Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This section deals with traditional occupations. The committee considered the matter of compensation to aboriginal persons who are injured during the course of traditional harvesting activities. During its ninth session the 10th Assembly it amended the WCB Act to include authority for paying compensation claims of traditional harvesters. This authority is provided through subsection 10.(1) of the existing act. It was never intended that this would provide coverage for those people who are only occasionally hunted, but that a program would be designed for those who spend most of their working time hunting and trapping professionally. A program was developed in late 1987 and the total costs of providing workers' compensation coverage was paid for by the GNWT through the Department of Renewable Resources.
Since there is no such thing as a salary level for hunters and
trappers, subsection 10.(3) was included when the WCB Act was amended, to provide that hunters and trappers would automatically become eligible for compensation or pension benefits based on a YMIR of $40,000 as soon as they qualified as being "principally engaged" in traditional harvesting.
During public hearings on May 12, 1992, the deputy minister for Renewable Resources advised the committee that the average income for a trapper probably ranged between $3000 and $7000 plus whatever the value would be of any food deemed through hunting, trapping or fishing.
Costs to the government increased substantially. The standing committee heard one estimate that claims costs under this program for the period from 1988 to 1990 exceeded $2.4 million. Clearly a need exists for more restrictive eligibility guidelines to reduce spiralling costs associated with the payment of claims. In June 1990 there was a cabinet record of decision which directed the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board to take action. Policy guidelines were established in August 1990, which implemented a more restrictive definition of which hunters and trappers could be considered "principally engaged" in harvesting activity:
"Principally engaged in the industry of hunting, fishing or trapping for which there is no income from any alternate source for a period exceeding 131 days during the 12-month period immediately preceding the accident and where written verification is received from the Government of the Northwest Territories that the person applying for compensation is the holder of a valid general hunting licence issued under the Wildlife Act and has revenue from hunting, fishing or trapping of a minimum of $10,000 for the 12-month period immediately preceding the accident."
That is, if an aboriginal hunter, trapper or fisherman has another paying job during the 26 work-weeks before the accident, then the board policy does not recognize him or her as being "principally engaged" as a harvester. Also, even if the hunter, trapper or fisherman has no other job during the rest of the year, he or she cannot be considered as being "principally engaged" in those occupations unless he or she has earned $10,000 or more.
If the hunter, trapper or fisherman does not meet the board's policy definition as being "principally engaged," then he or she is ineligible for compensation under section 10.(1) of the act in the event that an injury occurs on the land.
The Workers' Compensation Board distributed notification of the revised policy framework to hunters' and trappers' associations and other organizations across the Northwest Territories in October 1990. However, the correspondence was framed in very technical language and was not translated into aboriginal languages. The deputy minister of Renewable Resources outlined the nature of the community response when he appeared at public hearings before the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions:
"It created some problems and it took several months before the hunters' and trappers' associations began to voice complaints about it. One of the reasons of course is that many of them are not people who are very much into the reading culture or answering government mail. So a lot of this laid on their desks and over the fall of 1990 and spring of 1991 in the department we began to get more and more questions about why so many people were being deemed to be ineligible for compensation."
The standing committee was concerned about the existing policy definition of hunters and trappers for a number of reasons. Central among these is the finding that the policy does not reflect the understanding of the Legislative Assembly at the time the Workers' Compensation Act was amended. Although the board does appear to have exclusive jurisdiction to make any definitive policy it feels necessary to administer the act, it is questionable whether it should have chosen to take this position when defining who can and cannot be considered a hunter or trapper.
When the bill to amend the Workers' Compensation Act was debated in committee of the whole on June 15, 1987, the Minister of the day, Hon. Bruce McLaughlin, noted that the term "principally engagement" had been "specifically left vague" in order to achieve greater flexibility in defining eligibility. Mr. McLaughlin assured the House that, and I quote: "By just saying 'principally,' the board could use either income or time as the definition of 'principally"' So the board would then have the option to evaluate each individual case that comes to it so that it would not be forced into a rigid situation."
The internal policy which the board subsequently put in place did establish a rigid situation in which principle engagement is defined on the basis of both time and income. This differs considerably from the interpretation which the Minister suggested at the time when the amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act were passed.
During public hearings, the honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Sam Gargan, appeared as a witness to advise the standing committee of a decision made April 8, 1992, by the Workers' Compensation Board's review committee on the appeal of claim denial. The review committee upheld the claimant's appeal noting that the board's policy "is contrary to the spirit in which section 10 of the act was written."
It appears as though further policy development will now need to be undertaken by the Workers' Compensation Board to find a way to define who is principally engaged as a hunter or trapper. The standing committee recognized that a main problem with the current policy framework is the use of a $10,000 criterion for identifying traditional harvesters. According to this policy an individual cannot be considered to engage in hunting and trapping occupational pursuits unless he or she earns $10,000 or more. What the policy overlooks is that in many northern communities, being a hunter is a matter of lifestyle, not income level. If someone is seen by his family, his elders and his community as being a hunter or trapper, then he is "principally engaged," whether or not he earns the $10,000 threshold income level.
There is another problem which Mr. Gargan pointed out clearly when he appeared as a witness before the standing committee, and I quote: "The $10,000 number is like asking the aboriginal people to exploit animals in order to meet a certain quota. I am suggesting that is not the Dene way -- to meet a certain quota and exploiting animals. With the fur price as it is, you have to kill a lot of animals to make $10,000. This is my argument."
For all these reasons, the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions reached the conclusion that the use of income as an eligibility criterion led to an unworkable and inappropriate attempt to impose wage economy concepts on a traditional value system.
Motion To Accept Recommendation 20, Carried
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions recommends, that for the purpose of subsection 10.(1) in the Workers' Compensation Act, the definition of aboriginal harvesters who are "principally engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing for a livelihood" should not include a threshold income criterion.