Whitehorse Daily Star

Action on furnace safety was promised in 2008

Lois Moorecroft, the NDP MLA for Copperbelt South, hopes the January deaths of five people in Porter Creek from carbon monoxide poisoning will result in a "wake-up call” for the improvement of territorial regulations governing oil-fired appliance safety.

By Max Leighton on March 22, 2012

Lois Moorecroft, the NDP MLA for Copperbelt South, hopes the January deaths of five people in Porter Creek from carbon monoxide poisoning will result in a "wake-up call” for the improvement of territorial regulations governing oil-fired appliance safety.

Speaking to the legislature Wednesday, Moorecroft read out a 2008 Yukon government press release.

It drew attention to the issue of poorly installed furnaces in the territory and promised the government would address the issue.

In the release, the government stated plans to form a committee to address the issues.

"Can the minister explain this committee's role in actions undertaken since 2008 to increase public safety?” Moorcroft asked.

Scott Kent, the minister responsible for the Yukon Housing Corp. echoed the government's approach to dealing with the concern through the creation of an advisory committee, alongside the Department of Health and Social Services.

"The advisory committee is to come up with an action plan and deliver that action plan to the Yukon Housing Corporation and the Yukon government so that we can have a made-in-Yukon solution that works not only in downtown Whitehorse, but also in communities such as Old Crow, Mayo, Carmacks and Watson Lake,” Kent said.

The chair of the current working group is a journeyman oil burner mechanic. As well, the proposed chair of the advisory committee will be a "well-respected senior official within the Yukon government,” Kent said.

The NDP supports the creation of the committee, as it did in 2008, said Moorecroft, asking, "What assurance can the government give us that this new committee is not just a rehash of the old and that its formation will lead to real, bold improvements for public safety?”

Kent outlined several actions the government has taken part in to address the concern, including assisting homeowners in having safe home heating, by reminding them of the importance of annual furnace maintenance by a qualified technician.

"There has been training offered through Yukon College and, as I mentioned, there were interim regulations, including — we amended the building standards regulations in 2010 to clarify that a valid permit is needed to install or modify a heating device, including a fuel tank and/or chimney,” he said.

"We're very much committed to seeing that action plan delivered to us by the summer of 2012,” the minister added.

Moorecroft believes more can be done – and sooner.

"There may have been some good work done, but unfortunately, that good work did not prevent the deaths of five Yukon people from carbon monoxide poisoning just a few short months ago,” she said.

"Their deaths must be a wake-up call for action to prevent further injury and death .... When will this government deal with the myriad issues of oil furnace safety, installation, certification, training, inspections, landlord-tenant responsibilities, in a systematic and comprehensive manner?”

Kent called the summer deadline for the official government action plan "attainable,” adding he expects to see a full report delivered to government then.

In her address, Moorecroft also called for a public inquiry into the five deaths.

Community Services Minister Elaine Taylor responded by stating the report will be necessary before a full assessment can be made.

"The Yukon government will be looking very closely at the outcome and the findings of this particular investigation. That work is currently underway,” she said.

"When we receive the report, and when we have had an opportunity to review the findings, we will be in a much better position to fully assess the circumstances that led to the incident and determine what specific actions may be required in the various parts of the government.”

See letter, photo

Comments (8)

Up 0 Down 0

Christopher McNamee on Mar 27, 2012 at 1:34 am

I agree with you north_of_60.

The only people who would disagree are the ones who want the money from renting out property but do not want to spend a dime to ensure the safety of the people renting from them.

You also have to take into account that some of the comments are from people who don't have the courage to use their real name. That fact discredits everything they have to say.

Up 0 Down 0

north_of_60 on Mar 26, 2012 at 11:57 am

Many of us taxpayers do not heat with oil. I object to taxpayers paying any costs for people to properly maintain their heating systems.

Let the insurance companies handle this. They can decide what standards must be met if homeowners with to keep their insurance in effect.

No doubt all those who want someone else to pay for their responsibilities will give this a 'thumbs down'.

Up 0 Down 0

north_of_60 on Mar 25, 2012 at 5:56 am

If an oil burner mechanic discovers an unsafe chimney while servicing a furnace or boiler, and recommends to the building owner that the chimney be replaced, and the building owner chooses to ignore the recommendation, and people die from CO poisoning, then who is responsible and who should be held accountable for those deaths? Should the pertinent details of the incident be covered up?

There needs to be a government official that oil burner mechanics can report unsafe heating system to, who will then dispatch an inspector to evaluate the situation. If the inspector confirms the unsafe conditions then the building owner must be required to remedy the situation in a timely manner or face legal action.

More regulations on oil burner mechanics isn't the answer, instead more regulations to force building owners to be responsible are required.

How many more people will have to die before action is taken to update regulations?

Up 0 Down 0

Christopher McNamee on Mar 23, 2012 at 11:55 am

"Relative risks and benefits need to be weighed and evaluated in a sensible manner, instead of from the perspective that all risk should be eliminated regardless of cost. Solutions must be practical and sustainable in a Yukon context."

"There will be costs involved to correct furnace problems,"

Seems to me the posters here are more concerned about the money in their wallet vs peoples lives.

Inaction has already cost the lives of 5 people.

But hey, you all get to save some money so that makes it all ok.

Up 0 Down 0

Grouch d'North on Mar 23, 2012 at 3:18 am

I believe an action plan is a good idea and should be completed for the target date of summer. Making a pile of new regulations will not improve anything in the short term; other than to outlaw a larger percentage of oil furnaces in the territory. There will be costs involved to correct furnace problems, many already have a tough time paying to have the tank filled.

So change will not happen until the owners of the problem furnaces can acquire the money to pay for it. Loan programs will need to be considered, how will dealers address warranty issues with non-compliant recent installations? What will be covered under insurance policies? Where will the certified furnace mechanics come from? There is much to consider and rushing this action plan to satisfy critics will not produce a good final product.

The inspection part of the process will need to be improved and in place before too much else can move ahead. One of the key objectives in this action plan I see is: restoring confidence and certainty to the safe operation of Yukoners' heating systems. Training and certification will take some time, so perhaps it is prudent to start doing some of the things already known to be required for improving this situation.

Haste makes waste, and there has already been too much time wasted to fix this situation.

Up 0 Down 0

Christopher McNamee on Mar 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm

I have emailed the premiere and his office, and the people on this committee to explain to me why they had studies done years ago and nothing was done.

I have asked them why is my brothers life and the family he lived with not worth the value of a carbon monoxide sensor.

I have received no response from anyone.

I fully believe that nothing will come out of the deaths of my brother and the family he lived with.

I can only conclude the the Yukon government sees them as expendable and asking homeowners to install sensors by law too much of a burden to them to implement.

Someone in the Yukon Government needs to stand up and propose a law named after the 2 children that died making Carbon Monoxide sensors mandatory in all homes.

At the end of the day, a $40 sensor would have saved their lives.

Up 0 Down 0

Max Mack on Mar 22, 2012 at 10:12 am

I sincerely hope that this committee will be accepting public input into their deliberations. I hope that the decision-making process will not be dominated by vested political (either side of the spectrum) or industry interests.

Arbitrary changes introduced by property insurers, Yukon Housing (CMHC) and the City of Whitehorse have already increased the cost of owning and maintaining oil furnaces to the tune of many thousands of dollars with little tangible benefit to homeowners.

Relative risks and benefits need to be weighed and evaluated in a sensible manner, instead of from the perspective that all risk should be eliminated regardless of cost. Solutions must be practical and sustainable in a Yukon context.

Up 0 Down 0

D Drake on Mar 22, 2012 at 8:48 am

Quit trying to gain political points Ms Moorecroft. Let's just wait for the coroners report before a decision is made to hold an inquest or not. II think that you are a seasoned politician and you should know better,

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.