099 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 — 1:00 p.m.

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

Prayers

DAILY ROUTINE

Speaker:   We will proceed with the Order Paper.

Are there any tributes?

Introductions of visitors.

Returns or documents for tabling.

Reports of committees.

Petitions.

Are there any bills to be introduced?

Are there any notices of motion?

NOTICES OF MOTION

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

THAT this House urges the Minister of Health to ensure employees and the public are informed of unsafe working conditions by publicly releasing all reports pertaining to worker health and safety in a timely fashion.

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

THAT it is the opinion of this House that:

(1) burning household garbage creates toxic pollutants that we breathe in the air, and gets in the ground and the water system;

(2) one of the toxins released in burning garbage is the dioxin TCDD, the most lethal human-made poison;

(3) there are links between the toxins released by burning household garbage and cancer, birth defects, autism, respiratory problems and other health issues;

(4) burning garbage releases greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change; and

THAT this House urges the Minister of Community Services to work with the people of Tagish and any other community where the burning of garbage is a common practice to modernize their waste management facilities immediately so that the practice of burning garbage can be ended throughout rural Yukon in the interests of protecting our environmental health.

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

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to recognize the plight of the Burmese people affected by the recent cyclone by making a generous donation of financial or other aid assistance and to consider directing such aid through the International Burmese Monks Organization as an alternative to the Canadian International Development Agency, in recognition of the fact that:

(1) the International Burmese Monks Organization accesses the grassroots network of monasteries, which are the county’s most trusted institutions;

(2) the monks are already on the front lines housing, feeding and supporting victims of the recent cyclone; and

(3) governments and international aid organizations may have to provide aid according to the rules of the military dictatorship which has, in the past, been known to withhold international aid from the people who need it the most.

I also give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Premier to indicate before the end of the current sitting of the Legislative Assembly what the government’s intentions are with regard to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement that currently exists between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and to outline his plans for public and legislative debate in the event the Yukon government decides to participate in such an agreement with any other Canadian jurisdiction.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to extend a period of public consultation on the proposed species at risk act beyond the current July 11 deadline so that Yukoners have adequate time to review the draft legislation and comment on what species should be listed as being at risk and what protection measures should be put in place.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Statements by ministers.

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:  Hamilton Boulevard extension

Mr. Mitchell:    I have some questions for the Minister of Highways and Public Works. Last night, residents of Lobird got quite a surprise around 7 p.m. A blast from the Hamilton Boulevard construction project sprayed rocks into their neighbourhood.

Some rocks were the size of shot puts; some were even larger. In one case, a rock went through the roof of one person’s home and landed on the mantle. One resident had to go to hospital. This rock weighed 1l kilograms. Apparently, there is some serious property damage. We are all thankful that no one was seriously hurt.

Can the minister explain how this was allowed to happen on this government’s construction project?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    I thank the member opposite for the question. As he stated, I think it was a very serious incident that happened last night, adjacent to the work being done on the Hamilton Boulevard extension. As he also stated, we were very happy to hear that there was no serious injury to any individual in the park. Yes, there were some damages, but we understand that the construction company has a carpenter there doing an assessment right now.

We have ceased all further demolition on the highway until we can get an independent review of the situation.

Mr. Mitchell:    Well, I’m glad the minister does take it seriously, because — I’ll file this — this is from today’s newspaper. It’s a pretty serious picture and description. It’s only good fortune that these rocks didn’t hit anybody.

Now, I’ve already been receiving phone calls this morning from angry and scared constituents. We’ve also been told that this is not the first time this has happened. Previously, rocks apparently struck another home in Lobird, but fortunately those residents were not at home.

I understand that the blasting permit on the project has been suspended and that a stop-work order has been issued with regard to the blasting. But can the minister now give us his assurance that this dangerous activity will not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    As I stated, we had a consultation with the engineering firm, as well as the contracting firm this morning. We are going out to get an independent assessment by an independent third party to review the procedures that are handled here. As I stated, no further blasting will take place until that review is here.

In addition, we understand the trauma that is involved with many of the residents up there. I have instructed my staff in Community Services to go up and visit with those people to assure them of the processes that we are going through and to ensure that the situation doesn’t happen again.

Again, I will reiterate that we are getting a professional firm from Vancouver to come up and do an assessment and give us an appropriate review. That is at the request of the current engineering firm that is operating that facility. We anticipate that it will give us the assurance, once that report is in, and we will have a public meeting with those involved in the Lobird Trailer Park to apprise them of the results of that report.

Mr. Mitchell:    It looks like he is making a good start, although it is after the fact.

Now, residents in the area are very concerned, because they were told that in this case, covering was not used because the blasting company felt that they were far enough away. Residents need to be personally assured. The minister has indicated he will talk to the people who were affected. I’m hoping the department will talk to every resident of Lobird. They’re very concerned.

One of the questions they also want to know is: who will be held liable? Who is responsible for covering the damages? Who is responsible for covering any expenses related to health care that may not be covered in terms of our regular health care coverage? Is the government going to make it clear? Will the government be assuming all responsibility for damages to homes as well as people’s injuries? That’s what people want to know.

Will the minister give his assurances that in the future there will be more concern paid to the safety on these sites when these types of projects are going on?

Hon. Mr. Hart:    I don’t know how much more I can explain to the member opposite about what we are doing. We are in the process of hiring an independent expert to do an assessment of the situation and provide us an independent review of the procedures that were provided by the contractor. That contractor will have to abide by the recommendations from that review.

In addition, we will be taking the results of that review to the members of Lobird Trailer Park and, as I also stated earlier, we will be out visiting those people in Lobird Trailer Park to check with them, advise them of what we are doing, advise them when this report is going to come out, and also to deal with any situations they may have as a result of this incident.

Question re:  Teacher staffing

Mr. Fairclough:   I have a question for the Minister of Education.

The Golden Horn Elementary School Council feels very disappointed and betrayed. They recently met with the Minister of Education concerning a cut to their teaching staff. The minister assured them that no cuts were being made. Two weeks later, the school principal was informed by department officials that they will in fact be cutting one full-time position.

This is no way for a minister of the Crown to deal with parents or school councillors, or even Yukoners. The council feels the minister is playing a political game. They ask that the command and control policy be removed and that a truly inclusive, bottom-up-driven system be put in place.

Will the minister honour his word and reinstate the teaching position?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, as we have discussed in this Assembly numerous times, the number of students in the Yukon school system has decreased dramatically in recent years. At the same time, the number of teachers has increased. The number of education assistants in our system has increased. This government places a very high priority on education. It is vital to the continuance of our community and to the well-being of all Yukoners.

There has been no reduction in the number of teachers in Yukon’s education system. We have the same number of teachers that we have had in past years. That number has grown in recent years, despite the declining enrolment. We also have seen a shift in demographics and where kids are going to school. There have been significant increases in some schools, and there have been decreases in some where the population has declined a significant amount.

To keep things in context, in 1997, we saw about a 19:1 student/teacher ratio at Golden Horn Elementary School. Next year, with their projected staffing allotment, we will still see about an 11:1 student/teacher ratio. This is among the best ratios in Canada.

Mr. Fairclough:   Well, the minister sounds good, but he avoided the question. Will he honour his word, which he gave to the school council?

Now, the school council requested the new subdivision of Whitehorse Copper be included in the catchment area, not in Elijah Smith Elementary’s, which is already over capacity. With the influx of new families expected to start within a year, Golden Horn’s student population will go up, thus removing the case for a cut. The minister has chosen to cut first and then realign later, which is completely backward. You determine your student base first, then you determine staffing needs — not the other way around.

Will the minister now restore some good faith with the school council, listen to their concerns and restore the teacher?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    The Department of Education, on an annual basis — that is, every year — does an assessment of school populations. They do an assessment of the demographics in the school, and they do an assessment of the teacher needs. Decisions are made every year by the Department of Education as to the allocation of teachers.

This is done to ensure fairness and equity in our educational system. We can’t treat one school differently from another. And I certainly don’t want to hear the members opposite asking me to provide special treatment to one school in particular, because that’s simply not fair.

Mr. Speaker, my role as Minister of Education is to ensure that Yukon students have the opportunities they need to succeed and to ensure that we have fairness and equity in our educational system.

Mr. Fairclough:   The minister is refusing to honour his word to the council. That’s what he’s saying.

The minister doesn’t understand the importance of a minister being forthright with the people he serves. You cannot meet with people and say one thing, knowing very well that you will do the opposite. Now, the council members of Golden Horn recognize that. They know when they’re being sold a bill of goods. They don’t deserve that from the minister. One can lose credibility very quickly, but it takes years to get it back.

The minister would be off to a good start if he simply said, “I will stand by my word. The teaching cut will be rescinded.” So, I’ll ask the minister again — he has a last chance here: will the minister stand by his word and not cut any staff positions to Golden Horn Elementary? Or, are the school council members right in their opinion of the minister?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, I will stand by my word and by the commitment of this government. There will be no cuts to the number of teachers in Yukon’s education system.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking me to provide special treatment for one school over another. I cannot and will not do that. My responsibility is to all Yukon students throughout our system, and to ensure that we have fairness and equity.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education recognizes this; school populations are assessed on an annual basis; this is done in conjunction with the school growth plans that involve school councils, school administrators, the superintendents, the assistant deputy minister — they all get involved on this and make decisions about the allocations of teachers throughout our school system.

The member opposite is saying it’s the superintendents who are involved. The superintendents indeed do make the decision about the allocations of teachers. It is not a ministerial responsibility — nor should it be — to pick and choose which teacher goes to what school, and to do so just does not create a fair and equitable system.

Question re:  Teacher staffing

Mr. Cardiff:   Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a meeting of the Golden Horn Elementary School Council and it was well attended by parents and others, and some of the people at the meeting noted that it was unfortunate that there were no other MLAs there. Since the minister was not there, I am going to give him the benefit of my attendance.

One of the major issues, one of the concerns that the school council has, is that the minister made a commitment that their concerns would be taken into consideration and that there would be parental involvement before there was a reduction in the FTEs at the school, and that did not happen.

Why did the minister not involve parents of Golden Horn school in the decision before that decision was made to cut the number of FTEs at Golden Horn school? He did not do it.

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Mr. Speaker, each year the Department of Education does an assessment of school populations and school needs. The Department of Education then allocates teachers accordingly. We have seen a significant decrease in the number of students throughout our education system. Indeed it has lost almost 1,000 students in the last 10 years. At the same time, we have seen an increase in the number of teachers in our system.

Also, we have seen an increase in population. There have been changes and shifts that have put additional pressures on other schools. We have had some schools’ populations go up and others’ populations go down. The Department of Education has to recognize this and respond to these issues and make decisions about the allocation of teachers.

I have received numerous comments, e-mails and letters from parents and constituents who are affected by this. They were all provided to the Department of Education and they were included in the analysis. The member opposite is shaking his head but, Mr. Speaker, the information goes in, it is listened to, and even when there are tough decisions that have to be made, tough decisions get made. We have a reality that we have to live with, and we will continue to provide our best efforts to ensure quality education for all Yukoners.

Mr. Cardiff:   Well, the minister didn’t answer the question, but now he has two questions to answer.

We know there have been cuts in the number of teachers in several schools, and the minister prefers to call them merely “realignments”. Earlier the minister said there have been no overall cuts to the number of teachers in Whitehorse or in the Yukon. What we haven’t heard from the minister — this is going to be another hard question for the minister to answer; nobody has asked this question yet — is what schools have gained from the realignment? Can the minister tell us which schools in Whitehorse or in the Yukon will actually be getting more teachers in the next year, and how many of those new positions will be going to each school?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    There we have the other half of the equation. The member opposite recognizes that there have been no cuts to the number of teachers — that there has been a reallocation — and we’re going to see increases of teachers at other schools.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it’s not the responsibility of the minister to interfere with these decisions about teacher allocations, but to ensure we have equity in our system and a fairness to our system. I don’t have the information at my fingertips that the member opposite is looking for, but I will endeavour to provide him with a list of where the increases are happening. We’ve seen a transfer of schools where there has been a significant decline in population.

We’re going to take efforts to ensure that all schools have the appropriate level of planning, that all schools are vibrant places of learning and education. We’re going to continue to support schools with programs like Reading Recovery, with Wilson Reading, with experiential dollars, with cultural dollars, to ensure there’s vibrancy in all our Yukon schools. We’ll continue to work with the school councils and the school growth plans to ensure that the community voice is reflected in the school and in the school’s environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cardiff:   I can’t believe — after answering questions from the Member for Mayo-Tatchun for as many days as he has — that the minister doesn’t have that information at his fingertips. Obviously it doesn’t exist; there have been cuts.

Last night there was another promise made to Golden Horn parents. The assistant deputy minister of public schools told them that if the numbers warranted it in the future — if the enrolments increased over the summer — that lost teaching position would be reinstated. This would happen whether the number of students came from the catchment area changing — and it was confirmed last night that the catchment area would be changing — or from a natural increase in the school population.

Can the minister tell us what number of students is needed to reinstate that position that has been cut, and will he confirm that that promise that was made by his senior official last night will be kept?

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the argument that is in play here. When school populations go up, they require additional teachers. There is no magic number. There is an issue of how many kids there are to a classroom. There are issues of different demographics. There are issues of different class sizes. There are issues of different decisions that school administrators make as to the allocation of teachers. The school administrator, with the input of the school council, can make the decision to say they would like to have a teacher perform this function, but they would also like to include a full-time music teacher; they’ll make a split grade here and add someone else who can focus on gym; or they’ll do a combination class here and allow another teacher to perform another function. That’s where the flexibility is in our system. That is how we involve the school administrators and the school councils in the system. That is how we are continuing to be responsive to the needs of our schools and our changing communities.

Mr. Speaker, yes, I expect that we’ll see growth and changes in our schools. Those will be responded to, just as we’re responding to the needs of other schools in our system.

Question re:  Liquor Act amendments

Mr. Hardy:   My question is for the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation and, of course, drinking in the territory.

This territory is chronically at the top of the Canadian list when it comes to per capita sales of alcohol. Recent crime statistics also show that our rates of sexual assault, spousal assault, drunk driving and other crimes directly related to alcohol abuse are three to five times those elsewhere in Canada. No matter how the minister attempts to spin the math, there is a direct relationship between these two situations.

Given the appalling toll that alcohol abuse continues to take on Yukon people, why is this minister sponsoring a bill that will make booze even more readily available in the territory?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I am the minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation. I am, however, not responsible for drinking in the territory, as he puts it. Perhaps he is meaning to ask his question of another minister.

The bill that’s put forward modernizes the Liquor Act, which was done in the mid-1970s. It also strengthens enforcement through increasing fines and penalties and comes out of a very long and very good consultation done in 2000 by the Liquor Act Review Committee, or LARC, which conducted a full public review of the act and regulations.

The act was very carefully looked at by a very wide number of Yukoners. They examined this and made — we thought — very good recommendations, many of which we were able to deal with strictly with regulations and some we’ve had to approach in a different manner. But we’re very pleased with the proposal, and the increase in fines and penalties for the misuse of alcohol is certainly something I hope the member opposite has noticed.

Mr. Hardy:   Okay, Mr. Speaker, this minister is not responsible for drinking. Of course, he’s responsible for the selling of alcohol. Now, there is something very, very wrong with this picture, though.

Yukon is about to build a new jail that will cost at least — at the absolute minimum — $32 million, when alcohol and substance abuse are two of the main reasons we need a jail in the first place. We spend millions of dollars a year dealing with alcohol and drug abuse and aren’t coming anywhere near to addressing the real needs.

Let me quote one of the findings from the final report of the corrections consultation in March 2006: “Overall, the issues that received the most attention and were most intensely discussed were alcohol and drug abuse and after-care, follow-up and support.” The question: why is the minister making liberalization of the liquor laws a priority, when it is so obvious that we need to do more — much more — to prevent alcohol abuse and to treat the devastation that it’s causing in our society?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   The member opposite seems to have missed the part of the bill that proposes to increase the maximum period from 12 hours to 24 hours that the RCMP can hold intoxicated individuals. This provision corrects a long-standing concern that individuals were being released even though they were still under the influence of alcohol.

We are also proposing significant increases to the fines and penalties as a way of deterring infractions of the act. During the Liquor Act Review Committee consultations, Yukoners made it clear to the committee that they wanted an increase in these fines and penalties, especially for those convicted of bootlegging and selling alcohol to minors. These fines and penalties are established in the bill as well as proposed changes to fines found in the summary convictions regulations.

We have looked at all of these things, and we have made sure that the substance abuse action plan and safer communities neighbourhoods legislation were in place before addressing this very important issue.

Mr. Hardy:   This minister is increasing access to alcohol for all ages from diapers all the way to the old folks homes. There is no limit, the way this guy is going. This government has its priorities wrong. We need to wake up as a society.

Some Hon. Member:   (Inaudible)

Point of order

Speaker:   The minister responsible for the Liquor Corporation, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   I believe an accusation of selling alcohol to those in diapers must violate some part of our Standing Orders, if not sanity.

Speaker:   The honourable member has a point.

The Leader of the Third Party, on the point of order.

Mr. Hardy:   I believe questioning someone’s sanity in the Legislative Assembly also is a point of order.

Speaker’s ruling

Speaker:   I think that happened on both sides. From the Chair’s perspective there is a point of order on both sides. Gentlemen, carry on in a civilized debate.

Mr. Hardy:   Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I love this place sometimes.

At the very best, we are doing a half-hearted job dealing with the effects of alcohol and substance abuse. When it comes to addressing the root causes of why people turn to alcohol and drugs, we are failing miserably. It is time this government acts with conscience and gets its priorities straight.

The question: will the minister withdraw the proposed amendments to the Liquor Act that would make booze more available until there is clear proof that we are making progress to reduce the harmful effects of alcohol dependence on Yukoners and their families?

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   For the member opposite, the act we are amending was done in the mid-1970s and was in place all through governments of all political stripes, including the New Democratic Party. If the member opposite feels so strongly, why did his party do absolutely nothing to address this issue during their tenure in government? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, why did the member opposite vote for this bill in second reading?

Question re:  Whitehorse Copper subdivision

Mr. McRobb:   I have some questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the Whitehorse Copper subdivision. Back in December, I asked him about the surveying problem, and he said: “There is an urgent need to get the final survey done. We are working on it as we speak.” I asked him again in April. The minister said: “…we certainly are getting the titles and the surveys cleared up as quickly as we can…”

However, it’s now into the month of May and the government still hasn’t even accepted a bid to resurvey the properties and has even more problems, according to this morning’s news broadcast. Apparently, the government cannot decide how to deal with the bids on a tender to resurvey the subdivision.

Can the minister at least explain the actual problem with the surveys and why the lots have to be resurveyed?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    In reply to the member opposite, there was an issue with the contractor. Those issues have been addressed and we are moving forward with expanding the survey to get the whole project done in a very prompt fashion.

Mr. McRobb:   Apparently, the government has given the go-ahead to start building on these lots before proper surveys are even completed. This raises several questions. Perhaps the minister, when he is on his feet, can explain how a building can start on a lot when its boundaries are uncertain, and how would this affect the lot owner after the survey is completed, which may affect the proximity of the home in relation to the lot boundary.

Mistakes, such as having to retender for the surveying of the lots, will create an obvious added cost to the development of this subdivision. The minister plans to simply add these costs on to the original expense to survey the lots. Then there are also the costs and worries to people who have bought lots at Whitehorse Copper and are still awaiting title transfer.

Will the minister provide us with the actual extra cost that will be associated with this mess and confirm whether he plans to simply pass them on to the public?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    The member is wrong regarding his comments here this afternoon. The survey question on the lots that the member is speaking about has been resolved; titles are being issued on those lots and that process is in place today. We are working internally to get the next phase out and have all of the surveying done very quickly, and we are looking at probably July or August 1 to have it all behind us.

Question re:  Dawson City health centre

Mr. Mitchell:    I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services about the phantom health centres in Dawson and Watson Lake.

In 2005, the Yukon Party promised residents of Dawson a new health centre. In 2008, residents are still waiting for the minister to live up to that promise. Just like residents are still waiting for the minister to live up to his commitment to raise social assistance rates, hire new nurses for Copper Ridge Place and open the Thomson Centre. All of these promises made and not one lived up to yet.

The minister’s predecessor spent a great deal of money on the new facility in Dawson. The plan he came up with was soundly rejected by residents. As the minister admitted yesterday, he has gone back to the drawing board and started the entire process all over again.

Can the minister tell Yukoners how much money has been spent on this project to date, including the money wasted by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   First of all, again we have the situation where the Leader of the Official Opposition’s question — his statement — is absolutely riddled with inaccuracies. For me to stand here and correct the member would take far more time than I have in a response, or any other response. In fact, it would probably take me about half an hour to begin to cover a short list of the member’s inaccuracies within his statements in this week alone.

However, let me point out: with regard to the facility in Dawson City, as I indicated during our debate on the department budget yesterday, there will be work. The project will be moving forward and, at the end of the day, we will have a facility that meets the needs of the residents of Dawson City and the Klondike area and is of strong benefit to them and to all Yukon citizens in moving forward in addressing their needs now and into the future.

Mr. Mitchell:    If the minister hadn’t spent his 90 seconds chastising this side of the House, he might have answered the question with a number.

Now we know a substantial amount of money has gone into the new health centre in Dawson. We want to know what the number is. A full schematic plan was done, for example, and that costs money. The plan was shown to Dawson residents, who soundly rejected it. The minister himself admitted yesterday in general debate that the government had to start over and the previous work was a waste. We also know that $20,000 was spent last year restarting the entire process.

Yesterday in debate the minister was very reluctant to tell Yukoners how much has been spent to date and he still hasn’t done so. It’s a straightforward question. How much money has been spent on the Dawson health centre since 2005?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Again, Mr. Speaker, we have the rather interesting, to put it mildly, reflections and characterizations being made by the Leader of the Official Opposition. As I indicated in debate yesterday on the budget, the numbers that I have — as far as the development of the health care facilities in Dawson City — are the amounts spent in the last fiscal year and projected for this current fiscal year. I did not have the numbers from prior years. I did commit to getting back to the member later by letter with those numbers and I will do so. I do not have those numbers here in front of me today.

Again, for the member to suggest that it was wasted — that consultations and discussions with the residents of Dawson City and the development of a plan that turned out not to meet their needs is a waste — is inaccurate. It provides us information on how the facility needs to be changed, because feedback was heard at that stage.

As I indicated previously, work will commence over this coming year. The MLA for Klondike and I and departmental officials will be sitting down with doctors and nurses in Dawson City, as well as with the residents, to talk about the plan and vision for the development of a facility, as well as to seek their input on some of the details of the design. I look forward to that and to the date when we have a new facility in place for the residents of Dawson City.

Mr. Mitchell:    Well, it’s the minister who is characterizing it as wasted when he suggests that it needs a do-over and that the money previously spent by his government doesn’t count.

Another reason why the Dawson health centre has been delayed is because the minister has been very busy going overbudget on the new facility that is being built in the Premier’s riding. Getting that building started was a higher priority, for some reason. I know we all know why.

The minister has taken a $5-million project and turned it into an $11-million project. Even the Auditor General of Canada has criticized the way the Health minister handled this project. Of course, that’s just her opinion. While costs have continued to rise under this minister’s less-than-watchful eye, he has refused to put a final figure on the project. It is now over $11 million, which is more than double its original budget. Is this the final cost, or can Yukoners expect to pay even more for this facility?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Here we go again. The Leader of the Official Opposition once again takes the lead, I might add, from the Member for Kluane, and is inaccurately reflecting a report made by the Auditor General regarding the Property Management Agency of Highways and Public Works. He referred very briefly to the details regarding that facility, prior to its transfer to the authority of the Department of Health and Social Services.

So, for the member to suggest it reflects on Health or on this minister — it is appalling that the member would not recognize that that statement is not accurate and would not correct his comments accordingly. However, again I remind the member opposite that the facility in Watson Lake’s footprint, contrary to his repeated assertions that it changed significantly in size, was significantly increased as a result of listening to the people of Watson Lake. The structure of that project allowed that change; therefore, for him to suggest that costs have ballooned is not accurate. The facility is much larger than originally conceived and that is from listening to the public.

We listen to the public, but the member never fails to criticize us when we do listen to the public, as we have done in Watson Lake and as we will do in Dawson City as we design and construct a health care facility for them.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

Motion No. 441

Clerk:   Motion No. 441, standing in the name of Mr. Nordick.

Speaker:   It is moved by the Member for Klondike

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut to lobby the Government of Canada to remove the GST on home heating fuel and power-generation north of 60 degrees.

Mr. Nordick:    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion today. This motion urges the Government of Yukon to work with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut to lobby the Government of Canada to remove the GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60 degrees.

Life north of 60 degrees is different from life in southern Canada. We have longer, colder and darker winters. As all of us are aware, this causes an unfair and increased burden to all Yukoners and the citizens of our sister territories.

This translates to an increased burden on our families. A decrease of five percent on our GST would greatly help offset the higher than normal cost of living experienced by residents north of 60. The cost of heating fuel in Dawson is approximately $1.35 a litre before GST. With GST, this translates to almost seven cents a litre.

For example, let’s consider a single-parent family. This family could have a yearly fuel bill of $2,400, and I’m using a low number in this discussion. This would mean it would cost the family over $120 for GST per year.

Now, with the electricity, I will once again use a low number for this discussion. Approximately $1,100 a year would be spent by an average family. The GST would cost $55. So a single-parent family could be paying over $175 a year, just on GST. This could be used for food, clothing and many more things that would benefit the families.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this territory pay approximately $2 million a year for GST, just for power. As you can see, the elimination of GST on power would save the Yukon people $2 million a year, which would go a long way for food, clothing and many other challenges for life north of 60.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to home heating fuel in my community of Dawson City. I will use a conservative number of three million litres per year in heating fuel alone in Dawson City. That is to say that over three million litres of heating fuel is used per year in the community of Dawson City. This translates into over $200,000 a year paid in GST for heating fuel in my community alone. I do not have to explain how the citizens of Dawson could benefit from an additional $200,000 to invest in their families.

For most of us here and elsewhere in the Yukon, our homes are our biggest asset. A major component in maintaining our homes is the cost of heating and providing electricity to them.

Statistics from the Yukon Bureau of Statistics show that household operating costs have risen from $581 in 1972 to $3,075 in the year 2005. Mr. Speaker, 2005 was the last year for which statistics are provided.

Many homes in the Yukon are heated with oil-burning furnaces. This is different from south of 60. I do not have to remind the people who live here in the Yukon and our sister territories, but for everyone else who is listening to this debate or may read it later in Hansard, Dawson City, for example, gets colder than minus 50 degrees Celsius. This does not happen in places like Vancouver. That is one reason why north of 60 is a more expensive place to live.

We all know that fuel prices are going to continue to increase. For example, the price of a barrel of oil has risen to $122 a barrel. We also know that the cost of heating fuel is significantly higher in the communities than here in Whitehorse, and Whitehorse is significantly higher than the rest of southern Canada. Many communities have their electricity produced from diesel generation. Because of the equalization formula across the territory, all electricity users within the territory feel the pain from that.

This government has implemented many initiatives to improve the lives of Yukon citizens. I will list a few of the many initiatives our government is currently providing to offset the costs of rising fuel prices and the overall expense of living in the Yukon. I know my colleagues will go into more detail on the initiatives that this Yukon Party government is doing in their respective departments.

Mr. Speaker, we have increased the number of affordable housing units. We have increased social assistance rates, and we have increased the pioneer utility grant. With regard to the Yukon Housing Corporation, there are six new programming initiatives currently being implemented. The first is zero-percent interest rates for the home repair program, home repair enhancement programs and energy efficient items. Eligible HRP clients will be able to access up to $35,000 in financing, amortized over 12 years, to repair their homes at a zero-percent interest rate. With the second program — alternative energy systems under the residential energy management program — eligible clients can access financing up to $30,000, amortized over 25 years.

This interest rate is also at zero percent for the first 10 years.

Home energy evaluations — homeowners can access a grant up to $400 for energy evaluations performed on their homes.

Mr. Speaker, the fourth initiative from Yukon Housing Corporation is a zero-percent interest rate for the rental rehabilitation program energy efficiency items. Eligible owners of rental units can access funding through the BRP to repair or improve their rental units at a zero-percent interest rate for energy efficiency items. Clients can access up to $30,000 per unit amortized over 15 years.

The fifth initiative under Yukon Housing Corporation is the green home initiative for existing homes. Eligible home repair program clients who want to upgrade their homes to meet green home standards are eligible for a grant of up to five percent of the cost of each energy-related upgrade.

The sixth program — green home initiative for new dwellings — a $4,500 grant to offset the cost of construction and a $750 grant to cover the cost of design, building permits and inspections and certifications of a green home.

Mr. Speaker, the current federal government at least has lowered the GST from seven percent to five percent, making it slightly easier for homeowners to cover utility costs. The federal government could and should go the rest of the way and help all northerners by removing the GST from the cost of heating fuel and the fuel used for electricity generation.

There are fewer than 100,000 residents north of 60. 100,000 people is equivalent to a very small city anywhere else in Canada. The amount of GST that is generated from such a small population is extremely low for the federal treasury. However, its cost to northerners is extreme when added to our already much higher cost of living in the north.

I encourage all members to support this motion. I encourage our sister territories to lobby the federal government in this regard.

The motion urges the Government of Yukon to work with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut to lobby the Government of Canada to remove the GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60.

This would be another major benefit if approved by the federal government that would go along with all the other initiatives our government is currently undertaking.

I look forward to the support of all members on this motion.

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough:   I would like to speak to this motion presented by the MLA for the Klondike.

It is asking the federal government to remove the GST from home heating fuel and power generation north of 60, lobbying with the other two northern governments here in Canada.

 I think, if the member would take this back, if he looked at it and had some time, he could take it back and perhaps write the motion a little more clearly. It says a GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60.

It’s interesting that the member is bringing this forward. He is asking the federal government for some help because people are paying more out of their pocket for home heating fuel and electricity; that’s what he’s saying.

But part of the problem is with the Yukon Party government too. They increased our power bills by 15 percent and, come the summer, there will be another increase of 30 percent, so if an average power bill is $100 and then increased by 30 percent, it would be $130. That’s a lot out of Yukoners’ pockets, and everyone is being hit by this — not only individuals but businesses, municipalities and so on; this is an increase to them.

It’s unfortunate that the Yukon Party chose that route to go. It is a “hands in your pocket” approach. They are taking money out of Yukoners’ pockets and into their own general revenues for them to do what they want; and now we are going to the federal government and asking them for help to reduce the GST, to eliminate the GST.

We, on this side of the House, the Official Opposition, happen to agree with the member’s motion. Why not do it? Why not lobby the federal government to have this removed? We agree with that. I am quite surprised that he brought a motion forward like this because normally the member, the MLA for Klondike, brings a motion urging the government to continue to do what they are already doing, and we’ve seen that a lot on the Order Paper here. This one is a little bit different, so I have to give him credit for it.

 I am looking forward to working with the other two governments — the Northwest Territories and Nunavut — to lobby the federal government to remove the GST.

It’s not anything new though. I’ve gone back and looked a bit into the positions taken by the Yukon Party in the past. They have proposed, in the past, to eliminate territorial tax and GST on fuel. That was the Yukon Party’s position. They proposed to eliminate territorial tax and GST on fuel. That was their position back then. They even had a motion. I’ll read this motion from the Yukon Party. It says:

“THAT it is the opinion of this House that fuel prices are too high and that governments should become part of the solution rather than continue to be part of the problem of high fuel prices in Canada; and

THAT this House urges the Yukon government to show some leadership in reducing fuel prices by eliminating the territorial fuel tax to create a saving at the pump of 6.6 cents per litre for gasoline and 7.7 cents per litre for diesel.”

That was a motion put on the floor of this House by the Yukon Party. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was a motion put forward by the MLA for Klondike at the time.

We’ve seen the part of the Yukon Party campaign, and in six years we haven’t seen any movement, other than increases to people’s power bills, and I don’t think that’s right. Even at the time this motion was put on the floor of this House, our gasoline, I think, was still around 60 or 70 cents per litre. At that time, the Yukon Party felt it was high and that the elimination of the fuel tax and GST should be brought about. That was at that time.

Now, of course, fuel prices are quite a bit higher, and we’re talking about this now, after six years. We’re expecting that the price of gasoline and fuel will be something like $2 a litre.

I understand why the member opposite is bringing this forward. I believe that he is hearing it on the doorsteps like we are. The cost of living in the Yukon Territory is going up. There is more money coming out of Yukoners’ pockets than the increases in their wages from year to year. We are seeing that.

The price of fuel has gone up dramatically for many people. They can’t afford it. They simply cannot afford the price of fuel any more. I think we talked about this already. Even compared to a year ago, the price of fuel per household — to fill up a tank has gone up some $400. That is a very large increase. Of course eliminating the GST would help.

This government is not in control of fuel prices around the world. We know they’re going up and will continue to climb. The Government of Canada needs to do something, I believe. I think we are in agreement with the member opposite when it comes to that. At the same time, I don’t think asking for government help with a reduction of the GST for home heating fuel is right if they are asking Yukoners to pay more on their power bill.

Here is how it works, and the mover of the motion could clarify this too. He is asking for the removal of the GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60. If the GST were removed on fuel for power generation, that would bring down our power bill slightly. The federal government could help out the Yukon Party on this matter. Increasing people’s power bills is wrong. Here’s what the member can do tomorrow: when we go through the Daily Routine, when it comes to giving notice of motions, he can urge his government to reinstate the rate stabilization fund. He can urge them to do that. They could put the money back in Yukoners’ pockets, instead of taking it out. He has that opportunity and I look forward to hearing what he has to say on that. It could happen tomorrow. The government could do that the same day, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose the other route, which is to take money out of people’s pockets and waiting for a major consumer on our power grid to help reduce the costs of electricity to every home in the territory. That member could do that.

I think the Member for Klondike recognizes that people are going through a tough time. Some people are; the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The ones at the bottom end of our income scale are having a tough time.

It took us a long time to convince government to increase SA rates, for example. Those are the people who are impacted a lot when it comes to home heating fuel and their electrical bill. It took a long time, a hard battle, on behalf of the Official Opposition parties to convince the members opposite, and the fruit of that labour is yet to come. It was brought up yet again today.

I want to hear from the Member for Klondike how they are going to approach that and whether or not he is going to be reinstating the rate stabilization fund, because we haven’t heard that commitment at all from the minister responsible.

Here is a challenge to the Member for Klondike. He should bring forward a motion urging his minister and his government to do exactly that. That would put money back in people’s pockets and perhaps we could look at other ways we can reduce greenhouse gases and ways we can get people to use less electricity in their homes and so on. We should be focusing a lot on that.

Here is another tax cut that the Yukon Party proposed. They proposed to support an income tax cut of 10 percent and then a bigger percentage in years to come. They never did that over the six years; that was a broken commitment. Even little things like eliminating the taxes on Tetra Paks and so on: those didn’t happen. It doesn’t take the government six years to fulfill the commitment that they promised during election campaigns in the past to go forward to the federal government and lobby them on behalf of Yukoners.

It doesn’t take six years to do that. Now I understand why, because the price of fuel is rising so high and it is costing people a lot of money. It’s looking a lot more interesting to homeowners to have their home heated with electricity, because the price of fuel is rising so high. If we hit $200 a barrel — which some analysts think we may within a year — then a lot more money will be coming out of Yukoners’ pockets.

In short, we support the member’s motion that the Government of Yukon team up with Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, go forward and ask for the elimination of GST on our home heating fuel. Go and do that. That’ll be a good thing.

Is the Yukon Party interested in doing more? If they are and they’re truly interested in doing this, then that member can come back with a motion on the floor tomorrow asking his minister and his government to reinstate the rate stabilization fund. Because of that, his hands are in Yukoners’ pockets and they shouldn’t be at this time that we’re living in.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kenyon:   Some interesting comments from the member opposite. First of all, the one thing he doesn’t recognize — or at least choose to put on the table — is that the Yukon has the lowest provincial or territorial tax on fuel, so there’s already a good start that we’ve made on that.

What I find most interesting in what he has to say is he goes on at length asking that we reinstate the rate stabilization fund — in other words, that we go back to subsidizing energy. Now, there are a lot of things that political parties don’t agree on; there are always basic philosophical differences. But I think one we share with the New Democratic Party is conservation of energy and realistic use, green production and this sort of thing.

It appears that the Liberal Party, however, wants to continue to subsidize energy, to continue to do away with any impetus or anything that would encourage people to conserve energy, lower the necessity to produce the energy, lower the greenhouse gas emission and the carbon footprint. The Liberals support subsidy. 

They don’t appear to really have any conservation ethic at all: put all the money into that, so people don’t have to worry about it; leave the lights on; drive the extra 20 miles. They don’t seem to understand that the world is rapidly changing and — at the bare minimum — a modicum of conservation ethic is something to encourage. That appears to be very much missing from the Liberal Party.

Another comment that he made was to encourage the Member for Klondike to reword the motion and to present it again. Perhaps he wants things put into that motion: larger generation of electricity; don’t worry about leaving the lights on; don’t worry about doing any of those things. That seems to be what he would want in that sort of motion.

He also made the comment that he sees this as simply an increase in revenue, so that the Yukon Party government can do what it wants. Let’s look at some of the things that we are doing, and let’s look at some of the things that we have chosen to do and taken a different tack on.

The Yukon Housing Corporation recently put six new programming initiatives into the Yukon Housing Corporation to enhance the energy efficiency performance of Yukoners’ housing stock.

The first program is a zero-percent interest rate for the home repair program and the home repair enhancement program. For eligible home repair program clients, that would be access to up to $35,000 financing, amortized up to 12 years to repair their homes at a zero-percent interest rate, if those repairs improve the energy efficiency of the home. Low income earners are potentially eligible for a subsidy to offset the cost of the loan and the subsidy is based on variables such as family size, location and disposable income. Payments on the $35,000 loan can be as low as $25 per month.

The eligible home repair enhancement program clients would be able to access up to $30,000 of financing, amortized up to 10 years to repair their homes at a zero-percent interest rate, if those repairs improve the energy efficiency of the home.

These are reasonable subsidies. Don’t subsidize cheaper electricity and continue the Liberals’ lack of conservation ethics.

Eligible clients whose home repair costs exceed the financing limits for the home repair program would go into the home repair enhancement program. While there is no subsidy for that, the health and safety guidelines apply to both programs; therefore, clients have to complete required health and safety upgrades and repairs before they can access any of the financing for energy efficiency items.

A second program is alternative energy systems under the residential energy management program. These eligible clients can access financing, again up to $30,000, amortized up to 25 years, to install alternate energy systems in their homes. The interest rate is set at zero percent for the first 10 years and one percent below the existing rate on the renewal date. This rate would continue for the remaining term of the loan.

Alternative energy systems include, but they’re not restricted to, electrical power systems, which harness energy primarily from sunshine — solar systems, wind, flowing water or microhydro systems. It could also be a heating or cooling system that does not use fossil fuels for combustion, such as heat pumps and heat exchangers.

The Liberal solution seems to be: “Make energy cheaper, so people will burn more fossil fuels.” Again, the Liberal lack of conservation ethic.

A third program on home energy evaluations — and this is an interesting one and one that I’m very proud that Yukon Housing Corporation came up with. Homeowners can access a grant of up to $400 for energy evaluations performed on their home. Now, this actually opens up a whole range of federal programs, which require such an energy evaluation to be done on the home before those programs can be accessed, so this actually goes a lot further than simply doing a study on the home.

Energy advisors perform on-site assessments of the client’s home and provide the homeowner with a personalized report with recommended repairs to improve the energy efficiency of the home. The client can do the recommended repairs based on pre-calculated energy savings, and clients contact their energy advisor to conduct a post-retrofit evaluation and provide a new energy efficiency rating label that indicates the home’s improved energy use.

The clients bring in a copy of the energy rating label and receipts paid to the energy advisor and the Yukon Housing Corporation will then issue the client a grant for up to $400 matching, of course, the receipts provided.

Homeowners who want to access the eco-energy initiative available from Natural Resources Canada may do so through that energy advisor, and we will work with the homeowner or the rental homeowner on that.

A fourth program is zero-percent interest rates for the rental rehabilitation program and their energy efficiency items. Eligible owners of rental units can access funding through the RRP to repair or improve the rental units at a zero-percent interest rate for energy efficiency items. Clients can access up to $30,000 per unit amortized over 15 years. Again, this is a very reasonable subsidy to people who want to address their energy concerns, as opposed to the Liberal solution of simply subsidizing the electrical rates — again an example of a complete Liberal conservation ethic.

A fifth program is the green home incentive for existing homes. Eligible home repair program clients who want to upgrade their homes to meet green home standards are eligible for a grant of up to five percent of the cost of each energy-related upgrade. The maximum total clients can receive is $1,750, which is five percent of the HRP financing maximum of $35,000. Clients work with a Yukon Housing Corporation technical officer to meet the established green home standards following the established certification process. Once the home is certified as a green home, the clients receive the grant and the grant will be issued to the client by cheque.

The sixth program, the green home incentive for new dwellings, is a $4,500 grant to offset the cost of construction and a $750 grant to cover the cost of design, building permits, inspections and the certification of the green home. There is up to a $500 grant from the Energy Solutions Centre for the purchase of energy efficient appliances. We work very closely with the Energy Solutions Centre, and I’m certain that the Member for Porter Creek Centre will be happy to discuss some of those options. Contacting the Energy Solutions Centre is the way to go on that.

Let’s look in more detail at the programs — for instance, the home repair program initiative, which is a good place to start. It has a zero-percent interest rate for all energy efficiency repairs and upgrades through the eligible home repair enhancement program clients can then access financing at zero-percent interest for all energy efficiency repairs and upgrades. Clients have to complete a Yukon Housing Corporation loan application form. Once the client has been financially pre-approved, a Yukon Housing Corporation technical officer will contact the client to arrange an on-site home assessment.

The technical officer will provide an assessment report that will show all eligible repair items, including energy efficiency repairs and upgrades. The Yukon Housing Corporation health and safety standard will, of course, apply. An application of mandatory, primary, recommended and general repair items will be defined in the health and safety standard.

The client will choose which items they intend to complete and provide written quotes for the work if they wish to complete it. The technical officer will ensure that the health and safety guideline requirements are met at each stage. The technical officer will complete a cost breakdown based on quotes, which will show the total amount of funding required to do the work. The client, at that point, can access up to $35,000 under the home repair program. If the client is eligible and requires funding above that limit, the client can apply for additional funding, again up to $30,000, under the home repair enhancement program.

The program officer will then register a secured, current and running collateral mortgage in the total amount of financing granted under the HRP and the HRE loans. The technical officer will then follow the existing certificate of payments process for work completed. When the work is completed, the clients will be placed on a repayment schedule. The individual loans will be secured against the mortgage by promissory notes for each of the applicable loans.

The separate loans will be categorized and again, the HRP loan will be at the current interest rate and the energy efficiency loans at a zero-percent interest rate. The HRE component will be at the current interest rate and HRE energy-efficiency loan at a zero-percent interest rate.

The program delivery people within Yukon Housing Corporation will work out the specific components of the loans and the subsidy calculations. Again, Mr. Speaker, a very reasonable approach to subsidize homeowners to maximize their energy efficiency and how they work with that.

This is an example of a good way to subsidize that energy efficiency — not the Liberal way of giving us more money back on our electrical bills, making it very difficult to understand the cost of that generation of the electrical component and making it really less desirable to conserve energy — a good example of the Liberal lack of conservation ethics.

We also have the alternative energy systems initiative. This alternative energy system allows homeowners the option to install an alternative heating system with financing up to $30,000 amortized over 25 years. Financing is available at zero-percent interest for the first 10 years and one percent below the existing home repair plan rate at the renewal date — one percent below.

The rate will continue for the remaining term of the loan. How this subsidy works is the clients will apply for the alternative energy system loan following the program criteria — the client’s credit history, ability to repay and all of that; it’s normal procedure and it’s evaluated.

To be eligible for funding, the alternative energy system installation must demonstrate a payback not exceeding 15 years, or must be installed on a dwelling in a location where no alternatives are readily available.

In other words, it’s off-grid. In situations where payback times are not obvious, the EnerGuide, the Eco-Energy Hot2000 or RETScreen are the preferred calculators to use for demonstration of payback time. Payback determination will be decided by the research and development project manager, and once the client has received financial pre-approval from the Housing Corporation, a technical officer will then perform that on-site assessment of the home and the client will provide the research and development project manager with a complete technical description, cost breakdown and quoted prices for the alternative energy system that they are proposing to install.

If the system is accepted by the manager, the system will be placed as an eligible item for a cost breakdown. The technical officer will follow the existing certificate of payments process for work completed and the research and development project manager will also sign the certificate of payment before payment can be issued. We should note that the Yukon Housing Corporation policy is that the program officer must sign all certificates of payment.

When the work is completed the client will be placed on repayment. The coding for the program is separate, but it is a very good program, it allows people off-grid some alternatives, and even people on-grid some very good alternatives. I know a number of people who have solar heat, for instance, for hot water within the household and there are good savings on that basis.

Again, grants and subsidies and assistance to homeowners like this are a very reasonable subsidy. Homeowners can take advantage of all of these various programs as a smorgasbord of programs that they can mix and match the way they want. This is a reasonable use of subsidies. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it makes very little sense to keep the subsidies simply on keeping electrical bills low and encouraging people to use more energy, leave lights on, leave the door open, and do things that are going to really not get through to people the necessity in this changing world to conserve energy, promote energy efficient systems and decrease the amount of greenhouse gases, et cetera.

This is reasonable. The Liberals’ approach of showing no conservation ethic whatsoever makes no sense at all to me.

The rental rehabilitation program — because people always ask — well, this is fine for home owners but what about rental units?

Again, Yukon Housing Corporation will provide the private sector funding up to $30,000 per rental unit at zero-percent interest rate for energy efficiency improvements through the rental rehabilitation program; and here, the same process occurs, Mr. Speaker. Owners of rental units apply; once the client receives a financial pre-approval of the rental units, they are evaluated by a technical officer and a detailed list of eligible items will be produced.

The client will choose then what eligible items they would like to complete, the Yukon Housing Corporation’s health and safety standards will of course always apply, and mandatory items must be addressed as a loan condition.

The technical officer will follow the existing certificate of payments process for work completed, and eligible funding for items identified as energy efficiency are eligible for a zero-percent interest rate financed through their rental rehabilitation program. Once the repairs are complete the client is then put on repayment.

Program officers will register current and running collateral mortgages in the total amount of financing granted under the RRP.

Again, Mr. Speaker, for rental units — be it a rental suite in a home or a duplex or fourplex, or sixplex, or something like that — $30,000 per rental unit at a zero-percent interest rate. This is an example of subsidy that makes sense; to simply subsidize electrical rates does absolutely nothing, and again shows a complete Liberal lack of conservation ethic.

Thank you.

Mr. Cardiff:   We will be supporting this motion, but I would like to make a few quick points.

The motion urges the Government of Yukon to work with our sister territories to lobby the federal government to remove GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60.

We can support the motion. I think we have some questions. We are not sure exactly what the mover of the motion means by “power generation north of 60”. Is that for the typical Yukon Energy power bills that citizens receive on a monthly basis, or does that refer to all fuel used for generation as well, whether it be Yukon Energy Corporation buying diesel fuel or whether it be private citizens buying diesel fuel for their power generation.

That part of the motion seems to be a little unclear.

A couple of other points about this — certain specific products and some services are exempt from the goods and services tax. The mover of the motion mentioned that the GST has been reduced, and we also support the reduction of the GST.

Examples of some of the products and services that are exempt are as follows: most health, medical and dental services performed by licensed physicians or dentists; childcare services; long-term residential accommodation; and most goods and services provided by charities are also GST exempt.

A number of products and services — textbooks is one of that come to mind. I’m sure the Minister of Education would be happy to have the goods and services tax removed from textbooks and from all books. It just seems — that’s just one of many things that the goods and services tax should be removed from.

The goods and services tax is a regressive tax. The federal New Democrats opposed it when it was first introduced by a Conservative government. Like most Canadians, they felt let down — we all felt let down when the Liberals promised to get rid of the goods and services tax; then they reneged on that promise. That was years and years and years ago. Now we’re finally seeing the goods and services tax being reduced.

The thing is that items like food- and shelter-related costs — things like home heating and electricity — shouldn’t be subject to GST. Some foods are still subject to GST, depending on where you eat — whether you’re buying food in a grocery store or whether you’re buying food in a restaurant.

People are relying on a restaurant for their food because of their economic or social situation. They eat in diners because they don’t have a home. They are paying GST on those meals. That doesn’t seem right either. We are taking the least able to pay a tax like that and forcing them to pay a tax on their food and, in some instances, probably their shelter too.

We support that notion that home heating fuel should be exempt from the GST. Again, we are still not sure about exactly what the mover of the motion meant by power generation north of 60; whether it’s just the home heating bills or power that is generated by individual users and homeowners, and whether or not the GST would be removed on those fuels. It is kind of ironic that we are doing this. It is one small piece of the equation. If we look at what is happening with fossil fuels, we agree that there needs to be some conservation measures; at the same time, the rise in the price of a barrel of oil is causing big oil companies to reap massive profits but individual citizens are getting squeezed.

Exxon Mobil just announced obscene profits. The profits for 2007 that were announced were $40.6 billion.

That’s for Exxon Mobil — $40.6 billion — that’s 40 territorial budgets in profit they announced last year. That’s net profit according to the article in The New York Times.

In 2008, just this quarter, Exxon Mobil announced $10.9 billion, just during the first quarter. That’s the net profit they’re saying they’ve earned in one quarter. That is almost 11 territorial budgets and that’s their profit. That’s using resources that rightfully belong to the people of the globe, basically, and of other countries. Those resources don’t belong to those companies, yet they seem to be reaping the profits from the oil. So the GST is just one small part of the equation.

We do have problems with providing subsidies on the cost of fossil fuels and there are a number of reasons. One of them is the one I just stated. We can subsidize fossil fuels until the cows come home and who gets it? Exxon Mobil — the profits end up in the pockets of big oil.

The other reason is the crisis around climate change. We need to make some significant changes in how we use energy and the fact we need to actually reduce our energy consumption. Turning the lights out would be a good start. I’m not having any problems seeing today, I don’t think. I have my glasses, but the lights are on. So we can support this motion.

I think it’s important that the government work with the other territories to lobby the federal government to do something that is actually going to provide some financial relief to the poor, working class and middle-class Canadians, especially here in the north, on something as important and as essential as home heating fuel.

Whether or not lobbying the federal government will succeed — sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. It’ll end up being up to the federal government at the end of the day as to whether or not, and how fast, they move in response to this issue. Certainly I would hope that it would happen before the next heating season. That would be a timely and welcome measure.

At the same time we certainly hope that the Yukon government will look in their own backyard when they are doing this, that they will look at constructive measures they can introduce to protect low-income Yukoners from the skyrocketing costs of fossil fuels. When the Minister of Environment finally unveils his plan of action on May 21, we hope that there will be some real action measures to reduce our dependence on and consumption of fossil fuels. Climate change is arguably the most profound problem that we face in our world. Urgent action is needed immediately.

The Premier, over the last while, and especially since he took on the Environment portfolio, seemed to say that we are not a big part of the problem and that we don’t contribute a lot to the greenhouse gas emissions anywhere near that of the City of Toronto. There is something we could do that would help consumers, and that would be to produce some of the products locally here in the Yukon, as opposed to bringing them up the highway.

All the transportation up the highway contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to the cost to Yukoners. Maybe we should be removing the GST on the transport of food to the Yukon. We can’t produce all our food here, or we haven’t been able to yet. It would be a great day if we could. Import substitution could be another thing the government could look at. It would not only benefit the environment, but it would also benefit consumers, because it would provide some relief, hopefully, in the costs of these essential products. Foodstuff is just like the heating fuel and electricity that we need. The food that comes up the highway is rising in price. We are facing a food crisis. That’s what we hear on the news now. There is a food crisis.

The cost of baked goods is going up, because the flour is getting more expensive. In some stores down south, people can only buy so much of some food products because they are being used to produce energy. They are being used to produce energy for heating costs and are probably being taxed on that too.

We can support this motion. We wish them well. We hope that they are successful. At the same time, we encourage them to look at their own agenda and do what they can do here locally in the Yukon to improve the lives of Yukoners when it comes to the cost of basic essentials. Food, shelter and heat are the essentials here in the Yukon, as well as water, of course, and we would all like to see everyone have clean water. Those essential things — what people need — need to be affordable and right now we are seeing those costs rise. So we wish the government well, we encourage them to look in their own backyard to the things that are possible for them to do, and we will be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    I would like to thank the member opposite for supporting this motion put on the floor here this afternoon by the Member for Klondike. The motion reads:

“THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to work with the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut to lobby the Government of Canada to remove the GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60 degrees.”

Again, this is another expanded motion that we are bringing in our partners north of 60 — Northwest Territories and Nunavut — to go with us to Ottawa and talk to Ottawa about the different circumstances we find ourselves in, north of 60.

The Member for Pelly-Nisutlin was commenting on some campaign promises that were made by a Yukon Party 18 years ago, and how we bear some of the responsibility for bringing those forward, so that was an interesting argument brought to the floor here today on what we do, what we did or what we promised as a government.   

I’ve been in this House for six years and have gone through two campaigns. We have delivered on many of our campaign commitments to the territory.

We as a government take the environment and the price of energy very seriously. The issue is what do we do as a government to lead by example in energy conservation? In the Department of Highways and Public Works, what has been done over the last six years in our fleet vehicle planning? Our fleet vehicle planning — for example in 2006-07, of the 46 vehicles purchased by the agency, 37 percent were small, four-cylinder vehicles. That was a step in the right direction. In 2007-08, of the 50 vehicles acquired by the agency, thirty-four, or 68 percent, were small, fuel-efficient vehicles. That shows that we are growing into a more fuel-efficient department, and with our fleet, that is very important. For this year, 2008-09, the target is 80 percent. The growing demand for smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles in the fleet is growing because of the fact that we as government have to lead by example.

The transportation division also has responsibility for fuel efficiency and emission levels when making procurement decisions for the transportation fleet — that means all the vehicles that the Department of Highways and Public Works manages throughout the Yukon. Those are things that we do on a daily, weekly and monthly basis.

The Property Management Agency in the Department of Highways and Public Works is looking at energy efficiency in buildings. Those are things the Department of Highways and Public Works is doing. We discuss this internally in government. We discuss what different departments do, whether it is the Department of Education, the Yukon Housing Corporation, Community Services and Energy, Mines and Resources. It is very much the focus of this government.

Certainly, the impact of fossil fuels on all of us in Canada is growing and even more so for those of us north of 60, because fossil fuels are used for the biggest part — not only do we create energy with them for the power grid, but we also use it to manage the heat in our homes and businesses. So those fossil fuels are not only a cost at the wellhead, but we also have a transportation cost. Not only are we consuming fossil fuels that are growing in value, but we also expect the trucking firms and all of the costs that bear on that part of the equation to be going up too.

In our partnership between the Energy Solutions Centre and Highways and Public Works, it’s interesting to see the work that’s being done to address some of the issues we have internally. The Yukon Cold Climate Innovation Centre is one thing that’s moving ahead. The visitor reception centre at Tombstone Territorial Park will be the Government of Yukon’s first project to achieve the leadership in energy and environmental design standard for new construction in support of the Yukon climate change strategy. This project has been registered on the Canada Green Building Council Web site.

That’s very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because this project has been on the board and has been built over the last 12 months. So this government has certainly been ahead of some of the other jurisdictions out there on managing our internal energy audits.

And, of course, the master space plan is another thing we’re going to work on. It should be brought forward in the next two or three months. It will address some of the issues on energy and environmental design and certainly, some of the commercial interiors put forward by the Canada Green Building Council — again, another partnership that will hopefully bear fruit in the near future.

It’s very important that the research we do to redevelop a Government of Yukon building energy conservation program will be continually updated as technology changes. In other words, we have to be flexible, to be aware of the modern technology and the things that are brought forward on a yearly basis, to make the monitoring of energy consumption information pertinent and up to date at all times.

Our partner jurisdictions are suffering. Some communities in Nunavut are accessible only by air. Of course it’s very important that the Northwest Territories join us as well in this request to the federal government.

Let’s look at another department — Energy, Mines and Resources and the Energy Solutions Centre. What we expect to do in the near future is to try to address some of the issues that individuals and corporations in the territory are going through in this very transition when energy is becoming such a cost to everyday life here in the territory.

We’ve certainly been working with the First Nations and the municipalities in accessing technology and financial resources required to conduct energy audits on their facilities. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we’re going out, working with the communities and First Nation governments, to see how we can minimize the impact on their cost of doing business and their energy costs. That’s what this government is doing today. We are working as a leader on this, and we are getting a very positive reception.

The Watson Lake cogeneration was a Yukon Electrical/ATCO Corporation concept, which works with their new generation in Watson Lake and heats the high school and the new community complex. It’s interesting in that it’s waste heat. It’s being generated by the plant, but there’s some potential there to expand that, and it will not only minimize the energy costs for the school — which is a territorial government issue — but heating the community complex that way is a big saving for the community.

We are looking at all sorts of innovative ways to have an electric load reduction. Developing a new program to buy back householders’ second refrigerators, which are very much a cost to a household. The second refrigerator in a home is usually an older refrigerator that is a very costly item to have. If you see TV ads, it is up to $10, $15 or $25 per month to have a second refrigerator in the home and it is a cost to consumers. We would like to see those kinds of things addressed in the household itself.

Holiday season light exchange: this is a consumer market transformation into LED bulbs, which will save money and energy. In other words, how do we manage our holiday lighting and save the consumer money? That is another thing this government is doing.

A lighting retrofit pilot project: we are piloting a retrofit lighting conversion from old to new technology on an institutional building system. Energy Solutions Centre will monitor the resulting energy savings and use the information to promote conversions. In other words, we are going to have a lighting retrofit pilot project in an older-to-new technology concept to lead by example in how individuals can promote energy savings.

Public building energy tracking system: how do we manage that? The Energy Solutions Centre is working with Highways and Public Works and others to keep data up to date. In other words, we have to monitor our buildings and better manage the product.

Heat recovery of waste water is another, where we are researching the effectiveness of grey water heat with recovery technology. This information will inform potential future rebate programs. This is another way that we can manage our energy costs in an efficient way.

Regarding the recreation centre in Carmacks, we are working with the Village of Carmacks to reduce utility costs at the local recreation centre by using a controlled rather than an uncontrolled ventilation system. In other words, we take these kinds of projects out into the smaller communities and show the smaller communities — for example, Carmacks — how we can better manage ventilation systems and how we can better manage the energy pertaining to the ventilation system.

Of course, there is heat recovery — how we work with heat recovery and using the results of the work to promote the energy and cost saving benefits of doing this in other buildings. In other words, retrofitting an existing institutional building with heat recovery and using the results. In other words, this is another project that will certainly benefit Yukoners as we move forward with this conceptual plan.

A community like Old Crow — the Old Crow demand reduction — working with the community of Old Crow and the Yukon Electrical Company to develop a strategy to first identify and then act upon waste to reduce diesel source energy in the community. This is a very important initiative for the community of Old Crow, because of their isolation. At the end of the day, how do we best use our generated power and also the waste heat that is generated by producing that power? That’s another thing that we are working with Yukon Electrical on.

Then there is education. We have to work with the Department of Education to initiate a school-based program to reduce energy use in all aspects of school operations, including buildings. Again, it is about intergovernmental and interdepartmental work, so that we can all benefit from any of these programs. 

We are working with the college on another project and moving ahead on it — the fluidized bed gasifier.  The predesign and detail design work is underway to advance the feasibility study done in 2004. The goal is to commission the gasifier to provide space heating for the college and perhaps other nearby buildings. The feasibility of producing design gas will also be examined. In other words, there is a project at the college that could, if it is successful, look at addressing the heat issues at the college and also working out an education component for the fluidized bed gasifier.

If we were to look at examining the feasibility of using air source heat bumps in the Yukon, which is a technology that has been out there for many years and has been in the past very expensive, but as technology changes, it has grown into where it could become part and parcel of the management of our heating demands in the future.

If we are looking at that we are also looking at designing and piloting the use of earth tubes in the Yukon. Earth tubes involve the passive preheating of air for combustion or ventilation in a home. Those are all processes that have been worked on south of 60, but, in turn, could be very beneficial to the territory.

In closing, Mr. Chair, I would recommend that the House take this motion very seriously. We look forward to a decision here this afternoon so we can work with our partners north of 60 to see what we can resolve in Ottawa with the federal government.

Hon. Ms. Taylor:    I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of this motion. As members previous to me have said earlier, this is something that has been discussed in previous years and, of course, we will continue to work with the Government of Canada and our two sister territories in ensuring that we are able to address matters of concern such as this.

Looking back over the past three years — and it hasn’t even been three years — when a barrel of oil was sitting at $60; today it is about $122 per barrel. There are pressures on all families in the territory, but really worldwide.

One thing that struck me was when I recently had the opportunity to go to Germany for a few days on tourism-related business, I witnessed the price of fuel in Frankfurt. At that time for a litre of gas, I couldn’t believe my eyes, but it was well over $2 a litre. I thought it was unbelievable to see those kinds of prices.

In speaking with many of the individuals and residents of Germany and those who represent their respective country, it became quite apparent that these prices had been in place for a number of years. They have become aware and have learned to adapt to the higher fuel prices.

In fact, Germany could be considered one of the most progressive countries, perhaps, in the western world in terms of adopting energy efficient practices, conserving energy, and adopting very creative initiatives to address these higher prices that families have been feeling for many years.

In the Yukon — certainly in Canada — we aren’t as familiar with these higher prices. In fact, someone said to me, “Well, you know, it’s almost like a correction in the market.” It’s really almost a timely thing that, in fact, Yukon — and, of course, Canada and the rest of the country — is catching up to the rest of the country, in terms of feeling the pain associated with higher fuel prices.

I don’t know if I take that approach or not, but I think, as many of us in this Legislature will admit, we are likely not to see too much movement on this particular pricing strategy. In fact, we may be witnessing further increases as the months proceed and years pass.

A few things that have to be said here today — and I certainly appreciate the comments coming from all sides of the Legislature and very much appreciate the support provided by members opposite, as well as members on the government side, in terms of urging the Government of Canada to remove the GST on home heating fuel and power generation north of 60.

I think it has already been said here that we in the north do experience a whole host of different challenges, unlike other jurisdictions in the rest of the country. We are subjected to higher fuel costs, and we actually do incur more fuel than perhaps others in the rest of the country, for various reasons. Our infrastructure, of course, is a little bit more limited. Our communities are very much more spread out — more miles, more distance, between our respective communities. There are certainly more miles to proceed to a destination or a respective town in that regard.

We also are subjected to much — some would say — tougher winters. I would say they are getting much better in recent years to what we have witnessed. In the Yukon, it’s just a way of life. We do have colder temperatures to contend with and we as Yukoners have learned to conserve the best we can. In light of these exorbitant increases in the price of fuel — whatever that may be: on the road or whether it be in our homes and so forth — we feel the effects of that through everything, from the price of groceries to the cost of a postage stamp on our mail and so forth.

What we as the Government of Yukon have been able to do over the last number of years is implement different initiatives to help address some of these challenges that have been articulated on the floor. I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources recently spoke to a more sustainable use of energy and the use of more creative initiatives to address some of the energy demands that are coming on-line and that are here, as well.

One only has to take a look at the extension of the transmission line. That has been a project in the making for many years. A lot has been said about the significant benefits as a result of this major piece of infrastructure going ahead, from the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and less of a carbon footprint — as some have said — to taking advantage of the additional business in the territory today.

It is very heartening to see that that particular piece of infrastructure is undergoing as we speak.

We also talked about fuel prices. I know that in the Yukon we are very blessed to have one of the lowest provincial-territorial taxes on fuel. There is no provincial-territorial tax on home heating fuels, as we all know.

To talk about the motion at hand is to talk about the removal of GST on home heating fuel. It is something that we have put forward before to the Government of Canada for their consideration. I believe at one time there may have been some consideration; however, with a change in government that changes as well.

In terms of addressing higher home heating costs, through the Department of Health and Social Services we were able to increase the pioneer utility grant. First of all, it was by 25 percent. I think a couple of years later we were able to increase it another 10 percent, which made it a 35-percent increase, and we were able to index it against inflation. We know that because of the fixed incomes of seniors and elders in this territory and others, they are by far the hardest hit of our resident population in the Yukon. This measure, which has been in effect for many years, has been very well subscribed to and we think that it is a great initiative and we are very pleased to be able to enhance it.

Much has been said in terms of bringing more affordable housing units on-line, and I know there has been a lot of discussion on the floor of the Legislature over the last number of days in this sitting. I would like to reiterate the point that we are the first government in about 15 or 17 years, if I’m not mistaken, to actually construct new housing units in the territory.

They are affordable housing units. In fact, when we look at the sixplex in Haines Junction, it’s a wonderful facility, again, dedicated to seniors and elders living in the area. What a wonderful addition it is to that community by really assisting with more affordable living for individuals in rural Yukon. As well, we were also able to construct a multi-unit housing initiative at Yukon College.

I believe that half of the units have been subscribed as family residences to accommodate Yukon College and the growing demand for training and education programs delivered by that institution. Also, I believe that the other 48 units were made available to, again, seniors and elders who have been waiting for social housing. That is rent geared to income, as I would say, and the uptake has been amazing. We are very pleased to be able to come through with those new housing arrangements as well.

In addition, we were also very pleased to provide the recent announcement to build a 30-unit affordable housing initiative for lone parent families in the territory. We know that when we look at the social housing waiting list, this is by far the group that is very much in need of housing at this particular time.

So, when we factor in those 30 additional housing units, as well as the other housing initiatives that I have been speaking about, it has been great. It is great to see. In fact, we have had over 100 housing units added since this government took office. Again, that does contribute to affordable housing in the territory.

There has been a lot of discussion about social assistance, and planned improvements to social assistance have been underway. Consultations have been undertaken, but again this would be the first increase in over a decade and that will go a long way toward addressing come of the increased pressures that families have been feeling over the last decade.

Minimum wage has been increased and has been indexed against inflation as well.

We are pleased to be able to enhance childcare subsidies available to families. This is the first increase in, I think, over a decade, and that translates into about a 25-percent increase in subsidies.

Increases to the Yukon child benefit took place. Not only did we increase the dollars available — I think it is now almost $700 per child for eligible families — but we have also been able to expand the income threshold — that is the ability for families to retain that income coming to them, as well as other tax credits we have been able to introduce in recent times.

In terms of promoting more affordable transit — just a couple of days ago our Minister of Community Services was able to announce the purchase of our fourth energy efficient transit bus to be added to the fleet, which encourages more individuals to take transit and fosters a green transportation of individuals.

Even in terms of tourism and culture, there has been restoration and rehabilitation of heritage facilities in the territory. That computes into energy efficiency, making the best use of materials, reducing emissions, reducing the carbon footprint and so forth. All these measures certainly do add up.

I am very thankful again to members opposite for providing their support to this initiative. I think that by working with our two sister territories — I know they have been very supportive of this initiative. Just like the three territories were very amenable to increasing the northern residence deduction and, although it wasn’t a 50-percent increase like some of us had wanted, it did result in an increase of 15 percent. I think it was about $500 of extra savings for Yukon families.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing the other members.

Mr. Hardy:   As my colleague mentioned earlier, the NDP will be supporting this motion. Calling upon the government to reduce the GST in any area is always a good thing for the people — not just of the territory but of Canada. The GST is not a tax that anyone likes, and unfortunately the GST is one that applies to all income levels; therefore, I don’t consider it a fair tax at all. But in this regard, to help people deal with the rising cost of fuel and other expenses, any type of reduction or removal of it is good.

My colleague had mentioned earlier where the GST had come from. Of course it was an initiative of a Conservative government many years ago. There was a promise by a Liberal government in an election that they would abolish the GST. Of course the people believed that and elected the Liberal government. They did an about-face and embraced the GST. It’s always disappointing for the people of the country, when they believe any political party during an election campaign, knowing full well that that party really can’t be held accountable for many, many years — if ever at all — on promises made that are not lived up to.

So, over the years, I’ve learned to be cautious about any type of election campaign by any party, but also by the party I represent as well. I try to avoid that kind of situation.

I’m not going to talk any more about this, other than to say that I would like to bring forward an amendment. I consider it an amendment that is in keeping with the wording and expressions the Member for Klondike has brought forward. It just expands it a little bit more broadly in order to give more relief for the people of this territory, if the government is successful in fulfilling the motion and lobbying the federal government to remove the GST. So I would like to bring forward an amendment.

Amendment proposed

Mr. Hardy:   I move

THAT Motion No. 441 be amended by deleting the word “and” after the word “fuel” and by adding the expression “and the transportation of essential goods” after the expression “north of 60”.

Speaker:   The amendment is in order. It is moved by the Leader of the Third Party:

THAT Moti