039 Hansard
Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, June 6, 2007 -- 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of the Anniversary of D-Day
Hon. Mr. Fentie: I rise today to pay tribute to the anniversary of D-Day. It was 63 years ago today, June 6, 1944, when 14,000 Canadians landed on Juno Beach, the randomly chosen code name for a five-mile stretch of the Normandy coastline in occupied France. Canadians assumed a major role in this battle. Their mission was to take one of five designated beaches where Allied Forces were landing and to contribute to the liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany.
The bombardment of the beaches began at 6:00 a.m. on that very day, and within two hours, the enemy defences at Juno Beach had been shattered and Canada had established its objective, a beachhead.
But victory came at a heavy price. More than 200,000 Allied Forces were killed, wounded or captured during the two and a half months of the Normandy campaign. Of these, Canadian casualties totalled more than 18,000, including more than 5,000 dead.
Today I wish to acknowledge the courage and the gallantry of those who served our country on the beaches of Normandy. As Canadians, we often take for granted our democratic freedoms and our way of life. We are profoundly indebted to the men and women who fought to preserve peace and who demonstrated their faith in our future. I urge you to take some time to think about those people with families and friends, jobs and homes, who went to war, not knowing if they would come home again, and many did not.
Mr. Inverarity: I rise today on behalf of the Official Opposition to mark the 63rd anniversary of D-Day, the Battle of Normandy. June 6, 1944 -- known today as the Longest Day -- was the start of the major Allied campaign to defeat the enemy on the European continent. There were 150,000 Allied troops who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, with 15,000 Canadian troops landing on Juno Beach. The ultimate goal was to capture the enemy-held territory and to liberate of Paris.
The planning and massive preparation for the continental invasion was unprecedented. There were many valuable lessons learned from the failure of the Dieppe invasion, and without those lessons, D-Day would have failed.
The decryption of the German Enigma communications provided very critical information to the Allies. There were many delays leading up to D-Day, including inclement weather, but the decision to go anyway was made.
This was the beginning of the many battles across Europe, in France, Belgium and Holland. The sacrifices made by the Canadian troops and the joint Allied Forces on D-Day helped to turn the tide and the war.
A former World War II Canadian veteran, Third Lieutenant Bruce Melanson, now 85 years old, landed on that Juno Beach, 63 years ago today. Mr. Melanson and other veterans, in their 70s and 80s, waged a remarkable campaign to create a memorial for their fallen comrades who fought and died in the D-Day victory. They stood in the malls and the corridors of Wal-Mart throughout Canada and raised over $5 million on their own and finally shamed Ottawa into contributing its share to the memorial.
With pride piercing through his medal-lined chest, Melanson returned in 2003 to the beach he stormed 63 years ago to witness the official opening of the $10-million memorial at the Juno Beach Centre in Courseulles-sur-Mer.
But Mr. Melanson's battle is not over yet. He has now taken on a new mission to persuade the government to begin an annual pilgrimage of students to Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach so that they can learn first-hand about the sacrifices made by Canadian soldiers.
We owe a debt of gratitude to these soldiers who fought so gallantly and sacrificed their lives for freedom. They were ordinary Canadians who made extraordinary sacrifices. The price paid at Vimy must not be forgotten. The price paid at Juno Beach must not be forgotten.
Today as we speak, our troops are in harm's way; they must not be forgotten -- lest we forget.
In recognition of the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay For Life
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I rise today in this House to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the past weekend's Relay For Life and all of the participants in the event.
This unique Canadian Cancer Society sponsored community event is aimed at recognizing individuals who have survived cancer and honouring those who have lost their lives to the disease. A relatively new event in the Yukon, it has become one of the more successful fundraising events in this territory.
Two communities are currently hosting the events: Whitehorse and Dawson City. This is the kind of event that brings together all kinds of people: children, adults, friends and family. It is a very positive, yet poignant, way of celebrating, mourning and taking action to support the work of the Canadian Cancer Society.
Yesterday's tally had the fundraising total at more than $136,000, with additional money pouring in. The money helps support research into cancer that can develop cures and better treatments. It helps support individuals with cancer and their families, but the moral support by those who walk and those who volunteer to put on the event, as well as the other work done by the Canadian Cancer Society, is also important to those who have cancer and their families.
On behalf of the government caucus, I thank those who participate, those who volunteer and those who donate, for their commitment and their support.
Mr. Mitchell: I rise today on behalf of the Official Opposition in paying tribute to the Canadian Cancer Society's Relay For Life. The Canadian Cancer Society is a national community-based organization whose mission is the eradication of cancer and enhancement of the quality of life of people living with cancer. The Relay For Life is the Canadian Cancer Society's unique, hope-filled community event fundraiser to raise funds to support research and services for people living with cancer.
There were two Yukon relays held this year -- one in Whitehorse and one in Dawson City. The Relay For Life was held in Whitehorse on June 2 and 3, and revenue this year will top $135,000 with more than 570 people participating.
The passion of the people in attendance was inspiring. We celebrated the survivors as they walked the victory lap led by the Midnight Sun Pipe Band. The midnight lighting of over 800 luminaries was extremely moving as one walked the area to pay tribute to and remember the ones who lost their courageous battle.
I spent several hours Saturday night walking with a number of the relay teams and I was deeply moved as I read the names and messages on the luminaries. I recognized so many of the survivors, as well as the names of those who succumbed to this terrible disease. If I didn't know the person first-hand, I knew the family. It does make one wonder whether there is an elevated incidence of cancer within the Yukon. I was tremendously impressed with the courage of survivors, as well as the passion of Yukoners to contribute toward the fight to cure cancer.
For the second time, a Relay For Life was held in Dawson City on May 26 and 27, with a team from Mayo also participating. In total, they raised $33,000 in donations as they remembered the ones they had lost and celebrated the survivors. They did themselves proud. We would like to thank the many sponsors, volunteers, participants, donors and musicians who gave so freely of their time and money for such a worthy cause, for without them this event wouldn't be possible.
Each and every one of us has been touched by cancer in some profound way -- an immediate family member, a relative, a friend, a co-worker or oneself being diagnosed with cancer. An estimated 159,900 new cases of cancer and 72,700 deaths from cancer will occur in Canada in 2007, but there is hope. There is always hope.
We hear of more and more people beating the odds and becoming cancer survivors. Survival rates are on the rise. In the 1940s, only 25 percent of people diagnosed with cancer survived; today, that number is 60 percent. We cannot rest until that number is 100 percent.
Until the day we can eradicate cancer, the goal for cancer patients is to become a cancer survivor. The Canadian Cancer Society uses a 0-5-30 rule for prevention: zero exposure to tobacco products, five to seven servings of fruit and vegetables per day and 30 minutes of exercise per day.
We must remember that 50 percent of cancers are preventable, and taking these preventive steps now will help to reduce one's risk.
With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to introduce Mr. Scott Kent, the executive director of the Yukon chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society, and no stranger to this House, and his able staff of both workers and volunteers, who are here with us today.
Applause
Mr. Edzerza: I rise on behalf of the third party to recognize the people who are living with cancer in their lives and those who are working to overcome this terrible disease for themselves or others.
Foremost in our minds, when we think of cancer, are the people who are suffering from the disease. Even if we are not the ones who have been diagnosed, we all know someone who has to face the future with uncertainty and pain, and we try to do what we can for them.
We are especially moved by the cases of cancer in children. In many cases, the diagnosis of cancer is a life-changing event for everyone around the patient. The friends and families of people with cancer have an especially difficult role to play while cancer is diagnosed and treated. Their support throughout the process calls for the greatest strength and the deepest empathy they have to call on in their lives.
Many people are moved to support friends, family and even strangers when fundraising events are held or when assistance such as counselling or transportation is needed for cancer patients. It is heartening to see the number of volunteers who devote time and energy supporting the organizations that deal with cancer. Without these dedicated people, much of the process in prevention, diagnosis and treatment that we now enjoy would not have been possible.
Dealing with the reality of cancer's effects on our daily lives would be much harder without the kindness of volunteers.
The causes of cancer are beginning to be known. Although many resources are needed for research, more efforts can be made in the prevention of this disease. There are things we can do as individuals, such as watching our diets and exercising, quitting smoking, protecting ourselves from the sun and having regular screenings. We do know that certain substances are carcinogenic and should be handled carefully, but these must also be better researched, regulated and monitored -- something governments are responsible for.
Speaker: Are there any further tributes?
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Speaker: It is the Chair's pleasure today to welcome on behalf of all Members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly our new Ombudsman, Tracy-Anne McPhee.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any further introductions of visitors?
Are there returns or documents for tabling?
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Mr. Lang: I have two documents for tabling this afternoon: the Queen's Printer Agency and the Fleet Vehicle Agency business plans for 2007-08.
Mr. Fairclough: I have two documents for tabling: a news release from the Council of Yukon First Nations and the interview with Art Pape.
Speaker: Are there any further documents or returns for tabling?
Are there any reports of committees?
Petitions.
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Fairclough: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to conduct air quality tests of the new Carmacks school and that the results be released to the public prior to children and staff taking occupancy of the facility.
Mr. McRobb: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon Party government to abide by its election promises and follow its own objectives with respect to contracting policy and benefits to Yukoners by scaling contracts to encourage bids from Yukon contractors instead of issuing high-scaled contract tenders of unprecedented proportion in the territory, as it did with contract number FMB-07-001, in order that local forestry contractors not be disqualified from the bidding process.
Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?
Is there a ministerial statement?
That brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Hospital Corporation Board, relations with government
Mr. Mitchell: The Minister of Health and Social Services has been busy telling anyone who will listen how well he gets along with the Yukon Hospital Corporation Board of Directors. One person who takes issue with this statement is the former chair of the board itself. She resigned in November 2006. In her letter of resignation, she cited poor communication and working relations with the minister. She wrote, "From 2004 to early in 2006, the communication was satisfactory, but during the final four months of my tenure there was a breakdown to the point where the board was not being informed of major decisions affecting our operation."
Why was the hospital board not being informed of major decisions affecting their operation?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The member's assertion that the hospital was not being informed of major decisions is inaccurate.
Mr. Mitchell: It is not my assertion. It is the former chair's. The former chair of the hospital board didn't think much of the way this minister was treating the board. The board was not being informed of major decisions affecting their operation.
The former chair had this to say, "An example of this was the announcement made immediately prior to the election concerning the future of the Thomson Centre facility. This facility, owned by the corporation, had a great deal of time and money spent on it during the preceding two to three years on planning the design and renovation of the building to accommodate what we understood was going to be an alcohol and drug treatment centre. Neither we nor the Whitehorse General Hospital's senior management team were consulted or informed of the change in plans until we read about it in the local newspapers."
This is a major change in direction and the minister doesn't even talk to the board -- so much for his claims of a good working relationship.
Why did the minister bypass the board of the Hospital Corporation on this major decision?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Again, the member's assertion is inaccurate, and he needs to reflect on the fact that the Thomson Centre is a Yukon government asset. It is not owned by the hospital. In fact, I did discuss it with the board at a meeting. I would have to check the exact date, but I did, at a board meeting at the Whitehorse General Hospital, inform the board that some of the discussions that they had with the former minister were not going to be proceeded with -- such as considering the transfer of emergency medical services, which had not been popular with the union. As minister I listened to the union, listened to the staff and respected that. We continued with the operations -- also informing the board that there would be further considerations regarding the Thomson Centre, so the member simply is not reflecting the facts.
Mr. Mitchell: A long-time Yukoner who had served quite capably as chair of the Yukon Hospital Corporation resigned because of -- her words -- "poor communication and working relations with the minister". The minister was bypassing the board on major decisions like the future of the Thomson Centre. It blows quite a hole in the minister's story that he had a good working relationship with the board.
When the former chair resigned, she was replaced by the Yukon Party's campaign manager. Again, to quote from the former chair's letter: "The appointment of the new chair was made public again without informing the board or the senior management of Whitehorse General Hospital in advance. This action appears disrespectful to all those concerned."
I agree. It is a disrespectful way to treat anyone. Will the minister apologize for the disrespectful way he treated the hospital board and staff at the hospital?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The member again is absolutely incorrect. There has never been any disrespect.
The member needs to recognize what we on the government side recognize -- that the issue of the operation of the Hospital Corporation is a very serious matter. The pension deficit -- or the employee pension plan -- was a very serious matter and that was one of the first things that, upon my appointment as minister, we undertook to address. That problem, as we have discussed in debate here, currently stands, and the final standing of this -- the government contribution to address the problem that was not strictly our responsibility -- is $17 million over 10 years to ensure the integrity of the employee pension plan.
This matter was of great importance and I would point out to the members, in the interest of public disclosure, that there was not full communication to the minister. In January of 2006, I was informed that no cash would be required and only a $1.3-million promissory note would address the problem. It's a $17-million cash problem. We addressed the matter. I thank the former chair for her service. The government must, will and did act in the interests of employees.
Question re: Hospital Corporation Board, relations with government
Mr. Mitchell: We shouldn't be blaming public servants or board members for difficulties that occur in this territory. One of the common complaints we hear about this government is that it is arrogant. We have another example in front of us today. This Yukon Party government, in its arrogant way, decided to change the future use of the Thomson Centre and didn't even bother to inform the owner of the building, the Hospital Corporation, about the change in plans.
Let's go back to the former chair's resignation letter.
"I was informed that, during the recent election campaign, prospective candidates for the Yukon Party were advising potential party supporters that the board and management of the hospital had run the operation so seriously into debt that strong action had to be taken. This was not information the board was sharing with the public and represented a breach of confidentiality on the part of candidates associated with the Yukon Party. This is a very serious allegation and one the minister should be very concerned about. There were not many people who would know about this inside information."
Will the minister ask the Privacy Commissioner to investigate how candidates for the Yukon Party got this information?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I recognize the member is reflecting a letter that was written; however, I believe the reference in the letter is inaccurate. That does not reflect any direction that has come from me or, to my knowledge, that has come from anyone -- any assertion there was, in any way, wrong intent on the part of the former chair or that the hospital board was doing something intentionally wrong.
First of all, I would correct one minor comment the member made suggesting the hospital owned the Thomson Centre. That's incorrect; the government has always had that asset on its books, and we make the decisions relating to that.
The member should also recognize that we treat this matter very seriously. I thanked the former chair for her service -- I thank all members of the board, current and past, for their service -- but ultimately the government is held accountable for those decisions, and we must ensure that, at all times, decisions are made in the interest of the taxpayers, the public and the employees.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I'll file the letter so the minister can refresh his memory.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of public trust. The fact that the hospital was having financial problems was not widely known at the time. Yet, according to the former chair of the Hospital Corporation's letter, prospective candidates of the Yukon Party were busy telling people that the board and management of the hospital had run the operation seriously into debt and that strong action needed to be taken. She views this as a breach of confidentiality on the part of candidates associated with the Yukon Party. This is a very serious allegation. These Yukon Party candidates got this inside information somewhere.
The minister was made aware of this concern on November 12 of last year. Has he looked into these allegations or not? If he has not, will he ask the Yukon's Privacy Commissioner to investigate the concerns that have been raised?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Chair, this question is a bit ridiculous, in that the member is suggesting that I look into how candidates got information, which is not something that has ever been relayed. I have never made any accusation that the hospital board did something inappropriate with their base operations. However, I have stated, and I will state, that there was a pension deficit problem. That matter was not adequately dealt with.
This government stepped forward. As far as public disclosure goes, in 2005 this government announced that we would assist the Yukon Hospital Corporation and Yukon College in addressing their pension deficits for their employees. That's full public disclosure. That's a press release that the member should find still on the Web site. We disclosed right there that there was a problem. We've been very forthright all along about the extent of the problem -- to the extent we knew about it.
I remind the members opposite that in January 2006 I was informed by the former chair and former CEO that the pension plan at the hospital needed a $1.3-million promissory note -- no cash, ever. Today's responsibilities are $17 million over 10 years -- the true and accurate picture.
Mr. Mitchell: The former chair of the Hospital Corporation has raised a number of serious problems with how this government is treating the Hospital Corporation, and a lot of citizens share those concerns. She should be congratulated for having the courage to put those concerns in writing and for being here today. The former chair has said that she was concerned about the continuing erosion of authority of the hospital board, especially in the area of governance.
Let's finish up with the issue of the Yukon Party candidates telling people that the board and hospital management had run the operation into debt and that strong action was required. This is a very serious allegation and one that the minister has so far refused to answer. He was informed of this allegation in November of last year, and he has not looked into it.
Respecting confidentiality is very important. This is about maintaining public trust. Will the minister ask the Yukon's Privacy Commissioner to investigate this allegation and report back on what the former chair has described as "a breach of confidentiality on the part of candidates associated with the Yukon Party".
Hon. Mr. Cathers: If the Leader of the Official Opposition tells someone that he sees the sky, and it's green, and that I told him it was green, I'm not going to ask the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate it because that is absolutely incorrect.
Again, the member is talking about inaccurate, incorrect information. As far as his allegation that candidates were repeating what would have been incorrect information, that's not something that's based on fact.
Mr. Speaker, we have never suggested that the hospital board was dealing with their operations incorrectly, aside from the $17-million issue of the pension plan deficit for the employees. We stepped forward to address that area. We are committed to protecting health care workers, the employees of the hospital, ensuring the sanctity of their pension plan, ensuring the recruitment, and preventing that plan from being put into jeopardy, as it was by the determination of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Instruments, the federal regulator in this area.
The member knows not of what he speaks. We stepped forward. We provided a $17-million contribution over 10 years, not the zero cash requirement that had been indicated to me in January 2006 by the former chair and former CEO.
Question re: Group home construction
Mr. Edzerza: My question is for the Minister of Health and Social Services. It has been stated many times on the floor of this House and elsewhere that children are our future. The 2005-06 budget included $809,000 for a group home for children in care. Last year, that line item shrunk to $50,000. This year, there is not one red cent in the budget for a group home. So much for taking care of our future.
Why has the minister abandoned the commitment to build a group home?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The member is incorrect in that assertion. We are working to further enhance and address the needs within this area. I would remind the member of other linked areas in here. As far as our concern for children, the member needs to reflect on our significant investment in childcare to assist parents, to assist daycare operators -- the investment rose from a starting level of a $4.4 million when we took office last term to an annual contribution of $5.3 million -- a $900,000 annual increase. Through further commitment, as I indicated and announced, this government will increase it by a further $1.2 million to $6.5 million by the end of this mandate. This is a significant investment in assisting parents and workers and addressing the needs of children and providing proper care for them when their parents are not available to do that due to work and other commitments.
Mr. Edzerza: Everyone is incorrect but the minister. It must be nice.
Instead of building a group home as it promised, the government is using the children's receiving home on Fifth Avenue for that purpose, which is not what that facility is intended for. The receiving home is supposed to provide temporary shelter for up to 90 days for children who are waiting to be placed in foster homes or returned to their families. Instead, some children have stayed in that facility for up to a year while others have been in and out for over two years.
Six years ago, the Anglin report on children in care said the receiving home should be closed immediately, because it was, in the consultant's words, "an unsafe environment for young children." Why is this government hiding behind a Children's Act review that has essentially disintegrated, instead of acting on the recommendations in the Anglin report?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I have to correct the member. The member suggests that I am taking a position that everyone is wrong except me. No, I am pointing out when the opposition members are wrong -- as the Member for McIntyre-Takhini is. He is absolutely wrong, and again, for him to suggest that the Children's Act review is not proceeding -- he is simply ignoring the facts. He should know what those facts are. The member needs to recognize what we have already done to address this issue, and we will continue to further invest and address those needs.
There will be work to further enhance the services that we provide to children in care. We already have very good services. The member should reflect on that as well, but for him to suggest that things are off the rails quite simply flies in the face of the facts.
Mr. Edzerza: We are not wrong about the Anglin report, and the minister knows that.
This is a government that says it wants a correctional facility that is not a warehouse and that provides a range of treatment and support for inmates. Yet when it comes to children in care, the same government is content to use a receiving home basically as a warehouse for kids with no place else to live. Many of these youngsters have serious behaviour issues and some of them have been in and out of the justice system.
When will the minister take this issue seriously and act on recommendations to replace the receiving home with smaller, therapeutic foster homes that can provide the structure, support and programming that kids in care really need?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: The member should be well aware we take this area very seriously. I would point out to members that in this year's budget we have further increased the resources in this area. Once again, the child placement services budget in this area is $5.1 million -- 17.5 full-time equivalent employees in this area. Early childhood and prevention services -- $6.966 million, and 19.8 FTEs. Youth justice, a related area -- $3.9 million. Child assessment and treatment services -- $8.377 million.
We have the increases this year in these areas: three-percent increase for program management; four-percent increase for family and children's services; three-percent increase for child placement services; eight-percent increase for early childhood prevention services.
We are continuing to invest in this area and we will continue to do so, including addressing the housing needs and the home needs that are appropriate for children.
Question re: Children's receiving home
Mr. Hardy: I'd like to follow up with the Minister of Health and Social Services on the subject of the children's receiving home in downtown Whitehorse. It seems to be his day.
Recently we learned that four types of mould have been discovered in four separate areas of the building. The government is apparently waiting to determine the extent of the problem and what needs to be done. Some staff members have already exercised their right to refuse to work there until the problem is fixed.
What is the government's contingency plan for both the children and staff if it becomes necessary to shut down the receiving home because of the mould?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I'm pleased to inform the member opposite that he's overstating the extent of the problem there. We've been informed that this is something that can be addressed and can be removed.
I would also remind the member that there are different types of mould. We treat all very seriously, but not all are the black mould that's referred to and about which there's concern.
Mr. Hardy: Mould on the walls is not the only problem at the children's receiving home. There's a high turnover of staff and staff shortages are common. Often there may be only two workers on shift when there should be four plus a supervisor. Discipline is difficult to enforce with few consequences for breaking the rules. Curfews are ignored and students frequently play hooky from school.
According to reports we have received, a kind of gang mentality exists in the facility, with small groups of kids controlling the others. Staff members feel at risk and at least one was physically assaulted by a client last month.
Is the minister aware of how many reports have been made to the RCMP because of the problems at the children's receiving home?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I think the member is referring to one incident in particular, not that there haven't been other challenges there. But the member should realize and reflect, looking back over the years, and he will see very clearly that this is a very challenging area. Some of the youth in this area are very troubled and there are incidents over time. The department reviews, both internally at a management level and in cooperation with the union, and takes the best possible steps to ensure the safety of the workers in this area. We do recognize this is a higher risk area. There are steps that are taken and, of course, any time an incident occurs, it's reviewed operationally and consideration is given to what areas, if any, should be improved. Those improvements are recommended and we support them.
Mr. Hardy: That's some answer or some non-answer. For the minister's benefit, I'll provide him with information. From January to May, this year alone, there were 46 calls to the RCMP because of problems at the receiving home -- 46 calls. Last year there were six. Workers are often afraid to be alone with the children; weapons have been found and seized on occasion. In Lethbridge, a few years ago, a group home worker was murdered by a 14-year old client during an outing. This is a very serious matter. The minister doesn't seem to know what I'm trying to refer to here. Workers at the receiving home are worried it could only be a matter of time until a similar tragedy happens here.
So my question is very simple. What is the minister doing to ensure safe working conditions for staff at the receiving home, as well as providing a safe and constructive environment for the children who are in his government's care? What is the minister doing to ensure that?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I just highlighted to the member, and also previously to his colleague, some of the increases we've made in this area to further assist that. I would point out to the member with reference to the RCMP reports he refers to, that if he takes a longer term view and looks over a number of years, the number of reports for last year, historically, was low. The number of reports for this year is historically high. They have fluctuated over time, and there have been spikes and drops during that period. We take all of them very seriously, and we recognize that there are potential issues here. This is one of the reasons why last year we created a position within the department where we've hired a director of risk management and quality assurance for areas such as these and for other areas where we have employees working alone or in higher risk front-line procedures to ensure that the department does the planning. For the first time, we have a dedicated position in the department to do the planning to ensure that employees in higher risk situations have the procedures in place and the reporting structures in place to protect and ensure their safety.
As far as the area specific to the facilities, I would point out to the member that we have a further increase of $215,000 in capital for renovations and equipment for facilities, including the children's receiving home. We are addressing those needs where they exist.
Question re: First Nations, government relations with
Mr. Fairclough: I want to bring the Premier back to an issue that he would love to see go away: the recent decision by Justice Veale. The Premier has been downplaying the decision since it was released a couple of weeks ago and trying to narrow the focus of the Supreme Court decision. Now, as a newspaper said on Friday, the Premier fought the law and the law won. The lawyer who won this decision had this to say about the implications of this landmark ruling: "Yukon government, you need to change your whole approach to consultation. So, yes, this has wide implications."
Having a few more days to look at the decision and have it explained to him, does the Premier now understand the fact that this decision has broad implications for the Government of Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to a newspaper article, so if it's in the newspaper, it must be gospel. Well, that's not the government's view. In fact, our purpose here and our sole focus is due process. Anybody has the right to access the courts to provide rulings. Once done, there is more work that must evolve, and that is exactly what the government is doing. We are going to thoroughly assess the ruling on this matter and decide next steps after that is done. We'll be fully informed, not by the newspaper, Mr. Speaker, but by those who are holding the credentials in this field and can give us the best information available.
Mr. Fairclough: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has over 30 lawyers to explain this to him. The ruling is a ruling until such time as it's overturned. Now, we all know that the Premier is desperate to make this whole court case go away. We in the Official Opposition accept the findings of the court and have said so. Now, it's time to implement the decision. The Premier has still not put on the public record whether or not he will accept the decision and has left the possibility of government having to appeal.
Now, let's go back to the comments of the lawyer who won the case, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "Yukon government argued if it's not in the land claims agreement there is no obligation to consult. Judge Veale says they're wrong."
Does the Premier accept that this court case has set a new standard for consultation, and does he plan to accept it?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: What I will accept, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Official Opposition has now taken a very clear position and it is different from the rest of the public in the territory. That is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker. We are a public government; we must represent the public interest. That is why we are taking the time to thoroughly assess this ruling. We do understand the importance of this ruling.
Furthermore, how can the member explain this issue of consultation when, in fact, on this very matter, consultation did take place? The reason I say this is that accommodations were made in reconfiguring this application on the land base to meet those accommodations to address First Nations' concerns.
So, the member should take a little more time to assess the ruling and all the facts in this case before the member takes solid positions that totally ignore the rest of the Yukon public.
Mr. Fairclough: Judge Veale took over six months to read all the details, to review the government's decision on this. It is his ruling in the end, so I hope the minister, the Premier, at least picks up the ruling and reads it. I believe he hasn't done that yet.
The Premier wants everyone to believe that everything is fine -- don't worry, this case is just an isolated incident. But this is incorrect and the Premier knows it. Let's see what the Grand Chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations had to say about the failure of this government to consult. I quote: "This is happening all too often. In fact, a number of First Nations have pending court cases against the Yukon government for failing to live up to the consultation requirements set out in their self-government agreements and the land claims agreement. This court decision should send a loud wakeup call to the Yukon government that this is not acceptable. We want to build relationships with government on the basis of our agreements and not in the courtrooms."
I think it's pretty clear, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Order please. Ask the question.
Mr. Fairclough: When is the Yukon Party government going to start living up to Justice Veale's decision?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: The Yukon government -- this government -- is demonstrating a very focused approach to these matters, and frankly, we'd be a lot more concerned if it were a fact that we did not consult. We consult on a daily basis with First Nations and have even raised the bar on consultation on a government-to-government basis.
Let's look at some of the examples: the Yukon Forum, the Co-operation in Governance Act -- that's consulting -- the joint investment plan for the northern strategy; the targeted investment program and, of course, the northern housing trust -- $32.5 million directly allocated to First Nations through consultation with First Nations.
And let's go on: the Children's Act review, educational reform, correctional reform -- consultations. But what the government is not going to do is replace the right of all individuals, First Nation or otherwise, to access due process through the courts by consultation. This is the right of all individuals. We encourage those who feel that the test has not been met to go ahead and access the courts. We think that is a positive for all, and the government will do its job here.
But furthermore, I want to point out something else to the member opposite. Nowhere in the treaties does it explicitly express veto for First Nations. And I'm saying that because the member opposite has taken a position here that there is indeed a veto if there is a question of consultation. That's not the government's position at all. The opposition has a big problem here.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming to the House and to the Yukon the Rotary Foundation Group Study Exchange team from Rotary International District 3260, which is India, to Rotary District 5010, which is Yukon, Alaska and the 36 clubs of eastern Russia.
Joining us today is Mr. Satchidanand Jagatdeb, the team leader; Mr. Tirtha Chandan Patra, a consulting engineer; Mr. Bhakta Bandhu Acharya -- and my apologies if I'm doing something to the names. Bhakta is a trainer in children's rights and education; Ms. Koyena Dastidar, who is a biology teacher and also holds a master's degree in genetics and biomedical engineering; and Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, a practising lawyer, although we try not to hold that against him.
Please help me in welcoming this group to Yukon.
Applause
OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Motion No. 134
Clerk: Motion No. 134, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.
Speaker: It is moved by the Leader of the Third Party
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to develop and implement a homeowner protection act that includes mandatory licensing for home builders and contractors and an effective warranty program for new home construction and renovations.
Mr. Hardy: I'm very pleased to speak to this motion, because it's something that is long overdue. I've had to experience many incidences in my background of construction. I'm a tradesman, a carpenter by trade and have been in the construction industry for probably a little over 30 years. During that period I've seen the booms and busts in the Yukon, where there was a tremendous amount of work and a lot of contractors out there, including me, as well as being a worker for the contractors. I've seen the low side, when there's very little work for us and we've had to struggle through that.
One of the big problems when there is a boom, which has come to the forefront each time, is what I would call poor contracting, poor workmanship, lack of stability among many of the contractors, no understanding of the quality and standards that need to be met and who they're actually building or renovating the homes for.
What is often missed is, you're building a home for a family or an individual, and it's their life savings that are going into the home. You owe it to them to build to the highest standard possible. You also owe it to them to be there with a warranty program or some kind of recourse if something goes wrong with the building that needs to be addressed.
When there's a boom, you get fly-by-night operators; you get unethical contractors who take shortcuts. They're trying to move on to the next job. You get individuals doing renovations who don't complete work -- you get a lot of that, and I'll expand a bit on that later on.
What is most disconcerting is that it is a "buyer beware" market. This is the single biggest purchase of people's lives, and we do not have anything in the Yukon that protects the buyer -- nothing. They can go to court if they have the money -- after the major purchase that they have made, if they are not mortgaged to the hilt. They can go to court; they can try to take these outfits to court, but a lot of them will disappear.
A lot of them build one or two or three places, or even more, and then declare bankruptcy or just leave. They lose the recourse there. A lot of them don't honour what little warranty that they do offer -- do not honour it. This causes problems, not only for the homeowner, but it actually causes problems for our industry and it causes problems for the legitimate home builders.
Legitimate contractors are often the ones who are victims, as well as the homeowner, in this, because they can't compete against a shoddy operator. You can't do it. They can't compete against the low bid if the low bidder's intent is to build the home as cheaply as possible, cut as many corners as possible and not have a warranty system. So the very legitimate and worthy contractors that we have are actually against the eight-ball on this one. They are struggling to bid and to compete; plus there is also a drain on the workforce that is out there.
What happens in the industry right now -- I'll go back a little bit. When I started serving my apprenticeship, the ratio on the jobsite used to be approximately three to four journeymen to one apprentice. That was to ensure that the apprentice got the most skilled training possible on the jobsite. They got exposure to other journeypersons and, at the end of the day, when they had done their four-year apprenticeship -- such as mine, which was a four-year apprenticeship in carpentry -- they were exposed to a multitude of tradespeople who taught them a lot of different ways to do something and gave them a sense of pride in workmanship.
In the other trades, some of them are five-year apprenticeships and stuff like that, but they were all on the ratio of about three to four journeymen to one apprentice.
Today, what we witness in the industry is three or four, five or six workers, and maybe one apprentice -- maybe a second-year or third-year apprentice -- running a job with, on occasion, a journeyman trying to teach and trying to create a standard of building with a bunch of apprentices or just workers -- people who aren't even in the apprenticeship, which is a disservice to those trying to raise a standard of quality of construction in the territory. That's what has changed. You can go on to any job in the home industry and that's what you'll see on the job site.
I can tell you right now the quality of work drops when that happens -- absolutely drops. So, ultimately the homeowner is the one who is getting lesser quality.
Now, whether it's in carpentry, plumbing, electrical or mechanical systems, sloppy work is happening out there. It's not just in the obvious stuff that you see. It's with vapour barriers and insulation. That's why we have mould problems. Many of the situations we're facing now are because of shoddy workmanship. During the 1970s there was a boom in the Yukon. There were a couple of contractors who did a multitude of houses. After the boom, the industry slowed down a little bit. The housing industry slowed down a little bit, but they had built hundreds of houses. In an offhand way, I almost have to thank them because I spent many years making an income by going back and repairing the mistakes, stripping walls that had water pouring down on the inside and mould on the bottom, and replacing cold walls because they didn't put insulation in the walls, vapour barriers that were two-ply instead of six-ply or not even attached and sealed off properly, roofs that leaked, siding that fell off, doors that didn't close properly -- the list is endless. The list is absolutely endless.
It kept many of my colleagues in industry going back and repairing these homes. The sad part is, it was the homeowner who was paying twice for a new home. Many of these call-backs would happen within the first three to six months. They couldn't get the contractor to come back and do the work. There was no warranty system and, in the end, they had to pay more to get their house fixed up -- a brand new house. Many of the problems would rise up over the next couple of years as well. Unfortunately, those homes are still out there and they have been renovated many times.
At one time, when you bought a home, it used to be that the first major renovation in your home was after you were able to pay off your mortgage -- approximately 25 to 30 years. That's how well-constructed these homes were back in the 1950s and 1960s. Studies have shown now that the first major renovation in these homes being built today is 10 years. There is no way in the world you can pay off your mortgage before you're doing a major renovation in these homes. The homeowner is trapped into spending another $30,000 to $60,000 to $80,000 to $90,000 on the home that they just spent approximately -- the average price in the Canada right now is $300,000, if you can believe it, for a home but, in the Yukon, it's over $200,000 -- $220,000.
Who is building these homes? Have we asked ourselves that? Who is building them? Are they qualified tradespeople? Are they qualified contractors? Or as we used to say in the industry, it's the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker that has all of a sudden become the contractor, or the carpenter, or the electrician, or the plumber. They're building the homes now. No skills, no background. It's very easy to become a contractor in this territory. It's very easy. All you need is to have a pickup truck and a few tools and get a business licence and away you go.
But you don't need any qualifications, none at all. That raises a serious concern. If we really care about consumers' rights, we would be concerned about that. As I said, tongue-in-cheek awhile ago, a toaster has a better warranty than what is out there for the single biggest purchase of Yukon people's lives. Unfortunately, that's actually true.
What happens? The jobs don't get finished by these unscrupulous, unethical contractors. They refuse to do the repairs. I have been talking to people who right now are trying desperately to get people to come back to repair work. The little bit of a warranty they did get from their contractor is already running out. They don't come back. Maybe they are waiting for it to run out completely, and then they won't repair it.
Unsafe conditions in a home -- you can talk about mould and air quality. A member of the Official Opposition brought up testing air quality in a school. Well, testing of homes is probably even more important. The family is in a home longer than in a school. There is questionable material being used, and it is questionable whether people should be in a home when it is first built because of the off-gassing. We haven't even looked at that.
Mould is a huge problem that continues to grow. We don't know the serious health consequences with all of it yet, but are starting to find some indications that it is very serious. Contractors go out of businesses; they come and go -- it's a risky business -- and then the homeowner has no recourse to get their homes fixed if the contractor didn't do the job properly.
These are very serious problems. It is my belief that what we need is government to protect consumers in this matter. We protect consumers in so many other areas, why not in this one?
I am not asking the government to write a home warranty program, but create an agency. That agency doesn't have to be another stand-alone board or committee. It can be set up through Yukon Housing Corporation. Yukon Housing Corporation already does many of its own inspections, and it has many of its own standards already in force. They do actually enforce quality construction as best they can, and there is recourse if the contractor doesn't follow through. Why isn't that made broader for all Yukon purchases in the home industry?
Why just only when somebody goes through Yukon Housing Corporation? I believe Yukon Housing Corporation does have a role to play in this and it would be a very good role, but it is definitely one that is long overdue.
Why am I bringing it up now? Very simply, we have been in a period with a lot of construction activity -- many homes are being built -- and we are looking at the future with, as many people predict, thousands more homes being built.
It is the perfect time to put into place an agency within Yukon Housing Corporation or Community Services or some other department to deal with this, one that is designed to protect homeowners, one that levels the playing field for contractors -- licensing contractors and having a warranty program that would be a third party warranty, setting a minimum standard on what a warranty would say. I think it is very possible and I don't think it would cost that much, but it would sure give peace of mind to many homeowners out there.
It would ensure that Yukon Housing Corporation stock is safe, secure and energy efficient -- if we set some standards. That's a big problem right now if we are talking about global warming and they are built to last so that the homeowner does not have to face major renovations within the first 25 or 30 years of the existence of the home. They probably can't afford it.
There is no reason in the world why we can't have the best building standards in the country. We need the best building standards. We live in a northern climate. There is no question about that. If we are going to have a serious impact, we have to raise the standards. We can do it up here; we are small enough and we can move fast enough.
We have excellent tradespeople, but not enough of them get the training that is needed. Yukon College offers courses and we need to expand them so they have the training and the standards and they will have the pride in their workmanship. That will ensure that the vapour barriers, framing, structural, roofing -- whatever -- are all up to a higher standard than what we have been witnessing in the last while. We can get it right.
Now, when it's lower -- you know contractors. It's word of mouth, and you can find the ones who do really good work and live by their word, and you can work with that, and many of us have. We ask around, we get word-of-mouth recommendations. We go see what their work is like, and we hire them. But in this day and age right now, that's not the way it is. I even get calls from people who ask if I would come and work on their place. I'm not in the trade right now; this is my job here. I couldn't do it anyway if I wanted to. However, people are desperate for workers, especially if they have problems with their home. So they're hiring anybody, and the quality of work has definitely dropped.
First, we should have a homeowner protection act. If we brought in an act, it would have regulations for licensing and a mandatory third party home warranty for new home construction and also for renovation and for building envelope construction. What would it require? It would require licensing for the contractors. That's not onerous. We expect licensing for insurance companies, for realtors, licensing for so many occupations out there. Why not have residential builders licensed under the homeowner protection act? A public registry of licensed residential builders would be listed; homeowners would be able to look at it and consult; therefore, if they're licensed, they would have met certain conditions, which would give peace of mind to people who are looking to have a home built or renovated.
This would also bring into place building envelope renovators and renovation contractors, and a mandatory third party home warranty insurance that's delivered by, as I said, a third party. It doesn't have to be done by the government. That's not something that government needs to do. It can be done by insurance companies.
But there would be standards set -- minimum coverage -- and standards for policies of home warranty insurance would be set by regulation rather than by warranty providers. It would be a minimum coverage. In British Columbia, the minimum coverage there is two years on labour and materials, five years on the building envelope, and 10 years on the structure of the home. Why don't we have that up here for the people of Yukon? Why should they not have that protection?
The regulations could also provide for third party mediation of disputes between homeowners and warranty providers that can be mandated by a strata council and be performed independently of the homeowner protection organization. It can be a way to resolve conflicts or disagreements that don't cost a lot of money and don't involve the courts.
We can't keep sending everything to the courts as a way to resolve issues. Mediation is a very viable and often less invasive, less difficult process to go through and a heck of a lot cheaper. The agency can look after that, and maybe we'll get a higher standard.
What about certification of tradespeople? Long, long issue. We have certification in electrical, but we don't have certification for plumbing; we don't have certification for building -- structural; we don't have certification for ventilation, heating systems -- so much so. We do have certification for gas fitting. So why do we have certification in some trades and not others?
Why are we not promoting our trades and our apprenticeships wherever possible? Why are we not encouraging that -- setting up more programs and training for people who are building these homes? I know that if they get the training, they will do a better job -- we all do. The more knowledge we have, the better work we do. That doesn't change with construction workers, which is a very proud lot of people who like to do a good job. However, if they don't have the training, they don't know what a good job is.
There has been talk of people who could sign off work. Somebody comes by at different stages of construction, just as an inspector comes by -- a certified tradesperson who would sign off the work. If it's not signed off, it has to be corrected. Right now, there's nothing.
Let me give you an example. I wasn't going to use this one but I've heard of it before and then it actually happened to me, and I was astounded. I was on a job talking to a contractor a year ago. They were framing a house -- it was up in Copper Ridge. There were three people working on the site. It was down in a hole. From the road you couldn't see the actual construction happening -- you couldn't see the footings, you couldn't see the foundation, you couldn't see the framing, as it hadn't come out of the hole yet. A car pulled up and it was an inspector. He got out of his car, took a piece of paper, wrote the inspection on his hood, called the contractor over, gave it to him and drove off. That was the inspection. I asked the contractor what that was all about. He said he often didn't have to worry about inspections because the inspectors knew he did good work. I agree -- the guy does good work. He's a good contractor. He pays his guys well and treats them really well. He wants to do a good job. He doesn't want callbacks. Maybe there is that relaxation in an inspection, but I hope that is not becoming normal because we don't have enough inspectors.
They're pushed so hard that they are just running from job site to job site. An inspector's role is to ensure there is a standard being met in the construction. But if there are not enough inspectors and there are too many to inspect during the course of the day, they are too busy, and then they may not be able to get down to every job site and things fall through the cracks. The problem always ends up in the hands of the person who just spent $300,000. They are the ones who have to live with this new home. If there are problems in the house they have just purchased or that they've owned for a year, they are the ones -- not the contractor -- who have to live with it.
If there are health or safety concerns or if there is faulty construction, they are the ones who will have to live with it and pay more money -- and they shouldn't have to, not on a purchase like this. We have to take this matter a lot more seriously than we have. I am not asking the government, as I said, to do things like set up their own personal warranty program, but I am asking them to set some standards to protect the homeowner.
I think it's long past due. As a tradesperson, would love to see it. I like working to standards; I know most people do -- to know there is a benchmark that you have to achieve, a pride in your workmanship, to know when you leave a job site, you look back and you see the work you've done and you know it's good, to know that the home that is being passed on to the family who just purchased it is a good home. But there is so much pressure to build as fast and cheaply as possible now that what we are witnessing is inferior construction techniques in the home industry. Again, I can't emphasize enough that it's always the homeowner who ends up with that -- always the homeowner. That's not fair in this system.
I believe, and it is just a suggestion of mine, that Yukon Housing Corporation, which already does some of this, has the capacity and a duty to expand that for all homeowners. I think they have the expertise. They definitely have the resources to talk to other provinces that have brought in a homeowner protection act. All we need to do in this Legislative Assembly is bring in a homeowner protection act and get the ball rolling and send a message to the contractors -- for the legitimate ones, it won't bother them at all; but for the other contractors -- that there is a standard that they have to meet if they want to be in this industry, and a message to the homeowners that they do have some protection, a standard that is being met, and recourse if they're not getting satisfaction, whether it's renovations, building envelope renovations, or new construction. We can send that message out, and we should be sending that message out. It's a consumer issue, and this government has a role to play in that.
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: The member opposite brings up some good points in his opening remarks, and there are a number of different issues and a number of different ways of looking at all of this. We're all aware of the fact that it's all too easy for contractors, companies and individuals to disappear, and that brings up one set of problems but also, of course, at the same time, it brings up and suggests some definite solutions.
It sort of brings a mental image to mind, as the member opposite speaks, of an old movie called The Money Pit. A couple buys their dream home -- it's an older home; it's not an originally made one -- and doors fall off as they open them, the bathtub goes through the floor. I do know of one person who had some renovations done and a new door put on and, when they opened the door, it actually fell off. Somebody had set it in place but forgot to put the pins in.
I certainly understand a lot of those various things.
I do have to correct the member opposite, though, on his mention of mortgages and repayment schedules being as low as 10 percent. I do have to point out that Yukon Housing Corporation Board of Directors fairly recently extended the potential for some mortgages up to 30 years. The main thing would be to lower the monthly payments and allow younger couples -- younger people -- to get into a home and home ownership and pay over time and gradually increase payments or do whatever. I think many of us have been there. There is the potential of a 30-year mortgage, because the cost of an average home is certainly going up and causing everybody no end of grief by any means.
There are certainly problems with some inspections. I have to say up front that I am probably one of the very few people in the territory -- at least it seems so some days -- who actually rather likes inspectors. I have found them to be very helpful and very reasonable on a number of different projects over the years. I also have seen cases where things just simply got missed, and I am not really sure how they got missed or why they got missed, but they certainly did.
Years ago, when a member of our family moved to Dawson City, they found out when they moved into a staff house that the heating bill was thousands of dollars, and they actually negotiated a deal where they would pay a flat rate for heating through the Yukon Housing Corporation. I later found out through the former Member for Klondike that that was a well-known house where the contractors had gotten carried away and put up the drywall before they put in any vapour barrier or, in some cases, insulation. I do know the member opposite is not telling stories in that case. These are accurate. Certainly in our own home, we pulled off some of the covering as late as last week and found areas that weren't insulated.
I have had experience with a commercial building, for instance, where the general contractor, whom I have a great deal of respect for, had subcontracted the heating. In fact, when we were trying to balance what was described by a number of contractors as one of the most complex buildings they had ever worked on, he was running around licking his finger, holding it up near air vents, trying to gauge how we could balance the heating system. He blew $1,100 worth of propane in 48 hours while he was trying to do this. When he suggested I put more propane in the tank, I counter-offered that maybe he could do it and do a little bit better job. When I got a competent engineer in, we found in the final analysis that, in a building that had been designed to handle 1,200 cubic feet per minute, the contractor had actually put in an air handling unit -- which had a big safety sticker on the side of it that said it was a safety hazard to run less than 1,800 cubic feet per minute -- and with his finger, had carefully tuned it to 3,100 cubic feet per minute. I think there was a little global warming in Marwell those days as $1,100 worth of propane went out the tank.
I do understand some of those things. In my own home I can plug in the toaster -- I don't know if we got a warranty with that toaster or not -- and then start the microwave and blow the refrigerator circuit. Code says that they're supposed to be split circuits. They're not. Code says that there have to be split 20 ampere receptacles in areas where cars are parked. There are none on that side of the building. You have to begin wondering what happened and how the ball was dropped on these things. In general, I have had incredible help from inspectors over the years and have no problem at all.
I thank the member opposite for expanding on his thoughts on the motion. I see where he's going with that and I tend to think that there are some ideas in there. I do believe again that we're getting into some of the differences in political philosophy. For the member opposite, politics is not a straight line -- it's a circle; when you go far enough in one direction, you come up on the other.
One of the things that concerns me about the third party is the fact that they often see legislation as being the way to solve a problem when, in fact, there might be better ways to do that. When I spoke to a number of people inside and around the industry, what I really got is that contract law is a lot stronger than legislation and that maybe there are other ways to look at that. I'll get into that in awhile.
We have to consider whether we have a law that requires insurance -- as we do with vehicle insurance, for instance -- rather than providing the insurance as British Columbia does for vehicles -- again, a major philosophical difference. We should be considering consumer education to encourage prospective new homeowners to ask the builders for warranties.
I do agree with the comments made by the member the other day regarding what is, for many people, the largest investment of their lives, yet they may spend less time looking at that than on consumer reports and reviews researching that toaster -- and that is kind of sad.
Again, another example of this was a very sad case -- and my heart goes out to the individual who had purchased a home from someone and is now into major, major mould problems and everything else. When they actually got someone to look at it, it was just incredibly shoddy construction.
But the fact of the matter is that the additions, particularly vent pipes, had been asked for by the mortgage holder, who did do an inspection. But, really, the inspection consisted, in that case -- it wasn't a building inspector. They came out and looked at if the value of the house was reasonable under the mortgage they were asking for, and the answer clearly was yes. The equity was definitely within the home. So they didn't follow it any further.
Well, ironically, when they actually started popping out ceiling tiles and insulation -- there was insulation there -- the vent that had been asked for by the mortgage company simply went up into the attic crawlspace and ended. It never actually went through the roof. So, consequently, all the moisture and everything else from a bathroom and from a shower was nicely vented up into the roof area and there were the most incredible stalactites and stalagmites. I mean, it looked like a spelunking series of pictures when he brought them in.
But really the bottom line there is when the work was done in the first place, it wasn't inspected. Again, my heart goes out to him, but it is something that is very difficult to get into. There are other ways to address some of those things, and that is perhaps what we should be looking at in much of this.
Within the Yukon, I certainly can confirm for the members opposite that there is no new home warranty program. We really do have to deal with the building inspection branches at the City of Whitehorse and the Yukon government who are the ones to inspect new construction to ensure compliance with the National Building Code. It really is the National Building Code here that we have to work with.
Some Yukon home builders do offer individual new home warranties through sales or construction agreements. People buying a new home should definitely demand this, but they should be demanding more and they need to take some degree of responsibility on this.
There are other things that a new homeowner -- and we'll discuss that in a little bit -- can do in terms of asking for third party warranties and third party liability. This is very common in the south. It is very common in southern Canada. It is very common in the United States and in other countries. I should point out for all of the members that there is no new home warranty program in the Northwest Territories.
In other jurisdictions, when we start looking across Canada, in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, builders have to provide home builders with third party warranty, which is mandated through legislation. Enforcement is usually provided by the company providing and delivering the warranty program. Unresolved disputes can end up in court, but that is the nature of the society we live in.
There are third party home warranty companies with very elaborate contracts, and there are a number of things on them. We really have two ways of approaching that one. We can legislate people to do this or we can educate them to do this.
I no more want to not make someone who is unaware or incapable of doing their own inspections or evaluating their own work -- I have a standing arrangement with a couple of contractors that as long as they don't try to spay their cat, I'm not going to try to do my own electrics or my own plumbing. I'm not capable of that; I know that. Consequently, you do need to get reputable people and you do need to have that available for the people who are most vulnerable and are most at risk.
But on the other hand, I would no more want to mandate that the Member for Whitehorse Centre or the Member for Mount Lorne would have to go to the expense of hiring people or to take out third party insurance or whatever when, within their own trades -- and I'm suspicious that in many, if not most, of the trades surrounding that, they would be very, very capable of doing their own evaluations of the quality of work. I saw that in Ontario where one very irate property management and construction person I worked with had to go to all sorts of expense to ensure that his house construction was okay when this man had been a general contractor for some 45 years. He wasn't really happy about that. So again, you have to look at both sides of that as a possibility.
In the rest of Canada, the decision is left up to the individual builder, and enforcement is provided through mediation or, again, unresolved disputes can end up in court. Typically, a new home warranty generally would include deposit insurance, protection against work and materials, as well as major structural defects. Additional coverage might include the defects in the home's building envelope. All these things can be done by third party insurance. They can be done by a good, solid contract. They could be done by withholding payments, which happened in the case of our ventilation guy running around, wetting his finger and sticking it in the outlets to gauge the flow. There was a holdback, and finally the contractor and I simply agreed that this was not a reasonable solution, and the payment was held back and put toward another contractor to solve the problem.
So everybody was happy in the long run and then, guess what? The heating and air-handling contractor vanished. We saw the back end of a white van and haven't seen it since.
Most areas have a strong Canadian Home Builders Association -- http://www.chba.ca/ if anyone is listening and wants to take a look at that on the Web. It provides information to consumers and builders to ensure professional standards are met in the industry. Again, when you're buying this asset, it is possible to negotiate something safely. That's something all of us should be looking at.
If we move around in some of the jurisdictions I did mention, in Ontario, for instance, Tarion Warranty Corporation, which is http://www.tarion.com/ on the Web, was formerly the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. It's responsible for administering the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which outlines the warranty protection that new home and condominium builders must provide, by law, to their customers. That is all specifically done up in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which will outline the warranty coverage the builders are required to provide to their customers.
I believe it was for that that my friend, the contractor with 45 years of experience, had to pay the equivalent. Don't forget, as soon as you require the contractor to provide coverage or buy insurance, or whatever, you've increased the price of the house by the equivalent amount. You've increased what you're going to pay. That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but to require people to do that has some limitations.
The aggregate maximum warranty coverage for new homes and condominium units is about $300,000. The maximum coverage for condominium elements is $50,000 times the number of units, to a maximum of $2.5 million, and I think you can understand fairly quickly, Mr. Speaker, that isn't an awful lot when you look at Toronto, Hamilton, London, Windsor, et cetera -- we are talking about Ontario here.
Coverage under the act includes deposit protection, protection against defects in work and materials, protection against unauthorized substitutions and protection against delayed closings or occupancy, without proper notice.
Thinking of that, Mr. Speaker, of course what comes to mind immediately is the case in the Vancouver area -- I don't think it was Vancouver itself, but it was one of the surrounding communities -- where the builder, a year and a half after he was supposed to be done, decided he couldn't do it equitably and simply returned the deposit the people put on it, left them hanging, and then promptly tried to put the price of the building up by $100,000 each. Again, insurance, et cetera, can solve the problem. In that case, British Columbia is back in the courts again, so we will see where that goes.
Most issues relating to such a statutory warranty are resolved between builders and owners without the intervention of the Tarion group but, when necessary, they will help owners and builders interpret the limits of the act and intercede to protect consumers when builders fail to honour warranty obligations. While I am suspicious that this starts to fall out of the envelope of the Yukon Housing Corporation, there is no doubt in my mind that the staff of the Yukon Housing Corporation would be more than happy to sit down with anyone with problems and explain things to them, even to a point of coming out and getting a look at the building and seeing what the problems are and perhaps how they could be mitigated.
In that regard, there are a number of different programs that Yukon Housing Corporation offers to get into, at least renovations and repairs, which might mitigate some of the costs to them, and such, but we will get there eventually.
The Homeowner Protection Office in British Columbia -- http://:www.hpo.bc.ca -- is a provincial Crown corporation formed as a response to many of the recommendations from the original Barrett Commission report on the quality of condominium construction in British Columbia. I think anybody who has even stumbled into a news program in a number of years will be familiar with that relative fiasco.
The report prompted the development of the Homeowner Protection Act, which passed on July 28, 1998, for the main purpose of strengthening consumer protection for buyers of new homes and improving the quality of residential construction in general in the province.
The act provided for the creation of the Homeowner Protection Office, which officially opened on October 1, 1998. That office, or the HPO, is responsible for residential builder licensing and establishing the framework for and monitoring of the provision of mandatory third party warranty insurance. The HPO has worked with the Attorney General's dispute resolution office to develop regulations known as "notice to mediate residential construction regulations" for residential constructions, and that was passed in May 1999. These regulations are retroactive and permit any party to a residential construction dispute to compel the other parties in a structured mediated session. Mediation is often a more cost-effective and rapid method for solving residential construction disputes when compared with the court system. Such mediation services are available in the Yukon. There are people who do this and do a very good job of it, so that's another possibility.
If we go to Quebec, the Régie du bâtiment du Québec, or the http://www.RBQ.gouv.qc.ca, administers the guarantee plan for new residential buildings. The RBQ requires all home builders in Quebec to be licensed and to provide third party warranty coverage. So again, Mr. Speaker, it looks at mandating this, which may give protection to some, but be a cost and an inconvenience others. The guarantee plan for new residential buildings automatically covers homes and a large number of buildings held in so-called co-ownership -- or condos or strata corporations in British Columbia -- and was set up in 1999 by the Quebec government. It is administered by three plan managers and then authorized by the RBQ.
If we turn our attention to Alberta, the Alberta New Home Warranty Program was founded in 1974 by Alberta home builders -- and I point out, Mr. Speaker, by Alberta home builders, not by the government -- to provide a package of warranty protections and to encourage improved performance for the new home building industry.
Since its inception, the program has been a leader and innovator in the provision of warranty services to the home building industry and was the first program of its kind to be introduced in Canada. Alberta led the charge on this, but it was set up by the Alberta home builders and not by the government.
The Alberta New Home Warranty Program is a non-profit organization, comprised of a board of directors, a registration committee, a technical committee and, of course, staff. Builders become members and demonstrate their commitment to the clients' satisfaction. By joining the program, every new home and enrolled condominium they build and every buyer is safeguarded. If you're buying a new home or a new condominium, you ensure that your contractor is enrolled in this program and is in fact a member of the association.
The program's assistance may be requested at any time during your home's coverage period, during construction and even after possession. There are three methods of finding solutions and settling issues: mediation, which is a much more cost-effective solution, conciliation and arbitration. These processes can be used at any point. Obviously, outside of this if any party is not happy, it can still go to litigation and to court, but that is not within the purview of the Alberta New Home Warranty Program. This is a model that should be looked at. It's something that has worked very well since 1974 and continues to work well.
If we turn our attention to Manitoba, the New Home Warranty Program of Manitoba Inc., is a non-profit organization -- it's not government -- which ensures that your new home is free of defects in materials and in workmanship for the first year following the date of possession. In the event of a major structural defect during the first five years, the program will ensure that this will be corrected.
The program also assists with resolving differences between consumers and builders -- it's a private organization -- through the processes of mediation and conciliation, not legislation, and if no one agrees, of course the courts are always the last resort. Through the processes of mediation and conciliation, the program can provide the means to effectively settle disputes between the homeowners and builders. In Manitoba, it works quite nicely.
In Saskatchewan, if we turn our attention there, the New Home Warranty Program of Saskatchewan was formed by the building industry -- not by the government, by the building industry -- in May of 1976. It was really formed as a solution to the growing demand for new home buyer protection. Its purpose was to provide consumer confidence in builders and to protect the investment made by owners in the new homes.
The program is incorporated as a private, non-profit corporation. The program is governed by a board of directors: six builders are elected from among the builder membership and five non-builder members are also elected, including a member of the lending community and a consumer representative. The board members are elected on a two-year rotating basis.
If the parties can't agree on what should or should not be done, the purchaser may request the program to proceed to conciliation. The program will hire an expert or an independent conciliator to investigate the dispute. The conciliator will be a person who is an expert in residential construction, and his or her decision will be based on the warranty coverage contained in the new home warranty certificate. As well, their judgement will be based on building codes and new home warranty standards, as outlined in the workmanship and materials standards guide. Generally accepted engineering and construction standards are a part of this.
If any party is not happy with where that goes, the possibility of litigation is certainly there, but again, in Saskatchewan, it is incorporated as a private, non-profit corporation. It is basically operated by the building community itself.
The Atlantic Home Warranty Program was established in 1976 and was established by the Atlantic chapters of the Canadian Home Builders Association -- not by government, Mr. Speaker. The Atlantic chapters of the Canadian Home Builders Association is a private, not-for-profit organization comprised of hundreds of builder members and led by a board of directors.
It provides new home buyers with a third party warranty through individual home builder members. Anyone who purchases a home really has to look hard at this and negotiate with the contractors and with the builders -- the standard for many, many people is a 10-percent holdback for so many months -- and set it up and do it in such a way that the work will get done and that it's a reasonable time for all concerned. It has to be a win-win situation.
We have certainly stressed that all the way through, as I think about that, Mr. Speaker, with the work that we have done with China through Economic Development. Both parties have to win or it's not going to work. So anything that is particularly draconian in one direction or another is simply not going to go anywhere.
If you look at the building safety codes and the National Building Code, there are building codes that regulate the construction done under building permits. This is both for health and safety, structural stability, and structural sufficiency. The National Building Code is, I believe, the one that we really use here.
What's not regulated -- and the member opposite is certainly correct in that -- is that the workers and their workmanship are not necessarily regulated. That's really where consumer education comes in. Consumers who are looking to hire a contractor to build a new home should protect themselves and their investment. Hire a reputable contractor.
I see the Member for Porter Creek Centre is definitely agreeing with me, so I won't apologize to him then.
They really should be getting references and looking at other things that these people have built. Going back to the movie that I referred to, The Money Pit, with Shelley Long, I think if anybody arrived in the middle of that, they'd have second thoughts about some of the contractors that were there. They must ensure the workers are covered by workers' compensation, or the homeowner could be liable if a worker gets hurt. I think what a lot of people don't realize, Mr. Speaker, is simply hiring a company is not necessarily all that you have to do, because if it comes down later that that company is not covered by workers' compensation, guess what? You're the one who is liable, as well as the business owner. How many people do that? And I include myself in that.
Be suspicious of deals that look too good to be true, because the chances are that they are too good to be true. Under the table cash deals -- they always sound really good, Mr. Speaker. I don't think there's probably anyone in the world who hasn't done that to one degree or another, but the reality is, when you're dealing in large projects, you have to wonder what you're going to get. If you're trying to save a couple bucks here and there, you're likely going to get clobbered pretty heavily in the rest of it. When out-of-territory licence plates start arriving, start wondering, start worrying. Why are all these Alberta plates coming in, when you hired a guy in Hillcrest? It might be a legitimate situation; it could very well be, but check on it. All of these are signs of contractors who are, as the saying goes, "flying a bit under the wire", and trying to make a bit of a quick buck. If anybody is going to disappear, the chances are the guy with the Alberta or the Nova Scotia plates is the one who's going to disappear. So be real cautious about those sorts of things.
Building inspection -- as I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, I'm one of the few who seems to like building inspectors. Look at footings, framing, setbacks -- all these things. You know, consult the inspectors right off the top; utilize them. Don't necessarily believe that that sheet metal contractor you just hired is going to do a perfect job to code. He probably will, but I'd kind of like to have the building inspector tell me that that's going on as well. In the end I think you'll save a fortune.
One of the things I did in the last new construction that I had any kind of involvement with was -- thank God for digital photography -- I stopped by and took pictures. Every day I took pictures -- thousands and thousands of pictures -- and everyone laughed. But after awhile when people asked, "What is behind that wall?" I could pull out 10 pictures and show every stage of exactly what was behind that wall. You know: where does that duct go? I had photographs of where that duct went, top to bottom. It made it a lot easier in the future to maintain; it made it a lot easier to renovate; it made it a lot easier if a building inspector came by and either couldn't read his own handwriting -- which happened in one case -- or just a different inspector came by and wanted to see what was there. We could pull out the photographs all the way.
Look at smoke, carbon monoxide alarms, interior-exterior cladding -- we are dealing with a problem where all the vinyl siding is falling off. Some of it is landing in Carmacks -- my apologies to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, but when the wind catches it, I am sure it is coming down in Carmacks. It was something that looked good but, in the absence of getting it properly inspected, we are now paying the price for that.
Proof of septic system acceptance -- don't necessarily believe that what went underground is there. I've seen people talk about their septic system and, when it failed, they dug it up and found a holding tank -- a big holding tank, but a holding tank nonetheless.
Dealing with real estate agents is sometimes a little bit better because the real estate agents do have a code of ethics. They do have things they deal with that are up to snuff. A friend of mine in Ontario is a real estate agent who advertised a house, sold it, got a good price for it, made a nice commission, and then had the new homeowner call a few days later and ask when the real estate agent's electrician was going to show up and rewire the house. It appeared that the real estate agent put an ad in the paper saying that it had a 200-amp service. Unfortunately, she hadn't bothered to actually look at the panel and the panel was 125 amps. It cost her $3,000 for the rewiring to put the 200 amp in because, as a real estate agent, that was what she advertised. When you are dealing with real estate agents, you have a different level of assurance and certainty, and you can deal a little bit better with that.
Even with building code compliance, much of the building code, if you read it, doesn't say that this is the absolute be-all and end-all. It doesn't say that this is the best you can do. It says this is what the minimum is.
Given particular circumstances, you have to assume that in some cases you may want more or a slightly different standard. The building code in general may not relate to the quality of the work or to the warranties, or in fact, not even to the workers. You've got a big thing there that you have to deal with.
We do have a Builders Lien Act under the Yukon Land Titles Office, and the purpose of this act is to regulate the procedure for registering and discharging liens on real property by persons who are owed money or benefits from work that is done. This can work in a variety of different ways. This type of lien covers persons doing work on or furnishing materials and such, who are hired for services or labour or to furnish materials, construction or improvements on the property. Within consumer services, they do license, for instance, insurance companies and their agents -- collection company agents. They also -- if anyone is wondering -- license funeral directors, clergy, pawnbrokers, second-hand dealers, private investigators, security guards and security agencies. They also license everyone from chiropractors, licensed practical nurses, optometrists, pharmacists -- so quite a bit.
In general, that would not be an office that people in home construction would come to. Most likely, through the courts -- directly by a mediation service offered by the courts -- would be the way that they would go. This government raised the limits in small claims court to $25,000, which gives a little bit more security or assurance to the homeowner in terms of what they can get with that.
One of the other things that could be done -- and I don't believe that we have an equivalent to this in the Yukon. There is the Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus -- http://www.ccbbb.ca. Better business bureaus started in the United States in 1912 and came to Canada in 1935. There are currently over 170 bureau and branch offices in Canada and the United States.
The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus is actually located in Toronto, Ontario, and it's the governing body of the 14 better business bureaus across Canada. The 14 Canadian better business bureaus are located in the following cities from coast to coast: Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Windsor, London, Kitchener, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's.
In addition, 145 better business bureaus, as I mentioned, serve in the United States including all 50 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Notice that in that list, I didn't mention the Yukon. That's another thing we could be looking at that would have some degree of protection for home buyers.
The Canadian Council of Better Business Bureaus, as an organization, a council, was established in June 1966, and coordinates and licenses the 14 individual bureaus. The Better Business Bureau is, again, a private, non-profit public service organization financed by the private business sector with local bureaus serving communities and marketplaces across Canada.
The Better Business Bureau mission is to promote and foster the highest ethical relationship between businesses and public through voluntary self-regulation, consumer and business education and service excellence. When I did my time in Toronto, it was not an uncommon thing to give the Better Business Bureau a call and ask about a company you might be dealing with. We would be told that there were no complaints or there were 14 complaints and, of the 14, six were resolved and eight remained outstanding, and so on and so forth. Again, it gives you information on who you're dealing with, how you should proceed and what level of security you should necessarily ask for.
The Better Business Bureau promotes trust in the marketplace in a variety of ways. As I mentioned, it does collect complaint histories and other information about businesses, and it provides consumers with unbiased reliability reports to better enable them in their purchasing decisions. Of course, when you are buying a house, you would like that information.
The Better Business Bureau also evaluates businesses against objective standards, permitting only those businesses that meet and uphold standards to join in supporting the Better Business Bureau mission. Of course, it's always good information to be told, "Well, they used to be a member, but we kicked them out two years ago." I'm going to get right on hiring that company.
When disputes arise, as they can even in the best of business relationships, the Better Business Bureau offers impartial dispute resolution services to solve problems quickly and fairly and in a way that helps to preserve a healthy relationship between a business and its customer. One of my favourite Web sites -- I think everyone either has or has seen at least the so-called motivational posters, "If you climb the highest mountain …" Well, if anyone is sitting next to a computer and wants to have a little fun, go on to the Web site http://www.despair.com/ . They have a series of de-motivational posters. One of my favourites is a telephone with cobwebs on it, and the caption reads, "If we keep trying to deal with our customers this way, maybe they'll stop bugging us."
Most businesses are good. They want to satisfy their customers. They want to work with you. That's how they generate business. That's how they grow. But you always want to know the company you're dealing with falls in line for that. So, even the best relationship can have problems, but you want to have an impartial dispute resolution system service to deal with that.
In 2005, Canadian better business bureaus provided consumers with over 2.3 million company reliability reports and helped resolve over 14,000 complaints. Those are Canadian statistics, Mr. Speaker. The Better Business Bureau is unique because of its position of neutrality and an outstanding history of service. As with any success story, there are imitators, of course, but none have the stringent operating and objective evaluation standards of the Better Business Bureau, and none have a comparable history or reputation for integrity and reliability.
Really, what they're striving to do is have an ethical marketplace, where buyers and sellers can trust each other and to stay as a leader and advance the marketplace trust. As I say, the way they do this is to create a community of trustworthy businesses, to set standards for the marketplace trust, and to encourage and support best practices. We on this side of the House refer to that all of the time, of course, in terms of minding an environment -- that we always have to be continually looking at best practices and following them. We want to celebrate marketplace role models. We want to denounce substandard marketplace behaviour.
So, all of these things are of value to a group like the Better Business Bureau, and this is another way we could accomplish what we need: commit to the values to guide all of the decisions and behaviour with each other and everyone. That works.
We have to communicate, and communication is always a two-way street. We have to treat everyone with respect and dignity, valuing individual and cultural differences. People are our fundamental asset, and we have to empower them to develop and use their talents and capabilities to the fullest. So this is another way that things like this could be handled.
Really, when we start looking at some of these things, in terms of negotiation and such -- I mentioned real estate agents. Real estate agents traditionally sell homes and sell homes for a third party. There are structures. I know that in Ontario -- and I suspect it's the same in Yukon, but I'm not 100 percent sure -- things like condominium complexes and this sort of thing can hire someone to act as their agent but not necessarily be a licensed real estate agent. So, again, be cautious with that.
Make sure the person is licensed and really start looking at utilizing the services of someone like this. Find someone who is reputable and whom you really want to deal with. You have to look at all the different things that you want and take some advice. This is not a decision that you're going to make in an afternoon because, once you've made that decision, you're into problems of home ownership that will offer a great number of benefits -- you know, building and saving for the future, creating an environment for your family; you can go on and on.
But you are also contributing to a mortgage. You're also contributing to the profits of the people who build it. There is equity in time, hopefully, if you didn't go through the great disaster of Ontario of the late 1980s. The home will increase in value.
You make the decision of what you want. What are your requirements? Bedrooms? Bathrooms? What type of property? Proximity? What financing do you have available to you? What is your target price range? How are you going to pay for it overall?
You have to be realistic about all of that, of course. That comes into the problem, especially in a tight housing market where you perhaps have a builder who has potentially several people to sell to. You're the one asking all the questions and guess what? You might not be the one who is going to win the bid.
In general, if that's the case, then the chances are pretty good that you didn't really want to get involved in that in the first place.
You want to really look at everything that's in the area and go through that. You want to identify all your features and utilize home inspection services. Again, we have to point out that the home inspection services are not necessarily binding; they are not necessarily a great assurance, but they are another tool on the tool belt. You have to look at that point and get the good advice and find out what potential problems are there. Home inspection, as I say, from a mortgage company, may be simply coming in and saying, "Yeah, you are asking for a $150,000 mortgage; we figure the house is worth at least $250,000, so, yeah, we can do that."
That doesn't include actually looking into anything. It doesn't include even opening the electrical panel to see what's inside. So spring the extra bucks; get a home inspection. The little bit of money you are putting out at that point in time is more than worth it in the long run. As I mentioned before, if the real estate agent says something, they are bound to live with that. The builder may not be. The builder tells you it's a 200-amp service; that's nice, but when push comes to shove, that might not be the case.
There are programs that help with down payments. Strata and condo fees -- do they include repair? With condos here, for instance -- certainly, the ones I've had experience with -- the shell of the condominium and the common property is part of what you're paying for within the fees, but what is inside the building is your problem. In other words, if the roof springs a leak, it's a condo corporation problem, but the drywall it wiped out on the way through is my problem.
You want to look at water quality. We've seen one case here where a homeowner tapped into a public well and enjoyed it for years. It was a great arrangement until they went to sell the house and the home purchaser wanted it tested and, guess what? It came back not the best, and it ended up being quite a little disaster.
Loan insurance for a mortgage: what happens if one partner passes away -- or whatever -- leaving the other partner with the inability to pay for that or for renovations.
Again, that is all part of that -- service utility hook-ups. You can go on and on and on about what you have to look at within this. I have seen cases where people have bought a house and gone to hook up cable and then tried to tie their computer into it and found out that it couldn't be done where they were. They had to go a totally different route. There are things you have to look at extensively.
In returning again to inspections as really being the keynote to all of this and to getting qualified people to look after it and inspect it -- when I say qualified people, that is on top of the hopefully qualified people who were hired to build it in the first place -- inspections certainly make the difference.
However good the warranty is on that home, however, a good warranty and that warranty alone will not necessarily ensure a quality product. It might ensure defects are repaired, but it's inspections during the course of construction -- don't just think you are going to do one at the end, because you have no