Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently wrote a request to all departments regarding a WSCC matter. In short, it was an information request based on monthly incidents and accident reports. I’m grateful that Human Resources was to coordinate the paperwork for the various departments, because without their assistance – that is the people in Human Resources – the various departments may have actually sent me the unedited information.

Now, the reason I say unedited is based on the concerns that some of the summary documents – the 195 pages I’ve poured over that were supplied

to both me and Mr. Dolynny – had some technical errors in it. Now, were these errors devastating? I don’t think so, but it also begs the question: What other information was summarized incorrectly? What information was missed or even overlooked? Even worse, what was ignored?

The Minister said to me in the context of a minor and, I stress, reasonable delay that he sent the information back because he wanted to make sure that all the detailed information was in there. I respect that and I appreciate the once over he provided, but the point is, is not knowing what he sent it back for to find out what the final version was from the version they supplied. Who knows what the gaps were that were missing? So we must be really grateful for his intervention.

However, the issue at hand, what’s interesting is there looks to be a number of penalties, and certainly the trends that it’s pointing to are a concern that we should all be starting to look at and ask ourselves what is this revealing. All the costs by themselves seem very low and perhaps not crippling to the wheels of government. I would say that this, regrettably, points towards a trend by various departments, where you see a trend of non-compliance of accident reports where they’re not filing on a timely basis.

Now, one or two late filing reports may be considered reasonable, because we don’t always know the circumstances and we can’t predict the circumstances of why these incidents have happened, but moreover, the greater concern is that there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of late fees being charged because people aren’t filing their reports in a timely way.

What’s clear here is the amount of penalties this government is being fined for, an administrative process we could certainly easily hire someone to do. Also what’s being revealed is not only the first, the second or third offense, it should be an alarming trend that the Department of Human Resources should be on.

We must be relentless in our commitment for a safe working environment and we must not shirk our duties, responsibilities that we have prescribed in legislation and regulation in laws in this House. We should be complying.

I will have questions for the Minister of Human Resources later today on that fact. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to recognize a constituent from Frame

Lake, Jeff Corradetti. Welcome to the House to Jeff and to everybody else up there. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. I’d like to welcome all visitors in the public gallery here today. Thank you for taking an interest in our proceedings here today. Item 6, acknowledgements. Item 7, oral questions. The Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission in follow-up to my statement. MLAs were informed in August of an average 15 percent-plus increase in employee assessment rates. Meanwhile we have a Safe Advantage Program, which is supposed to improve rates of safety performance, yet the rates are skyrocketing. Why are the rates going up? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Minister responsible for Workers’ Safety and Compensation, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I did meet with the board chair and the president and I did share some of the concerns that were brought to my attention. Part of the reason why this rate is going up is due to the fact that their investment at the national stage has had a downturn in investment in the environment, and also the rising cost of health care across Canada. Given that there have been subsidies given to these businesses across the Northwest Territories for the last 10 years, it has basically taken back the subsidy and put that into an increase in assessment rates. So, swapping that. That was my understanding from the WSCC when I met with them. Mahsi.

I have to say thanks to the Minister, but there is something faulty with the reasoning there, because there’s not much activity in our health care costs that we’re going to repress our businesses even more. I’ve mentioned the burden our businesses already have. I have a constituent, as I mentioned, with employees in Class 7, whose rates have leapt from 48 cents to 58 cents per $100 of payroll. The government claims this is a 6 percent, whereas my Grade 3 arithmetic says this is a 22 percent increase. What is the truth here? Obviously, this is a massive increase, but how can the government claim it’s 6 percent here? Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I got the facts here from WSCC and it is in between. It’s not 6 percent or what the Member is alluding to; it is

an increase in 2013 of 16 percent. That’s the number I have from WSCC, in replacement of the subsidy that’s been provided over the last 10 years.

Thanks to the Minister. I guess I would ask the Minister to commit to investigating that because, obviously, if the rate has gone from 48 to 58 cents, that is not a 6 percent increase and neither is it a 15 percent increase. So I hope the Minister will seek the truth on that.

The Safe Advantage program is meant to be self-funded and independent from the claims budget. It’s a separate budget. However, my understanding is that penalties income is less than rewards paid out. There’s also rewards paid out, not just penalties in the Safe Advantage program. That’s resulting in a deficit. We’re paying out more in rewards than we’re taking in penalties.

I have to assume the deficit is being made up from the claims budget, which is supposed to be independent. If this is true and we have safer practices today, which we should with Safe Advantage, to what degree is this the cause of the steep increases in rates that businesses are being asked to pay?

The information that I did receive – and I will be going back to WSCC for another follow-up meeting, because whenever a concern has been addressed by the Members and the general public, I usually meet with the chair and the president.

With respect to this increase in assessment rates for 2013 of 16 percent, this has been in the subsidy area. A subsidy has been provided for the last 10 years and now WSCC has taken that back. In return is an increase in assessment rates. That information was brought to my attention. It is the subsidy that has been provided is now taken back by WSCC due to the investment economy throughout the national stage.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister. That goes somewhat to explain some of the increases, although it does not excuse them. Obviously, in these days of soaring electricity rates and other basic costs, we can’t keep adding to the burdens of our small businesses, the economic engine of our communities. How can we wonder, again, while they’re throwing in the towel and not coming north? What is the Minister doing to keep rates low and what steps will he promise to correct the imbalance of increased payments being required while safety performance is supposedly increasing?

When this was first introduced for 2013, the increase of 16 percent, I did indicate to the president and the chair that they need to work closely with even the smallest

contractor on what the implications would be. What kind of subsidy are we providing? Is it in replacement of a subsidy to increase the assessment rates? It was assured to me that it was in replacement. I told them that we need to have a long-term mechanism to highlight the implications and potential impacts. I will be sharing that information with the Members once it is available to me by WSCC.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I pointed out the need for a long-term plan to mitigate the impact of flooding in the community of Nahanni Butte in view of the risks. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. Will the Minister commit to developing a long-term plan for the community of Nahanni Butte that addresses future flooding?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’d be glad to work with the community of Nahanni Butte to work on their long-term plan as far as the flooding goes. We do know that the federal government has come forward with a Disaster Mitigation Policy. We’re not sure of the details yet, but it’s for exactly the type of situation like this where they can mitigate potential floods in the future.

I think I spoke with the Minister in the House last week about coming to the community of Nahanni Butte, and while we’re there we will be discussing the option of relocating the community to the east side of the Liard River. If there’s enough community support, will the Minister and his department seriously consider that option?

Support from the community is the key word here. We would like to see the community committed to this through a formal motion or possible plebiscite, because moving a community will have an effect, especially on the elders who are used to living there and have lived there their entire lives. We would have to have community support to consider it.

When the idea was first brought up in the aftermath of the flood, initial reaction from government officials was that it’s going to cost millions to relocate a community. It’s also costing millions to repair the community and we don’t want to keep doing that. It has to be considered seriously.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs if, with the community’s support, he is willing to dedicate resources in the 2013-2014 budget to address the needs of this community for planning such a move?

I look forward to my trip to Nahanni Butte and meeting with the leadership there. If it is the will of the community, then I will commit to the Member that we will work closely with the community to see what resources might be needed to work on a long-term plan as far as relocating the community goes. I will commit to the Member that I will work with him and the community.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It will take financial resources to do planning studies for planning a whole new town, et cetera. I just wanted to ask the Minister, if the community is willing, if the Minister will be prepared to put some small resources to beginning such a planning study. A planning for planning study, as it were. If the community asks for it, will the Minister do it during his visit to Nahanni Butte?