Hear! Hear!

In 1992, the Agencies, Boards and Commissions committee of this House held public hearings in which those who are now raising the issue were present and made presentations to that committee, and all stakeholders were involved including the NWT Construction Association, Chamber of Mines, unions and individuals. Some members of the stakeholders group indicated at that

time some support for the transfer of occupational health and safety.

The Standing Committee on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, at that time, also recommended that this should take place. There was, of course, in fairness, some opposition to it, but I think it's important to give some history.

So, Mr. Speaker, in short, there has been considerable history about this transfer. There has, in fact, been significant public debate, albeit it was done in 1992. In fact, the stakeholder groups at that time who are now concerned about this were very, very active. Thank you.

Mr. Picco, supplementary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the history lesson. I appreciate the research the Minister must have had done to find that answer. Mr. Speaker, my second question would be maybe the Minister could then inform this House why this transfer was proposed and the reasons for it; the transfer of occupational health and safety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd.

The reasons for the transfer, Mr. Speaker, are consistent with the reasons in 1986, 1991 and then in 1992. That is, the transfer allows for the consolidation of all the programs that provide safety services for the workers to a single organization. It allows for a one window approach to the workplace, and allows for related programs -- in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of Cabinet and others -- for a better approach to safety education programs. It's an amalgamated approach, Mr. Speaker.

I think it would also be fair to say that, in the transitional document from the previous Assembly that they prepared for this Assembly to consider, it was one of the deficit elimination proposals put forward. So I would be remiss if I didn't say that it's also part of our strategy to reduce the deficit, Mr. Speaker. But it's simply not an off-loading of fiscal responsibility from this government. It's more an approach to ensure that those who are directly involved in the payment of pensions and benefits to injured workers are more active in the safety of injured workers and, hopefully, ultimately save everybody lots of injuries and money. Thank you.

Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that some of the problems concerning this transfer are because this government did not consult the stakeholders very well. Maybe the Minister could inform this House what the status of this transfer is at the present time.

Mr. Todd.

The status of the transfer is that the transfer has taken place in terms of the financial responsibility. I believe we presented a case where we were going to phase the $2.1 million in over a three-year period. I believe that has taken place. The responsibility for supervising staff has taken place. I don't know if they've physically moved, in terms of offices. I guess we could say it's up and fully operational under the Workers' Compensation Board, both financially and managerially. Thank you.

Thank you. Again, just to caution the Members with regard to continuing the questions regarding the amalgamation of occupational health and safety, it's in Bill 10. I would like to remind the Members that they can't pre-empt what's in front of the committee. Just to caution the Members on that. Your final supplementary, Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned about the bill, if this legislation and the amalgamation occurs, could the Minister provide information on the impact of this amalgamation on WCB rates for companies and/or benefits to the workers?

It's a hypothetical question, it's out of order. You can't pre-empt a bill that's still in committee. "What if," or "if;" that's hypothetical.

--- Ruled Out of Order

Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister so we can get a very detailed answer for the Member. Thank you.

The question has been taken as notice. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Minister of Public Works and Services, Mr. Arlooktoo.

Mr. Speaker, the negotiated contracts policy is the same all across the Territories, except for the Nunavut area where we have an additional condition which is additional support for negotiated contracts and a 2 1 -day waiting period. The original conditions for negotiated contracts remain the same for the rest of the territory.

Thank you. Question period is over. Item 7, written questions. Mr. Steen.

The Member for Nunakput is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 6, oral questions. Do we have any nays? There are no nays, Mr. Steen. Item 6, oral questions.