They do not pay taxes up here. How does the government collect premiums from them?

The way the Workers' Compensation Board collects its revenues is through the employers, not the employees. So, the employer would be assessed based on his payroll. If you have client "A" from Edmonton who is working in Lupin and earning his wages there, the WCB would assess Lupin Mine based upon the payroll of that particular individual.

Because the company is southern based, they do their adjustments down south. Does this government double check to make sure they are not being...

I will start over. Does this government double check to ensure we are not looking at two compensations based on the fact they are getting their checks down south and receiving compensation from the north.

All employers in the Northwest Territories have to register with the WCB. The WCB is very vigilant in the area of making sure that takes place. Everyone registers with the WCB. Then, your assessment is based upon your wages, the total wages of that particular company. We are vigilant in that field and we feel comfortable we get most of them. It is very well policed to make sure we capture all the new businesses, whether they be transient or permanent.

You used the example of Lupin Mine and when their employees come here they are registered. By virtue of the employer being stationed down south, do they also register down south?

If they have business interests in southern Canada, I would assume they would register down south and they would be covered by the Alberta board. Where they are within the NWT jurisdiction whether it is a mine or a candy store, they have to register with the WCB and annually they have to give us their payroll records so we can determine the assessment.

Have you come up with the definition of "principally engaged" yet?

That was addressed in the report and it will be in the memorandum of agreement. Why not have that together? I know this is an important issue in Mr. Gargan's eyes and I understand why. I am prepared to give him a copy of that definition. It is being worked out.

For the record, with the cost of fur being quite low, I would hope if they are going to be looking at providing compensation that it is at a reasonable cost. Because an individual made $2,000 in fur sales last year, I do not want to see him being compensated for that. I want to ensure this is fair. In the eastern Arctic, it is the seal industry, and the situation is similar. I just wanted to say that for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we were developing this policy, I did spend some time with Mr. Gargan on this issue. I am confident what will be arranged will be to the hunters' and trappers' satisfaction. It will reflect a fair level of compensation, should a trapper be hurt. Once the memorandum of understanding is signed, I am prepared to provide the honourable Member with a copy.

One final comment with regard to compensation of injured workers. There is a person in my constituency who received compensation based on his earnings at the time of the accident, not based on what he could have earned that year had he worked all year. What happened was the individual was injured about three months into the job, so he received compensation on the amount he earned up until that time. So, he is caught in a very awkward situation where he receives about $300 every two weeks from WCB, and in one year he receives about $7,000.