In terms of the annual income of $10,000, and 25 per cent or more of harvesters' annual income, according to Renewable Resources, $7,000 is automatically added on. They should go into the bush once a year to get that $7,000. If you were a hunter and trapper, it is hard to qualify for the $7,000. They go out at least twice. How is it worked again? He gave an explanation before and things didn't jibe when I was scribbling my numbers down. Explain how the $7,000 works again in terms of coming up to deemed income of $24,000 if...(microphone turned off)... comes into the picture.

Let me try it again. If you went into the bush once, you wouldn't get the $7,000 unless you generate 25 per cent of his income that one day he was in there. That is the point here. Mr. Handley explained it much better than I. There is a minimum. Twenty-five per cent of your income must be generated from harvesting. When you are defining that 25 per cent of your income, we are giving you a cash value of $7,000 for utilization of country foods and wild meat. A guy, for example, could be in the bush doing his thing in the winter and may want to be a fisherman, labourer or carpenter in the summer provided his income is 25 per cent, et cetera. I think one of the key financial elements, which is important and that Mr. Handley said to me, is the most we believe that a hunter and trapper had made last year was $16,000. We all know that there has been a rapid decline. We are confident that the coverage that we have negotiated with the Standing Committee on Legislation is adequate. As a matter of fact, I think it is quite commendable what we have come forward with. We think that the definition of $7,000 is fair. As Mr. Arvaluk asked earlier, there is provision for one to come forward with an affidavit if they spent more.

An area of concern, and it is one for harvesters, especially pensioners, is they have other income such as old age pension or Canada pension plus old age security. The harvesters spend time in the bush. With this new definition, have you worked out the impact, how much an old age pensioner would have to earn from harvesting, Mr. Handley?

Pensioners do apply and he would have to earn 25 per cent of his income for that year from harvesting.

The concern I had when this bill was introduced was that the bill proposes to cut deemed income earned by hunters and trappers by 55 per cent, from $47,500 to $24,000. But we don't change clause 10(1)(c), which says "independent operator principally engaged." That is not changed in the act. The only change, according to the Minister, is in the policy which says, "the board will then apply in more liberal criteria." I hope that the officers or adjudicators who deal with claims do apply more liberal interpretation of what is eligible and what is not eligible. I know the policy has been set out, but there have been a lot of cases where people didn't qualify because of the kind of day an adjudicator is having. There have been many appeals and issues raised by some of my colleagues and myself on claimants who felt they were eligible, but didn't get covered. So I hope the combination of these amendments and a policy change would provide the benefit more fairly and equitably to hunters and trappers across the north. I wouldn't mind seeing the amended policy so I can pass it out to some of my constituents who are concerned. Mahsi.

I am totally confident that this amendment to the WCB, which is long in coming, is more clearly reflective of the needs and aspirations of harvesters and hunters. If it wasn't, the current chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation would have made that abundantly clear to us.

Secondly, once the amendment is through and the act is changed, it is our intention, in conjunction with our partners in Renewable Resources to move forward in an aggressive campaign to explain to harvesters what this program is all about. We are confident that this amendment, which is two years in the making, clearly will cover people more adequately than it has in the past. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, welcome this very much. It is a good amendment to the present act. As

far as its principles are concerned, I also have a few more questions. Let's say there is a full-time worker. Because of a lack of work as construction season is over, he is laid off and is no longer eligible under the Workers' Compensation Act because he was laid off two months ago. He does not earn 25 per cent of his income from the land because he has only been harvesting for two months. How would he qualify under this act?

It is simple. He isn't covered. He has not deemed that he has 25 per cent of his income in harvesting. However, he could apply, buy coverage and spend some money to do it because he has already worked as a contractor so he obviously has some money. This plan is to affect people who are on the bottom end of the scale and need coverage when they are hurt. So if he didn't generate 25 per cent of his income, Mr. Chairman, he wouldn't be covered unless he bought that coverage on his own.

I am also leery about the appeal process for those who are rejected because an adjudicator got up on the wrong side of the bed. Will you ensure that a similar experience is not done to the harvesters who probably will not be very literate, as much as those people covered under the regular workers' compensation. Will there be a process that will not give them so much red tape and discourage them from applying?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is fully recognized between the Department of Renewable Resources and the board administration that normally speaking, hunters, trappers and harvesters in a number of cases may be unilingual people who require a different approach. That's why I said earlier that we're going to put together a fairly effective campaign -- and it was raised in the Standing Committee on Legislation -- to explain to people how they can apply for this.

In a sense, this whole amendment is different than the way in which we do things under the normal WCB approach. We're hoping that, between Renewable Resources field officers who are familiar with the hunters and trappers and the associations, the message will come across loud and clear. We will encourage as many of them as possible, where they're injured, to apply. If there are problems, we'll have to deal with them. But certainly the intent and the inclination of both WCB and Renewable Resources, in particular, is to get as much coverage of how the program works into the field as quickly as possible.

Mr. Handley and the WCB have assured me that there are people up for that task. I believe we have a superintendents of Renewable Resources meeting planned for next month and that is the number one issue on their agenda. I'm reasonably confident they'll be able to do that. Thank you.

I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. I have an experience in many communities where I have friends who are on minimum wage as janitors and make less of an amount of take home income than those on welfare with families of ten. That person on social assistance would not be eligible under that program. Although he's a hunter, no matter what he does, he can not get 25 per cent of his income from traditional harvesting. With a family of ten, you can't match that even if you have a fairly good job under the present government's assistance program.

I just wanted to get this clear, Mr. Chairman, through you. Are we asking in the case of the person who applies for social assistance and does some harvesting, does the social assistance money qualify under WCB? Is that what we're asking?