095 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.

Speaker:   I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.

Prayers

Withdrawal of written questions

Speaker:   The Chair wishes to inform the House of changes that have been made to the Order Paper. Written Question No. 3, tabled by the Leader of the Third Party, and Written Question No. 4, tabled by the Member for McIntyre-Takhini, have been removed from the Order Paper at the request of those members.

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:   We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Tributes.

TRIBUTES

In recognition of National Volunteer Week

Hon. Mr. Hart:    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a powerful force in the Yukon, a force that is reliable, dedicated and focused. I am referring, of course, to our many thousands of volunteers who are the reason that many annual projects in the territory are so successful. Volunteers come in many shapes and sizes and no one volunteer is superior to another; they all contribute to the projects they are involved with in a number of unique ways.

Les bénévoles viennent de tous les horizons et nul n’est meilleur que l’autre; tous, jeunes et moins jeunes, grands et petits, contribuent à leur façon à la réussite des projets auxquels ils se consacrent.

Volunteers are our co-workers, our friends, our children and our parents. They are the business community and organizations. They are you and me, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Yukoner who has not been a volunteer in some capacity in recent times. Some have skills that are well known, and others may be volunteering for the first time and learning the ropes. All of them are donating their time and talents to help the success of a project they feel is important.

For the good of an organization such as the Yukon Quest, the Canadian Cancer Society, sporting organizations of all kinds, the Lions Club, the Elks Club or the Kinsmen Club, or many other community events and activities, as well as large-scale events such as the Arctic Winter Games, Yukoners step up and work together to make these events successful and memorable for all involved.

Volunteers also take on important roles in virtually all of our communities as volunteer firefighters, EMS personnel, and search and rescue team members. These are extremely important roles that could mean the difference between life and death, if not for these caring individuals who give their time for the continued well-being of our community neighbours.

There is a very long list of annual activities volunteers undertake that make a fundamental difference for all of us. From the springtime highway litter clean-up to the annual music festivals, from the community celebrations to the sporting activities throughout the year, volunteers are critical to their success.

The many race events such as the Yukon River Quest race to Dawson City and the Klondike road relay are only possible because of the tremendous volunteer force.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to acknowledge the outstanding contribution Yukon volunteers make — not only to the events that they are associated with or to the allure of the territory as a tourism destination but the contributions they make to achieving a better quality of life in our communities.

On a special note, the flood that impacted the residents in the Southern Lakes region last summer demonstrated that Yukoners rally together when crisis threatens. Hundreds of volunteers contributed to protecting property in the area. Many volunteers did not know any of the property owners — that did not matter. They needed help and the call for help was answered by an army of people who showed up to fill and stack sandbags and to hold back the flood disaster. To Yukon’s many thousands of volunteers, we salute you and thank you for your selfless contributions to our communities, making them a better place to live.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell:    I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition to extend our thanks and tribute our Yukon volunteers. In 1990, the third week in April was proclaimed National Volunteer Week to pay tribute to Canadian volunteers and raise the awareness of the vital contribution that volunteers and volunteer organizations make to our society.

As Yukoners we have a tremendous tradition of volunteerism in each and every community. Through volunteering we connect with and support our fellow Yukoners on a daily basis.

Yukon volunteer contributions include serving on boards and committees of local agencies and associations, firefighting, EMS attendants, CARS operators, organizing cultural and recreational activities, mentoring peers, providing shelter and counselling services, coaching sports teams, supporting the elderly, reading to children, helping local food banks, animal shelters and numerous charity organizations, just to name a few.

These volunteers are the lifeblood of every community. They help build and strengthen the social fabric of our communities by responding to the needs that make each Yukon community unique.

They offer their time, energy, talent and experience for the benefit of others. The selfless work of the volunteer is essential work and is beyond monetary value.

They volunteer because they believe in causes, equal opportunities and safer communities. They simply aspire to make life better for others.

Our Yukon Volunteer Bureau opened its doors in April 2002. The bureau recognizes the importance of supporting volunteers and over the years has provided easy access to resources, training, consultation and support for individuals and organizations.

In recognition of volunteerism, the City of Whitehorse presents a volunteer of the year award. The recipient is selected from the names of volunteers who have been submitted for recognition by their community or organization.

This year, 29 names have been submitted. I encourage everyone to show their support of our volunteers by attending the city’s award presentation ceremony tonight at 7:00 p.m. at the Mount McIntyre Recreation Centre.

This week is our opportunity to honour and recognize the contributions that volunteers make to our way of life and, in doing so, make the Yukon a better place to live.

Thank you, volunteers. We do appreciate all that you do. Merci. Mahsi’ cho. Günilschish.

Mr. Cardiff:   I’m honoured to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to pay tribute to our volunteers in this National Volunteer Week.

As the economy forces everyone to spend more time earning a living, the number of volunteers is shrinking. It is neither wise nor sustainable. Volunteer recruitment, retention, support and recognition must be enhanced. Let’s think for a moment where we would be without volunteers.

Looking at the area of health, if we didn’t have volunteers working to raise funds for research and patient support for several serious diseases, those of us stricken with illnesses would be badly off indeed.

Yukon has a high rate of child obesity. If parents had to pay volunteer coaches for sports teams, our children’s health would be far worse off than it is. Our population is aging. If we didn’t have both senior and younger volunteers supporting recreational, informational and educational programs for our seniors, our retirement years would be very bleak indeed.

Hospice volunteers help us leave this world with dignity, counsel grieving friends and relatives, and educate us about death and dying.

We have problems with drugs and alcohol that are threatening the basic values of our society. The problems with addictions would be much harder to combat without volunteers. They work with women and children in abusive homes, counsel and support addicted people and their families, and give children and adults supportive shelter.

If we didn’t have volunteers organizing and producing the visual and performing arts, our lives would be very much less satisfying. Cross-cultural awareness would be far less.

Volunteers are needed more and more in a world where cutbacks in services seem to be the norm. I would especially like to point out the many non-governmental organizations in the Yukon that have volunteer boards with dedicated employees. Many NGO boards struggle to respond to the needs of their areas of expertise. Employees of NGOs carry out much-needed coordination, education, management of programs and the daily chores of running the services of those NGOs. They are not paid what they would receive in government programs and many leave because of this. NGO boards find the recruitment and retention of employees an ongoing problem.

A very small portion of the territorial budget is dedicated to assisting NGOs. Having NGOs staffed with volunteers is a good deal for the government. Many services that would otherwise be provided by government are being provided by less expensive organizations. Volunteers are recognized by governments with nominations and awards, but we should stress that the real support for NGOs and their volunteers comes with secure contribution agreements and a dollar sign.

In recognition of Yukon filmmakers

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I rise today on behalf of the House to pay tribute to three Yukon filmmakers whose projects have received awards nominations from both national and international film and television associations.

To begin with, I would like to recognize Alfred Tookie Mercredi, who was awarded a gold plaque at this year’s Chicago Film Festival. Mr. Mercredi gained broadcaster interest for his project Out in the Cold at the Banff World Television Festival in 2005. He attended the festival as part of a Yukon filmmaker contingent made possible through the support of the Film and Sound Commission and the Department of Economic Development.

I would also like to recognize Carole Geddes. Her live action animation series, Anash and the Legacy of the Sun-Rock, received an impressive seven nominations from the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association.

The third filmmaker I would like to honour is Mr. Werner Walcher who has joined us in the gallery today with his wife, Maria. The Motion Picture Arts & Sciences Foundation of British Columbia has nominated Mr. Walcher’s River of Life documentary with two nominations for their coveted Leo Awards. The Leo Award winners will be announced on May 23 and 24 in Vancouver. Best of luck to you on that and thank you for attending today.

I would like to close by congratulating Mr. Mercredi, Ms. Geddes and Mr. Walcher for their notable achievements. The success of these three film-makers is indicative of Yukon’s incredibly talented film industry. I’m proud to share Yukon with such a talented and motivated group of artists.

I would also like to introduce in the gallery today, joining Mr. Walcher, Barbara Dunlop, our Yukon Film and Sound Commissioner, Nancy Lewis-de Graff, the project coordinator, and Iris Merritt, the film officer for the Yukon Film and Sound Commission.

Thank you very much. Merci. Mahsi’ cho. Günilschish. Mēduh.

Speaker:      Are there any introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Hardy:   I have for tabling the following written questions to the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Speaker:   Are there any further documents for tabling?

Are there any reports of committees?

Are there any petitions?

Are there bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Nordick:    I rise today to give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Canada to:

(1) extend the federal housing programs that are due to expire on March 31, 2009;

(2) engage in discussions with the provinces and territories in order to develop a long-term housing strategy; and

THAT a copy of this motion be transmitted to the House of Commons.

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

THAT this House urges the Minister of Community Services to immediately sit down with the Association of Yukon Fire Chiefs to work out an amicable solution to the current problem of administrative overload related to complying with occupational health and safety regulations that has led to some volunteer fire chiefs threatening to resign.

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

THAT this House urges the Department of Health and Social Services, in conjunction with the Department of Community Services, to hold public information sessions in all Yukon communities about the health risks associated with not cleaning water holding tanks regularly and properly, and to make testing and cleaning available at a reasonable fee by training contracted individuals to provide this service at the community level.

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

THAT this House urges the Premier to organize and lead a delegation to Juneau involving representatives of Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, before any final decision is made designating what company or companies will be permitted to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to southern Canada, to make it clear to the Governor of Alaska and other Alaskan legislators that the Yukon people remain adamantly opposed to oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and that any future Yukon participation in an Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline does not alter Yukon’s position regarding the need to protect the critical habitat of the Porcupine caribou herd from industrial activity.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:    School busing contract

Mr. Fairclough: I have a question for the Minister of Education. It was reported on local media this morning that the bus company that operates the majority of Yukon school bus service has given notice that it’s withdrawing from its five-year contract prematurely.

I am interested in knowing if there was a performance bond in the contract and, if so, how it might be impacted by this decision to withdraw with nearly 20 percent of the contract remaining; and if there was no performance bond, why wasn’t there one? In other words, is there any penalty to the company for withdrawing early? Can the minister tell members why this is occurring at this time, and what does the department propose to do as a result?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, I’d like to assure the member opposite — and all members in here — that the safety and security of Yukon students is the Department of Education’s number one job, and that starts when our schoolchildren board the bus every day.

We have had a request from the contractor that has been delivering this service to end the contract one year early. After significant due consideration, the Department of Education has accepted that request. The contract will be ending at the end of June. In response to that, the Department of Education will be retendering the busing contract that should be going out to all interested parties in the next couple of days.

Mr. Fairclough: I notice in the recent budget that there is a considerable increase in the transportation budget for the school bus contracts. In fact, this year’s budget is five percent higher than it was in the 2007-08 budget, and 13.5 percent higher than it was in 2006-07 — of the actual expenditures of $2.6 million.

I also see that on August 21, 2007, the company that held the contract was paid more than $45,000 for CPI — the consumer price index — adjustment.

Why does this contract need to be reopened? Surely the increase and adjustments I just mentioned are compensation for well-known variables, such as higher fuel prices.

Will the department entertain bids from the same company if and when the department issues new tenders?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I want to clarify something for the member opposite. The contract is not being reopened. It is not being renegotiated. It’s being retendered. That is deemed to be the fairest thing for all contractors out there. We’ve had a request from the contractor to end the contract early.

After due consideration, the department has accepted their request to end it. We will now be going out in a very fair and competitive bidding process in order to get the best value for this school busing contract in order that we can provide safe and reliable transportation for all of our schoolchildren.

Mr. Fairclough:   That should have been in the original contract, Mr. Speaker.

To say that fuel prices have escalated lately is hardly unexpected, given the history of oil prices in the world over the past 35 years. Surely, any company entering into a contractual agreement would identify that and build it into their original bid.

As I mentioned, the company has already been given $45,000 extra to cover the increased costs. This company tendered low to ensure they got the contract. My concern is what kind of message we send to the business community. Do we say, “Tender anything at all and if it doesn’t work out, we’ll open up the contract again?”

This is no way to conduct the people’s business.

Since the minister recognizes that fuel prices are dramatically impacting Yukon, will he convince his Cabinet colleagues to give the same fiscal assistance to all Yukoners, not just one company? 

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I need to clarify for the member again that this contract is not being reopened. That would not be fair. The fairest way to address this situation, given that the contractor has made it very clear they are not willing to continue with this contract, is to simply retender the project and to —

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Sorry, Mr. Speaker. There are comments coming from the previous Education minister who I believe had a hand in this contract. So maybe there are some other points he could share with the Assembly to help enlighten us on this.

We have a situation here. We are going to deal with it fairly and openly. There will be a contract document that will be released very shortly. Our priority is the safe transportation of children. We will ensure that. We will ensure the continuation of school busing service. We will also work with our contractors to ensure that Yukon gets the best value for this. We’ll also look at ways that we can make this contract as environmentally friendly as we can.

Question re:  Fuel prices

Mr. Mitchell:    Every single Yukoner is being impacted by the ever-increasing costs of home heating fuel, gasoline and diesel fuel. Yesterday we brought this forward and asked this government to bring forth some relief for the workers, those on fixed incomes, and the many Yukon businesses that are being hard hit by these spiralling price increases, but our concerns fell on deaf ears.

This morning we heard about one company that is being singled out for special consideration. Their contract is being set aside, and they will be allowed to tender on a more lucrative arrangement. Other companies that do business with the government face rising fuel costs as well — companies that are leasing office space, if they have a gross lease or a lease with fixed triple net. But we’re not hearing that those are being retendered.

What is this government going to do to assist the many thousands of Yukoners trying to deal with their rapidly increasing fuel costs?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, the approach the member is taking is somewhat suspect with respect to a specific contract where, operationally, a department within government has listened to the contractor and made a decision according to their due diligence. So the inferences being made, frankly, have no relevance to this debate or any other debate. It’s the approach of the Official Opposition, as it has been all through this sitting and every other sitting they’ve been involved in.

But I think we have to get to some of the facts of the matter. We all recognize — at least we should — that the price of fuel at the pumps today is being dictated by the availability and access to light sweet crude oil. We know that that is ever-reducing; therefore, the costs of fuel have been impacted.

We’re not here to argue how the oil companies or the industry gets to the price as set. We’re here to do what we can to assist Yukoners — and there is a long list.

But I want to begin with the facts here in the Yukon Territory relative to the rest of Canada, and it begins with our earnings. The Yukon, frankly, has a very high hourly rate per capita, in comparison to the rest of the country — earning power here in the Yukon is almost 10 percentage points higher than in the rest of Canada.

Yesterday, I also articulated here in the House the number of tax measures this government has implemented to assist Yukoners, and that is resulting in millions of dollars being put back into Yukoners’ hands.

I look forward to further questions, because we will demonstrate as a government how inter-agency cooperation among departments is addressing this matter on multiple fronts.

Mr. Mitchell:    We’re asking very straightforward questions here. There are no inferences being made. If the Premier is imagining some, he should state them for the record.

 This is not a level playing field. We know everyone is being hit in the pocketbook, not just this one company. This government should come forward and assist all Yukoners, not just one company. Maybe if we didn’t have $36 million frozen for eight years, they could be a little more flexible.

Seniors on fixed incomes need help. Those working at low-paying jobs need help. Those who require a vehicle in their work need help. Many Yukon businesses need help. Every Yukoner needs help in facing these costs. Why is this government saying to one single company, “No problem, we’ll cut you a new deal,” but everyone else is left to fend for themselves?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   That final comment by the Leader of the Official Opposition is exactly what I’m referring to. To suggest in this House that there’s a new deal being cut for any individual company in this territory is absolute nonsense. It has no place here; it’s an irresponsible comment, and it is not in any way, shape or form consistent with the facts — and the member well knows it.

Let’s get into the taxation measures. Mr. Speaker, this government has seen, in a forward-looking manner, the need for tax breaks for Yukoners to put more money into Yukoners’ pockets, to help offset and alleviate the global challenges that are before us. Several changes have specifically targeted lower income individuals and families — revised tax brackets and improved medical expense credits provided $472,000 a year in tax savings for those families and individuals.

The Yukon energy rebate program was $150 per eligible individual for a one-time cost of over $865,000 — money put back into the pockets of Yukoners. Increased and improved tax credits: eight credits, including the pension amount and five new credits, such as the employment credit, resulted in $2.6 million of savings for Yukoners in this area. That money is back in the hands and pockets of Yukoners, helping families today.

Speaker’s statement

Speaker:   Before the honourable member asks his last question, I would just like to remind all members that criticizing each other’s policies is perfectly within the rights of each side of the House; however, please do not personalize the debate.

Mr. Mitchell:    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The facts are clear. The contract is being terminated early, and we will no doubt pay more for the same service after it has been retendered. This is about fairness. This is about helping families and Yukon businesses cope with a financial crunch. What is good for one has to be good for all.

How can we take our tax dollars and bail out one company, and yet ignore all others? What is so special about the bus company that they deserve special consideration and we’ll ignore all the other Yukon companies that are facing the same problems?

This government has money in the bank. They only gambled with a third of it. This government has the resources to help all Yukoners, not just one company. Yukoners need help and they need it now.

Will the Premier pledge here and now to do just that and to take new action to help Yukoners?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Once again this member has definitely demonstrated his party’s view of the government employee. In his comments about gambling I refer to what will be duly recorded in Hansard as “gambling” with our investments.

Secondly, the member has just stated that this decision made by the department is some sort of bailout package. It is only that member who could come to this conclusion. I have to ask this question: what is motivating this approach?

Question re:  Teacher staffing, on-call status

Mr. Hardy:   I would like to follow up on a subject I raised in debate yesterday with the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, as well as the minister responsible for Education. Unfortunately, both that minister and the Education minister ignored my questions on the subject of teachers on call. Let me try once again with the minister responsible for the Public Service Commission.

Why does the Yukon’s Public Service Commission discriminate against teachers on call and emergency firefighters by not recognizing their right to freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    That recent federal decision has just come down and we are currently reviewing that decision. We are doing an analysis on those particular subjects.

Mr. Hardy:   I’m going to spell it out a little bit for the minister. That answer wasn’t good enough. I’ve heard that many times from the other side about, “We’re looking at it. We’re looking at it.”

Meanwhile, these people year after year are — what are they considered? They’re not considered teachers under the Education Staff Relations Act. They’re not considered government employees under the Public Service Act.

Attempts by the Yukon Employees Union to represent on-call teachers hit a brick wall because the Public Service Commission won’t recognize them as employees, so they’ve already been active in that area.

Last June, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a British Columbia act contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and confirmed the collective bargaining process is part of the right of freedom of association. That’s very clear.

In light of that decision, why has the minister done nothing about the two Yukon acts I just mentioned that do not recognize the right of on-call teachers to join a union of their choice and have the benefit of free collective bargaining that is the right of all Canadians?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    I will just indicate what I said previously: we are reviewing this situation. We are reviewing the court decision. We are looking at exactly what our obligations are under that, in addition to reviewing what our obligations are under the collective agreement.

Mr. Hardy:   I think the key words that this minister just spoke are, “What our obligations are” under the collective agreement.

I think it’s very clear after years and years of saying no to these people that they know what their obligations are under the collective agreement and this is just another stall tactic.

If the Education Staff Relations Act or the Public Service Act have provisions that are unconstitutional, the government should have and could have fixed them. All the minister has to do is bring forward legislative amendments that would end this discriminatory practice, which he hasn’t done. But once again, this government has taken a position that it would rather go to court than do the right thing voluntarily.

Why should Yukon taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of a long and costly Charter challenge which may be coming when there is no need for that to happen? The Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

Now the minister has indicated that review of these two pieces of legislation is going to happen. Will he bring forward the necessary amendments that would guarantee on-call teachers and other affected workers a constitutional right of freedom of association?

Hon. Mr. Hart:             I will try to again state that we are in the process of reviewing the decision by the Supreme Court. We are also discussing this with other jurisdictions in Canada who also are affected by this decision, and we will try to ascertain what their rules of action are going to be with regard to this decision. We will be investigating that and doing our due diligence to ensure that the people of the Yukon get a good deal.

Question re:  Whitehorse Correctional Centre, rebuild budget

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report on the Department of Highways and Public Works said there were serious problems in the way the government manages its building projects. Yukon taxpayers have been on the hook for major cost overruns with the Carmacks school, the Watson Lake health care facility and the athletes village. Thankfully, this government backed out of building a bridge in Dawson, because who knows how much that project would have gone overbudget?

According to the terms of reference for the jail replacement, the price tag — the raw price — is over $32 million. Can the Minister of Highways and Public Works assure us that there is not a blank cheque for contractors building a new jail and that Yukon taxpayers will not be on the hook for huge cost overruns like we have seen on so many projects that this government has been responsible for?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    As we move into the project, it will be bid out, and those questions will be answered as we move through this program. The program will be starting this year, and it will be unfolding over the next period of time. We will be working with contractors, we will be working with bidding and hopefully, at the end of the day, our prices will come in line.

 Mr. Cardiff:   In response to the Auditor General’s criticism, the Yukon government has said that Property Management will review and establish appropriate project control points to ensure completion on schedule and on budget. The plan is that the tenders are sent out based on guaranteed maximum price for site preparation, mechanical equipment, foundation work, structural steel and other parts of the job.

The document says there will be some latitude on when the guaranteed maximum price will be determined. The budget for this project seems to be a moving target.

Section 17 of the tender document states that time is of the essence throughout the course of the project — this despite years of foot-dragging on the project. The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is they are fast-tracking the project.

How can the minister guarantee that this approach will answer the Auditor General’s concerns and fulfill the government’s claim that it will ensure jobs are done on time and on budget?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    I’d like to remind the member opposite this government is working with the Auditor General’s report on Highways and Public Works, and this government requested the overview. We are certainly working with the report and the shortcomings that report showed the government of the day.

As far as fast-tracking anything, the plans are in place; we’re moving forward with the project. One minute we’re accused of going too slow, and now we’re being accused of going too fast. So I guess the opposition will have to make their minds up whether we’re going too fast or too slow.

Mr. Cardiff:   The minister used the word “hopefully” and accurate financial accountability should be based on more than hope. The raw construction cost for the project is $32.3 million. The House leader is giving the minister advice.

The raw price does not include site work, contingencies, existing building demolition, furnishings, design and construction management fees, overhead and associated costs. Once the final design is complete and the bids come in, who knows how much Yukoners will be on the hook for. There’s bound to be a mountain of change orders.

Fast-tracking a large, complex project like the jail replacement is going to compromise the scope of the project; it’s going to cause delays in scheduling and it’s a recipe for cost overruns. This minister is not in control.

Does the minister have any clue what the final cost to Yukon taxpayers will be when this job is done?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    We’ll be taking this project one step at a time, and we are working within the parameters of the contractors and the job that’s set forth before us. For me to stand in the House and throw figures back and forth wouldn’t be appropriate.

We’re working within budgets and with the departments, which are Justice and ourselves, Property Management Agency, and going forward with the plans to build a new complex to replace the existing jail.

Question re:  Porcupine caribou herd, ANWR

Mr. Elias:   I have some questions for the Environment minister.

Yesterday the President of the United States once again called on the U.S. Congress to allow oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. President suggests drilling in the refuge as a solution to the soaring gasoline prices.

Anyone who has followed the ANWR issue knows full well that drilling in the refuge will have no effect on today’s fuel prices. The Yukon Party government needs to react to this last-ditch effort of the Bush administration that threatens the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich’in.

Can the Environment minister please inform this House what his office is doing to address this most recent threat to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   In referring to the comments made by an outgoing president, I would just offer to the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin that we should take some caution here. Those comments are highly unlikely to generate a decision, considering the dynamics of Congress.

But we will continue to do what we agreed to do with the member opposite’s government, the Government of Vuntut Gwitchin, and that is to ensure that we assist them in their efforts, and we’ll continue to do so. We’ll continue to impress upon the national government that Washington should live up to the 1987 agreement, as agreed to by both national governments, to ensure the conservation and protection of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Mr. Elias:   Well, let me tell the Premier something about his favourite Bush administration. On January 20, 2009, the world is going to be a better place.

The Yukon’s Member of Parliament is in Washington, D.C., helping to address this threat to the Porcupine caribou herd. The Premier’s Alaskan colleagues — Senator Stevens, Governor Palin, Senator Murkowski — have all spoken out in favour of President Bush’s plan to drill in ANWR. They say his plan is right on target.

For many years, the Vuntut Gwitchin, Yukoners, Canadians, our Member of Parliament, our Canadian embassy, NGOs, and past premiers have all participated in the grassroots effort to protect the Porcupine caribou herd’s calving grounds in ANWR. Survival of the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich’in culture is at stake here.

So why doesn’t this Premier stand up and join this battle? People want to know. To protect the Porcupine caribou herd, why doesn’t he join the battle?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Well, I’m not sure what battle the member is referring to, frankly. The government has been very responsible in its approach of dealing with this matter; nothing has changed. The position of Yukon is always to ensure the protection of critical habitat. I’ve even brought this forward personally with the said president the member refers to, and the importance of that. When we discuss these matters with the Alaska legislators and governors, we don’t change our position. We present the same position, always.

You know, the member opposite should recognize that his own government has asked us to follow a course of action. We agreed to follow that course of action. We will not deviate. We will support the Government of Vuntut Gwitchin in their efforts, as always. We will continue to ensure that our position is clearly articulated and we will continue to encourage the national government to ensure Washington lives up to the agreement they signed on to in 1987.

Mr. Elias:   Mr. Speaker, this is a battle for survival and this Premier is not in it. The fact of the matter is the Premier needs to use his public office to do more for this caribou issue. Let me review what the Premier has done for the Porcupine caribou herd.

He has refused to challenge Alaska on the caribou issue. He says that it is not in his purview to interfere. He refuses to go to Washington and educate for the permanent protection of the Porcupine caribou’s calving grounds. The Premier has lifted the conservation and public safety regulations on the Dempster Highway, putting the Porcupine caribou herd at further risk. The Alaska-Yukon Intergovernmental Relations Accord that the Premier signed on February 29, 2008, has no mention of the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd and the calving grounds in ANWR.

When is this Premier going to stand up and join this battle and express his government’s adamant displeasure of the United States’ position on drilling in ANWR?

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Again, I am going to have to correct the member. It is not a United States’ position, by the way, and that is why we are cautioning the member to recognize the makeup of Congress.

Secondly, his point about Alaska is wrong. His point about Washington is wrong. The issue on the Dempster was because First Nations themselves disagreed on the arrangement relative to the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. We have taken it a step further. We got First Nations to agree to work on a harvest management strategy for the herd itself in the context of conservation, and we have even discussed that matter with Alaska. By the way, the Alaskans worked very closely with the Yukon government last year to try to get a modern, updated count of the herd itself and will agree again to support and work with the Yukon on that measure.

The member is wrong on all counts. If the member is referring to this as a battle, I think the member should just sit back for a moment and consider that statement. This has been a long-standing issue on which Canada, Yukon, the Vuntut Gwitchin, and many members of Congress and the Senate have all demonstrated their position, and that is the protection of the critical habitat of the Porcupine caribou herd.

Question re:  Teacher staffing

Mr. Fairclough:   I have some questions for the Minister of Education.

Yesterday, principals in our Yukon schools got the bad news they have been dreading to hear from this government: teaching positions are being cut in our schools.

The government likes to criticize this side of the House and say we bring incorrect information to the public. Let’s look at what the minister said earlier this week, and the public can easily figure out who is giving Yukoners the straight goods.

I asked the minister to confirm that some schools are going to hear the news this week that teachers are going to be cut. He said I was wrong, simple as that. Yesterday, schools such as Golden Horn Elementary School got the bad news: they are losing a teacher.

Can the minister inform Yukoners what schools have been cut, and by how many teachers?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    We do need to set the record straight on this. We’ve discussed numerous times in this Assembly how the number of teachers has grown. We’ve discussed numerous times how the number of education assistants has grown. We’ve also discussed numerous times how the school populations have changed and how our overall school population — the number of children in our schools — has decreased from over 6,000 students a few years ago to about 5,000 students today.

Mr. Speaker, there are no staffing cuts. We are at the same targets as last year. We will have the same number of teachers in our education system next year as we have had this year — all while we expect to see further changes in the number of students in our school system.

Mr. Fairclough:   The parents I’ve spoken to are quite upset, and rightly so. There’s no need to cut teachers when this government is sitting on a $108-million surplus. The minister made a decision and teachers’ positions are on the chopping block. Golden Horn Elementary School is losing a teacher and so is Jack Hulland Elementary School. This is after the minister categorically denied that cuts are coming.

In other words, the public is wondering whether or not they have any trust left in this government.

Despite the minister’s assurance that this was not going to happen, principals are getting the bad news, and they were getting it yesterday. Now that the minister can no longer deny this is happening, will he tell the House how many positions are being cut and what schools, other than Golden Horn and Jack Hulland, are losing teachers?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    The simple answer for the member opposite is “zero.”

We will have the same number of teachers in our education system next year as we’ve had this year. We do however, recognize — we’ve discussed this in this Assembly before — there are changing population trends and some schools are seeing major increases in population. Others are seeing decreases. We’ve seen some school populations go from 220 down to about 145 students. Those are the realities in our school system. The system has to adjust. We will see additional staffing increases at the schools seeing pressure. We all have heard that some of our schools — Whitehorse Elementary, Elijah Smith, and others — are seeing growth and we do need to respond to those.

We will see the same number of teachers in our education system next year as this year.

Mr. Fairclough:   Several Yukon schools found out yesterday that there will be fewer teachers in their classrooms next year. I think the minister also repeated that — several Yukon schools. On that list are Golden Horn and Jack Hulland; there are others and the minister is refusing to name them. Can he do that?

All this week the minister has denied that cuts were coming. He said that I was wrong and incorrect. Unfortunately, the schools found out yesterday that it was the minister himself who was incorrect. This government is sitting on a $108-million surplus and we know children in our schools need the help, yet this government is cutting back on teachers. It makes no sense at all, and I’m urging the minister to change his mind. There is no need to make these cuts.

Why did the minister insist no cuts were coming when he knew all along that they were on their way? Why did he mislead this House?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    The only cuts we’ve seen in education in the last 10 years happened under the previous Liberal government. That’s the reality.

Under this government’s watch, the number of teachers in our system has grown from 452 to 473. There are 473 teachers in our system this year; there will be that many again next year.

We recognize there are changes in our community and many schools are seeing an increase in the number of teachers going there. We’re doing that to ensure there’s equity in the system, that we’re not playing favourites, that we’re responding to the needs of students all across our system.

Educating our children is one of the number one priorities of this government and we’ll continue to make huge investments. The per capita investment is over $15,000 per student and we will continue to invest in students.

Speaker:   Thank you. You’re done.

The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We’ll proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

BILLS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS

Bill No. 103: Second Reading — adjourned debate

Clerk:   Second reading, Bill No. 103, Apology Act standing in the name of Mr. Inverarity; adjourned debate, the Hon. Mr. Fentie.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   I will be as succinct and brief in my comments as possible. I think it’s clear, with the amount of public business tabled before this House this sitting, that there’s a tremendous amount of work yet to do. The Official Opposition has led the charge in their positioning that there’s so much work here that the timing issue is quite difficult for them, yet they continue to bring forward a bill that has Yukoners really questioning what it is the Official Opposition is actually trying to do.

When you consider the fact that this House has passed some major pieces of legislation, like the Workers’ Compensation Act, the Child and Family Services Act, the unanimous approach we’ve taken with Bill No. 104 to deal with a significant issue in our health care system — smoking — as another example, our unanimous decision to proceed with something that wasn’t on the Order Paper, and that was to review the human rights issues here in the territory as an Assembly — these are but a few examples.

Yet remaining are a number of other bills, including a $900-million budget. So what we as the government are doing is trying to encourage the Official Opposition to actually live up to their own positioning that there is a lot of work before us and that we should proceed in debating that and give due consideration and place a great priority on the public’s business versus some business that the Official Opposition has brought forward.

The rationale behind all of this — given the fact that there are a lot of questions relating to this particular bill, not only here but across the country, a lot more work and due diligence has to be done before this Assembly — this institution — can make any kind of an informed decision with respect to Bill No. 103, as tabled by the Member for Porter Creek South. So the government side has come to one conclusion.

The fact that the Official Opposition has once again brought this forward demonstrates that they have placed a higher priority on an apology act that has huge questions related to it nationally and here in the Yukon. They have placed that as a priority over and above education. They’ve placed that as a priority over and above health care. They have placed that as a priority over and above investing in infrastructure. They’ve placed that as a priority over and above the continuing growth of investments and in diversifying our private sector economy. They’ve placed that over and above good governance in this territory. They’ve placed that over and above the public’s business. I think it is a demonstration of how disconnected and out of touch the Official Opposition is with the Yukon of today.

The government will now stand down on this bill and when comes time to vote, we will vote against it, because at this time there is far too much important business before this House yet to be dealt with on behalf of the Yukon public.

Mr. McRobb:  I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Premier. Essentially he is saying that the time of the sitting is short and this bill is a waste of time. It doesn’t take much time to pass and deal with this bill. It is on the floor now for what I believe is the third time and, furthermore, this is the only opportunity private members in this Assembly have to try to advance legislation.

This legislation was drafted by the Official Opposition and tabled by the Member for Porter Creek South. A lot of effort went into it, and it was a productive exercise. For the Premier to say that it is a waste of time to be dealing with this bill I think deserves an apology in itself.

The need for apology legislation has been clearly set out by the Yukon’s Ombudsman — at least the previous Ombudsman, in his reports to this House. The government has ignored the call for this legislation on several occasions.

Two weeks ago we saw the Premier move to adjourn debate on the bill, and essentially that is called invoking closure on a bill. That is a shameful exercise in itself. The government of the day should at least show proper respect to legislation tabled by members on this side of the House.

Sure, they can point to the NDP smoking bill, but one look at the Order Paper identifies several other bills that have been proposed by opposition members. The Official Opposition has the majority of them. There is An Act to Amend the Cooperation in Governance Act, the Net Metering Act, the Act to Amend the Yukon Human Rights Act, and of course there is this Apology Act legislation.

The Yukon Party government has opposed each and every one of those bills. Why? Good question, Mr. Speaker. I think it boils down to the government playing politics and picking and choosing whose bills are passed through the House and whose bills are roadblocked. That’s not a very demonstrative process of collaboration and cooperation in this House.

We hear members, from time to time, calling for the need for increased cooperation and collaboration among all members. As a matter of fact, I recall that the Yukon Party’s election platform profiled that promise to Yukoners — that all members in the Assembly would work more collaboratively and cooperatively together. This latest example of how the Yukon Party is blocking this bill certainly contradicts that promise.

It wouldn’t take much time at all to deal with this bill after members are finished speaking. At this point, it could be brought into Committee. If any amendments are proposed by the government side, then we would deal with them, just like we did the smoking bill a few weeks ago.

The Premier said there is more work that needs to be done and he attacked the Official Opposition for putting the need to deal with this bill ahead of such matters as education and developing our economy and so on. That’s ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

Our priority for bringing this legislation forward was clearly in response to a call from the previous Ombudsman that the territory needed this legislation in order to remove the liability aspect from being able to apologize to any individual or groups of Yukoners on matters in the future.

I think that, having such legislation in place would make the Yukon a better place to live. It would show a greater sense of humility on the part of the Yukon government and clearly demonstrate a well-deserved respect for those who indeed require an apology from the government of the day.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, this Yukon Party government should not claim ownership for future governments. It should have an eye to the future and recognize a need to deal with this apology legislation.

Further to the Premier’s point that it’s a waste of time — what does this government intend to do? Introduce its own apology legislation at some future point? If that happens, won’t that take time? Indeed, it would, Mr. Speaker, and it might take a lot more time than it would require today to pass this quite simple bill into law. That would do so much for Yukoners and future Yukon governments with respect to apologizing when it’s required.

Again on his point of it being a waste of time, I draw the Premier’s attention to last week’s private members’ day, when we dealt with several hours of discussion on what was essentially a back-patting motion on work the government is already doing. What did that lead to? The answer is — nothing. It produced absolutely nothing in the way of substantial initiative or policy, or anything else being done by the government; it essentially was business as usual.

At least this undertaking — as presented by the Member for Porter Creek South — will lead to a constructive improvement in how the government conducts its business and to its plethora of legislation at its disposal in order to provide Yukoners with what they deserve in the future.

I would suggest that the Premier is putting politics ahead of the public’s business; there is no place for that in this House. I would suggest the bill is very honest and sincere in its intent; it responds to a demonstrated need as clearly set out in the reports of the Ombudsman.

The bill itself is very well-worded. If the government side has any difficulty with the language in the bill then, as the mover of the bill has stated, it is entitled to bring forward amendments that could be dealt with in Committee of the Whole.

But last week we saw the Yukon Party essentially hijack the motion, which stopped the debate. I felt a sense of shame because the former Ombudsman was present in the gallery during that debate. I saw his reaction to that manoeuvre and, obviously, he wasn’t very pleased.

I think it’s fair to say all members on this side of the House weren’t very pleased with how the Yukon Party government used its majority once again to defeat an initiative brought forward by opposition members of this House.

I’ll just summate with the words as mentioned: that is not working collaboratively and cooperatively with all members of this Assembly.

Thank you.

Mr. Edzerza:   I haven’t spoken to this apology bill yet and I feel it’s important that I do put some of my perspective on record with regard to an apology.

First of all, I must ask: what is an apology without sincerity being the driving force behind the apology? Sincerity is a very important aspect of being able to apologize for anything. I look at the Apology Act as being about understanding the word “respect.” Remember, honest respect is earned and does not develop from demand or command. Respect is earned.

Respect is earned and, through the eyes of the Creator, everyone is equal; everyone is important and everyone belongs. No one person is more important than the other. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the government and the Official Opposition both have shown disrespect in this House by putting motions forward on the floor that personally attack members in this House.

Why does that happen? It is very simple: lack of respect for each other.

Showing disrespect to someone is usually a basis for an apology. So people on the floor of the Legislature would have already used that act to apologize to each other and probably a lot more before the next four years is up — or three years or whatever it is.

We have to acknowledge that the individual is responsible for what they say and what they do. It is their words that end up creating the need to have to make an apology. There is a saying from First Nations that the Creator gave you two eyes, two ears and one mouth. That is so that you look twice, you listen twice and you speak once. That is a good line to follow — because, believe me, if everyone did that we would be apologizing a lot less.

I have to also say that in Question Period, quite often, I’ve been getting personal attacks from some members of government that could probably warrant apologies — being always criticized for my involvement in previous dealings when I was with the government — and it is getting kind of tiring to the point where I almost can lose respect. To date, I have kept respect by being silent. I don’t answer those questions or those criticisms. That is showing respect to the government side.

Some of the things that are mentioned I feel, quite frankly, breach caucus confidentiality. Having said that, I could answer a lot of questions and start spilling the beans about things that went on in confidence in Cabinet; however, I show respect to the government by not responding. That is very hard to do when you hear things on the floor of this Legislature that were said behind closed doors in a Cabinet caucus meeting.

I guess we all have to learn that if you don’t want to be apologizing all the time you have to take into consideration what comes out of your mouth.

It is all about respect, or the lack of, and we have to be aware of that. There is one thing in traditional territory, and I believe also the Dalai Lama speaks of this, and it is called the three Rs, which include respect for self — understanding who you are. You must learn who you are in order to respect who you are, and to make corrections to be able to feel good about yourself.

There is a respect for others, which is very critical. It is critical to have respect for other people even when you are mad at them. Sometimes you have to bite your tongue so that you don’t say something that you can’t retract. Once it is out of your mouth it becomes history, and people forget that.

In the heat of the moment, through anger or whatever, words are said that you can’t retract, and no apology would probably ever undo it. I’m one First Nation person who honestly believes, quite frankly, that an apology from anybody for what went on in the mission schools will never heal it. It won’t heal it. It’s mental abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse — an apology doesn’t really cut it to fix that.

It may be a starting point for some people. Some people can’t do without an apology. I can. I usually consider where it’s coming from.

And then there’s the responsibility for all of your actions — being responsible for what you do. I certainly hope that, if I do or if I have offended anyone, they would come and let me know so I can look at it, and I can say, “Well, there’s a difference of opinion, and maybe what I did say did offend you.” Then if I believe it did, I certainly don’t need an act to have me go and apologize to that person. I can do it without an act. And I wouldn’t do it unless I was sincere about it.

I remember my mother trying to get me to apologize all the time when I was young, and I wouldn’t do it. I never understood why, until one day I suddenly became aware of a fact: I wasn’t sorry for what I did, so why would I apologize for it? Simple logic. Being responsible for your actions takes a lot of personal discipline to be able to do that. When you’re wrong, it’s hard to admit it. And, quite often, that creates conflict. When somebody can’t admit to a mistake, they’ll dance around it. And politicians get a lot of ridicule about this very issue — always dancing around something when they’ve done wrong and finding ways to divert people’s attention somewhere else and avoid the real issue.

Respect means listening to everyone and listening until everyone has been heard and understood, which is important. Only then is there a possibility of balance and harmony and understanding each other.

So, when it comes right down to the brass tacks, you can force people to apologize but, if there’s no meaning behind it, why bother?

I do believe, though, in some instances, when someone is publicly embarrassed — like on the floor of the Legislature — there should be a public apology. I believe that the Member for Klondike may owe me a public apology for the tasteless motion that was put on the floor about me. That is something that I must thank the Speaker for removing. It is a personal attack and it’s in the public domain when it’s done — the same as others that were put to members on the opposite side from the Official Opposition. There probably should have been a public apology there.

But to keep everyone in line here, we would be apologizing steadily. Most of the time on the floor of this Legislature would be spent apologizing to people. Again, it’s all up to the individual and what they’re willing to say with regard to other people or other businesses, for example. It could be companies, associations — there are a lot of different venues where people will say things that would be destructive or distasteful to those organizations, and apologies are then in order. 

I just find it rather unfortunate in this world that we have to have legislation to make people apologize for things that are said and are hurtful to others, or that may discredit someone’s credibility.

But at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by saying that it’s all about respect and being able to conduct yourself in a proper manner. Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell:    I thank the Member for McIntyre-Takhini for his remarks.

I think what I heard the Member for McIntyre-Takhini say, when he provided the story of his mother asking him to apologize and he realized that he did not feel remorse for his actions, is that an apology made when the person doesn’t believe in it, and isn’t followed by a genuine change in behaviour, is in fact a false apology and that it would certainly have no meaning just to apologize for the sake of apologizing.

I am not going to speak very long at this point, Mr. Speaker, but there are a few points I’d like to make.

I want to thank the Member for Porter Creek South for bringing forward this legislation. I just want to note a couple of comments from his opening remarks two weeks ago: “It has the potential to make our justicesystem more responsive to the ordinary needs and instincts, and it has the potential to bring more humanity into the practice of law.”

The intent here is to “…change the mindset that an apology is a legal equivalent to an admission of guilt. With that apology comes associated liability.”

Let’s look at what has happened here. I believe we all were raised by our families to take responsibility for our actions and to apologize when our actions — whether with intent or accidentally — have hurt others. Those are basic moral lessons that we learn. I think society acted that way up until fairly recently. It is only in the past 100 or 150 years that society started to change based on more input from the lawyers and more lawsuits — we have become a more litigious society. Unfortunately, I think that may have started south of the border and it has spread to our society. Now what happens is that both individuals and governments are afraid to apologize because the apology will be seen — they believe — as an admission of guilt of a legal culpability. As a result, it will put them in a position of losing a potential legal case that could ensue, and I think that is very unfortunate.

Let’s just take a look at some of the big issues. Let’s look at South Africa. I know that when I was a teenager and young adult and, like many people, I was horrified by the policies of apartheid that had prevailed for many many years in South Africa. I remember wondering how it would ever be resolved without bloodshed. It looked like there were two forces: there was the small governing elite who were unjustly treating the huge majority of people in a very very bad way and a large disenfranchised majority who were, in effect, held hostage and led a very very terrible existence. An amazing thing happened because, in South Africa, they had the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission took the position that people would have an opportunity to come forward — people who were responsible for some of the most terrible actions in South Africa — and meet their accusers or to meet the people whom they may have perpetrated horrible actions upon. They could come together in a setting where there would not be legal consequences for what they said. People would have an opportunity to genuinely rethink their actions, understand the horrible pain they had caused others and come to a mutual understanding.

That country started to move down a healing path, and they avoided the violence and bloodshed that everyone around the world said was inevitable. They found a better way by allowing people to apologize without there being a legal consequence of that apology.

Several years ago, Canada formally apologized to the Japanese Canadians who were unjustly interred during the Second World War for no reason other than their ethnicity, their background, the country of their ancestor’s origin. There were no instances that I am aware of involving Japanese Canadians who were committing acts of treason against our country and, indeed, Japanese Canadians served with great distinction in the armed forces.

Many people previous to that were interred for no reason other than who they were, not how they had acted.

For many years governments did not acknowledge that what had been done was wrong. The reason they did not is because that would have implied a legal culpability, and they were afraid of the consequences of saying they were wrong, or the people who preceded them in government were wrong — because government has continuity — that Canadians were wrong in how they acted.

It wasn’t until Canada made the decision to actually offer financial compensation, and so they were no longer worried that that would ensue, that the apology was issued and there was an ability to start or complete the healing process. It could have happened sooner but for the fear of legal consequences.

Currently there is a process moving forward to address the terrible treatment that so many First Nation people endured in the former residential school system. Again, what has held this back for so long, until the recent compensation settlements were agreed to, was the fear of an admission of guilt and what the legal and financial consequences would be.

Well, I suspect that for most people who went through that — and their families, because it affects generation after generation — had the people responsible — be it the Canadian government, the churches, the teachers or anybody responsible for that system — come forward and genuinely apologized, it would have had a lot more meaning than the financial compensation that’s coming forward now.  The financial compensation can never, ever really undo the things that were done or, in effect, heal the people. It’s simply money; money doesn’t heal.

I think it’s very unfortunate that we’ve come to an era where, in our legal system, we equate healing with money. We say that if someone is found guilty, there will be an award of money, and the amount of money will indicate the depth of the hurt. It’s a bad path we’ve gone on for too long.

As the Member for Porter Creek South said on April 16, “An apology is an act of human compassion. Most of us have experienced the healing and empowering aspect of an apology, whether receiving an apology or giving one. Many of us have also experienced the added insult and injury when an apology is deserved, but remains forthcoming.”

This is not something we can’t do here. As the Member for Porter Creek South informed us, this legislation exists in over 35 states in the United States and in every state and territory in Australia and a number of other Canadian jurisdictions. It’s not something that’s even groundbreaking.

We were the last jurisdiction to deal with smoke-free work environments. Let’s not be the last jurisdiction to address this.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that an apology helps the healing. That’s why an apology is an integral part of every 12-step program. We apologize to those people we may have harmed by our actions.

What this bill will do is separate the act of the apology from the admission of guilt. It will allow individuals, governments and organizations to apologize when their actions may have hurt others, without fearing that it will lead to legal consequences and lawsuits. I would urge every member of this House to give it due consideration and I commend this bill to this House.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   It’s become obvious that the members on the government side wish to move on and not debate the bill that is before us today, that has been brought forward by the Member for Porter Creek South.

However, there are a few members in here who do wish to put some comments on record in regard to it. I have mixed feelings about it. Maybe I’ll just pick up where the Member for Copperbelt left off. He said something that — I’m not sure if this is what it’s meant to be — and that’s the separation of the admission of guilt.

I haven’t had a great deal of time to think about it because I just heard it a couple of minutes ago. I’m not sure if that is a good thing. My concern around that is if you apologize and the apology is sincere, there is the admission of guilt in what happened. I’m not criticizing the member on the position; I’m just trying to understand what that actually means.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Mr. Hardy:   The member has just indicated to me that it’s around being able to take an apology and using it in court to get some financial recompense from someone.

The statement, standing alone from my perspective — and I’m not going to speak on anyone else’s behalf in this — is that a sincere apology truly is an admission of guilt in what went on before, what the member caused or even the member’s associates or culture have caused to another culture. In order to be sincere there has to be that admission at some point.

There are a few things in listening to people debate today that I feel I need to comment on. The Member for Copperbelt touched on the truth and reconciliation process that was used in South Africa, and it was one that I found very interesting. I was quite inspired by the courage of the people to go through that process.

The atrocities that were committed in South Africa over so many years by a very small group of people in control against the aboriginal peoples, the first peoples in that area, were horrendous and openly done, while the rest of the world watched and knew about it. There should have been an apology from every single person who knew what was going on in South Africa to the people of South Africa. The people within South Africa who set up the truth and reconciliation hearings found a different way and an inspiring way that didn’t totally prevent the violence that followed, and was definitely not the easy way, but it was one that really tried to address a way to move forward. I remember many comments by Desmond Tutu in regard to this, as he was part of that reconciliation process.

I was very much inspired by his comments in that regard. The difference, though, if you look what they did and what just this very small Apology Act is, is quite phenomenal. This is a small step compared to what they went through because the people who committed the atrocities had to come to the hearings and face the people the atrocities were committed against, whether it was their families, themselves or their villages. It was done face to face in most cases. It was extremely difficult but it showed the human spirit in a way that we very rarely ever see.

That hasn’t happened in the States regarding slavery. That has not happened around the world in many areas where atrocities continue to happen and, as other countries, we continue to allow it to happen. That has not happened with the First Nations.

The settlement has been touched on again — and as I said, Mr. Speaker, I’m touching on what some people have said already — that is that the First Nations have agreed to, does not allow that kind of reconciliation to happen. They can’t name the people who committed the atrocities against them. They can’t face the people and hear an apology from them. What we have done is incomplete from my perspective.

The Apology Act won’t address that at that level, unfortunately. We are falling far short in so many areas.

Unfortunately, we have to find some kind of legislation to say we can apologize without taking responsibility — well, frankly, we have to take responsibility. If this is the best we can do at the present time, then so be it. I support that, because I don’t see the harm in it. It’s not what I would like to see. To me, it’s a compromise or it’s a way out in some ways, but it’s better than nothing. It’s a step forward and I just can’t understand the resistance around it in any way, shape or form.

There have been comments made about the waste of time. There were comments by the Member for Kluane who, on the one hand, criticized the government but, on the other hand, wanted them to work with him. I don’t know how that works when you criticize someone but still expect them to be quite open in moving forward on issues. I would have liked to see a little higher debate in that area.

There was a comment made about the motions. Mr. Speaker, I listened to your ruling on a motion that was brought forward, particularly, on a tendency of what was happening with our motions in the Legislative Assembly in this spring sitting. I was very concerned when I heard the first motions that were brought forward at the beginning of the sitting, and one was even debated. I’m not going to name names or point fingers here. But I felt very uncomfortable about the wording of the motion, because it seemed to be more personal than what motions are supposed to be. It set off a chain reaction. Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that is what it did. So, the next thing you know, the other party read the same type of motion that was personal — tit for tat. Then it escalated, until finally it resulted in the member bringing us, the NDP, into it by reading a motion that was extremely distasteful against one member of the NDP, which finally brought about — and I was very glad to hear and see your comments — action on your behalf, because we had to stop what was going on there. I think that everybody in the House has recognized that maybe the motions did get carried away, and they were losing their intent. I was very pleased to see that stopped, because it was serving no purpose whatsoever and was creating a tremendous amount of disharmony in the Legislative Assembly. Did we apologize for them? No, no one has apologized for them.

So now we have an apology act before us that we should be supporting. I hope people do support it. But we have to be owners of our own actions as well, and we can’t say one thing one day — we can’t take the high road one day and take the low road the next. At some point, it becomes meaningless.

The other point I would like to make — I don’t want to dwell on it, but this is what was brought up in the Legislature today and I just wanted to touch upon it, or else I would not have. The other point of an apology is the acceptance of the apology and the forgiveness. I hope we never get to the point that we have to bring a forgiveness act before the Legislative Assembly.

It’s extremely important that an apology is given when we own up to a mistake we make and we feel bad about; we can’t bring something in that demands forgiveness just because we issue an apology, and that’s not what this is intended for.

As people who want to move beyond war and conflict, apologies and forgiveness walk hand in hand, and then, how do we move forward after it has been accepted? I really would like to point out that I appreciate the motion of the Member for Porter Creek South. I thank him for it. As the Member for Copperbelt has mentioned, this is not new legislation, it has been brought in I think he said in 35 states, in Australia and numerous other areas as well as in Canada.

It shouldn’t really be that hard for us to accept in the Legislative Assembly. I thank him for bringing it forward. I think it is a small step, a good step, and one that we should be able to accept and not have this debate again — because this is not the first time this motion has been called. Frankly, I thought we would be able to get through this without too much dissension and people could speak eloquently and with hope for the future around intentions like this.

With those comments, I do hope people are able to have a free vote in here regarding this and to vote with their conscience.

Speaker:   Before we close debate does any other member wish to be heard? The Member for Porter Creek South, please.

Mr. Inverarity:   I appreciate the opportunity to speak finally on the second reading of this particular bill, and I think it is important that we bring back what the actual intent of this legislation is.

As I indicated a couple of weeks ago, this particular bill would revive the word “civil” in what we call a “civil society”.

Clearly, in listening to some of the debate this afternoon, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the purpose of this bill and how we move forward with it.

When I first started looking at apology legislation, I have to admit that I was also confused by it. Clearly, a lot of members here feel that what this is all about is standing up and saying, “I’m sorry,” and then having some limit on the liability that you have by admitting that maybe you are at fault. Clearly, that is not the intent behind this.

This is really a civil bill that goes to trying to reduce some liability so that, when you have genuine remorse for something that you may or may not even have done from a liability point of view, this puts the actual part of the apology that you may have sincerely made into a special kind of little box. It doesn’t negate your liability for what you may have done or not done but what it does do is to start an alternative dispute resolution process. I hate to bring it down to these kinds of legal discussions but, really, it is unfortunate that we have to.

What has happened over the past hundred years is that the legal profession has gone out and said that, if you apologize, then you’re admitting culpability. In fact, however, what you are doing is a basic human instinct to say, “Look, I’m really sorry. I have some compassion for you. Maybe I made a mistake or maybe I haven’t.” But if you start putting those boundaries around that compassion, then where we end up is with a breakdown in the system and people don’t feel that you have genuinely actually apologized. Therefore, they go down the legal aspect of it and start saying, “Well, if I’m not going to get any kind of conscious respect or apology or remorse from you, then I’m going to get a pound of flesh.” And that comes in the form of money.

Just for example — and this is not new, as I indicated two weeks ago. This started back in the late 1980s. In 1992, Toro — they manufacture small engines — changed their dispute resolution process from a legal one to one where, if you had a problem with the lawnmower they made, instead of sending out a lawyer, they sent out a product specialist and said, “What did our machine do? Show us. Prove to us that it cut your foot off.” And if it did, they apologized. They said, “Yes, we’re at fault.”

So, what happened? They entered into this alternative dispute resolution. And between 1992 and 2000, they originally had something like 900 product liability claims that were referred to the program. They were able to reduce that by 78 percent, and the number of claims they had was reduced from an overage of $47,000 per claim to $10,000 per claim. And that’s all because they just said, “Look, yes, we made a mistake. We’re sorry about that. How do we fix the problem? Can you help us fix the problem? And let’s move on.”

It wasn’t about the money. It was about respect; it was about responsibility; it was about remorse; and it was about reparation. Those are the things that this bill really does for the Yukon. It’s something that will benefit us all. It will benefit the government side because, when people go out and sue them — and we see it happening in the courts today — if you’re able to say, “Let’s look at an alternative dispute resolution. Let’s find a different way of doing this,” we can reduce our costs. And what’s even better is that we have individuals who are now satisfied that someone has accepted responsibility for their claims.

This is not rocket science. This is simple, basic human instinct. We need to have this piece of legislation so that we can all get back on course, because the way we’ve been doing it isn’t working.

That’s what this is about.

I’m not going to speak long. I gather from the conversations and the chitchat I’ve heard this afternoon that the bill is probably going to go a different way. It bothers me to no end. I got a phone call the other day from John Kleefeld who helped me with a lot of the research on this. He’s with the faculty of law at the University of British Columbia. He is going to be presenting this whole concept of apology legislation to the CLE BC Dispute Resolution Conference in Vancouver in May. He was hoping that the Yukon could be the third or fourth jurisdiction in Canada that might actually pass this kind of legislation and become one of the early leaders in introducing this whole new concept of alternative dispute resolution. Obviously, that probably is not going to happen, but it would be nice to see if we could do it.

I did want to bring one other point to the discussion this afternoon. It goes to a comment I made two weeks ago where the day before we started debate — and when I did my opening comments — the Ontario Legislature introduced a bill for an apology act — it  was a member from northern Ontario and they were looking forward to doing some debate in the House. The comments that I didn’t make last week were that he had the support of two different bodies — one of them was the Ontario Bar Association. They stood up and said, “We think that this kind of legislation has some merit; it should be looked at, and we support it.”

The other one — and this is probably even more significant — comes from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. They’ve adopted what they call the Uniform Apology Act.

If you recall in this sitting, we had a bill on the floor that we passed that was the Hague Convention and we had some debate around that. That particular bill probably originated through this Uniform Law Conference of Canada, where they look at this type of legislation and they say, “This is stuff that everybody in Canada should be looking at. If they haven’t got this kind of legislation, they should be supporting it and introducing it.”

They have actually got a uniform apology act. It is based on our act. It is based on the British Columbia bill, which has passed — the bill that I have before the House and the bill that has been passed in Saskatchewan. We are in conformity with the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and I think that bodes well for where we should be going with this piece of legislation.

Am I disappointed that it might not pass today? Yes, obviously I am and I will be voicing that opinion later.

However, I think it is also important to note that I see people here who clearly don’t understand where we are going with this particular legislation and that maybe it needs some more debate from the other side of the House, because clearly they think it is about something else. But it isn’t. What it is about is alternative dispute resolution; it is about reducing the cost of the legal system and it is about bringing resolution to issues at even the simplest level in our civil courts and our society. If you are able to actually stand up with a sincere heart and say to the person across from you that you have made a mistake or you have a fault, and ask, “Look, how do we resolve this issue? I want to take responsibility for it,” then we can all move forward.

There are four things that I wanted to touch on that may help clarify what makes up an apology — remorse, responsibility, resolution and reparation. Those things have to exist in an apology and if they do, then what we will see is an alternative dispute resolution and we will finally see some justice that comes out of our justice system.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think I just have one comment, or a couple of points here that I want to make. I am not going to dwell on it.

This bill, if passed — and it could be passed — will benefit all Yukoners. It would certainly benefit members opposite. Certainly, they recognize the value of forgiveness and letting go of past issues so that we can move forward in life. That is what this bill promotes; that is why this bill is so important.

In spite of the criticisms from the other party, I still hope that this bill will be supported because it benefits all Yukoners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker:   Are you prepared for the question?

Some Hon. Members:      Division.

Division

Speaker:    Division has been called.

Bells

Speaker:   Mr. Clerk, please poll the House.

Hon. Mr. Fentie:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    Disagree.

Hon. Ms. Horne:    Disagree.

Hon. Mr. Hart:    Disagree.

Mr. Nordick:    Disagree.

Mr. Mitchell:    Agree.

Mr. McRobb:   Agree.

Mr. Elias:   Agree.

Mr. Fairclough:   Agree.

Mr. Inverarity:   Agree.

Mr. Hardy:   Agree.

Mr. Cardiff:   Agree.

Mr. Edzerza:   Agree.

Clerk:   Mr. Speaker, the results are eight yea, nine nay.

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

Motion for second reading of Bill No. 103 negatived

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 245

Clerk:   Motion No. 245, standing in the name of Mr. Hardy.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Leader of the Third Party

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to impose a moratorium on any uranium exploration or development activity, including the development of roads or other infrastructure to facilitate exploration, until Yukon people have been fully informed about the environmental, social and health impacts of uranium mining, and have been properly consulted about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted in the territory.

Mr. Hardy:   Everybody in the Legislative Assembly knows that this motion has been around for a little while and that the NDP, knowing its very deep history of environmental concerns, would probably bring forward a motion like this.

I would suspect, and expect, that people are well informed about uranium mining, at least within the Legislative Assembly, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the public is well informed. The motion, as it states, is requesting a moratorium regarding the exploration and development activity around uranium and that includes development of roads and other infrastructure that facilitates exploration in regard to this, until Yukon people have been fully informed about environmental, social and health impacts of uranium mining. That is the first step.

The second part of the motion is, of course, that they have been properly consulted. This is nothing new in the sense of consultation with Yukon people. We are calling for a moratorium and we are calling for consultation as to whether we should be going ahead in this area.

Right now there is only one province that allows uranium development or mining. Why do we want to take it out to the people of the territory? It is about the democracy that is practised in many of our acts and bills in the Legislative Assembly — and we have just finished debate around the Apology Act. However, there has been a tremendous amount of debate regarding the Child and Family Services Act — five years — and it has involved hundreds of people. There has been tremendous debate and consultation regarding the Liquor Act, the Environment Act, the Economic Development Act, and the Smoke-free Places Act. All of them were significant enough to ensure that the public had the opportunity to be informed and advise the government in this area.

We also believe that uranium mining, or even exploration for uranium, needs that debate as well. We feel that the long-term consequences far outweigh the costs of the debate.

And what are those costs? Well, let’s look at uranium mining first and what uranium is really used for — nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations are, in fact, what most uranium is used for. Between the weapons and the power stations, it’s about equal amounts. And although we do know that uranium has other uses, it’s in an extremely small amount compared to those two uses.

I do know that the Member for Porter Creek North has indicated that uranium is used in radioisotopes, but a very, very small amount is used in that area. Of course, those are used in diagnosing and treating certain medical conditions. Research using nuclear reactors, sources of ionizing radiation and radioactive isotopes is a very small component of the nuclear industry. Very small amounts of uranium are needed for that.

So where is the call for more uranium? Well, about half of the uranium mined today is used to produce nuclear weapons. Most countries use uranium in nuclear weapons before they use uranium in nuclear power stations. So production of weapons, in many ways, is where the uranium is used.

They are also used in nuclear reactors. Of the 1,100 nuclear reactors operating throughout the world, only 430 of those are used to generate electricity. Uranium provides about four percent of the world’s non-renewable energy.

About 280 reactors are used for other purposes, including the development of nuclear weapons. Research reactors played an important role in the spread of nuclear weapons, and more than 400 nuclear reactors have been used in ships and submarines, many of which are now in bad states of repair, of course, in countries that can no longer afford to maintain them. We have heard some horror stories around them and the dangers they are in our world.

Depleted uranium is used for armour-piercing shells and missiles, and as ballast — if you can believe it — in yachts and aircraft.

Uranium is readily converted to finely divided radioactive uranium oxide dust during fires, such as when a plane crashes or when a missile explodes. This dust is readily inhaled and is highly carcinogenic. Something that we have to recognize is that uranium is a radioactive metal that is very hazardous to human health and the environment.

Over 85 percent of Canadian uranium is exported. In most cases, before being sent on to foreign customers, it goes to uranium enrichment plants, usually in the U.S. or the USSR. For every 700 pounds of uranium that enters the enrichment plant, less than one pound ends up in the finished product: reactor fuel. The other six pounds of uranium are discarded as waste material having no significant — at this present time, anyway — civilian use. Some of this cast-off uranium called “depleted uranium” has been regularly used by the U.S. military in the construction of nuclear weapons. In fact, it is a raw material from which weapon-grade plutonium is created in special military reactors.

Since its founding in 1952, AECL — Atomic Energy of Canada Limited — has received over $20 billion in subsidies from the federal government. It continues to receive at least another $100 million a year. According to the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, research funding has consistently been far greater for nuclear power than for all other energy options combined — that is, oil and gas, coal, hydro, energy conservation and renewable forms of energy — even though nuclear power contributes less than four percent of Canada’s delivered energy.

There is always the question of nuclear waste. Uranium mining is hazardous; there’s no question about it. In addition to the usual risks of mining, uranium miners worldwide have experienced a much higher incidence of lung cancer and other lung diseases. Several studies have also indicated an increased incidence of skin cancer, stomach cancer and kidney disease among uranium miners.

There is no scientific evidence to indicate there is any safe level of exposure to radon. Virtually all the evidence points in the opposite direction. The only prudent consumption consistent with the evidence is that any exposure to radon will cause a proportionate increase in the incidence of lung cancer. This conclusion has been echoed by every single major report on the subject since 1970.

Uranium has been recognized as a radioactive metal. As recently as 2007, the Yukon Medical Association, at their AGM, brought forward a motion and it says: “Whereas uranium is a radioactive metal that when mined poses risks of contamination of ground water, river systems, animals and humans, and whereas there is increasing uranium exploration along the Wind and Bonnet Plume rivers in Yukon, the YMA urges the Government of Yukon to review the health, environmental and social impacts of uranium mining in Yukon.”

Obviously there hasn’t been any response from the Yukon government to do it, so that is why we have the motion before us today.

Now, this motion calls for consultation and it calls for a moratorium until the consultation — full public consultation on this matter — has been dealt with. The question really is whether we allow uranium development in the territory and how important it is, really.

In British Columbia they have created a no-go zone for uranium, which confirms a moratorium that was put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province. B.C., with its need for energy and growth, has said no to uranium mining. Now if B.C. can do it with their needs, I think the Yukon can do it as well.

What area are we looking at? Well, we are looking at the Peel watershed, and there are many issues regarding the Peel watershed wilderness that need to be dealt with before we allow exploration for uranium. Regrettably, the government has already allowed the road to be put into that area, but that does not mean, or should not mean, that we would allow uranium mining or even the development or continued exploration for uranium mining.

We know the impact it would have on the environment if it gets into our water systems, our air systems. We have to be very concerned about that. One of the big concerns I have, of course — I have read just very briefly some of the facts about uranium and uranium mining — is that there really isn’t enough information out there for the public to make an informed decision. To me, it’s such a serious issue that it is one that the public should be involved in.

Just as I said earlier, the government has gone out and consulted with the public on many other acts that have come before the Legislative Assembly. This one also is of that significance, especially if we truly believe that the wilderness is important for the survival of the people culturally, socially and health-wise.

It is also recognizing that there are many opportunities in a place such as this watershed that would allow incomes to be made. But I can assure you if uranium mining and exploration is allowed in that area, those other incomes would dry up and would not be available.

Based upon those concerns, I think we need to engage the First Nations in this area, the public regarding uranium mining in the whole territory, and we need to have a really informed debate in the Legislative Assembly. Until that happens, we need a moratorium, and I would like to see that before more staking happens and before we find people doing nuisance staking, and before more roads and more exploration for uranium continues. That would be a service to the industries; they would know that there is a moratorium and, therefore, they wouldn’t be wasting their money exploring if a moratorium was coming. So it would clear some doubt about that and they could put their money to better use.

We also have to consider protecting the wilderness and biodiversity values of the watershed. That means we have to do it now, and a moratorium until proper consultation happens would do that.

I only have to think about the problems that evolved around Tombstone Park. Because a moratorium on staking wasn’t in place until the park boundaries had been established, there was a rush to stake a lot within the park areas, or the proposed park boundaries, which caused a lot of problems down the road, years after, both for the government of the day and succeeding governments that had to resolve them.

If there had been a moratorium on staking until the park boundaries had been established, many of those problems would never have materialized. We should learn from our mistakes, and I use that as an example.

But what the motion ultimately says and what is being asked here, of course, is to allow public consultation about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted in the territory. As I said, B.C. has just very, very recently shut the door on uranium projects. I’m sure the debate down there was very interesting because some companies had identified substantial uranium deposits and were looking forward to developing them. There is a reason why B.C. shut the door on that, and I think they really are around environmental, social and health impacts.

I think the Yukon also needs to go through a proper procedure to come to a conclusion on whether or not we do allow uranium mining. As I said, there is only one province in Canada that does uranium mining right now, and that’s the Province of Saskatchewan, and they’ve been doing it for many, many years.

Although there is uranium in other provinces, mining hasn’t gone ahead and it hasn’t been allowed to go ahead. There are far too many questions that need to be asked and the public needs to be engaged in this.

I am asking the House today to support a moratorium on uranium exploration or development activity, including the development of roads and other infrastructure, until people are consulted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   It gives me great pleasure to address this motion and the very important issue that it does raise. It is an important issue.

I am very pleased that the wording of the motion concentrates to a very large degree — and I quote, “…until Yukon people have been fully informed about the environmental, social and health impacts of uranium mining…” The member opposite is quite correct that the second part is really the consultation.

With those comments, I think informing people about uranium, what it is, where it occurs, what it does and how it is used, are all very much within the purview of this motion and I am very happy to address that.

One of the problems that we have globally is the production of energy. I don’t think that you need to have a PhD in statistics or demographics to understand that the world is growing, population densities are going up, there are concentrations of people within certain limited areas, there is development of cities, and the urbanization of all communities. That is true whether it is Canada, the United States, India, China or any country that we look at. People are tending to concentrate and move into more concentrated areas and they have energy needs.

While that was a very nice lifestyle even 100 years ago, living off the land becomes very difficult to maintain and will become even more difficult to maintain in the future.

We have to look at where that energy comes from and what the energy uses and the energy production of the future are going to be. Any production of energy, I would submit, will have by-products. You can’t look at the by-product of any single energy source and judge that in isolation. We have lived for many many years now in an oil or fossil fuel environment. At the gas pumps right now, we are acutely aware of how that is starting to become limited.

The use of sweet crude is more difficult now, because sweet crude is getting harder to find or harder to find economically. Exploration and development of heavy crude, of the oil sands, looking for oil in deeper areas — these are all things that will be part of this as an energy solution. However — and there is always a “however” in there, Mr. Speaker — oil, diesel and all of these things produce carbon dioxide and they produce greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, when we look at the problem of global warming and environmental change and climate strategies and everything else, everyone on every side of the House has argued that this is a big part of it, if not the biggest part of it. I think that we can agree on that, that greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide are a huge factor here.

We could look at the simplistic way, in a Yukon way and say that there is lots of wood out there, so we can burn wood. That is a reasonable approach, I think, in Porter Creek North. It is less of a reasonable approach in Riverdale where some days — on a clear day — you can see your neighbour. The smoke and greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon dioxide and particulate matter — if anyone is in that area on a good burn day and is an asthmatic, they are going to be very concerned and very aware of those by-products.

So again, there are unwanted environmental by-products of burning wood. That really extends into areas of fire-kill that we would have, or the biggest problem that we have now, and will in the future in that respect, which is the beetle-kill wood in Haines Junction and areas extending from there.

We can either get the wood in a timely fashion, a timely time, and burn it for energy, and still have smoke and greenhouse gases, or we can let it sit there and, as some would say, let nature take its course and let the wood effectively rot, which — guess what — produces the same amount of CO₂. It’s coming from the same source, so we still have problems with that as an energy use. Whether you cut it up for firewood for your home or your business, whether you chip it for cogeneration, really, no matter what you do, you are going to get the same by-products out of that.

Anything like this — any source for energy, even environmental impacts with water and hydroelectricity — I mean, we have the largest wooden fish ladder in the world, here in Whitehorse. Yet, really what you see with any kind of hydroelectric project, is it will have an effect on the environment. We mitigate that, we do everything we can to keep it at its lowest possible levels, but we still have impacts that we have to deal with.

In all of these cases, everything has a problem with it, Mr. Speaker. As I have mentioned before in this House, even water is a toxic product. There are three cases of water poisoning that I know of in medical literature: two in London, England, and one, I believe, in the United States, more recently. Water is an essential of life, but too much of it and you are going to get yourself in