Debates of August 21, 2007 (day 14)

I think, if the Member looks at 1.1(c), the principle that’s expressed is that the compensation system will treat workers and claimants fairly, compassionately and respectfully. That’s consistent with section 92(2)(b), which says that you don’t have to…I mean the effect of it is that if the worker can’t prove that what he’s trying to establish is more likely than not, then he or she gets that benefit. As long as it’s 50/50, and that’s consistent with the principle in section 1.1(c), which is treating workers compassionately and fairly. You’re saying if you can’t disprove what the worker’s saying, then the worker gets the benefit.

Thank you, Mr. Wright. Anything further, Ms. Lee?

Thank you. Just a short one. Could I get the Minister to ask the, refer the matter, or however you want to put it, could I get the Minister to commit to having the government’s counsel look at section 92(2)(b) in the context of section 1.1, as Mr. Wright just stated? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Well, I can do that but they’ve probably already done it. So I think unless we have the legislation…(inaudible)…once the legislation is there, they’ll have to enforce it.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Clause 92. Committee.

Agreed.

Clause 93.

Agreed.

On page 58, clause 94 and clause 95.

Agreed.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I move that subclause 96(3) of Bill 6 be amended by striking out "may direct" and substituting "may, in writing, direct". Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. To clause 96, as amended.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 59, clause 97, clause 98, clause 99, clause 100 and clause 101.

Agreed.

Page 60, clause 102 and clause 103.

Agreed.

Page 61, clause 104, 105 and 106.

Agreed.

Page 62, clause 106.1, clause 107 and clause 108.

Agreed.

Page 63, clause 109, clause 110, clause 111, and clause 112.

Agreed.

Page 64, clause 113 and clause 114.

Agreed.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 115 of Bill 6 be amended by striking out "one year" and substituting "three years".

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. To clause 115, as amended.

Agreed.

Thank you. Clause 116 and clause 117.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 6 be amended by deleting Clause 118 and substituting the following:

118 (1) The Appeals Tribunal is composed of at least four members appointed by the Minister in accordance with this section.

(2) When selecting persons for appointment to the Appeals Tribunal, the Minister shall ensure that

(a) each member of the Appeals Tribunal has experience and an interest in workers’ compensation issues, and

(i) has been a member, of at least five years good standing, of a law society of a territory or province;

(ii) has at least five years experience as a member of an administrative tribunal or a court; or

(iii) has other qualifications that can reasonably be considered to be the equivalent to those described in subparagraphs (i) and (ii); and

(b) a sufficient number of members are appointed for the Appeals Tribunal to effectively perform its functions.

(3) If an agreement with the Government of Nunavut under subsection 168 is in effect, the Minister shall

(a) consult with the Minister of the Government of Nunavut responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Act (Nunavut) prior to appointing the members of the Appeals Tribunal; and

(b) appoint two of the members of the Appeals Tribunal on the recommendation of the Minister of the Government of Nunavut responsible for the Workers'

Compensation Act (Nunavut).

(4) For greater certainty, subsection (2) applies to the Minister making a recommendation under paragraph (3)(b).

(5) The following persons are not eligible to be members of the Appeals Tribunal:

(a) directors of the Governance Council and staff of the commission;

(b) the Workers' Advisor, a deputy workers' advisor and a staff of the Office of the Workers' Advisor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this area and related to it was a considerable piece of change in here in going from a three person panel with the expectation that there would be a chair and a nominee from the employer sector and a nominee from the workers’ sector to hear appeals and thus have more assurance that there was going to be balanced decision-making through this process.

We are, in this bill, making a shift from a multiple person panel to sole adjudicator process for the appeal mechanism. I am speaking in favour of this. It also reflects what we have already done, I believe, Mr. Chair, with our human rights appeal process and also, much more recently, with the employment standards process. The sole adjudicator model is one that has some consistency here and it is also reflected in this act.

Mr. Chair, I would like to reflect in this clause and in this amendment the interests that were expressed at least to me and to the committee as reflected in the report that has already been read and tabled by three labour organizations, the NWT Federation of Labour, the PSAC, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Union of Northern Workers, who expressed their opposition to the sole adjudicator model. They wanted to retain the security of knowing that in an appeal there was going to be somebody from the labour, their sector, who would be hearing the whole course of a worker’s appeal or potentially an employer’s appeal. It works for both sides, of course. I spoke with a couple of the labour leaders. I wanted to make sure I understood very carefully what their position was. I am going to support, though, the motion to amend and continue on with the sole adjudicator model as it is being proposed here. Also, Mr. Chair, I want to express my confidence in the Minister in being able to appoint people who indeed are going to be professional, unbiased and objective in hearing the case and making their rulings.

The amendment proposes that we want to see people with broad experience in administrative tribunals or courts or who have equivalencies that can reasonably expect to give us that same skill level. So I wanted to put it on record, Mr. Chair, that I listened. I know that other committee members did as well to those concerns, but I do believe that the model that is being proposed here and, of course, thorough consideration by the Ministers in making these appointments is indeed going to give us a workable system; I very much would like to think an improved system through the sole adjudicator model. That is my comment, Mr. Chair. I have no question. My endorsement is for the amendment as proposed.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. We will go back to the motion. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee.

---Applause

To clause 118, as amended.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 67, clause 119.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that clause 120 of Bill 6 be amended by renumbering subsections (1.1) to (3) as subsections (2) to (4) respectively.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.