No, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr. Handley to explain how we defined the $7,000 and the flexibility we have in the definition of that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The $7,000 that was arrived at simply as an average of what we considered a typical family would use in meat and fish and, in some cases, firewood, if we were to use wild meat as a substitute for other beef or imported meat they would be using. There is also provision for a harvester to sign an affidavit if he or she feels that they are actually using more than the $7,000. They would simply sign an affidavit that their value is more and we would consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It still doesn't answer me, because, if I get seven caribou, does that represent $7,000 or does ten caribou represent $10,000, or a two ton walrus represents how much? How do you determine that?

Everybody that was deemed to be a harvester under the criteria set would get the $7,000. We would make adjustments accordingly for anybody who utilized

over and above that and was able to demonstrate it and send an affidavit in.

Would there then be a regulation, or not necessarily a regulation, but guidelines as to what items may be normally collected by harvest to determine some of those things?

There are no guidelines, as such. What we have done, based on some of the experiences that the Department of Renewable Resources has got, is define what they think is a fair cash value for the gathering of renewable resources, whether it is a rabbit, a walrus, ptarmigan, a seal or caribou on the hoof. What we are suggesting is that there is a mechanism, should a harvester be more involved and require more. There is a clear mechanism there to add to this $7,000 through an affidavit. We have just taken a cash value that we think is reasonably fair. We have discussed it with the Standing Committee on Legislation, and, to date, they have supported that position. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The annual remuneration shall be deemed to be $24,000. Does that include those who are non-trappers, strictly harvesters, who may be on welfare or on the hunter income support program?

That is correct. It doesn't necessarily have to be a trapper. It could be a hunter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with a lot of the changes that are happening, and they are timely, I guess, if two years is timely, but at least it is happening.

I have some concerns and some questions as to what the overall impact of this bill will be on an actual harvester or hunter and trapper. The issue on the definition in the act of principally engaged is still there. It hasn't changed, but I note in the notes the Minister made that the change there will be in the interpretation and will be in the policy. I guess that is the interpretation, but whenever there is an interpretation, there is still an individual who has to make an interpretation, and I assume these are the adjudicators or the officers who deal with claims. So I was a little intrigued by the Minister's comments that there will be a more liberal interpretation of the principally engaged concept. So can the Minister again elaborate a bit on what that means. For a harvester, what does that mean?

In terms of the coverage, the $24,000 will be policy, so nobody will be interpreting that. That will be policy. That is what we have negotiated, if you want, with the Standing Committee on Legislation.

In terms of the definition of "principally engaged," if I may, I would like to ask Mr. Handley, who is more familiar with the hunters and trappers than I am, as to how we defined "principally engaged" and got the Standing Committee on Legislation support for it. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, basically, the concept of "principally engaged" is defined as including individuals who earn at least 25 per cent of their income from harvesting, and that 25 per cent includes the $7,000 that they are credited with for consumption of goods that they have harvested. For example, if a person earns $3,000 trapping, he will get that $3,000, plus he would get the $7,000 that is the value of country food and so on, giving him a total of $10,000 from trapping, and if his other income was $20,000, then his total income would be the $20,000 plus the $10,000, or $30,000. About $10,000 would be from harvesting, and that is, basically, 33 per cent of his income, therefore, he will qualify. If someone's income from other sources is much higher, then, of course, they may not qualify.

If an individual is injured, files a claim, qualifies and is awarded a benefit through the Workers' Compensation Board, is the claim based on the level of income the individual earns or is it based on the type of injury or combination of both?