103 Hansard
Whitehorse, Yukon
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed with the Order Paper.
Are there any tributes?
TRIBUTES
In recognition of Judy Pakozdy
Mr. Mitchell: I rise today to pay tribute to Judy Pakozdy on her retirement as executive director of FASSY. Judy recently retired as the executive director of the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society of Yukon. FASSY, as it is known, offers training, advocacy and support for families and individuals affected by FASD or FAE.
Judy has been a long-time resident of the Yukon and through those many years she has been a strong advocate for people affected by FAS/FAE. There have been many challenges and obstacles along the way, but that never stopped Judy in her struggle on behalf of people affected by FASD.
Throughout the years Judy has gained and shared a great deal of knowledge about FASD. She has been an outspoken advocate for change and in developing appropriate programming and resources for chronically affected people. Judy knows first-hand what works, what doesn’t work and what should be in place to help improve their lives. Judy has been relentless in her efforts, and by lending her voice to the cause has earned the genuine respect of hundreds of Yukoners and their families. She is devoted and committed to the needs of those who cannot speak for themselves. One of the greatest legacies she will leave us is that she never stopped speaking out and working for the benefit of people with special needs and always strived to improve their lives.
Numerous people affected by FASD are living more productive and satisfying lives today because of Judy’s efforts and intervention on their behalf. Judy Pakozdy is definitely one of those people whom we can speak of and say that the Yukon is better off because she was here.
Congratulations on your retirement, Judy. On behalf of all Yukoners we wish to thank you for your years of service and commitment to people affected by FASD. Our best wishes to you in all your future endeavours.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in welcoming former Senator Ione Christensen, vice-president of the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, and Monsieur Richard Johnson, FASSY president.
Applause
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I rise to pay tribute to Judy Pakozdy and to thank her for the service she has given to the individuals that FASSY serves, as well as to thank all the other members of FASSY’s board of directors and volunteers for the work they do.
The Yukon government is pleased to have a long-standing relationship with the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon and provides roughly $400,000 per year to assist them in their good work. But without the contribution of volunteers of those such as Judy who go above and beyond the call of duty, it would not be possible to do the very good they do. It is truly a testament to Judy and all the others who are involved that this good work is done and that the people who are served by this are enabled to participate more effectively and more fully in society.
On behalf of the government, I wish Judy the very best in her retirement and thank her again for her years of dedication to Yukon citizens.
Mr. Hardy: Mr. Speaker, the NDP would like, as well, to acknowledge and thank Judy Pakozdy for many many many years of work in an area that is extremely difficult and that is extremely challenging. I would say up until a few years ago it wasn’t as well known as it is now.
I remember when I was first elected in 1996, one of the first people I met was Judy. I don’t even think she said, “Hello” to me; I think she started talking about FASSY immediately and it never stopped. From 1996 until two weeks ago — I think I was down at their office — when I went by to wish Judy the best, sure enough, Judy and her staff cornered me and we talked about FASSY again. They cornered me to make me part of their next awareness campaign — I think it is an awareness campaign — in which I would participate in one of their initiatives, which I of course agreed to do. What I’m saying around that is that Judy was relentless and was a champion for this cause. We’re going to really really miss that in the Yukon. We need more champions like that. We need more heroes like her, and that is what Judy brought.
You can tell the quality of the work she brought to this issue by the people who worked with her and that she brought in. We have two of them in the audience today, who are committed to bringing forward and continuing the work on fetal alcohol syndrome.
The staff I meet in the FASSY office are just as dedicated, and Judy has inspired that in these people. With that alone — not including all the other things she has done — she is leaving a legacy to continue on. Wherever she goes and whatever she does, I’m sure she will create another one, wherever she lands.
So we wish her well in her travels, and I look forward to being cornered more often by people from FASSY.
Speaker: Are there any further tributes?
Introduction of visitors.
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS
Hon. Mr. Rouble: Mr. Speaker, I’d ask all members of our Assembly to join me in welcoming the grade 5 class from Takhini Elementary School and their teacher, Ms. Wilma deWitt, to our Assembly today. Welcome.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any other introductions of visitors?
Returns or documents for tabling.
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I have for tabling the 2006-07 annual report for the Yukon Geographical Place Names Board.
Hon. Mr. Lang: I have for tabling today the Fleet Vehicle Agency 2008-09 Business Report.
Also, I have for tabling today four regulations pursuant to the Area Development Act.
Mr. Cardiff: I have for tabling a letter to the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation.
Speaker: Are there any other documents for tabling?
Are there any reports of committees?
Are there any petitions?
Are there any bills to be introduced?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Mitchell: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Minister of Health and Social Services to make the recruitment of a full-time pediatrician a top priority.
Mr. McRobb: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to bring Bill No. 106, the net metering bill, to an expeditious conclusion that will respect the following nine points:
(1) demonstrate to the public that it has the courage to make its position known in succinct terms;
(2) demonstrate to the public that it will not waste any more of the precious time remaining in this sitting to belabour Bill No. 106;
(3) demonstrate responsible action in debate this afternoon by not continuing its filibuster on this bill, which has already consumed two hours of time in this House, even though it was presented in less than 10 minutes by the Official Opposition, who does not intend to speak further to this bill in second reading;
(4) acknowledge that passing this bill would provide the public with much faster access to the many opportunities made available with net metering;
(5) acknowledge the importance of providing these opportunities in advance of the next building cycle for residential construction in Whitehorse, expected to start in one year, when this government is expected to finally avail new building lots to the public;
(6) demonstrate that this afternoon’s discussion on the bill is another opportunity for all parties to work in collaboration and cooperation, as they did in advancing the Smoke-free Places Act;
(7) demonstrate that, in the absence of alternative legislation, it should support advancing this bill to the Committee stage, where amendments can be proposed in the fall sitting;
(8) demonstrate that, if it cannot support this bill simply because it was introduced by the Official Opposition, then to state so on the record; and
(9) alternatively, commit today to bring in its own bill on net metering in the fall sitting to demonstrate that it is prepared to act in the public interest.
Mr. Elias: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to find another way to provide financial support to the upcoming 2008 biannual Gwich’in gathering in Old Crow, in light of the Minister of Economic Development’s refusal to approve the Gwich’in gathering community development fund proposal.
Mr. Edzerza: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to set timelines and target numbers and take any other action necessary to reduce the number of Yukon nurses working in part-time employment, which is well above the national average, and to reduce the number of nurses in casual or on-call positions, which is two and a half times the national average.
I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to table the Final Report on Supported Housing for Persons with Psychiatric Conditions and Acquired Brain Injuries by Kobayashi and Zedda Architects Ltd., John Currie and Leslie Knight, dated October 21, 2007, complete with appendices covering costing reports, Supported Housing case studies, the Pocket Housing case study and the Stepping Stone Clubhouse case study.
Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to hold public consultations to review the Landlord and Tenant Act, and in the amendments, to provide for:
(1) enforcement of minimum housing and health standards;
(2) clarification on the relationship between the act and the Public Health and Safety Act;
(3) establishment of a formal hearing process for evictions;
(4) a mediation process for conflicts between landlords and tenants;
(5) protection for tenants who complain about their housing; and
(6) redrafting of the whole act in plain language.
I also give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Yukon government to provide adequate, appropriate and stable funding to the Yukon Human Rights Commission, so that this important organization can do its work more effectively.
Mr. Hardy: I give notice of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the Minister of Environment to study the actions taken by the B.C. Climate Action Secretariat with the goal of strengthening the Yukon’s climate change action plan and shortening the timeframe for implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaker: Are there any further notices of motion?
Is there a statement by a minister?
Speaker’s ruling
Speaker: Before proceeding to Question Period, the Chair will rule on a point of order raised yesterday by the Official Opposition House Leader. The member raised this point of order in response to a comment by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice began a response to a question by saying, “It is obvious the opposition’s raison d’être is to complain and criticize.” The Official Opposition House Leader argued that the use of this phrase was contrary to rules of the House.
The Chair does not believe there is a point of order. There are limits to the kinds of unflattering characterizations that members can make of one another and each other’s parties and positions that they hold in this House. However, the Chair does not believe that the comments by the Minister of Justice in the context in which they were made yesterday exceeded those limits.
On a related note, the Chair would ask members who wish to intervene on a point of order to restrict their comments to procedural information that may be useful for the Chair in reaching a decision. Negative reflections on points of order are not helpful and the Chair would appreciate it if members contained the urge to offer up such comments.
This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Asset-backed commercial paper investments
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance about some money that went missing under his watch — $36.5 million worth of Yukoners’ money.
The Premier made some bad investments last summer. He was not alone. There were other companies and governments across Canada who got caught as well, and they’re paying the price for those bad investments. They are reporting losses on their books. Just this week, for example, Redcorp Ventures Ltd. released financial statements. They bought $91 million worth of ABCP last year. It is now worth $68.3 million. They have been honest about taking the loss.
The Yukon government bought $36.5 million of the same stuff last summer. When the Auditor General of Canada was here this spring, she said it was a question of how much was lost, not a question of whether any money had been lost.
Why is the Premier not following the lead of numerous private sector companies and other governments and writing this investment down?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Given the extensive demonstration by the Leader of the Official Opposition on his limited knowledge of this particular investment, I’m not sure what part of this the member does not get.
Governments are guided by the public sector accounting guidelines. Corporations aren’t guided by public sector accounting guidelines. In many instances, corporations in such circumstances as this would take writedowns, because it’s deductible from their taxes. That’s not the case for government. By the way, at this time we have no direction from the Auditor General to take any writedown whatsoever; in fact, quite the contrary. The Auditor General said the process is not concluded, and we need to get to the end of the process so we understand fully what is going to be put in place before any of these types of decisions can be made.
Furthermore, the money isn’t missing, and I’m going to challenge the member to stand up here and provide the evidence that the money has gone missing. The money is in an investment and our investments have earned millions of dollars for Yukon Territory.
Mr. Mitchell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ll challenge the member opposite to show us the money.
When the Auditor General addressed this Assembly on February 12, we asked whether there was a difference in public and private sector accounting and she said to this Assembly, “In this case, they are the same.”
Ontario and Alberta have already accepted losses on this type of investment. Day after day, companies across Canada are reporting losses as well. Dundee Wealth Incorporated announced its first-quarter earnings this week. Again, they were honest and up front with people. They have recorded a writedown on their ABCP investment of 45 percent.
They owed almost $380 million of this toxic paper last summer when the market froze. They have taken a considerable writedown and admitted it is not worth nearly as much as that today. When the Auditor General was here she made it clear that she expected the minister to writedown this investment. So far this Premier has refused to be accountable for this bad investment. Why is the Premier refusing to take a writedown on this investment?
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Before the Hon. Premier answers the question, Leader of the Official Opposition, you make reference to “honest and up front”, the implication being that the members from the other side are not being such. I ask the honourable member not to make those kinds of references.
You have the floor, Hon. Premier.
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, this is the same question, same answer. There is no writedown and we have not been directed to take a writedown. The money isn’t missing. The money is invested. The notes regarding what the restructuring is all about have been articulated and tabled in this House. There is going to be a court ruling on this, and we will continue on through the process to its inevitable end. This is the same member who said that there wasn’t a guarantee in place. Well, I challenge the member again. How does the member explain the guarantee of liquidity by the banks as laid out by the federal regulator — OSFI — that allows for conditional guarantees on these investments?
Mr. Mitchell: Well, I’ll explain it again to the Premier. The Premier made some bad investments. He told this House and continues to tell this House that they were guaranteed. The Deputy Premier said they are guaranteed. The Auditor General determined they were not guaranteed. She says so in the report. When making the investments she said the Premier didn’t follow the Financial Administration Act. On top of that, the Premier has signed away our right to sue the banks. The Premier had lots of tough talk about the banks, but in the end he caved and signed away our right to sue — so much for standing up to the banks.
At the end of October, the government will close the books on this budget year. The final report on the year’s finances for last year will be produced. This will be another opportunity for the Premier to provide an accurate value of our ABCP investment. Private sector companies have been up front and said their investments are worth anywhere from 55 to 75 cents on the dollar. When the year-end report on the last fiscal year comes forward — the public accounts — will it have a writedown on these bad investments?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Mr. Speaker, it is this government that fully disclosed this matter in the year-end for 2007-08. There was full disclosure to the public and to the Auditor General. The Auditor General also requested and essentially directed this government to get a legal opinion on the matter. The legal opinion clearly demonstrates that, given OSFI’s regulatory changes in these investments, conditional guarantees were allowed for and that is exactly what was in place — conditional guarantees on liquidity should there be a market disruption.
So again the member is incorrect in his statements. Furthermore, the member will see that when we get to our year-end. As we work continually with the Auditor General on the matter, we will do the appropriate thing. The investments are in place, by the way; there is not a loss. The total value of the investments right now is $36.5 million. What’s yet to be determined is who gets the accrued interest — and how much.
Question re: Climate change action plan
Mr. Elias: I am positive that the Environment minister has his list ready, so I am going to continue my line of questioning on the climate change action plan.
Climate change is the number one issue facing us today. The Premier himself said, and I quote: “It is number one on the priority list.”
I want to be as productive as possible in my questioning today. I ask myself where in the climate change action plan is the action to help homeowners install real-time, in-home SMARTnet metering or create a climate change action team. I see the commitment to youth and that’s good to see. Except for the implementation of a hybrid-cars-only policy for government purchases and leases, the draft climate change action plan has very few details in its commitment to action. Yukoners wanted to see a vision backed up with specific actions, time frames and budget commitments. These are totally missing in the climate change action plan. Why is this minister so willing to produce an action plan without enough action?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Before we get to all the action items in the plan, I am going to have to point out to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that the action plan is the culmination of a great deal of work done by many — hundreds, by the way, were involved.
The first step was the development of the climate change strategy, as we went forward with a number of years ago. Then we went on with the work, along with hundreds of Yukoners, other governments, other NGOs and youth. There was tremendous input from the Yukon public and other areas of expertise in the development of the action plan.
What we have tabled is what came to government through that very extensive process. The member should be careful about criticizing all those experts, all those other governments, all those NGOs, all those Yukoners, all those First Nations who involved themselves in the development of what is an action plan full of action.
Mr. Elias: It’s the Premier who should be careful, because we’re getting calls from Yukoners saying their views and opinions were not reflected in this draft. I’m trying to appeal to the minister’s moral aptitude on this one. Unless the Premier missed it, the time for imagining is over.
One of the few suggestions under the heading “continue to explore” is found on page 28 under section (g), and I’ll quote from the report: “…reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector through public transit…”
I wonder if the minister has even read his own report. The report actually endorses our expanded and free city bus proposal. He claims he has to do public consultations, but he is dismissing a positive and forward-thinking initiative of the Yukon Liberal Party without allowing any public input.
Will the minister go back to the drawing board and give this draft plan to his officials so it can be filled with real action items?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: That’s very comforting to hear the Liberal Party has now become forward thinking, as we spent the latter part of the last two years listening to them trying to reconstruct the past. So forward thinking is a very good sign.
Furthermore, the member alludes to public transit — $466,000 invested in public transit equipment — buses, for the City of Whitehorse. I call that 466,000 examples of action.
Mr. Elias: I’m going to have to try to use an analogy the Premier can understand. The Premier is our captain, and we’re not faring well in the game against climate change. Team Yukon needs leadership right now. We need a captain to set an example, to sacrifice and to work hard. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the captain has to drop the gloves and that time is now. Climate change has looked our captain in the eye and said, “You want to go?”
I guarantee that Yukoners will be banging their sticks in support of our captain if the gloves get dropped. The Premier’s climate change action plan represents “turtling” in hockey terms and does not answer the call of our rapidly changing environment.
Will the minister get on his feet and answer the call to drop the gloves on climate change?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Yes, as the captain, we’re very proud of the fact that this good Yukon Party ship is riding the wave of economic development and diversification, of environmental protection, of improving our health care system, of improving the quality of life for Yukoners in general, with a growing population and record-low unemployment. Yes, the captain is very aware of the good ship Yukon Party government.
Now let’s talk about action. In this plan, I’ll just give some of the highlights: establishing a Yukon climate change research centre of excellence — action; enhancing support for climate change monitoring and education — action; increasing support for climate change adaptation initiatives — action; committing to establish Yukon targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction within two years — action. And by the way, $15 million invested in hydro to do that, reducing thousands of tonnes of CO2 in Yukon’s atmosphere.
Committing to stop increase in government-related emissions by 2012 — action; making internal Yukon government operations carbon-neutral — action; establishing a climate change secretariat to ensure effective and accountable implementation of the plan — action; working in partnership with other governments, NGOs, First Nations, and Yukoners — action.
Question re: Climate change action plan
Mr. Hardy: There is an old saying: “I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out.” I hope that’s not what we’re talking about as fighting in here. The NDP caucus also knows that —
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Order. Order please. The honourable member knows full well he cannot refer to previous questions in his question. So you’re on, please. You have the floor, please.
Mr. Hardy: The NDP caucus also knows that addressing climate change will require a fundamental transformation of how our society operates. This is a very serious issue. There are some good ideas in the government’s draft action plan, but we would like to see them implemented right now, not two years after the final plan or 14 years from now, which the Premier didn’t mention.
One good idea in the plan, though, is a community climate change initiative fund. One of the things this fund might do, for example, is fund commuter buses from outlying areas to reduce the impact of private vehicles. Instead of just examining this idea, will the Premier speed up the process and immediately instruct the Finance department officials to get this funding up and running so it can go to work supporting community efforts to reduce greenhouse gases?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: I actually appreciate the Leader of the Third Party’s approach because it is a very constructive one, and we recognize that this idea the member has just tabled is something that, in Yukon overall, in terms of our transportation, may have some resonance in the future.
But I can tell the member opposite that the Official Opposition and the third party can’t have this both ways.
When the government wants to pass bills like the Child and Family Services Act, we haven’t consulted enough. Yet when the members opposite want their ideas implemented immediately, they forget all about public consultation.
I remind the member: this document, this plan, is now going out for public consultation for further Yukoners’ input, as it should.
Mr. Hardy: I’d like to remind the minister as well that we’ve read this action plan and we’ve looked for the good in it as well as the areas of concern.
We’re not just up here bashing. Yesterday the Premier spoke about what Yukon Housing Corporation is doing to address climate change, such as interest-free loans to improve energy efficiency in homes and other buildings across the territory. We support that program but it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.
As part of its climate change action plan, the B.C. government is working with industry, professional and community representatives to develop a green building code. In the Yukon’s action plan, the government promises to, “…explore amending building regulations and codes to require higher energy efficiency standards for all new buildings in the Yukon.”
Instead of merely exploring this idea, will the Premier immediately direct his officials to start crafting a green building code for the Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: On behalf of the Yukon Housing Corporation, we’ve done exactly that.
The Yukon green home standard is far beyond the R-2000 and is often referred to as “R-2000 on steroids” and what was formerly known as the athletes village — the seniors facility at the Yukon College site — was built to that level.
Many of the other programs that we’re looking at are what we call “super green.” Our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said in the past that, with super green standards, you could heat it with a cat. For some of the bigger ones, you might need two cats. They are that efficient. It will cost approximately an additional $18,000 to build an average home, but that will save approximately $13,000 in the heating plant and the balance would be recovered in a matter of a couple of years. From that point on, the operation and maintenance cost would be extremely low.
Those things are already in place. Yukon is the national leader on those programs and we are working closely with the State of Alaska to share our knowledge, as well as with the housing corporations of Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Mr. Hardy: Mr. Speaker, they didn’t answer the question. It’s not a building code. This is where it gets confusing on the other side for them. That’s what we asked for. I would tell the minister who just spoke that I took the R-2000 course when I was an apprentice carpenter and I’ve been on steroids and I can tell you — they don’t fit very well.
Now, the B.C. government has committed to making its own much bigger operation carbon-neutral by 2010 — just two years from now. Yet this government is talking 2022 — much further. Why the difference? All B.C. government travel is already carbon-neutral. Every tonne of greenhouse gas emissions from government travel is invested into offset projects somewhere in the province.
Will the Premier take a bold step toward a more environmentally responsible Yukon by moving up the date for Yukon government operations to be carbon-neutral by at least 2013?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the action in our very detailed and comprehensive action plan to deal with climate change — both mitigating measures and adaptation — is one that has been, to the largest degree, constructed by all those who provided the input for this plan. We’re going back out to the public with these targets; that is first and foremost.
Second, our targets are based on what we feel as a government can be achieved in that timeline. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize something here, or at least we should. In the north, our emission factors that make a contribution to global warming or climate change — whatever you’d like to call it — are minimal. Our impacts that we are experiencing today are severe because of global warming. That is why this action plan has a very large emphasis on adaptation, as it should.
Question re: Landlord and Tenant Act
Mr. Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Community Services acknowledged Monday that there has been an internal review of the Landlord and Tenant Act. As far as we can tell, this review took place over approximately the last 18 months or so. The whole thing was done privately and without public notice. It was even necessary for permission to be granted from the department for anyone interested to make a presentation if they managed to find out that it was being done.
Now the minister says they are continuing to work with stakeholders in compiling their issues and their concerns. Will the minister tell us how the public can have access to the continuing review of this important act?
Hon. Mr. Hart: As I previously stated with regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, this is a very important piece of legislation here in the Yukon. It provides a balance for both the landlord and tenant with regard to their rights. If a dispute does arise, both the landlord and tenant have a variety of methods with which they can resolve their issues, including those provided by Community Services, either through mediation or arbitration.
Information about those services is available through our department, as well as consumer and protective services, and they are being provided. We have been providing educational material on all these issues throughout the Yukon.
Mr. Cardiff: On Monday, the minister said all that needed to change with this act was to educate the public. Perhaps he could start that process right now. For example, section 17 says, in part, that if any rent is payable and there exists no express right of distress for the recovery thereof, the person entitled to receive the rent has the same right of distress for recovery thereof. Section 24 says that a landlord may take under a distress for rent any livestock belonging to or appertaining to the premises in respect of which the rent distrained for is payable.
My question for the minister: for the sake of members who might have slept through the Elizabethan era, could he please explain those two small sections in plain language.
Hon. Mr. Hart: If he wishes, I’ll provide him with a written comment with regard to that.
Mr. Cardiff: Obviously he’s not a lawyer either.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister is sending out pamphlets to educate the public, maybe he should send a lawyer and interpreter also. The other day the minister said the act is well balanced. I suppose if both landlords and tenants dislike the act, that’s some kind of balance.
There’s no real protection for either tenants or landlords in the event of disputes. There’s no formal process for evictions. There are no minimum health and safety standards for rental property. One national housing association says it’s the worst act in Canada. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, will the minister agree to consult openly with stakeholders and commit to real changes in this archaic act following that consultation?
Mr. Hart: As I have indicated previously to the member opposite, there are a number of services available for landlords and/or tenants to deal with their issues. These services are being utilized currently. If, however, there is a case where the landlord and/or the tenant cannot resolve their issues, then they each have the option to go to court. That provision is free. Nowhere else in Canada is that provided; we provide that for nothing.
I would also like to state at this time that our court cases are heard quite quickly and, for the number of inquiries that we get in regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the number that actually go through mediation and/or court is very small.
Question re: Taser use
Mr. Inverarity: An inquiry into the use of tasers is underway in British Columbia right now, and we are getting both sides of the taser story. The manufacturer claims the device is safer than other enforcement tools but admits there are still risks involved in the use of tasers.
Opponents claim that the use of tasers is unintentionally killing people and should be banned. Others conclude that there is not enough research on the effect of these devices and some suggest that tasers are not being used by enforcement officials as intended.
Can the Minister of Justice tell Yukoners where we stand on this issue? Has the minister reviewed this issue with the RCMP and other agencies that might use a taser, and is she satisfied that tasers are not dangerous and that the enforcement agencies are using them appropriately?
Hon. Ms. Horne: As I mentioned in our last sitting, there are several reviews regarding the use of conducted energy weapons by police organizations, including the RCMP. These have been undertaken within the last few months. The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP issued their interim report on the RCMP use of the conducted energy weapon, or CEW, in mid-December. This report did not recommend a moratorium on the use of CEWs by the RCMP.
The report also recommends regular reviews of RCMP policy on the use of tasers and we are doing our own review with Justice Canada. That report will be final in the later part of this year.
Mr. Inverarity: Perhaps the minister should strap on a taser and see how 50,000 volts might actually affect the human body.
Unparliamentary language
Speaker: Order please. Does the honourable member think that type of conversation is appropriate for this House? That is violent terminology and it’s not appropriate to this Legislative Assembly. The Member for Porter Creek South has the floor.
Mr. Inverarity: We have been told that ministers from other jurisdictions have committed to sharing information on best practices of using the taser. It would be nice to know if they have made good on their commitment. There are a number of inquiries going on across the country as we speak.
The views and opinions being expressed at the inquiries are all over the map: we have heard that tasers are good, we have heard that they are bad, that they are safe and that they are dangerous.
We have heard that the problems are with the way the enforcement officers are using them, and we have heard that it is the victim’s fault for not responding better to a taser blast.
So where does the minister stand on the taser issue?
Hon. Ms. Horne: As you know, we have a moratorium issued on the use of tasers at Whitehorse Correctional Centre, and as I just stated, we are doing our own internal review with Justice Canada, and these are being done by justice departments across Canada. We will have this final report toward the end of this year.
Question re: Housing shortage
Mr. Inverarity: Housing conditions in many of Yukon communities are inadequate for many government employees who live in them. In many cases, there are simply not enough units to meet the need. The number of people requiring accommodation has increased over the years, but the supply has not kept pace. This has resulted in employees having to rent what is, in some cases, substandard housing, and in other cases having to share with other employees.
This is not the way to attract people to come and live in Yukon rural communities, nor is it the way to keep the ones we already have.
Will the minister responsible tell the House what the government plan is to address the growing housing problem?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: The Yukon Housing Corporation has made significant investment in rural Yukon by adding six staff housing units. In Dawson City, for instance, the corporation is purchasing an existing unit and will undertake repairs and upgrades prior to occupancy.
In addition, the corporation is also building a new house and it will meet the corporation’s green home standards.
In Watson Lake, the corporation has purchased two units. One is already occupied while the other is being repaired and upgraded. The corporation will also build two new staff units in the community, and they will feature building techniques and designs that will improve the overall energy efficiency standards of the new units in excess of the corporation’s existing green home standards.
So we are addressing the problem. We have these additions underway. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, they will be built to green home standards to keep the operation and maintenance cost to a minimum.
Mr. Inverarity: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be just a little bit shy on the details. However, there are several housing units that are simply in a bad state of repair. Requests for maintenance can take a very long time to be complied with and replacement of worn floors and drafty doors can move them even further down the priority list. No employee deserves an accommodation that is substandard, whatever the job is. They deserve housing that reflects the quality enjoyed by many other Whitehorse colleagues. Many employees leave a community for just that reason and the government spends thousands of dollars trying to recruit replacements. The situation is not good for employees, the community or the government. Since the minister does not have a clear vision of what they will do, will he undertake to report back during the fall session and tell us what his plan is?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: To clarify for the member opposite and give him a little bit of a better understanding of what is going on, I am disappointed at his lack of faith in the people within Yukon Housing Corporation, who currently maintain 144 units. Employees are charged a maximum of $600 per month rent. Employees are also responsible for the cost of fuel oil and electricity in those cases. The departments contact Yukon Housing Corporation and provide information on upcoming staff housing requirements. The Yukon Housing Corporation is noticing that the retirement of current Yukon government employees who own their own homes is generating increased demands from departments for additional staff housing units. It is those things that we are working with.
Again, Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, I have full faith in the employees of the Yukon Housing Corporation and their efforts to keep these buildings, with limited resources, in good repair. The Yukon Housing Corporation does a great job and I’m very proud of them for that. I hope the member opposite will rethink his position on that.
Mr. Inverarity: It sounds like the minister is acknowledging that resources are the problem. Mr. Speaker, I’ve checked in Watson Lake, Teslin, Beaver Creek, Burwash, Mayo and Pelly Crossing. In all of these communities I hear complaints about housing and the lack of it. One teacher told me that she felt pressured by her principal to take a new teacher in because there was no other unit available. She eventually did because she was kind and compassionate. However, Mr. Speaker, everyone is entitled to have their privacy and no one should feel pressured to share their home.
The new employee should not have to share with another colleague unless they both choose to do so. That is fundamentally wrong, and the problem has been there for quite a few years. It’s not new. Many communities have homes on the market at reasonable prices relative to building new ones.
Would the minister consider buying some of these and offering them as rental units, or perhaps even offering a purchase program to employees as an incentive to stay longer in these rural communities?
Hon. Mr. Kenyon: Yukon Housing Corporation, through its good board of directors, maintains well over 500 social housing units, as I mentioned, and 144 of the units are charged at a maximum of $600 a month, I might add, less fuel and electricity, and are for staff housing.
The retirement of some employees in communities has posed a challenge, but we are responding again significantly by adding six staff housing units. In Dawson City we have purchased an existing unit and will undertake repairs and upgrades prior to occupancy. In addition, the corporation is building a new house that will meet the corporation’s green home standards.
In Watson Lake, the corporation has purchased two units. One is already occupied, while the other is being repaired and upgraded. The corporation will also build two new staff units in that community.
The Yukon Housing Corporation and its board of directors are approaching this problem. I have great faith in the Yukon Housing Corporation and its board of directors. Again, I would encourage the member opposite to take a closer look at this and try not to be critical of the Yukon Housing Corporation’s good employees. I have every faith in their ability to work, unlike the member opposite.
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
BILLS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS
Bill No. 106: Second Reading — continued
Clerk: Second reading, Bill No. 106, standing in the name of Mr. McRobb; adjourned debate, Hon. Mr. Lang.
Hon. Mr. Lang: I have to apologize for my cold. I’d like to thank the Member for Kluane for bringing this forward. The Net Metering Act is a bill that was brought forward by the member opposite on a proposal that would institute net metering into the process. I don’t know, in the explanation, why we’d have to put it into a bill, when we could actually work with the energy strategy for Yukon, which is before the general public at the moment.
But of course we only have three-and-a-half hours this afternoon, so I’d like to move forward with the debate on this very important issue.
When we adjourned two weeks ago, we were looking at net metering. At that point, we had talked extensively about it and how we understand it. To remind people about net metering — and I know the Member for Kluane will be interested in this — what is net metering? That’s important because the issue is very important. What is the difference between net metering and IPP — independent power producers?
How do they work together? It’s timely, Mr. Speaker, in that we just released our energy strategy draft consultation this week. I’m sure all members in the House would like to speak to this net metering bill and fold it into the energy strategy that this government has brought forward for the next step, which is more consultation and, hopefully, having it in front of Yukoners again in a final draft this fall.
Net metering is interesting. As I get into it, I’m sure the members opposite would be very interested in the fact of how it is utilized in the western world. There is a use of this in many parts of the world. There are 40 U.S. states that have a net metering program. That’s just the program — it’s not a law.
Great Britain — United Kingdom — they’ve looked at it; Germany; and of course let’s look at Canada. Canada has the provinces and the territories. In Canada, we have BC Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, Maritime Electric for Prince Edward Island; Énergie NB Power; Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, Ontario Energy Board, Hydro-Québec and other jurisdictions in Canada.
Of course, there was the hard work of the consultation on the energy strategy, and we tabled that information for the House and brought it into the general public for the final stages — or the final consultations — so this government can bring the energy strategy to the House here and to Yukon with a final draft in the coming fall or early next year.
Net metering has been mentioned in the consultation. The Member for Kluane will be interested to know that it was one of the many issues that were brought up, ideas from the general public and also from a very extensive group of individuals and organizations in developing the draft energy strategy. In the Yukon government, several departments worked on the net metering question and the energy strategy: Economic Development and Community Services; Department of Education; Energy, Mines and Resources, who was lead on this; Environment; Executive Council Office; Health and Social Services; Highways and Public Works; Tourism and Culture; Yukon Development Corporation; Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Housing Corporation. That was just in-house here, in the government.
Of course all those departments are managing energy in one way or another, and certainly net metering was brought up in this draft. Look at the other interests that participated in the consultation — the organizations and of course other governments — and you will see that we had participation from the Association of Yukon Communities, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, and of course the City of Whitehorse. The City of Whitehorse has to manage its energy as well.
I remind members opposite that we all understand the necessity of this energy strategy, because we all fuel our vehicles, we all heat our homes with one form of energy or another, and we all pay for our hydro. All of those costs have, in the last year, escalated with the price of petroleum.
It is a good time to put this energy strategy out, because there are questions or individuals out there that say we might be looking at $200 per barrel. Those costs would have to reflect in our society. The Dawson Renewable Resource Council was part of this, as well as EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. and F.H. Collins school. It is interesting that a school would take an interest in energy and all of these things relating to this net metering bill. These kinds of questions would be asked.
There’s the First Nation of Na Cho Nyak Dun; Halliday and Company; Indian and Northern Affairs Canada — the federal government participation — Kluane First Nation; Kobayashi and Zedda Architects — again, one of our larger corporations or architectural companies in town who are actively building structures in the city that hopefully meet the energy questions of tomorrow — Leading Edge Projects; Natural Resources Canada — another federal organization; New Era Consulting; Northern Climate ExChange; Outside the Cube; Selkirk Renewable Resource Council; Ta’an Kwach’an Council; Teslin Tlingit Council; Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation, Utility Consumers Group; Vector Research; Yukon Chamber of Commerce and of course Yukon Chamber of Mines; Yukon Conservation Society; Yukon Electrical Company Limited; Yukon Environmental Network; Yukon Utilities Board; Yukon Wood Products Association; Village of Carmacks; Village of Mayo and the White River First Nation.
So it is a very very extensive list of participants that we had talking about net metering — which by the way, Mr. Speaker, is a very small part of this Yukon government’s energy strategy for the Yukon. This draft was put out this week.
Mr. Chair, I don’t want to lose track of the fact that we’re talking about the bill put forward by the Member for Kluane — Bill 106, Net Metering Act. Certainly, we have talked at great length about this with members such as the minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation and Economic Development and other members in the House. Hopefully the third party and the opposition can talk about this issue this afternoon. So what are the merits of this bill?
If this net metering act were passed in this House, independent of any of the consultations that we’ve done — extensive consultations that this government has done regarding the energy strategy for Yukon — as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I feel the member opposite, through this bill, will have neglected to read the energy strategy. Like the Premier said this afternoon, you can’t pick and choose which issues you want to consult on.
This government works in the process in which we have consultation. With whom do we consult? Certainly, all of these people who went to work over a long period of time to put this draft energy strategy together.
It gives me great pleasure here to be able to review that and provide some of the high points of the energy strategy over the next three and a half hours. I would like to give everybody an understanding about how this net metering act would fold in with the final draft that will be coming out in the next six months.
Like anything else, consultation takes time and it takes commitment to get it right. It has been 12 months to get it to this point and we are looking forward to the consultation process and finalizing it so we can bring it forward.
Net metering was brought up in this energy strategy for the Yukon. It’s one of many ideas that Yukoners have brought forward and that the extensive list of NGOs, governments and government departments have been working on over this period of time.
I recommend that the member opposite take some time — he will have time this summer to do an overview of the energy plan — to see how net metering would fold into that energy plan.
We can’t lose sight of the importance of independent power producers. We need to weigh the options to address the energy issues and manage energy in the territory. How can we best maximize the involvement of individual Yukoners and corporate citizens in supplying energy to the territory and how are they rewarded at the end of the day?
Certainly, this energy strategy covers many, many of those. Now, this is just a draft, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the document has to go out again and be reviewed and then, of course, be brought back to us, the government, to put out the final draft, which we’re looking forward to doing.
Certainly, this afternoon, in the next three and a half hours, we can go over, detail by detail, the net metering process. I guess, to remind members — I guess the member opposite, the Member for Kluane, seems to have knowledge about net metering and, of course, he has brought it up many, many times.
I have been working and reading about the pluses and minuses of net metering. Like everything else, we’re looking at a situation of where we get that information from. Of course, we get that information from working with and reading about other jurisdictions that have been working with net metering.
I guess another thing is — where does net metering fit in with renewable energy considerations? Could it be small or microhydro? Well, it could be. What would we do with wind energy, solar energy and biomass? Those are all things that are being worked on and, of course, in other jurisdictions. Yukoners, by the hard work they did as shown with this strategy, and we as a community, as a society, are very serious about how we move forward with this energy strategy for the territory.
If the member opposite would read the overview, he would see that the work was well done — very thorough. I’m looking forward to the input from the community on the final draft.
But if we were to look at other jurisdictions, net metering isn’t new. Obviously, by the information I have, it’s a concept that has been out there. It has been out there for quite awhile in some jurisdictions and, of course, it has been moving forward a little slower in other jurisdictions.
As far as the information I have, net metering can be very complicated and it can be very expensive to install the actual mechanism to gauge the power consumption and also the exit and intake of power.
It’s a process for reducing your electrical bill from the utility, not for selling a net amount of electricity to the grid. That in itself is very clear. It’s not a form of generating revenue for individuals — it’s for reducing your electrical bill from the utility, not for selling a net amount of electricity to the grid.
In Ontario, to become a net metering client, one must enter into a net metering connection agreement with the supplier, which is Hydro One, and get confirmation from them that all equipment is approved. This feature is standard for all utilities that offer net metering. That in itself puts a burden on the individual who wants to participate, because there is cost to all of this.
So these are issues that we have to balance. When you talk about small or microhydro, wind energy, solar energy — if you were to look at a consumer — would the consumer be better served with a net metering bill or would he be better served if he were in a solar situation with a subsidy on storage? That is a question. Would you be better off storing your energy, using your energy internally? Is that a better way of working with solar energy? Those are all questions that will come out of the discussion this afternoon.
With net metering, we’re looking at independent power producers. An independent power producer is similar to net metering. But independent power producers have constructed the electrical generated capacity to supply power to their larger business, with surplus being sold to the main grid. In other words, the net metering and IPP, if you produce more power, or if somebody were to invest — let’s bring it to a local level and I think that’s important.
If you were to bring it to investment on a hydro project that a First Nation was going to invest in — let’s say the Teslin-Tlingit were going to look at a hydro opportunity — that would make them an independent power producer and the Energy Corporation would enter into an agreement where they would buy that power — it’s independently produced. They would buy the power and, of course, that is designed around the Yukon Utilities Board setting rates and that would be an independent power contract with source.
If you had an interest in a mining operation where they were going to produce power in some fashion, whether it was hydro or some other source, and they had an excess of power that was convenient for the power grid, it would be folly for us not to participate in an independent power contract. Those are the kinds of things that we can address here today in the next three and a half hours. I think it is important that the net metering — the Member for Kluane again is talking about votes and doing this; I think it is too important an issue to bring to a vote at the moment. I think it is important for all of us — Yukon Housing Corporation, Education — because all of the individuals on this side of the House would like to talk about this concept brought forward by the Member for Kluane, understanding that we are down to our last day. Tomorrow is our last day here in the House.
In moving along and looking at the energy strategy — which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I again discussed the net metering because it is all part of the energy strategy for the territory — the overview is very important. What is the overview of the energy strategy and how does this net metering fold into that?
Again, we go back to public consultation. Net metering came out of one of the many ideas that put this extensive strategy in front of us last week; it came out of public consultation. Again, the member opposite has to agree that net metering was part of that line of thought. It is part of the Yukon’s energy strategy draft for moving next to public consultation.
We have to work with the goals, strategies, the priority actions for electricity, renewable energy, energy efficiency, conservation and oil and gas that are presented in those sectors. We have all of these issues that have impacts on our energy strategy. How do we as a government — and more so, how do we as a society — expect to have and to manage petroleum at $200 a barrel?
The members opposite — the opposition — have been very vocal on their objections or their thoughts on this government’s investment in the expansion of the power line between Carmacks and Pelly. They are very negative about the third wheel: a waste of $5 million; should have bought bikes.
That is the idea of conservation or energy management. Instead of getting ourselves off the dependency on petroleum, we would buy — I don’t know how the bikes would be handed out, but the seriousness of the day dictates that this government made some energy decisions, and we certainly appreciate the effectiveness of us, as a government or as a community, moving forward with managing our hydro.
Managing hydro — of course, we’re talking net metering, Mr. Chair, so it’s very important we talk about how some of this would work. Certainly, this government has been very aware that if we were going to have any economic development in the territory, energy is part of that. How do investors invest in the territory if, in fact, the energy is so expensive that it makes the investment moot?
The members opposite would understand that, and that’s why the Member for Kluane brought this net metering bill forward. There is in interest in how do we, in our society, handle the management of our energy.
It’s a pity because we narrowed it down to just this debate this afternoon. I know the Minister of Economic Development would like to enter into the debate on net metering and the options we have. It certainly narrows down the dialogue on the options. It minimizes the decision-making process that we’re working on with this energy strategy.
I am sure all the members will have time in the next month or so to go through the energy strategy and digest it. I recommend that all members opposite and government members participate. I remind the members that this is just a draft and it is going out for public consultation. There is a process for how you can participate in that.
We as a responsible government recommend that all Yukoners not narrow their view to just net metering. I guess, in addressing this and talking to the member opposite, the Member for Kluane, I’m not minimizing net metering; that’s not what I am doing here today. I am just putting the argument on the floor. I am sure everybody in the House will want to enter into this discussion in the next three hours so we can discuss it.
I could spend days on net metering and talk about the pros and cons, and talk about the experiences of other jurisdictions. We have done that. We have talked about this extensively and we have come to today, the second last day of the sitting, and we are discussing net metering.
Obviously the member opposite, in his request to bring this bill forward under opposition business, must think this is a very important debate.
I will talk about net metering, and we will hopefully move on and get down to other business that this House has in front of it for the next two days.
We had public consultation and extensive participation in this energy strategy for the territory, as I read into Hansard here this afternoon.
I went to a couple of the consultation projects — or workshops, I guess we would call them — and there was certainly large participation by the general public and work done by departments, NGOs and First Nations regarding the energy cost and what it costs to manage energy today.
How are we as a society going to manage not only economic development but our own homes in an economic way that is feasible? Those are all issues that we have to take into consideration.
I guess if you were to look at us today and what we have done as a government and what the Opposition will probably vote against down the road — we’ll see that when it happens — to ignore the fact that this government went out and committed itself to the energy strategy for the territory and went the route we did, with thorough consultation, we didn’t forget about outside communities and the urgency of the issue. Of course, net metering was mentioned as one of the alternatives.
I am not sure if you took net metering and actually worked on it and did an overview of it, and you had the expertise — and I’m sure nobody in this House really has the expertise to do a real breakdown on net metering — what I read in my extensive overview of net metering is a very negative process that consists of individuals getting credit for power they put on the grid; that is a credit. Then somehow there is an obligation of that individual — let’s talk about the individual in Carmacks and the individual in Watson Lake — and the metering process is a cost that has to be borne by the individual and, of course, the meter has to be read and all of these issues have to be done.
I again bring up the interesting scenario that, if you have an alternative to net metering, which is a credit for the power that you consume and that you put on the line, and if it can be done by biomass, it can be done by solar, wind energy or a small microhydro. Take solar energy, for example, which is number three on the list — that is workable.
In our community there is much participation of individuals especially out in the hinterland, who utilize solar. They utilize solar because of location, for the most part. With the cost of diesel energy and transportation — all of these costs have to be added together. You can manage a home with solar energy, if it is well managed.
If somebody in Wolf Creek, let’s say, like myself, had a solar system with net metering, and if I had this opportunity, would it not be a better investment? That’s just me as an individual living in the community. I look at net metering and say, “That’s a very cumbersome system.” First, you need a thorough inspection of your home, which is very important. Second, you have to install all the apparatus for monitoring, which can be a meter coming in and a meter going out, which is fine. Then you need to have somebody manage it. In other words, the Yukon Electrical Company would read it and balance it off.
In some jurisdictions, if you were to read further into net metering, there’s an obligation with these credits in terms of time expired. In other words, you have a 12-month window of opportunity to work with these credits. If these credits are not used, you can’t expand it into the next year. That’s one or two jurisdictions, not all of them. I’m just giving examples.
In talking about net metering and going back to an individual like myself or any one of these members in the House who might have solar, would it not be more beneficial if we as a government were to look at some kind of a partnership or program where we would work with them on storing that power? That means we need batteries and we need investments. That’s where the energy strategy comes in, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Kluane wants to talk about net metering. Well, guess what? This thing is very thick — a very interesting document and a very thorough document, because it opened my eyes to the needs of the territory and what ramifications we have for energy. Certainly, the minister responsible for Yukon Housing Corporation gave us a thorough overview of the programs they have in place. I’m sure that the member will talk on this same issue to remind people that this energy strategy is coming forward. We as a government have not neglected the fact that we have the vision to understand that, in the last three or four years in Yukon Housing Corporation — and I’m sure the member will speak to this — energy conservation was part and parcel of our decision-making.
As we speak here this afternoon and we talk, for instance, about Yukon Housing Corporation and the last six years — here’s a statistic that we should bring up because this is all about energy and energy efficiency. This government has constructed 100 new units — energy efficient units. Now, this is all part of the net metering energy strategy for the territory — all part and parcel of that. This government has done more expansion in the housing for Yukoners in the short time we’ve been here than all the other governments have done in 11 years. We are committed to making sure that the housing situation and the energy situation is handled in such a way.
The member opposite from Kluane in his speech talked about the goals and the micro and so on, and it is all very interesting — and the net metering bill, which is an odd way to approach anything, Mr. Speaker. Do we need another bill to do the right thing?
I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker. I think what we can do is manage our energy. In the discussion, in the big picture, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is limited to a very focused and narrow vision of the territory. They represent the ridings; we as government represent the Yukon. By putting Yukoners to work and bringing out this strategy, we are addressing the issues overall in the territory.
If you were to take a look at a community like Old Crow and the urgency of their energy issues, they are dependent on transportation and cost and, when they buy a litre of gas in Old Crow, there is not only the cost of buying the gas — wherever they buy it from wholesale — but also the shipping and handling. Old Crow, from an energy point of view, is very dependent on petroleum.
Those are the kinds of things the energy strategy can look at. Part of this thing, and again the net metering question, is how we as a government address the Yukon, whether it is in Old Crow, Keno City, Watson Lake, or whether we are producing the energy by diesel, hydro, solar — and net metering could be part of that. What do we do with the negativity?
I hate to be critical, Mr. Speaker, but I sit in here day in and day out and listen to the Opposition talk about the third wheel in Aishihik and what a bad idea that was. That money was resourced from the federal government, a $5-million commitment. We had to meet certain criteria so we could get that investment. This government made that commitment. The members opposite talk about buses. What did this government do? In the last two years we have bought two modern buses for the City of Whitehorse. We are contributing to the community of Whitehorse on the busing issue. We are contributing almost $1 million over a 24-month period.
In the past this government has been very receptive to ideas. We work with the City of Whitehorse and respect the fact that the City of Whitehorse is the lead. They are the ones who run and manage the buses. We contribute to that by investing in buses but the idea of transportation has always been a big concern for us as a community, and a responsibility for us. The energy strategy addresses some of those issues.
The member opposite and his net metering — if you could go through the success of this net metering process bill, it is corporations like ATCO Gas that participate. Alberta Energy emphasizes that existing legislation, regulation, inspection, certification, costing, compensation systems and taxation systems were written for larger generators and distributors.
No individual who would participate in net metering would want to have the list of regulations, inspection, certification, costing, compensation system and taxation systems involved in their decision-making process.
When I say that, I don’t minimize the net metering question. We are talking about individuals, so it has to be simple, because people like me, like everybody in this House, have other parts of their lives and things that they do on a daily basis. So anything that we put in place for the general public — the consumer — has to be doable.
Being a Yukoner and understanding the shortage of workers and understanding the need to be self-sufficient, I realize that things should be doable with very little input from other individuals.
In other words, I am not against hiring an electrician. I think it’s very important, if we are going to talk about net metering, that electricians are involved. The fact is we want to make sure that people do things responsibly, but I don’t think that putting unusual obligations on individuals solves any issues.
Also, we have to be very aware that anything we put on the backs of individuals, families, the more complicated it is, the less buy-in you have. That’s just the nature of individuals.
I could get into a program where I as a small homeowner could cut my power, for instance. I could invest in a small portable light plant. Why would I do that? I would do that because everybody should be responsible for their own energy, for a minimum of 70 hours. That’s what I am told, so I went to work. I did not do the work myself; I hired an electrician to come in and do the actual wiring, and now I have this little light plant, which will maintain the heat in my house and a few lights. It’s not something that is going to run my whole building. Those are the kinds of things that we do as responsible homeowners, but there is a cost to that.
Net metering would be another cost.
I really think that we as a society have to learn how to conserve energy. That is something that has to be done home by home. That is something we all have to be aware of.
In our workplace — the Leader of the Third Party spoke about managing power here in the building. We do the same thing upstairs on the government side. I turn lights off now. I’m very aware of lights. In my home, I’m very aware of power. We try to be as frugal as we can and still live in our home, and that’s important.
From the pages and pages of information I have on net metering — I’m looking forward to the final draft of the energy strategy to see what they come up with — I think if you were to look at it from a professional level, net metering is a lot of work for very little return.
The member opposite says I’m wrong; that’s his opinion. I appreciate any opinion, and I’m certainly looking forward to the outcome of this energy strategy and the final documentation on how this would work if, in fact, it’s one of the things that comes back to us in the final draft.
Certainly, there are discussions and arguments on both sides about net metering. I read the story about Manitoba and how they’ve been working with it over the years. They had net metering but they had very little uptake on it, so they cancelled it. Now they call it “customer owned generation”. I think what we’re looking at here is their renaming it, hoping it would come back and be more successful than the first time they brought out net metering.
I’m not going to argue the point here today because we’ve only got another two and a half hours where we can talk this issue through. I’ve had opportunities here in the last couple of years to look at net metering and to critique the number of jurisdictions. It’s interesting that the member opposite says that I’m wrong on the process — that it isn’t expensive, that it isn’t complicated, and that it does the job it is cut out to do.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we get a buy-in from Yukoners, for one thing, and that at the end of the day it does work. I don’t think we as a society want to set up net metering so it fails — any more than we want this energy strategy to fail. This energy strategy is what this government is putting out for Yukoners to take another look at so we can come back with a final draft. We are concerned about issues. We are looking at net metering. We are looking at all of it though. We’re reading up on Manitoba’s situation. Why did they cancel it? What happened in Prince Edward Island? What happened in New Brunswick? Why did it not work? In many of the states, it is all part and parcel of their policy, but there is very little uptake and why is that? Those are legitimate questions. I mean, those are Yukon questions.
I look at IPP — independent power producers — and think, “You know, that might work.” If somebody had the opportunity to have a small hydro project on their property where they could maximize the hydro off the creek and sell it to the grid, that would be strictly a business deal. At the end of the month they send you a cheque. The Utilities Board sets out a rate of return and you get your rate of return. What an investment for First Nations. What an investment for the government, Mr. Speaker. We do that; we produce power; we have the Energy Corporation and it produces all of our hydro power, except for Yukon Electrical. Yukon Electrical virtually is an IPP. Fraser, Mr. Speaker, is powered by hydro — now that’s in British Columbia, mind you — but they produce independent power and they sell it to the territorial government and to White Pass in that area. That is a small hydro operation but, Mr. Speaker, that is a business deal.
That is something you produce. The Yukon Utilities Board sets a rate of return and you pay the bill. If the Teslin Tlingit were to do something in their traditional territory that would produce hydro power or produce power in some fashion that was economical, think about the opportunities a group or government like that would have. Power is something that’s produced 24 hours a day. It produces revenue 24 hours a day. Our economy is growing.
Is it better for us to build the infrastructure, to work with partnerships, other individuals or governments and have them put the investment in the ground and we, in turn, buy the power?
I think in the rationale statements about net metering, we’re looking at too narrow a focus. I’m sure everybody here in the House is anxious to stand up and talk about it, but I think what we have to do is expand our vision. It’s too bad we narrowed it down with this bill to limit our discussion to net metering, because there is so much more in energy we could be talking about today. There are so many more opportunities in our territory.
We as a community and as a society have come together and put the energy strategy together and are moving forward with it. But as a very large group, we didn’t just look at net metering. We looked at the whole picture. We want to critique what comes back in the final draft and open the doors and opportunities for Yukoners to better understand our energy and also how we can manage our energy independence. What it boils down to is that, with all the policies in the world, all the things we do, unless we get a buy-in from the community, it’s hard to make anything work.
There is the energy strategy and the commitment this government has made to work with these groups and individuals to go out into the Yukon communities and talk about not only net metering — that is one very small part of a very large wheel — but all our energy issues. I respect all the individuals and I have to thank them. I have to thank Jackie in Energy, Mines and Resources. The work that individual did with Energy, Mines and Resources to get this thing out the door is very commendable; a very solid process and of course it reflects in this draft that we have in front of us today.
It is being received very well. We are getting very complimentary statements made about it and there are some questions about it. Again, public consultation; today the Member for Kluane wants us in this room, these individuals, to vote on something without consultation. There is no consultation in this bill. This is a group of individuals, by the way, with very little background in what we are going to vote on. We always have armchair experts in everything we do, but in fact at the end of the day, would that be a responsible way of managing our energy issues in the territory? Is that what Yukoners voted for us to do, to stand in here and vote on something without going out into the communities, especially given the urgency of this issue?
This is not something we can minimize by sitting around this House having discussions on net metering. The member opposite says it is a good idea; I read here that it is not such a good idea. The Member for Porter Creek North has another idea; the Department of Education has another idea and, at the end of the day, we vote on net metering and the loudest individual gets his way.
That is not the way this government is going to do it. This government is going to fold net metering in; not us, Heaven forbid — not the government. This was done by Yukoners, not by this government.
This government worked with that group to bring this thing forward. Net metering is a very small part of this strategy.
When I go back to what we’re going to do as individuals, I think the responsible thing to do is to move forward with our plan — Yukoners’ plan; the strategy — and give them the time they need to bring out the final draft. I went through the extensive list of participants and, of course, that didn’t shut out Yukoners. More people than that came to these workshops.
The first workshop I went to was roughly 150 to 200 individuals and it was interesting because they talked about not only net metering but all sorts of energy issues. I look at this and say to you in the House that net metering is part of this. As you go through it, you’ll see how responsible these individuals, governments and corporations are and how very effective their contributions to this draft are.
The members opposite say that it’s a good idea. We’ll just have a show of hands here, and then we’ll get net metering put into a bill, and that will take care of the energy problems in the territory.
Well, then I look at my information — pages of it. I have pages of information about net metering not working. Net metering was not working in Ontario, to the point where they had to rename it. Net metering obviously had a bad name, so they renamed it to try to jumpstart the net metering process.
What kind of burden are we going to put on individuals who want to participate in this? Anything we do in this House, or anything we do as a government or as a society, has to be doable. We can’t just sit here today, have a great discussion on net metering, and have a vote at the end of the day, not having proper understanding. First of all, with no consultation, there is no guarantee you’re going to have a buy-in because, in fact, why would you?
Secondly, where is the expertise to tell me, as the representative for Porter Creek Centre, that one of my constituents could do this?
Let’s say we get this bill passed; we rush out with it, and it becomes front page news. I short-circuit the energy strategy draft that we have in front of us today, take net metering out of it, pick a winner — that’s what we have done — and then say to one of my constituents, “Let’s go to work and see if it works. Let’s see if you can afford to do this, and find out what benefit it is to you and your family.”
I think that we look at window dressing, and this window dressing is not good enough. Yukoners want to participate in decisions like this — whether it is net metering, whether it is hydro, whether it is solar energy. They want their government or their representatives in this House to take their opinions into the decision-making process. We will consult with individuals and be serious about it, and not pick what we’ll consult on and what we won’t. This has been a very good example of total consultation on a subject that is near and dear to all Yukoners.
At the end of the day, there are not many Yukoners who are not talking about energy. They are talking about energy, their lights; they are talking about the price of filling up their vehicle; they are talking about heat; they are talking about alternative heat. How will we manage that? I’ll tell you. Yukoners are concerned — and Yukoners should be concerned — because, if you were to look ahead, and if you were to believe what is coming out, fuel could go as high as $200 a barrel.
So what are we as a community going to do to make sure that we can heat our homes, drive our vehicles and manage our energy?
In the dialogue we have had today on net metering and the many areas where it has been done — Prince Edward Island, interestingly enough, is almost totally on wind energy. I think it’s somewhere over 50 or 60 percent — don’t hold me to those percentages, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day, they have really grown into managing wind, and it reflects on their generation of power.
Yukon Energy has worked with many communities to see the value of wind and we have a very large investment on top of Haeckel Hill and that, in turn, is supplying power to the grid. I guess, in going back to net metering, it is interesting. The argument is there and the members opposite say it works. Nobody has proved to me it works, but if they say it works, it must be factual. The opposition is never not factual.
At the end of the day, how would we explain to Yukoners if we were to discuss this and go to vote and find out that what we’ve done is taken the energy strategy plan and just short-circuited it? This is what worries me: that the opposition minimizes the work that went into this energy strategy and the hard work of the individuals who worked on this. This government is going to give the energy strategy; we’re not going to pull net metering out of this consultation period or consultation obligation. We’re going to move through with the process. Part of that process, if the member opposite from Kluane had read, was net metering.
Net metering was one of the many debatable points put out by this energy strategy. All the member had to do with net metering was go to the meetings, participate and argue the point. That would minimize what we had to do in the House here today or any day. I appreciate the fact that we have one more sitting day and we have a lot of work to do in that period of time.
Of course, I’m not going to question the Opposition — this is their day on business, on the motion day and it was urgent for them to bring this forward and I appreciate that. They are very adamant that net metering — out of all the things we’ve done in our energy strategy — is the only thing, really, to come out of it that requires urgent debate here today. I look at the energy strategy and say there is so much in that, Mr. Speaker, that it would take a period of time to digest it and analyze the work that individuals did.
What are we going to do looking ahead for energy? What are the key issues? Strategy framework, electricity, renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation — a big factor because, at the end of the day, without that efficiency and conservation any community — I’m not just picking the Yukon — but all communities in Canada have to manage their energy. We’re seeing that in other jurisdictions.
This government thought it urgent and invested $15 million in tying in the grid so we can eventually manage the hydro in north and south Yukon, maximizing the individuals who are going to be large consumers of energy. It hasn’t been supported by the Opposition. When you think of Minto mines and the potential there for tonnes and tonnes of CO2 that is happening today, that will be corrected with hydro. Pelly Crossing — a small community in the territory — will be another success story as we move our hydro.
I want to go through the facts of what this government has done and not minimize the bill today on net metering. It’s a discussion we should have and it’s part and parcel of how we as a community are going to manage our energy and how we can encourage individuals to participate not only in consuming energy but on how they can get involved in producing energy. It’s not without its interests.
If you were to look at six years ago — the members opposite always talk about the past and how we should ignore the past, and justly so.
When he was in the other party, before he moved over six feet, the Member for Kluane was after me as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to have a public hearing over the energy management by the Liberal Party between Mayo and Dawson. It was a huge investment for Yukoners six years ago. The corporation is still in court trying to sort through the decisions the Liberal Party made.
They talk about individuals and whatever, but there is one thing they didn’t do in the whole equation about the decision-making to go from Mayo to Dawson — by the way, it was not a bad decision. We had a hydro project there that was under utilized and could supply the power to the Dawson City community and other communities along the route. They missed out on one thing, however. The one thing the Liberal Party did was give instructions to short-circuit the Utilities Board. The Utilities Board was not part of that decision. They did that for a reason: the Utilities Board would not have gone along with the process the Liberal Party brought forward.
The proof is in the pudding. We are looking at an expense for Yukoners that far exceeded the budget that was put in place. I remind everybody that we are still addressing that issue in court.
By the time this government arrived, the decisions that the Liberal government of the day had made had the Energy Corporation and the contractor at loggerheads, and in fact nothing was being done. We had to resurrect the actual project. There has been a lot done in our —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: On a point of order, Member for Kluane.
Mr. McRobb: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you have cautioned members on previous occasions to speak to the subject at hand. Today we are dealing with net metering. The Energy minister has wandered off into an entirely different area and I would ask that you ask him to keep his comments relevant to the subject matter of the bill.
Speaker’s ruling
Speaker: From the Chair’s perspective, I don’t believe there is a point of order. From my understanding from listening to the member on the government side, he is encompassing the whole net metering aspect within the boundaries of his conversation; however, it doesn’t hurt all members — and I thank the Member for Kluane for bringing that up — to tighten up their verbiage here, if they would.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Lang: All these decisions come out of the Yukon management of energy, and a lot of these decisions made today are only possible by the management of the corporation. I’m just bringing people up to date on what happened in the past, and now we’re talking about a whole energy strategy for the territory.
Of course, the member opposite is very adamant about net metering, and limits his conversation and limits his vision to net metering.
Net metering is not going to fix the energy situation in the territory. Net metering is just one tool that Yukoners could use if, in fact, it were to prove to be successful or doable.
The members opposite remind me — “This is a great idea. This is doable. This is the beginning of energy independence.” I certainly don’t want to minimize the Yukoners who go out and work to create energy and benefit from the energy they create.
Certainly, this afternoon, we have to compliment individuals in our community and in our territory who participate in thinking about how we as a community could better use our potential in creating energy. Geotech — all of that high tech — not so high tech any more, Mr. Speaker. If you want to talk about net metering — net metering is a thing that has been around for a very long time in other jurisdictions.
Would it have been better if we had been talking today about high tech energy components, energy potential, or about using hot water, or using earth heat, or using solar energy or hydro, or whether we should be using biomass instead of net metering, which is the thing we are talking about extensively.
The member from the third party talked about waste, garbage dumps — what are the opportunities there? There are communities that generate energy from their garbage. Now, there is something a person could discuss; there is something that is an environmental issue.
One community in British Columbia — this is just an example — put a refuse situation together with a 10-year plan. It was maxed out in three. It was a 10-year investment that in fact did not last three years. There is a potential.
I go up to the dump, whether I am in Mount Lorne or in Marsh Lake or Watson Lake, and I see that we throw away a lot of things. We eventually are going to have to be more responsible for what we use — in other words, what do we use in our homes and what do we put in our landfills?
You can’t get away without landfills, but they are an energy source. How do we address the issues like that? We get back to net metering, and the member opposite is talking about net metering.
Again, the energy strategy talks about net metering, and it’s not a negative overview; it’s another one of the opportunities that Yukoners have.
And of course we talk about biomass; we talk about all of these other things we have been talking about this afternoon. We are very much aware of the opportunities there are for independent power producers. I, as a layman, think that how net metering works seems fairly self-explanatory. To be fair, with everything I have read, I am a bit of a naysayer.
That is because at the end of the day, I put everything into a box and I say to myself, “Net metering, would it work for me? Would it work for me and what would it cost for me to do it? How cumbersome would it be for our family, as small as it is, to manage something like that?”
As we look at this and go through the net metering process in these different jurisdictions, we’ve got very few successes. We seem to have a lot of obligations on the part of consumer and seller to the hydro company to participate in this net metering process.
As I said earlier, Manitoba Hydro was one of the first jurisdictions to come out with this process. Manitoba Hydro, like us, looked at it and thought, “Boy, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do,” but when they went out into the general public, they found that individuals weren’t receptive to something that involved a large investment, very little return and was very complicated. They discontinued their program. Manitoba Hydro discontinued their program in 1989. There were only two net metering sites in the whole province. Think about that and the price of that program, Mr. Speaker. There were two individual power producers in the Province of Manitoba — a province with hundreds of thousands of people. The two producers were a one-kilowatt wind turbine and a small wood waste plant that were located at a pulpmill. It didn’t work, so they cancelled it.
If you were to look at the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board when you critique the net metering service, they had a regulation effective 2005. People wishing to become a net metered client of Nova Scotia Power must file an application — again, obligations — with their address and installation and wiring drawings of their plant. In other words, some expertise is needed to do all this to present to the hydro utility.
They must apply for a wiring permit. That is going to generate inspections and things of that nature and that is very important. I don’t want to minimize the fact that if we are going to enter into a thing like this, there would be some obligations for government — well, maybe not the government, but the energy corporation that is supplying you with the power.
Then they need a wiring permit and they need to have the installation inspected and approved prior to reaching a contract with Nova Scotia Power. You really don’t even know if you’ve got a deal with Nova Scotia. You go through the installation and wiring drawings of the plant — you must apply for a wiring permit, have their installation inspected and approved, and then you are eligible to go in front and get the blessing of Nova Scotia Power.
Who in their right mind is going to go through all that work —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Member for Mount Lorne, on a point of order.
Mr. Cardiff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention that the member opposite is violating Standing Order 19(c) by persisting in needless repetition. I believe this is the third time we have heard about wiring permits and how net metering operates in the Province of Nova Scotia.
Speaker’s ruling
Speaker: As the Chair doesn’t have the Blues in front of him to be able to verify whether or not the honourable member has or has not been repeating himself, one can only ask the honourable member, who now has the floor, to be concise and, if in fact there is repetition, to not do it.
Mr. Cardiff: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if it is appropriate or not but could I ask that the Blues be reviewed and that something come back to this Legislative Assembly on this?
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Following the advice from my very capable Table Officers, we will review the Blues; however, that will not prevent the member from carrying on with the vein of conversation he’s presenting today.
You have the floor, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Hon. Mr. Lang: Again, I’d like to remind the members in the House here, especially the Opposition, that these are examples of successes and failures in this program. So it’s not a matter of repetition. It’s a matter of there being some questions out there that I think the House should be aware of if, in fact, we’re going to vote on this at the end of the day — that members are aware of some of the success stories and failures.
Manitoba failed. I can’t say it enough. Nova Scotia is complicated. P.E.I. is reluctant to embrace it. New Brunswick has been supportive of renewable energy sources being allowed to generate electricity in a net-metered fashion but, again, it doesn’t have the individuals participating. I’m sorry if the Opposition doesn’t like to hear that, but there has to be two sides to every story.
That’s why we had the participation on the energy strategy. Maybe I shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the energy strategy, Mr. Speaker. But there’s where this debate should be. It should be out there with Yukoners putting together the final draft of the energy strategy. But today we’re going to talk about this narrow vision the Liberal Party has on how to manage the energy into the future for the Yukon. That’s what I’m pointing out.
I’m fully supportive of the public consultation that went through with this package which, by the way, talks about net metering. I believe that when this draft comes out they will have a thorough overview of net metering, and I will bet that it will be thorough, scientific, and the facts will speak for themselves. That’s what we’re talking about today.
So when the member opposite talks about net metering, you can’t ignore the fact that there has been the lack of participation in other jurisdictions. Why would we as a government and why would we as a legislature vote on something that won’t work? Or why would we sit here and discuss something without looking at both sides of it? That’s what I’m talking about today. With my review of other jurisdictions it seems again that a lot of these areas — United Kingdom, 40 states in the United States — with all of these figures that are there, why is there such a small amount of participation in the programs they have? That should be addressed.
When the Province of Manitoba has an issue where they have two individuals participating in the program — a small pulp mill and a small hydro — then I have to address the fact that if Manitoba cannot maintain a net metering program, is it a wise move for us to extract this out of the energy strategy and discuss it today with any merit? Are we serious in this House or are we living in a different world?
People in the territory, the general population, the people who participated in this consultation — and by the way will be participating in the next step in this draft process — are serious. They’re serious about the energy issue in the territory. They’re having problems at the pumps. They’re looking at the fuel bill for heating their home. They’re looking at their travel plans. All of this energy issue has ramifications on all of those things.
When we take net metering and discuss it today, we’re discussing a very small part of a very important issue. I’m not going to stand up here today in the next two-and-a-half or three hours and discuss this issue without putting some merit to it. There is merit to net metering, because guess what? I believe what they did in the energy strategy is probably close to the mark and net metering is mentioned in here.
Now this isn’t the final draft, but I appreciate the fact that they brought it forward in a timely fashion. This government is going to take a look at it and work with Yukoners on their energy strategy plan. We are serious about that, Mr. Speaker. We as a government are not going to take net metering out of the energy strategy and debate it in here and decide that that is the be-all and end-all of energy programs.
I fear for the country. This is a very small thing; net metering is a very small part of energy management. I know we can’t mention other jurisdictions that have failed, because that would not bode well for their argument, but in other jurisdictions there are successes and failures. When you weigh the success and failure of net metering, there is more failure. I have to seriously take umbrage with the members opposite