Thank you, Mr. Koe. To the motion. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that I certainly feel this is an appropriate recommendation, but I would like a bit of clarification from the chairman, if I might, about some comments in the report on When page six, which I cannot quite understand. The report makes reference to a review process and, as I understand it, that review would follow on the legislative action paper that is recommended and developed by the Minister and the government. My question, Mr. Chairman, is, what does the phrase, "responsibility for operationalizing the review should rest with the Legislative Assembly," mean? It is on the middle of page six. I guess what I am curious about, Mr. Chairman, is whether the chairman and the committee believe there is an appropriate role for the Workers' Compensation Board in undertaking such a review. I am asking this question because there has been a comprehensive review of legislation undertaken in Yukon in which the staff and the Minister responsible for the WCB took quite an active part. I do not think they in any way elbowed out the public or the Legislature, but there was a significant contribution made by the board and its staff. I am wondering if the committee envisions some role for the board, and in particular I guess one question I would like to ask is, is it appropriate that the WCB cover costs of such a review? I think I indicated to the committee when I met with them in the course of their review that I had some discussions with the Workers' Compensation Board and there had been some indication of willingness to fund a legislative review. When the committee says that "responsibility for operationalizing the review should rest with the Legislative Assembly," does that mean that the committee would be unwilling to take up the board's offer to pay some or all of the costs associated with the review? That is just a question of clarification I have. I want to make it clear I am not being critical of the recommendation. I would just like some clarification as to what it means, particularly that sentence.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Koe, chairman of the agencies, boards and commissions committee, would you like to answer the question?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a series of questions in there. but I will try to clarify the committee's statement. The committee, during its hearings, heard numerous recommendations, but the committee also was very clear in where direction on this review should come from, and who should be responsible. Earlier in the report, it was made clear that this Assembly should be responsible, with the Minister as the designated person. The committee also was very clear that we did not want to work in isolation of what the board was doing or what the Minister was doing and that it should be a co-operative effort. Basically, we felt it should be the responsibility of the Legislative Assembly. One of the recommendations was that there be a tripartite panel of industry, business and someone else, an independent person, to deal with the review. We felt it should be done through the board with the Minister and with the various standing committees because we have roles to play in reviewing legislation.

We are also of the opinion that, since the Minister had stated the board would be able to cover costs of preparing the action paper, this was the understanding that these motions are based on. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Surely the ultimate responsibility for legislation lies with the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the overall umbrella organization in this review process has to lie with the Assembly through the Minister. So I concur with Mr. Koe that that has to be a priority.

We talk about costs and we talk about reviews, a number of people think that this is another free ride or a means for people to generate some honorariums, I guess. I think it is important to point out that there is a great deal to learn from the 1986 and 1989 reviews in which, if you read both of them, you will find that there are some parallels in their recommendations. So there is a great deal of work that has been done in the past. I personally do not see this as being a large process. There are two very valuable documents, the 1986 and 1989 reviews. Actually, you have got to bring it up to today's current, political climate, but I do not see the costs as being that significant, and I do see the costs as being the responsibility of the Workers' Compensation Board.

We have to ensure that whatever new legislation comes forward is reflective of political opinion as well as reflective of the needs of the Workers' Compensation Board. Therefore, it is important, as Mr. Koe said, that the standing committee on legislation be involved in this process.

What we are trying to accomplish here is what was not accomplished in 1986 and 1989; that is, to move forward with a process that will ensure there is legislative change. In 1986 and 1989, there were recommendations for change; however, as Mr. Koe has said in the report, these recommendations were not followed through as legislative initiatives. The process we are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, will ensure that that takes place and will ensure that the political entity, the Legislative Assembly, has direct input into the legislative changes that they feel are required, as well as other interest groups across the Territories. Clearly, as the Territories gets larger and there is new political and constitutional change, institutions like the Workers' Compensation Board have to respond accordingly. The times are changing, and we have to change accordingly. There is a need to ensure that legislation and institutions like the WCB respond to the new changes.

This process, again, that has been brought forward by the chairperson of ABC will ensure that that takes place. Action is what is necessary. Words are cheap. We have to move forward so that the legislation more clearly reflects the needs of the workers -- the injured workers -- and also meets the needs of the groups that finance and support this corporation. Therefore, I agree with what Mr. Koe said. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the process itself, I realize that the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions has done a review with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board; but with regard to the Workers' Compensation Act, would that, then, be the responsibility of the standing committee on legislation that is going to be taking the lead role in the review itself? Or are we looking at a whole new creation of this Assembly to specifically address the Workers' Compensation Act?

Thank you. Mr. Dent.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question.

Motion That Minister Prepare Legislative Action Paper For Amending Workers' Compensation Act, Carried

Question has been called. Those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Thank you. Does that conclude your report, Mr. Koe?

Affirmative, Mr. Chairman.

What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Chairman, I move we report progress.

The motion is in order and is not debatable. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

I will now rise and report progress.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Committee Report 11-12(2) and wishes to report that Committee Report 11-12(2) is concluded. with two motions being adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the chairman of committee of the whole be concurred with.

Seconded by Mr. Nerysoo. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Item 20, third reading of bills. Item 21, Mr. Clerk, orders of the day.

There will be a meeting of the Nunavut caucus at 6:00 o'clock this evening; a meeting of the ordinary Members at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Orders of the day for Friday, June 19, 1992.

1. Prayer

2. Ministers' Statements

3. Members' Statements

4. Returns to Oral Questions

5. Returns to Written Questions

6. Oral Questions

7. Written Questions

8. Replies to Opening Address

9. Petitions

10. Reports of Standing and Special Committees

11. Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

12. Tabling of Documents

13. Notices of Motions

14. Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills

15. Motions

16. First Reading of Bills:

- Bill 28

- Bill 29

17. Second Reading of Bills

18. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and

Other Matters:

- Tabled Document 9-12(2), Tabled Document 10-12(2); Motion 6-12(2); Committee Report 10

12(2); Bills 2, 3, 6, 18, 19 and 20

19. Report of Committee of the Whole

20. Third Reading of Bills

21. Orders of the Day

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 19, 1992.

--- ADJOURNMENT