Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As indicated at the outset of this report, the committee advised stakeholders in late June that it was considering a change to the structure of the Appeals Tribunal. The Ministers currently make appointments to the tribunal with the requirement that there be a balance between members recommended by employer representatives and members recommended by employee representatives. The

Ministers also appoint public interest representatives. Appeals are heard by panels of three, which must include at least one member from each of these three constituencies.

Over the last several years, Members have heard several complaints about the length of time required for appeals to work their way through the system. The committee understands that one of the reasons for these delays is the difficulty in scheduling hearings that require the availability of three panel members who live in different communities and have other employment. A solution proposed by the worker's advisor was to shift to a model where only one adjudicator hears each case, similar to what is currently in place under the Human Rights Act as well as several workers' compensation appeals tribunals across Canada. In this system, tribunal members would have to be appointed based on professional qualifications, rather than the recommendation of labour or employer groups to avoid perceived or actual bias.

In response to the committee's letter, the NWT Construction Association expressed support for this change. The NWT Federation of Labour, Union of Northern Workers and Public Service Alliance of Canada all stated their opposition to the change, and requested that the current system, which they view as more balanced and transparent, remain in place. As alternatives to changing the appeals system, they suggested appointing a full-time chair, better resourcing the tribunal with staff support, and appointing more members, possibly including a vice-chair. The Public Service Alliance further suggested that the GNWT should relax restrictions that make it difficult for its employees to participate on tribunals.

The committee strongly agrees with the need to increase the capacity of the tribunal both by appointing a full-time chair and by ensuring adequate staffing and resources, and urges the Minister to take the necessary steps for this to occur.

After carefully weighing the comments of all the stakeholders who provided their views on the structure of the Appeals Tribunal, the committee decided to pursue the sole adjudicator model. The committee proposed, and the Minister agreed, to an amendment that requires the chair of the tribunal to designate one member of the tribunal to hear each appeal, while allowing the chair to convene a panel of three members if the chair considers this more appropriate, for example, if a case is especially complex. The committee and Minister also agreed to amendments adding transitional provisions for the change from the existing tribunal to the new one, and requiring that the chair and vice-chair of the tribunal be appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Nunavut Minister rather than on the recommendation of the tribunal. The committee intended to make an additional motion to amend the bill to remove the requirement that the Minister appoint tribunal members representing the respective interests of the public, employers and employees, with a requirement that tribunal members have either five years' experience as a member of an administrative tribunal or court, or five years' good standing as a member of a law society in Canada. However, as the Minister advised the committee that he would not concur with this amendment, the committee did not pursue the motion at that time.

Many of the delays in the appeals process are outside the control of the tribunal itself and involve, for example, difficulties scheduling the parties or expert advice. One factor that is within the tribunal's control is the length of time required for decisions to be rendered once all the evidence has been heard. During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the committee moved, and the Minister agreed to, an amendment which will require the tribunal to render its decisions within 90 days of a hearing.

Clause 131 of Bill 6 as introduced would have allowed the Governance Council to order the Appeals Tribunal to rehear a matter more than once until the Governance Council was satisfied that the tribunal had properly or reasonably applied policy and legislation. The committee was concerned this provision would have compromised the independence of the tribunal and could have put some appeals into an endless cycle of re-hearings with no prospect for a final decision. The committee and the Minister therefore agreed to an amendment that limits the number of re-hearings the Governance Council may direct to one.

Also in keeping with the need to reinforce the independence of the tribunal, the committee and Minister agreed to delete a provision that would have allowed the tribunal to ask the commission to determine whether a Governance Council policy applied in a given case. This type of determination should be made by the tribunal itself.

Finally, the committee also passed two motions to amend the gill to remove the one-year limitation periods for requesting reviews and appeals of commission decisions. The committee was of the view that these limitation periods would cause unnecessary hardship to some claimants. The Minister did not concur with these motions.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the deputy chair of the Governance and Economic Development committee, Mr. Villeneuve, if he could conclude the report.