I could not answer that. I do not even understand what he means. I mean, it is just like gobbledygook. I mean, the reality is that CPI, as well as a whole bunch of other factors are taken into consideration when the board of directors, who have the mandate and authority, approve an increase in the YMIR. My understanding is, from my discussions with Mr. Meier, that most of the stakeholder groups have been advised of this. There are no significant, none at all, objections to the proposal and I have, Mr. Picco is it? Mr. Picco wants to know what the percentage of CPI as it relates to a $3,000 increase from 1996 to 1997 or 1998, I suppose we could sit down with our accountants and work that out, but it is only one small factor in determining the YMIR.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are spouting gobbledygook. What I am trying to ascertain in a very honourable way to the chairman of the WCB is, what percentage of the increase is based on the CPI? Now, what the Minister is telling me is that indeed it is on the ability of the employer to pay and so on and so forth. Yes, the stakeholders, which the major stakeholder in this case is the organized labour, they had been consulted and I think they asked for $58,000. We have come in with $52,000, which is a $3,000 increase from the $49,000, $9,000 less than what was required, or what was requested. I understand that the union request was based on the inflationary factors and the CPI as opposed to the YMIR amount that was arrived at by the WCB. I cannot make it any easier than that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that my honourable colleague put the question to the president, but he should put them to the Minister who is responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board and takes full responsibility for it. I cannot answer his question. I just simply cannot. I am telling you that a number of factors are taken into consideration, the CPI is only one of them. If he wants the percentage of CPI, I will work that out. But right now I cannot answer that question, and sure, there is a difference of opinion on what YMIR should be, but there is a whole affordability issue out there that the employers, not this government pays, the employers pay, not this government.

In fact if we had, in my opinion, if I may be so bold, if we get some changes to the legislation I think this YMIR should not even come to the House. It should lie with the responsibility that the Workers' Compensation Board who have to manage the fiscal resources of the private sector and balance that out with the needs of the injured workers. So that is exactly what we do here, now I cannot explain it any further than the question has been explained to me three times. I am sorry, I cannot. Unless there is another question, I cannot explain it any further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would note for the record that the Minister is stumped. Well, I agree with the

Minister that indeed the WCB is a worthwhile fund and is sponsored by the employer. I think that is obvious to everyone, and that is not the question I was asking. The Minister in his response stated that indeed labour groups and so on had been consulted and had no problem, but they had requested $58,000. My question was simply, how was that $3,000 amount arrived at? That is all I asked. I do not think it was a hard question and the Minister tells me that indeed it is based partly on the CPI, it is based on inflationary factors and also the ability of the worker, the labourer, I should say the employer, to pay.

I will leave it at that for now and probably in some type of written form I will address the question to the Minister so that a proper clarification, not just for me or this House, for all the injured workers in the Northwest Territories so that they will also be able to understand how come the average wages in the Northwest Territories for injured workers which are in the mining field around $78,000 and the maximum YMIR was $52,000. If you look at the southern based rates, $52,000 is quite an amount. But if you look at the cost of living in the north, for a lot of these workers $52,000 is not very much. I never did agree with the amount when we said that most of these workers were living in the south, now, it does not matter. They were hurt, and they were working in the north, and with that, I would leave and not broach the question today in oral form. We will try to broach it in a written question later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess my honourable colleague is right, I am stumped, because I have done the best I can to answer the question. It is interesting that he is sitting there pontificating about the injured workers. We are just as concerned about injured workers, but we are also concerned about affordability. In the private sector, and I hope his constituency is listening because they are the ones at the end of the day have got to pay for it, and if you ask me the question, in question period, I will find the answer for it.

Agreed.

The House will come back to order. We are on item 20, report of committee of the whole. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Seconded by Mr. Arlooktoo. Your motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Item 21, third reading of bills. Mr. Clerk, item 22, orders of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 15th, at 1:30 p.m.

-- ADJOURNMENT