MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D7D0DF.BECED770" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive. ------=_NextPart_01D7D0DF.BECED770 Content-Location: file:///C:/2CE93A75/35-1-25.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Yukon Legislative Assembly
Whitehorse, Yukon
Tuesday, November 2, 2021 — 1:00 p.m.
Speaker
absent
Clerk: It is= my duty, pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of the Legislative Assembly Act, to inform the Legislative Assembly of= the absence of the Speaker.
Deputy Speaker takes the Chair
Deputy Speaker (Ms. Blake): = b>I will now call the House to order.
We wil= l proceed at this time with prayers.
Prayers
Daily
Routine
Deputy Speaker:= 195;We will proceed at this time with the Order Paper.
Introd= uction of visitors.
Introduction
of Visitors
Hon. Ms. McLean: I would like to ask my colleagues to help me welcome our new president of Yukon University and vice‑chancellor, Dr. Lesley Br= own — welcome to the House — and also Lacia Kinnear, the associate vice‑president of Yukon University. Thank you = for coming today.
Applause
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I would also like to send out a warm welcome from the Legislat= ive Assembly to individuals who are here for our tribute for Yukoner Appreciati= on Week: Susan Guatto, the executive director= of the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce; Andrei Samson, programs manager for the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce; Bernie Hoeschele, who is there as well with their team and part of their support staff; Lars = ;Hartling, the chair of the board of directors, is with us today; Jerome Casanova, fir= st vice‑chair, board of directors; as well as Trevor Mead-Robins, direct= or of the chamber’s board and well-known owner of M= EADIAsolutions. Thank you for coming today.
App=
lause
Hon. Mr. Clarke: For the tribute to Lindsay Staples, I would like to introduce = a few individuals. I apologize in advance, through a combination of the mask and maybe late-arriving attendees, if I miss anybody.
With t= he Department of Environment, we have Christine Cleghorn, Stephanie Muckenheim, Matt Clarke, Marc Cattet, and Thomas Jung. I am= also advised that there are retired environmental department staff: Rob Florkiewicz and Dan Lindsey and perhaps Bruce Mc= Lean as well. Jennifer Smith, the current chair of the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope); Kaitlin Wilson, program manager for the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope). If anyone is listening = in — the Inuvialuit colleagues on the various boards and committees that Lindsay has been interacting with and supporting over the last more than th= ree decades — welcome to all of you.
Of cou= rse, I would be remiss if I didn’t introduce Lindsay Staples and his spouse, Heather Alton.
Applause
Deputy Speaker: Tributes.
TRIBUTES
In recognition of Lindsay= Staples
Hon. Mr. Clarke: I rise to pay tribute to Lindsay Staples, a long-time adv= ocate for the conservation of wildlife and traditional Inuvialuit use on the Yukon North Slope. Lindsay has the distinction of being the first chair of the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope), a co‑management b= ody arising from the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
Lindsa= y has recently retired after spending over 30 years fulfilling the role of chair = for the council. I must concede that I knew he had this role, but I had no idea that it was for that long.
Since = the council’s inception in 1987, Lindsay has worked hard to ensure that a healthy environment and robust wildlife populations are maintained in this special part of the Yukon. In particular, Lindsay’s efforts in protec= ting critical habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd on the Yukon North Slope are commendable. He has also spent years advocating for the inclusion of Inuvia= luit interests and values in the realm of polar bear management.
Lindsa= y has a long-standing passion and respect for the land and the people of the Inuvia= luit settlement region. Early on, Lindsay recognized the importance of holding t= he summer council meetings on the land of the Yukon North Slope so that council members could see and experience the unique landscape and wildlife that they were responsible for stewarding.
During= his 30-year career with the council, Lindsay built strong and trusted relations= hips with Inuvialuit leaders, elders, and other co-management bodies, as well as governments, wildlife management organizations, NGOs, and conservation grou= ps.
In col= laboration with the Government of Yukon, Lindsay led 10 Yukon North Slope conferences, each larger than the previous, with over 170 delegates in attendance at the last conference in 2015.
Lindsa= y has been a strong advocate for the recognition and use of traditional knowledge in decision-making processes. For example, Lindsay’s support for the Inuvialuit polar bear traditional knowledge project was a milestone in integrating two ways of knowing into polar bear management.
In 201= 5, Lindsay was honoured with the Inuvialuktun name “Kisaun<= /span>”, which means “anchor”. Lindsay’s leadership and advocacy f= or the Yukon North Slope have always been anchored in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. This honour is a testament to the l= evel of respect that he has garnered from the Inuvialuit people for his work in ensuring that their vision for the Yukon North Slope is respected and maint= ained.
Lindsa= y has made a lasting contribution to the conservation and management of the Yukon North Slope and the implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Beyond his work with implementing the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, Lindsay has had a significant and meaningful career as a facilitator and project manager on so many wildlife = and final agreement implementation initiatives, including work with the Porcupi= ne Caribou Management Board.
His cr= eativity, resourcefulness, and pragmatism with so many issues have certainly left a m= ark on how we work together to realize the vision outlined in our agreements and kept our expectations high for ourselves and for each other. His approach of consistently being fair and informed, and expecting the same of others arou= nd the table, has pushed, and sometimes pulled, us to a better place.= p>
Thank = you for all that you have done in the last 30-plus years as the chair of the Wildli= fe Management Advisory Council (North Slope). Thank you very much.
Applause
Ms. White: I rise on behalf of the Yukon NDP and the Yukon Party to congratulate Lindsay Staples on his well-earned retirement from the Wildlife Management Advisory Council, a key element of the Inuvi= aluit Final Agreement advising indigenous and non-indigenous governments on issues in the western Arctic, including Yukon. There is no doubt that Mr.&n= bsp;Staples has had a beautiful career in the north — one that has contributed mu= ch to our understanding of what giving effect to reconciliation really means. =
For ma= ny, including no doubt many in this Chamber, Lindsay Staples is one of the unsu= ng heroes whose quiet passion for people and place has resulted in the creatio= n of significant beneficial changes that affect northern communities and citizens throughout Yukon and the western Arctic. That passion and commitment to peo= ple and the good stewardship of the environment have even extended, in more rec= ent years, to work in East Africa.
From h= is early work in Yukon on the groundbreaking and innovative Yukon 2000 in the mid-19= 80s — a process that asked Yukoners across the territory to envision the Yukon of the new millennia and resulted in substantive changes to government programs and policies — to his work on Yukon’s Environment Act, our human rights legislation, as well as amendments to the Yukon Wildlife Ac= t to give effect to the Inuvialuit Fi= nal Agreement in Yukon law, Lindsay Staples has contributed to the essential fabric of our northern community.
In add= ition to his work in the Inuvialuit region, Lindsay was an instrumental part in the successful negotiation of the Kwanlin Dün final and self-government agreements that we= re signed in 2005. He also worked with the Selkirk First Nation in addressing socio-economic impacts of resource development.
The th= reads that tie all of his work together are the values that he places on active and effective listening and the relationships that flow as a result of truly hearing the views of others. This gift has contributed to his ability to wo= rk with diverse interests toward collaborative outcomes. A common theme to his approach has been to assist those he works with to see that the main challe= nge is to shift our perspective away from projects to values.
His ro= le in helping to develop a better understanding of, and giving effect to, the intention behind negotiated agreements has contributed to the success of su= ch diverse initiatives as the 2019 Porcupine Caribou Native User Agreement.= This involved the eight indigenous governing bodies in the Yukon and Northw= est Territories fulfilling the intent of the commitment in the 1984 Inuvialuit agreement to give effect to the key issues associated with the healthy and sustainable management and harvest of this iconic herd.
In add= ition, the multi-year process leading to the finalization of the North Slope plan is another significant contribution that Lindsay has been involved in over the years.
This significance of the work and the community building that has evolved in the western Arctic as numerous elements of the Inuvialuit agreement have been worked on, debated, and implemented cannot be overstated. I encourage every= one to listen to the podcast by the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope) in which you can hear Mr. Staples as he shares his 30 years of experience with the council and outlines how the Inuvialuit, the Government= of the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Parks Canada found ways to effectively work together to create new national parks on the Yukon North Slope, which are managed collaboratively.
In a c= areer that has spanned decades, there are, without a doubt, countless more stories to = tell and events to celebrate, but I want to note that one of the more touching s= igns of respect that Mr. Staples has earned over the span of his career was= to receive the Inuvialuit name “Kisaun”= ;, which, as we heard, means “anchor”. Today we thank you for your solid = and continued contributions.
Applause
In
recognition of Yukoner Appreciation Week and Buy Local November
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I rise today on behalf of the Yukon government to pay tribute to Yukoner Appreciation Week and Buy Local November. Buy Local November is an annual campaign coordinated by the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce that promotes Yu= kon businesses and is highlighted by Yukoner Appreciation Day. Last year, Yukon= er Appreciation Day was expanded to become a week-long event, and I am glad to= see that this will continue for a second year. Yukoner Appreciation Week featur= es local businesses and organizations offering customers and clients discounts, prizes, and fun activities. This year’s event kicks off today, running through to November 7.
Shoppi= ng locally should always be a priority for Yukoners, but it is now more important than ever. As we know, the pandemic hit some of our local businesses very hard, = and they need our support during this recovery period. This is an excellent tim= e to celebrate the Yukon’s businesses while benefiting from great offers a= nd chances to win prizes. By shopping at participating businesses during Yukon= er Appreciation Week, you will have the chance to win one of five $1,000 gift cards to the businesses of your choice. This year, there are over 90 participating businesses offering savings to locals. I want to thank the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce for once again coordinating the festivities = and for bringing all of these businesses together.
I enco=
urage all
Yukoners to take advantage of this occasion and to show their support for t=
hese
incredible local businesses, and please, for folks who don’t have the
opportunity to be in Whitehorse over this period of time — whatever Y=
ukon
community you live in — please support those local businesses. There =
is
such an array of businesses that need us to lean in.
This e= vent presents a great opportunity to reconnect to some of your favourite shops, = get a head start on holiday shopping, or discover a location that you have never visited before. We have so many fantastic business owners here in the Yukon, and I am happy to see many of them participating in the Yukoner Appreciation Week.
Yukon = businesses have demonstrated resilience and creativity through the pandemic in adaptin= g to changing public health measures and finding new ways to go above and beyond= for their customers. I hope that all Yukoners have a safe and joyful Yukoner Appreciation Week and buy local in November.
Applause
Ms. Van Bibber: I rise on behalf of the Yukon Party Official Opposition to rec= ognize November 2 to 7 as Yukoner Appreciation Week. This week’s campaign is brought to us by the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce with over 90 participat= ing businesses. Over the week, businesses will be showing their appreciation to Yukoners through deals, fun activities, and offerings at their locations. W= atch for free gifts, prizes, and discounts at each place, and also enter to win = the big prizes — one of five $1,000 gift certificates. There is going to = be something to do and see at all of these many stops.
There = are so many advantages to supporting and shopping local. It not only keeps the mon= ey moving our economy at home, but it builds neighbourhoods and adds community strength. The friends and neighbours who own these businesses are part of t= he fabric of any town. It has been proven that a strong local economy means a = more prosperous area that is well-connected and is better off all around for the health and well-being of its residents.
It was= n’t long ago that we gave a tribute to Small Business Week, and I stressed the importance of “shop local” — or “please shop local”. The local infrastructure that houses these businesses pays ta= xes. They support local, non-profit events and charities, and they sponsor sports teams and many other things. They give back big time. How can each of us do= our part? Return the kindness by visiting the many, many unique and interesting stores that provide a plethora of items for purchase.
With t= he Christmas holiday season right around the corner, the shelves are filled wi= th goodies to ooh and aah over. I am sure that you can find that perfect somet= hing for someone you like.
Yukon = businesses have been through a lot over the past year and a half, with the coming of C= OVID and the rapid changes in our world. Yukoners have risen to the occasion, so= let us all continue to do so. Get out, not only this week but every time we nee= d or want something. Check out local before you search elsewhere.
To all= the participating businesses and to the Whitehorse Chamber of Commerce for spearheading this initiative, we appreciate all of the planning and caring. Thank you.
Applause
Ms. Tredger: I rise on behalf of the Yukon NDP to celebrate Yukoner Appreciation Week. Loc= al businesses support the Yukon. Just try to find an event, sports team, or performance that doesn’t have sponsorship from a local Yukon business. They support Yukoners, and Yukoners support them.
The Wh= itehorse Chamber of Commerce is making supporting local businesses extra easy this w= eek. As my colleague mentioned, there are over 90 participating businesses this year. We can’t wait to get out there and enjoy the specials this week= . We encourage all Yukoners to do the same. Also, remember to shop local all year-round.
Applause
Deputy Speaker: Are there any returns or documents for tabling?
Tabling
Returns and Documents
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have for tabling the Yukon Geographical Place Names Board’s 2020-21 annual report.
Hon. Ms. McLean: Pursuant to Section 53(3) of the Yukon University Act, I have for tabling the 2020-21 annual report. = p>
Deputy Speaker: Are there any reports of committees?
Petiti= ons.
PETITIONS
Petition No. 5 — re= ceived
Clerk: Madam= Deputy Speaker and honourable members of the Assembly, I have had the honour to re= view a petition, being Petition No. 5 of the First Session of the 35th Legislative Assembly, as presented by the Member for Watson Lake on Novembe= r 1, 2021.
The petition presented by the Member for Watson Lake meets the requirements as to form of the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly.
Deputy Speaker:= 195;Accordingly, I declare Petition No. 5 is deemed to be read and received. Pursuant to Standing Order 67, the Executive Council shall provide a response to a petition which has been read and received within eight sitting days of its presentation. Therefore, the Executive Council response to Petition No. 5 s= hall be provided on or before November 16, 2021.
Are th= ere any petitions to be presented?
Are th= ere any bills to be introduced?
Are th= ere any notices of motions?
Notices
of Motions
Mr. Kent:Q= 95;I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= his House urges the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to hold a public meeting = with residents of Golden Horn before the end of the 2021 calendar year to discuss the Golden Horn Development Area Regulation.
Ms. McLeod: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= his House urges the Minister of Health and Social Services to commit to a date for holding a public meeting with the residents of Watson Lake to discuss continuing care in the community.
Ms. Tredger: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= his House urges the Government of Yukon to reduce barriers to accessing proof of vaccination for vulnerable people by waiving fees related to general identification cards.
Ms. White: I rise to give notice of the following motion:
THAT t= his House urges the Government of Yukon to direct the Land Planning branch to support= the Golden Horn development area regulation zoning committee by initiating furt= her engagement with the Golden Horn community and property owners on possible z= oning changes.
Deputy Speaker:= 195;Is there a statement by a minister?
Ministerial
Statement
Clean
energy legislation
Hon. M=
r. Streicker: One of our climate action
commitments under Our Clean Future
— A Yukon strategy for climate change, energy, and a green economy =
i>is
to develop a new clean energy act. When enacted, the new clean energy act w=
ill
be the territory’s first piece of energy and climate change legislati=
on.
The clean energy act will legislate emission reduction and renewable energy
targets. Legislating the territory’s targets demonstrates the Governm=
ent
of Yukon’s commitment to implementing Our
Clean Future over the next decade and our
commitment to address climate change.
The pr= oposed legislation will provide the authority to regulate energy-related programs = and products. It will also ensure long-term climate change accountability and transparency through public reporting as we deliver on Our Clean Future commitments. This new legislation will bring t= he Yukon in line with the most progressive energy and climate change legislati= on in North America. The proposed legislation also supports seven other commitments under Our Clean Future<= /i> and will help us move toward sustainability that benefits Yukoners and the environment.
Last w= eek, the Government of Yukon launched a public engagement on the clean energy act. We are seeking input as we develop this new legislation. We are engaging with industry, First Nations, municipalities, stakeholders, interested parties, = and the public to discuss the proposed legislative framework and to identify any potential barriers or gaps.
A disc= ussion document called Creating a Clean En= ergy Act for the Yukon is available at yukon.ca for review. In the discussion document, Yukoners will find the proposed implementation approaches for key provisions, including: greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, renewable electricity generation requirements, zero-emission vehicle sales targets, renewable fuel content standards, renewable heating targets, ability to set energy-efficiency criteria for products, and reporting requirements.
The pr= oposed legislation will also grant the government the regulatory authority to deve= lop regulations regarding mining emission targets. Intensity-based greenhouse g= as reduction targets for the Yukon’s mining sector are being developed through a parallel process that will include the opportunity for public comment. I also note that many of the targets and requirements being propos= ed in the Yukon’s clean energy legislation were designed to achieve a 30= ‑percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2010 levels.
In the= spring of this year, we announced an increase to the Yukon’s overall greenhouse= gas reduction target to 45 percent by 2030. We will work with the newly established Yukon Climate Leadership Council to identify any additional act= ions needed to reach the 45‑percent greenhouse gas reduction target. An accelerated decrease in the territory’s emissions is possible and wil= l be achieved by scaling up our current efforts in partnership with other govern= ments, organizations, and citizens.
The ad= ditional actions that we take to reach the increased target will create new opportunities for both Yukon businesses and individuals, as we build a green economy in the Yukon, for the Yukon, by the Yukon. We are living in an era = of transformation. We are seeing evidence of the climate emergency in our backyards and around the world. The proposed new climate energy act will pl= ay an important role in increasing access to renewable energy, helping Yukoners adapt to climate change, building the Yukon’s green economy, and ensu= ring that the Government of Yukon delivers on its commitment as part of Our Clean Future.
Mr. Kent: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to talk about the issue of energy here today. We appreciate the update from the minister.
As we = enter the winter, I think that it is very important, though, that, as a legislature a= nd as leaders, we reflect on the fact that we are in an energy crisis. As the territory grows, demands on our energy are increasing. Due to poor planning= by the Liberal government, there does not seem to be any solution to address t= his shortage of energy beyond the rental of diesel generators.
During= the recent appearance of the Yukon Energy Corporation in this Legislature, they stated that they project to be renting diesels at least until 2030. That is= at least another nine years of renting dirty diesel generators. With the push = to see more electric vehicles or homes switching to electric heat, and with new builds in Whistle Bend relying almost entirely on electric heat, the demand= on this system will increase even further. If there were a major malfunction of one of our hydro generation stations during a cold snap, we could see the r= eal possibility of not having enough electricity to meet the demand. Further, we are seeing the Liberals go forward with a request to increase electricity r= ates by close to another 12 percent.
For th= ose in the Yukon who rely on other sources of energy for their home heating, such as w= ood, oil, or propane, they are also seeing major storm clouds on the horizon. Th= ere is a shortage of firewood for home heating due to the Liberal government’s inaction and inattentiveness. We have seen the price of = wood skyrocket to almost $500 a cord. Despite the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources’ suggestions, scavenging the ditches for firewood is not a legitimate solution. Those who heat their homes with oil are seeing prices = skyrocket, as the Yukon Liberal government was unable or unwilling to get an exemption= to home heating oil from the carbon tax like the Northwest Territories was abl= e to negotiate. Those who use propane were shocked to see recent headlines in th= e Financial Post that read — a= nd I quote: “Canadian propane prices surge 300% — and could climb hi= gher as US markets brace for ‘Armageddon’”.
All of= these energy issues that the Liberals have ignored and sometimes even contributed= to are making life more difficult and less affordable for many Yukoners. We ne= ed urgent action to ensure that we have consistent and reliable backup energy,= and we need that yesterday. We also need the government to take action to ensure that our energy and heating options are affordable.
Ms. White: We are, of course, very happy and proud to see this legislation moving forward. Yukoners have been clear. At the doorsteps, in petitions, and at climate rallies, they have told us that we cannot waste time. We are in a climate emergency and we need to act now, decisively.
With Y= ukoners who fought for climate action in mind, the Yukon NDP negotiated for an ambitious 45‑percent reduction of greenhouse gases, and we won —= ; 45 percent is the target that will be legislated.
I have= read the questions that the Yukon government has put forward as part of their consultation, and I have some feedback that I would like to provide.=
The fi=
rst
question is about the framing of the legislation, about the objectives that
this legislation is trying to achieve. I would strongly recommend that the
Yukon government look to the work done by the Yukon Youth Panel on Climate
Change. I would like to quote their work: “The Yukon Youth Panel on
Climate Change prioritizes r=
econnection
and sustainable relationships with the land and people to ensure that
social and economic systems are based on reciprocity and supported by
ecological integrity. Overall, this results in a changed mindset
and way of living to sustain a healthy planet.”
Climat= e action is not just about quick technological fixes. Yes, we need renewable energy. Yes, we need zero-emission vehicles, but we also need reconnection. We need= to prioritize sustainable relationships with the land and people.
It is = also important to discuss the plan for intensity-based targets for mining. This = is the wrong approach. The climate doesn’t care about intensity targets.= At the end of the day, what matters are total emissions. If total emissions go= up, it doesn’t matter how efficient the technology was; it is still makin= g our climate crisis worse.
It is = also important to talk about what is not captured in the legislation and the tar= gets that will be legislated. One of these is the destruction of ecosystems. When naturally occurring carbon sinks are disturbed, they release significant am= ounts of carbon, and this isn’t captured or accounted for in our targets. T= his needs to be considered as we make decisions about land use. For example, allowing mining in wetlands — this action will have climate impacts, = and we need to consider that carefully.
To wra= p up, I would like to again express our pride and excitement about this legislation moving forward. I have identified some concerns and shortcomings, and I wou= ld like to offer to work collaboratively with the government to address them so that the Yukon can lead the way in climate action.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>First of all, we are in a climate emergency. We have declared = it here in the Yukon, but so has Canada, so has the City of Whitehorse, so has= the Council of Yukon First Nations, and so has the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation= .
Right = now, the Conference of the Parties meetings are taking place — the internation= al meetings in Glasgow, the 26th set of meetings to talk about clim= ate change — and the conversation is about being in code red — that humanity has caused this problem and we need to change it and solve it. We = need to address it.
I woul= d like to echo the comments from the Member for Whitehorse Centre. We cannot waste ti= me. Yukoners want action; they want us to act.
I thin= k that it is critically important that we enshrine our commitment to climate change a= nd the climate crisis and to make sure that we are on the right side of histor= y by enshrining it in law.
I am a= little surprised to hear the Official Opposition talk about diesel backups. The Me= mber for Copperbelt South talked about the importance of having a backup, but th= en said: “But we don’t want diesels.” I think what he said w= as: “We don’t want rented diesels.” Well, the proposal from t= he Official Opposition is that we actually invest in fossil fuels and that we build diesel plants. The whole idea that they have is that we would create a long-term dependency on those fossil fuels. The backup is for backup right = now, and that is what the point is. Yes, I know that the price of oil is going up — that is why we want to transform the energy economy to a renewable energy economy. That is the whole point.
I will= note that when the Leader of the Official Opposition was the Minister of Environment,= he said — and I quote: “We don’t think setting a territory-w= ide emissions target is the right thing to do.”
Well, = I am very happy now that all parties in the Legislature have said that they have endo= rsed Our Clean Future and the 10-year renewable energy plan, but the 10-year renewable plan doesn’t include building a fossil fuel plant, so I disagree with that.
I will= say that there are many things that we are working on right now, and we will have the chance to debate and vote in this House about bringing in better buildings legislation to try to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and our commercial spaces. That is a great opportunity, because what it does is red= uce the need for energy in the first place, and so it is a win all the way arou= nd.
We are= talking about batteries, which First Nations are investing in, that will make our renewables go further. We are talking about wind and solar. We are building charging stations for electric vehicles from Watson Lake to Dawson City, so there are a lot of projects that are underway right now. We are very happy = that we are working for Yukoners because we believe that this is the era of transformation and we are ready to get down to work. We want to make sure t= hat it is the law that any future government will uphold these targets. =
Deputy Speaker:= 195;This then brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Physic= ian recruitment and retention
Mr. Dixon: Over the course of the last few sitting days, we have been asking the Minister of Health and Social Services to provide some semblance of a response to the thousands of Yukoners who are currently without a family doctor. Instead, w= hat we’ve heard from the minister are non sequiturs and unrelated facts. = The minister has told us about the medical travel subsidy, we have heard about specialist clinics, we have heard about orthopaedic surgery, but none of th= at has anything to do with family medicine and the thousands of Yukoners who a= re without a family doctor. One fact that she did provide that was actually us= eful was that, according to her, 21 percent of Yukoners are without a family doctor.
Can th= e minister provide Yukoners with a single concrete example of something that this Libe= ral government is doing to attract family physicians to the Yukon and help addr= ess the thousands without a family doctor?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Our government is aware that one local physician has closed th= eir primary care practice. We have recognized this as affecting Yukoners and th= eir ability to have a walk-in style clinic. The Putting People First report, as I have said recently, reports that approximatel= y 21 percent of Yukoners do not have access to a family physician. This is a concern = 212; absolutely. We have accepted all of the recommendations of the Putting People First report and ta= ke the priority to ensure that Yukoners have access to primary health care service= s.
We rec= ognize that Yukoners have questions and concerns about how they will be able to ac= cess primary care. As part of the implementation of Putting People First, we are moving forward with adding more nu= rse practitioners, expanding access to virtual care alternatives — Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the examples that the member opposite has asked f= or — more nurse practitioners, expanding access to the virtual care alternatives, and exploring options for primary health care reform. =
We con= tinue to meet regularly with the Yukon Medical Association to discuss the primary he= alth care services and physician recruitment and retention.
Mr. Dixon:= 195;In that whole response, the minister couldn’t point to a single concrete action that this government is taking to attract family physicians to the Y= ukon — not a single concrete answer was she able to provide there. =
Last w= eek, when we asked for the minister to reverse the decision of the former minister an= d to reinstate the physician recruitment officer position, she said — and I quote: “The answer to that question is yes…” However, yesterday she refused to confirm if what she said was true.
So, ca= n the minister confirm: Has she reinstated the physician recruitment position that was terminated by the former minister, or did she once again share inaccura= te information with the House?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: The Department of Health and Social Services has been exploring opportunities to contract nurse practitioners to serve some existing clinics and add additional patient access for patients to medical care. Additionall= y, work is underway to expand the virtual physician services as have been done during COVID and should continue. The department has also been working to assess options for working with a professional recruiter or recruiting firm= . We have, despite the physician recruitment position, been actively recruiting physicians. I should note — I think yesterday there was a comment that Yukon is not an interesting place for physicians. I think that is completely inaccurate. Physicians thrive and are very appreciative of the opportunities that exist here in the territory. I said earlier that p= hysicians are often attracted here because the rates that they are paid are equivalen= t to those in British Columbia plus 30 percent. That is a significant opportunity for us to recruit physicians and to retain them.
Mr. Dixon: The minister has tried her best to explain this away. Yesterday, she tried to explain that this was a national or even global problem, and while there is= a shortage of medical professionals in the country, what is not a national is= sue is that the Liberals have given up on recruitment efforts. It was the Liber= als who made the decision to eliminate the position that was tasked to lead this work. They made the decision to ditch Yukon MD website, and they still don’t have a robust locum program to help fill in the coverage gaps. = They can try to blame others and try to pass the buck, but the reality is that, rather than increasing efforts to recruit family physicians, they have actu= ally cut those efforts. We have an acute shortage of family doctors, and the government has never done less to attract family doctors than they are doing right now.
When w= ill the minister start taking this issue seriously and start actively recruiting fa= mily doctors to the Yukon to help the thousands of Yukoners without a family doc= tor?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I truly believe that, as MLAs, we have not only the opportunit= y but the requirement and responsibility to present accurate information to Yukon= ers. That is not what is being done here.
The De= partment of Health and Social Services has been working closely with the Yukon Medic= al Association to discuss feasibility and partnering on a new physician recruitment and locum coordinator. This is work that is being done as we sp= eak. It shows a priority for our government with respect to recruiting and retai= ning physicians. Physician practices are private businesses that oversee their o= wn recruitment and locum coverage. We endeavour to support them during that process by the incentives — financial and otherwise — of living here and working here in the territory.
Initia= lly, between January 2013 and March 2015, prior to our party coming into power, = the department had one FTE physician recruitment and retention officer who prov= ided support to identify opportunities for physicians. We are exploring returning that.
Question
re: Obstetric and gynecological care
Ms. Clarke: I have now asked the Minister of Health and Social Services several times what she is doing to reduce wait times for gynecologists. However, she continues= to give answers that do not address the issue. We have pointed out that there = is a year-long wait time for OB/GYNs, and she told Yukoners not to worry because they are giving away free period products or expanding midwifery. While the= se are nice, they do not address the issue that there is a year-long wait-list= for OB/GYN services in the Yukon.
Can th= e minister tell us a single thing that she is doing directly related to reducing the wait-list for gynecologists?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I certainly can point to our government’s commitment to expanding access to maternal, prenatal, reproductive, and sexual health car= e. Obstetricians and gynecologists provide a range of support to pregnant individuals, including during birth, as well as a number of reproductive and sexual health care services.
In tot= al, the Yukon is supported by two obstetricians/gynecologists who are based in Whitehorse at the Whitehorse General Hospital. Yukoners must be referred th= ere by another caregiver. The wait time is approximately 10 months, but, of cou= rse, wait times are triaged according to the level of need, with the most urgent care needs being addressed first.
I will=
continue
to answer the member opposite’s questions in the second and third
Ms. Clarke:=
Yesterday, we pointed out that currently the territory is only
served by a single obstetrician. If that single doctor gets sick, there wil=
l be
no capacity for C-sections or other emergency pregnancy procedures. This wi=
ll
put women and babies at risk.
Yester= day, I asked the minister what she is doing to address this very real and serious = issue. Her response was to point to the expansion of midwifery, which, of course, = does not address this issue of not having the capacity for C-sections at all.
What i= s the government’s plan to expand the OB/GYN program in the Yukon so that we are not at risk of being left without an OB/GYN doctor in emergency situati= ons?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Yukoners are able to access a number of services that are prov= ided by obstetric and gynecological specialists. I should note that obstetric gynecologists are highly specialized care providers who require dedicated clinic space and resources. Outside of Whitehorse, there are no communities= in the Yukon — that is no surprise to anyone — equipped to hold su= ch an obstetric unit, so they are based here in Whitehorse.
Based = on the small number of births here in the Yukon each year, there are challenges with recruiting such specialized care providers for the Yukon and the cost of operating these specialized units. Offering an obstetric program in any oth= er community is not possible, but the Yukon is well-served by the obstetric and gynecological services that are provided here.
Additi= onally, there are a number of private clinics in Whitehorse that deliver sexual, reproductive, maternity, and prenatal care. My colleague opposite has dismi= ssed the opportunity for individuals to have services of a midwife. That is certainly something that a number of Yukoners will want to choose when that program starts.
Ms. Clarke: It is clear from the minister’s answers over the last several days that = she is not entirely clear about the important and critical services that obstetric= ians and gynecologists provide the community. We have asked several times for he= r to expand the program and she points to providing free period products or expanding midwifery. Those are great policies, but they do not address the critical and serious issue that we are raising. We have a shortage of gynecologists and obstetricians in the territory. The wait-list is over a y= ear.
What i= s the minister doing to deal with this right now?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yukoners are able to access a number of sexual and reproductive health care services through the Sexual Health Clinic and the Women’s MidLife Hea= lth Clinic that operate here in Whitehorse. They are supported by two nurse practitioners contracted by the department. Additionally, the Crocus and Sa= ge maternity clinic in Whitehorse provides maternity services and prenatal supports. This clinic is supported by a group of physicians who specialize = in maternity care. Our highly trained community nursing staff are available to provide a range of maternal, prenatal, and postnatal supports and education through community health centres.
Our go= vernment continues to work closely with the Yukon Hospital Corporation to discuss sh= ared priorities, areas of concern, and plan for the future of a service delivery here in the territory. The obstetrics and gynecologists’ highly specialized team here in the territory serve pregnant people well. There is= an opportunity to make sure that there is proper coverage through that clinic.= The Yukon government supports the expansion of these services — which inc= lude midwifery, by the way — and include others at the sexual health clini= cs to provide service.
Question
re: Old Crow water delivery
Ms. Tredger: In Old Crow, drinking water is delivered by truck to each home, up to three ti= mes per week. Due to the housing shortage, many homes are overcrowded. This mea= ns that the water tanks are too small for the number of people living there. Citizens know to conserve water to make it last, but still, it is not rare = to have a home run out of water — sometimes for days at a time. Let me repeat this: We have a community in the Yukon where people don’t have consistent access to running water.
What i= s the minister doing to fix this unacceptable situation?
Hon. Mr. Mostyn: I am glad to field the question this afternoon on safe drinking water in our rural Yukon communities. It is an issue that we have to address and I will get more information for the member opposite.
Ms. Tredger: Perhaps I can provide some of that information. Because of staff shortages, the two main water delivery staff have had to work almost non-stop. They work long hours and can hardly take vacation. They are often on call long after their shift has ended just to keep up. This situation is obviously not sustainabl= e. The workers are tired; they need a break.
On Aug= ust 5, the minister replied to a letter from my colleague, the Member for Vuntut Gwitc= hin, saying that his department is working to provide training opportunities for local residents in Old Crow. Can the minister tell this House when training will start on the water and waste delivery for Old Crow residents?= p>
Hon. Mr. Mostyn: I do remember the letter that I wrote to the member opposite in response to her question. I will follow up with my department officials and= see where that program is at right now.
Ms. Tredger: I appreciate that the minister will follow up, because the current staff need long-term support and the community needs solutions that will attract local interest in these positions and retain workers. This ongoing staffing short= age has a direct effect on the community. This is a Yukon community where people have to prioritize water use or risk running out altogether. Water is a vit= al source of life that we take for granted when we don’t have to worry a= bout running out. It is 2021, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indigenous communities deserve better.
Does t= he minister have a plan to provide long-term reliable access to water for the residents of Old Crow?
Hon. Mr. Mostyn: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. This is, of course, an issue of national importance, an issue of regional importance, a= nd an issue of local importance. We have advanced nearly 100 community infrastructure projects across the territory since 2016, valued at more than $690 million in shared investment by the Yukon government and Canada, = with Canada contributing approximately $488 million under the Investing in = Canada infrastructure program.
Commun= ity infrastructure is the backbone to our modern lives. It provides the water, = the sewer, and other municipal services used by Yukoners every single day ̵= 2; every single day, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Commun= ity infrastructure also includes public service spaces for gathering and recrea= tion that enable Yukoners to live healthy and active lives. We do our best to me= et the needs of communities, recognizing that the infrastructure gap and desir= es far exceed the available funding. As we advance priorities, we are also wor= king with our federal colleagues to maximize contributions to the Yukon with as flexible terms as possible to better meet community and territory-wide priorities. Be it in Old Crow, Watson Lake, or Ross River, we are working on all of our community infrastructure.
Question
re: Magnetic resonance imaging program
Ms. McLeod: The MRI at the Whitehorse General Hospital is an essential and critical health service for Yukoners. However, currently there are 650 people on the wait-l= ist for non-urgent MRIs. Can the Minister of Health and Social Services tell us= of anything she’s doing to reduce this wait-list?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: The MRI service that’s provided by Yukon hospital to Yuk= oners throughout the territory is an important and essential service with respect= to how Yukoners can be diagnosed and have additional health information for th= eir own decision-making. As a result, the current MRI program is being run by individuals who are experienced and necessary for the purpose of operating = the MRI. As a result, Yukoners are served well in that capacity.
We are= exploring options with the Yukon Hospital Corporation with respect to expanding the opportunities by having additional operators and extended hours of time that are possible for Yukoners to have MRIs and to reduce the wait times.
Ms. McLeod: The wait-list for non-urgent MRIs is 650 people, as I said. This means that the average wait time is now 332 days, and that’s just under one year to = get an MRI. What new funding is the Liberal government providing the hospital to reduce this wait time?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Madam Deputy Speaker, these are decisions made by the Yukon Ho= spital Corporation with respect to MRI operation and the service that they provide very well to Yukoners for those who need MRI diagnostics. The work continues every day on issues that affect Yukoners’ health that are operated by= the Yukon Hospital Corporation. Our continued work together will have conversat= ions and will enable us to consider each and every one of the services provided.= To be clear, those decisions are made by the Hospital Corporation. Certainly, I meet regularly with them and have the opportunity to talk about how we can improve services for Yukon. It’s always something that we do together= .
Ms. McLeod: Of course, it is the minister’s responsibility to work with the Hospital Corporation to ensure that Yukoners receive the services that they require. Waiting a year to get an MRI will have a negative impact on the quality of = life for the 650 Yukoners who are on that wait-list.
The mi= nister has made a reference that she is working with the hospital to expand services. = Can the minister give us some indication of the timeline and the cost?= p>
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I certainly will look into the wait times that are being expre= ssed here in the Legislative Assembly and the number of individuals who might be waiting. I say that I am going to do that because certainly inaccurate numb= ers came from the opposite side on other issues today.
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has the floor.
Hon. Ms. McPhee: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So, as a result, certainly we’ll look into that. I cannot produce for the member opposite today a budget or a timeline. Those are decisions made by the Yukon Hospital Corporation. This government will continue to work with the Yukon Hospital Corporation as a vital partner in the delivery of services to Yukoners and always with the concept of trying to improve those.
Question
re: Yukon Hospital Corporation funding
Mr. Cathers: As you know, this Liberal government has a record of neglecting the needs of o= ur hospitals. The Yukon Hospital Corporation’s annual report for the last fiscal year has now been tabled.
Once a= gain, it shows that the Liberals have neglected their funding, leaving Yukon hospita= ls short millions of dollars for the last fiscal year. Total expenses for the Yukon Hospital Corporation, as shown in the annual report, were $103.6 mill= ion while total revenue was only $99.6 million.
Will t= he Minister of Health and Social Services tell us what, during a pandemic, the government’s excuse is for leaving our hospitals short millions of dollars?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: This is an important question for Yukoners. It happens to have= been, unfortunately, taken out of context.
In the= first supplementary estimates for 2021-22, we are providing the Yukon Hospital Corporation with approximately $85.8 million — it is actually $85,761,000 — which includes an increase of $206,000 in additional funding to cover interest payments on a letter of credit to meet the Yukon Hospital Corporation’s pension solvency needs. I am happy to answer m= ore as we go forward.
Mr. Cathers: With all due respect, that excuse from the minister is ridiculous. It is in the hospital’s annual report. It’s not out of context; it’s in their report. We have seen the government balloon spending under the minister’s department this year, but our hospitals are left short of money again.
For mo= st of the Liberal government’s time in office, the Yukon Hospital Corporation h= as been short of money. Annual increases are often less than the rate of inflation, despite the increasing costs of everything from personnel, drugs, medical imaging, lab, and the list goes on. Twice during this pandemic, our hospitals have finished a fiscal year with a multi‑million-dollar fun= ding shortfall thanks to the neglect of the Liberals. They did it to them in the fiscal year ending March 2020, and they did it to them this year again.
Over 2= ,000 Yukoners have no family doctor and are forced to go to the emergency room w= hen they need a doctor. How does the Minister of Health and Social Services exp= ect our hospitals to be able to manage when she leaves them short millions of dollars?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: As I said earlier — and as I think I said yesterday R= 12; it behooves the members of this Legislative Assembly to provide accurate information to Yukoners. To not do so, I think, abdicates responsibility. <= /span>
Betwee= n the fiscal years of 2015-16 and 2021-22, the Yukon hospital services O&M budget has increased by 35.4 percent whe= n we compare the mains to the mains. Our government is committed to working clos= ely with the Yukon Hospital Corporation to ensure that we are meeting their core funding needs.
The ov= erall increase of five percent — or 5.44 percent or $4.2 million — over the 2020-21 mains has been the funding from the first supplementary estimates. This includes an increase of core funding of four&= nbsp;percent for growth and cost-of-living adjustments. This increase also includes $1&n= bsp;million for security and safety enhancements at the Whitehorse General Hospital sec= ure psychiatric unit, which is in addition to their core funding.
Betwee= n the fiscal years of — thank you. I will stop there.
Mr. Cathers: When the minister talks about bringing accurate information before the House, I = will remind her that she tabled the hospital’s annual report. It’s r= ight from there that we see this funding shortfall.
ItR= 17;s clear that the Minister of Health and Social Services and the Premier are both ou= t of touch with the needs of Yukoners. As a result of the Liberals cutting recruitment for doctors, thousands of Yukoners who have no family doctor are forced to rely on our hospitals and the emergency room in lieu of a family doctor.
Our ho= spitals are dealing with other increasing costs across the board. When the hospital= CEO last appeared in this Assembly, he told us — and I quote: “R= 30; this past year, almost every ambulatory and inpatient service increased by greater than, say, three percent. Some of them are up to possibly 10&n= bsp;percent. That is something that we will have to work with government on to ensure th= at our core funding — our base funding — keeps pace with what we s= ee as far as increases.”
How do= es this government justify their decision to leave our hospitals short $3.9 mi= llion, according to their own annual report, during a pandemic?
Hon. Ms. McPhee: I would like to note that capital funding for the Yukon Hospital Corporation = has also been provided for a total of $7.7 million in the 2021-22 budget, = and that is in addition — the hospital receives funding for their COVID= 8209;19 needs, which is included in the COVID‑19 budget. I think that it̵= 7;s important for Yukoners to know this.
I have= already noted, but it’s worth repeating, that between fiscal years 2015-16 and 2021-22, the current budget year, the Yukon Hospital Corporation has receiv= ed an O&M budget increase of 35.4 percent= when we compare mains to mains. As a result of these increases, the Yukon Hospit= al Corporation has been able to offer additional services here in the territor= y. Yukoners now have better access to orthopaedic surgeons, to MRIs, and to pediatricians, and bringing care closer to home is an important priority for this government. We will continue the work with the Yukon Hospital Corporat= ion, and we will do so on behalf of all Yukoners.
Deputy Speaker: The time for Question Period has now elapsed.
We wil= l now proceed to Orders of the Day.
Orders of th=
e Day
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the Ho= use resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Deputy Speaker:= 195;It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave= the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to
Speaker leaves the Chair
Committee
of the Whole
Deputy Chair (Ms. Tredger): =
Order, please.
I will= now call Committee of the Whole to order.<= o:p>
The ma=
tter
before Committee is general debate on Bill No. 9, entitled Act to Amend the Cannabis Control and
Regulation Act (2021).
Do mem= bers wish to take a brief recess?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Chair:&nb= sp; Committee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Chair (Ms. Blake): Committee of the Whole will now come to order.
Bill
No. 9: Act to Amend the Cannab=
is
Control and Regulation Act (2021)
Chair: The m= atter before the Committee is general debate on Bill No. 9, entitled Act to Amend the Cannabis Control and Regulation Act (2021).
Is the= re any general debate?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: First, I would like to welcome the officials this afternoon. W= ith me is the director of policy and communications with the Yukon Liquor Corporat= ion, Amelie Quirke‑Tomlins, and Andrea Bailey, legislative counsel with the Department of Justice.
We had= second reading on the proposed bill, and we can now continue the debate here in Committee of the Whole.
As we = discussed at second reading, the proposed amendment to the Cannabis Control and Regulation Act is very brief. The details = of how e‑commerce and home delivery will function is to be set out in th= e regulations — those under development. The change to the act that we are examining today allows a person to receive cannabis from a licensed cannabis retailer= for the purposes of e‑commerce delivery. This amendment, together with the regulations, will ensure that the Yukon’s private retail e‑comm= erce system can combat the illicit market more effectively. The aim is to establ= ish a system that matches, as far as it is possible, the convenience of the ill= egal market while maintaining health and safety standards.
Public engagement at the time of legalization indicated suppor= t for online sales and home delivery of cannabis. The Yukon’s licensed retailers have done an outstanding job serving our community since legalization. They have adjusted their business operations throughout the pandemic as far as possible within the requirements of the legislation. It = is now time to take the next step in this evolving industry and to develop legislation that authorizes our licensees to offer remote sales with home delivery. This will help them to better serve their customers while strengthening their business operations.
I look= forward to discussing the bill further with Committee members.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that from the minister. We did have a chance to raise some issues and have some amount of discussion at second reading, so I would like to re= turn to a few of the issues that were discussed there, both by the current minis= ter and the former minister, in relation to this bill.
I thin= k that it goes without saying that we are supportive of the bill and that we are happ= y to see the development of e‑commerce. We, of course, have been pushing f= or this for some time prior to the bill being tabled. This was available to retailers previously under an emergency order of CEMA<= /span> whereby, for a fixed period of weeks, retailers were able to offer their products online. Of course, that ended earlier in the year with the termina= tion of that ministerial order — or that regulation under CEMA, which allowed it. This bill seeks to make that opportunity permanently available.
I woul= d, however, like to raise a few questions about some aspects of the cannabis legislation and regulatory framework overall and perhaps ask the minister w= hy they were not included in this bill. Obviously, the department and the mini= ster took some time to advance this, and they made the decision to pursue this o= ne particular aspect and decided not to proceed with a number of other changes that could have been made.
I am c= urious about some of those decisions, so I will start with one particular issue th= at I have heard from a number of retailers, and that is in relation to promotion= and sponsorship. Cannabis retailers are sometimes asked to sponsor local events. Any number of local events happen in the territory that private sector operators have the opportunity to sponsor. I know that for liquor businesse= s or bars, they are frequent sponsors of sporting events, school events, and the list goes on.
Howeve= r, those kinds of promotion and sponsorship opportunities are not available to canna= bis retailers. I would like to ask the minister: Was any consideration given to provide for legislative changes to allow for the types of sponsorship and promotion that are available to some businesses in the Yukon but are not available to cannabis retailers?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I think that, first and foremost, it is important to touch upo= n what our goals are with our process today. This is what, I guess, many would cal= l a surgical amendment. We are really focused on prioritizing the conversations with the private sector and the work that we will continue to do to ensure = that they have the best possible climate in which to undertake their businesses.=
Our fo= cus was really to go out and have the consultation piece and have discussions. The folks at the corporation have done a great job of continuing to have a lot = of conversations, and the Leader of the Official Opposition, from the briefing, would know that there are so many touch points. Almost on a weekly basis, individuals in our organization are having conversations with the retailers. That is because we want to be very respectful of the hard work that the pri= vate sector does. We want to be very respectful of their knowledge, ensuring tha= t we can learn from them and improve this piece of legislation and how we support them, which is very important.
What is important to be aware of is that you have two sets of legislation that dict= ate what happens. We have the federal act that was put in place, and then the Y= ukon made a decision to follow through and put our own legislation in place. That’s, of course, what we are amending today.
Certai= n things — sometimes there is the discussion around thinking that we have the responsibility or, at least, that we even have the powers to control that, = but they may fall under a federal act. I think it goes without saying.
I woul= dn’t say that we, at this time, under this particular act, have everything exact= ly how the private sector would want to see it, but I think that we are doing a very good job of sticking to the commitments that were made from day one. I have to say — we get into strong debates, of course. That’s what this Assembly is about, but at the same time, the previous minister came in= and made a commitment. That good work was followed through by the corporation, = and it was to enact — get that legislation in place — make sure tha= t we have a proper governance structure and make sure that there was an opportun= ity for folks to access retail. That was done out of the gates from a governmen= t-owned store. Of course, there was lots of feedback from opposition. I mean, certa= inly there is difference of opinion here in the Assembly, but that commitment wa= s to get that moving and to sell it off. Of course, that now has transitioned to= a privately owned establishment, which we applaud. How we respectfully worked with the folks who were on the front lines for that store for the government was done as committed to, and now we are in a position where it essentially= is primarily a private sector marketplace with a commitment from us to have it solely as a private sector marketplace.
I̵= 7;m just going to touch on advertising and loyalty programs because it was something else that was touched on. I’m going to jump ahead a little bit and ju= st touch on that.
So, fi= rst of all, the federal Cannabis Act h= as a range of requirements that licensees must follow, covering brand preference= and promotion of information, brand elements on merchandise such as hats or T-shirts, and the display of cannabis and accessories at retail — ind= ucements that might encourage non-users to begin using cannabis or that might encour= age excessive or heavy consumption. Health Canada assess the compliance with the provisions of the Cannabis Act = and its regulations relating to promotion on a case‑by-case basis.
Under = the Cannabis Act, benefits provided to members of a loyalty program cannot be provided again. So, we’ve heard locally where some of the national — there’s one, I think, reta= iler that is part of a national chain of stores. We were made aware that there w= as loyalty program activity. I think that they reported back to the corporatio= n. Of course, the corporation has followed up on that.
When i= t comes to loyalty programs, again, understanding that if folks see things such as tha= t in place — that are not allowed to be in place — please let us kno= w.
I don&= #8217;t want to solely say that the federal act doesn’t give room for us in s= ome sense — in cases where we may be able to look at a deeper dive and st= ill be able to support some of the interests of the private sector — that= is something, of course, that we are willing to do. I have spoken directly to those operators and they have some strong arguments. Inevitably, where these particular products have come into the marketplace and are looked at simila= rly to alcohol products — again, I think the member opposite makes good poin= ts. We do see some of our local entrepreneurs who are in the alcohol sector rea= lly contributing a lot to numerous activities through their corporate social responsibility activities.
My com= mitment today is that we are trying to make sure that the legal framework is follow= ed but, at the same time, I will make a commitment that we will go back again = and take a look at ways that we may be able to reduce the burden or take another look at the perspective of — if this is undue red tape that should be removed.
It was= , right now, about us working, of course, with folks like Ms. Bailey to make s= ure that we can draft this and get a surgical amendment done to get this very important piece of legislation changed so we can see e‑commerce thrive for the private sector.
Mr. Dixon: Just to reiterate, I appreciate that the minister has anticipated a future quest= ion that I have about loyalty programs, but my specific question was around promotion and sponsorship. If he could start by just addressing that first issue: Is the prohibition on the sellers of cannabis — cannabis retai= lers — to promote themselves by way of sponsorship similar to what we see = from alcohol distributors or retailers a function of the federal Cannabis Act and subsequent regula= tions or a function of the territorial act?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Again, I just want to touch on the fact that what we have been doing, in any case, when we have heard complaints or concerns — as it= was touched upon — is for us to go and address those — that is agai= n to the loyalty program. I want to be respectful of the question as it is laid = out.
I thin= k that we have to do some work on our side to make sure that we look at each specific case in the same way that the federal government is looking at each specific case. It’s hard to just define it that way, based on the interpretati= on of the federal legislation. There are some activities that would look at branding or promotion and that the federal entities would want to review. O= nce that is done, there is also an obligation that we have to cross-reference t= hat against the legislation that we have.
What I= am really saying today is — I’m making a commitment to the Assembly to go back and look at specific examples by all of our retailers right now who are looking to be in the sponsorship and promotion field. I certainly don’= ;t want to see folks who want to contribute to their community having a barrie= r to doing that if it’s not there or can be appropriately changed. =
Again,= I think that it is a great point that was brought up today. I am willing to do the = work on this side. As I stated, we are in constant conversation. I will look to having a formal briefing with the corporation around aspects concerning sponsorship or community social responsibility programs that companies may = want to have underway but feel that they can’t because of what they are hearing from us or even the interpretation that is coming from the federal = act.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that answer from the minister and his commitment to seek a brief= ing from the department to look at that.
In the= course of that briefing, I recommend that he have a look at the federal Cannabis Act and regulations, which outline permissible and prohibited advertising and promotional activities, = and cross-reference that against what exists in the territorial legislation. Fr= om there, I am sure that he will find some opportunity to move forward. Once he has had a chance to have that briefing, I would be happy to discuss that wi= th him further.
I will= move on to the next issue, which the minister did begin to talk about — the loyalty program. It sounded, from what the minister has said so far, like t= he loyalty programs that are available to national retailers or franchises are= not allowed in the Yukon.
Can he= confirm that this is indeed correct? Loyalty programs th= at provide third-party and non-cannabis-related merchandise or gifts as a resu= lt of a customer’s patronage are not allowed in the territory, or are th= ey in fact permitted under our territorial legislation?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Loyalty programs are prohibited under current Yukon legislatio= n. This rule applies to all licensees in the Yukon and is in place to prevent retailers from encouraging consumption, which is part of our program. Each jurisdiction has its own rules about loyalty programs. A cannabis franchise= may be able to run a loyalty program in one jurisdiction, which is the case her= e. We have an operator who likely runs loyalty programs in other jurisdictions, but they are prohibited from having the program in the Yukon, the same as a= ll Yukon licensees.
My con= versations with the private sector — we see folks right now who may have just one outlet. Maybe they have a plan to expand into other parts of the Yukon. I am not aware of that yet, but as businessfolks, maybe they will make those decisions.
With t= his, we also want to make sure there is a fair playing field for Yukon businesses. = We want to make sure that an organization that has multiple stores across west= ern Canada, say, aren’t being able to use these loyalty programs to have = an unfair advantage.
When a= complaint is received by the corporation — and we have had them about one of the organizations — regarding this type of activity, enforcement actions = are taken. Licensees also need to comply with the federal Cannabis Act, which we touched on earlier. It has the requireme= nts related to promotional products and inducements that might encourage non-us= ers to begin using cannabis or to encourage heavy consumption.
I hope= that answers the question. It’s our legislation here that prohibits that. = If there is any indication that such activity is happening, please let us know= and we will follow up with action.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that. My intention today was not to flag a potential regulatory issue for the minister; it was to flag a potential opportunity for future legislative change.
The re= ason I say that is that, while I know our first instinct is to protect locally develop= ed businesses, I also want to make sure we have the ability for our local businesses to explore and expand beyond the Yukon. For instance, if a local retailer were to want to use their Yukon retail shop as the launching point= for a bigger chain, they need the tools to compete with other national retailer= s.
I know= of at least one retailer in the territory who is considering opening shops outside the Yukon. By limiting their ability to access those sort of loyalty progra= ms, they are at a competitive disadvantage when they go outside of the territor= y.
I appr= eciate the minister’s comments. I guess I would just flag the issue as something that he should consider when reviewing future amendments to the legislation= . I think that it’s an opportunity, but we ought to think about the comparison between cannabis retailers and the alcohol sector. The alcohol sector has fairly permissive opportunities for promotions and loyalty progr= ams, as we see — every time you crack open a particular kind of beer, you = can get a T-shirt or those types of activities. There are lots of those types of loyalty programs that exist in other sectors. I think that cannabis should = be given some of those opportunities as well as the legal cannabis market beco= mes normalized.
The ne= xt issue that I want to mention builds on that. Under territorial legislation, canna= bis retailers are only able to offer cannabis and cannabis accessories in their licensed area. That is, they can’t sell other goods in what we consid= er the licensed area. For smaller retailers in the Yukon, that means that they just don’t have the ability to sell those other general goods without having to expand their area or get a second location.
I was = wondering if the minister could comment on that and whether or not — the consideration of allowing other products in what we consider to be the lice= nsed area within the Yukon.
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I appreciate the comments concerning loyalty programs, just to= step back there. I think there is opportunity there, of course. Anyone who is expanding into another jurisdiction will follow the rules in that jurisdict= ion. It goes without saying that absolutely — loyalty programs built on ha= ving individuals hit a particular store or franchise on multiple occasions in different jurisdictions and draw them in based on their commitment or whate= ver their connection or opportunity for benefit within their program — I = hear that. The member opposite probably knows as well as anybody, too, that I appreciate that sometimes that approach — whether it is exemptions in= the Canadian Free Trade Agreement — the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition negotiated well for Yukon — so even in a sort of laissez faire free‑market perspective, sometimes we are taking a look= at appropriately supporting our businesses.
That= 8217;s not to say that, in future days, we can’t look at taking legislation and,= of course, making sure that we can support great Yukon businesses that are expanding and starting to work, which we think is a fantastic endeavour, if there are companies, organizations, and businesses now that are seeing that opportunity, and the business planning that they are doing states that it i= s a sustainable and profitable opportunity.
Specif= ically, there are three things that I am really committing to. We have walked throu= gh and we have seen in particular stores — and some stores — you a= re right — have had that opportunity to have a bigger location, and so it makes it easier to sell the merchandise. I think that the commitment that I= am making is that we are talking really about branding merchandise. That is the conversation where I’m saying that we are committing to go and have, = with the retailers that we have — really looking at, one, are there ways f= or us to make it easier for them to sell their products while still following = the federal guidelines or, from a federal perspective, are we going to have to = make an intervention? I mean, we are already concerned at the federal level wher= e we look at packaging. We think that packaging — we are over-packaging, a= nd we are concerned about that. We think that there are ways, but, again, it is federally mandated.
But the commitment that I am making to the Assembly is around opportunities where f= olks want to get their branding out — merchandise — if there are eas= ier ways to do that. I want to be very respectful of the fact that, although I understand that some of those merchants have limited square footage. Again, going to get extra square footage in a very competitive commercial real est= ate market may inhibit you from even putting your product out there because of = the costs that are associated with even having that extra space to do it.
I thin= k, again, I’m committed to going back and looking at where we can support folks= to get their ancillary products out the door, reducing red tape, if there is r= ed tape in place that doesn’t need to be there but, all the while, being cognizant of the fact that we have to be very committed to our values around responsibility in how we also put the names and the branding of those organizations out there, all the while trying to make it consistent with wh= at we do with organizations that are entrepreneurial organizations locally that are also producing alcohol products and how they play within the marketplac= e.
That i= s my commitment. We will sit with folks and try to figure out how we can make th= ings better for them while being respectful to the legal framework that is in pl= ace at the national level.
Mr. Dixon: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate the commitment that he has made to review some of these issues, engage with local businesses, and consider fur= ther changes going forward.
The mi= nister mentioned a few things that caught my interest, but I won’t go into t= he CFTA and the cannabis table at this point, but I woul= d note for the minister that he is in the unique position where he is both the minister of trade and the Minister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corpora= tion and the cannabis corporation, which I hope he uses to his advantage to advo= cate for some changes at the federal level through those national tables.
He also mentioned the federal legislation. I wanted to ask briefly if the minister = is aware of the comprehensive review to the federal Cannabis Act that’s being contemplated by the federal government and is committed to begin in October 2021. Also, if he could pro= vide an update for us as to whether or not he is aware if that has begun, and, if so, has Yukon government provided any feedback yet? If not, when will we provide that feedback to the federal government?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Health Canada runs a federal-provincial-territorial working gr= oup that we are a part of and, as part of its review of the Cannabis Act, the Yukon Liquor Corporation has attended two meetings so far and will continue to participate. I can go back to see if a= ny interventions were made during the first two meetings of the working group.= I would think that, from experience, probably it was project opening in, one, setting the agenda and setting the mandate and then, two, starting to do the work. My experience to date has been that the folks will come in and have a sign-off at the ministerial level. If they are looking for any particular mandate or intervention, that would be done at the table. I know that my mandate letter does identify a few things, one of which we are talking about today, but it is also our concern around the packaging.
Those = items — they have already have support and a man= date to discuss, but if there is anything further, I can bring it back to the Ho= use and make the Leader of the Official Opposition aware of that.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate that response from the minister and the commitment to return to = us with any feedback that may come based on the submissions that Yukon may or = may not have made to the federal government on the comprehensive national revie= w of the Cannabis Act.
By way= of background, again for the minister, I think this is an opportunity for the Yukon — sorry, the comprehensive review of the federal act is an opportunity for the Yukon to make an overture to the federal government abo= ut the nature of the licensing for producers. Nationally, there are different levels of producer. One consideration may be for the burgeoning agriculture industry in the Yukon, that we consider the size of our market and the size= of production that can occur in the Yukon and consider whether the level of bu= rden that Health Canada’s regulations put on prospective producers is appropriate to the Yukon, relative to our size, and the fact that we would = have naturally smaller cannabis production here in the Yukon. The regulations, as they are set up currently, obviously contemplate very large production that= can occur in the south, and so, I think that’s something that the minister may want to consider.
My nex= t question relates to the overall model. I’ve had a few discussions with the for= mer minister about this, but I would like to chat with the current minister. Wh= ere are we at in terms of the markup and the pricing structure that the Yukon cannabis corporation employs? I’ve recently heard anecdotally that we= had the highest markups in the country, but then more recently, I did hear that= the cannabis corporation was either contemplating changes to the markup or had recently made some changes.
Could = the minister update us on that?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: So, the Yukon Liquor Corporation — again, we’re co= nsistently meeting with retailers. I know I’ve touched on that a few times. I th= ink it’s important just to show the level of engagement and how active we= are to understand the needs and perspective of the retailers and to review the cannabis pricing with licensees. What we have done already is that we’= ;ve reduced the cost of service charges on products.= That went live at the end of the month; so, just this past weekend, we’ve reduced that. We switched from a per-gram to a per-unit cost of service for some products. The cost of service dropped from $14 to as little as $2.15 on some products. So, we think our first step is to really reduce some of those charges that were in place.
Second= ly, as the member touched on, the corporation has a markup on all products purchased by licensed retailers. This markup has not changed in the three years since legalization, and we are currently looking at whether the rate can be reduc= ed. What we have committed to, right from the start, is being able to cover our costs with moving product. There might be a difference of opinion about how that model is looked upon. I would go back to the “what we heard̶= 1; document. This was one of the most engaged processes we have seen on consultation — ever — in putting this act in place. It was asto= unding how many Yukoners wanted to be a part of that process.
What w= e did hear in the end is that, overwhelmingly, Yukoners wanted to see essentially a hy= brid model from that “what we heard”. I think this follows through on that. If we go back and you see what Yukoners said and then you think about= a model where it is direct to licensee, that’s not what the majority of Yukoners said; they wanted to see a program like this.
As Min= ister responsible for the Yukon Liquor Corporation, I strive to find an appropria= te balance between the needs of licensees, social responsibility, and the need= to return dollars to government to fund services for all Yukoners.
A cont= inued reduction of the illegal cannabis market is a priority. Currently, our aim = is to be as close to revenue neutral as possible. I want to make that commitme= nt. That is the goal — as I sit with the president and our supporting sta= ff — to get to the place of neutrality.
We are= three years in, and for anybody who has been in a position of running a business, part of what we have been doing is understanding our costs. I am continuing= to make that commitment to get to a neutral spot. What does that mean? It means that we want to ensure that we are not overcharging our licensees. To put t= hat on the record, that is not what we are looking to do, but we are looking to= be careful with this process and understanding and being respectful to the taxpayers of the Yukon and making sure that we follow through on what people wanted to see as the model and that we are sustainable in the expenditures = that are part of the hybrid model, while being fair to licensees.
I woul= d just close by saying we are very happy to be able to make such a dramatic drop in the costs for the private sector, and that all just went live on October 30, just a few days ago.
Mr. Dixon: Can the minister repeat what the cost-of-service fee is and whether is it is per gram? I believe he said it is two dollars and something, but can he repeat that, please, and indicate whether that is per gram or per some other unit = of measure?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I had just touched upon an example, in one case, where we were looking at the reduction. We switched from a per-gram to a per-unit cost of service. For some products, the cost of service dropped from $14 to as litt= le as $2.15. The cost of service — the current rate that was in place be= fore October 30 was 50 cents per gram. We have now gone to a new rate, which for= two grams is $2.15 a unit — as well, for two grams equalling 50 cents per unit. So, for all other products, we’re charging 15 cents per unit. <= /span>
Those = are the changes we have just made. I can give you an example: Under the previous co= st of service for a large format, such as a 28-gram bag, it had a cost-of-serv= ice charge to licensees of $14. Under the new rate, the cost of service for a 28-gram bag is $2.15.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the answer, and I will spend some time looking at the Blues to reflect on exactly what the minister said there, as I didn’t quite fo= llow everything. I appreciate the overall reduction, in particular for that 28-g= ram bag from $14 to $2.15. I would also note, though, that the cost-of-service = fee would not be necessary if the retailer could go directly to a producer, so = that cost is on top of all the other costs that exist there. If a retailer were = able to go directly to a producer, as opposed to through the cannabis corporatio= n, that cost-of-service fee wouldn’t exist, so that is one thing to cons= ider there.
That l= eads me to my next point, which is the question about whether or not to allow retailer= s to purchase directly from a registered and legal producer. I know that the minister has spoken about this. He said that, because of the public consultation that was conducted back in 2017-18, that is why we can’t make any further changes. So, that is where I would like to challenge the minister a little bit. Relying on the “what we heard” document = from three or four years ago I don’t think is the best choice, just because opinions have significantly shifted — not only in the Yukon, but in Canada — about the nature of the cannabis industry and in particular = the role of the legal cannabis industry in combatting the black market. I think that, if properly presented to the public, there would be support for at le= ast consideration of a type of model that would allow retailers to go directly = to a producer, should they so choose. I do appreciate that some retailers would = like to continue to purchase through the cannabis corporation, because of their buying power, but I think that there is an opportunity, at least, for the consideration of another model — or different options, at least.
Perhap= s I will let the minister respond to that, because I know that he has some thoughts = on it.
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I think that, in many cases, legislation is going to be looked= at in a different way over time. We are a few years into this process, and we are having a good debate about opportunity, business expansion, maybe even increasing the GDP, depending on what happens here for production, and that= is a different conversation than we were having with the opposition three years ago. I know that signals have been made that this amendment will be support= ed, and I think that is a good thing. So, you are absolutely correct. We have transitioned in perspective immensely, not just in the Assembly, but across= the country. Do I think, as time goes on, that we are going to see an opportuni= ty for the model to change? Yes, potentially. I think that door could be left open.
But wh= at I do know is that, in the last number of years, we brought this in, and what I w= ould say to Yukoners is that the previous minister did a very, very good job of laying out the plan, committing to that plan, committing to the values of t= he plan, and having a corporation that worked in a very efficient and effective way to execute that.
What w= e saw when we asked Yukoners about sales and distribution — when it was overseen= by government, so the same way that we see liquor — 28 percent of respondents thought that government-licensed, private distributors should oversee the managed cannabis distribution within Yukon; 24 percent tho= ught that retail operators should be required to purchase wholesale from governm= ent suppliers; and 17 percent were in favour of government distribution to government-run stores, which is even more of a reach. When you take into consideration that, overwhelmingly — we are talking about almost 70&n= bsp;percent of folks wanting to see that, and then we had 24 percent saying that t= hey thought cannabis producers should be allowed to sell directly to retail sto= res.
I thin= k that is a fair comment. Over time, maybe as people get more comfortable — and they certainly have become much more comfortable in this short time. But at this particular time, I am just really focused on this amendment, but I am always open to hearing from the private sector. As things change, you are r= ight — that would reduce the administrative cost, but this was something t= hat Yukoners, for their comfort — as this industry is moving so quickly, changing, and maturing, it was key to see this. Even the bigger players that were producing are now reallocating their energies into research and development. The whole thing is moving so quickly, even in this short perio= d of time, that I think it’s prudent to be able to monitor for a short per= iod of time and then see if that opportunity is there and what the private sect= or feels that they can do.
We kno= w right now that we are in a position where we can carry a ton of buying power. We = are in a position where we are able to house and store a tremendous amount of product. We have a lot of different interests.
I do g= et it. We have retailers who are saying, “Look, I would like to take a particul= ar product and I want to be the only person who can sell that product, and tha= t is what is really going to drive people into my store or, if this changes, we = will be able to deliver that to folks.” I do see that part of it and the strategy around it, but we also think that we are giving an advantage ̵= 2; being able to have the huge buying that we do have and that other opportuni= ty. We have talked about this a lot. It is always difficult in public policy to= get it exactly how everyone wants to do it, but I think that, with this one, the folks who drafted this, did the work, went out to talk to Yukoners, and then deployed it have done a very good job. That is not to say that there can’t be improvements in the future.
Mr. Dixon: Was there any public consultation on this bill?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: No, we worked directly with our licensees and went back and lo= oked at, I think, the most responses of any “what we heard” document that the Yukon government had experienced. That is how I remember it. I can= go back and look. We went back to those original discussions, and what we heard from the private sector was to please get this done and get it done a quick= ly as possible.
Mr. Dixon: In the “what we heard” document, I would note for the minister that only 24 percent of Yukoners thought that retail operators should be required to purchase wholesale from a government supplier. If the minister = is compelled by the numbers in the “what we heard” document, I wou= ld implore him to look at that and consider the feedback that Yukoners provided then.
That b= eing said, I stand by my comments that I think that the minister should consider the significant shift in public opinion with regard to their viewpoint on the l= egal cannabis market and its role in our economy.
That b= eing said, the minister mentioned the importance of the corporation remaining revenue neutral. That is something that he highlighted in his earlier comments as b= eing very important. I noted that, in the report that was tabled by him earlier = this session, it appears that we are in a surplus with the corporation. Can the minister confirm that the Yukon Liquor Corporation is in a surplus with reg= ard to cannabis?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I just wanted to make sure that I had the right numbers.
We did= . We had a surplus of just under $200,000. This is what we’re trying to monitor.= We are trying to make sure that, as we are striving for a neutral position = 212; and so again, new products coming in, understanding about storage, understanding about the cost that we have to incur within this model, and ensuring that we are being as fair as possible to the private sector.
We cou= ld have a debate on economic models. I think that the difference is — yes, there are pros and cons to it. What we have seen in this country, and in talking = to business leaders across the country, what I’m hearing is — I get it. I know that there is a perspective to say, “Government, get out of the way of business and just let us do what we need to do.” I think t= hat a lot of very sophisticated business leaders have looked at what has happen= ed in the last two years, as well, and understand the importance of government stepping up. That’s why we are seeing a move for individuals within corporations to be part of their government relations at the federal level = and seeing almost — extensive hiring when it comes to public affairs beca= use of the importance around that relationship.
Again,= here we are focusing on getting to neutral. There was a surplus this year. We are trying to get to a neutral place and still ensure that we are being very respectful to Yukon taxpayers.
Mr. Dixon: So, the minister is correct that the annual report notes nearly a $200,000 surp= lus. Can the minister indicate what would happen to that money? Does it go back = to general revenue, or does something else happen with the corporation in this respect?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: It does; it goes back to general revenue. At this point, there= are two drivers. One driver was that our freight costs were less than we had thought — so that was part of it — and our sales were higher. B= oth of those drove this particular cost. To be open to the House and accountabl= e to the House — absolutely. It would go back to general revenue. We’= ;re going to continue to have our discussions with the private sector to get us= to a place of neutrality.
Ms. Tredger: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to also thank the officials for being he= re today.
My fir= st question about this amendment is about the regulations. I was wondering if = you have a timeline for when the regulations will come into effect.
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I don’t know if the House is going to be happy with my a= nswer. We have requested to have this done as soon as possible. That is really whe= re we are at. I apologize that I am not giving a week or a month. This is extremely important. We have reached out across departments to let individu= als know that, so the commitment that we made is to just get this done as soon = as absolutely possible, understanding that there are some big times and dates = that could drive revenue off in the future that we will try to work toward.
Ms. Tredger: I would like to ask some general questions as we won’t have another opportunity this Sitting to debate it. I don’t disagree with the mode= l of having a centralized location through which stores receive their stock. I h= ave heard concerns about supply of specific products. Because they are coming through a central location and split up, there are not enough of some produ= cts for stores to meet their demand.
I want= ed to flag this with you and wonder if that is something that you have been in discuss= ion with stores about.
Hon. Mr. Pillai: I thought that the Third Party was going to go after me on free markets, and I was going to be very confused. I think it is a good point. I haven’t heard that, and I say respectfully that I will go back and ma= ke sure that we are distributing in a way that is appropriate and that we are making sure that folks have product.
I don&= #8217;t know, from time to time, if there is one particular line of product that is being sold in one store more than another — but I hear you. I haven’t had that conversation, but I will ask our team to reach out a= nd make sure that if there are particular lines of product —
I don&= #8217;t know what is happening on the supply chain at the national level with some = of the producers — so making sure we can purchase it, number one, and ma= ke sure, as you stated, that we allocate in an appropriate manner that is respectful to all the licensees.
Ms. Tredger: I appreciate that answer.
I apol= ogize if I missed this in a previous question, but is there a timeline for a full revi= ew of the act?
Hon. Mr. Pillai: There is a five‑year time frame for review on the act, f= rom its date of coming into place.
Just t= o let you know — one of the notes that I have from our officials is that we haven’t had a problem in the last year on product. Now, if you have information that’s different, please let me know. I say that as a friendly gesture, and I will make sure that we go back and find out. Early = on, we did have some of those problems. I think that we have remedied them.
Like m= any acts, this is at five years — that is what is written in — for a revi= ew.
I touc= hed on the questions earlier that were tabled — where an opportunity may be to t= ake a different perspective toward this, based on what Yukoners want and what we are hearing from the private sector.
Ms. Tredger: Thank you for that answer. I don’t have any further questions.
Chair (Ms. Blake): Is there any further general debate on Bill No. 9, entitled Act to Amend the Cannabis Control and Regulation Act (2021)?
Seeing= none, we will now proceed to clause‑by-clause debate.
On Clause 1
Clause 1 agreed to
On Clause 2
Clause 2 agreed to
On Title
Title agreed to
Hon. Mr. Pillai: Madam Chair, I move that you report Bill No. 9, entitled = Act to Amend the Cannabis Control and Regulation Act (2021), without amendment.
Chair: It ha= s been moved by the Member for Porter Creek South that the Chair report Bill No.&n= bsp;9, entitled Act to Amend the Cannabis Control and Regulation Act (2021), without amendment.
Motion agreed to
Chair: The m= atter now before the Committee is general debate on Vote 22, Yukon Development Corporation, in Bill No. 202, entitled Second Appropriation Act 2021-22.
Do mem= bers wish to take a brief recess?
All Hon. Members: Agreed.
Chair: Commi= ttee of the Whole will recess for 15 minutes.
Recess
Deputy Chair (Ms. Tredger):
Bill
No. 202: Second Appropriation =
Act
2021-22 — continued
Deputy Chair:̳= 5;The matter now before the Committee is general debate on Vote 22, Yukon Develop= ment Corporation, in Bill No. 202, entitled Second Appropriation Act 2021-22.
Is the= re any general debate?
Yukon Development Corporation
Hon. Mr. Streicker: Deputy Chair, I would like to begin by welcoming collea= gues to the Legislature to help us in answering questions today: Deputy Minister Justin Ferbey and the chief financial officer, = Blaine Anderson, from the Yukon Development Corporation.
First = of all, I would like to thank members for the opportunity to speak to the Yukon Development Corporation’s first supplementary budget for the 2021-22 fiscal year. There are basically two requests in this supplementary budget = for the Yukon Development Corporation. One is an increase to the annual budget = for the Innovative Renewable Energy Initiative, and there is a one‑time increase to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure plan from the green infrastructure stream.
Let me= just go over both of those quickly. The Innovative Renewable Energy Initiative, oft= en referred to as IREI, was established in 2017 and provides funding for small-scale First Nation and community-led renewable energy projects in the Yukon. Eligible technologies include wind, solar, hy= dro, gasification, geothermal, and biomass. This initiative has already provided funding to 16 projects in communities across the territory. Half of the fun= ding allotted to date has gone to Yukon First Nation governments and development corporations, nearly a third has gone to community-based businesses or a pu= blic utility, and the remaining amount has gone to municipalities.
Fundin= g projects include: the Haeckel Hill wind project, which is being worked on as we spea= k; the Old Crow solar project, which was energized earlier this fall; the Tesl= in biomass project; and the Kluane wind project. IREI is contributing to the territory’s Our Clean Future goals of establishing independent power production project= s in all off-grid communities by 2030 and generating 97 percent of electric= ity on the Yukon’s grid from renewable sources by 2030.
Fundin= g for IREI is renewed annually through the main estimates. = As was announced in a news release this past summer, the Government of Yukon appro= ved an increase in the annual budget from $1.5 million to $2.5 millio= n, so we are requesting the additional $1 million to fund this year’= ;s project as part of the supplementary budget.
The Yu= kon Development Corporation is also seeking a one‑time increase to funding allocated under Canada’s Investing in Canada Infrastructure plan for = two Yukon Energy Corporation projects already in progress. Invoice costs for bo= th projects were less than anticipated during the 2020-21 fiscal year, largely= due to COVID.
In this supplementary budget, we are seeking approval for $3.323 million for t= he Mayo-McQuesten transmission line, and $3.054 million for the grid-scale battery project. Both projects were approved for multi-year funding under t= he Investing in Canada infrastructure plan.
The Mayo-McQuesten transmission line upgrade is needed to improve power quality= and reliability, improve public safety, and enable future growth around Mayo and Keno. Construction of the Mayo-McQuesten transmission project began in June= of last year, and the new transmission line was energized in March 2021. Upgra= des to the Stewart Crossing south substation are expected to be completed by the end of this calendar year. Total funding for the project does not change wi= th this request. We are simply requesting that the funds be reallocated from l= ast year’s budget to this year’s budget, and the funding is 100R= 09;percent recoverable from Canada.
The gr= id-scale battery project will help reduce thermal generation by being able to store renewable electricity when there is low demand for it and then feed electri= city into the system as demand goes up. In addition to being able to use less di= esel and LNG, the battery will improve grid reliability and save the utility mon= ey.
To sum= marize our request, the Yukon Development Corporation is requesting an additional $1&n= bsp;million for the innovative renewable energy initiative and an additional $6.377&nbs= p;million for the two projects under the Investing in Canada infrastructure plan. I l= ook forward to questions for the corporation today.
Mr. Dixon: Thank you to the minister for his introductory remarks; as well, thanks to the officials for joining us today.
Obviou= sly, we had the chance to raise a number of questions with the witnesses from the Y= ukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation earlier in this Sitting; however, there were a number of questions that we weren’t ab= le to get to, so we would like to raise a few of those with the minister today= . I would also like to build on some of the questions that I had asked of the corporation witnesses earlier. I know that the minister was intently listen= ing to the questions that we had for the corporation, so I am sure he is very m= uch aware of some of the issues I want to raise, so I probably won’t prov= ide as many introductory comments as listeners may need, but I hope that the minis= ter will find my questioning sufficient to provide thoughtful answers.= p>
The fi= rst question I have is in relation to the process by which projects are approved through the IPP process. I had a few questions of the corporations, a few w= eeks ago, about that. I think that the witnesses, at that point, recognized that this was a new process and that there were some growing pains and that some= of the earlier projects that had gone through that process were sort of the gu= inea pigs for how this process is going to work.
But, i= n general, what I would like to ask the minister is: In working with those corporation= s, what steps are the corporations and the government willing to look at to increase the speed at which projects are approved and improve the efficienc= y of the process by which these projects carry through that process?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The first thing I want to say is that, overall, the uptake on = the independent power producer initiative has been really strong. There has bee= n a lot of interest from the community, and there has been good uptake generall= y.
I did = listen, as the Leader of the Official Opposition noted to the witnesses, both to the questions and the responses from the Yukon Energy Corporation and the Yukon Development Corporation. I did hear the questions that he raised.
In gen= eral, the answer is that it is a new process, and with it, there are sort of two ways= in which we are working to improve or streamline the process. The first one is informal. As the projects have been coming in and the work has been evolvin= g, we see that there are places that are particular sticking points, and there= are efforts put on them to either inform applicants about where those challenges are and how they can help navigate that or if we can put more effort toward reducing the burden on those places. It’s sort of a continuous improvement model.
The se= cond one is, given that it is a new program, there is an intention to do a fuller re= view and to talk about how the process can be improved over time. There are some challenges. Some of those are solved through communication to make sure tha= t, as people are applying, they are well aware of the issues that have to be navigated and to make sure that, when they connect to the grid, it is safe = to do so and that everybody is aware up front. I think that is the place where most of the focus is going. It’s not to necessarily cut any steps out, which would compromise the safety of those projects or the success of those projects.
I unde= rstand there is acknowledgement from the corporation that the process can catch so= me of the proponents off guard, so there are efforts made to make sure that understanding is clear up front so that everybody is well aware, as they en= ter into the process.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s response. I will leave some of the technical questions that I asked of the corporation for now and focus more on the pol= icy issues for the minister.
The mi= nister has mentioned that it is a very popular program, and it has been well-subscribe= d. A number of projects are coming online imminently. Some projects are earlier = in their nature, and there are some projects that are already online.= p>
Is the= re an uptake limit on the IPP? Is there a point at which we can no longer take on= new wind or solar independent power projects? If so, what is that uptake limit,= and how close are we to achieving it?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>There is an upper limit on the current independent power produ= cer program. It’s 40 gigawatt hours, or 40,000 megawatt hours.
Curren= tly — and there are a lot of caveats around this “currently” — if the projects that are in the pipeline were all realized, that we have either already energized or that are in the planning phases, and not counting things like Atlin or other large proje= cts like that, but if we looked at what we have, there are 20 gigawatt hours now active or in the planning stages.
Now, t= ypically not all of those projects come to fruition. Some of them — people come forward, they plan, they talk it out, and then they decide that, no, they’re not going to make it for whatever reason. So, not every one of those projects is realized, but what I can say is, notionally, we’re = at around 50 percent of the upper bound.
The ot= her thing I want to say is that this project was meant to be — we put an upper bound on it, as I understand it, in order to then re‑evaluate it and = see where we would go from there, but it has been very successful at getting projects onstream, especially solar projects.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s answer there. The 40-gigawatt hour limit is= one that I had seen in some material, so I’m happy to see that confirmed = by the minister.
The mi= nister, I’m sure, was listening intently when I discussed with the witnesses = from the corporations the notion of carbon credits that are a part of the negotiation for the electricity purchase agreement between an IPP proponent= and the corporation.
As he = will recall, I had some back-and-forth with the witnesses about the nature of th= ose carbon credits and whether or not they make sense to sit idly, as they do currently — remaining unused and with their potential untapped —= ; or if they would be better placed in the hands of the proponents who are bring= ing them forward and creating those credits as a venue or way to reduce their capital costs and receive some compensation for those credits.
I woul= d like to ask the minister a general question about that. I am sure that he has some thoughts on this particular issue so, rather than ask a pointed question, I would be curious to know what the minister’s take is on that. Is he comfortable with the status quo, or does he think that there is an opportun= ity out there — that we could consider changing the way we allocate and monetize or don’t monetize those carbon credits?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I thank the member opposite for the question. He did alert me = even after the last session with the witnesses that he would raise this question again today. It is a very interesting question.
First,= let me just explain — because it’s kind of a new notion for folks R= 12; what a carbon credit might look like and how it might work. Suppose that you have someone who wishes to offset the emission of carbon into the atmosphere and, in so doing, they could reduce emissions themselves. What they could a= lso do is that they could sell that reduction in emissions, because maybe there is another individual, company, organization, or government that is trying to reduce their emissions. They could say, “Well, we can’t reduce = our emissions, but what we’re going to do is pay for someone else to do it.” So, the investment comes from someone else — or some other entity or group — and they get the credit for those emissions being reduced. It can work. It can be a complicated system, and it gets more complicated when we start to work outside of a jurisdiction.
What w= ould happen, for example — if there were companies in Costa Rica that were trying to reduce emissions and companies in Canada decided to say, “Y= es, I am going to buy those credits,” they invest in Costa Rica because t= here is an opportunity to reduce the credits. What is supposed to happen in that instance is that the emission reductions accrue in Canada, even though they happened in Costa Rica, and the reason is that the atmosphere is a global commons and that it would have the same net eff= ect.
The ch= allenge with all of this is the accounting around it; it gets very complicated. So,= if you were going to enter into such an agreement, you have to be very careful= to make sure how it is accounted for — that it is not doubly accounted f= or. We have seen challenges with this over the past decade as carbon credits ha= ve come onstream. Effectively, how I heard the corporations respond is that, w= hile there is work happening to those credits, they are helping to reduce the em= issions of the Yukon. How is that being paid for? That is being paid for in this po= wer purchase agreement through the independent power purchase agreement. This policy itself is setting out that we will buy renewable energy from indepen= dent folks, and those credits then accrue to Yukoners= writ large.
The ba= sic principle that the member opposite, I think, is asking about is: Are we lea= ving something on the table? Could we find another way to incentivize those proj= ects from going ahead? I think that this is the important thing that he is asking about. But really, where that lies for us is in the power purchase agreement and the price we set. So, rather than trying to sell credits, could we incr= ease the rate at which we buy that renewable energy? The way that Yukon Energy p= ays for the independent power producers for their renewable electricity that th= ey put back on the grid — well, it is fixed, and the price is based on t= he last cost approved by the Yukon Utilities Board for Yukon Energy’s th= ermal generation. So, that is how the process gets set up by which there is a pri= ce that is being paid.
What I= said in earlier responses is that generally the whole program is pretty successful.= I am happy to look at, with Yukon Energy and the Yukon Development Corporatio= n, the success of the project — about how we can support projects to get= a good price and how we incentivize them to bring their projects online, but I would caution us from getting into the carbon credit system, especially if those credits are going outside of the territory. We do take advantage of t= he reduction in emissions and that helps us in our overall.
What w= ould happen if we started selling — I’m still asking departments to investigate, including the Department of Finance to advise us. We would hav= e to say that these are the emissions we measured here, but we have to add somet= hing back on because we sold those credits Outside. It would get kind of convolu= ted. In principle, I think that it’s the wrong way to go about supporting = our independent producers; I think that we should look for other tools to suppo= rt them.
Mr. Dixon: The corporation has signed an EPA — at least one. I believe one. Others a= re coming soon. What happens with the carbon credits right now? How are they accounted for now? There has been at least one EPA signed. That would inclu= de the contemplation of a credit for that carbon that has been displaced. How = is that accounted for, and how is that tracked?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The corporation will check into exact details around the elect= ricity purchase agreement and if there is some means by which things are accounted. What I can say is that, overall, we say: “Here is the Yukon. Here are= our emissions.” We work with a national body that then reports internationally to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Chang= e, so there is a whole way in which we account for emissions. What we can say = is that, overall, our emissions are reduced because we are bringing renewable energy on board and we are displacing fossil fuels.
Mr. Dixon: So, those carbon credits that we accrue over time — or certainly will acc= rue as this program gets more popular — represent an asset. There is a financial value to that. I am wondering if the corporation is adequately contemplating the value of those credits and reflecting them in any of their public reporting. I haven’t seen any contemplation of the carbon cred= its that they are taking on as a result of the EPAs that they have signed with independent power producers from renewable energy.
I know= the minister said that he would get back to us, or that the corporation would g= et back to us, on that process, but to my knowledge, I haven’t seen any contemplation of that issue by the corporation, certainly not in any of the= ir public disclosures or their public comments. I stand to be corrected. If the minister can point out to me if that is contemplated — somewhere on a website or on a page that I’ve missed — I stand corrected, but = to my knowledge, the corporation hasn’t contemplated the financial value= of those carbon credits as they would have fairly substantial value on the mar= ket. I wonder if the minister can clarify that for me.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I will say again specifically that I have never been briefed i= n any way — talking about how there is some additional value here and that there is some sort of bonus for the corporation because we have accrued the= se credits.
I will= give a bit of an explanation about what the electricity purchase agreement states = to make it clear for the record today. Again, I will turn back to the corporat= ion to ask them if there is some way in which this is added up, accounted for, = or valued. I just will leave it — because it’s such a technical question, I will make sure that I get back with some sort of legislative re= turn for the members opposite. Now, I will note that, in addition to other definitions, the electricity purchase agreement defines an environmental at= tribute as — and I quote: “… any credit, reduction right, off-set, allowance, allocated pollution right, certificate or other unit of any kind whatsoever whether or not tradeable resulting from or otherwise related to = the reduction, removal, or sequestration of emissions at or from the Seller's Plant…”
If one= were to look at section 4.5 of the electricity purchase agreement, it speaks to exclusivity, saying — section 4.5(a) states — and I quote: “Seller…” — independent power producer — “… will not at any time during the Term commit, sell or deliver= any Energy (or related Environmental Attributes) to any Person other than Buyer under this…” — electricity purchase agreement.
Basica= lly, what it’s saying is that — it does say within the agreement that the reduction of emissions goes to the utility, having been bought through this power purchase agreement.
Mr. Dixon: When the corporations were in the House, I had a few questions about the relicen= sing of the Aishihik hydro plant. I noted at that time that some of the challeng= es facing that relicensing between the government, the corporation, and the Fi= rst Nation have become somewhat political. I don’t mean that in a partisan way; I mean that there is a political discussion between governments about this. I am wondering what role the minister has played in the Aishihik relicensing and whether or not he has had any discussions with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations about that project.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I will give a bit of background, and then I will respond to th= e member’s question at the end. The existing water use licence for the Aishihik hydro plant expires at the end of the next calendar year, December 31, 2022. On J= une 18, 2021, YESAB’s designated office in Ha= ines Junction issued its evaluation report on Yukon Energy Corporation’s proposal to continue to operate the Aishihik facility after its existing licence expires. The report outlined a recommendation that Yukon Energy Corporation be permitted to continue to operate the Aishihik hydro plant un= til December 31, 2027, subject to 44 terms and conditions.
We hav= e just recently issued the decision document on that, working with Fisheries and Oceans. To go back to the question that the member opposite asked, early on= in my role, I did have some conversations with Chief Smith of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, but they were pretty high-level conversations about= the process and how it had evolved up until that date. I believe that it was ev= en before YESAB had issued their recommendation.= span>
Since = then, I have not had any direct conversations with Chief Smith. I know that the Pre= mier has had the odd conversation with Chief Smith, but in general, most of the = work has been happening at the departmental level, working through the recommendations with the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.
Mr. Dixon: I would like to move on to the Atlin project. Can= the minister give us an update, from his perspective, on that project and wheth= er or not the government has secured federal funding for that project?<= /p>
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I think the member opposite asked about the Atlin project — is that correct?
Deputy Chair:̳= 5;Yes.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: Thank you. Just one moment, Deputy Chair.
The Atlin expansion project is an important part of the 1=
0-year
renewable electricity plan. Our hope is that it will provide Yukon Energy w=
ith
another dependable source of renewable electricity that it can use to meet =
peak
demands for power each winter and to meet growing demands for clean energy.=
One
of the great things about the Atlin project is =
that
it is dispatchable power — meaning that the power that we are going to
get, or the power that will be sold to us, will be sold as winter power, wh=
ich
is when we need it most. So, it is a really good energy fit with us.=
I shou= ld be careful to note that the project is led by the Tlingit Homeland Energy Limi= ted Partnership, sometimes called THELP, which is the Taku River Tlingit First Nation’s development corporation. We have an agreement in principle stating their intention to w= ork together to eventually sign an electricity purchase agreement.
The me= mber opposite asked about funding for the project, and what I can say is that th= ere is ongoing work to support THELP in securing fu= nding from the federal government. We are also in conversations with the Governme= nt of British Columbia, and so that work is ongoing. I don’t have any announcements that I am able to give today, but I am happy to answer more detailed questions as they arise.
Mr. Dixon: Obviously, with a capital cost of around $200 million, it is a very expensive project. The corporation was very clear that the project was not likely to = be viable without substantial federal investment. I am wondering if the minist= er has made any overtures to the federal government about investing in that projec= t, and if so, how much money is needed from the federal government to make that project viable?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: What I will say is that conversations with the federal government have been ongoing — I am sure, even before I got into the role, but certainly since I’ve been there, I know that our department officials have been in touch with the federal government throughout.
We ant= icipate that THELP — the Tak= u River Tlingit development corporation — intends to invest some money = into the project. We intend to invest some money into the project, and we are looking to the federal government to make up that difference. It is significant. We don’t have a finalized number, but it’s many te= ns of millions of dollars that I think we are looking for support from the fed= eral government on the project.
I can = also say that, when I have met with the previous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resou= rces and his officials, we were encouraged by their understanding of the project= and their verbal support for the project. I think they see this as a very good project. It is a little bit complicated, because the jurisdiction that wants the power is outside of BC, so that adds a wrinkle for sure.
Late l= ast week, the federal Cabinet was announced, so I look forward to speaking with Minis= ter Wilkinson in his new role, specifically about the Atli= n project. That will happen shortly, I believe. I can’t give a specific number today, just to say we are looking for a significant investment from = the federal government, and they have given us indication that they think this = is a worthy project.
Mr. Dixon: So, the minister has indicated that the Tlingit Homeland business is going to invest — I believe the acronym is THELP &= #8212; in this project and that the Yukon government is going to invest in this project and that the balance will be sought from the federal government. In order to make that request, we need to know how much we are putting in. How much is Yukon government going to be contributing to this project?= p>
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The exact amount of how much the Yukon government will put in = is still being discussed — not only at the Management Board table, but a= lso in dialogue with the federal government and in dialogue with the Tlingit Homeland Energy Limited Partnership.
What I= can say is that we have identified this as one of our most important infrastructure priorities both internally, as part of our conversation, and externally with the federal government — identifying it as an important project. I wi= ll also say that there was a comment that I recall hearing in the Legislature — and it may have been the Leader of the Third Party who talked about= it — but whoever it was, I will check back to attribute it fairly —= ; it was talking about this type of project — the infrastructure for this project — whether that be the transmission line, et cetera — th= at is sort of like a public good. We want to invest in this for the good of the territory and not try to use the ratepayer as a way to cover the cost of the project.
That i= s how we are treating it. I’m not able to give a figure today, but I am able to say that we have prioritized this project, and we are working closely with = our counterparts to secure the funds overall for the project.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s comment, but based on what the corporation = told us last week, this is not a public good; it is going to belong to THELP. The generation asset and the transmission line= from Atlin to Jakes Corner will belong to a private compan= y, which is owned by the First Nation in Atlin, wh= ich is, of course, fine, but it is not like it is going to be a commonly owned piece of infrastructure. This is something that I presume they are trying to make a profit on, and I think that it is important that we understand what = sort of numbers we are talking about, because this is an extremely expensive project; it is over $200 million or thereabouts, according to the corporation. So, we need to understand what sort of ballpark we are in for = the level of investment that Yukon taxpayers can expect to burden.
I woul= d ask again if the minister has given any thought to what level of investment Yuk= on taxpayers would make into this project and whether or not it would come from the Yukon government, the Yukon Development Corporation, or the Yukon Energy Corporation. I ask that because any expenditure, of course, of the Energy Corporation would have to be reflected in the rates. So, has the minister considered that, and if so, what is the amount that we are contemplating investing?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>First of all, the type of investment we are talking about is n= ot investment through the development corporation; it’s investment from Yukon government. The purpose of that, as I just stated when I rose last ti= me, is that we are not looking to try to put all of this onto rate. The infrastructure, in simple terms, would be owned by THE= LP up to about Jakes Corner, and then from Jakes Corner in, the infrastructure would be owned by ATCO; that is my understanding.
The wa= y that this is working is like the independent power producer, where we will have a power purchase agreement, and that will be separate from the investment tha= t is going in to build the project. In a similar way, we talked recently about t= he innovative renewable energy initiative — we talked about it in terms of the budg= et, because there is a $1‑million additional amount there. One thing that= is going toward is the Chu Níikwän wind project up on Haeckel Hill. That is not going to be owned by the Government= of Yukon; that’s going to be owned by a First Nation development corporation. It’s an investment they’re making, but we are help= ing them with that investment.
We wou= ld also help with this investment, because we believe there is a really important p= iece of infrastructure that would come to the Yukon, or support the Yukon. As I noted, we think of this as one of our highest priorities. It’s there; it’s central within the 10-year renewable energy plan for Yukon Energ= y, and it makes great sense for the Yukon because we will get dependable winter power from it.
What I= can say is that Yukon Energy and the Tlingit Homeland Energy Limited Partnership ha= ve signed an agreement in principle for the Atlin expansion project. Both organizations continue to work on details of the electricity purchase agreement for the project.
Mr. Dixon: So, the minister mentioned the Chu Níikwän renewable energy project. I think, on that one, we’re very clear how = much we’re investing. The corporation told us a few weeks ago that we̵= 7;re investing $13 million in that. That’s coming from the Arctic ene= rgy fund, which of course is a federal fund. I assume that the Yukon government= is adding to that investment as well.
But wh= at I’m asking is: How much will Yukon taxpayers be investing into this project? I appreciate that the minister has indicated that the power purcha= se agreement is close to being signed, or has been signed, but I don’t understand how the company can enter into a power purchase agreement without first understanding how much their capital costs are going to be and how th= ose are going to be covered.
If the= total capital cost is $200 million, and they’re only getting $1 m= illion from the Yukon government, how can they plan for that? Certainly, the government must have some sense of how much they’re going to invest in this project. It’s a massive project, and they’re in negotiatio= ns for a PPA right now.
I woul= d assume that we have some indication of what investment Yukon taxpayers could be ma= king in this.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>What I think I said is that there’s — we’ve = signed an agreement in principle with the THELP, but we haven’t yet developed the electricity purchase agreement. So, there a= re some balls in the air.
What I= ’ve also tried to indicate is that dialogue with the federal government and the British Columbia government are ongoing. I’m not wanting to state num= bers here today, because they’re not finalized. As soon as I am able, I wo= uld be happy to stand up with a ministerial statement or in some way reach out = to the opposition and the public and say, “Okay, here it is. Here’s the plan going forward.”
It is = a live negotiation right now, so I ask the indulgence of the Legislature that we l= et that negotiation happen in good faith, and I will report back as soon as I = am able.
Mr. Dixon:= 195;I appreciate that the minister is not able to provide a number at this point,= so we will look forward to hearing what that is. Of course, it will be of great interest to the Yukon taxpayers — certainly — the level at which they are investing in this, because the range, at this point, is zero to $2= 00 million. Obviously, it could be anywhere in between there, so that’s a fairly broad scope for Yukon taxpayers to contemplate.
I will= move on though and ask if the minister can provide an update from his perspective on the Moon Lake project and where the corporation is at with regard to that particular project, as it was mentioned numerous times by the Energy Corporation when they were witnesses here earlier.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: The Moon Lake pump storage project is another very important project. One of the reasons is, when we get to pump storage, we will be able to take excess sum= mer electricity that we have right now, where we spill water at the hydro facil= ity here and elsewhere — when that water is spilled, we are not getting a= ny energy from it, because we don’t need that energy. What we can do is = take that energy, pump water back up, and store the energy at a site like Moon L= ake. Then it becomes winter power. Again, like the grid-scale battery, it allows= us to improve every one of our renewable projects that we have on grid, so it = just makes them all better. It allows them to become dispatchable when they need= to be dispatched and backed up by Moon Lake otherwise.
Planni= ng for this project is in very early stages. We started to have discussions primarily w= ith the Carcross/Tagish First Nation but also the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and the federal government. We believe that government-to-government collaboration will be key to this project’s success. I did have a brief conversation with Haa Shaa du Hen Dickson in Carcross last week. We talked = about this project and we are looking forward to working with each other. It was = just touching base, really, about where things are at. We discussed the importan= ce of energy projects for the Carcross/Tagish First Nation.
Mr. Dixon: Does the minister have an idea of the general capital cost of the Moon Lake proj= ect?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>Not at this stage. The way the corporation explains it to me i= s that it will really depend on the sizing of the project, so there are various wa= ys — you could scale it larger or smaller. Until we have some of those important conversations, especially with Carcross/Tagish First Nation ̵= 2; but also do some additional preliminary engineering work — we canR= 17;t yet talk about the scale and the cost.
Mr. Dixon: Given the extremely early nature of this project and the fact that, as the minist= er said, we don’t have any sort of cost estimates — the conversati= ons are at the extremely early stages — does the minister think it’s realistic that this project would be producing power and supplying our grid with electricity in 2028?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>What I can say, Deputy Chair, is — I have to check the d= ate to be sure, but I think that it may say “2029”. I’m not tryi= ng to quibble about the year.
But wh= at I am trying to say is that this is our working target. There is a lot of work to happen and there are a lot of pieces to resolve within that work, but the concept is pretty sound. We have been looking for a project where we could = have pump storage. It is very important to the overall renewable strategy. What I think is critical is that we began with the conversation with the First Nat= ion rather than the other way around — where we said: “This is the project we want to do. Please get on board.” The First Nation was the= re at the beginning and a partner. I think that it is an important piece of th= is. I am not saying that the dates are concrete. What we have is a working plan= and we are progressing toward it.
Mr. Dixon: So, does the minister think that the working target is realistic?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>When you look at a project of this type — an energy infrastructure project, a hydro project — I think that a 10-year hori= zon from planning to design to buildout to commissioning is a reasonable number= . I think that there are, of course, many things that we need to do between now= and then, and it is very difficult for me to try to project exactly what will happen, but it is a reasonable timeline. I feel that we will endeavour to m= ake it happen, working with diligence on our side.
Mr. Dixon: The
minister said that the working target is roughly a 10-year horizon from now
until the project comes online. That puts us at about 2031. I know that
The re= ason why I ask is — that project is what the corporation is relying on for the p= lan to get off of rented diesels. The plan right now is for us to rent diesels until 2028 when Moon Lake is supposedly — at least according to the documents that the Energy Corporation has published — to come online.= The minister has now pushed that back a little bit to call it more of a 10-year window, but nonetheless, it is important — whether it is seven or eig= ht years or 10 years, I agree that we don’t need to quibble about the ex= act dates. Either way, we will continue to be renting diesels to fill in the dependability gap that the corporation has until this project comes on R= 12; at least according to documents that are online.
The minister’s timelines for this are important because it means that, without this new generation, we won’t be able to move away from filli= ng that dependability gap with rented diesels. That is why I am asking the question, and that’s what I want to understand — if this is a realistic timeline. This is a fairly massive project that we are talking ab= out, and to suggest that it could come online in seven years or eight years, I t= hink that is pretty ambitious, given where we have seen large hydro projects go = in this country over the last number of years.
I know= that the minister has had some further information given to him, so perhaps I will g= ive him a chance to respond to that.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: When I was talking a moment ago about 10 years, I guess= I was referencing it from the perspective of when the 10-year renewable plan came out, which I think is now a couple of years ago. I wasn’t trying to suggest that we are getting to — when the plan came out, it was discu= ssed as a 10-year project. I think that the 10-year plan itself is referencing 2= 030 as the overall timeline of the plan.
The po= int that the Member for Copperbelt North is making is correct. It is important that = we get to these projects. I completely agree with him. I disagree with him = 212; and I said so earlier today and I will say so again. We seem to have a disp= ute between us about rented diesels versus building a diesel plant. I did sit in here and listen to the witnesses from the Yukon Development Corporation and= the Energy Corporation, and I heard Mr. Hall say that the levelized cost of capacity for rented diesels is about $211 per kilowatt year and that a dies= el plant, which we would build, is about $212 per kilowatt year.
So, it= ’s virtually the same, meaning that the cost to Yukoners, in terms of the phys= ical cost of rented diesels versus a diesel plant, is the same. I don’t kn= ow why we are arguing about it because, if you were to build a plant, the other thing that happens is that you have some sunk costs now in expecting that p= lant to last you decades. Then you start to get nervous when someone comes along= and says, “Let’s do this renewable project,” and you say, “Well, no, because I have already invested in this fossil fuel plant.”
As we = are standing up here and saying that we need to get to zero emissions by 2050, = we — all of us, all parties in this Legislature — have said, “Yes, let’s do that.” How do we then say, “And let’s build a diesel plant”?
I thin= k that the solution is — and I’m willing to debate it until I’m blue= in the face — that we use diesels to fill the gap. In the meantime, we do everything — we move heaven and earth and the moon, for Moon Lake = 212; to try to get to as much renewable as possible on all fronts. That’s = the way to reduce those rented diesels.
But le= t me say this: If what we did was to build a diesel plant, you can’t then redu= ce the diesels because you have built them and you now need to pay them off ov= er time.
We hav= e a fundamental difference in what we believe, but what I heard Mr. Hall s= ay when he was here answering questions from the opposition is that the leveli= zed cost of capacity for rented diesels is virtually the same — $1 less p= er kilowatt year than a diesel plan.
Back t= o the original question about Moon Lake and that project — yes, we need to = work hard toward it. I don’t compare it to large hydro projects from the provinces, which are orders of magnitude larger. What I compare it to are t= he types of projects that we have going on here in the territory. I agree that there is a lot of work to resolve to get to the Moon Lake project, but what= I want to say is that, in principle, it is a sound project in terms of what it would do for our energy grid and, in principle, we are working with Carcross/Tagish First Nation. I think that they will be the lead on the pro= ject and we are there to support them, and I think that this is an important thi= ng.
Mr. Dixon: Does the minister have a cost for the investment in the permanent diesels that a= re being invested in by the government currently for Dawson?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>Deputy Chair, my apologies. Could I just ask the member opposi= te to repeat the question? I’m sorry.
Mr. Dixon: The corporation is investing in permanent diesels in this budget year, and I am wondering h= ow much the minister can tell us is being invested in those permanent diesels = this year.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>At the risk of confusing the public, I just want to be very cl= ear that what I am being asked about now are diesels that we have permanently in our possession that are for backup — should one of our hydro faciliti= es go down, or one of our transmission lines go down, that we have the ability= to make sure that the lights can stay on for Yukoners. I am asking the corpora= tion to reach out and find out what that investment is this year for refurbishme= nt and replacement of our existing permanent diesel fleet.
Mr. Dixon: Just to be clear, the government is currently investing in permanent diesel generation in the community of Dawson. I believe that two of the units will= be moved out to Callison and the remaining four wi= ll stay downtown. When the minister is able to, I would like him to provide a sense of the cost of that and what that level of investment would look like= . I know that I have seen some information being handed to him, so I am hoping = that he now has a response to that.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The member asked about what we are going to be investing. It= 8217;s not just this year, so let me make that clear. Yukon Energy’s diesel replacement project is to replace our diesel backups or to refurbish them. = It is to extend their lives, because they are at the end of their lives. It is going to happen over the next five years, so it’s not increasing any diesel capacity; it’s replacing, or refurbishing, existing diesel bac= kup capacity. The intention is to complete the project by the first quarter of 2024. Typically, the new diesels are more efficient than the old diesels, so what it will also do is remove two of the rented diesels, because the new o= nes are just better.
I unde= rstand from the department that, for Dawson, that amount is in the range of $10&nb= sp;million and that, overall, for the replacements for Whitehorse, Faro, and Dawson, it has an estimated cost of about $45 million.
Mr. Dixon: Just to confirm, as I may have missed the last piece there, the total cost there= was $45 million that the government is investing in permanent diesels in t= he Yukon?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>Yes, Deputy Chair; again, the Yukon’s grid is not connec= ted to any of the provincial grids. We have what is referred to as an “islanded” grid. What that means is that we have to be ready, should some of our infrastructure go down — either the transmission l= ine or one of our large hydro facilities — and that’s why we have backup diesels on hand. This is referring to those backup diesels, yes.
Those = backup diesels — the cost for the project over the next several years — for all of that replacement and/or refurbishment — is in the range of= $45 million.
Mr. Dixon: I’ll move on. I think we’ve gone as far as we need to go on that particular issue.
Has th= e minister considered expanding the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation beyond energy? Has he considered setting up a fund to invest in other economic diversification activities, such as innovation or other aspects of our econ= omy?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: There is activity around innovation, in particular with energy, both through Economic Development and some through Energy, Mines and Resources, which is taking the lead under Our Clean Future, but I don’t believe that there has been any conversation about the development corporation taking on that role as well.=
Mr. Dixon: Is there currently a $10‑million economic infrastructure investment fund that is administered by the YDC to advance econ= omic diversification and innovation?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>There is no fund with the Yukon Development Corporation that t= he member is asking about. I can sort of point to a couple of things that may = be of interest or related. One is that there is work under Economic Developmen= t, which set up things like, for example, the NorthLight<= /span> Innovation centre, but that was under Economic Development. It’s not under the Yukon Development Corporation. Under the Yukon Development Corporation, we did set up the innovative renewable energy initiative, whic= h we have been talking about here today. Under this budget, we are hoping to inc= rease it, because we think it is very successful, but it’s not a fund, as t= he member opposite is describing it.
Mr. Dixon: I appreciate the minister’s clarity on that — that the mandate of= the Yukon Development Corporation hasn’t been changed, nor has a fund been established.
The re= ason I ask is because that was verbatim from the Liberals’ platform in 2016. The commitment, at that time, was to expand the mandate of the Yukon Development Corporation beyond energy and establish a $10‑million economic infras= tructure investment fund through YDC to advance economic diversification and innovation. Of course, that remains unfulfilled, and th= at was a promise that was either broken or ignored by the Liberals following t= he last election. I believe it was in the minister’s predecessor’s mandate letter from the Premier.
With t= hat, I will move on. I want to return briefly to the issue of Moon Lake. I just wa= nt to confirm — if the minister is able to — the number that I had seen previously, that we were told by the witnesses some time ago for Moon = Lake was $300 million. I am wondering if the minister can comment on that a= nd confirm if that is the best estimate that he has as well.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The order of magnitude — we’re not talking about a= ny sort of full analysis. It is just an order of magnitude number that could r= un the range of a few hundred million dollars — yes — and it could also be somewhere in the range of 30 megawatts to 40 megawatts. As I said earlier, the work has really not been done yet to scope out the project appropriately. That will happen in the stages of work, as we have already described, and that dialogue has begun with our partners.
With r= espect to the innovation fund from the previous mandate, what I understand is that the money that was contemplated there was used to set up the Innovative Renewab= le Energy Initiative. That is what set it up, and it has been going for four or five years now, and we have just bumped it up. I would have to work the math backward to figure out roughly how much money we have invested to date, but= we would be getting close to that $10 million — but I am happy to l= ook into that.
Mr. Kent: I’m just curious if the minister can tell us if it is the Yukon Development Corporation that would be the lead on Yukon discussions around the southeast Alaska inter-tie. If so, is he able to provide us with the government’= ;s position on that project and if he sees a role for the Yukon in pursuing th= at?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>Can I just confirm if we were talking about the southeast Alas= ka electrical grid inter-tie or if we were talking about British Columbia? Cou= ld I just confirm, please?
Mr. Kent: In some conversations that we have had with various industry folks, they have talked about the southeast Alaska inter-tie, so it would be specific to southeast Alaska. It’s not a British Columbia inter-tie down the Stew= art-Cassiar; it’s specific to that Lynn Canal area = and the communities along Lynn Canal.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I do think that it would likely be the Yukon Energy Corporatio= n that would begin those conversations. I don’t know of any that have happen= ed formally to date. I think that we understand that, as we upgrade the transmission lines around the Southern Lakes, including down to Carcross, a= nd as we get to a project like Moon Lake, which goes further down the south Klondike Highway, we get incrementally closer to Skagway. I think that those conversations will develop over time. My answer for the member opposite is = that the likely lead will be Yukon Energy Corporation, but there is always work = that could happen with major projects under the Executive Council Office and/or Economic Development in their work relationship with southeast Alaska. I am= not certain which way it would go, but I think that it is fair to say that Yuko= n Energy Corporation could and would likely be involved, although that conversation = has not formally happened to date as far as I know.
Mr. Kent: So, just to clarify, the minister said that the Energy Corporation would play a role, but none of those conversations have taken place yet.
He did= mention the Southern Lakes transmission network, so I have a number of questions ab= out projects in the 10-year renewable plan. Perhaps that’s where I’= ll pick up the conversation with the minister.
On the= Yukon Energy Corporation website, it talks about the Southern Lakes transmission network, and I’ll just read it into the record. It says: “An upgraded transmission line between Whitehorse and Tuts= hi–Moon…” — Moon Lake — “… to deliver excess renewable power = to the pumped storage facility in the summer and make that power available on = the Yukon grid during the winter.”
The mi= nister has explained, sort of, how that process would work.
“= ;An upgraded transmission line to Jakes Corners allows the Atlin hydro plant to connect to the Yukon grid.” So, that would be sort of = part of discussions that are underway already.
“= ;Enables the connection of future community-based renewable projects in southern Yuk= on to the grid.
“= ;Creates the opportunity for future sales of surplus renewable electricity to Skagway.”
This, = again, is from the Yukon Energy’s website.
I̵= 7;m just curious — there is obviously an existing transmission line from Whitehorse to Carcross. Can the minister just confirm for us — and I believe it to be the case: Is that transmission owned by ATCO Electric Yuko= n at this point? Would it be upgrading the existing transmission line or buildin= g a new transmission line to get power from Whitehorse to the Tutshi-Moon Lake project?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: Every one of these projects that we’ve been talki= ng about today are really important and actually quite exciting projects. We talked about Atlin, about how we could get a lo= t of winter power out of that. Then we talked about Moon Lake and how we could u= se our excess summer energy to create winter energy. That is really quite important. Then, if you think about a connection down to Skagway and then a= long Lynn Canal — although they have always had their own challenges with connecting across from one community to another, given the challenges of the geography — Skagway is an interesting opportunity, because, again, wh= at kind of energy do they need? They need summer energy, because that is when = the cruise ships come in, and what they would really like is to be able to take those cruise ships off of running bunker fuel when they come into port and = have enough energy in town to supply those cruise ships, but it is a lot of infrastructure to put in just for that one brief season that happens in the summer. But look at the match with us — we need winter energy and they need summer energy. We have excess summer energy and they have excess winter energy, so it actually could be a really great fit.
When I= said that there were no conversations, what I was trying to say is that there have be= en no formal conversations to date; there may have been many informal conversations — I would have to check.
The me= mber asked about who owns the transmission line between Whitehorse and Carcross. It is ATCO that owns that transmission line. I would have to check about the technical specifications on that line and what it would need to be upgraded= to for Moon Lake and/or other potential projects in the future, but those technical questions I would have to check back with the corporation on to g= et a response for the member opposite.
Mr. Kent: The minister is going to look into the technical aspects, but obviously when my colleague was asking questions earlier about Moon Lake — according to= the Yukon Energy website, it is expected to come online in 2028-29. Obviously, = this line would be required — this line from Whitehorse to Moon Lake would= be required to allow that to come online.
The mi= nister, I think, mentioned to my colleague — and he can correct me if I’m wrong — that there are no cost estimates yet for Moon Lake. Are there= any cost estimates for this Southern Lakes transmission network, including the upgraded transmission line from Whitehorse to Jakes Corner that would allow= the Atlin hydro plant to connect to the Yukon grid? Another question too: Will there be any upgrades between Jakes Corner and Carcross along the Tagish Road as part of this Southern Lakes transmission network enhancement?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>There are various stages to this. Atlin= span> will come off the Atlin Road and then go over to Jakes, which is just a kilometre, or a couple of kilometres, away — t= hat little jog there. Then you catch the Alaska Highway, so we would need to bu= ild the transmission between Atlin and Jakes, large= ly — some of which is in the Yukon, some of which is in BC. Then we would need to upgrade the line from Jakes to town or maybe to the cut-off, I expe= ct.
Then f= or the other projects that we are discussing here, sort of the expansion of the Southern Lakes, we would have to upgrade from Whitehorse to Carcross. We wo= uld tie from Carcross over to Jakes. It would be smart to get a redundancy ther= e. We would have to build down to Moon Lake. Again, I don’t want to call this our “projected cost”. I want to say it’s an “o= rder of magnitude cost” that we are talking about for upgrading those lines and building the new transmission line. It is in the range of $100 mil= lion.
The wa= y to think of it is: If you are building new transmission line, of course, it depends = on the voltage of the line, but it’s about $1 million per kilometre. That is a rough number that I am told.
Mr. Kent: I am just going to jump over to the Southern Lakes enhancement project. I was on= the Yukon Energy Corporation’s website today. What they have mentioned th= ere is that, in 2020, the Yukon Energy Corporation Board of Directors decided to prepare a proposal to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board — YESAB — to assess the proje= ct. A fall 2021 update indicates that fieldwork and landowner engagement that was originally scheduled for this past summer could not be completed because of high water levels in the Southern Lakes. Because of that, they were not abl= e to submit their proposal to YESAB as originally scheduled for this summer asking them to assess this project as had been originally planned.
Is the= minister able to tell us when they do plan — or if they are still planning = 212; to submit this project to YESAB for an environm= ental and socio-economic assessment?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I can say that the flooding of the Southern Lakes this past ye= ar was incredibly significant for all of the folks along the lake — the same folks who are directly connected to the enhanced storage project. I know th= at conversations are ongoing, but I don’t know yet if the Yukon Energy Corporation has landed on a game plan. I am not able to update the member opposite at this time.
Mr. Kent: As I had indicated, it was decided to go forward in 2020 with preparing the proposal. From the website, it mentions five key commitments as part of that decision. I will ask the minister about those. There was to be work with the Carcross/Tagish First Nation, Kwanlin Dün First Nation, and Ta= 217;an Kwäch’än Council to complete fieldwork for a heritage resources impact assessment. Has that work been completed as part of this preparation for this proposal?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The only note that I have on this is that fieldwork that was originally scheduled for this past summer couldn’t be completed becau= se of the flooding.
Mr. Kent: I will just ask about the second point, but perhaps if the minister can clari= fy if any fieldwork has been completed to date on that heritage resources impa= ct assessment — or was it all scheduled for this summer in advance of fi= ling the YESAB project proposal which originally, of course, before the flooding, was scheduled to happen this summer? = p>
That s= econd commitment was to: “Continue our discussions with First Nations governments and other stakeholders in the project area to develop a Monitor= ing and Adaptive Management Plan.” Again, this is from the website: “This will help us track potential effects of the project and outline= how we’ll make adjustments, if needed, to address significant effects.= 221;
Has th= ere been any work done on the monitoring and adaptive management plan as outlined by= the Energy Corporation?
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>The commitment from the corporation, which included: the monit= oring and adaptive management plan; the fieldwork on the heritage resources impact assessment; negotiating draft project agreements with affected First Nation= s; the plan for a third-party adjudication process; and meeting with the prope= rty owners expected to be directly affected by the project to review erosion and groundwater mitigation plans — I don’t have an update on any of those right now. I will just let the member opposite know that I can check = into where things are at. Basically, what I understand is that the flood overtook all of this work. I can just check in to see what specific details I can fi= nd out and share across, but everything switched when, in the spring, the flood came. We are back down to normal levels now, but it was quite the summer.= span>
Mr. Kent: I appreciate the minister mentioning the other three key commitments that I w= as going to ask him about — the specific benefit agreements with the Fir= st Nations, meetings with property owners, and the adjudication process. I wou= ld ask the minister at this point now, given the events and the flooding of th= is past summer, if he still believes that this project should be considered and submitted to YESAB for an environmental and socio-economic assessment.
When y= ou go down to the fall update on this, it says that the Southern Lakes residents can be assured that, at a minimum, the project will not be implemented before the = fall of 2023. I think that is what it said, but I am just curious what the minister’s thoughts are, given what we experienced this past summer in the Southern Lakes area.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>All along, I think that one of the things that has remained cr= itical about this project is that there be necessary conversations with First Nati= ons and the citizens who live along or near the lake and who would be affected = by the enhanced storage project.
The si= tuation has been affected by the flood, and I am not sure where that is landing, bu= t I think we all look at the flood and try to understand where folks are at with respect to the project. I think it is still important to have that dialogue= .
I will= check on Yukon Energy and the commitments that were made to see what the intention i= s, and I will try to report back.
Mr. Kent: So, yes, we look forward to receiving that update from the minister.
I just= want to ask a couple of quick questions about the battery storage project that is happening on the north side of Robert Service Way here in Whitehorse. As you drive up Robert Service Way, you can see some clearing going on — abo= ut three‑quarters of the way up on the north side of the road. I just wa= nted to confirm that this is indeed the area — the Kw= anlin Dün First Nation land — where the ba= ttery storage project will go. If the minister can just confirm that for us, and = if he is able to provide us with some of the terms of the lease — the le= ngth and the cost of the lease with Kwanlin Dün First Nation — for that spot, that wou= ld be helpful.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>First of all, the site that the member opposite described is t= he site that is going to be for the battery storage. I know that we are in conversations with First Nations — both Kwanlin<= /span> Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council — as pot= ential energy proponents and investors in the battery. There are some opportunities for them, and we are just negotiating that now. Again, it is a negotiation = that is in progress, so I am unable to provide any update at this time, but I can say that it is the location that we are working on with First Nations.
Mr. Kent: We look forward to when the minister is able to provide us with the terms of t= he lease for that specific property that will house the battery storage facili= ty. I want to thank the minister for his time here. We will look forward to som= e of the other commitments and getting responses. I thank the officials for comi= ng and providing support to the minister. I know that my colleague, the Leader= of the Third Party, the Member for Takhini-Kopper King, has some questions here this afternoon as well.
Ms. White: I welcome the one official we have seen before and the other who is joining us today.
Just t= o follow up on what my colleague was just talking about on the area at the top of the south access, it has recently been cleared of trees. I noticed that the tre= es are all piled up in heaps and look like they are destined to be burned, although the same minister responsible for the Yukon Development Corporation and the Yukon Energy Corporation has said that he is encouraging brush pile= s to be made available for woodcutters. Maybe this isn’t a question, but I will put that out: It looks like it has been piled up as burn piles, and as firewood is a hot commodity these days in the Yukon, it may be worth noting= . I will just leave that. I don’t expect an answer, as the minister can j= ust check it out on his way past.
I thin= k that part of the conversation that is important — and I want to give the minister an opportunity — is that the NDP fundamentally believe that = we should be renting generators and that we shouldn’t have invested in permanent diesel infrastructure, but I think that one thing that would be v= ery helpful to have on record is if we can talk about the costs. What would be = the cost of a 30-year investment for the diesel generators — for example,= the project we were talking about three years ago — versus the cost of renting? Could the minister walk through why it makes financial sense? It certainly makes environmental sense, but maybe the minister can help us bet= ter understand the financial reason why we would rent diesel generators, as opp= osed to purchasing and building permanent diesel infrastructure.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I thank the member opposite for the comment about the trees. I= will follow up on that.
As we = heard the corporation say when they were here as witnesses on Thursday, October 21, the way that = you tend to calculate this out is by using a metric called the “levelized cost of capacity”.
I will= ask the Energy Corporation to tell me what the overall dollar figure would be if th= ey were to build a 12.5-megawatt diesel plant to deal with the gap of energy demand. I want to differentiate, first and foremost, that we are not talking about backup. We do need backup in case something goes down — that is different — but what we are talking about is having capacity for additional energy due to demands by Yukoners, whether that be residential, commercial, or industrial.
What w= e were told is that the levelized cost for rented diesels is $211 a kilowatt hour. What we were told is that the levelized cost for a diesel plant, one that y= ou would build, is $212 a kilowatt hour, so it is virtually equivalent. So, fr= om an economic perspective, it does not make any difference whether we rent or build, but from an environmental perspective, it makes a huge difference, a= nd the reason, as I have said, is because, once you build that plant, it will disincentivize you to invest in renewables, because you just invested in th= at diesel plant, which you have to pay off over time. So, it is much better wh= en you intend to try to move — to shift your energy economy — to a renewable energy economy; it is much, much better — when the costs are the same — to move to rentals so that you are nimble and that you mov= e to reduce those rentals over time, as you increase your renewable capacity.
Ms. White: I think it could be helpful to the conversation if information like that was readily available on the website. I just say that in terms of — to kn= ow that it is literally a dollar difference in an hour, it is a really big = 212; I mean, years ago, when we were having these conversations, the price wasn’t quite so comparable. I remember going to the open house that w= as being held out at Hidden Valley school and pleading my case to staff, at th= at point in time, including that I made a written submission saying that we sh= ould rent the generators, that we should not tie ourselves to dirty energy for a generation, because if I couldn’t believe in technology, then there wasn’t a lot of hope for us as a planet.
I appr= eciate the answer, but I think that having that kind of information or that kind of comparison on how decisions are made is important, because again, there wil= l be those of us who make the environmental argument, but knowing that the finan= cial argument is also strong is really helpful to getting people onside.<= /p>
When t= he witnesses were here last week, and we were talking about different things, = we talked about the amount of renewable energy that was coming online. It̵= 7;s important to note, at this point in time, that I have been in this House fo= r 10 years. For five years, I didn’t see a lot of action, and I have seen multiple plans come forward about our 10-year plan or our 20-year plan or &= #8220;this is the future”. I’ve gone to public information sessions about next-generation hydro. I’ve gone to information sessions about liquif= ied natural gas. I’ve gone to information sessions about wind. I’ve gone to information sessions about biomass. Interestingly enough, there hasn’t been any really large‑scale information sessions on sola= r, but I feel like solar has done a pretty good job of getting itself known. Through all of that, some of the conversations that also come up, of course, are demand-side management and the challenges that both the Yukon Energy Corporation and ATCO Electric Yukon face in trying to manage energy. I have also been to public information sessions about demand-side management and different opportunities.
I woul= d like to give the minister a bit of an opportunity to maybe catch us up on some publ= ic information sessions that are coming or, if there is specific information, where people can look.
I have= talked a lot in the House about my own decisions. For example, I installed an air so= urce heat pump in 2016, before there was a concrete economic argument at the tim= e, because there was no information, but through the Energy Solutions Centre, I was one of the people where we monitored energy consumption through that un= it.
I am h= appy to say it went from being a $600 grant to a $1,500 — I got the $1,500 — to knowing that now we are offsetting the costs of those machines b= y up to 30 percent, or $8,500.
Some t= hings I have seen in this House are our ability to slowly move forward, but I think= the minister has highlighted the need to move forward in leaps and bounds. Mayb= e he can let us know what information sessions are coming up about renewables th= at are coming on and when we can expect to have conversations publicly about projects like Moon Lake.
Again, celebrating what is going to be coming is good, but I was at next-generation hydro meetings, and we were talking about what that would look like, and he= re we are now — so, if he can let us know when information sessions may = be coming online and when people will be able to access more information about upcoming projects.
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I will add a few things to the question. First of all, I will = have to get the corporation to let me know about upcoming opportunities, but I c= an add a few things. For example, we know that we have renewable projects that= we are working on within each of our off-grid communities. Because they are dependent on diesel, those are generally easier wins. We started with Old C= row, but we have stuff happening in Beaver Creek, in Burwash, and in Watson Lake. One of the differences was that we argued that you should work with offset = fuel costs rather than the levelized costs, because it is subsidized for them to= be the price here, and then it made no sense.
So, th= ose projects are now starting to move, and I think that this was the little unl= ock that we got to. Again, maybe Yukoners saw the piece on CBC’s The National last night in Old Cr= ow. It was a good piece.
We hav= e work happening across our grid because, even though the main grid uses the Whitehorse dam, the Aishihik dam, and the Mayo dam and Fish Lake — but really, there is still diesel burned here, so getting renewable projects on= to our islanded grid displaces a lot of diesel. That’s important. That’s like wind up on Haeckel Hill and other projects. Teslin with the biomass is a great project; that’s really important.
The la= st thing that I want to say is that we also brought in an order-in-council, a regulation, which said — for the Yukon Utilities Board to be able to consider demand-side management. So, we really want to help the Yukon Utili= ties Board to get to better decisions so that it will help us to reduce our ener= gy needs broadly, and our utilities are good partners with that.
Anyway= , I won’t go on, Deputy Chair. This is a very important question. I’= ;m passionate about it. I’m happy to try to get more information to memb= ers here from the corporation.
Seeing= the time, Deputy Chair, I move that you report progress.
Deputy Chair:̳= 5;It has been moved by the Member for Mount Lorne‑Southern Lakes that the Chair report progress.
Motion agreed to
Hon. Mr. Streicker: <= span lang=3DEN-CA>I move that the Speaker do now resume the Chair.
Deputy Chair: It has been moved by the Member for Mount Lorne‑Southern Lakes that the Spea= ker do now resume the Chair.
Motion agreed to
Deputy Speaker resumes the Chair
Deputy Speaker (Ms. Blake): = b>I will now call the House to order.
May th= e House have a report from the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole?
Chair’s
report
Ms. Tredger: Madam Deputy Speaker, Committee of the Whole has considered Bill No. 9, enti= tled Act to Amend the Cannabis Control a= nd Regulation Act (2021), and directed me to report the bill without amendment.
Commit= tee of the Whole has also considered Bill No. 202, entitled Second Appropriation Act 2021-22, and directed me to report progress.
Deputy Speaker:= 195;You have heard the report from the Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.
Are yo= u agreed?
Some Hon. Members: Agreed.
Deputy Speaker: I declare the report carried.
The ti= me being 5:30 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 1:00 p.m. tomorrow.=
The House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
The=
following
sessional paper was tabled November 2, 2021:
35-1-27
Yuk= on University 2020-2021 Annual Report (McLean)= span>
The=
following
document was filed November 2, 2021:
35-1-13
Yuk= on Geographical Place Names Board 2020-2021 Annual Report (Pillai)
<= !--[if supportFields]> PAGE 708709