EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I would like to ask the minister or his officials whether or not I understand this wording and the definition as to who qualifies. When the word is used, for instance, “coverage,” it is assumed that we understand that a worker is covered under the WCB insurance if a person is injured and so on, but is not eligible to be covered under WCB if he does not qualify as a worker, right?
Do I understand that if you’re not a worker deemed to be defined in this qualification of workers, then you are not eligible for insurance coverage; am I correct in that?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would like to have Mr. Orr respond to that question.
Mr. Orr (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The short answer is yes. Yes, a worker, which basically means an employee, so not a self-employed person and not an independent contractor.
However, those people who are not automatically covered as a worker do have the right and opportunity to apply for coverage. So they can get coverage but they’re not automatically covered.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification and the point.
My other concern is that people who primarily engage in harvesting, which are many in Nunavut, normally are injured due to equipment failure and accidents while out, what I would call, harvesting and hunting, and so on.
These people are not automatically covered, obviously, because they’re not deemed to be a worker under this provision unless they are selling their products.
Again, it brought me my question. Am I correct in that? Thank you.
To Mr. Orr, please.
I think the answer, again, is just a yes. So that if you are a harvester, you would not be covered as a worker because you are not working for someone unless you have to be hired to do a commercial harvest or something, but if you’re an independent person doing harvesting, then section 5 would give you coverage automatically if you met the conditions of the provision, one of which is your remuneration comes primarily from harvesting.
So if you’ve got two jobs, it means that most of your money is coming from harvesting and credit is given for subsistence harvesting and so on, and if you’ve got three jobs, then more than a third and so on.
Mr. Curley: I appreciate the response. That’s clear and that’s good. I’m trying to get a clear understanding of what you mean by remuneration; remuneration for survival purposes?
If the income is primarily from harvesting, it means that being totally dependant and not remuneration for survival, not solely harvesting for survival, which most of our people do.
So this means the value of the remuneration comes from selling products, instead of the value of what’s being harvested.
Am I correct in interpreting this provision?
Hon. Patterk Netser: To the question for Mr. Orr.
Mr. Orr (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The case is if the person is on social assistance and is harvesting, then, in that case, the remuneration would be coming primarily from harvesting because remuneration is a defined term. It’s spelt out in clause 57 and it means income from work, and harvesting would be considered work.
So if you had a full-time job and you were just filling the freezer, then you probably wouldn’t be covered. But say you had no other major work source and your income is coming from social assistance, then you would be covered by this clause.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, so my interpretation or my understanding is that the value of my primarly harvesting living will not count unless I’m selling products of my harvest.
To Mr. Orr.
The evaluation of your remuneration in the case of what it is you harvest, the way the program is administered, considerable value is given to the wildlife that you harvest just for consumption, just for meat in the freezer, I think it’s about $7,000.
So you don’t have to be selling the wildlife that you’re harvesting in the fur market or anything. You could potentially qualify just by harvesting for subsistence purposes because value is given to all the products that you’re harvesting, not just what you’re selling commercially.
We’re on Clause 5.
Minister and your staff, welcome to Committee of the Whole.
I would like to ask a question on harvesters and wildlife. My colleagues had asked similar questions and I would like to ask what my colleague, Mr. Curley, has been asking on the harvesters.
We have a lot of harvesters in Nunavut who are Inuit that don’t speak English, and their main survival is just to harvest and to look after their families. Some families wouldn’t want to use Health and Social Services to help them out. Some would just try and avoid using Health and Social Services or welfare.
How about those people who harvest for their own livelihood and for their families, are they covered under harvesters of wildlife? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Yes, they’re covered.
If they are covered, who do they have to apply to if they get hurt out on the land and they get back home?
I have come across a couple of elders, who didn’t speak in English, and during the time, they were hunting and they got hurt. One of them hurt their leg, he didn’t go out for six weeks, and he was getting no assistance then.
Who do they have to apply to?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They can make claims to our conservation officers in the community in the event they get injured. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If they can do that, that’s good to hear.
I would like to know if WCB has any pamphlets to explain how they can apply and who would be eligible because I haven’t seen any pamphlets on harvesters of wildlife.
I would like to know if there are any or not.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Evyagotailak. Minister Netser.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I believe we have pamphlets but I would like to ask Mr. Doyle to respond to that question just for clarification.
Go ahead, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) We do have pamphlets or written materials that we can provide and we will.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Evyagotailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
If you have the pamphlets, I would like you to have them handy so that we can take them home before the sitting is done, that way we can get them out to our constituents.
And, are the pamphlets translated in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you. The boys over at the WCB office are obviously watching the proceeding, so they know what to do.
And, whether they’re translated in Inuinnaqtun or Inuktitut, I’m sure they are but we’ll have to find that out.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. (interpretation) Are you done? (interpretation ends) Back to the Bill 4. Clause 5 as amended.
Clause 6?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 8?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 9?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 10?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 12?
As this is one of the big changes dealing with causation in here, maybe just for the public record, if we could get the minister or his officials to go through the change a little more clearly on the implications of how the change and how it’s going to be better for people out there in trying to determine whether they’re eligible under the WCB for an injury or a disease.
I think it’s such a big shift in the way that it was, so I think it’s important to get it on the record as to why.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would like to ask Mr. Doyle to respond to the question because of its complexity.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The change came about as a result of the committee review in the Northwest Territories, and the effect of the change is that a worker who is injured does not have to prove that the work is the dominant cause of the injury but only have to prove that it is a material cause, meaning that it’s not just a trivial cause of the injury.  It was felt that not only will this provide better certainty for the worker that they don’t have to go and prove that it’s had the largest effect on their injury, but that if it is a significant contributing cause, then they’ll be covered for it.
As well, in terms of the administrative simplicity of administering the Act, it also allows for easier administration.
I know that this is something that was a big issue in the Northwest Territories and that their committee had brought up.
I’m glad to see it in here because I know that that was probably one of the significant factors in the frustrations in the past of why they wanted over there to have the audit done on the Workers’ Compensation Board just because of dissatisfaction, and a lot of it had to deal with flipping, like you didn’t hurt yourself enough at work.
So, again, this is a much more worker-friendly, easier system and I’m just glad to have it. I’m glad it’s in there like that and I just wanted to get that explanation on the record. I think it is a fundamental shift or change in the way the board or the commission approaches that.
Chairman (Mr. Evyagotailak): Clause 14. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, I had my name up for 13.
Chairman: Okay, Mr. Curley, on Clause 13, go ahead.
I just want clarification so that we clearly understand.
I should probably know more so than WCB representatives here, many of our people in Nunavut, there are many that have obviously have gone through injuries or whatnot, but unlike the other deemed workers, who know exactly what their rights and privileges are for government programs or compensation programs, many have never really been fairly represented nor know how to apply.
So my question to you today is on 13(a). It now is really clearer. I think that the way that the personal injury is caused by, whether it is disease or death, was caused by natural.
I want a bit of understanding exactly what natural injury could mean in terms of the body.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Netser.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Orr wants to respond to that question.
Thank you.  Chairman: Thank you, Minister.
The idea in re-drafting section 13 is to make it as wide as possible to cover every possibility. So a natural cause would be if you’re working say at a cliff base and a piece of rock falls off and injures you, or you get struck by lightning.
The idea was, even if it was natural that the injury happened, it’s still covered. The old terminology was accident, and accident has the idea that something went wrong, that someone didn’t take care or something went wrong. This new approach is we don’t care how it happened.
We’re just trying to put in as many possibilities.  This terminology has been used elsewhere in Canada, so it was meant to be included as for everything in natural is what we might not consider to be an accident per se, that just something bad happened and it was a natural occurrence.
Mr. Chairman, I’m sure there is a provision for defining exactly what someone is going to have to agree to the meaning of a natural occurrence if that happens. So it’s probably subject to someone in the WCB.
So I wonder if I can get our own Legal Counsel of the House here to expand further on her interpretation of what a natural injury could mean.  Does that also mean that if I had a heart attack here and it’s been progressively getting worse, would that be deemed as an injury, or would that be a different category?
I’m twitching the definition so we can expand on whether or not this is subject to a possible dispute or not because it could be in my opinion.
In order to receive compensation, the injury has to arise out of and be in the course of work.
So I interpret this section as meaning the types of incidents that Mr. Orr spoke of - a flood, being struck by lightning and what we might call a natural disaster.  If someone had a history of heart disease and died of a heart attack on the job, in my view, they would die of natural causes but it would not fit into the definition of this particular section.
Clause 13. Does this committee agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 14?
Clause 15?
Clause 16. Mr. Arvaluk.
On the clause 16, no waiver, “Any agreement to waive or forego any compensation to which a person might become entitled under this Act is void.” In other words, if I’m fixing a roof and I fell off, and my boss says, “I’ll give you another thousand bucks if you keep your mouth shut.”
Mr. Orr wants to answer that.
Mr. Orr: Thank you. Yes, it would cover that. It would also cover if you signed your agreement with your employer and the employer says you’ll never make a claim for compensation or you’ll never take the money, you can’t sign away your rights to compensation.
Any other questions, Mr. Arvaluk?
Clause 16. Does this committee agree?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 17?
Clause 18?
Clause 19?
Clause 20?
Clause 21?
Clause 22?
Clause 23?
Clause 24?
Clause 25?
Clause 26?
Clause 27?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 28?
Clause 29?
Clause 30?
Clause 31?
Clause 32?
Clause 34, sorry. Clause 33?
I’m going a little bit too fast here, sorry.
Clause 34?
Clause 35?
Clause 36?
Clause 37?
Clause 38?
Clause 39?
Clause 40?
Clause 41?
Clause 42?
Clause 43?
Clause 44?
Clause 45?
Clause 46?
Clause 47?
Clause 48?
Clause 49?
Clause 50?
Clause 51?
Clause 52?
Clause 53?
Clause 54?
Clause 55?
Clause 56?
Clause 57?
Clause 58?
Clause 59?
Clause 60?
Clause 61?
Clause 62?
Clause 63?
Clause 64?
Clause 65?
Clause 66?
Clause 67?
Clause 68?
Clause 69?
Clause 70?
Clause 71?
Clause 72?
Clause 73?
Clause 74?
Clause 75?
Clause 76?
Clause 77?
Clause 78?
Clause 79?
Clause 80?
Clause 81?
Clause 82?
Clause 83?
Clause 84?
Clause 85?
Clause 86?
Clause 87?
Clause 88?
Clause 89?
Clause 90?
Nice to have a break in the agreeds.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 91 be amended by deleting subclause (3) and renumbering subclause (4) as 3.
I think I have that correctly.
Would you read your motion out again?
Committee Motion 006 – 2(4): Bill 4 – Clause 91 Amend by Deleting Subclause (3) and Renumbering Subclause (4) as (3) (Tootoo)
Let me try that again with a clean copy.
Both of the versions I had were wrong. I have the right one now.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that clause 91 be amended by
deleting subclause (3); and
renumbering subclause (4) as (3).
Clause 91 as amended.
Clause 92?
Clause 93?
Clause 94?
Clause 95?
Clause 96?
Clause 97?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 98?
Clause 99?
Clause 100?
Clause 101?
Clause 102?
Clause 103?
Chairman: Thank you. Clause 104?
(interpretation) I apologize.
On clause 103, immunity, “No action or proceeding may be brought against any person for anything that is, in good faith…” Who is immune, the board, the WCB, to exercising the power under this Act?
I mean, we just had an audit problem with one corporation and I hope this is not what it’s talking about.
Can you clarify a little bit of what this actual clause means?
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk.
I would like to ask Mr. Orr respond to that question.
Chairman: I’m sorry, Mr. Minister, I didn’t hear what you said. Minister Netser.
The purpose of the provision is to protect the individuals working for what will now be the commission and what’s now the board for anything they do as long as they do it in good faith. So if it’s anything done in bad faith, let’s just say criminally, they would not be protected but the individuals who are working for the commission would be protected from a suit with anything they do under this Act.
Whether the board itself is responsible, it’s not addressed by the provision.
Chairman: Clause 104?
Chairman: Clause 105?
Chairman: Clause 106?
Committee Motion 007 – 2(4): Bill 4 – Clause 106 Amend By Deleting Subclause (4) (Tootoo)
I would like to make an amendment to clause 106 and I will just explain for the record why.
We’re looking at deleting the provision that requires the President of the Commission to appear before the appropriate standing committee.
The committee is of the view that this provision is unnecessary as parliamentary privilege provides the Assembly and its committees with the ability to summon its witnesses and documents.  The committee had a concern that this provision might be interpreted as being the limit of the committee’s rights.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like that clause 106 be amended by deleting subclause (4).
The motion is carried. Clause 106 as amended. Clause 106.1?
Chairman: Clause 107?
Chairman: Clause 108?
Chairman: Clause 109?
Chairman: Clause 110?
Chairman: Clause 111?
Chairman: Clause 112?
Chairman: Clause 113?
Chairman: Clause 114?
Chairman: Clause 115?
Chairman (Mr. Barnabas): Clause 116.
Chairman: Clause 117. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 118. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 119. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 120. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 121. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 122. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 123. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 124. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 125. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 126. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 127. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 128. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 129. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 130. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 131. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 132. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 133. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 134. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 135. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 136. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 137. Does the committee agree?
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I was trying to read in English and I couldn’t understand it.
What do exigent circumstances stand for? I think somebody elaborated on that but I want some clarification on what it means.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Orr.
Mr. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It means, perhaps, legally is for special circumstances or unusual circumstances when normal procedure wouldn’t apply.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Orr. Clause 138. Sorry, Clause 137.
Chairman: Clause 138. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 139. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 140. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 141. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 142. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 143. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 144. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 145. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 146. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 147. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 148. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 149. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 150. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 151. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 152. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 153. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 154. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 155. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 156. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 157. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 158. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 159. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 160. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 161. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 162. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 163. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 164. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 165. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 166. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 167. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 168. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 169. Mr. Tootoo.
Committee Motion 008 – 2(4): Bill 4 – Subclause 169(m) Amend by Striking Out “That the Commissioner, on the Recommendation of the Minisiter, considers” (Tootoo)
The reason I would like to put forward an amendment here to clause 169 is that the regulation making powers to more clearly restrict this power to only enacting regulations that are necessary for the proper administration of the Act. It just clarifies it.
So as a result of that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that subclause 169(m) be amended by striking out “that the Commissioner, on recommendation of the Minister, considers.”
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. The motion is in order.
To the motion. Question has been called. Do you agree to the amendment of Clause 169?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Clause 170. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 171. Do you agree?
Chairman: Clause 172. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 173. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 174. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 175. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Clause 176. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Go to Schedule on page 172. Schedule. Page 172.
Chairman: Go back to Clause 177.
Chairman: Clause 178.
Chairman: Clause 179.
Chairman: Are you agreed to Bill 4 as amended?
Chairman: Do members agree pursuant to Rule 62(2) that Bill 4 can immediately be placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading?
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) I would like to thank Mr. Minister and his officials. If you have any closing remarks, go ahead, Mr. Minister.
I would like to thank the staff of the WCB and my DM for their assistance today, and also I really appreciate the House for allowing us to go through this bill prior to tomorrow as planned, out of courtesy, so that the staff could leave tomorrow.
Sergeant-at-Arms, you can escort the witnesses from the witness table.
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. (interpretation ends) What is the wish of the committee?
I would like to recognize the clock and move to report progress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker (interpretation): Members.
Your committee has been considering Bill 4 and would like to report that Bill 4 is immediately ready for third reading as amended, and that five committee motions were adopted.
>>Applause  Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Barnabas.
A reminder for tomorrow morning, a meeting at 10:00 in the morning of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing and Economic Development in the Nanuq Boardroom.  Orders of the Day for November 7:
Third Reading of Bills  Bill 4
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. This House stands adjourned until November 7 at 1:30 p.m. Thank you.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Pages 2458 – 2528
Opening Prayer 2458
Ministers’ Statements 2458
Members’ Statements 2461
Returns to Oral Questions 2471
Oral Questions 2472
Reports of Standing and Special Committees 2492
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills 2495
Tabling of Documents 2496
Notices of Motions 2497
Motions 2498
First Reading of Bills 2499
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2499
Chairman’s Caution 2500
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2526
Third Reading of Bills 2527
Orders of the Day 2527
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2458
120 – 2(4): Passport Photographs (Picco) 2458
121 – 2(4): Client Travel Policy (Aglukkaq) 2459
122 – 2(4): Arctic Winter Games 2008 – Regional and Territorial Championships (Tapardjuk) 2460
123 – 2(4): Sanikiluaq Housing Project Training Female Work Crew on the Job (Akesuk) 2460
257 – 2(4): Arctic Bay Elders (Barnabas) 2461
258 – 2(4): Rankin Inlet Cadets (Brown) 2462
259 – 2(4): Impact of Alcohol and Drugs in Communities (Netser) 2463
260 – 2(4): The Rise of Diabetes in Nunavut (Mapsalak) 2464
261 – 2(4): Ittaq Heritage and Research Centre (Arreak) 2465
262 – 2(4): Residential Schools’ Impact (Tapardjuk) 2466  263 – 2(4): Ban on Sealskins & Its Effect on Inuit (Kattuk) 2467
264 – 2(4): 2007 Regional Kitikmeot Soccer Tournament (Evyagotailak) 2468
265 – 2(4): High Cost of Gasoline, Fuel and Power (Curley) 2468
266 – 2(4): Charitable Events: MLA Hockey Game & Embrace Life Fundraiser (Tootoo) 2469
267 – 2(4): Communicating About Health (Peterson) 2470
Return to Oral Question 301 – 2(4): Follow Guidelines in Regional Trials (Tapardjuk) 2472
335 – 2(4): The Rise of Diabetes in Nunavut (Mapsalak) 2472
336 – 2(4): Arruja Development Corporation (Arreak) 2475
337 – 2(4): Food Inadequacies in Nunavut Households (Peterson) 2476
338 – 2(4): New School for Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 2479