Mr. Chairman, if I may continue, then, with section eight, workers' advisor. The office of the workers' advisor on workers' compensation matters was established in November 1989, following recommendations made by the 1989 review committee. The 1990 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board also indicates that the position was developed in response to "requests from the directors of the board, particularly those from organized labour. Presently the workers' advisor works on a part-time basis to provide information, advice and assistance to injured workers, their dependents or their representatives, regarding difficulties encountered with the processing of claims or appeals.

During the public hearings, the standing committee received very positive input about the role and performance of this office from several of the workers who provided submissions. From data presented to the standing committee, Members became aware that the advisor carries a heavy work load, and that her client base has grown every year since the position was established.

The standing committee was concerned that certain policies and procedures within the Workers' Compensation Board have made it difficult for the advisor to carry out all of her responsibilities. In her submission to the standing committee, the workers' advisor recommended that policy changes should be made to allow her to use a statutory declaration instead of letters of authorization, to consult directly with an adjudicator, and to improve the communication of board policy. It became apparent to the standing committee that many of these procedural difficulties arose from the fact that the office of the workers' advisor lacks the statutory authority to access board premises and files. So therefore we have a recommendation, Mr. Chairman, recommendation 16. Recognizing that the workers' advisor performs an important role in helping injured workers, that the work of the office is being impeded by an apparent lack of statutory authority, the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions moves the following recommendation:

Motion To Accept Recommendation 16, Carried

That the Workers' Compensation Act be amended to establish the office of the workers' advisor and grant authorities necessary to access the information and support required in the performance of the duties of the office; and further, that an administrative structure should be finalized in which the office of the workers' advisor is established to operate independently from the Workers' Compensation Board; and further, that the workers' advisor continue to report directly to the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board; and further, that a yearly review of the office of the workers' advisor be undertaken by the Minister to focus on process barriers, outcome measures and forced growth requirements.

Thank you. The motion is in order.

Question.

To the motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Mr. Ningark.

Full Funding

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will read section nine, full funding. During the public hearings the standing committee on agencies, boards and commissions repeatedly heard that it was necessary to protect the status of the Northwest Territories Workers' Compensation Board as a fully funded entity. "Full funding" was defined by the 1989 review committee as "a method of financing the cost of workers' compensation which seeks to meet all the costs arising from each year's compensatable accidents and diseases out of assessments on employers for that year." In other words, "full funding" involves meeting the full eventual costs of incurred claims from each year's accidents out of the assessments in that year -- including an estimate of the future costs of escalation of pension and other benefits.

Several of the industry associations and labour organizations appearing at the standing committee's public hearings, emphasized the importance of maintaining a fully funding board. As was pointed out well by the NWT Construction Association: "...we are fortunate that the NWT Workers' Compensation fund is one of the few fully funded programs in Canada. This is an important consideration, because the WCB is required to fulfill its responsibilities to injured workers, ofttimes over the length of their lifetimes. A fully funded insurance program is required. Otherwise the failure to adequately meet long-term responsibilities will result in increasing future taxation on employers. This would have a negative effect on the economy of the North, as the cost of doing business would have to rise and be passed on to consumers."

An idea raised over the course of the public hearings was that the Workers' Compensation Act should include a statutory requirement that the board maintain a fully funded status. The standing committee was uncertain of whether this is practical, but wished to urge the Minister to examine the concept over the course of his consideration of legislative initiatives. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, recommendation 17.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 17, Carried

I move that the Minister include in the legislative action paper a consideration of the concept of incorporating a requirement that the Workers' Compensation Board be fully funded within the Workers' Compensation Act.

That concludes my section, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I believe that the preface should be, that I move that "this committee recommends." With that acknowledgement the motion is in order.

Question.

The question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--Carried

Mr. Dent.

Assessment

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Dent.

The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Mr. Koe.

Investments

The committee received a message loud and clear during the public hearings that the investment policies and decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board should not be made subject to political interference. Must of the input received can be summed up by the comments of the Northern Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation:

Or perhaps more bluntly from the Union of Northern Workers: "We are strongly opposed to statements from some MLAs that they would like the GNWT to be able to exert more influence over the management of the WCB financial reserves and investments. For instance, to require that those funds be invested in northern businesses. Again, WCB should be fully independent form government. This means complete autonomy to invest the funds where the board and its politically neutral financial experts determine it will get the best return."

The committee was somewhat perplexed as to the source of perceptions that the Legislative Assembly was interested in exerting direct control over investment decision making. Members of the committee agreed fully that the investment fund should be professionally and carefully managed. Further, at least, a cursory examination of investment policy and return suggests that this has been the case within the Workers' Compensation Board.

Also perplexing was the number of unelaborated references to political pressure exerted on the Workers' Compensation Board to become involved in riskier northern ventures that would place the investment fund at risk. Although several submissions made reference to this, only the presentation by the United Steelworkers of America provided a concrete example. The Steelworkers commented that:

The standing committee urges the Minister to continue the process of communication he has now initiated with various labour and industry groups interested in the workers' compensation system. He should do everything possible to reassure them that this government supports efficient, effective management of the Workers' Compensation Board investments. At the same time it is somewhat hard to understand how industries and unions whose respective memberships have made a commitment to living in the North and assume that investment in northern ventures automatically risk compromising the security of the funds. There is some thought that as a corporate citizen of the NWT the Workers' Compensation Board might wish to participate in the economic growth and development of what is truly one of the most rapidly changing and exciting regions of the world.

Members noted that on June 23, 1992, the standing committee on finance tabled Committee Report 12-12(2) which indicated that a review and options paper will be prepared on the investment of existing resources within Workers' Compensation funds and report back to the Assembly.

At this time the committee has no specific recommendation or further comment on this matter.

Mr. Antoine.

Traditional Occupations

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.

Noting that the preface would be, "I move that this committee recommends," noting that, the motion is in order.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Mr. Antoine.

Thank you. There is another "class" of hunters and trappers who are excluded from the existing policy because of the restriction on alternate income included in the policy. Telephone submissions received from the Gwich'in Hunters' and Trappers' Association summarized this problem succinctly:

"I do not think anybody is going out in the bush to plan on having an accident. But, according to the criteria now, preceding the accident you have to have been trapping 12 months of year. In this day and age, there are a lot of people who work a little bit in town, get a little unemployment insurance, live off the land a little bit, really it kind of fouls them up. In a lot of cases you cannot just do one thing."

In the instance of someone who was primarily a trapper, but worked for his brother building a HAP house for a few weeks in the fall, for example, the policy would preclude workers' compensation coverage because he would not fit the definition of a person "principally engaged" in trapping. This, again, appears to be contrary to the understanding Mr. McLaughlin outlined to the House in 1987 and does not reflect the reality of contemporary life in communities of the Northwest Territories.

Motion To Accept Recommendation 21, Carried

Therefore, I move that this committee recommends, that for the purpose of subsection 10.(1) of the Workers' Compensation Act, the definition of aboriginal harvesters "who are principally engaged in hunting, trapping or fishing for a livelihood" should reflect the realities of working and living in northern communities.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.