various organizations. In the spirit of what we are discussing here, and, in the memory of a very well-known municipal politician, the building could be the sports hall of fame. In a large part, that would be a tribute to the memory of Jim Light. Some Members in this House may not realize it but, Jim Light would have know personally probably 98 percent of those people presently inducted into the Yukon Sports Hall of Fame. That in itself would be a tribute.

I do know that it is not the intention of city council to build a large structure in that area. I have heard one councillor talking about building a gymnasium and everything else with respect to such a facility. I think it is safe to say that, publicly and within city council, he does not have support for that concept. If it goes ahead, you are looking at an administrative type of building.

I want to be clear. We were just commending the City of Whitehorse for examining its feasibility. By going so far as to say to go ahead and build it, I think we would be overstepping our bounds of propriety. It is up to the City of Whitehorse. As a one window approach to sports and culture in the Yukon, I think that if it is feasible and if the finances are available, both sides of the House would like to see such a building built to house those various organizations.

As far as the size is concerned, I am not, and neither is the Minister of Community and Transportation, in a position to argue whether or not it is a good thing for that particular site. I just think it is wise to be looking at all their options and that is one of the options they are looking at: whether or not that property should be used for that type of facility. I think the amendment is fairly straightforward; it is an attempt to get a consensus from this Legislature that would give some moral support to what the City of Whitehorse is doing.

If we go further than what we have here, I will challenge the side opposite to attach money to their proposal. If we, in this House, are going to start dictating to the City of Whitehorse of what they are going to do and how they are going to do it, we had better attach a price tag to it.

I would also point out that if the side opposite decides to vote against any thought of a building on that property, they had better be prepared to provide alternative property in the downtown area to the City of Whitehorse for such an accommodation, because I do not believe that the City of Whitehorse has any other land that would be suitable for such a structure.

There are a lot of implications to what we are discussing here. I might add that I share the view of the Member for Kluane that this is a long way down the garden path in respect to the planning stages as I understand it in my conversations about this motion with some of the city councillors. I telephoned two or three city councillors to discuss this motion specifically, because I wanted to glean some information with respect to what is happening with the political arm of the city. I was quite surprised to find from the people with whom I spoke that the Member for Whitehorse South Centre had no active discussions with them about this motion. Also, the city council did not even know it was up for debate. Also, when I read them the motion, they were all quite surprised that we were going to be debating this in the Legislature when they thought they had it in hand and they quite frankly wondered why it was any of our business. It was their business. It was their responsibility.

I think that is something that we have to give consideration to and I go forward to the amendment that we have and it is to give some recognition and some commendation to the City of Whitehorse for the work they are doing, as opposed to appearing to be directing traffic from these Chambers.

Another area I would like to address is the question of the dedication of the site to Jim Light. I would like to point out that when the arena was moved from the site where it was when the arena was named after Jim Light to the Takhini site and the new one was built, the City of Whitehorse did put a plaque in the present arena in the memory of Jim Light. I want to assure Members here that the City of Whitehorse has not forgotten the contribution that Jim Light made to the City of Whitehorse. Many Members have said that they knew him personally and they spoke of the work he had done with the young people. I was one of the young people Jim Light took to the hot springs and spent many hours with at the arenas. He took the time and effort to try and direct us as we were growing up.

I know I can speak for those adults who had the opportunity to know Jim Light personally, and had his personal attention in helping to grow up. They, very much, would like to see the site, in some way, reflect the name of Jim Light.

I also want to say this, and that is why in the motion we are recommending - and I am saying recommending once again - that it is the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse that the site be considered to be named after Jim Light. But I want to say this, and anybody who knew Jim Light in the world of politics would know this, if we passed the motion the way it was drafted on this Order Paper, he would very much resent us, as a senior level of government, giving the perception and the appearance that we were telling the municipal politicians in the City of Whitehorse what to do.

We are putting forward an amendment that we feel that the House should be able to live with and yet, at the same time, give the necessary commendation to the City of Whitehorse, recognizing its role. If there are objections to that building being built on that site, then I am sure the City of Whitehorse will make that decision, because the plans for the administrative building, which obviously is going to be the area of discussion here, is that it can basically be built anywhere.

If voting for this, I want to assure the Minister of Community and Transportation Services, we are not endorsing that it necessarily be built on that site. All we are doing is commending that they are studying the feasibility of it. If it is not compatible at that stage then a decision would be made.

I should point out that in order that the government could be consistent I cannot see why they would object to it, because the Government of Yukon is involved in that particular study itself and has been very active in consideration of it. I would find it hard to believe that all of a sudden they would be voting against the work that they have put time, effort, resources and money into, because all of a sudden we have some objection to the area. Those objections should rightfully be put forward to the City of Whitehorse. When the feasibility study is finished, it can be examined and, for example, the MLA for Whitehorse South Centre at that time could be in a position of knowledge to go before the City of Whitehorse and to say whether or not she feels that that type structure would be compatible to the area that we are talking about.

I want to conclude by saying that the city councillors that I have had the opportunity to speak to directly have an intention in good part is to see a green belt and park area established in that area. The only outstanding question is whether or not it is compatible with this type of a structure. They are waiting for the results of that feasibility study before any decision can be made.

I want to conclude by commending the Member for Kluane for a well thought out and well-developed amendment that I think will meet the objective of the side opposite, and at the same time, will not put the City of Whitehorse in a situation of wondering why we are trying to run the business from these Chambers.

Hon. Ms. Joe: The amendment that was presented by the Member for Kluane was mentioned as being a well thought out amendment, but did the Member for Kluane consult with the people in that area? He may or may not have. He has presented it because of a resolution that was passed at a Progressive Conservative convention.

The thing we have realized in the last few years, as MLAs for downtown, is that city residents from the downtown area have not been consulted to any great length in any area of development in the downtown area. That was quite evident with the formation of the Downtown Residents Association. They were concerned that many things were happening in the downtown area that they had no input into, and it was happening all the time.

The Member for Porter Creek East has mentioned that the city should be making these decisions, but should the city not be listening to the people who live in the area? We have MLAs in here who represent each part of the Yukon, and we speak on behalf of those people who live in those areas. There is not a lot of space in the downtown area for parks, for families and for children. The residents in the downtown area have spoken loudly and clearly. They have opposed certain things that were being proposed by different groups.

I am the last person in the world who would oppose something relating to sports activities. I am a supporter of sports, and that is a well-known fact, but we have to be able to tell the city what we are hearing from the people who live in that downtown area. The amendment that was put forward by the Member for Kluane takes away from the original motion.

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank all Members who have spoken. There may be some broad agreement on a number of things. There is clearly some disagreement on others.

The first thing to be stated clearly is that the City of Whitehorse is the responsible agent for determining where parks will be located within its boundaries. That is a fundamental principle of the separation of authority between the territorial government and the City of Whitehorse. It is something that is a standard that has been accepted by many Members in this House, and it is also enshrined in legislation. It behooves every Member who speaks to this motion to couch their remarks by saying it is ultimately the responsibility of the City of Whitehorse to determine what happens with respect to matters such as this within the boundaries of their community. They do have the responsibility to determine green areas and park areas, as elected politicians with municipal responsibilities.

That should be stated by everyone. I was quite encouraged by the Member for Kluane having made that point. I was puzzled by the amendment to the motion,  which I thought was about to reinforce that principle. If there had been any misinterpretation whatsoever about this being an opinion motion, certainly not a House order of any sort, this amendment would reinforce the view of this Legislature that it is not the city council chambers. This is the territorial Legislature.

The amendment did not, in my view, accomplish that task. In fact, it took the issue one step further and not only commented on the concept of a park, but also commented on the destruction of a building that is currently a City of Whitehorse project.

I think that it is important, now that we have this amendment on the table, to return to first principles and indicate clearly that this House is of the opinion that, if Members agree, there should be green space in downtown Whitehorse, and that the House showed due respect to the memory of a famous Yukoner, Jim Light. I think that that is a useful project for the Legislature on this Wednesday afternoon, so long as it is communicated clearly to city council what the effect of this opinion is. I think it is a mistake if there is any concern about the interpretation of the motion, and I think that any amendment of the motion should address that particular concern and not take us one step further by commenting on the details of the project.

Regarding green areas, many of us are residents of communities, and many of us as residents of communities have occasion to enjoy green areas and parks. It is an integral part of the development of families, et cetera, that we enjoy green space; we enjoy park life. On occasion, the territorial government, in the sense that it provides financial resources to municipalities, can provide, indirectly, support for projects like this.

The bottom line is, of course, that municipalities call the shots with respect to this matter. That is a principle that we adopted before and it is a principle that we may have to continue to remind ourselves of from time to time. My view of this motion is that it is an opinion motion. My view is that it is a worthwhile thing to comment on from the perspective of friendly commentators in this Legislature. It is noteworthy that in the past this type of issue has cropped up in various capitals. It has cropped up in various large municipalities, and it is noteworthy that some very significant episodes in our history have revolved around this very issue: the creation of green space within municipal boundaries.

Stanley Park, for example, is probably the best-known example of this initiative. The creation of Stanley Park was even more noteworthy, considering that at the time the decision was made, the City of Vancouver was a very small community, and it was almost completely surrounded by green space. It was almost completely surrounded by bush, and when the city fathers of that time made the courageous decision to identify Stanley Park as a park, the impact has been felt favourably by everyone since.

It was quite a virulent discussion at the time, as I recall from reading the history of the matter, but, nevertheless, it has been a subject of discussion in the past, and I am sure it will ultimately be again.

I think the initial motion before us should be considered as a friendly comment by the MLAs who wish to speak to the motion. It should not, in any way, be considered to be a House order or a government order or direction of the government to inflict a decision on the municipality. If I felt that to be the case, I would vote against the motion because I have very strong principles with respect...

Speaker: Point of Order by the Member for Porter Creek East.

Mr. Lang: Would the Member entertain a question?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: Perhaps in a couple of minutes. I do not want to break my train of thought, but in a couple of minutes or so I will entertain a question.

It is essential that the motion before us identify clearly our roles and responsibilities. I think it is essential that any communication that we provide this afternoon be considered to be a friendly, non-interfering motion. For those Members who wish to speak, I am sure they will want to reiterate that position. Certainly the Members opposite who have spoken will want to reiterate that position. I do not think it helps matters at all to further discuss the details of this project and I am hoping the Member for Kluane will agree with that, because I think he and I have something very strongly in common and that is respect for municipal government, for other levels of government, and for community decision making.

To that end, I think that it would behoove us to ensure that we do not send any signal to Whitehorse that goes beyond the general, friendly desire to encourage park development in the City of Whitehorse. It does not go further to discuss the rather complicated arrangement of building office space on the site, whether or not that office space will conflict with parks, who will be involved in the office space decision or who is going to be housed in the building or anything of that sort. The room for misinterpretation of the motion could certainly increase if we were to make friendly and encouraging signals with respect to an expenditure we might make to the City of Whitehorse for housing of the Yukon government’s recreation department within the project. I think that would send a signal I could not support. The motion basically must be maintained as simply as possible. The Members who wish to comment, in a friendly way, on the park itself - and the Member for Porter Creek East will just have to wait a couple more minutes for his question - should state quite simply that the Members support the concept of some green space and perhaps could commend the City of Whitehorse for allocating resources for the development of the park.

In a moment, I would like to move an amendment to the amendment. If the Members wish, I would be prepared to entertain a question.

Mr. Lang: Point of Order. I would like to direct a question to the Minister. There is some confusion on this side. We do not understand why the YTG has been so actively involved in this feasibility study of establishing a sports hall of fame in conjunction with the administrative offices and supporting it all the way along and, now, they are standing up and saying they do not support the concept whatsoever. I am sure it is going to be very confusing for the City of Whitehorse, as well as ourselves.

If the government is so opposed to such a facility being built there, why has it been so actively involved in planning for it through the feasibility study?

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I thank the Member for the question. I am obviously not making my point clearly, but the message we would like to extend from the Legislature this afternoon to anyone who wants to listen is a friendly message to encourage green space, keeping it simple, and bending over backwards to indicate that this is not a motion that intends to interfere with a City of Whitehorse project.

In answer to the Member’s question, the fact of the Department of Recreation’s involvement is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. We are trying to communicate a simple message about green space to anyone who wants to listen. We are going to bend over backward to indicate that we are not prepared to interfere in City of Whitehorse affairs. It is incumbent upon us not to start commenting in great detail about projects within the City of Whitehorse, especially ones that are as complicated as the one the Member mentions.

The issue is not the involvement of the Government of Yukon with respect to the recreation department. The issue is what message we send this afternoon, and that is the point I am making.

The Member for Porter Creek East still does not have the sensitivity toward the interference issue. I was encouraged by the remarks of the Member for Kluane. I believe he still stands by those remarks and the spirit of those remarks, despite the amendment to this motion.

The Member for Porter Creek East said something very illustrative this afternoon about the issue of confusing responsibilities between the City of Whitehorse, or any municipality, and the Yukon government. The Member for Porter Creek East said, “If we dictate to the City of Whitehorse, there is a price attached to it.” When the Member is talking about price, he is talking about money. He is not talking about the eradication of the principle of community control. He is not talking about wearing down the clear delineation of responsibilities between the YTG and municipalities. The Member for Porter Creek East is making the point that you can interfere, you can dictate to local decision making; all you have to do is pay money.

Well I am not talking about that, and I do not think that the Member for Kluane was talking about that either.

I will have to ignore the Member for Porter Creek East from now on because clearly, even now, the Member for Porter Creek East does not understand the intention.

The motion before us is clear, I think. The Member for Kluane indicated that there should not be a political football made from this matter, that the enduring memory of this debate should be one of respect for Jim Light, and I believe the enduring memory should be a friendly comment to the City of Whitehorse, a friendly opinion to the City of Whitehorse, that we, as individual Members of this Legislative, would encourage park development in the city. That is the message that I would like to impart.

I believe that it may be useful, for those people who misunderstood the preamble to the motion that was speaking to the opinion, to have the House express commendation to the City of Whitehorse for allocating resources to develop a park. I think that is an appropriate opinion for Members to take as well.

Sub-amendment proposed

Hon. Mr. McDonald:  To that end I would like to move an amendment to the amendment:

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 20 be amended by deleting the second paragraph beginning “That this House commends the City of Whitehorse for encouraging” and ends with “...and the Yukon Sports Hall of Fame.”

Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister for Education

THAT the amendment to Motion No. 20 be amended by deleting the second paragraph beginning “That this House commends the City of Whitehorse for encouraging” and ends with “...and the Yukon Sports Hall of Fame.”

Hon. Mr. McDonald: I think that Members can see from the handwriting that the people who work with me on a daily basis are extremely competent.

The motion, as amended twice, would basically indicate the following: that it is the opinion of this House that there is a shortage of park and playground areas in downtown Whitehorse and that this House commends the City of Whitehorse for allocating $100,000 to develop a park at the Jim Light Memorial Arena site in Whitehorse; and that this House recommends that the City of Whitehorse name the site after Jim Light.

I think that that keeps the spirit of the motion, which is not to discuss office buildings. I think it maintains the spirit of the motion to speak to the issue of green space in the City of Whitehorse. I think that it reinforces, for those who need the reinforcement, that this House is expressing friendly opinions with respect to the creation of green space. It does not give anyone the impression that the House is looking favourably on any particular construction project or arrangement that may be constructed to house whatever offices may be anticipated. It sends a simple, friendly message. My impression is that that is the intention of the original mover of the motion and that it is also, with the exception of the Member of Porter Creek East, what I interpret as the real intention of the Members who have spoken so far as the appropriate message.

Mr. Lang: I think it is important to realize that it is a consensus here that both sides of the House would like to see more parks in downtown Whitehorse. If the Member opposite is trying to prove oneupmanship on the issue, I would like to point out that the issue at hand has been discussed for quite some time by the City of Whitehorse. This is not a new issue and obviously there is a lot of planning, as I stated earlier, has gone into the idea of the park in the area.

I want to say for the record - and maybe the media could follow up after and get the Minister to answer my question - I do not understand why YTG was so involved in the feasibility study of the proposed facility for that area until all of a sudden it came into the House here. The question that is being left is why YTG was involved at all. The only reason why we put it in the motion is because we felt that there was a working relationship between the various organizations and YTG, which were looking at the idea of this facility being in the corner of the area that we are talking about being used as a park. I notice the Minister looking down, realizing that he did not answer my question. I want everyone to realize that no one has answered the question of why YTG has been deeply involved with time, people and resources in this particular project if they are so adamantly opposed to it.

I think it important that the motion read as it is where we are commending the City of Whitehorse as opposed to directing. I think the Minister has seen in the way it was drafted that it would be inappropriate if it were to be passed through these Chambers in that light. We appreciate the Minister coming to us and amending the motion in such a manner that it conforms with the various ideas that we have brought forward. I really appreciate the kind and cooperative manner that the Minister always exhibits in these matters when he has to compromise and perhaps sometimes see that either he or his colleagues made a mistake.

I just want to conclude by saying we will support the amendment to the amendment in the spirit that the motion will be delivered to the City of Whitehorse. I am looking forward to reading, perhaps in the local media tonight or tomorrow, why the YTG was so much involved in the feasibility study for the facility there because it still puzzles me.

Sub-amendment agreed to

Speaker: Is there any further debate on the amendment as amended?

Ms. Hayden: Just very briefly, I appreciate the spirit of the amended amendment to the motion. I, too, care a great deal about both the rights of the community to make its own decisions and the rights of the people who live within that community to have a voice.

It seems to me that in some small measure, that has been met with this now amended motion. It is very important to the people who live downtown to have that green space and I think those people who live in other parts of the territory, even in the suburbs of Whitehorse, cannot know what it is like to live in apartment blocks without backyards without places for children to play in and no green space around. It is very important to the people who live downtown to be heard. I appreciate that the House recognizes that.

Amendment agreed to as amended

Speaker: Is there any further discussion on the amended motion?

Motion No. 20 agreed to as amended

Motion No. 22

Clerk: Item No. 3 standing in the name of Ms. Hayden.

Speaker: Is the hon. Member prepared to proceed with Item No. 3?

Ms. Hayden: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse South Centre

THAT it is the opinion of this House that the Government of Yukon should consider taking the following steps to protect the ozone layer from further erosion:

(a) as soon as possible, ban the sale and use of foam packages and any chemicals in aerosol sprays that contain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), a substance known to harm the ozone layer;

(b) by July 1, 1990, ban rigid foam insulation and flexible furniture foam made with CFCs;

(c) at the earliest possible dates, ban the sale of any other products made with CFCs;

(d) advocate to other jurisdictions in Canada that they adopt deadlines earlier than 1998 to stop using CFCs in the manufacture of refrigerators, air conditioners and coolers as well as other products;

(e) participate in the safe collection and destruction of products containing CFCs;

(f) ensure the safe use and testing of fire extinguishers containing halons; and

(g) contact other jurisdictions in Canada and encourage them to adopt similar bans in order to avoid environmental calamity to northern people caused by destruction of the ozone layer.

Ms. Hayden: I want to give credit to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and to the United Church of Canada for providing the facts I have used in developing and speaking to this motion.

I believe it is time that the Government of Yukon introduced measures to help protect the people of the north, and indeed, people of the earth, from the harmful effects of ultra-violet radiation brought about by the thinning as well as the depletion of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. We can do that by banning products that use chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons in their manufacture and use. We can also encourage other jurisdictions to adopt similar legislation. In 1980, Canada banned the use of CFCs in deodorants, antiperspirants and hair sprays under the Environmental Contaminants Act. Products not covered were oven cleaners, room fresheners, furniture polishes, shoe-care sprays, car-maintenance sprays, insecticides and some food products like the artificial whipping cream that we all use on our desserts.

The Montreal Protocol, a treaty signed by 24 countries in September 1987, asked the world’s industrialized nations to reduce CFC production by 50 percent within 12 years.

That figure is woefully inadequate. It is estimated that the production of CFCs should be reduced by 85 percent to stop the increasing erosion of the ozone layer. The following facts need to be considered.

CFCs are stable gases. First invented in 1928, they are now used industrially as propellants and for refrigeration and air conditioning. CFCs are not water soluble. The chlorine and chlorine atoms bond strongly with the carbon atom. The resultant molecule is heavy and tends to stay near the surface of the earth, but can ultimately be drawn into the uppermost layer of the earth’s atmosphere by storm action.

When CFCs enter that upper atmosphere, they encounter ultraviolet radiation, which dislodges the chlorine atoms. The freed chlorine atom attacks ozone molecules to form flourine monoxide. The ClO then combines with an oxygen atom, and the chlorine is again released.

This continuing process can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone. Think of a chlorine Pacman gone mad, gobbling up our earth’s protective ozone layer. It is well known that a hole in the ozone layer as large as continental USA exists over the Antarctic. A hole as large as Greenland appears over the Arctic. The global ozone layer is diminishing rapidly. As the ozone layer erodes and becomes less dense and, therefore, less protective, harmful ultraviolet radiation is allowed to reach the surface of the earth.

The results have seen a definite increase in skin cancers. There are 16,000 new cases occurring in Canada each year. Additional predicted consequences are damage to the retina of the eye, deterioration of genetic material, DNA, of all plants and marine plankton essential to our global food chain.

It is estimated that 80 percent of the CFCs manufactured over the past 30 years have yet to reach the stratosphere, yet production continues. That is scary stuff, and we seem intent on self-destruction. About 20,000 tonnes of CFCs are produced in Canada annually. That accounts for only 2.5 percent of world production. It almost seems like a hopeless cause, yet we must begin somewhere.

Ontario, which consumes approximately half of the CFCs produced in Canada, was the first jurisdiction in our country to amend its environmental protection act to prohibit and restrict various uses of ozone-depleting substances, including CFCs and halons. Other provinces are considering the banning of substances. Currently, CFCs are used in all types of refrigerating and air conditioning units. Half of the CFCs consumed are used in the service and replacement of existing equipment.

Alternative CFCs, with lower ozone-depletion potential, are being studied for use in refrigeration equipment.

Three main foam products are manufactured using CFCs as blowing agents: rigid packaging foam used for food packaging, rigid insulation foam and flexible foam in use as seat cushions and car dashboards. Chemicals are now available to substitute the CFCs used as blowing agents in rigid packaging foam manufacturing, for example, in fast food packaging and egg cartons, and are being developed to replace CFCs in the manufacturing of insulation and seat cushion forms.

To reassure Members that we do not have to give up our urban lifestyle in order to achieve this reduction in our use of CFCs, I will file with the Clerk an item that I obtained in Whitehorse. It is an egg carton which says “This egg carton contains no CFCs”. It is quite possible for our packaging to be done without the use of CFCs.

Alternatives now exist for CFCs used as propellants for aerosols as well. Halons are used in fire extinguishers and most are released when testing fire protection equipment. It is obvious that they have to be tested from time to time, but safer methods of testing must be developed.

How does all this affect the Yukon? Scientists with the Federal Atmospheric Environmental Service say the hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic expanded to its largest size ever in February of 1989. Ozone concentration within it reached record lows. It is getting larger and thinner. It is estimated the ozone layer is decreasing by 1 percent to 3 percent annually and that 20,000 Canadians will get skin cancer for every 3 percent reduction.

Yukoners skiing in the high Arctic six or seven years ago noticed unusual blisters on their faces and backs of their hands. At that time no one knew what caused it. Now we know.

We know what the problem is. It is up to each of us to take some responsibility for the solution. We can start by banning from the Yukon those products manufactured with, or using, CFCs. We can establish safe procedures for collecting and destroying existing products containing CFCs and we can set up guidelines for the safe use and testing of fire extinguishers containing halons. We can also lobby other jurisdictions to adopt similar legislation.

Unless something is done soon, it is going to be an environmental calamity that will affect northern people first. I ask for your support for this motion.

Mr. Phelps: I will be relatively brief. I would like to thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing this motion forward. It is certainly an issue that is of concern to all of us. Most Yukoners are becoming more and more concerned about the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer. With the recent news of the apparent developing hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic, it is coming closer and closer to home.

I think it is an issue of concern and certainly of general interest to all Yukoners. As I say, I am pleased that we are able to debate it in this Legislature at this time.

First of all, I have some concerns with the wording of the motion itself, the way it is set forward. Thankfully, it does say that the Government of the Yukon should consider taking certain steps. I agree that it should consider taking steps. I am concerned about the specificity of the steps that are being recommended here by the Member for Whitehorse South Centre.

I think that we have to be fairly careful and do a fair amount of investigation before we adopt all of these measures. I think the intent behind them is laudable. I think that each of us does have to take some of the responsibility for trying to reduce our use of the offensive products and packaging. I am sure that most people are willing to make some sacrifices if they feel that by so doing they are setting an example to other Canadians or other citizens in other countries of the world.

Going through the motion step by step, (a) says “as soon as possible, ban the sale the use of foam packages and any chemicals and aerosol sprays that contain chlorofluorocarbons, a substance known to harm the ozone layer.”

In her opening comments the Member did make a distinction about products that actually contain CFCs and those products that use CFCs as a blowing agent to develop foam. I would hope that the government, in considering the steps that should be taken, would bear that distinction in mind. As CFCs are dangerous when they are released into the atmosphere, aerosol sprays that contain chlorofluorocarbons have been in the past one of the most offensive methods by which CFCs are released into the atmosphere.

When we come to the use and sale of foam packages, many of the packages that we see in use in the Yukon are not in themselves harmful, but are made by the use of the gas containing CFCs. It has been indicated by various scientists and advocates that in controlling CFC emissions into the atmosphere there are other ways of addressing the problem - for example, where chlorofluorocarbons may be a necessary tool to develop foam packages. It is under active study, as I understand it, to ensure that the gas is collected and reused, and not released into the atmosphere. That is a possibility and one that is under consideration by industry and one that I submit may be practical and may address the problem fully.

We have to look at the actual foam packages in use here to get some concept of the cost of an outright ban on all foam packages. There are other options and steps that could be taken. Short of an outright ban, once the packages come here, we have to be mostly concerned with the contribution of Yukoners to the overall release of CFCs. Where foam packages contain CFCs, it seems to me we have to focus more on the disposal of all the packaging we see in the Super Valu for meats and by Mcdonald’s, for instance. Recycling is something that would do a lot to reduce the actual release in the Yukon of CFCs.

The hon. Member has placed a date, July 1, 1990, under subparagraph (b) of the resolution. I am not competent to deal with that date in terms of how realistic it might be, but I would urge the government to be very careful and not be bound by the specificity of that clause.

Subparagraph (c) makes sense, if the government is considering banning CFCs. The earliest possible date, I would hope, would take into account all aspects of the proposed measure for the actual ban of the sale of products made with CFCs. I would hope that that ban would make the distinction between products containing CFCs and products that do not contain CFCs but are made with them. If the manufacturing is done in a safe, sane way so no CFCs are released into the atmosphere, then the sale of such harmless products should not be banned.

Subparagraph (d) speaks of us entering into an advocacy role to other jurisdictions in Canada. I fully support that.

Subparagraph (e) speaks to something I have already said, that one of the real contributions we can make in Yukon is to ensure the various products disposed of here are not disposed of in a way that releases the CFCs into the earth’s atmosphere.

I have no trouble in fully supporting subparagraph (f).

I feel that subparagraph (g) is fully supportable, so long as the government, in its consideration, is practical and careful about the measures it might introduce as a result of this motion.

I could go on at some length about the history of the problem and the steps being taken by other nations. It is clear to me that part of the problem is that some of the poorer countries, which are becoming industrialized, are moving into the manufacture of products that can contain CFCs. It has been recommended by leaders in China and India that the consumer nations ought to look at establishing a fund that would assist the underdeveloped nations in reducing their use of CFCs.

I think that is something this government could consider in terms of its advocacy role and could indicate support for steps by Canada and other developed nations in assisting the underdeveloped nations in making the conversion from CFCs to substitutes.

With those few remarks and largely because of the qualifying words in the opening part of the motion, I will certainly be supporting the motion.

Hon. Mr. Webster: I would like to thank the hon. Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing the matter before this House.

A few years ago, the ozone layer was a subject of scientific speculation. The situation is vastly different today. Not only do we now know that there is an ozone layer, we also know what it does and we know what its erosion will do to our planet and life around us. Ozone in the upper atmosphere acts as a screen for ultraviolet radiation. Its erosion by chloroflurocarbons, or CFCs, is now a recognized fact. As they rise through the stratosphere, CFCs break down from exposure from ultraviolet rays, freeing chlorine atoms. Each chlorine atom can destroy at least 10,000 ozone molecules. This process will continue for the 70-100 year lifespan that CFCs will have in the stratosphere. As stratospheric ozone is depleted, more ultraviolet rays will reach the earth. As a result, the incidence of skin cancer is expected to rise. Decreased production of important world food crops such as wheat, corn, rice and soybeans is also expected.

The destruction of the ozone layer is, therefore, a critical problem, and one that has repercussions for all regions of the world. It points to the need for nations and people throughout the world to take effective steps to protect our global environment.

I think we have reasons to be optimistic about global action on this problem. In the fall of 1987, the world’s first treaty on the atmosphere, specifically on the issues of ozone depletion, was adopted in Montreal. The Montreal Protocol, as it is known, calls for a 50 percent reduction in the use of CFCs by the end of this century. Since this treaty came into force at the beginning of this year, 28 countries have ratified it. These 28 countries account for more than 80 percent of the world’s consumption of CFCs.

To its credit, the Canadian government has taken a bolder step beyond the Montreal Protocol. It has announced that Canada’s goal will be the complete elimination of CFC use by 1999. It has also called on the global community to set, as its common target, the reduction of at least 85 percent of CFC use within the next 10 years.

Ontario has shown similar leadership in announcing a ban on certain products that commonly contain CFCs by July 1, 1989 and by establishing a schedule for the phasing out of other products which contain CFCs or use them in their manufacture. British Columbia has recently indicated that it will follow suit. The steps taken by Ontario are significant. Ontario consumes about half of the 20,000 tonnes of CFCs produced in Canada annually, about one percent of all CFCs produced. A significant number of CFC producers are based in Ontario as well, which means that a phase-out of products in that province will affect the products seen on store shelves across Canada.

Other actions are needed to help deal with this issue. Our global awareness and action toward the problem of CFCs has developed much more rapidly than our knowledge of just what products contain CFCs. We need more information on brand-name products that contain or use CFCs, so we as consumers can make responsible choices.

A list prepared by Dupont Canada contains more than 150 types of products that are made with, contain or use CFCs; everything from egg cartons to mattresses to stuffed toys. We need alternative products. According to the federal government, the largest percentage of CFC use in Canada is in refrigeration. As yet, we do not have commercially available products to replace those with CFCs. These are the challenges ahead for us all - governments, industry and individuals.

What can Yukon do to respond to these challenges? How can we contribute to worldwide efforts to protect the ozone layer? We should begin by saying that we do not have a mechanism in place that would allow us to ban the sale and use of CFCs in a range of products. Unlike other jurisdictions which have well established environmental protection legislation, we in the Yukon are just beginning the process of establishing our own. I think we have an excellent opportunity to legislate effective actions against CFCs as the Yukon’s environmental protection act is prepared. We will continue to lend our voice to the national discussions on effective measures to reduce CFC use and to ensure that Yukon interests are addressed in the national arena.

The Yukon has a seat on the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers and I, as Minister of Renewable Resources, will make the Yukon’s voice heard on that council. It is a very effective forum for communicating concerns to other jurisdictions since environmental ministers from across the country, including the federal minister, are members of this council.

I fully expect the CCEM will continue to promote speedy action on CFCs. Here in the Yukon, I believe initiatives such as the Yukon Conservation Strategy will not only provide the government with a guide to environmentally-sound development, but will also provide a guide for individuals to make rational choices for a better environment.

What we already know about CFCs should make each of us think twice before we pour our coffee into a foam cup or buy food from an outlet that uses foam packaging.

In conclusion, the problem ozone depletion is a serious problem for our world. We are taking steps to solve it, as well as other environmental issues. The decisions each of us make in our daily lives have a role to play.

I thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre from bringing this forward. I look forward to comments from all Members of the House.

Mr. Phillips: I rise today to support the intent of the motion. I commend the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing it forward. I have a few comments that I would like to make.

It seems that in recent weeks, many politicians, not only in this Legislature, but in Legislatures all across Canada, have just discovered how important the environment is to all of us. I am pleased to see that. I have spent the past 12 years of my life involved in environmental issues in the territory. I think that politicians are wise at this time to be more concerned with the environment and its effect on our daily lives.

I would like to put out a cautionary note that I think we have to be very responsible in any decisions we make. We limit industry and limit businesses with respect to control so that we have a better environment to live in only because we can overreact in these times. There is a move now to put more environmental controls and guidelines in place to protect the environment. It is very easy for us now to capitalize on that and overreact and almost create more problems than we solve.

I think that all Members in the House are aware that we have the Yukon Conservation Strategy in progress and the Yukon Conservation Strategy, as the Minister of Renewable Resources said, will be addressing problems such as this.

I do have a concern though, as the Leader of the Official Opposition did, about the timing in the motion where it lays out specific dates that some of these products, CFCs, have to be phased out, and I think that we may be putting a burden on some small local businesses that are at the mercy of their parent companies. I can assure the Members of this House that I have had discussions with several of these businesses in Whitehorse over the past few years, and they have all told me that their parent companies are working on alternative products. I understand now that some major companies are using an alternative product and others are working on that, and they are very conscious of the dangers of these CFCs, and they are working to remove them from some of the products that they use.

Another issue that I would like to raise before I close is that many products that use CFCs not only have a very detrimental effect on the ozone layer, but these are the very same products that are, in most cases, not biodegradable. I think that one just has to drive around in the Yukon this time of year, almost any time of the year, and look along the sides of the roads and you can see these products all over the roads. If you have the pleasure of making a trip out to our local dumps, you can see them lying around the dumps and they are there for years and years and years, and they have become a major litter problem in the territory. I think that is something that we have to address. In fact, in this sitting of this Legislature, I plan to bring in a motion that will be addressing the litter problem and I hope that all other Members on that side will consider supporting that motion.

Again, in closing, I would like to commend the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for her efforts to bring forth environmental motions in this House and I strongly support those efforts. I will be supporting this motion, again with some concerns over the possible unachievable time limits put on local businesses in phasing out these products, but I thank the Member for bringing it forward and I will be supporting the motion.

Ms. Kassi: I want to first of all, as well, thank the Member for Whitehorse South Centre for bringing forward this motion. It gives me the opportunity to speak wholeheartedly about what is so important to our daily lives, the environment.

The rate of depletion of the ozone layer is of particular concern for the people in the Arctic. The earth and the atmosphere cannot tolerate any more chemical intrusion. We must take steps to protect our environment. We must move quickly to ban the sale and use of foam packages and products that are manufactured using CFCs. We must make sure that fire extinguishers containing halon are used and tested safely.

Further, we must prepare to take the lead and encourage other jurisdictions in Canada to take action, also. The very future of the north is at stake. When we fly around the Arctic, often we cannot clearly see the earth below because the haze is so thick. I can see the effects of this environmental damage on the land. Plants are dying. Many of our lakes are drying up. The terrain is just not the same as it used to be, and all this has happened in what is really a very short time. The long-term effects of ozone depletion on plants, animals and human beings are frightening to think of.

As my colleague mentioned previously, the Arctic skiers get such bad sunburns that their skin blisters in painful sores, and we have experienced that as well. This is the beginning of what is a frightening situation. CFCs have been proven to be the major polluter of the ozone layer.

The Gwich’in have taken care of our lands in the Arctic for generations, and we always will. We have always been concerned about our environment. It is not just lately; we have always been concerned. We did not bring CFCs to our lands, but we are being threatened by what they do. This is very sad.

We are faced with the consequences of acid rain, and particularly what has happened in Valdez, Alaska, is very sad.

We will not sit quietly and be the victims of irresponsibility. I hope the Americans and many oil companies have learned a lesson they should remember for a long time. The people in Alaska will never forget this and the consequences are what all of us will suffer.

This so-called accident that could have been avoided if people had been smarter and not so greedy makes me angry. The Gwich’in will not forget, either. We have cherished and protected our lands, and we will never abandon them. The land provides our spirit, our culture and our way of life. We will preserve our natural environment and continue even more so now to follow the natural laws that no one can govern, but only follow.

There is a delicate balance on the North Slope that we cannot allow to be disturbed. Education is important on all fronts on the vital importance of preserving our environment. We must work to educate the people in the Yukon, and we must reach out, as environmental leaders, to the rest of the world. Yukon consumers need to know what CFCs really mean to them. We need to put out more and more information about the damage CFCs are doing in our world. The government must develop an education process to make people aware of damaging products and their effects on the environment.

I know the world around my area has changed. We can all notice things that are different.

There is much that each of us can do. Right now, I want to point out that the local Super Valu, for example, promotes the use of biodegradable garbage bags. I want to commend the individuals involved for taking this issue seriously. Something like an environmental achievement award, presented by the government, would give recognition to businesses that are doing something about the formidable problem we are facing.

On the other hand, we have the example of Exxon Oil doing too little, too late, in terms of cleaning up the Valdez oil spill. Alaskans are frustrated by the attitude of this large international company that has so little regard for our community.

The spill should be a warning to us to beware of this kind of development in the north. It should show the rest of Canada and the world why we are willing to fight so hard to save the biological areas of the Arctic, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the north Yukon.

If a disaster like this were to happen in the sensitive Arctic lands, we can never replace them. It just might happen if we do not take measured steps with respect to development. We cannot rush out full force and develop these oil fields. The range of the Porcupine caribou herd must be defended. Our lands are beautiful. We have many resources to share with many people. We have wild animals and decent water and one of the very last of an indigenous tribe of people in the Arctic that we have to protect. We can lead the world with our determination to keep our northern lands undeveloped for the future and survival of all.

The motion before us to protect the ozone layer from further erosion is one we must take seriously. We must develop public awareness and focus public concern on the issue. This government has committed itself to sustainable development. This motion is really an extension of that promise, a promise that there really will be a future for our children.

Mrs. Firth: I move that debate be now adjourned.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Riverdale South that debate be now adjourned.

Motion to adjourn debate agreed to

Bill No. 101: Second Reading

Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 101, standing in the name of Mr. Lang.

Mr. Lang: I move that Bill No. 101, entitled An Act to Amend the Students Financial Assistance Act, be read a second time.

Speaker: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Whitehorse Porter Creek East that Bill No. 101, entitled An Act to Amend the Students Financial Assistance Act, be now read a second time.

Mr. Lang: I have brought forward an amendment to the Students Financial Assistance Act, primarily at the request of a constituent of mine who experienced some problems with respect to becoming eligible under the act. I just want to say at the outset that I want to commend the Student Financial Assistance Committee and the administration for the work that they do in this area. I know at times it is onerous and decisions have to be made and I respect the work they do on behalf of the Legislature and the people of the Yukon to ensure that the spirit and intent of the Students Financial Act<