Debates of March 10, 2005 (day 53)

Hear! Hear!

That is our vision; that is our leadership. I believe that the Minister was showing some good leadership in that area, in terms of re-looking at the WCB with the Auditor General, with us, with our people. These people work because they love to work and when they get hurt, surely, Mr. Speaker, they need to be taken care of by us as a government. That is our job, so I think this motion is timely and I fully support this motion. Thank you.

Timely.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be speaking in favour of the motion as well. I think that if there was a time when we need to be compassionate and particularly attentive to our constituents, it is at the time when they are in need and they have been injured. This can be very trying on many fronts, on people's personal lives, on their financial well-being, on their livelihood and on the well-being of their families, as well.

I think that we need a culture within our WCB which is very sensitive to injured workers. I, as well, have received concerns over the years from constituents who felt that they had had the WCB and the employers turn their backs on them after they were injured.

Also, Mr. Speaker, during a lot of the media coverage of the Giant Mine trial, we heard some of the cost estimates on some of the services that were retained by the WCB and I have a lot of questions around that, and I think that an audit of this nature also would deal with some of the operations decisions that were made in respect to that. I just think it is good business from time to time to take a look at the operations of an organization like this, to ensure that it does reflect what our priorities are and what our thoughts are as a government who oversees this as well as the employers and employees. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The honourable Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be speaking to the motion in regard to issues that have been raised in the motion. I think it is important to realize that the direction that was given to the corporation came by way of the Act Now document, in which a lot of those have been implemented. They did a special audit of the operation of the Workers’ Compensation Board, which was done by the Auditor General in 2002.

Also, they have done a reorganization of the Workers’ Compensation Board to allow for the recommendations that came out of the Act Now. The Act Now came by way of two phases. The first phase was to look at the operation side. The second phase was to look at the legal parameters between the boards -- the appeals board, the governance council -- and also look at the rates that the corporation sets, which is now being developed under phase two.

That work is ongoing and will be coming to this House, hopefully we are looking at this fall, but because of this motion, it could delay that factor. I think it is important to realize that the Workers’ Compensation Board does have to follow certain legislative responsibilities that we give it, from the Legislature, in regard to the Workers’ Compensation Act and also through the Financial Administration Act. They have to follow our Financial Administration Act of this Legislature and also because of the Mine Health and Safety Act that is in place.

They are governed by these acts, which are passed by this Legislature. It is important to keep that in mind, in regard to this motion. One of the most critical concerns that I have with this motion is because of our relationship we have with our Nunavut colleagues and also because this board is a joint board which is shared by both territories.

I have been in correspondence with my colleagues in Nunavut and they are upset that this motion is coming forward in this manner, without them being consulted on such a motion, because we do have a joint arrangement. We do have a memorandum of understanding with Nunavut and ourselves in relation to this board that they will be consulted on these types of movements.

Again, I think it is crucial that we realize that this definitely does not sit well with my colleague from Nunavut because of the way this motion came about without having them consulted or made aware that such a motion was going to be there. I think it is important to realize that we do have obligations through a memorandum of understanding. We have signed with Nunavut and ourselves in the arrangement of how we manage this joint board and at those legislatures.

Like I stated in the House, I have had an opportunity to meet with my colleague in Nunavut on this matter. Again, they are upset because a lot of the legislation that came forth in regard to the board, the first in regard to phase one, we passed it in this Legislature and, basically, all they got to do in Nunavut was rubberstamp it. They were upset about that because they wanted to make some changes in regard to that legislation. Again, this is another situation where we have to realize that we have to work in conjunction with our colleagues in Nunavut, because we do share this board together and also we do have to consult each other on where we are going with this. I think it is important to note that.

Again, I think that the Member realizes that we are going through a process such as the implementation of the Act Now document. We have gone through phase one. Phase two will be coming to this House looking at the activities they have to do. There were some 100 resolutions passed. In order to do that, it took several years.

I think it is important to realize that the corporation is audited by the Auditor General every year and a report is tabled in this House to how their operation is audited. Also, you have to realize that there is definitely a distinction between the governance council and the Appeals Tribunal. Those are two separate bodies which were implemented through Act Now through phase one. If you are going to do an operational review, you have to ensure that you encompass each of those. Also, we do have operations that we have established through Nunavut because of implementation of phase one.

I just wanted to raise that. I think it is important that Members keep that in mind, that we do have a joint responsibility here. I have been notified by my colleague from Nunavut who is upset because of the way this motion came forward without their consultation. Thank you.

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

Question.

I will allow the mover of the motion some closing comments on this debate. Mr. Braden.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do want to express my appreciation and support and the justification that my colleagues have given for backing this on behalf of injured workers in their constituencies who they know of. Mr. Hawkins indicated that our phones are indeed ready to be answered. I must admit I am feeling a little shy, Mr. Speaker, because I don’t have boxes and boxes of files that I will be able to put at the disposal of the Auditor General, because so many of those workers over the years have had to leave the NWT and are living in other parts of Canada because they simply cannot afford to live here and carry on with the diminished capacity to work and the very small returns that they claim they are getting as a result of WCB’s handling.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to address a couple of things that the Minister has said. But first of all, I have to say that it is this kind of objection, push back, resistance and denial that we have been receiving through the years and the letters that are demonstrated on the floor of the Assembly again today by the attitude of the Minister. It is very much why I wanted to bring this motion forward because, through the conventional process, the political process, we are just getting nowhere on behalf of injured workers. The Auditor General is an agency that has the credibility and the experience and the authority to go in there and hopefully find out where we are, as the whereases and the wherefores in this fairly extensive motion point out. It is extensive, Mr. Speaker, because it is, in essence, a job description. These are the things that we have heard. These are the things that we want the Auditor General to look into, confirm and sort out for us so that we can get on with it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that the Minister from Nunavut may be upset with this inquiry. That may be so. But I have made some of my own inquiries about Nunavut, and I am finding that their injured workers and Regular Members have issues exactly the same as we do. We do not need to ask the permission of Nunavut to engage in this kind of investigation on behalf of our own workers.

Hear! Hear!

---Applause

I am very confident, Mr. Speaker, that what we will find out through the investigation here will only benefit workers from Nunavut.

The Minister does make a very valid point in that we do have a hard-won agreement with our sister territory, Nunavut, to share the resources and the responsibilities of running this WCB that we can share. I think that is a good arrangement. He also made the point that when we proceed on legislation, we have to be careful to proceed in tandem so that both territories can accommodate the legislative process and the changes that we see as required. But, Mr. Speaker, this is an operational review. This is a performance review. I want to find out whether the spirit or the intent of the legislation and the delivery of services to injured workers is really what we should expect and what they deserve. Those are the answers there. I can’t get it through the regular process. Again, that is why the Auditor General is coming in.

The Minister mentioned a report that was commissioned in 2002. This would be after the Act Now report, done by the Auditor General. It has never seen the light of day on my desk or on this side of the Legislative Assembly. So while it may be in existence, that is fine. But what good is it to us if it is going to be kept under wraps, never disclosed and only internalized? That is, again, why I want the Auditor General to do a public review where the injured workers, employers, every stakeholder comes in and has their say, has their story told, examined and reported back.

A couple of other Members, Mr. Speaker, raised some interests to the aspect of the specific interest of employers in this. Another Member raised the interest of our WCB’s actions in relation to the Giant Mine trial. The motion was scripted, Mr. Speaker, in such a way that there is the scope and the latitude to allow the Auditor General, if she chooses, to go into these other areas of relevance.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a very good discussion on it today. I hope we have carried through the significance and the importance that we believe this issue has on behalf of our workers today and very much in the future. We have some massive construction projects on the horizon of the Northwest Territories. This is one part of our infrastructure that we better have in shape. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Braden.

Question.

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

---Carried

---Applause

Item 15, motions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion I gave notice of earlier today regarding appointments to committees.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The Member is seeking unanimous consent to deal with the motion that he gave notice of earlier today. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Mr. Villeneuve, you may deal with the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also request unanimous consent to waive Rule 58 to allow Motion 34-15(3) to proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Appointments to standing committees and board of management.

WHEREAS Robert McLeod has been elected as Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes;

AND WHEREAS a number of changes to standing committee and Board of Management appointments have been recommended by the Striking Committee;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Range Lake, that the following appointments be rescinded:

Mr. Robert Hawkins, Member for Yellowknife Centre, to the Standing Committee on Social Programs;

Mr. Robert Villeneuve, Member for Tu Nedhe, to the Board of Management as an alternate; and,

Mr. Norman Yakeleya, Member for Sahtu, to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development as an alternate.

AND FURTHER that the following appointments be effected:

Mr. Robert Hawkins, Member for Yellowknife Centre, to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development;

Mr. Robert McLeod, Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, to the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight, to the Standing Committee on Social Programs, and to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development as an alternate; and,

Mr. Norman Yakeleya, Member for Sahtu, to the Board of Management as an alternate.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

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

---Applause

Item 15, motions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to deal with the motion I gave notice of earlier today. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues.

WHEREAS the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act states the purpose of the establishment of boards by the act is to enable residents of the Mackenzie Valley to participate in the management of its resources for the benefit of the residents and of other Canadians;

AND WHEREAS the act provides that the chairperson of a board shall be appointed by the federal Minister from persons nominated by a majority of the board members;

AND WHEREAS the chair’s position for the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is currently vacant and the board has nominated three Northwest Territories residents for the federal Minister’s consideration;

AND WHEREAS the CBC reported on March 7, 2005, that a resident of British Columbia, who is not nominated by board members, has been added to the short list of candidates for the chair;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that the Premier immediately communicate to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development the GNWT's and this Legislative Assembly’s objection to the appointment of a non-resident of the NWT, who is not nominated by the board members, as the chair of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The motion is on the floor. 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

---Applause

I call Committee of the Whole to order. We don’t have much, but we have some work on our agenda today. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee wishes to consider Committee Report 12-15(3), Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures Report on the Review of the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the Administration of the 2003 General Election. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does the committee agree?

Agreed.

Agreed. Then, we will do that after a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I call Committee of the Whole back to order. We have one item before us. General comments. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to briefly set the context of our committee, Madam Chair. Before I get into that, I would like to recognize in the gallery today our Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Glen McLean.

---Applause

Madam Chair, the Rules and Procedures committee accepted on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, the report of the Chief Electoral Officer earlier last year. Accordingly, we took the report to the public for a response. Two public hearings were held and the views of Members were sought into four recommendations that were put forward. There were some very constructive ones on the overall impact and quality and calibre of elections and how we can better use our system to help with election events. One of those recommendations, Madam Chair, was to look at sharing our resources and the office of the Chief Electoral Officer with community governments to help them run their governments.

Madam Chair, we also have a recommendation before us to join up the CEO's office along with Education, Culture and Employment and develop a web-based educational site to promote the way elections work and how important they are, especially directed, Madam Chair, at young people.

The CEO brought forward the recommendation that the Elections Act itself should undergo a comprehensive review and consolidation. It is a piece of legislation, Madam Chair, that has been amended and tweaked several times over the course of the years. Some things are getting a little out of sync and a review is warranted.

But, Madam Chair, the most prominent recommendation is that the NWT should go to a fixed election date as something that would level the playing field among candidates. That would bring more stability and predictability and consistency to the way government runs and the way elections are going to be run. This is indeed the first of these four committee motions, Madam Chair, that have already been read into the record at a different point in our orders, Madam Chair. So I’m prepared to move these motions for committee’s consideration and debate. So that will end my remarks, Madam Chair, and I look forward to see if other Members have any general comments before proceeding with the motions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. General comments. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to commend the CEO for coming out with a good comprehensive report and some good recommendations on the elections procedures and the option that the office of the CEO can assist municipalities and First Nations local governments in their elections procedures so that they are in accordance or in line with what the government practices.

I just wanted to mention something about the fixed election date. I know there was some discussion about whether a fixed election date should be established or whether it’s an item that hasn’t been really agreed to by the majority of the Members. I’m pretty open to establishing a fixed election date for every four years so that people will know when the elections are coming about. I think it just makes the process a little more fixed and people will know what to expect and when it’s going to happen every four years. Just to the motion or whichever motion that the Member wishes to bring forward, I would support the motion which is titled the first Monday in November. Other than that, that’s all I have to say. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. General comments. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep my comments brief.

---Applause

I’m in agreement with the Member for Tu Nedhe for the first Monday in November. That’s my recommended choice. I think having a fixed election day will certainly be good not only for the Members that are here but for any potential candidates that are out there. If we have a date set, I mean, we all know, having run in campaigns before, it’s a lot of work. The more lead time you can give somebody, the better off they’ll be. So it’s good. It’s better for the process generally and I say the first Monday in November. The other reason I’m in support of that is in campaigning in October is a little bit difficult in some places, but I’d rather campaign in October than September. September in the far northern constituencies is a little bit more troublesome. So the first Monday in November, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Yakeleya.

Short one, Madam Chair. The first Monday of October is the one I’ll be supporting due to the weather situation up in the region. The first week in November is not good for campaigning and elections and the ice fog and all that. So the first Monday in October is something that I prefer to go with in our region. November is not something that I will be supporting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. General comments. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to reiterate my support for the first Monday in November, I guess just so that all Members are aware that I know September 1st hunting season opens and usually goes right to the middle or toward the middle of October. So that’s totally out of line with what NWT residents would expect. Everybody is out on the land, and unless we can get the polling stations out on the land then I would go for the first week in October, but I still stand by the first week of November. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. General comments. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I’m sure reluctant to support anything at this point in time pertaining to the committee report discussing this particular issue. I understand that the committee has solicited in the papers, I believe, and I’m not sure if they did radio broadcasting and stuff like that to have public input, but at that time my understanding is that there was no public input except from the Chief Electoral Officer that made the report. The recommendation that he made was the first Monday in October to have a fixed date for election. I feel uncomfortable at this time to say I like the idea of having a fixed date, but the date itself is the problem I have right now. I would strongly suggest to Members if we could solicit or go back to our constituents and seek further consultation, because it hasn’t been that long since this report has been dealt with and it could wait until our next sitting, which is in May.

During that session, we could deal with it and give us ample time to go back to our constituents and seek their advice or suggestions as to which way we should go. It is unfortunate, Madam Chair, that a lot of people are busy. For instance, my region has been busy with our land claims and self-government legislation in Ottawa. Although this is important, their priorities were someplace else. Since those items are sort of concluded with and we are working on something else, I am sure that they will take a look at this issue and make some sort of suggestion to me so that I can speak on their behalf. I hope that Members would reconsider dealing with this at this time and maybe deal with this whole issue at our next sitting in May. That is my comment on the issue at hand. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. General comments. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a few comments to put on the record. I don’t have a problem with a fixed date. I think that seems to be where the consensus is moving toward. I will work with whatever comes out of this House in that regard. The bigger question is when. It seems to be that there are 12 months and 19 Members and as many variations on different configurations. I know that, in leading up to this, we have had some other discussions and Members have different preferences for various reasons. For me, one of the things that I suggested was that I would like to see somehow having an election in the spring so that our budget cycle would be more conducive to making it possible for the Members coming in to have an impact and have an influence in their budget. The way it is now, if the Members get elected later in the fall, you are missing out on the regular business plan process. Usually, Christmas sneaks in and you have to rush to budget session without the Members really being able to incorporate many of the items in their platform and things that they fought for in their campaigns and things that they promised to the public for that year anyway. You have to wait for the second round or the next round of budget cycle to put those issues on. So my preference has been to put it some time in the spring. After the sitting Assembly passes a budget, I think the election should be held shortly after that. The incumbents would have to run on the budget past and the new people would run on what they want to do differently. When they do get elected or whoever gets elected, the new Members can have an influence on the whole new budget.

Also, I appreciate that the consensus building now is somewhere in the fall. I understand the problems with the spring session. Mostly it is because of the fact that our cycle right now does not take us there unless we get an amendment to the NWT Act, which might take a long time. Though I do believe that, if the Legislature passes a formal motion and asked the federal government to do it, they might be more willing to do it than we are assuming currently.

This is not a big issue that I want to fight tooth and nail for. I am willing to consider three options that are here. It seems like the consensus is building toward October, November or June. Given those choices, I think I would rather choose October, to start as early in the fall as possible and go from there. I guess I will cast my vote in that way. Thank you.