EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
YMIR as a fundamental element of Worker’s Compensation is used to determine benefits that are payable to injured workers.
Mr. Chairman, when a worker is injured and becomes entitled to Worker’s Compensation he or she is paid 90% of his or her net earnings up to the amount of YMIR for as long as the disability continues.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is seeking approval to increase the YMIR to 64 thousand, 500 dollars from the current rate of 63 thousand 350 dollars that was the last increase in 2001.
I am pleased to answer any questions members may have on this.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ng. Any questions, comments?
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Services has reviewed Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Worker’s Compensation Act.
Mr. Chairman, section 52 of the Worker’s Compensation Act requires the board to review annually the amount of the year’s maximum insurable remuneration or YMIR and make recommendations to the minister responsible for the Act.
In November of 2000, this Assembly passed legislation to increase the YMIR to $63,350.
Bill 13, which increases it to $64,500, as the minister indicated, is the first such increase since then.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee is pleased that the YMIR is among the three highest in the country.
Members support this increase. However, in the interest of transparency, Members would recommend that the Minister table the methodology and data used by the Board in developing its recommendations for the appropriate rate of the “YMIR”.
Individual members may have questions or comments.
Before we move on to Bill 13, are there any comments from the members?
I just want to let the members know that I have to go to the hospital and I have to leave before 2:30.
Could the Minister go to the witness table and if he has any staff.
Mr. Ng I wonder if our legal counsel could come sit with us.
We can begin with the review of Bill 13.
Members you have 10 minutes.
I will ask a question.
It’s good to see an increase, but I’d like to ask a question.
People that go out hunting and need equipment; I just wondered if it would be for those people as well, people that have had limbs amputated, so for those hunters as well?
As members know through Sustainable Development we do offer coverage for harvesters. If they are injured in the process of getting income they also qualify.
I just wondered whether they’re going to be getting the maximum as well.
It depends on the level of income that they generated.
All claims are based on the income levels of individuals.
This Bill sets the maximum amount of which an individual can be covered.
As I had indicated in my opening comments, the committee would like to see the methodology used in how they determine what the new YMIR is going to be every year.
I was just wondering if the Minister has that information or is he prepared to provide it to members.
I don’t have all the details here but I will get that information from the Worker’s Compensation Board and be prepared to table it in March.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other area that I would like to raise to the Minister.
I know, as the Members know that the Worker’s Compensation Act is a joint Board with the Northwest Territories and any changes that they make in their Act, we have to make in our legislation.
And on that, I know I believe it was in the last couple of months, the NWT amended, made amendments to their act dealing with the disposition of real properties.
I’m just wondering if the minister plans on bringing forward the similar amendment for us to review.
Yes. That will be again in March.
Ms. Williams: It’s a general question to inform this House.
I would like to ask the minister the composition of the board and if they are from NWT and Nunavut and if the members are equal.
Mr. Chairman, we have two representatives from Nunavut, Mr. Alain Carrierre from Iqaluit and Mr. Alex Stewart from Cambridge Bay.
The NWT I believe has five or six members that represent the Northwest Territories portion of the board.
That was based on the agreement that was reached prior to April 1st in 1999, on the transition agreement between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the Office of the Interim Commissioner at that time.
Just to follow up on that question, are we expecting a new board coming soon, are there going to be an equal number of board members for each jurisdiction …no audio…
Mr. Chairman, the decision on the proportional representation of the board was based on the number of businesses from each territory that generated revenue for the Workers’ Compensation Board; the number of clients in other words.
I guess all things being said that we would want to review the situation as things do change and ensure the make up of the board is still representative of that.
So, I couldn’t say for sure that there would be changes, but I think we would be open to review that with our counterparts in the Northwest Territories.
How long is this existing board going to be running?
Mr. Chairman, the board membership is renewed on a regular basis and I generally think the terms are for two years in respect of board members.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Any more questions on Bill 13?
I think we can go clause by clause.
Are there any more questions from the members?
Bill 13, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.
We’re going to go clause by clause.
Chairperson (interpretation): Bill 13 as a whole.
Is Bill 13 ready for third reading?
We can move on to Bill 17.
We can recommence our meeting on Bill 17.
Does the minister have opening comments?
Just briefly, as you know this bill is to provide additional funding for Operations and Maintenance for the Government of Nunavut departments.
We’re asking for 5 million, 296 thousand and the major components are 2 million, 976 thousand for the Department of Education and 2 million, 165 thousand for the Department of Finance.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Are there any general comments from the committee members?
Bill 17.
If there are no general comments from the members, any questions?
I don’t think there are any questions or comments. That is good to see.
In our supplementary, under Number 4, we can now proceed with the review.
Minister Ng, if you would like to go to the witness table or if you prefer your chair for the presentation.
Please proceed, Minister Ng.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: I am prepared to go into the clause by clause detail.
I think I’ve got enough information here that’s required, we can ask the witnesses to come in after.
Chairperson (interpretation): Will you be sitting there during your presentation, Minister Ng?
Chairperson (interpretation): You can go onto these binders.
The title is the Supplementary Appropriation Act, Operations and Maintenance, 2002/2003, No. 1.
None of you have the appropriate copies?
The title is the Supplementary Appropriation Act for Operations and Maintenance, 2002/2003, No. 1.
We’ll take a 5 minute break while we sort out the proper placement of the pages and figures that we are supposed to review.
Thank you, 5 minute break.
>>House recessed at 13.53 p.m. and resumed at 14.04 p.m.
I’m sure everyone has a copy at this time?
Can you please go to page four, Bill 17?
Legislative Assembly. Operations and Maintenance.
Work not previously authorized. Office of the Clerk, 100 thousand. If you can go to that page; are you on that page?
Any comments on this page? If not, we’ll just move on.
Operations and Maintenance. Not previously authorized. Office of the Clerk, 100 thousand.
I stated earlier that I would be going to the hospital but the doctor I was to see is too busy so I don’t necessarily have to go to the hospital.
Therefore I am going to remain here, just for your information.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Alakannuark.
Yes, moving on to the Supplementary Appropriation, negative 100 thousand, it is in brackets.
Total Office of the Clerk, negative 100,000.
Chairperson (interpretation): Total Department, negative 100,000.
I happen to have a question on that page.
In regards to this special warrant, 1 million, 575 thousand that was issued on June 19, 2002 to fund interim payments for compensation claims to owners of snow machines and outboard motors as a result of the supply of bad gasoline.
I would like to ask the minister this question.
The minister stated that they already had 1,300 claims.
I was wondering if that was the total amount 1,300 and how many hunters were denied compensation after they put in their claims?
Mr. Chairman, if the member is referring to claims for four stroke engines there were 59 claims out of the total of 1,360 claims.
Yes, my question was how many claims were rejected?
Mr. Chairman, if the member is asking questions about how many specifically for the two stroke engines, no claims were rejected.
I mean they were all processed and partial payments or final payments made on those approximately 1,300 claims to date.
I don’t think I’m making myself clear here.
I’m not talking about 2 or 4 stroke engines; I’m talking about your sentence up here talking about special warrants for 1 million, 575 thousand that was issued in June. The minister indicated that there were 1,300 claims and all of those claims are being paid, or are there any claims that the government could not pay.
Mr. Chairman, I guess the point I was trying to make is, that all of the claims have been processed and none have been rejected.
In respect to some, they have been right through to the final stages like completely paying off the whole claim.
Others are in the interim stage but there are parts that have been partially paid but having said that, there still are claims coming in as we speak, because recognizing that we announced the December 31 deadline there were more individuals who were waiting and now some claims have continued to come in.
So we’ll have a better idea of the total picture some time in January once the deadline is past and all the claims should have been in by then.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Are there further questions?
Ms. Williams (interpretation)? Mr. Chairman, at the bottom of the lower paragraph, a special warrant was issued on October 9 to fund payments related to the design, development and construction of the Kivalliq Health Centre.
So, who was allocated this 590 thousand?
Mr. Chairman, that was to authorize the government to pay for additional services or claims that the Sakku Corporation might have had in respect to the Kivalliq Health Centre work that was outside of the service contract.
To date, nothing has been paid.
The authority is there.
We expected it.
The reason why the special warrant was issued at that time was as you may recall the government made a decision to take over the development and the ongoing work on the Kivalliq Health facility.
There was a special warrant on the capital side for 3 million, 475 thousand in respect of the service contract work that had been done.
We expected that there was additional work claimed that they have put forward to the amount of 590 thousand dollars, which is still under negotiations right now.
That hasn’t been confirmed, there hasn’t been anything that has been paid out against that yet, but the authority is there, once the settlement has been finalized.
Mr. Chairman, on the minister’s remarks before in the 590 thousand dollars, he indicated that was for things outside of the contract that they had with Sakku.
Why are we paying for something that was done outside of the contract, if there was no authorization within the contract to do that work, why are we paying for stuff outside of the contract?
Mr. Chairman, as I said it was the preliminary information from Sakku, in respect of what they felt was their additional administrative and legal costs as a result of prolonged negotiations with the Government of Nunavut in moving forward on this project.
So again, having said that, none of these have been confirmed, it was to allow us, if a decision was reached because we had some concern about the timeliness of receiving this information and work from Sakku, if that were to be confirmed it gave us the authority at that time to spend that money to close off the negotiations.
To date, the issues are still outstanding, nothing has been paid out and we have received the bulk of the work that had been completed by Sakku and we continue to move forward on the overall project.
I guess I’m still wondering why we are still paying for something that is outside of a contract. If someone works for you outside of a contract and was not authorized to do that, you are kind of going out on a limb there and I wonder why we would be looking at paying bills like that.
In here it states that it was related to the design and development of the concepts of the health centre and the minister indicated that because of delays and negotiations and legal costs and things like that.
So I would like to get a little more clarification on that, what it is going to be for and also whether the minister has an indication on how much they are looking at other than 590 thousand.
Mr. Chairman, it would be for things that were outside of the service contract; things you can look at would be the possibility of reasonable return on some of the work done to date and some of the things that were done prior to the actual service contracts, in the lead up to agreements and negotiations that took place between the development corporation and then the Government of Nunavut over the course of three years.
So like I said those are outstanding issues that they thought they had legitimate claims to, but they have not been finalized yet and these allowed the authority for the government to pay that.
At that time we issued a special warrant in June when we made the decision, sorry I was told, when we made a decision to take back the contract from Sakku on the Health facility.
Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that one of the things that they are looking at is just the return on, I guess, the profit for Sakku that was for the work done.
I’m just wondering, wouldn’t those amounts have been included in the service contract?
Mr. Kelvin Ng: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, like I said earlier it was for stuff outside of the service contract.
Things that would have taken place before we entered this specific service contract work with the Development Corporation.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. Tootoo.
Again I go back to my question, why are we paying for something that we never authorized to be done as the Minister indicated it was something outside of the contract.
Why are we paying for something we didn’t authorize?
I guess it goes back to being fair in how we treat the companies that work with our government.
If they feel that there is a reasonable return, a reasonable reimbursement that they feel is justified we will talk to them about that.
And if it’s legitimate then we’ll authorize the payment, if it’s not legitimate, then we will not authorize the payment just like everything else.
So it goes back to trying to treat the companies in a fair manner.
Particularly given that Sakku, as all of us know around here, there was a considerable amount of time that both the government and the officials from Sakku put into efforts to try and move forward with the Kivalliq Health Facility.
In the end, it didn’t work out and there are some reasonable costs that we think they should be reimbursed for.
But it’s a matter of getting to the point of identifying and justifying what is fair, and what is not fair.
That is what we are trying to do in this situation, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, would the Minister be willing to inquire about the issuing of the payment for those services and bring back any negotiated amounts and reasons to the Members why those payments are there?
Exactly what they are to be made for, if you are willing to bring that back to the Members of this House prior to the payment being issued?
Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to advise the Members of what the final outcome was.
I’m not prepared to bring back that information prior to us paying it.
I mean we don’t negotiate in the Standing Committee process, in the Committee of the Whole process with individuals or contractors that we enter into discussions with.
I mean, that is the responsibility of the government.
I mean if there is something that happens that you don’t feel is right, then you can hold us accountable for that and that’s what it comes down to.
That is why I said that I am willing to provide the information after the negotiations are completed.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Mr. Tootoo
If you can assure him we appreciate his comments as we are working towards an open and transparent government.
Does the government have a policy or are they just winging it as they go along on how this process goes?
The Minister indicated they want to be fair to the companies that they deal with.
You know, I believe this is probably the first case that this is happening.
Like, is there going to be some kind of policy, some kind of guidelines?
Criteria that are established for the government to follow in dealing with situations like this.
Mr. Chairman, it is the policies and guidelines within Public Works and Services where they have the experience and the corporate history in dealing with contractors and we needed their expertise to help us formulate that.
They are the ones that are leading the negotiations in respect of what is and what is not an allowable expense here in this situation.
I’m trying to move it forward, and trying to negotiate a final settlement on this.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Ng. Is that it?
To go on page 5.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): In regards to the compensation claims process on the bad gasoline, which was for June 19, 2002-2003.
Do you think that this amount will be enough up to December 31st?
No, we expect that we will be coming back with a final amount.
Like I said sometime, when we sit in March after we have more substantiation and more claims that come forward by the deadline of December 31st.
The deadline for claims is December 31st.
I bought a new four-wheeler machine in 2001 and they usually last a long time.
It broke down this summer and it was definitely due to the bad gas.
It takes a long time for parts to come in, especially to our community in the High Arctic.
I ordered the requisite parts but they have not come in yet.
We don’t know how much it will cost until the parts arrive and there might be other people in that situation.
Is the funding still available after December 31st, or can it be delayed?
Mr. Chairman, we have announced that December 31st is the deadline.
If there are extenuating circumstances outside of an individual’s control in respect of receiving parts, or final invoicing, etc., we will look at that on a case-by-case basis.
For all intents and purposes, we have said that December 31st is the cut-off date and that is the date that we are using.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): We found out that the gas was bad in 2002 and the deadline is December 31st, 2002.
Are you only dealing with 2002 bad gas claims and is that why there is that deadline?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: I am not sure what that question was, Mr. Chairman, if the Member would not mind clarifying that.
Back in 2002, we found out that the gasoline was bad.
It is still 2002, and the deadline is December 31st.
On January 1st, it will be 2003. Is this deadline just for the occurrences of 2002?
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Nutarak. I am sorry that I did not hear the last part so if can you repeat again Mr. Nutarak.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Since it is still 2002, was it just convenient to have December 31st, 2002 as your deadline?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: It was felt that because all the re-supply for the current fiscal year is in place with the high quality replacement fuel that we know is there, there is enough time for individuals that may have been impacted by last year’s supply, to put in claims for them.
That is why December 31st was chosen as the date.
If there are no other comments, we will go on to page 5.
Special Warrants 2 million, 165 thousand dollars.
Chairperson (interpretation): The total Department, 2 million 165 thousand dollars.
Chairperson (interpretation): And Total Department, 2 million, 165 thousand. Do you agree?
Any comments on this page?
If there are no comments, we’ll go on to the figures.
Mr. Chairman, I missed a page here under the Technical Services.
There’s an additional 135 thousand for payments related to this.
I’m involved in the construction for the Iqaluit health centre.
Is this payment also going to Sakku or is this something just the government, the Department of Public Works costs in addition to the other ones that they are negotiating for?
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, this payment is specific to Public Works to assist them in taking on the development of the project.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Chairman, so that’s the additional cost above and beyond the 590 thousand outlined in the previous page for the same types of costs.
Hon. Kelvin Ng: Mr. Chairman, this is additional resources for the Department of Public Works and Services for them to take on their responsibilities for the project.
Working backwards, start at the bottom and work up.
Under the operations part, there’s a provision of 86 thousand for leasing of office space on behalf of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
I’m just wondering, they are looking for another new office in the Parnaivik Building.
I’m just wondering why this is, why that’s in there and not in the Housing Corporation.
Because, Mr. Chairman, Public Works and Services pays for the office space for the department.
And corporations too, by the sounds of it.
Is this additional 86 thousand on top of what the corporation had budgeted for office space for this year?
I would imagine that they would’ve had money budgeted for office space already for the year.
I guess this is over and above?
Mr. Chairman, the Housing Corporation was in the Trigram Building, they moved into the Parnaivik Building.
The space that was in the Trigram place was taken over by CLEY.
So in effect, CLEY really ended up with an additional space which was paid for by Public Works.
The new space in Parnaivik that we’re asking for here, the 86 thousand is for the new Housing Corporation space.
I guess I’m a little confused, I know like if the corporation was leasing space in the Trigram Building, they would have had a budgeted amount of dollars for lease costs for the year.
When the department moves from one building to another, do they lose that portion of their budget?
I’m wondering they must’ve had money budgeted for leasing already in their budgets and you know, just because they moved to another place does that mean they lose their money, do they have to get new money for this?
Mr. Chairman, the space, the lease in the Parnaivik building, sorry, in the Trigram Building was held by Public Works.
They hold the leases, they pay for the leases for all government departments and you’re right in this case, the Nunavut Housing Corporation as well.
So, the impact on Housing is negative, additional space is required by Public Works, and they’re requesting the money for additional space for leasing for the Housing Corporation.
If it was Culture, Language, Elders and Youth that had moved in, they’d be requesting on behalf of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth, it just happens to be that it’s the Housing Corporation situation.
I’m still not sure, I still think that there was money budgeted for the lease space for the corporation or the department or whatever throughout and I’m not sure why don’t take their budgeted dollars with them from one place to another.
Even it was something within Public Works paying for lease costs for the Housing Corporation before, I mean, I’m just saying this is on top of dollars that they already had budgeted for their lease costs that they had in the Tri-gram Building.
The easiest way to explain it is that regardless whether it was Culture, Language, Elders and Youth or the Nunavut Housing Corporation; there is additional space of 86 thousand that Public Works is requesting.