Debates of June 2, 2006 (day 4)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Can the Minister provide statistical information over the past five years as follows:

the number of WCB applicants whose claim included a medical diagnosis of chronic pain;

the number of those same applicants who succeeded in obtaining temporary short-term benefits and permanent long-term benefits; and

the number of Workers' Compensation Board claimants whose benefits were affected if they were diagnosed as suffering from chronic pain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following documents: NWT Protected Areas Strategy Annual Report, 2004-2005; the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Western NWT Biophysical Study; and the NWT Diversity Action Plan Report Two: Gap and Overlap Analysis and Recommendations for Future Actions.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Tabling of documents. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Tabled Document 11-15(5): Towards Excellence: A Report On Education In The NWT, 2005

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled Towards Excellence: A Report on Education in the NWT, 2005. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated in my Member’s statement today, I would be tabling documents regarding the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act and I have three documents. The first one would be described as a summary of the act. The second document I have to table is the actual act itself from Saskatchewan. The third one is a presentation the Saskatchewan Justice department gave to the Yukon government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a report entitled Toward New Voluntary Sector -Government of the NWT. Let me start over again, Mr. Speaker. Toward New Voluntary Sector - Government of the NWT Relationships and Funding Arrangements. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act to implement recommendations of the Independent Commission to Review Members’ Compensation and Benefits and to make other adjustments related to Members’ compensation and benefits. This bill comes into force on the polling day for the general election that follows the dissolution of the 15th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the principle of the bill.

Question.

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

---Carried

Bill 3 has had second reading. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, moved into Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 3 moved into Committee of the Whole. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Bill 3 has had second reading and stands referred to Committee of the Whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act to implement the recommendation of the Independent Commission to Review Members’ Compensation and Benefits, that Members who did not elect to receive an allowance under the act after their first election to the Legislative Assembly should be permitted if they are permitted to a subsequent Legislative Assembly to elect at that time to receive an allowance. Such a Member may not buy back previous service. This bill comes into force on the polling day for the general election that follows the dissolution of the 15th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the principle of the bill.

Question.

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

---Carried

Bill 4 has had second reading. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, moved into Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 4 moved into Committee of the Whole. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Bill 4 has had second reading and stands referred to Committee of the Whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Territorial Parks Act to provide that it is an offence to contravene the order of a park officer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the principle of the bill.

Question.

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

---Carried

Bill 5 has had second reading. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Territorial Parks Act, moved into Committee of the Whole. Thank you.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 5 moved into Committee of the Whole. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Bill 5 has had second reading and stands referred to Committee of the Whole.

Thank you, committee. I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order and ask what is the wish of committee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Committee of the Whole would like to consider Committee Report 1-15(5), Committee Report 2-15(5) and Committee Report 3-15(5). Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does committee agree?

Agreed.

Agreed. We’ll start with Committee Report 1-15(5), Report on the Review of the 2004-2005 Report of the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much. The Report on the Review of the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Human Rights Commission. The introduction was read into the public record during the sitting of the House.

The report includes two specific recommendations for amendments to the act.

The first recommendation is to amend the act to explicitly allow the Human Rights Adjudication Panel to order systemic remedies in addition to remedies to address the situation of individual complainants. Systemic remedies might include requiring an organization to implement employment equity or to change policies that have resulted in discrimination. The report cites the persistence of unequal pay for work of equal value between men and women as an example of systemic discrimination. In such a case, providing compensation or another remedy to one individual complainant would not address the overall issue or assist others being subjected to the same discrimination by the same employer.

The witnesses also suggested there is an inherent contradiction in the act in that it currently allows the commission to initiate complaints, which in practice it would most likely do in a case of systemic discrimination, but does not allow the adjudication panel to grant the corresponding remedies.

The committee was made aware that some other Canadian jurisdictions explicitly allow for systemic remedies in their human rights legislation and that in other jurisdictions the courts have interpreted the acts as allowing for systemic remedies even though they do not explicitly grant this power.

While the committee does not necessarily disagree with the recommendation, we would like to be assured that it would not have unforeseen implications beyond those identified by the commission. We would also point out that our act is as yet new and untested and that it may be more appropriate to revisit this recommendation after we have gained a few years’ experience and established our own precedents.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to take this opportunity to just make a very short comment about the motion and in support of the motion, but also to say something about how…I can’t think of a word, but I guess "good" is a good word; how good it feels to have this Human Rights Commission up and running. I feel like I’ve watched there from its inception and for the longest time we were the only jurisdiction, or one of the very few jurisdictions in Canada without our own Human Rights Commission and it’s really rewarding, I guess that’s the word, to see the project start from the beginning and how the consultation, wide consultation was held. Sometimes in this House we don’t always see the results of the work we do in a short time frame, and I know for many it was a long time, but eventually we do see an entity like this get started and I know that this office has been very busy dealing with quite a number of cases; more cases than they had ever thought would come around to that office in that short a time. So I just wanted to make a comment on that.

With respect specifically to the motion, this was a revelation to me that in our legislation we did not give consideration for systemic remedies, because I would think that in many of those issues where there are human rights violations or where people are being discriminated against on grounds that are covered under the act, there would be many occasions where it would be more than one instance and it would apply to more than one person, and if we find that an organization or an industry is doing something, or the government department or government agency, I think that’s what’s covered in this legislation, continues to do the same thing over and over and over, you would think that it would be legislatively more prudent to have an option there to make systematic changes so that the commission and the commissioners don’t have to address the same issue or similar issues or similar facts or situations over and over again.

I do think that, and I do agree with a little bit of caution, in this motion to give us time and room for us to work through the details of what the implications are of this if we were to approve systematic changes. So I would like to take this opportunity to speak in support of the motion and vote in support of the motion, and to ask the government to do its due diligence to inquire and find out as to what the situation is in other jurisdictions and how other human rights legislation are covering these sorts of systematic issues. I think it’s my understanding that other jurisdictions already have these provisions, although not all of them have them. I always thought that our legislation was more progressive and it was more up to date than most other legislation, so I don’t know how or why we missed this element.

Let me just finish by saying I support this motion and I look forward to seeing the work that the department will bring back in response to this recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. 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

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The act currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of pardoned criminal convictions. The report recommends that the act be amended in order to prevent discrimination on the basis of “unrelated” criminal convictions. The example provided in the report is of a person with a record for driving while impaired being refused a job that does not involve drinking.

---Interjection

---Laughter

Thank you very much, there, committee members. I’m going to have to re-read that. The example provided in the report is of a person with a record for driving while impaired being refused a job that does not involve driving. The current act would not protect that person unless he or she had received a pardon. With the recommended wording, the person would have grounds for a complaint by making the case that a conviction for a driving offence is unrelated to a job that does not involve driving. Similarly, a person refused a job on the basis of a conviction from many years ago might have grounds for a complaint.

The committee had a lengthy and spirited discussion on this issue. Some Members are reluctant to support the recommendation because it would put employers in a very difficult position of making judgment calls about what is or is not an “unrelated” conviction. In some cases, it could be very difficult for them to balance their duties toward their clients or other employees with the legal requirement not to discriminate against a job applicant. For example, if a person had a twenty-year-old record for sexual assault and no subsequent convictions, would it be discrimination to refuse to hire him or her for a delivery job? On the other hand, would it be negligent to put customers and other employees in contact with a person whose history included a violent offence? Some Members are concerned that it would be unfair to expect employers to make these kinds of evaluations.

In support of the recommendation, Members pointed to some employers’ policies of not hiring anyone with a criminal conviction without giving any consideration to the relevance of the offence. Such policies are making it difficult for many responsible adults who made mistakes in their youth to find employment and provide for their families. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of unrelated criminal convictions would prevent employers from automatically refusing to hire anyone with a record and force them to consider applicants on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I just want to put my position on record on this motion. Understandably, and I think the chair of the AOC explained the examples that arises out of some of the discussions that we had in the committee that resulted in this recommendation. I am going to be voting in support of this motion, but with conditions. I think you can see from the motion that the committee is wanting the government to do some research on this. It’s very complex and it’s an issue that has layers of implications around it. It is the classic question of balancing the rights of individuals versus public interest. I look forward to seeing what the Minister of Justice and their legal advisors come back to the Members with. I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to do a lot of research in this area and see how other jurisdictions are handling this issue and what the implications are. I am mindful and I do understand why the commissioners have brought about these recommendations and there are some good arguments to be made about that, but there are other implications that we must consider. So I look forward to and I’d like to encourage the Minister to respond to this recommendation as soon as possible so that we could, as Members, have an opportunity to discuss this and debate this further in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion. Just before I get to the next speaker, I just wanted to draw the House’s attention to the gallery. I’d like to recognize Mr. Sonny MacDonald, the sub-chief for the Salt River First Nation.

---Applause

Also, Sonny is, in addition to being the sub-chief of the Salt River First Nation, the chair of the NWT Arts Council and his artwork does grace this Assembly that we work in. Welcome, sir, to our proceedings. As well, the other folks that we have in the gallery, welcome to our proceedings this afternoon. Thank you.

Next on the list I’ve got Mr. Pokiak.