EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The bill also provides, Mr. Chairman, for increased benefits to surviving spouses, seasonal workers, and young workers. This change will give the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission added flexibility in calculating the benefits, allowing the commission to be more responsive to the individual needs of injured workers.
The bill also includes structural changes to the Appeals Tribunal, and addresses deadlines for reviews and appeals.
To speed up the appeals process, the Appeals Tribunal is changing to a one-person adjudication model. If a case is complicated, the Chair of the Appeals Tribunal can still ask a panel of three members to hear the case. The new Act also clarifies that members will be appointed based on qualifications; such as experience as a member of an administrative tribunal or court, or good standing as a member of a law society in Canada.
Equivalencies will be considered as well. In addition, the new Act limits how long a person has to ask for a review or appeal of a decision. Unless there is a good reason for the delay, a person has up to three years to ask the Review Committee to look at a decision.
Someone appealing a Review Committee decision must do so within three years as well. The legislation allows limits how long the Appeals Tribunal has to make a decision. The Appeals Tribunal must render a decision within 90 days of a hearing.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Bill 4 not only addresses the recommendations in Act Now, as well as recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada, it also supports and furthers the Workers’ Compensation Board’s mission, to promote workplace safety and care for injured workers.
In introducing a Workers’ Compensation Act written with Nunavut and the NWT in mind, this legislation will allow the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission to better and more effectively serve the people of Nunavut and the NWT.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have at the appropriate time.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table, minister?
Chairman: Does the committee agree that the minister bring his witnesses to the table?
To my right is John Doyle, he is the Director of Corporate Services, representing our President, Anne Clark, and to my left is Patrick Orr, he is the Legislative Drafter of the Bill.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee of Government Operations have comments?
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability has carefully scrutinized Bill 4, the proposed new Workers’ Compensation Act.
As members are aware, the present Workers’ Compensation Act was inherited by Nunavut upon division in 1999.
Since that time, the Act has been amended on a number of occasions to make such changes as the creation of a Workers’ Advisor and Deputy Workers’ Advisor.
Bill 4 replaces the current statute with a new piece of legislation. The WCB will be renamed the Workers’ Compensation and Safety Commission.
The continuation of a shared Workers’ Compensation Board between Nunavut and the Northwest Territories has created a unique situation for the legislatures in both territories. Over the years, the passage of amendments to one jurisdiction’s statute has resulted in a need for the other legislature to take action to ensure that the Acts in both territories remain parallel with one another. This is a unique situation, and members have been pleased with the cooperative way in which the appropriate standing committees in both legislatures have shared information and worked together.
Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, on June 14, 2006, the Speaker tabled the Report of the Auditor General on the Workers’ Compensation Board. This performance audit was undertaken in response to a motion passed in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. The co-chair of our standing committee was in official attendance at the public hearings held in the Northwest Territories on the Auditor General’s Report.
As you will recall, our standing committee presented its own report to the House on these hearings on November 30, 2006.
Mr. Chairman, Bill 4 and the amendments which have been made to it address a number of issues of concern. During its clause-by-clause review of the bill, members of the standing committee moved a number of motions to amend the bill.
These reflected changes made in August of this year to the parallel bill before the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. As chair of the standing committee, I was pleased with the collegial manner in which our counterpart committee consulted us on the proposed changes.
Mr. Chairman, some of the major amendments made to Bill 4 include:
The addition of a purpose statement which clearly establishes that the principles of openness, fairness, compassion and accountability are the foundation upon which our no-fault system of workers’ compensation is built;
Provisions to address the issue of conflicting medical opinions;
Provisions to clarify the relationship and accountabilities between the new Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission and the respective legislatures and ministers in both territories;
Provisions to provide for a more inclusive approach to the issue of causation when determining which injuries and diseases are compensable; and
Provisions to change the structure of the Appeals Tribunal, as the minister pointed out, in order to address delays in the appeals process.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee also identified a number of additional issues that will be addressed through amendments during the clause-by-clause review of the bill here in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee recognizes that measuring the success of these changes to our Workers’ Compensation system will require time.
The requirement to table a number of annual reports under the Act, including the reports of the Workers’ Advisor, will help to enable members in both legislatures to monitor the performance of the commission and identify areas where changes may need to be made.
The standing committee looks forward to maintaining open lines of communication with its counterpart committee, in order to ensure that dialogue continues to take place with respect to any future proposed amendments to the legislation in either territory.
The standing committee also wishes to publicly stress the importance of ensuring that Nunavut harvesters and self-employed artists are well-served by our workers’ compensation system.
As you will recall, the GN and NTI commissioned a review of the harvester support programs provided by both entities. This report was tabled in the House on March 31, 2006, and made a number of observations in this area.
The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 4 to all members.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wising to speak has spoken.
As a Member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations, I do have concerns with regard to the harvesters.
Sometimes they treat harvesters differently, whether they are full-time employees, carvers or painters.
The harvesters only make money from what they harvest. This is different than the way the WCB treats them.
For that reason, I will be asking questions when the time to ask questions comes.
General comments. Mr. Arvaluk.
Likewise, I have been working for so long in my constituency.
There were hunters who lost their equipment when they took the students out to go camping. Since they had no insurance, they were unable to get compensation for their equipment although they had lost it.
Since the Department of Justice sends inmates to outpost camps and they also take students out, they need to be taken care of properly.
If the Workers’ Compensation Board says they have no more insurance, then the outfitter who takes them out won’t be able to get compensated.
Once we get to clause 5, I’ll be asking questions.
It’s different but the harvesters require insurance, too.
We are dealing with and have been dealing with Bill 4 as the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability, and I would like to thank the minister and his officials.
I can say that Bill 4 is very important and we are in support of the amendments that are being made here.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about... and I want this to be understood clearly, so I’ll be speaking in English. Once we get to the clause-by-clause stage of the bill, I won’t talk about the amendment, although I believe that it will need to be amended for harvesters.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to highlight, I also congratulate the minister and his officials from WCB, that this is a very crucial bill, Bill 4.
It’s modernizing the Workers’ Compensation Board not only for Nunavut but as well as for the NWT.
The standing committee that I’m in considered the bill and we had an extensive discussion with our Legal Counsel, as well as the officials.
So I’m ready to vote in favour of it but I just want to highlight points there and I would like the WCB representative to note it carefully.
One of the provisions for eligibility as to who is eligible for compensation if an accident occurs or something, injury or whatnot, while engaged in work, obviously it’s quite simple for those of us that are engaged in definable work in the work place, whether you’re a civil servant, or a businessman, or that person and this or that.
When it gets to the hunting economy, which is a compensation that the WCB has attempted to address, I noticed that if a person engaged in the hunting economy is injured or something, could be, I use the word “could be,” that’s my word, could be eligible because the definition states that a person whose remuneration comes primarily from hunting activities, I can tell you that no one really qualifies, I think, to be covered because I don’t really truly believe that we have hunters now primarily earning or getting remuneration from the hunting economy.
It’s a very small percentage now.
So people who are actively engaged in the hunting economy, there are many of us who are engaged in trying to get food, subsistence, so that our families can at least have seasonal food.
They all differ. The food that we eat all differs for each season.
So therefore, that sort of concerned me a bit because no one will be eligible to be qualified for compensation if an injury occurs while a meager part of the hunting economy because unlike the fur trade that was able to provide almost 100 percent remuneration from hunting activities, we don’t have that much anymore.
So in that regard, that particular provision will be subject to a lot of discussion and debate, I suppose, when trying to get compensation for those people engaged in that economy.
I just want to comment very quickly on the WCB’s enforcement of regulations and laws. They appear to differ from region to region in Nunavut.
I noted that I was engaged in a very heavy activity with the construction companies a few years ago and the enforcements that the WCB carried out were very good.
We were pleased with them. They required the companies to present a work safety plan and would also have a clearly identified spokesperson to engage and monitor safety procedures of the work place. Very good stuff.
When I go to my region right now, where I live, in Kivalliq, you see people on the construction projects sitting up high on top of the roofs with their baseball caps.
When I was engaged in activities like this, it was very boring. Whenever there was an infraction, the WCB representatives were very quick and that was good.
So I would like to urge the people engaged in enforcement truly apply the safety rules, not only that but also all of the equipment needed for the construction industry.
So these are my points.
I will not delay any of the discussion as we go through clause-by-clause. (interpretation) Thank you.
There are no more members on my list for general comments. We’ll now proceed to the clause-by-clause review of the bill starting with page 1.
Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act.
Bill 4, Workers’ Compensation Act. Reprint. Clause 1.
Committee Motion 004 – 2(4): Bill 4 – Amendment Adding Subheading “Object de la Loi” Before Clause 1.1 of French (Tootoo)
I would like to move that the bill be amended by adding the subheading “Objet de la Loi” immediately before clause 1.1 of the French version.
Clause 1 as amended. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Okay, there’s one more clause we skipped.
Clause 1.1?
Clause 2?
Chairman Thank you. Clause 3?
Chairman Thank you. Clause 4?
Chairman Thank you. Clause 5.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask a question as I mentioned in my general comment. (interpretation ends) My question is for the minister concerning harvesters.
A couple of years ago, the WCB’s Governance Council appeared before the standing committee to provide an outline on the board’s programs.
At that time, the WCB informed us that the GNWT are forming joint committees to review the current memorandum of understanding with recommendations back to the WCB on the eligibility criteria for harvesters to be covered.
Can the minister update us today on the results of this review and indicate what future plans the WCB has in this area?
If the member doesn’t mind, I would like to have my DM of the Department of Environment speak to the policy surrounding the harvesters program.
Chairman: Thank you. Does the committee agree to bring in the DM?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the deputy minister to the witness table.
(interpretation ends) For the record, minister, please introduce your witness.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) On my right, who just arrived, Simon Awa, Deputy Minister for the Department of Environment. (interpretation ends) If the member doesn’t mind repeating his question, he has the earpiece on him so he can respond.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): I can repeat my question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barnabas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Welcome, Deputy Minister.
My question was to the minister concerning the harvesters. A couple of years ago, the WCB Governance Council appeared before the standing committee to provide an outline of the board’s programs.
The WCB informed us that the Government of Nunavut and the GNWT are forming joint committees to review the current memorandum of understanding with recommendations back to the WCB on the eligibility criteria for hunters to be covered.
The harvesters program is a program administered by the WCB under contract with the GN and they administer the program for us.
I would like to have the deputy minister elaborate on that a little bit more.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Deputy Minister Awa.
Earlier in the days when they formed the committee between the NWT and the Nunavut Government, as to what the member was talking about in questioning, some of them have been rectified within the Harvesters Support Program and the policy.
We worked on the policies as time went on and accordingly, we’re going to have to look at it again to rectify some of the issues within the Harvesters Support Policy with regards to the amendment and how we are going to fix the new policy within the Department of Environment.
I have two questions. The current Workers’ Compensation Act states that a self-employed person principally engaged in hunting, fishing, or trapping for a livelihood is deemed a worker for the purpose of the Act. These people are eligible to receive coverage from the WCB.
Bill 4 states that a person whose remuneration comes primarily from harvesting is deemed to be a worker. The questions I have is: can the minister or his officials provide me with the detailed information for exactly why the WCB is proposing a word change from “principally” to “primarily” in the Act?
Can the minister assure me that the WCB is not considering reducing the coverage provided to the harvesters, or reducing the number of people who are covered by the WCB?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. Minister Netser.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would like to have Patrick Orr respond to that question.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Orr.
Mr. Orr (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The first question had to do with the change in terminology.
The general instruction, as drafter, I was taking for this bill was to try and simplify language and arrangement as much as possible.
That is the reason why I chose the word “primarily,” which means the same. It means mainly, which is the same meaning as “principally,” which also means mainly.
In the context of the sentence, “primarily” was a simpler word and chosen for that reason.
The scope of the provision itself relates to remuneration since that is the way that the current program is administered.
So, although the wording of the Act says, “principally engaged in harvesting as a livelihood,” it raised the question of whether that had to do with how much money they were making from it or how much time they spent.
It was interpreted and administered in the program as a question of income and the new Act has defined remuneration, so that term was used in the provision.
As for the scope of the provision, there were some changes but they had to do with making it slightly broader in its application than the current provision in section 10. And, that is, because of the land claims here in Nunavut and the new Wildlife Act, there is a broader meaning of harvesting now than it used to be, which includes gathering as well as just hunting, trapping, and fishing. So gathering of plants, and berries, and things like that.
So that’s covered now which wasn’t covered before, and the signees under the land claims, who would otherwise be getting the remuneration primarily from harvesting, would be covered, and that wouldn’t have been the case under the current working.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Orr. Mr. Barnabas.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you. That’s it for now. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This definition of a person whose remuneration comes primarily from harvesting, would the definition be in regulations?
I think it’s important that the hunter will know that they don’t necessarily have to earn money from hunting because Inuit Qaujimajatugangit, in our case, is that when we get nine caribou, nine families get to eat, not just my family. So I don’t get compensation for it, or I don’t get remuneration for it.
Will your definition mean that everyone will be eligible for subsistence hunting, and if injured, eligibility criteria will be in the regulations?
Like I said earlier, the Workers’ Compensation Board is contracted out by the Department of Environment to look after that harvesting program. My DM alluded to that earlier saying that after the passage of this bill, we are going to have to sit down and look at the entire policy.
So I can assure the member that we will definitely be sitting, as Minister of DOE, that we will hopefully address those issues.
I have to be quite clear because we are dealing with the Workers’ Compensation Act, Bill 4, and it says in clause 5 that, “... harvesters of wildlife, a person whose remuneration comes primarily from harvesting wildlife is deemed to be a worker.”
The minister is talking about the Harvesters Support Program provision. Shouldn’t we be talking about... for example, my colleague on my right was alluding to that earlier in his general comments that look, it says right here, the person who’s money comes primarily from harvesting wildlife, in other words selling to the HTO, meat plants, or harvesting seal pelts, etcetera, this is how it’s being read.
Is there any way to amend that so that all of the hunters will be covered if they’re injured during hunting, for subsistence hunting, with no possibility of remuneration, or any idea that he will be getting any money from his hunting?
I meant to say Harvesters Compensation Program and not Harvesters Support Program; my apologies.
I would like to have Mr. Orr respond to that.
Mr. Orr (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The decision was made, in the drafting the bill, to keep the program, as far as the legislative side, as close as possible to the current Act. So the threshold that exists now is intended to be basically kept for the future.
However, the attention that the members have given to this program and the importance to Nunavut, as the minister and Mr. Awa have said, they recognize that there is a need to look at it in further detail and I think there’s an understanding that this has to be looked at.
If the program is extended to all harvesters, the costs would be potentially enormous, and in a sense, outside the scope of Workers’ Compensation, which is to cover people who are basically employees, or apply to have coverage. So it’s not meant to cover everybody who might be doing something that would endanger their health and safety.
If there’s an issue of moving the boundaries farther, I think that’s something that should be discussed after the bill.
Then there will have to be some other program to take place other than the WCB coverage.
Remove that completely, and if not, even to consider for the hunters, what other program there will have to be because the government still has to pay if a hunter is injured and becomes disabled permanently, then some other form of compensation will have to be given through welfare or otherwise.
So I think that the very proud hunter is given very little opportunity for continuing his pride as a former hunter by going under welfare just because he’s been injured.
Is this Act classified very similar or the same as the NWT WCB with clause 5?
It is the same as the western counterpart, yes.
Then what happens if the NWT changes the eligibility criteria to exclude or remove this clause altogether.
What would happen to Nunavut? Where would WCB be after?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This program, as I said earlier, is a program administered by WCB under contract with the GN and any changes that need to be done, it will be done through the Department of Environment.
If there are changes with the NWT, we would have to look at our MOU with the WCB on that matter.
My last question I have is; as I mentioned in my opening remarks that we have been dealing with this one particular hunter who has taken the school kids on the cultural course, they were not compensated for their loss.
This might not come under the WCB but some kind of insurance.
When you were drafting this bill, did you notice that some schools or the Justice Department might not have covered their contract for cultural programs outside of the school that possibly put the hunter in jeopardy of losing his equipment and injury, etcetera, without being covered? Are there any noticeable occurrences happening?
He probably will have to ask the Department of Justice on who takes people out on the land, or who might be responsible.
Because it would seem that it would be more directed to them, I can’t answer that right now.
Committee Motion 005 – 2(4): Bill 4 – Amend Clause 5 by Adding “And” to the end of English Subclause (1)(b) (Tootoo)
I would like to move with an amendment that clause 5 be amended by adding “and” to the end of the English version of subclause (1)(b).
Chairman: Do you agree to the amendment to Clause 5?
Chairman: Thank you. Minister.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.The person on my right is finished, so I would like to bring in another witness if that’s possible. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I still have two names that want to talk to this clause.
I’ll give them a chance to speak.
My question has to do with clause 5.
I don’t know whether the amendment will change anyone who qualifies for compensation if that occurs.
I prefer to use the word “hunter” because that’s exactly what I believe we’re dealing with.