Debates of October 23, 2006 (day 13)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister earlier said it was approximately $100 million spent in resupplying the mines this spring and summer, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s a shame that that money is being spent in that regard. We could be putting it into real infrastructure, Mr. Speaker. When we have a Prime Minister who says if we do not approve the pipeline, there will be no resource deal, so, Mr. Speaker, let’s turn that around and say if the Prime Minister doesn’t approve infrastructure and a resource deal for the NWT, we should say no pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Let’s show him who truly is standing up for the NWT. With that said, Mr. Speaker, would this Minister be willing to build a coalition approach with the industry such as the mining groups and go stand up to Ottawa and say we need their support? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 160-15(5): All-Weather Road Access To The Diamond Mines

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course. I think we are already taking the first steps to do that. We have participated as stakeholders with the joint venture initiatives that are underway. We have also been working with the Tlicho and the Tlicho corridor to look at realignment, look at scoping out what it would cost to do work in that area. There are a number of initiatives on the table here. I don’t know if we are ready to move forward and go pound on the Minister’s door in Ottawa until we have some firm numbers on how we would cost-share some of these initiatives.

I have to point out also that the $100 million costs are not government costs. Those were the mining companies that had to bear that burden, so that’s not something that we have any flexibility on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final Supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Supplementary To Question 160-15(5): All-Weather Road Access To The Diamond Mines

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, that $100 million would have been good money going into highway infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, with a partnership three ways with the federal and territorial government, but that’s another argument. Mr. Speaker, can I get some timelines from this Minister? Nunavut is considering the Bathurst Inlet port and if we are asleep at the switch too long, they are going to jump ahead of us on this opportunity. So what type of timeline can this Minister of Transportation tell me he’s going to work with industry to ensure we are doing this project in a timely way? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 160-15(5): All-Weather Road Access To The Diamond Mines

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have already had some early discussion on this. We’ve had some face-to-face meetings with industry. We have had some discussions on some of the options with different stakeholders. So we have already embarked on looking at how we can deal with some of these initiatives. Of course, this coming winter is going to give us a better understanding of what we are really up against. Are there ways we can look at alternate routes? Are there ways we can consider some other options is something we will have to decide.

I want to point out though that we have already, along with the Premier, sat down with the federal Minister and indicated that these were some of our concerns and these were some of the issues that may be coming forward. So we’ve already taken the first steps. There is still a lot of legwork to do in trying to resolve some of these issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. David Krutko. In my Member's statement today, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the real challenges of northerners living in their own homes and living in rented homes, and the cost of living and how they struggle to address that cost of living. I don't know exactly what would be the best vehicle for delivering a program that could assist with making homes more energy efficient, but I have not been too impressed with what I've seen so far in terms of tangible efforts on behalf of this government.

Right now under the NWT Housing Corporation there's funding available for emergency home repairs, seniors' home repairs, so it's something that's along those same lines. It would not be grants, but even if residents could get interest-free loans that they could pay back over a period of time, they would recover the cost of the money they would invest by the savings in their homes. It could be for a fairly short list of improvements. It could be siding; it could be insulation; it could be new windows; it could be a pellet stove, a wood stove; something that would make their cost of living more affordable. Is this something that the NWT Housing Corporation has even contemplated and would there be anything that would preclude the Housing Corporation from undertaking such a program? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Honourable Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. Krutko.

Return To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to thank the Member for her question, because I think it's important that we do look at new initiatives and make sure we're able to assist residents to bring down the cost of operating and maintaining a home, but I think it's important we change the method. I think one of the best programs I've seen today, especially where people depend on the Fuel Subsidy Program, we have a program where we assist seniors by putting monitor heaters in their homes as a secondary heat source, which they're able to sustain the fuel that they do get through the subsidy program but it gets them through the winter because it's up and it's energy efficient. It also consumes less fuel so they're able to use the fuel that they do have over a longer period. I mean these types of initiatives that we've piloted, we've done with different communities, but I think it's through the Emergency Repair Program we have. We can have a universal program like that for all communities and I think it will really assist in the cost of living, it will assist us in the cost of the Fuel Subsidy Program. But I think, more importantly, how do we operate and maintain homes, bring down the cost of energy but, more importantly, make it affordable for people to live in it. So we do have programs, such as the monitor heater program I mentioned, but we do have other areas in regards to the programs we have for repairs, emergency repairs, RRAP, in regards to people with disabilities.

But I think we do have to look at the programs we have. We are looking at coming forward with a consolidation of our programs. We're hoping to come out with something in the new year which will have those features in it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of those programs. I am talking about a new program. You know, kudos on all that and thank you for that, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking for a set aside amount of money in a revolving fund that can be loaned out to homeowners to do energy saving upgrades to their home. Is there any capital, or does the Minister know of any source of capital, which could be the start of something like this that could be implemented in the near future? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are looking at consolidating our programs into four general areas, and also we're looking at increasing the borrowing limits that we have had in these programs before. I think by increasing that, looking at especially the eligibility criteria that we have in our programs so that it's more accessible to all residents in the Northwest Territories. But more importantly, we do look at the energy efficiency of how do we improve homes to make them more energy efficient but also make them cost neutral so you're not spending more money. If anything, you'll be spending less money to operate and maintain a home. So we are bringing that forward by way of consolidation of our programs from the 14 programs we have to date into four general areas. So with that change, we're hoping we will see a real change in the programs we deliver. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Okay, Mr. Speaker, thank you. I'd like to make this really simple. I'm a resident of the Northwest Territories. Say as an example I'm having a hard time affording to heat my home. I would like to have $3,000 to install a pellet stove in my house. I would like the government to loan me that money interest free, and over a period of time I would pay it back and I would use the savings on my heating cost to pay back that loan. Is such a program available? Do you have the capital anywhere? Is this doable? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Mr. Speaker, the programs we have today are needs tested. They don't allow all residents to have access to our programs, and I think that's why we are looking at changing that. We are developing energy plans and whatnot that we're putting in place. But more importantly, we realize we do have to change the programs and services we do deliver, working with other departments to look at this by way of looking at the energy we use but, more importantly, by consolidating, changing the criteria we have in our program. So we are looking at that by the way of the consolidation of programs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Supplementary To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I was not speaking about myself personally when I was…I was just trying to give you an example to make it very clear for the Minister. Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about a new program and I don't want it to be needs assessed. Many people who have two income earners out there still don't have the money to do an energy upgrade or add something to their house that would make it more affordable, so I don't want this to have a test applied to it. I want it to be a loan. The money would be paid back. It would be in a revolving fund. All it's going to cost the government is the administration. I'm not talking about existing funds. Would the Minister undertake a new program to assist residents with their cost of living? Is there any money in the system for that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Krutko.

Further Return To Question 161-15(5): Incentive Programs To Address Housing Utility Costs

Mr. Speaker, at the present time, no, there is no such program in existence.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. My questions this afternoon are for Mr. Dent, the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board of the NWT and Nunavut. Mr. Speaker, the WCB set out a new policy for chronic pain in 2004. The Valic decision of the NWT Supreme Court of 2005 rejected this policy on the basis that it was discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in a letter to my colleague Ms. Lee in June of this year, said the WCB was going to reapply to the Supreme Court to see if its new policy was indeed going to comply with these constitutional issues. Mr. Speaker, has this been done and has the WCB now got a policy that won't violate workers' rights anymore, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Honourable Minister responsible for the WCB, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think while Justice Schuler's decision did comment on the policy in effect as of 2004, the decision and the ruling was based on the policy in place as of 2001. So that was the reason that the WCB was considering having a constitutional look at the 2004 policy, to see if it would fit the test. In fact, I'm advised the WCB has decided that they are going to go out to stakeholders and take a look at redrafting the 2004 policy over the course of the next few months. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to see if I get this straight now. So the WCB has decided not to take the direct step of going to court and checking its work out, it's instead going to go to stakeholders and add yet more months, perhaps even longer, to getting a policy that is constitutionally correct, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The WCB is aware of what the ruling is in the Martin case; it is quite aware of the ruling from Justice Schuler; and they will be working to ensure that the policy that they bring in is one that fits within the Constitution of Canada. But they are also hoping to work with stakeholders, injured workers and employers to make sure that the policy reflects not only that constitutional requirement, but what northern workers and employers are expecting to see from the WCB.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the injured worker, Mr. Ivan Valic, the 19 years of delays and denials and systemic discrimination and avoidance and delay of seeing this man at least get his day before our system and have his case heard, Mr. Speaker, we're just going again in loops and circles at least with this man and I understand potentially a few dozen other workers who have chronic pain cases before our Appeal Tribunal. Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that we are going to enable Mr. Valic to have a fair and open hearing in a timely manner before the Appeal Tribunal if we're still out there trying to figure out what our chronic pain policy is going to be? This is the centre of his case. What are we going to do to get Mr. Valic's day before our tribunal, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think that Justice Schuler's decision is quite clear. It says that the appeal shall be heard in a freshly constituted tribunal in advance of the Workers' Compensation Board having a new policy. She recognized that it would take some time to work out a new policy, and provided direction for the standards that should be in place for the rehearing. I understand, Mr. Speaker, there will be a preliminary hearing later this month for Mr. Valic's lawyer, and after some issues there are resolved we expect that the tribunal can be scheduled fairly shortly after that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

So, Mr. Speaker, do I have this right then? Is the WCB continuing to interfere in Mr. Valic's due process before the Appeal Tribunal? So, Mr. Speaker, while we have a new chronic pain policy based on 2004 going forward hopefully, we're still arguing on an old chronic pain policy that has been rejected and is common knowledge that it goes against best practice and what other WCBs are doing? Mr. Speaker, are we still continuing to subject this worker to old, outdated, outmoded and, obviously, an unconstitutional process, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said no such thing. I don't know where the Member gets that information from. The WCB has not applied to take an adversarial point of view at all in the Appeals Tribunal hearing. It has been five years since it has been reheard and I expect there will be some new medical evidence that will be submitted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was holding back on the questions for WCB because I believe that the AOC is working on the response to the work that the committee has done, but the Minister's answers to the Member for Great Slave has intrigued me on this issue so I would like to ask the Minister for more information about what it is exactly that the WCB is going out to the stakeholders on. Does that suggest that the WCB is now ready to change the policies that would be more in line with the Valic and Martin decision, which is different from what the corporation has been telling us? The information I have is that it's the corporation's position that their policies are in line with these decisions and that no changes had to be made. Another change I've just heard from the Minister is the fact that the corporation is not going back to the Supreme Court to have them look at the constitutionality of whatever it was doing with Valic, which was always my position. I always thought that the corporation had all the information it needed to make its own decisions. It's good that it's not going back to court and using that as a process of delay. But I'd like to know exactly what the corporation's position is. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 163-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The current pain policy that the WCB has in replace recognizes chronic pain as a convincible injury and that compensation may last for as long as the chronic pain lasts, which could be a lifetime for some people if that's the way it was. One of the things the WCB is going to take a look at, though, is specifically whether or not a permanent partial disability should be one of the things that's listed as possible. The current policy, 03.10, does not specifically list permanent partial disability, even though in effect it can be granted to somebody who has that long-lasting syndrome. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 163-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to tell you, this is really, really good news. I'm really glad to hear the Minister say this. I am very hopeful with the Minister's suggestion that the WCB actually is willing to look at chronic condition as not just a compensable injury, but the whole issue has been about the fact that workers with chronic pain cannot get the permanent disability pension and the Minister is now just suggesting that that is a possibility. So I'd like to ask the Minister for some deadline and what exactly is this process, what is the role that the Members here have? Can we have a process with the corporation to work on this together, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.,

Further Return To Question 163-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll certainly make the compensation board aware of the Member's interest and I have no doubt that they'd be interested in having Members participate in the consultation process. When I talked last to the chair of the Governance Council, the Governance Council is examining their options for consultation. They're looking for a process that will allow stakeholders some meaningful input and not one that would see them holding public hearings that perhaps nobody showed up to. So they hadn't really set the final process, but they're hoping to do it fairly quickly to have things resolved over the course of this winter.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 163-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to be cautious in my support of the Minister, because I happen to think that the corporation really doesn't need that much more consultation and dithering on this issue, I'm going to tell you. But I have to tell you that I've had such little good news out of this that I'm prepared to hang onto anything, and what I'm hearing today is that the corporation is willing to look at chronic condition as something that would be eligible for permanent disability. Now, that's an opening that I'm willing to go with. But I'd like to ask the Minister and the corporation and the board of governors, you don't need that much more consultation. They know everything there is to know, so could we set some deadline? Could the Minister commit to having a proposal to us within the next month for us to really review it? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 163-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision