MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CE4669.6ECE5750" This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/office/webarchive.htm ------=_NextPart_01CE4669.6ECE5750 Content-Location: file:///C:/B1334751/091.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Speaker: I will now call the House to order. We will proceed at this t= ime with prayers.
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of Yukoners cancer care fund=
Hon.
Mr. Graham: It’s indeed a pleasure for me=
to
rise in the House today on behalf of all members in honour of the Yukoners
cancer care fund. When the Canadian Cancer Society recently closed its local
office, a concerned group of local residents were very quickly assembled by
former Commissioner Geraldine Van Bibber to replace the missing cancer soci=
ety.
The group combined with the Yukon Hospital Corporation to establish the can=
cer
care fund to support local cancer care and cancer patients in
This new fund will complement other=
local
initiatives such as Run for Mom and Karen’s Fund. The fund is run by =
volunteers
who devote much time and energy to it. We can see the first fruit of their =
labours on Thursday with the official launch of the c=
ancer
care fund at
It’s a great cause, Mr. Speak=
er, and
we all appreciate your involvement in this fundraiser as well. I believe you
were the one who approached Geraldine and the members of her committee to
participate in this official launch and I think the launch and the fundrais=
er
will be a great success.
We look forward to many more events= and initiatives on behalf of the fund, and I congratulate the Hospital Foundati= on, but I especially congratulate the members that Geraldine Van Bibber was abl= e to get together. I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, Mr. Speaker,= to introduce all of them. With Geraldine in the Speaker’s box is Florenc= e Roberts, a former city councillor; Faye Cable is there, as is Blake Rogers; sitting = in the row right behind is Patrick Van Bibber, Geraldine’s husband of ma= ny, many years; Bev Buckway, the former Mayor of Whitehorse; Harmony Hunter; Krista — I’m not sure if I’ll get your name right, Krista — Prochazka; and finally, Val Pike from the hospital snuck in while I wasn’t watch= ing. So I would like to take the opportunity, and I hope all members will take t= he opportunity, of welcoming these folks and congratulating them on the effort= s to date.
Applause
In remembrance of Michael Dehn
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; I rise on behal=
f of the
Official Opposition to pay tribute to Michael Dehn,
former executive director of the
Mike died on February 4 of prostate=
cancer.
Mike Dehn was born in
When I first met Mike, I knew nothi=
ng of his
educational background. He was simply the fellow who came one day to help u=
s in
our never-ending battle to understand the family computer, and he stayed to
become a friend. Over the years we came to realize that Mike Dehn was a man of great depth who shared his knowledg=
e, his
skills and his patience with a wide swath of the
Mike did not dwell on his cancer, e= ven while undergoing many treatments, which took their toll on his time and his= energy, but never his sense of humour.
Mike focused his energy and courage=
in his
final years on an unwavering vision: protecting the Peel watershed. His end=
uring
passion for wildlands and wildlife fuelled his tireless drive and devotion.
Last spring, elders from the Yukon and Northwest Territories First Nations
engaged in the Peel planning process invited members of this Legislative
Assembly to a gathering at a hunting camp on the Dempster Highway to listen=
to
their stories about the importance of the Peel to them, to their history an=
d,
most importantly, to their grandchildren. The Official Opposition caucus, a=
long
with the MLA for
Mike had great empathy for people w=
ho have
less in this world and was a strong and informed advocate for First Nations
peoples, working to ensure treaties are honoured. One of his friends remark=
ed
that, “His was not a fight against individuals; it was against the
mindset of industrial “progress” at all costs, which threatens
wildlands and life support systems the world over.”
Mike Dehn was a warrior, advocate, fighter and friend. It is inspiring to have known a pers= on who devoted his life to creating a world that is more just, a world that va= lues respect for people and the natural world that supports us all over short-te= rm economic gain.
Mike is survived by his mother Maxi= ne, his sister Martha, and his brother Matthew. In closing, may I suggest that you = and others here today read or perhaps re-read David by Earle Birney= . It is a poem that I think every Canadian student has no doubt read. In payi= ng tribute to Mike Dehn today, I can think of no b= etter evocation of the beauty of nature and the tragedy of a life cut too short.<= /span>
INTRODUCTION OF VISITO=
RS
Hon. Mr. Cathers:&=
#8195; I rise as MLA f=
or
Applause
Ms. Hanson:&= #8195; I would like the members of the House to join me in welcoming other friends of Mike Dehn’s as well.
Applause
Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
Are there any reports of committees= ?
Are there any petitions to be prese= nted?
PETITIONS
Petition No. 12
Ms.
McLeod: Mr. Speaker, I have for presentatio=
n today
a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the
The petition is intended to recomme=
nd that
all the remaining area in the
Speaker: Are there any other petitions to be presented?
Are there any bills to be introduce= d?
Are there any notices of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. Hassard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice = of the following motion:
THAT this House urges the State of =
Alaska,
the U.S. government, the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council to continue to undertake management actions
including regulations to ensure that an adequate number of chinook salmon a=
re
able to return to Yukon Territory again.
Speaker: Any other notices of motion?
Is there a statement by a minister?=
This brings us to Question Period.<= /span>
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re:
Oil-fired appliance safety
Ms.
Moorcroft: Mr. Speaker, th=
e public
will have to wait until regulations are drafted in six months to a year to =
see
the government’s full intention around oil-fired appliance safety. We=
do
know that Bill No. 57 would allow for regulations that would apply to part =
or
all of the
Yesterday the government said repea=
tedly
that the need for lower standards was based on what they heard in rural
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: As I mentioned yesterday, the
We are working on a number of front= s to enhance capacity with the number of certified oil burner mechanics that we = have available throughout the territory so that we can continue to deliver and enhance oil-fired safety in the territory. We are very much committed to adhering to the bill and that it ensures that every community adheres to it= .
Ms.
Moorcroft: The government =
has said
that it will enhance capacity but it’s not prepared to bring in
requirements for having certified technicians service appliances. This has
resulted in deaths in our community.
The government is saying that oppos=
ition in
rural
The public is not prepared to take = the government’s word for it. Will the Yukon Party government release all= the comments and reports from their consultation on oil-fired appliances?
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: It’s unfortunate that the mem=
bers
opposite weren’t present at each of those community consultations hel=
d by
the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation, myself, and rur=
al
MLAs on this side of the Legislative Assembly who accompanied us. It’s
unfortunate that none of the members opposite actually took time to attend =
any
of the public open houses that took place in each of the communities of
Having certified mechanics in every community is the ultimate goal. The reality, however, is that we’re n= ot there yet, but that’s in fact why this Government of Yukon has gone to work and continues to work to increase the number of certified mechanics to build much-needed capacity in the territory in every community. We are taki= ng action; we’re taking action by delivering legislation that is very progressive compared to most other jurisdictions in the country. We’re very proud of the bill, and we look forward to the members opposite’s= support.
Ms.
Moorcroft: Well, it’s
unfortunate that the minister didn’t acknowledge the presence of one =
of
our MLAs at a hearing and what is also unfortunate is the government has not
answered that they are prepared to provide on the public record what they
heard. We have been clear that we don’t think this bill is comprehens=
ive
and that there are major gaps the government hasn’t filled. We have a=
lso
been clear that despite this general critique there are some good measures,=
and
we have proposed one reasonable change: a modest step that will increase sa=
fety
— namely, requiring those who service oil-fired appliances to be lice=
nsed
and certified. That is not only the NDP’s idea, the government’s
own working group recommended it as well, but curiously this recommendation
didn’t appear in the focus questions for community meetings.
The government’s consultation= did not even ask this question of rural Yukoners. How can the government claim to h= ave heard something loud and clear when it didn’t even ask the question t= hat its own working group proposed?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I have to say it’s very unfor= tunate to hear from the member opposite her lack of support for the bill before us, her lack of support for enhancing the safety of oil-fired appliances in the territory, her lack of support for enhancing the safety of our homes. Unbeknownst to the member opposite, this is actually a shared responsibilit= y. It’s a shared responsibility with government, and the member opposite finds it laughable. It’s unfortunate. This is a very serious and crit= ical issue and this government is actually getting at the root and the heart of = the problem, and that is enhancing the safety of oil fired appliances throughout the territory. We are taking action.
I would just refer to one of the key
coroner recommendations, which was to ensure that all applicable regulations
have provisions to provide persons or companies presently working in the
affected industry sufficient time to become qualified. That is what we hear=
d in
every single community that we went to, that there isn’t sufficient
capacity in every community to deliver this particular profession.
That is why, in fact, this Governme= nt of Yukon is working to enhance the delivery of training available for individu= als to become certified mechanics, so that they can continue to install, modify — and, yes, service.
Question re: Employment Standards Act probationary
period amendment
Ms.
Stick:=
8195; When it comes to
probationary periods in the Employment Standards Act, the
Will the minister do the right thin=
g and
bring the probationary period in the
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: We will continue to work with the
Employment Standards Board. We will continue to work with all of our
stakeholders, employees and employers and, yes, that also includes the Yukon
Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board, on issues of importance
when it comes to employment standards in the territory.
Mr. Speaker, the good officials wit= hin the Department of Community Services do a lot of great work, in terms of enhanc= ing public education and enforcing the provisions of the act as we know it toda= y.
We recognize that there is always r= oom for improvement when it comes to enhancing our provisions and modernizing the a= ct, as other jurisdictions continue to do as well. We will continue to do that = work as we have with other statutes.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; Mr. Speaker, as= we have noted in this House before, a six-month probationary period actually makes workplaces and job sites less safe. It’s a plain, simple fact: employ= ees under probation are less likely to raise workplace safety issues, especiall= y if the employer doesn’t require a cause or reason to fire a person.
Rather than building a culture of s=
afety,
we are inadvertently building a culture where workers may fear to stand up =
for
their own safety. Will the minister and the government work to increase wor=
ker
safety by establishing a three-month probationary period for
Hon. Ms. Taylor: As I said at the onset of my remark= s, what the government indeed will continue to do is to work with all of our stakeholders. We will continue to work with employers and employees and the Yukon Employment Standards Board and Yukon Workers’ Compensation Heal= th and Safety Board, as well, to continue to initiate provisions within our act and those statutes that are also overseen by the Yukon Workers’ Compensation Health and Safety Board.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to enhan= cing the delivery of safe working practices and conditions, the Government of Yukon = is very much committed to doing so. That would require consultation with our respective stakeholders. I know that is something that is difficult for the members opposite, but we very much will continue to work with our respective stakeholders and continue to consult those specific stakeholder groups.
Question re: &= nbsp; Supportive housing
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195;
After all, the Yukon
Hon.
Mr. Graham: Addressing the need for adequate ho=
using
in the
We do have, at the present time, a memorandum of understanding with the Salvation Army and we will be doing so= me further work in the upcoming few months. The next six months we’ll be doing some further work with the Salvation Army identifying exactly where t= his project will go and what the final working operation of the facility will b= e. At this time, I’m not willing to produce those documents we have with= the Salvation Army. At the point where we have addressed some of the outstanding issues, perhaps at that time I would be more willing to bring forward some information.
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; Over the years,=
local
non-government organizations have put a lot of time and effort into studying
the issue of homelessness in
It is a shame when the government f= ails to benefit from local efforts, expertise and experience. Citing only a track record that is pretty darn good, the minister said that the Salvation Army = will be providing shelter, transitional housing for up to a year, support for any addictions or mental health difficulties, some employment training, perhaps= , or assistance to find work.
Will the minister present to this H= ouse the actual programming model he is proposing to use to meet these objectives he= has set out?
Hon.
Mr. Graham: Well, it’s interesting to not=
e that
some of the things that have occurred in the last little while — the =
increase
in size or the construction of Betty’s Haven; the increase in size of=
the
OFI facility here in Whitehorse that will expand that facility somewhat; the
recently announced Yukon Housing Corporation housing action plan — all
seem to mean nothing to members opposite, and they mean a great deal to us.=
In
recent months, we’ve also located the youth shelter beds to a facility
away from the
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; Mr. Speaker, le=
t it be
clear that I am not asking the minister’s opinion on what I might be
thinking.
What I am saying is that it’s= clear, for the record, that the government has not produced either its needs asses= sment or the terms of reference for its proposed response to the homeless and hard-to-house in our community. The government does not appear to want to partner with Yukon-based NGOs which have worked hard to address homelessnes= s in the territory.
In addition, to date, no informatio= n has been disclosed regarding which location the government is considering for t= he expanded Salvation Army facility, or whether there will be consultation with neighbourhood associations and businesses.
When will the minister identify the location for the new Salvation Army? Will the minister indicate when local neighbourhood associations, such as the Downtown Residents Association, wil= l be invited to comment?
Hon.
Mr. Graham: It’s interesting to me to see=
that
the member opposite doesn’t consider the Salvation Army a local NGO. =
The
Salvation Army has been in the
I would also like to point out that=
we have
done a number of other projects. We have worked on Takhini Haven, which was=
a
five-unit project in the former transition women’s living unit at the
correctional institute facility. We have accomplished a number of other thi=
ngs.
At the present time, we have not se= lected an area where this new facility could be placed. I said during the budget d= ebate, Mr. Speaker, that we have budgeted some $90,000 — or in that range — to do some of this planning. We have also partnered with the Yukon Housing Corporation to assist the Salvation Army and Health and Social Serv= ices in determining what would be an appropriate place to have the facility.
There are also a number of steps we=
will
have to go through with the City of
Speaker: Order please. The minister’s time has elapsed.= p>
Question re: Genetically modified pr=
oducts
and seeds
Mr.
Tredger: Mr.
Speaker, after the NDP Official Opposition raised the issue of genetically
modified alfalfa in the
We are now hearing that little has =
happened
since then. The Yukon Party government has promised
Will the minister outline the proce= ss and timelines for engaging Yukoners in this important discussion?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: To begin with, I would encourage the Member for Mayo-Tatchun to stop inventing past commitments that he alleges government has made. In fact, government, in responding to Petition No. 10,= as I indicated previously when the topic of genetically modified organisms had seen discussion — it was largely a hypothetical debate because it was generally agreed at that point in time that no genetically modified seeds w= ould likely be viable for use north of 60. I’ve said this to the member be= fore, but apparently I need to say it again and maybe say it a little slower and clearer for him: as a result, no additional action was taken by the governm= ent at that time.
As I indicated in responding to the
petition this month, we believe the appropriate action at this time is for
government to facilitate discussions involving groups representing <=
st1:State>
Mr.
Tredger:=
Mr. Speaker, =
span>
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before =
in the
House, we believe the first step is in engaging with farmers. We see an
interesting pattern here from the NDP. They claim to be the champions of
consultation, but only when they like what they view as the outcomes of that
consultation. Last week we saw the NDP vote against consultation with small
businesses and the public on the matter of employment standards. The govern=
ment
brought forward proposed amendments —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Ms. Stick:= 8195; Standing Order = 19(g), is about imputing false or unavowed motives to anot= her member or, in this case, the group. We did not vote against the bill to whi= ch the member was referring. In fact, we voted in favour.
Speaker: Government House Leader, on the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I stated a fact; the NDP members ar= e against consultation. There is no point of order in my opinion.
Speaker’s ruling = p>
Speaker: It’s a dispute between members. If members want to argu= e who voted where, look it up in Hansard<= /i>; it’s there. It’s not for me to decide. We can go back through Hansard to solve arguments over mi= nor points of this nature.
Please finish your response, Minist= er of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and as I indicated, the NDP only supports consultation some of the time. We saw even= the NDP attack the off-road vehicle committee’s work when the former memb= er of the NDP, the late Steve Cardiff, served on that committee, along with two other members and me. The committee unanimously agreed on their report and = recommended that to the Assembly in good faith. The members of the NDP stood here earli= er in this House and attacked their work and suggested that the committee did = not accurately represent the views of Yukoners. I think that’s shameful.<= /span>
Mr. Tredger:= It would promot= e the debate if the minister focused on clear and transparent communication and f= ocused on telling the truth —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Unparliamentary language<= /p>
Speaker: You will apologize for that immediately.
Mr. Tredger:= Which part of t= hat, Mr. Speaker?
Speaker: You just accused a member of lying. I’m getting a little tired of this from both sides. The rhetoric in this House right now has gone from a great high to very below-acceptable levels. You will apologize and t= hen finish your question.
Withdrawal of remark
Mr. Tredger:= I withdraw my r= emark and apologize.
Once genetically modified alfalfa is
introduced into the Coast
What will this minister do to ensur= e that genetically modified alfalfa is not allowed into the territory until farmers and — we hope — consumers have reached common ground?
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: Again, as I said to the member and =
to
this House earlier in this sitting in addressing this matter, we appreciate=
the
fact that — in fact, the last time the topic of genetically modified
organisms was given significant discussion within the farming community, it=
was
largely a hypothetical question, and it led to the farming community being =
very
divided on this issue. We understand that things have changed with the
potential approval — and I have to emphasize “potential
approval” — by the federal government of the release of genetic=
ally
modified alfalfa. We are not aware of anyone who has any plans to actually =
grow
this in the Yukon
In fact, we’re still looking = into whether we actually have the regulatory tools to even address that response, because, as members know, it’s too late in this session to table new legislation. We are giving that suggestion fair consideration and will resp= ond in due course.
Question re: Liquefied natural gas
Ms. White:= 8195; On repeated occ= asions, the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources has refused to answer questions about the energy strategy he signed off on. The minister says he has to make fiscally responsible decisions, but he refuses to show Yukoners the evidenc= e, on which he bases his decision to direct Yukon’s energy future to rep= lace one fossil fuel, diesel, with another, liquefied natural gas.
To be clear, this is not a question=
about
the Yukon Electrical Company Limited’s wo=
rk in
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: What I do have to point out to the =
member
is that, in fact, I did answer the questions — whether the member did=
not
understand the answer or is choosing to reflect something different. I point
out that the information we’re getting in this case comes primarily f=
rom
Yukon Energy Corporation and from the staff of that corporation — the
work they have done and the analysis they have done, including work followi=
ng
the public planning exercise and the charettes that have occurred?
So unlike, it appears, the members = of the NDP, when the Energy Corporation staff and board sign off on information pr= esented to us, we assume that they are in fact presenting us their understanding of= the facts. We ask questions. We ask for information, but unlike the NDP, we do = have some expectation of competence on the part of the staff of the corporation = and the boards of both Yukon Energy Corporation and Yukon Development Corporati= on. As it comes down to the issue of specific projects, in fact, I would point = out to the members that no decision has been made yet to actually put in liquef= ied natural gas generation equipment. It is something that is being looked at a= nd both the Energy Corporation and government have been quite open about that fact, but that decision itself has not actually been made.
Ms.
White:=
8195; My concerns are=
about
ministerial responsibility. The minister is responsible for providing direc=
tion
on energy policy and its implementation to the Yukon Development Corporatio=
n,
which is the parent company of the Yukon Energy Corporation. Our questions
about energy are about the minister’s responsibility for the directio=
n of
Mr. Speaker, will the minister reco= nsider his position that LNG should replace diesel, that it’s not transition= al but a replacement? And will he commit to taking a second look at the role a diverse supply of renewable energy could play?
Hon. Mr. Cathers: You know, Mr. Speaker, I would like= to begin by encouraging the Member for Takhini-Kopper King to actually look in= to a bit of what is occurring in the North American context and other jurisdicti= ons that are moving toward liquefied natural gas for electricity generation = 212; including, I believe, according to the National Energy Board numbers, if me= mory serves, it’s expected, according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, to account for 60 percent of capacity additions between 2010 and 2035.
So we don’t need to do all th= e work on inventing the wheel ourselves; we’re aware of the North American context; we pay attention to it; it is clear that most scientists agree that liquefied natural gas is a better option when it comes to climate change an= d reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA recently released more data that supports this conclusion. We know in fact that it is cheaper than diesel fuel per kilowatt hour with roughly the same capital cost for the generation equipme= nt, so that is why it is being looked at as a replacement for diesel as diesel assets are phased out of the system.
I don’t know what part of tha= t the member doesn’t understand. We’ve made it clear our long-term objective is the pursuit of renewables, especia= lly large hydro projects that meet the energy needs of Yukoners but, in the interim, diesel has been part of the system for years. As those assets beco= me time-expired, something needs to replace them. At this point it looks like = it will be —
Speaker: Order please. The member’s time has elapsed.
Ms.
White:=
8195; The government&=
#8217;s
own Economic Development website features presentations from the April 2012=
There appears to be a new disclaime=
r on the
website saying, “The materials do not necessarily constitute or refle=
ct
the Government of Yukon's policies, plans or priorities relating to Liquifi=
ed
Natural Gas.” This is new. Will the minister be clear and specific ab=
out
the government’s plans related to LNG? Is the minister directing the
Yukon Energy Corporation to replace diesel with LNG so that, by the year
2015-16,
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: No. That is the simple answer. What=
I
would point out is that members don’t seem to appreciate the fact we =
have
staff at the Yukon Energy Corporation; we have boards of both Yukon Energy
Corporation and its parent corporation, Yukon Development Corporation.
Unlike the NDP’s apparent pos= ition, we have some expectation of competence on the part of those staff. We appreciate the good work that they do —
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: The Member for Takhini-Kopper King, on a point of order.
Ms. White:= 8195; I’m going= to go with 19(g): Imputes false or unavowed motives, in the terms of my questioni= ng the competence of the board.
Speaker: The Government House Leader, on the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: I stated very clearly that I was in= dicating my impression of the member’s position.
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: I’m going to have a look at the Blues and, if it’s required, I will give a ruling tomorrow. Please finish the answer.= p>
Hon. Mr. Cathers: So to begin again, I would note we sincerely appreciate the work done by the boards of both Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Energy Corporation and the staff of the corporati= ons. We appreciate the work they’ve done looking into various energy supply options, the significant time and money they have spent, including planning= and public, and hearing from Yukoners about various energy options, and discuss= ing those options.
I would encourage the member to res=
earch,
as I indicated earlier within the North American context to better understa=
nd
the energy supply choices that are being made, and also to read the letter =
of
expectation between the Chair of Yukon Development Corporation and me, whic=
h I
tabled in this House. It indicates very clearly the requirement that Yukon
Energy shall not commit to a purchase agreement having a total commitment o=
f $1
million or more related to the development of new energy supply including, =
but
not limited to, an agreement to purchase liquefied natural gas without the
prior written approval of the Yukon Development Corporation’s board of
directors and the minister. Neither the board of directors nor I have issued
such approval. We have been open about the fact that based on work to date, it looks like liquefied natural gas will have a =
role
in
Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Perhaps I should have done this before Question Period, but p= rior to proceeding to Orders of the Day, the Chair will make a statement regardi= ng proper order and decorum to be followed during points of order.
Yesterday, the Official Opposition = House Leader raised a point of order during second reading of Bill No. 57. Some members, who had not been recognized by the Chair, continued to speak while= the Official Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader spoke to t= he point of order.
This is not in order. Standing Orde=
r 6(6)
says, “When a member is speaking, no member shall interrupt, except to
raise a point of order or a question of privilege.” So only the member who has been
recognized by the Chair to address the point of order should be speaking.
If other members wish to contribute= to the resolution of the point of order they must wait to be recognized by the Cha= ir.
Also, some members continued to spe= ak while the Chair was conferring with the Clerk about the point of order and while = the Chair was delivering his ruling. This, too, is not in order. Standing Order 6(4) says, “When the Speaker speaks at any time, any member speaking shall sit down and the Speaker shall be heard without interruption.”<= /span>
On a related point, when the Chair = asks a member to apologize for a statement made or to retract words that a member = has said, the member shall do so without qualification. Once the Speaker has ru= led on the point of order, the member does not have the opportunity to further explain his or her remarks or to comment on the ruling. The member is to si= mply offer the apology or retraction and move on.
The Chair thanks all members for th= eir attention.
Notice of government private
members’ business
Hon.
Mr. Cathers: Pursuant to Standing Order 14.2(7),=
I
would like to identify the items standing in the name of government private
members to be called for debate on
Speaker: We will now proceed with Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Speake= r do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Spe= aker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.= span>
Motion agreed to
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE=
Chair: Order. Committee of the Whole will now come to order. =
The matter before the Committee is = Bill No. 57, Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act.
Do members wish to take a brief rec=
ess?
All
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair: Order. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bill No. 57: Oil-Fired Applia=
nce
Safety Statutory Amendment Act — continued
Chair: The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 57, Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is my honour to be able to speak to Bill No. 57, Oi= l-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act. Before we start, I would like= to just say a few words to express my gratitude to the officials who have join= ed us here this afternoon for today’s debate, to thank them and others within the Department of Community Services for all of their work in helping craft this bill and providing their expertise in reflecting upon the very tenets of the bill and that is, of course, to enhance the safety of home heating systems in the territory as they relate to oil-fired appliances.
Bill No. 57, as I stated yesterday,= is very important and it’s a significant legislative initiative. It will impr= ove the safety of Yukoners who use oil-fired appliances for home heating and th= ose in residences with fuel-burning devices or have a garage attached to their home. The bill will help those Yukoners be safer in their homes.
The proposed amendments to the B=
uilding
Standards Act will result in a requirement that not only a person who is
fully qualified in the trade of oil-burner mechanic may apply for a permit =
and
install or modify oil-fired appliances. The permit required to install or
modify oil-fired appliances will cover not only the installation or the
modification of the oil-fired appliance itself, but also the oil tank, the =
fuel
line and the venting for the appliance, including the chimney itself.
Copies of such permits will be file= d in the property file maintained by Building Safety, and copies of inspection repor= ts will be left on-site and filed in the property file as well. All property owners have complete access to their property files once they provide proof= of ownership. That was a question raised earlier this week.
The key proposed amendments to the = Electrical Protection Act match a proposed amendment to the Building Standards = Act. The proposed changes to both acts will enable, through regulation, the addi= tion of a condition to an electrical or a building permit when it comes to renovations.
The new condition on interior elect= rical building permits will require installation of a smoke detector. Of course, = if the building has fuel-burning devices or an attached garage, a carbon monox= ide detector will also be required. Enforcing the new requirement to install th= ese life safety devices will indeed help to better protect Yukoners.
The proposed amendments to the F= ire Prevention Act will also enable regulations that require carbon monoxide detectors to be installed in all places people reside, either temporarily or permanently; private- or government-operated, where fuel-burning devices in= side a building or a garage is attached to a building.
As we know, fuel-burning devices and
fuel-powered vehicles are sources of carbon monoxide. A carbon monoxide det=
ector
in this regard provides an early warning of the presence of that gas in that
building. The early warning alarm of a carbon monoxide detector protects pe=
ople
from this gas, which can make them ill, or, in extreme cases, cause death. =
With
the passage of this bill, followed by appropriate regulations, Smoke alarms will also be required =
to be
installed in all buildings through the changes to the Fire Prevention Ac=
t
and the regulations. As I mentioned yesterday, the offences and the penalti=
es
in the Fire Prevention Act are also being modernized, with a new max=
imum
fine for a violation of the act being $10,000, instead of the existing maxi=
mum
of $200 — indeed, a significant difference. The new maximum proposed fine is co=
nsistent
with the fire bylaw of the City of Other provisions of the bill clarif=
y the
timing of adoption of the National Building Code of Canada, the Canadian El=
ectrical
Code and National Fire Code of Canada. Specifically, the legislation creates=
a
transition period of at least six months for the adoption of the National
Building Code of Canada and the Canadian Electrical Code to enable industry=
to
prepare for those new building requirements, helping industry to plan in
advance for new materials that may be required and methods of construction.=
The
timing changes for the implementation of changes to the National Fire Code =
of
Canada will be made in regulation. As I mentioned yesterday, the suite=
of
changes under this bill will indeed raise the level of building and fire sa=
fety
in the territory by strengthening the permitting requirements for installat=
ion,
modifications of oil-fired appliances, specifying appropriate qualifications
for oil burner mechanics, requiring the installation of early warning devic=
es
in residences and providing clarity around adoption of the National Building
Code of Canada, the Canadian Electrical Code and the National Fire Code of
Canada. I know there were a number of quest=
ions and
concerns raised yesterday by members of the Official Opposition as they rel=
ate
to adhering to a key provision of enabling certified mechanics to complete
servicing on home heating appliances, as it refers to oil-fired appliances =
in
the territory. As I mentioned yesterday, during our community consultations,
our visits to each of the communities, we had the opportunity to meet with
community governments and also had open houses in each of the communities l=
ast
fall. We heard the concern that there are not enough certified mechanics; in
fact, in the lion’s share of communities with perhaps the exception o=
f A lot of work is being done within =
the
Department of Education to encourage those who have been in the industry for
many, many years — 20, 30 plus years — in the communities to ei=
ther
take the steps to challenge the exams to become fully certified, or to prov=
ide
that education to provide that gap and be able to bring those individuals to
become fully certified mechanics. Also, with these changes in this legislat=
ion,
there will be even an added incentive to get involved in the trade because =
of
the need, the heightened demand for certified mechanics for the purposes of
installation and modification of those appliances throughout the territory.=
We
are certainly undertaking a lot of work in this regard. Likewise, we are
continuing with public education and public awareness campaigns. I know that
the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation and I, accompani=
ed
by the City of Whitehorse Fire Department and the Fire Marshal’s Offi=
ce,
first kicked off a public education campaign during Fire Safety Week last
October, distributing carbon monoxide detectors and delivering that added m=
essage
of the importance of having a home safety plan as to how to exit in times of
fire, but also doing what we can, which is receiving that annual routine
service on our furnace and doing what we as individual homeowners can to
undertake steps to ensure our homes are safe. It is a shared responsibility among
government, industry and individual homeowners when it comes to the safety =
of
our homes. With these changes, we’re moving toward enhanced safety for
those homeowners when it comes to installation and maintenance of those
specific appliances in the territory and by making mandatory those
early-warning devices, such as carbon monoxide detectors and smoke alarms a=
nd
making them available within each of our homes. The specifics, as I mentioned earli=
er, will
be spelled out in regulations that will soon come thereafter. As I mentioned at the onset in my e=
arlier
remarks, we look forward to drafting those regulations, sharing those
regulations with industry and others in the months to come and working so t=
hat
these changes can take effect in time for the cooler temperatures of the ho=
me
heating season. I would just like to again thank the
individuals throughout the many departments. I would also like to thank the
City of I would also like to thank all the
individuals who have contributed their time over the past several months to
where we are today. Again, I know that the members oppo=
site
have triggered their intent of bringing forth an amendment or amendments to=
the
following bill. We look forward to debating the provisions of the bill, but
certainly commend this bill to all members of the Assembly and certainly lo=
ok
forward to their support of this bill going forward. Thank you. Ms.
Moorcroft: The government =
spent a
lot of time in yesterday’s second reading debate and, in fact, in
Question Period today as well, lambasting the Official Opposition and
fearmongering, saying that we did not support the bill — Unparliamentary language<=
/p>
Chair: The use of the term “fearmongering” is not in ord=
er. Withdrawal of remark Ms.
Moorcroft: Madam Chair, I =
withdraw
the remark. Chair: Pardon me? Ms.
Moorcroft: Madam Chair, I =
said I
withdraw the word. Chair: Thank you, you may continue. Ms.
Moorcroft: Thank you. The
government said, in error, that we did not support the bill. The government=
suggested
that our position on the bill was out of step with rural The NDP Official Opposition has bee=
n clear
that we don’t think the bill is comprehensive, and there are major ga=
ps
the government hasn’t filled. We’ve also been clear that, despi=
te
this general critique, there are some good measures. I spoke to that yester=
day
in second reading, and I will speak to that again. However, before I do, I must draw a=
ttention
to an error the minister made yesterday in speaking to this bill and repeat=
ed today
in Question Period. The minister said, “I would just refer to one of =
the
key coroner recommendations, which was to ensure that all applicable
regulations have provisions to provide persons or companies presently worki=
ng
in the affected industry sufficient time to become qualified.”=
Now, that is not a coroner’s
recommendation. There are nine recommendations from the coroner. They were
referenced in speaking yesterday, so I’m not going to read all of them
into the record again today, although I will be referring to some of them, =
as
they are quite relevant to our debate. In fact, the recommendation “=
…
to ensure that applicable regulations have provisions to provide persons or
companies presently working in the affected industry with sufficient time to
become qualified …” is from page 9 of the Oil-Fired Applianc=
es
Working Group Action Plan and Recommendations. So it’s not a
coroner’s recommendation; it is a recommendation of the Oil-Fired
Appliance Working Group. Having said that, we agree that there is a need for
some time to allow for acquiring the training that is needed in order to me=
et
the standards for licence and certification. I would also like to draw attention=
to the
fact that the recommendation from the Oil-Fired Appliances Working Group th=
at
precedes the one about allowing for sufficient time to become qualified sta=
rts
out with recommendation 1 to begin work on an act specific to oil-fired
appliances. We do not have the government working on an act specific to
oil-fired appliances. We have the government bringing forward amendments to=
the
Building Standards Act, the Electrical Protection Act, and th=
e Fire
Prevention Act. Now, I want to review our position =
in
supporting some good measures in this bill. Those are that building standar=
ds
will adopt changes in the National Building Code in a timely measure. The
requirements for CO detectors: although carbon monoxide detectors, it must =
be
said, are not fail-safe and the testing of units in previous experiments ha=
ve
shown that many do not live up to CSA standards, we agree with the certific=
ation
and licensing for oil burner mechanics who install oil-fired appliances. I
point out, though, that that level of certification is not known and subjec=
t to
regulations. We agree with the modernization of penalties for violations in=
the
Fire Prevention Act. We will support the bill. It is not
perfect, but it is some progress, and we hope to make more progress because=
we
have been clear and we have proposed a reasonable change. It’s a mode=
st
step that will increase safety; namely, requiring those who service oil-fir=
ed
appliances to be licensed and certified. This is not only the idea of the N=
DP.
The government’s own working group recommended that and the
coroner’s jury also recommended this when it directed the chief coron=
er
to “adopt the recommendations of the Oil-Fired Appliances Working Gro=
up,
referred to in exhibit 33.” The government suggested that our p=
roposal
to include the servicing and maintenance of oil-fired appliances in these a=
mendments
was out of step with rural I want to hear more from the minist=
er. Is
it the government’s intention to include those who service and mainta=
in
appliances to be licensed and certified? How will that be achieved? Will the
government allow for an amendment to include servicing or is it the
government’s intention to include servicing in the regulations that a=
re
yet to be crafted, outlining the prescribed activities in section 4(j) of t=
he
bill? Perhaps the minister could respond =
to that
before I move on. Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I thank the member opposite for her
observations and her questions, which I will endeavour to answer. =
p>
Just going back=
to my
comments yesterday and again today: when it comes to servicing, it is very
accurate that it was one of the recommendations of the working group that w=
as
assembled to really come up with an action plan for We travelled all across the territo=
ry. The
minister responsible for the Housing Corporation and I, accompanied by yourself, Madam Chair, MLA for I won’t go over again some of=
the
comments that we heard, but the overwhelming feedback was that there were s=
ignificant
concerns about not having readily available certified mechanics living with=
in
those communities and the dangers of legislating that today or even tomorrow
— making that requirement of having service provided by certified
mechanics mandatory. We heard specifically from industry and we heard from
residents. We heard from different candidates of all stripes on either side=
of
the Legislative Assembly. It certainly altered the way I had thought. As I =
had
mentioned yesterday, in going out — before I even embarked upon a tou=
r of
the communities, I had thought it would be no problem. We could just go ahe=
ad
and make these changes tomorrow. That’s not what we received from the
communities though. I appreciate the feedback provided. I also recognize the importance of =
having
professionals doing the work on our home heating appliances; I get that. But
when you don’t have that capacity on a day-by-day basis, 365 days a y=
ear
in those communities, what would that change mean to a community? As one in=
dividual
in Mayo pointed out, those individuals who have been servicing those
appliances, whether it was an emergency repair or servicing, have been doin=
g it
for the past 25, 35 years, and there are many individuals in just about eve=
ry
community, whether they work for First Nation governments or are part of the
community at large, who have been doing that for many years. I’m not questioning their exp=
ertise,
because they have been in the business for many years, but what would that =
mean
for them? Their fear — and they said point blank that if you were to =
go
and legislate tomorrow, we would not be able to service those appliances on=
an
ongoing basis, we would not be able to tend to that furnace when it goes ou=
t in
the middle of the night and in the middle of the winter because of the
liability associated with making that provision today. We recognize that an=
d we
also recognize, at the same time, that there was also a lot of feedback abo=
ut
how we do need to do a better job in making training available, providing
education and filling that gap that is identified, very much so, as a much
needed capacity in our communities. This bill is all about taking impor=
tant
measures. Again, I would just like to point out that when we look across the
country, what are other jurisdictions in the country doing to regulate
oil-burner mechanics? It’s treated in a number of ways across the cou=
ntry,
but the majority of provinces and territories do not regulate this professi=
on. In fact, there are only three provi=
nces
that regulate this trade in some manner because it does vary even among tho=
se
three jurisdictions. I refer to Like the I’d like to say that we in th=
e north
are the first in the country and, to be sure, we have garnered the attentio=
n of
territories, such as the Getting back to whether or not this=
bill
provides for the ability to add servicing at a later date — yes, the =
bill
does provide a provision by way of regulation within the bill itself to pro=
vide
servicing when it is deemed appropriate. If that’s going to happen to=
day
or tomorrow — it’s not, because what we have seen and know to be
the case in our communities is not in fact what we heard. So I just wanted to provide clarity=
, and
I’ll say again that the ultimate goal is to have those certified
individuals in every community. It would be great, but we’re not there
yet. That’s the sheer reality of it, and is certainly something we he=
ard
in all of our community visits. Again, based on what we heard, base=
d on
those community visits, based on the specific feedback, the overwhelming ma=
jority
of individuals who shared their time and, rest assured, those meetings, whe=
ther
it was in Faro, in Mayo — long meetings, two and a half hours plus, a=
nd
some very good reflections on what we have today. I should also say that th=
ere
was a recognition that more needs to be done. There is no question there, a=
nd
that’s why we are here today. We recognize that more needs to be done,
and that’s why we are very much proceeding with improvements to the w=
ay
we regulate industry, and it will make a big difference. It will make a
significant difference. Adding on those early warning devices — making
those mandatory is another step in enhancing the safety of our homes. Within the bill, as I mentioned yes=
terday,
we have the provision of a public register of those qualified with a red se=
al
in the trade to be added to a list that will be made available to the publi=
c.
If individuals do want to subscribe to services of certified individuals who
happen to be in their community, if they’re not able to bring those
individuals to their community, for the time being until we can fully enhan=
ce
capacity in our communities, that will also be made available for individual
homeowners to draw from. As I mentioned yesterday, there wer=
e a lot
of great ideas in terms of how we can help build capacity in the interim, in
the short term as well as in the longer term. We remain committed to working
with each of our municipal governments and First Nation governments in
enhancing the training and the certification. The number one goal: How can =
we
increase the number of certified mechanics in our community to do that work=
so
that one day, yes, we will be able to make certification of servicing also a
requirement, but we’re not there yet. So again, I’m not entirely su=
re how
much more clear — perhaps it’s an is=
sue
that we will always disagree on. I commend the officials for putting this b=
ill
together — in a relatively short period of time, I might add. We will=
be
the fourth jurisdiction in the country to regulate this particular industry=
to
the degree to which we are proceeding. Again, I would just like to thank my=
colleagues
for also sharing their sentiments on what they heard during the discussion =
that
took place in the communities. I think it is a meaningful bill. I =
think
there are significant improvements that will make a big difference in the l=
ives
of Yukoners. We will continue to enhance this particular area as we move
forward, as we continue to build capacity in our communities and continue to
build upon those requirements and what we have to be doing. So I look forward to discussing the=
merits
of the bill and going through the provisions line by line, when we come to =
that
time, and I thank the members — I believe I heard that they will be
supporting the bill, so I do want to thank the Official Opposition. I
haven’t heard from all members on the opposite side, but I would like=
to
thank them for their support. Ms.
Moorcroft: The minister ju=
st
referred to Be that as it may, I am glad that t=
he
minister agrees with me that more needs to be done. As I’ve said, we =
are
in support of these measures and we are simply advocating for additional
measures to ensure that people are safe. We in the Hon.
Ms. Taylor: It’s a great question and it =
all
hinges on the number of individuals who are attracted to the industry, of
course, and how many actually subscribe to the training. I don’t have=
the
actual statistics in front of me; those are really for the Minister of Educ=
ation
to outline. As I mentioned yesterday, I know an example of an individual wh=
o is
working in the electronics sector of our economy and who has chosen to now
apprentice under a certified mechanic to get into this business. Knowing ab=
out
some of these changes that are taking effect and obviously knowing that with
more heightened public education, there will be more of a demand from indiv=
iduals,
territory-wide, to subscribe to the use of certified mechanics. One thing I do know is that it is c=
ertainly
training for mechanics; it has and it continues to be offered through We have 16 registered apprentices: =
14 in
their first year and two in their third year. Where in fact they choose to =
operate
or to actually set up their practice is another matter, of course. Again, t=
hat
is something that we heard specific to the individual rural communities or
smaller communities, which was the need to be able to deliver training for =
individuals
who have been servicing over the years and also reaching out to new individ=
uals
who would like to also get into the trade, whether they are in the communit=
ies
or whether they are from outside of the territory and so forth. We do know that right now, with the
exception of I remember sitting down with an ind=
ividual
who is a member of the Selkirk First Nation. He works for the Selkirk First
Nation in the public works department and is trying to find creative ways a=
s to
how we could actually expand those opportunities — make it a viable
business for individuals to be a certified mechanic in those communities. <=
/span> In Carmacks, we also talked with th=
e mayor
and council about different ideas as to how we can build capacity. There are
ways, to be sure. We’re very much committed to moving forward on some=
of
these training initiatives. I do know that it is a red seal trade. It does =
take
time to go through the necessary education — I understand anywhere fr=
om
four to five years. That could be expedited, as I seem to recall, depending=
on
how many hours someone has worked in the industry and being able to bank th=
ose
hours and putting that up against their apprenticeship. There are ways, but it does spell o=
ut how important
the training and the education is in making this all very successful and in
making it attractive for every household as well. Likewise, the other issue
that was raised in the communities — not only the capacity, but also =
the
cost associated if in fact one wasn’t looking at just an emergency
repair, but was looking for an annual servicing. Being able to facilitate c=
ompanies
to come to their respective communities — the cost associated with tr=
avel
and the compensation for accessing that individual’s expertise can be
very costly. Again, I think there are opportunities, and I’m not sayi=
ng
that cost is the only factor in this, but it comes down to building the
capacity in our communities. Ms.
Moorcroft: The minister ha=
s spoken
at some length about what she heard and what other members of their caucus
heard when they travelled to communities with a consultation on recommendat=
ion 3
of the Oil-Fired Appliance Working Group, which was the recommendation deal=
ing
with legislation, and that recommendation was to create an act specific to
oil-fired appliances. The working group recommended that permits be require=
d to
install or modify oil-fired appliances and indeed to service them. The focus
questions and the consultation, according to what I read on the website, we=
re
these three questions: (1) In your opinion, how =
can
this legislation best address oil-fired appliance safety? (2) Are the propo=
sed
rules sufficient? Too much? Not enough? (3) When
should the act be put in place? I would like to ask the minister wh=
ether
the government is prepared to release all of the comments and reports from
their consultation on oil-fired appliances. She indicated they had officials
there with them. Did someone take minutes and record the proceedings? Will =
the
government release the comments or reports that they had developed during t=
heir
consultation on oil-fired appliances? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I can’t speak for the ministe=
r responsible
for Yukon Housing Corporation. I don’t believe there were officials f=
rom
my department, at least, who travelled with him. In addition to MLAs, there
were officials with us. Certainly we can endeavour to assemble those commen=
ts
and the specific feedback that we heard at each of the meetings. I can say that when I sat down with=
each of
the mayors and councils, First Nation government representatives and open
houses, we went through the actual working group recommendations — the
report itself — handed out copies, which were also made available on-=
line
on the link. They were also made available and distributed at government
offices throughout the communities, so it was readily accessible. We went
through each of the provisions of the working group report and had a very g=
ood,
thorough discussion — again throughout all of the discussion items on
what the members opposite have been raising. That was the way to generate t=
he
debate and the discussion and to get right into the meat of the report. I would be happy to do that. I woul=
d be
happy to ask the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corporation to =
do
the same. Ms.
Moorcroft: I would like to=
thank
the minister for that commitment. I appreciate that. I want to ask the mini=
ster
a question related to page 4 of the bill in section 5(a): “A regulati=
on
under subsection (4) may (a) apply to part or all of the Yukon or to some o=
r all
kinds or classes of buildings or of components, fixtures or systems of
buildings;” Can the minister explain the
government’s intention with that section, which refers to a regulatio=
n,
in part or in whole, applying to various components, fixtures or systems of
buildings? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I believe the member was referring =
to
section 5(a). I just wanted to point out that the=
actual
specific wording when it states “apply to part or all of the Yukon or=
to
some or all kinds of classes of buildings” — that actual wording
already exists in the act — it’s actually a regulation-making
power; I believe it’s perhaps not in the act, but in the regulation
itself. The new provision in this section is the reference to adding the
components, fixtures or systems of buildings. So that is the substantive ch=
ange
in this particular section. It has been added to clearly show t=
he full
extent to which the act and the code applies to make sure there is no
uncertainty as to what this bill refers to. Again, it’s adding that a=
dded
clarity, as I understand. Ms. Moorcroft: Well,
I’d like to refer to the definition of oil-fired appliance, then, as
it’s set out in the act. The definition of an oil-fired appliance
includes: (a) any device other than a device that a regulation deems not to=
be
an oil-fired appliance that: (i) is or is desig=
ned to
be permanently installed in a building; and (ii) burns or is designed to bu=
rn a
fuel that is liquid at normal atmospheric pressure and normal room temperat=
ure;
and (b) any device that a regulation deems to be an oil-fired appliance. Now we spoke yesterday about other
jurisdictions and some have suggested a model standard is the one used in <=
/span> Here in Hon.
Ms. Taylor: As I mentioned in my opening commen=
ts
earlier today, it talks about the proposed amendments to the Building
Standards Act, making it a requirement that a permit be pulled by a
certified mechanic when it comes to installation and modification of these
appliances. Of course it covers not only the installation and the modificat=
ion
of the actual appliance itself, but to the member’s point, also the o=
il
tank, the fuel line, and the venting for the appliance, which also includes=
the
chimney, so the whole package, as well. The actual specifics of course will=
be
made by way of regulation-making power under section 4(d)(ii)
and again, this will legislate the current practice as we know it today. Ms.
Moorcroft: Could the minis=
ter
clarify what she meant by regulating the current practice as we know it tod=
ay? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: As I just referenced, without the b=
ill
going through today, under the current practice, when a permit is pulled for
installation modification that individual does not have to be certified.
It’s not changing up the definition of the system, but going forward,
including the oil tank, the oil line, the appliance itself and any associat=
ed
ventilation such as the chimney would be included. That would of course be
spelled out by way of the regulation under section 4(d)=
(ii).
Ms.
Moorcroft: I want to be su=
re that
I understand what the minister said. She indicated that having the fuel tank
and the lines and the chimneys serviced or replaced or worked on would be
covered in a regulation. It would be spelled out in regulation 4(d). My sug=
gestion
to the minister is that they consider including in the definition of an
oil-fired appliance language that refers to the oil tank, the supply lines =
and
the chimneys as being part of the oil-fired appliance. If the permits are going to require=
that
someone be licensed or that a company have someone who is licensed in order=
to
pull the permit and to do the work, I think it would be more clear if the
definition itself also included the references to all of the components of =
the
oil-fired appliance, particularly when that’s going to be addressed in
regulation. I also want to ask about inspection=
s,
because we know that there were several points at which a successful
intervention could have prevented the deaths that occurred at I’d like to ask the minister:=
How
regularly do the inspectors working for Community Services take refresher
courses and take the courses on oil equipment inspections and fuel oil
inspections? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: Just back to the member opposite=
217;s
earlier comments about the complete system, as she was referring to, when o=
ne
pulls a permit for the oil-fired appliance when it comes to installation or
modification by homeowner or an individual, just to reinforce what I said e=
arlier,
that currently includes — it is the case — the tank, the line, =
the
appliance, the ventilation — all the components are included. That is=
the
current practice. What we’re saying here is reinforcing that practice=
. That being said, as I referenced,
regulation-making power will be provided in the proposed bill before us to
reinforce what we have just stated here as being the current practice. So,
again, I thank the member opposite for her comments, and we will take those
under advisement in developing those regulations. Of course, I also just wanted to ad=
d that
it does provide, by way of regulation-making power, the added flexibility to
make changes to reflect changes within the industry as they evolve. So ther=
e is
that other component. When it comes to inspections, of course, when a permi=
t is
obtained to install or modify a system, that inspection again covers the en=
tire
system and, as the member opposite alluded to, inspections are a shared jur=
isdiction
currently and that continues to be the case. As I mentioned earlier, the Ci=
ty
of So, again, when it comes down to th=
e City
of Ms.
Moorcroft: The minister in=
the
first part of her remarks referred to the fact that a permit would be requi=
red
for the installation or modification of an oil-fired appliance and that wou=
ld
include the tank, the line, the appliance and the ventilation. I would like=
the
minister to clarify — to be absolutely certain that when she says
“ventilation,” does that include all chimneys? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: Yes, it does. Ms.
Moorcroft: The other area =
that the
minister just responded to me about was on the question of inspectors and
training for inspectors. I understand that the City of My question relates to circumstance=
s for
people living outside of the limits of the City of Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I thank the member opposite for her
question. As the member opposite knows full well, with the recent introduct=
ion
and passage of the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act last December=
, I
believe, we are working on some draft regulations to go out to the public,
which will certainly oversee this particular area. As the members opposite =
will
recall, there are provisions that pertain to condition inspection reports.
Working on the regulations on a go-forward basis, this particular area will=
certainly
be considered on a go-forward basis. As well, I should also add, in addi=
tion to
our inspectors, for the rest of the Ms.
Moorcroft: I thank the min=
ister
for that. I would like to go back and ask the
minister again: What is the government’s time frame for ensuring that=
by
a certain date all the work that will be done to oil-fired appliances will =
be
done by those who are certified and licensed? How will that be achieved? Has
the minister considered a sunset clause, for instance, or does the governme=
nt
have something in mind to ensure that by a certain date all the work that is
done is done by certified oil-burner mechanics? Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I believe the member opposite was
referring to servicing. No, we don’t have a specific date in mind. As=
I
mentioned yesterday, during our community visits in consultations with many
different stakeholders in every different community, something that we heard
was not to proceed with legislation in this particular area for the simple
sheer fact that we don’t have certified mechanics in our communities,
with the exception of — there are a couple. But in the lion’s share of
communities we do not have that provision right now. We do not have that
capacity to actually proceed with servicing, so we’re not going to
proceed with making a change in regulation that proceeds with servicing
tomorrow, but there is provision within the regulation that is enabled by t=
his
particular bill to add servicing at a later date when in fact it’s de=
emed
to be — but we’re not there yet. Chair: Is there any further — Ms. White. Ms.
White:=
8195; Thank you, Mada=
m Chair.
I was waiting for the signal. Part of some of the recommendations=
for the
Oil-Fired Appliance Working Group is the education campaign, so I went on-l=
ine
and I found a sheet on the government website and it’s called What=
to
Look for When Inspecting a Masonry Chimney. It gives steps provided to
assist the homeowner with the basics of what to look for to determine if the
masonry chimney has faults that require attention from a professional. So I clicked on the link and I̵=
7;ve
printed out the sheet and it’s in front of me now. So, in the first
paragraph, it says — and it’s underlined to show the importance,
and I quote: “If there is any doubt regarding the integrity of the
chimney on your home, do not use it until a certified chimney professional =
has
approved it for safe use.” So a certified chimney
professional. So then I wanted to better understa=
nd the
standards for a certified chimney professional. The same sheet says, “=
;We
suggest that you hire a WETT-certified chimney professional who can examine=
the
chimney in the complete and correct manner. Most also offer repair services,
and can suggest what repairs are needed, and provide alternatives for the
particular chimney on your house.” So then on the next paragraph, it g=
ives the
definition of WETT. WETT is the Wood Energy Technology Transfer. It “=
is a
non-profit training and education association. WETT promotes the safe and
effective use of wood-burning systems in Then I was curious, because I had n=
ever
heard what WETT was before. So then I Googled <=
span
class=3DGramE>it, and I got the organization’s home website. T=
hese
are just taken out of their definitions. “Wood Energy Technology Tran=
sfer
is a non-profit training and education association managed by a volunteer b=
oard
of directors elected by holders of valid WETT certificates … Through =
professional
training and public education, WETT Inc. promotes the safe and effective us=
e of
wood-burning systems in Canada.” — so, wood-burning systems.
“In carrying out its mandate to promote increased safety and
effectiveness, WETT maintains the wood energy technical training program. T=
he
program is designed to provide training to those who offer wood energy prod=
ucts
and installation and maintenance services to the public and those who condu=
ct
inspections of wood-burning systems.” That was the main website, and =
then
I checked out WETBC, and that’s the Wood Energy Technicians of British
Columbia, and is “the provincial governing body of the Wood Energy
Technical Training Program in The website says, “WETT is I was not able to find anywhere on-=
line
that WETT makes you qualified to do oil and gas chimneys at all — and=
I
spent quite a bit of time. It’s incredibly valid —=
I think
it’s a valid certification, but the longest certification is a five-d=
ay
program. So that’s two days on wood-burning systems, one day of site
basic training, and two days of chimney sweeping. That’s to become a =
qualified
WETT technician. When we talk about the information — and it’s
coming directly from the government — that someone with the wood ener=
gy
technology transfer certification is qualified for oil and gas — which
they’re not, according to the website. So I have concerns about the
definition of the chimney professional under the guidelines from the
government. The website indicates that WETT chimney professionals are train=
ed
on chimneys for all forms of home heating, including oil and gas. I stand
corrected, and I appreciate if I could get corrected about that. But, as fa=
r as
I can tell, it’s only wood-burning appliances. So this brings me to a couple of qu=
estions.
In the Hon.
Mr. I don’t have the same informa=
tion
that she has in front of her with me here today, so I will endeavour to get
back to her on the specific questions with respect to that training. As I m=
entioned
during the second reading speech yesterday, we will be developing a website
checklist for all aspects of home heating safety, as well as other aspects =
of
how to ensure that your home is safe. So, again, with respect to the spec=
ific
training question asked by the member opposite and the question about the c=
ertification,
I will get back to her. I’ll take it up with the Housing Corporation =
and
the Department of Education and get an answer back to her as soon as possib=
le. Ms.
White:=
8195; I thank the min=
ister
for that. Under the guise of Community Services where the legislation will =
be,
what trade group is considered chimney professionals? Who right now could I
call as a chimney professional? Hon.
Mr. Ms.
White:=
8195; I apologize. I =
was just
trying to figure out where this would go. We were just discussing how the def=
inition
of “appliance” in Canada
Man, every time I talk about the coroner’s inquest, I can’t get it out. Those of us who went to = the coroner’s inquest remember very clearly the testimony about the chimn= ey. It was multiple people and it was quite a long time. Ultimately, the total obstruction of the chimney caused the death by poisoning the five people in= the house. The chimney backed up; the chimney no longer worked; it was plugged = with ice and that caused all the toxic gas to go back into the house. It was the chimney.
Part of my asking these questions a= bout the current draft regulations in front of us is because I really want to be cle= ar that we know who is responsible for the chimney. That’s where I’= ;m ultimately trying to go. The ministers talked about the installer modificat= ion of appliances and oil tanks, and he included chimneys. In that inclusion of= the chimneys, would the modification of a chimney be a repair? Would that be the insertion of a liner? Would that be the addition of a cap? Would that be considered a modification and would it fall underneath the guise of what we’re discussing currently?
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I thank the member opposite for her
questions and they are good questions indeed.
What I can say though for this bill=
is
that, as the member opposite referenced, chimneys are indeed part of the
complete appliance that is being considered under this bill, going forward.
When it does come to modification and installation, it triggers a permit to=
be
pulled, which also triggers an inspection to be completed by our inspectors.
Within the City of
In terms of the actual definition of modification, within the bill we’re talking to, without getting into line-by-line, I don’t have that specifically in front of me, but ther= e is provision for regulation-making power that makes reference to the specific modification and what that looks like.
When we’re talking about modi= fication and installation, it would refer to having a certified oil-burner mechanic required to do that particular work, to be defined in regulation, but it wo= uld also trigger an inspection, and so forth.
Ms.
White:=
8195; I’m going=
to go
back to the chimney on
There was a lot of talk about the c= himney. Even the original construction of the house when they tried to figure it out — the original construction was not in compliance with the 1972 Build= ing Code, which indicated mortar should not protrude into the chimney. So we already know that one was wrong in 1972.
I’ve since learned — and I’ve become a bit obsessed about chimneys because of my time at the coroner’s inquest — that there needs to be a minimum height of a chimney to go above the crest of the roof of the house. I used to drive by = this house all the time on my way to my mom and dad’s. I understand now th= at it’s supposed to be higher than the peak of the house if it’s closer than 10 feet to the top. This one was not 10 feet away from the top = and it was two feet below the roofline of the house. So that was a visible infr= action that you could see from the road. So that was another one.
In relation to the idea of pulling = a permit and having it inspected — and I wish I could depend on that — b= ut in 1991 a permit was pulled to do work on a chimney to insert a steel liner. The work was never done and there was no inspection to follow to say that it had not been done based on the permit that was pulled. So that never happen= ed.
The chimney would never have passed=
an
inspection; that was clear.
Everyone said that if someone had t= aken a good look at the chimney, the chimney never would have passed inspection. T= hen it comes to who was responsible to look at that chimney and make sure it passed. I realize I might be going around in circles and it might not make = any sense, but I’m trying to get at who is ultimately responsible for the chimney. When we talk about it, it is attached to the appliance and the app= liance is now under the guise of qualified people, does that then mean that the chimney is also their responsibility?
We know that the chimney would not = have passed an inspection and, when it sold between owners, had a home inspection been done it would have been identified, but because there was no financing required to purchase the home, a home inspection wasn’t done because = it was not required. That’s another one where the chimney could have been inspected.
Tragically, never in the whole sequ= ence of events did anyone ever open up the trapdoor on the outside of the chimney, accessible without a ladder. Why this is relevant is because, as soon as th= at door was opened, it was completely obstructed with debris that had fallen d= own the chimney because the chimney had no liner — it all circulates. So = my questions are just trying to figure out how this new guise of safety is goi= ng to protect people from chimneys.
Understanding that the chimney was = a big part of this tragedy also means that the chimneys can be a big part of the = solution in the future. So my questions about chimney professionals, understanding t= hat it’s the Minister of Education — and I’ll speak to him ab= out that at some point, I’m sure — and understanding that, if I loo= k in the phone book right now under “chimneys” there’s one listing. If I call in the furnace repair people and they tell me that my chimney is safe, but I can follow the checklist and I’m still unsure,= who is ultimately responsible for chimneys?
We have increased fines and things,= and it talks about the bigger installation and it talks about permits being pulled= and all these things. If you had the best furnace in the entire world and you h= ave a bad chimney, you still have an unsafe furnace. I guess it brings us back = to the proper certification for people installing and maintaining chimneys, as they are exhaust systems for the oil-fired appliances. I don’t expect= an answer from this, because I realize you can’t answer that, but I just want to know who is going to be responsible for the chimneys and what kind = of certification they’re going to require.
Cleaning is one thing, but when you= call to get your furnace inspected in September, before the heating season — = and we’re putting a lot of onus on homeowners to understand that they have qualified people — where is the checklist? Where is something to help= me say, have you looked up my chimney? Does it have the proper diameter? Is it unblocked? Is it safe? All these things, because the ch= imney is at the crux of this incident. I just want to bring light to the f= act that I have questions about chimneys and I hope they can be addressed in the legislation.
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I just want to go back in terms of =
this
legislation going forward and the provisions in the legislation before us f=
or
debate. It is really talking about the installation and the modification of
these oil-fired appliances, which is inclusive of the chimney. I just wante=
d to
go back — under this provision, it would trigger a permit to be pulled
not just by any homeowner, which is currently the case, but with these chan=
ges
it would be by a certified oil burner mechanic. That would be a certified i=
ndividual.
I should also clarify, however, thanks to our officials, that sheet metal
mechanics typically install the lion’s share of chimneys.
When it comes to the oil burner mec= hanics, it would be those specific individuals who would be pulling the permit of c= ourse and would be ultimately held responsible for the permit to be inspected and approved by our respective professionals within the unit itself.
=When it comes to changes over the y= ears, as I referenced earlier, up until 2010 there was no provision in the regulatio= ns or in the act to provide for a permit to be pulled. That did take effect in 2010. It was one of the improvements that were made. Of course these changes that we’re talking about in the proposed bill go a step beyond that by ensuring that those who actually take the permit out from Building Inspecti= ons are actually certified mechanics. That is not the case today.
When it comes to training, as I men=
tioned
earlier, we have identified that and of course we’re working very clo=
sely
with the Yukon Housing Corporation, Department of Education and many others
throughout the government to really look at this entire area in terms of pu=
blic
awareness, checklists for individual homeowners, placing responsibility upon
individual homeowners, but also doing our part to educate and to inform ind=
ividuals,
as well, as to what those checklists look like.
Of course, we’ve endeavoured
to do some of that work. There is more work to be done going forward. Train=
ing
is a very important initiative and component in terms of building capacity,=
but
also providing specific added training to our current complement of inspect=
ors.
We have also agreed to go to work with the City of
Again, just to recap, the actual ch=
anges to
the act include working on enhancing that training and public awareness cam=
paigns
being delivered through Yukon Housing Corporation. Yukon Housing Corporatio=
n is
the designated lead on this. Of course, we have a big part to play in terms=
of
helping to inform those campaigns and moving forward with regulation.
That also includes draft regulation= s that will also be coming to fruition for the public to comment on, as it refers = to the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, as we talked about last December. At the end of the day, it= is a shared responsibility among government and industry and homeowners. I keep pointing to how these changes will definitely make a significant difference, recognizing we all have a part to play when it comes to enhancing safety of these particular home heating systems.
Ms. White:= 8195; I’m just = going to look for a little bit of clarification. I apologize because I’m tryin= g to take notes. When the minister just said sheet metal mechanics now do the wo= rk, does that mean that when work needs to be done on a chimney, a qualified oil burner mechanic will pull the permit, someone else will be able to do the w= ork and then they’ll have to oversee the work, and then it will get inspe= cted by an inspector after that? I’m just trying to clarify what that proc= ess will be of who will be able to do the work.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: To be even clearer, it’s not = always a sheet metal mechanic, of course. Just to be very clear because I know how we’re held accountable to every single word in this Legislative Assem= bly and I appreciate that, but as I understand it, typically but not always it would be a sheet metal mechanic, but the actual permit would indeed be issu= ed to the oil burner mechanic, if in fact it was a sheet metal mechanic who wo= uld provide that work, but it is the responsibility of the permit holder to ens= ure the entire safety or the entire system is adhered to as per the provisions = of the regulations in the act itself.
Ms.
White:=
8195; Just to open up
questions about permits — so, if we had a qualified person who was
pulling the permit, but there was no requirement that they’d be the o=
nes
to do the work, would that be applicable to other things like the modificat=
ion
of the appliance or the oil tank? Then is that person personally responsible
for having pulled the permit? Sorry, I’m just trying to figure out how
that works.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: In terms of what I tried to referen= ce earlier, when you go to take out a permit to install or modify, that’= s the complete appliance itself and everything that connects to it, inclusive of = the chimney, of course. So it would be the oil burner mechanic who would actual= ly take out that particular permit who would be held responsible for maintaini= ng — so actually ensuring that the delivery of the work is actually subscribed to, because it is part of the entire package or the delivery of = the system, as we talked about — from ventilation to chimney to the appli= ance itself and so forth. So again, hopefully that provides a little bit of clar= ity.
Ms.
Stick:=
8195; I believe the m=
inister
recognizes that this proposed legislation is very important to the Official
Opposition and we are here to help ensure that it works for all Yukoners. W=
ith
regard to this Bill No. 57, as my colleagues have said before, this is about
the health and safety of all our constituents whether they live in their own
homes, in rental accommodations or in Yukon Housing Corporation units. It a=
lso
includes our workplaces, not just where we live, and that’s important=
to
remember. We want all people to be safe in their homes and at their work in=
Yesterday the Premier stated that w= e had offered no solutions and I believe that’s why our debate comes in. Th= is is the spot where we can make solutions, offer options and yes, even amendments, to improve or to find better ways to implement this legislation. I’ve done some work on this. I don’t pretend to know anything a= bout oil furnaces and their installation and maintenance. I don’t have one= in my house; I have a wood stove that I know a lot about and I take good care = of, but in just thinking about that I realize that is probably the biggest inve= stment inside our home that most of us make. It’s not our furniture; it̵= 7;s not our appliances. Besides the structure of our home, it’s the bigge= st, most expensive piece and it’s probably the one piece that we know the least about, and we absolutely depend on other people to help us with our safety. I think that’s just a given. The majority of people call the furnace guy to come in and fix it or service it or tell us if we need a new one. We depend and have somehow come to just trust that those individuals w= ill do right by us. Anyway, I digress.
I thought about solutions; I though=
t about
things that we could do, including passing this legislation that will help =
to
make people safer. Yes, public education is a part of it; yes, having certi=
fied
technicians are a part. But in the meantime, between legislation and
regulations, what are we going to do? I suggest we look at the legislation =
and
the proposed amendment that we’ll come to in line-by-line, pass that =
and
let’s pass the strongest legislation we can, and then when we go to o=
ur
regulations, let’s build in a bridge to put in timelines.
This is our standard; it’ll t= ake us this long. How do we bridge that to make it the strongest piece of legislat= ion, rather than leave it good in some spots, not so great in others, recognizing our limitations because of lack of individuals with that certified training, but let’s put it in the law now. Let’s bridge; let’s find ways to bridge that with timelines in our regulations that will move us forward so that we don’t have to come back and amend this legislation to make it even stronger. That’s one thought.<= /span>
We talk about communities not having
certified technicians. Well, what about the government<=
/span>
contracting with a company or with individuals who have that certification =
to
go to communities and in collaboration with the municipality, LAC, or the F=
irst
Nations, inspect — do an inspection; offer those inspections. There c=
ould
be a fee that is paid to have that done. Yes, it’s going to cost mone=
y.
It will cost money, but I feel that every life saved is worth that money th=
at would
be spent.
If we look at the reports by Rod Corea &=
#8212; with
whom this government contracted and paid with taxpayers’ money —=
; he
identified many, many privately owned and other — even businesses =
212;
that had systems that were not up to code — many. Of those ones he
identified, it wasn’t just one thing wrong — it was more. IR=
17;m
not going to go into the stats. We’ve read the reports. We know ̵=
2; a
lot of deficiencies per unit.
Has this government gone back? It w= as in appendices, addresses, deficiencies, this is what’s happened — homeowners got that also — that letter. Have we followed up? Has this= government gone back and said, “There were all these things wrong. Did you get t= hem fixed? Do you need assistance with that? How can we follow up with that?= 221; I agree that homeowners can change. But, to me, when deficiencies like that were identified, let’s ensure they were fixed.
Mr. Corea is
probably the most knowledgeable about oil-fired appliance legislation acros=
s
The Minister of Highways and Public=
Works
spoke yesterday of a member of the department who’s certified and res=
ponsible
for appliances in different communities, but until all communities can have
access to that type of certified appliance technician, why can’t we
contract with some of these individuals to be responsible — to be
on-call? If they’re already working for the government, can we change
their job description? Can we make an amendment to have them on-call? Chang=
e it
up; let’s use what we have. If we’re worried about them —=
you
know, if there’s someone else who is certi=
fied,
perhaps with their own business — well, let’s share that. Let=
8217;s
work collaboratively and find ways to make sure the communities have the
emergency coverage they need.
Last but not least, let’s be =
creative
about those individuals in the communities who have 10, 20 or 30 years̵=
7;
experience. Everybody talked about — “Well, so-and-so can fix an
appliance as well as a certified person,” and I don’t doubt tha=
t. I
don’t doubt that those people out there have those skills. So how can=
we
better utilize their skills if they’re already there in the community=
? I
don’t know the answer to this, but I have some suggestions. How can we
offer them the opportunity to take the exam without having to go through the
course? They can write the exam at the college; they can do it orally at the
college. Have we looked at those options? Have we got a way of certifying t=
hem?
They might have to do some hours with a certified technician. Again, these =
are
not solutions to everything, but they are suggestions. I think there are wa=
ys
that we accommodate some of this and use some of these persons in our
communities now. Give them the opportunity to be certified. If they can pass
the exam, I would think that would be a good indicator of their skill level=
.
Anyway, that was the end of my comm=
ents.
It’s just I think there are a lot of solutions out there, and here we=
re a
few. We can be creative, but ultimately we want to be safe and that’s
what we’re looking for, which is safety for all our constituents,
communities,
Hon. Ms. Taylor: The closing comment about we want t= o be safe — of course, that’s why in fact this bill is before the Assembly. It is to enhance the safety of these appliances to a different standard. It raises the bar and I can say that this is a very significant c= hange for all Yukoners and it comes on the heels of community discussions and consultations in every single community. I recognize the member opposite didn’t go to any of those meetings, but I do want to say that there w= as a lot of invaluable feedback and a lot of great ideas came forward as well.= span>
I agree, in terms of trying to find creative solutions, that’s something that w=
e do
well in the
So, it is all about enhancing safet=
y, and
if we were to go ahead and legislate and put a finite number on it — =
“There
shall be 20 mechanics in southeast Yukon or north Yukon” —that
would not be responsible, but we have committed to continuing our efforts t=
o go
to work — and I agree with working with existing tradespeople who are=
in
the business and aren’t certified but have been servicing and providi=
ng
that emergency repair, which is very important.
Some were very clear with me during meetings that they weren’t interested. They may have reached an age of retirement, but to be very clear, there may very well be individuals who are interested. I know the Department of Education and Yukon College are workin= g on that and are reaching out to people who have been in the industry over the = last number of years and are trying to see if there is an interest in challenging the exam — that is one option available — what gap needs to be filled in order to raise that individual to be a certified mechanic.=
I understand that because I heard t=
hat in
every community. At the end of the day, not everyone wants to become certif=
ied.
We want to make it an attractive industry and we are seeing to that.
I’m not going to just deliber= ate on a change in the act or in the regulation tomorrow that we’re not able to actually enforce. We could enforce it, but it would be a failure because we just wouldn’t see any servicing going on in our communities. We wouldn’t see those emergency repairs going on in the communities.
I keep going back to what it is tha=
t I
heard in all those communities of Mayo, Pelly Crossing — the Minister=
of
Yukon Housing Corporation — the communities of Old Crow, Dawson, Wats=
on
Lake — for me — Teslin. There was the community of Faro. There =
were
so many communities. In every community, we had open houses. We had meetings
with First Nation representatives, and we had meetings with the mayors and
councils.
Again, we appreciate the feedback a= nd the invaluable information that came our way from people in the know, people in= the industry — very thoughtful deliberations — very respectful, but also putting it out there that we appreciate the intention and recognizing that, yes, absolutely more needs to be done to improve the delivery of enhancing the safety of how we regulate appliances. As I mentioned, there a= re provisions within the act and the regulations that will be coming soon thereafter to certainly strengthen those provisions down the road. But we’re not there yet, and I’m not going to commit to a specific timeline until such time as we have heard from communities that, in fact, t= here is the much-needed capacity to be able to deliver on these very elements.= span>
The provisions in the bill are very
important, and they are significant improvements to the bill. They will go a
long way in enhancing the safety of our homes. I go back to those early war=
ning
devices that are very important as a safety measure that adds to the safety=
of
our homes.
It is all about safety and thatR=
17;s why
we are here today, talking to the very essence of the bill. It is about saf=
ety,
and it’s also about working on many other fronts — awareness ca=
mpaigns,
promoting the importance of how important it is to have that annual routine
maintenance done on your appliance. I’ve got to say that if I
didn’t have a father of how many years — ever since my husband =
and
I became individual homeowners some 16 or 17 years ago here in the City of =
Ms. Moorcroft: I’ve hear= d the minister speak a number of times about shared responsibility, and I want to speak about government responsibility and legislators’ responsibility. All of us have the responsibility to show leadership. We as elected members have the responsibility to be informed on critical issues and to protect the public interest. All MLAs and the government have a responsibility to ensure that there are appropriate health and safety standards in place, and we have the responsibility to learn from mistakes.
I want to go back to some of the di= scussion we’ve been having in relation to the inquest into the deaths of five people from carbon monoxide poisoning. My colleague spoke about the qualifications for Mr. Corea, who was accepted = as an expert witness at the coroner’s inquest, in part because of his work = over the last dozen years doing inspections for the Government of Ontario, but he has a close to 30-year career in working in industrial and residential areas and also in developing and delivering training programs.
Mr. Corea was
contracted by the Government of Yukon — by Yukon Housing Corporation =
and
Energy Solutions, beginning in 2007 — to do inspections at buildings =
that
were owned by Yukon Housing Corporation, as well as some privately owned ho=
mes,
to assess the state of oil-fired appliances. He inspected for compliance to=
the
code that was in place at the time, and he found a number of infractions and
then individual reports were provided to homeowners. However, there are no
powers given to an inspector to require a homeowner to act. During the cour=
se
of the inquest, in response to a question, Mr. Corea=
span>
said that he was shocked even in 2007 at the number of infractions. He said
that if he had the powers that he has in
I have two lines of questioning her=
e. The
first one is to ask whether the inspections that were done on 305 sites =
212;
305 homes, apartments, townhouses or mobile homes in the
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: Well, you know, that’s what t=
his
bill is all about. I go back to this bill, because it is all about providing
the legal obligation to take out a permit by a certified individual —=
a
certified oil burner mechanic — when it comes to installation and
modification of those respective appliances.
So that does trigger the opportunit= y to inspect those appliances. I believe that there is a provision in the bill where, should deficiencies be found, there is the ability to not issue any further permits until those deficiencies have been= corrected. This bill is a significant improvement to what is currently the case.
In terms of other provisions we ref= erenced, I don’t want to go over all of the other provisions that we’ve committed to on public education, but individual homeowners — providi= ng that expertise, hiring the necessary professionals to do the work and to en= sure their appliances are installed and modified — I go back to the bill. That’s what the bill is all about; it is ensuring that permits are pulled, which is the trigger for our Inspections branch outside of the City= of Whitehorse to do just that, to provide that inspection and to follow up to ensure that, if there are any deficiencies found, there are provisions that= no further permits would be pulled.
There are provi= sions in the bill that speak to this and that’s why it’s so impor= tant to pass this bill and proceed with the regulations associated with the bill= to ensure the entire package can be proclaimed in a timely manner so that we c= an get ready for the next home heating season.
Chair: Order. Would members like to take a brief recess?
All
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair: Order. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.<= /p>
Ms. Moorcroft: I didn’t = hear the minister answer my question, so I’m going to come back to that. A num= ber of residences have been inspected by an oil burner mechanic, a certified inspector and instructor. The last time that was done was in 2010. It is now 2013. Some of those units may have been sold. Some of them were under priva= te ownership — not all of them were Yukon Housing Corporation. I had ask= ed the minister whether the government could provide us with an answer on how = many of those infractions, some of which were very serious and potentially life-threatening, have been resolved. How many places are there that Yukon Housing Corporation is aware of, where the inspections have been done, the deficiencies have been identified, and there has been no follow-up work to correct the deficiencies?
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I would just like to remind the mem=
ber
opposite that, as I understand, those residences that were inspected by Mr.=
Rod
Corea — that was prior to 2010, prior to =
the
actual regulation that had come into play, as I understand, which enabled a
permit to be pulled. Prior to that time, if there were no permits pulled, I
know that Building Inspections probably would not have that on file because
there would not have been the requirement to take out a permit to go and
inspect. Again, I’m not able to report on that. You know, as I
understand, those residences — unless I’m wrong — that we=
re inspected
by Mr. Rod Corea prior to 2010, which in fact &=
#8212;
I can’t recall when in 2010 the change came about in the regulation, =
but
that enabled those permits to be taken out by individuals, whether they were
certified or not.
That requirement was made, but the = bill that we are talking about today is really on a go-forward basis and is all about getting at those issues. As I said, in 2010 there was a change that w= as made, but now we’re going a step beyond that, and that is ensuring th= at only certified mechanics are able to take out a permit when it comes to installation and modification which triggers the permit; then copies of tho= se permits would be filed in the property file that would be maintained by Building Safety. The copies of the inspection reports would be left on-site= and filed in the property file as well. All owners would have complete access to those property files once they were able to provide proof of ownership.
These changes help facilitate those
enhanced measures, which will lend to the added safety of these particular
individual homeowners on a go-forward basis. I am very pleased to be able to
speak to the bill at hand that is all about enhancing the safety of all of =
our
homes throughout every different community. =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp;
Ms. Moorcroft: Well, I have to= say that I don’t find that very satisfactory if there have been serious problems identified with an oil-fired appliance. Those should be dealt with= . I will move on to the last area of questioning that I have in relation to the bill before us.
I want to point out that at the inq=
uest we
heard a lot of really important views expressed on ways of avoiding tragedy=
in
the future. At the inquest, Mr. Corea said that=
self-regulation
doesn’t work. It has failed everywhere that it has tried and can resu=
lt
in deaths. There has to be direction given. There’s always going to be
someone putting short-term personal gain over safety and financial expense,=
so
there has to be, and I quote, a “legal framework”. So thereR=
17;s
a need to make everybody responsible — not just the homeowners, but t=
he
distributors who make money on delivering oil. The government could give po=
wers
to the technician or oil burner mechanic to take action to shut down an app=
liance
if it’s not safe.
What is provided for in the =
What was discovered during the inqu=
est was
that there was not a proper chain of accountability. In fact, there were
several critical junctures along the way where action could have been taken
that would have prevented those deaths.
I’m speaking about a model wh= ere when one person in the chain of communication or chain of authority sees a probl= em, they are empowered to act and then must communicate to others and to the regulatory authority. I’m wondering if the minister in the regulation= s to follow the bill — because I don’t see it anywhere in the bill — will address the issue of fuel distribution. Shouldn’t those = who supply the fuel have training and certification and be empowered to act, because a faulty system won’t work without fuel?
Bill No. 57 amends three acts and I=
’m
wondering about the decision to not create a dedicated oil-fired appliance =
act
with a dedicated oil-fired appliance inspector. I’m wondering whether=
the
government gave consideration to having a specific designated inspector for
oil-fired appliances in the same way that we have here in the
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Again, I’ll go back to what I= have stated on the floor a number of times. When it comes down to servicing of an appliance, until such time as we have enough capacity in our communities, i= t is a shared responsibility. Perhaps there is a difference of opinion and perha= ps the members opposite don’t feel that it is important to have individu= al homeowner responsibility, but homeowners are always encouraged to seek the appropriate expertise when it comes to making our homes safe.
I refer to the public register that=
will be
enabled through the provisions of the act which will provide access to a li=
st
of those qualified mechanics available here in the territory. That will be
accessible to individual homeowners. They can subscribe to those services p=
rovided
by those individuals under the public register.
If an oil burner mechanic feels tha= t an installation is dangerous, that individual certainly has that ability and opportunity to communicate that to the Fire Marshal’s Office, which h= as the power to shut down that system and has the power to actually deal with = that specific scenario. There are provisions and that continues to be the case h= ere. When it comes to inspections it’s something that we’ve already spoken to here in this afternoon’s debate. Within the Government of Y= ukon we do have a
chief boiler inspector who is a cer=
tified
oil burner mechanic and, as I mentioned, going forward in the next number of
months as we draft regulations and work with the City of Whitehorse, we have
agreed to look at our complement of inspectors. We recognize that as very i=
mportant
to be able to help facilitate the requirements within the act that we’=
;re
currently debating and certainly work with the City of
We have offered and we will certain=
ly go
forward and review the current complement of inspectors, who work very hard=
and
very diligently on behalf of
Ms. Moorcroft: I have to say t= hat it is an unfortunate pattern that when I stand up and speak to the minister, advocating for the government to take responsibility, her response is that I’m saying that I don’t believe homeowners have any responsibil= ity. I believe homeowners have responsibility, Madam Chair. The minister needs to listen to what I ask her, and I would appreciate getting an answer to the questions. I did ask whether the minister was prepared to consider addressi= ng the issue of fuel distribution. So she didn’t answer that and that= 217;s fine. I’m prepared to move on. I’ve made my point about what we= see as a better approach.
I must also point out that when the
minister speaks about homeowner responsibility, that ignores those who are =
not
homeowners, but are tenants. Government has responsibility to establish a l=
egal
framework for the protection of the public and for improving the health and
safety of everyone who lives in a dwelling in the
I’ll leave it at that, Madam = Chair. If the minister has an answer on addressing the issue of fuel distribution, that would be great; if not, I’m prepared to move into clause-by-clau= se examination of the bill.
Chair: Is there any further general debate?
We can then proceed to clause-by-cl= ause examination of Bill No. 57.
On
Clause 1
Chair: Did anyone wish to debate clause 1?
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Amendment proposed
Ms. Moorcroft: I move <= /p>
THAT Bill No. 5= 7, entitled Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act, be amen= ded in clause 2 at page 1 by inserting the phrase “servicing it” immediately after the phrase “replacing it” in section 1(b).
Madam Chair, this amendment would c= hange the section to read “install” in relation to anything, which includes modifying it, replacing it, servicing it and carrying out any prescribed activity in respect of it.
Chair: The amendment is in order; however, Ms. Moorcroft has provide=
d for
some additional clarification within the amendment so that the amendment now
reads:
THAT Bill No. 57, entitled Oil-F= ired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act, be amended in clause 2, at pa= ge 1, by inserting the phrase “servicing it” immediately after the phrase “replacing it” in the definition of “install”= ; in section 1(b).
Ms. Moorcroft: This amendment = expands the definition of “install”, so that install, in relation to an oil-fired appliance, would include modifying it, replacing it and servicing= it, as well as carrying out any prescribed activity. This amendment raises the safety bar to establish that servicing an oil-fired appliance will be done = in accordance with regulations.
Now I anticipate the government may=
be
somewhat leery of this amendment, but I would point out that this act provi=
des
for regulation-making authority. The government has already indicated it wo=
uld
take six months to a year to develop the regulations, and with its
regulation-making authority the government has the ability to phase in, on a
schedule, different activities.
So the government could require that installing and modifying and replacing a unit would have to be done by a certified technician immediately. But the servicing could be phased in with= in a year, within two years, allowing some time for further training to take pla= ce. We recognize that some time may be needed for that, but we believe it’= ;s very important to the safety of members of our community to take this step.= I would urge all members to support the amendment before us.
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: As it currently stands, when we ref=
er to
carrying out any prescribed activity in respect of it, that does enable fut=
ure
making of regulations for the installation of oil-fired appliances when that
time is appropriate.
As I have stated, we are not there = yet, and given the current lack of much needed capacity in the communities, we have already debated this, but in terms of going forward, that’s why the Y= ukon government has indeed committed to working on the level of education and training provided to current mechanics, as well as attracting new individua= ls to get into the actual trade itself. Until such time, it would be next to impossible to enforce the provisions of the legislation before us without h= aving those mechanics in place in those communities.
We have debated this at great lengt= h and I do appreciate the member opposite’s amendment, but as it stands right now, that is why we have the words “carrying out any prescribed activ= ity in respect of it”, to be able to add or refer to the provision of ser= vicing at a later date.
Section 4(j) of the bill, as I refe=
renced
in my opening remarks, provides an ability to modify the definition of
“install” and that could include adding servicing to that
definition at that time.
We are not confident that we have t= he actual capacity in our respective communities. It’s something that we heard very loud and clear as we engaged with communities last fall in a who= le host of meetings, whether it was open houses, meetings with First Nation governments or municipal governments. We spoke about this at great length a= mong many of the members of the Assembly yesterday.
Again, we will not be supporting th= is particular amendment, as there is already a provision for the ability down = the road to modify that definition of “install”.
Ms.
Hanson:&=
#8195; I rise to speak=
in
support of the amendment. I appreciate that there has been a significant am=
ount
of conversation about all the reasons why we cannot or the government will =
not
include these two words, “servicing it”. When my colleague was
asking with respect to the ability or the willingness of the government to
consider a sunset clause, that might have addres=
sed
it. We also know, as my colleague has pointed out, that the government has =
the
ability to phase these aspects of this in over time and through regulation =
to
say when servicing will be included.
When I call a serviceman, I’m= not asking for a prescribed activity to be done in my house. What I need to know when I call that company and they send somebody there is that they’re qualified to do the servicing. As a homeowner who had that experience, I can tell you how many thousands of dollars I spent having unqualified serviceme= n servicing my oil-fired furnace. I would like to have the confidence, if not now, then= in the near future. A sunset clause is a common provision. If it’s not t= wo years, maybe five years is a reasonable time frame.
I believe that there are incentives=
that
can be provided. I believe we have smart Yukoners. I don’t think it
serves us well to say that we don’t have the capacity in this territo=
ry.
If you set the bar and you say that this is what’s required to do the
job, you get the qualifications. You want to teach in rural
The Official Opposition has tried i=
n all of
our comments to be constructive in this. We come at it from the point of vi=
ew
of all of us as citizens representing all of us who have a need to be assur=
ed
that whoever does the servicing on this the most important and potentially
dangerous appliance in our home — if we don’t have some assuran=
ce
that at some point in the future in the legislation it says that we’r=
e actually
understanding that servicing is a key element of all of this, it will fall =
off
the radar. I’m sorry, there is nothing that I believe gives me any co=
nfidence
that any prescribed activity related to “install” is going to t=
ell
me that that’s got anything to do with servicing when it may or may n=
ot
come back for somebody to consider it. So, you tell the homeowner who’=
;s
going to rely upon that prescribed activity someday in the future.
Wouldn’t it give more confidence that the government has actually hea=
rd
the concern, read its own reports, heard what the coroner’s jury said=
and
is prepared to say in a reasonable time we will make sure that servicing is
covered off under this legislation?
Madam Chair, the Official Oppositio= n would hope that there can be some openness and an ability to realize that governm= ent does have that flexibility through its regulatory powers, and we encourage = them to use it. Be creative — that’s where we started off in this discussion the other day. We said that we would offer creative and construc= tive ideas because we owe it to everybody who is living, renting, or visiting a = dwelling that uses an oil-fired appliance to heat it.
The Official Opposition looks forwa= rd to the support of this Legislative Assembly on this small but important amendm= ent.
Chair: Does any other member wish to speak to the amendment?<= /p>
Some Hon. Members: Division.<= /p>
Count
Chair: Count has been called.
Bells
Chair: Order please. We’re going to proceed with the count. Wo= uld all those members in favour of the amendment please rise.
Members rise
Chair: Thank you. Would those members against the amendment please r= ise.
Members rise
Chair: The count is five yea, 10 nay.
Amendment to Bill No. 57 negatived
Chair: Is there any further debate on clause 2?
Clause 2 agreed to
On Clause 3
Ms. Moorcroft: Clause 3 provid= es for making changes if the National Building Code is amended and the period of t= ime set out is either on a day specified, or on a da= te six months after the amendment, or on April 1 next following the amendment. My = question for the minister is in relation to the time frame for implementing the amendment: Is this a standard phase-in period of time that is used across t= he country?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Yes.
Ms. Moorcroft: There’s a= lso a section here relating to the conduct of inspections. I’d like to ask = the minister — we did discuss this briefly in general debate — whet= her she is prepared to direct her department to have a designated specialized inspector for oil-fired appliances, similar to the provisions of the Gas Burning Devices Act in the Yuk= on, where there is a designated inspector.
Chair: The section that Ms. Moorcroft is referring to is — I=
8217;m
sorry, were you discussing clause 4?
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)=
Chair: We’ll stay with clause 3. Would the member like to ask = any additional questions on clause 3?
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Ms. Moorcroft: Could the minis= ter respond to my question relating to inspectors for oil-fired appliances?
Chair: Ms. Taylor, that would be subclause 4(f).
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: As I had mentioned, I believe, on a
number of occasions here today and perhaps even yesterday, we do have a chi=
ef
boiler inspector currently within the complement of inspectors of Building
Safety housed within the Department of Community Services. That individual =
is a
certified oil burner mechanic. I mentioned earlier that we have committed to
reviewing the complement of our inspectors with the view to having that add=
ed
expertise.
We have also committed to working i=
n very
close collaboration with the City of
Ms.
Moorcroft: I did hear the =
minister
say that there is a qualified, certified inspector with the
Also, in clause 3(4)(j): “prescribe activities for the purposes of the definition of ‘install’ in section 1”. I unsuccessfully attempted to ha= ve the definition of “install” expanded by an amendment. I would l= ike to again say to the minister that the Ontario regulation uses install, alte= r, purge, activate, repair, service, remove or other thing, and it includes the handling of fuel oil — the minister didn’t respond to my questi= ons relating to the use of fuel oil. I’d like to ask the minister whether= she would be prepared to go back and look at the Yukon government expanding the provisions in section (j) to include some of the activities I just read into the record that are used in the regulations for another jurisdiction?
Chair: Before the member speaks, the Chair would like to clarify, fo= r the record, that we have been confused by the section numbers. The sections that the member is currently speaking to are still within clause 3. Clause 4 does not actually begin until page 5.
As we have already cleared clause 3= , I would like unanimous consent to return to clause 3.
Unanimous consent re revisiting = clause 3
Some Hon. Members: Disagree.<= /p>
Chair: Unanimous consent has not been granted.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Chair: Ms. Moorcroft, on a point of order.
Ms.
Moorcroft: Madam Chair, wh=
en I
spoke to clause 3, it is subclause (4) within c=
lause
3 and you as the Chair ruled that this was subclause=
span> (4)
and that we had to clear subclause (3) first. I=
would
like to make the case that, Madam Chair, since the ruling was in order, then
moving forward a clause was in error and that we should still be allowed to=
debate
clause 3.
We would not have agreed to clear t= he clause if I had known that would end the debate and that the ruling was in error.<= /span>
Chair: Committee of the Whole will recess for two minutes.
Recess
Chair’s ruling
Chair: Order. The Chair accepts that we do not have unanimous consen= t on returning to clause 3. However, there was confusion on the member’s p= art and the Chair’s part as to the layout of this bill and exactly where = clause 3 stopped or did not stop. In this case, the Chair is going to make a rulin= g that we will continue debate on clause 3 and clear it again as necessary.
On Clause 3 — revisited
Ms.
Moorcroft: I’d like =
to ask
the minister if she would respond to my question in relation to the definit=
ion
of “install”.
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: I think, as we go forward, I made
reference to a section of the bill that already provides the ability to mod=
ify
the definition of “install” through regulation. Those regulatio=
ns
have yet to be drafted. We will come through with a draft regulation and we
will be working with industry on a go-forward basis. In terms of whether or=
not
this is going to add the term of “servicing”, it does provide f=
or
that ability to add servicing, but for all intents and purposes it is for t=
his
bill before us. As per our remarks and as per news releases over the previo=
us
several months, it does refer to installation and modification of those
oil-fired appliances.
Ms.
Moorcroft: Subsection (4)(g)(iii): “provide for a public register of qua=
lified
installers …” and we’ve had some discussion about that in
general debate. I recognize that —
Chair: Can we be clear about which section we’re referring to = now.
Ms. Moorcroft: It’s on p= age 4 of the act, and it is section 4(g)(iii): “pro= vide for a public register —
Chair: Thank you, carry on.
Ms.
Moorcroft: I recognize tha=
t this
will be in the regulations and that the government will take some time to
prepare the regulations. Never the less, the minister has spoken about the =
work
they have already been undertaking in identifying qualified installers, and=
my
question is whether the minister anticipates that they might be able to pro=
vide
for a public register to be available prior to the regulations being comple=
ted
— whether in fact they will have sufficient information to put togeth=
er a
public register and to make that available sooner, rather than later?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Of course, the provision of making available by way of regulation the ability to create a public list of quali= fied oil burner mechanics is very important. It provides that transparency to Yukoners for individuals to subscribe to for the purposes of installation a= nd modification and even when it comes to accessing for servicing purposes, if that is what the individual homeowner would like.
So this particular provision within=
the
bill provides that regulation-making power to enable that public register to
come into being. Of course, if we do have it readily available prior to
regulation — that’s something we will endeavour to have.
The intent is that with the bill an= d with the regulation — to be able to proclaim the act in its entirety. Agai= n, we continue to aim for next year’s heating season.
Ms. White:= 8195; I have a questi= on in the second paragraph below that — so, 4(g)(v): “prohibit any person other than the qualified installer to whom the a= pplicable permit was issued from installing any oil-fired appliance”.
Can I please get clarification on t= hat?
Chair: For clarification, that is clause (4)(g)(v).
Hon. Ms. Taylor: That section allows for the making = of a regulation that authorizes oil burner mechanics to be able to install or mo= dify — so in order to hold the permit — how do I put this? — <= span class=3DGramE>it effectively prohibits any of those persons from hol= ding the permit to proceed in that manner.
Chair: Is there any further debate on clause 3?
Clause 3 agreed to
On Clause 4
Clause 4 agreed to
On Clause 5
Ms. Moorcroft: This subsection= states that an inspector may, by written order, require that the construction, occ= upancy, installation or use be stopped until any contravention of a building code is rectified.
I wonder whether the minister gave
consideration to using the word “shall” rather than the word
“may” to provide for a stop-work order if there is a serious
contravention of a building code. We have seen where serious contraventions=
can
lead to injury and death.
I also want to ask whether the gove= rnment has not considered giving the power to a licensed certified mechanic to issue a stop-work order or to disable an installation and tell the appropriate authority if they observe serious contraventions of a building code.=
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: The use of the word “may̶=
1; is
really in recognition of a case-by-case basis as utilized by the inspector.=
It reads very clearly, “An in= spector who is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a building is being constructed, occupied, or used, or that a component, fixture or system of a buildingR= 21; — again, that was just recently added within the bill — “= is being installed or used, in contravention of the building code or this Act may, by written order, require that the construction, occupancy, installation or us= e be stopped until the contravention is rectified.”
It is in recognition primarily of individual cases and to provide that added flexibility garnered by each of = our respective inspectors to do that or not. So the use of the word “may” is intentional in this regard.
Clause 5 agreed to
On Clause 6
Ms.
Moorcroft: In this provisi=
on,
where there may be a violation there could be restraint through an injuncti=
on
by the Supreme Court. So my question for the minister is whether there are =
any
penalties in the Building Standards Act for violation of a permit?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: In respect to the member opposite= 8217;s question regarding this particular clause, it is section 10. It removes the word “moving” because the defined word “construction̶= 1; already includes or refers to the word “moving”. It replaces the word “occupation” in the current section with the word “o= ccupancy” as “occupancy” is also now used in the bill.
In terms of specific penalties, I a= m now aware of Building Standards Act.
Ms. Moorcroft: Could the minis= ter make an undertaking to provide a written answer to the question or a legislative return if one of the officials who is with her d= oes not have an answer to that question at the moment?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I understand there are no penalties= under the Building Standards Act, but keep in mind that the biggest penalty would be not approving the permit altogeth= er.
Clause
6 agreed to
On Clause 7
Ms.
Moorcroft: These amendment=
s to the
Electrical Protection Act speak=
to
carbon monoxide detectors, and I’m just wondering if the minister can
speak to what other problems these amendments to the Electrical Protection Act are intended to address.
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Madam Chair, primarily this provisi= on refers to a couple of things. One is providing clarity. It’s nothing substantive in terms of changing the intent of the Electrical Protection= Act, but provides added clarity that is consistent with this act. Second is that when one is taking out an electrical permit, it provides the ability for an inspection to be undertaken, which will ensure a carbon monoxide detector a= nd smoke alarm are also included within the household. It is an added provisio= n in ensuring compliance.
Clause 7 agreed to
On Clause 8
Clause 8 agreed to
On Clause 9
Clause 9 agreed to
On Clause 10
Clause 10 agreed to
On Clause 11
Clause 11 agreed to
On Clause 12
Clause 12 agreed to
On Clause 13
Clause 13 agreed to
On Clause 14
Clause 14 agreed to
On Clause 15
Clause 15 agreed to
On Clause 16
Clause 16 agreed to
On Clause 17
Clause 17 agreed to
On Clause 18
Clause 18 agreed to
On Clause 19
Ms. Moorcroft: I believe it is= this section that speaks to code violation, and the next section repeals specific offences. Can the minister speak about the penalties that are set for viola= tions when it comes to fire prevention and building standards?
Hon. Ms. Taylor: I’m assuming that we’re referring to section 21 — is that correct — clause 21?
Chair: We’re currently on clause 19.
Clause
19 agreed to
On
Clause 20
Clause
20 agreed to
On
Clause 21
Ms. Moorcroft: It’s nice to be recognized by=
the
Chair, although I hear some members opposite attempting to clear the line
before I can ask yet another question.
I understand there was previously a=
penalty
that provided for a small fine — a $200 fine — for having doors
locked in a large capacity building. These sections — both sections 21
and 22 — change the penalties and replace those sections with new
penalties. For example, the first one is obstruction. I’d like the
minister to speak about how they set those penalties for fire prevention and
for building standards and the work they did to determine this needed to be
amended and what their standards are.
Hon.
Ms. Taylor: The previous penalty was quite outd=
ated.
I didn’t actually recognize how outdated it was until the fire marshal
brought it to our attention. So the new provisions within the act as propos=
ed
are significantly higher and they do reflect the City of
Again the provision also goes on to= say that if the offence was a continuing offence instead of a single incident, there is that provision to add $1,000 per day. That’s also taken spec= ifically from the Occupational Health and Safety Act penalties.
Ms.
Moorcroft: I think it is c=
ertainly
timely that a penalty of $25 for a violation of the act is now increased wh=
ere
there is a summary conviction to a fine of not more than $10,000 and a
continuing offence of not more than $1,000 a day.
Clause 21 agreed to
On Clause 22
Clause 22 agreed to
On Clause 23
Clause 23 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Ms. Taylor: Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 5= 7, entitled Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act, be repo= rted without amendment at this time.
Chair: It has been moved by Ms. Taylor that the Chair report Bill No= . 57 without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Madam Chair, I move that the Speake= r do now resume the Chair.
Chair: It has been moved by Mr. Cathers that the Speaker resume the = Chair.
Motion agreed to
Speaker resumes the Chair=
Speaker: I call the House to order.
May the House have a report from th= e Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Chair’s report
Ms. McLeod: = Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 57= , entitled Oil-Fired Appliance Safety Statutory Amendment Act, and directed me = to report the bill without amendment.
Speaker: You’ve heard the report from the Chair of Committee of = the Whole. Are you agreed?
Some
Hon. Members: Agreed.
Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare the report carried.
Hon. Mr. Cathers: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House = do now adjourn.
Speaker: It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Hou= se do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to
Speaker: This House stands adjourned until
The House adjourned at =
i>
2692 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; HANSARD &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;