Recherche avancée

080 Hansard

Whitehorse, Yukon

Thursday, April 3, 2008 -- 1:00 p.m.

Speaker:       I will now call the House to order. At this time, we will proceed with prayers.

Prayers

Speaker's statement

Speaker:      Before the House proceeds with the Order Paper, the Chair will make a statement regarding an event that occurred yesterday during tabling of returns and documents.

At that time, the Leader of the Third Party sent to the table a number of lapel pins that had been issued to him by the Legislative Assembly Office. That action was not in order.

Some members may recall May 2, 2001, when the former Member for Klondike attempted to table road fragments. The Speaker at the time ruled that the materials presented by the member for tabling were not documents and were therefore not acceptable for placement in the working papers of the Assembly.

The Chair now reiterates that ruling for the Leader of the Third Party. The Chair appreciates that members feel passionately about public issues, but that does not preclude them from following proper practice in this House.

We will now proceed with the Order Paper.

DAILY ROUTINE

TRIBUTES

In recognition of annual Territorial Skills Competition

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I rise in this House today to pay tribute to the 10th annual Territorial Skills Competition, which will be held at Yukon College this coming Friday, April 4.

Employers are becoming increasingly aware of the shortage of skilled workers across Yukon and across Canada. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find the people they need. The shortage of skilled workers has presented a wide array of job opportunities for those who are willing and interested in being trained for a career in the trades.

This, coupled with our strong economic future in mining, oil and gas, construction and other growing business and industry sectors, presents our youth with a chance to launch themselves into a productive and satisfying future working in the trades.

The Territorial Skills Competition this Friday will provide Yukon high school students and apprentices with a unique hands-on experience in a number of trades. Students from Watson Lake, Whitehorse, Carmacks, Pelly Crossing, Mayo, Dawson City and as far north as Old Crow have travelled to Whitehorse to participate in this exhilarating event. These young people are going to have a really exciting and fun day.

The wide variety of trades and technologies that will be showcased at the Territorial Skills Competition is impressive. With 16 disciplines either demonstrated or competed in, the field is endless for the students and apprentices. These include but are not limited to small engine repair, sheet metal, auto body painting and auto body repair, carpentry, cabinet making, baking, electrical, hair styling, aesthetics and IT software.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our partners in this venture, primarily all the staff at Skills Canada Yukon and all the volunteers who have given freely of their time and who played such a valuable role in putting this competition together for all of us. Skills Canada Yukon is a valuable partner with the Yukon government in delivering skills trade education to Yukon youth, and our government is proud to be able to support their work. I am confident that the events tomorrow will provide our youth with an awareness of the wide range of opportunities that are available to explore as career choices.

Thank you.

Mr. Hardy:   I just want to mention that the tribute was on behalf of all parties in the House as well as one correction. I believe since I had volunteered for a category to be a judge in the Skills Canada competition tomorrow, that category, unfortunately, has been cancelled -- the carpentry category.

Speaker:   Are there any further tributes?

Introduction of visitors.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Rouble:    I'd like the Assembly to join me in welcoming two groups that we have with us today. Ms. Lisa Fairweather and her public administration class from Yukon College is here. As well, Mr. Judd Deuling and his grade 11 class from Vanier Catholic Secondary School is here. Welcome.

Applause

Speaker:   Are there any further introductions of visitors?

Are there any returns or documents for tabling?

TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS

Mr. Inverarity:   I have for tabling a letter that I've sent to the Conflicts Commissioner today.

Speaker:   Are there any further returns or documents for tabling?

Reports of committees.

Petitions.

Are there bills to be introduced?

Notices of motion.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Mr. Nordick:    I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue to support the partnership with Skills Canada Yukon, which creates education opportunities and awareness about skilled trades in the Yukon by:

(1)     hosting a territorial skills competition each spring; and

(2)  qualifying participants in the Territorial Skills Competition to compete in the national and world skills competitions.

I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Leader of the Official Opposition to:

(1) explain his assertions on page 2271 of Hansard of April 2, 2008, that the intention of the Financial Administration Act is to be a control and a protection so that public money would be protected from the overzealous, the careless or the less informed investor, thus implying that the Department of Finance officials had been acting in an overzealous, careless and less informed manner in making these investments since 1990; and

(2) apologize to the Department of Finance officials for implying that they acted inappropriately.

Mr. Hardy:    I give notice of the following motion:

THAT this House urges the Minister of Environment to do his job of upholding the Environment Act, and make a commitment that the Yukon Council on the Economy and the Environment will be brought up to full strength within the next six months and be given the direction and support it needs to fulfill its mandate.

Speaker:   Are there any further notices of motion?

Is there a statement by a minister?

This then brings us to Question Period.

QUESTION PERIOD

Question re:      Nurse shortage

Mr. Mitchell:    I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Members on this side of the House have spoken extensively on many occasions about staff shortages at Whitehorse General Hospital. Last year we were told that positive steps were being taken to address the problems. Yukoners were led to believe that this government had finally gotten it right.

Well, the minister misdiagnosed the problem and his prescription for a cure isn't working. Things are not getting better; they are getting worse.

As recently as this week, we heard of critical shortages in specialist areas such as the ICU, emergency and the operating room. There was even a situation where a doctor had to fill in as a nurse on the maternity ward.

My concerns are shared by nurses and they are shared by many Yukoners. Obviously the minister's old solutions are not working. What does he now propose to immediately do to address this situation?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Unfortunately, while there is an issue, there is a lot of rhetoric coming forward from the Leader of the Official Opposition, which does not effectively serve public debate of this matter. If the member were accurately reflecting the facts, he would note that there are shortages of health care professionals nationwide. Some jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan have had significant problems resulting in staff shortages to the extent whereby maternity wards and emergency rooms were shut down. There is a shortage of health care professionals nationwide, particularly in specialty areas. One step that has been taken by Whitehorse General Hospital, using funding specifically provided for that purpose by my department, is training specialty nurses in the operating room, because they had not been able to recruit operating room nurses. We provided them with additional funding and right now they have three operating room nurses who are receiving training and will be returning to Whitehorse General Hospital as operating room nurses this spring and this summer.

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this government has stepped out beyond what previous governments have done, but we are coping with a national challenge. That is why we are working with Whitehorse General Hospital to invest in this area and to work with the staff and improve recruitment and retention.

Mr. Mitchell:    Mr. Speaker, I think that the rhetoric is coming from the other side of the House. We all know that there is a national problem, but Yukoners are concerned about what this minister is going to do in Yukon. I think that I'll have to check Hansard, because this sounds an awful lot like last year's answers.

So let's deal with some facts: the Canadian Nurses Association predicts that this country will be short 78,000 nurses by 2011 -- that is only three years from now. Other provinces and jurisdictions will be aggressively competing for these nurses. In Yukon, more than half of our 293 nurses are over the age of 45.

Mr. Speaker, will this minister do the math or ask the Education minister to help him with it? We are only a short step away from facing a major crisis. The time to address it was yesterday, but since the minister did not do that, then he must do it today or heaven help us, if he waits until tomorrow. What is this minister going to do to assure Yukoners that our hospitals will have a full complement of nurses?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The member knows full well that I have not waited to act on this program. One of the first things I did after being appointed as minister, with the support of my Cabinet colleagues, was to enact the health human resources strategy, launched a few short months after I was appointed Minister of Health and Social Services.

To date, the health human resources strategy has included the funding of the medical education bursary, which assists Yukon students in being educated as doctors, and the family physician incentive program for new graduates, which attracts Canadian citizens who are graduates of medical school. The nurse bursary previously existed but we doubled the investment and doubled the number of applicants it can fund. Also, there's the health profession education bursary, assisting Yukoners receiving education in various other health professions; the nurse mentoring program, which we launched; the licensed practical nurse program which, through the Department of Education and Yukon College, will be up and running this fall to train Yukon citizens here in the Yukon.

This is not even a full list of what this government has acted on, but my colleagues and I have acted in working with the staff of the Yukon government. In implementing these programs, we are continuing to invest in this area. I agree with members: previous governments should have acted. We have done and we are doing our best to compete nationally, and we're doing pretty well in comparison to other jurisdictions.

Mr. Mitchell:    I'll agree with the minister: I support the family physician incentive program; I support the nurse bursary program. In fact, I asked this minister's predecessor to implement the family physician incentive program.

The chair of the Hospital Corporation has also expressed his concerns. He recently was quoted as saying we do have some actual vacancies, that there's no doubt about that. He went on to say -- and this is a comment that is of concern -- that we recognized that some time ago.

We have an excellent physical facility; we have highly dedicated staff and an aging population that is becoming rightfully concerned. We saw the result of the 12 beds at Copper Ridge, which were opened with such fanfare last year. Then later they were closed again because of staff shortages. So much for that announcement, Mr. Speaker.

We have a staff shortage problem, plain and simple. What is the minister going to do to address it?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I realize that the member has not changed his script and I realize that he -- Mr. Speaker, I don't want to minimize the member's concern in this area, but again it is unfortunate the amount of political rhetoric that is injected in this area. The member knows that this government has acted far beyond what any previous Yukon government did in investing in health human resources.

We are facing national shortages and we're facing national problems in this area. Even Alberta and Saskatchewan, as I pointed out, have had problems with not being able to recruit enough staff and are having staff shortages impact their operation. In the case of Saskatchewan, it was a major issue in their last election campaign. There was a significant number of hospitals that had been forced to close emergency rooms and maternity wards due to a lack of staff. The Yukon compares quite well in that area but we are increasing our investment.

To give the member more examples beyond what I illustrated earlier, under this government we have increased the annual funding to the Yukon Hospital Corporation, which runs Whitehorse General Hospital, by over $10 million per year. This again, as I indicated, adds to the investments that we have made in attracting doctors and in assisting Yukoners in receiving training as doctors, nurses and other health professionals. With regard to other areas, we have internally enhanced our recruitment and retention.

Question re:  Nurse shortage

Mr. Mitchell:    Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Health and Social Services has is a problem that he has struggled and tinkered with but he has not solved. The solution to the problem is economic, as he points out, or more to the point, a supply-and-demand problem. We saw last year a young graduate nurse, a First Nation Yukoner and constituent of mine, apply for a position. She is now nursing in Dawson Creek, Mr. Speaker, because she was offered a permanent position there, but not here. I'm sorry she did that but I fully understand why.

In Canada, 10.8 percent of nursing positions are casual -- in Yukon 25.9 percent are casual. We wonder why nurses are taking positions elsewhere. They are doing it because they want homes and they want to be able to get a mortgage. They want a quality life for their families, and casual employment just does not cut it at the bank, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister undertake to take actions to reduce the number of casual employees to at least the national level?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, the member's figures, first of all, are not correct. But secondly, I would point out that the member's assertions about a particular individual -- I would remind the member opposite that we don't deal with staffing directly. I don't hire people directly. As I pointed out with reference to this specific case, one does need to apply for a job before they can receive it.

One area that the member brought up in a previous question was the issue of staffing at Copper Ridge Place. As I recognized in my introductory remarks at second reading on the budget, we have had a challenge there whereby when we funded the additional wing opening at Copper Ridge Place, department staff did not anticipate a problem with recruitment and retention. Since that time -- through turnover and through the increasingly competitive field -- we have had challenges with staffing and had a decline in the number of staff at one point.

Now, through the recruitment and retention incentives that have been put in place internally to assist hiring, we are seeing the numbers come back up. Those incentives are working. There are still staffing challenges there, but we are in a very competitive field and, nationwide, there is a shortage of health care professionals. This government has done very well compared to other jurisdictions in ensuring a high level of care and access to those professionals, and we are going to continue to do more.

Mr. Mitchell:    I cited the case of the individual as an example of what is occurring, and it's a sad one at that. That individual sat in this gallery where these students are today, some years ago, because of this situation.

Many nurses work six 12-hour shifts in a week. That is 72 hours of work. When people log those kinds of hours they are tired; they are very tired. It's only a matter of time before some sleep-deprived nurse makes a mistake on the job with possibly horrendous results. When that nurse goes home after a 72-hour week, what kind of quality time will she or he have with their family? Nurses tell us that they just go to sleep.

There are many reasons to address this issue, and any one of them would justify making changes. Will the minister acknowledge that this is long overdue and will he commit to taking further steps to address the casual employment issue?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Again, we have here a lot of rhetoric in this area.

The member knows the answer. He knows that I, and the Department of Health and Social Services, assisted by and supported by my Cabinet colleagues, along with other departments such as the Department of Education, have been working in this area. We have invested in this area.

Previous governments did not address this area. We recognized that and we are facing that challenge. We launched the health human resources strategy in early 2006 and allocated $12.7 million to it, which assists us through a number of ways. We have the family physician incentive program for new graduates, the medical education bursary, the nursing education bursary which, as I pointed out, was a shadow of what it is today, under previous governments, and was the only incentive that was in place directly to assist students in receiving education.

We also launched the health profession education bursary to assist Yukoners in other health professions.

We launched the nurse mentoring program. We have also moved forward with other areas such as the incentives provided to assist Yukon physicians in expanding an existing family practice to attract a new physician. Those measures, as the member knows, have been part of the significant change we have seen in the number of general practitioners -- family doctors -- available. The number of general practitioners serving our citizens has increased from 56 to 63.

Thank you.

Mr. Mitchell:    Here we go. We made a suggestion two years ago; the minister took it and it improved the problem. It diminished it.

Nursing students in Saskatchewan are guaranteed a permanent position upon graduation -- not a casual position. Other provinces offer nurses a similar deal. No wonder nurses are going elsewhere.

It will take more than a glitzy promotion program to fill the 150 positions plus that will become vacant here within the next 10 years. It will take more than a DVD.

Nurses should not have to work 72 hours in a week. They should not have their vacations cut short, and they don't deserve to be turned away at the bank. Fix that problem and you will be taking a major step toward solving the present situation and future concerns.

Will the minister give his undertaking to look further into this issue and report back to this House with fresh solutions?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I find it interesting that the member desperately tries to take credit for a program that, first of all, he ought to know -- and knows full well -- the Yukon Medical Association suggested long before he took up the cry on that issue. I give him credit for recognizing that they were right. This government acted in that area at the request of health care professionals and the advice of the department. It had nothing to do with the member opposite and he knows that full well, but now, after he desperately tries to take credit for it, he refers to it as a "glitzy" program. Mr. Speaker, this isn't a glitzy program. This is an investment in attracting family physicians to the territory and complements the other investments that we've made through the good work of staff of the Department of Health and Social Services in developing a comprehensive health human resources strategy that previously did not exist. We began this in 2006; we have continued to add to it through the areas identified for doctors, for nurses, for other health professionals -- creating nurse mentoring, and in other areas such as increased incentives to assist existing family practices in expanding to allow at least one new physician to come in.

This is but a short list, Mr. Speaker, of the areas in which this government has acted, and again I mentioned that we increased annual funding to the hospital by over $10 million versus the paltry level it was at under the Liberal government.

Question re:  Nurse shortage

Mr. Edzerza:   Once again we find ourselves asking the Minister of Health and Social Services about recruitment and retention of registered nursing staff. It's a tired refrain, and the minister thinks it's rhetoric. Well, maybe he ought to pay attention to the real feelings of the nurses who are complaining, anonymously, for fear of losing their job. I know the minister will make comments to me following a script, because that's one of his favourite lines. He has to use it; he has nothing else.

It is not a waste of time supporting evidence that one has to repeat oneself many times before the minister understands. What new strategies to recruit and retain registered nurses -- not LPNs -- have been put into place since the last time we asked this question?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I thank the member for what I'm assuming was a compliment. I believe the member was suggesting I was thick, so I appreciate what I'm sure was a compliment.

Seriously, I recognize the member's concern in this area and, as I indicated in my previous responses, this is an area that of course this government is concerned about. Every government in the country is; every government, every health authority in Canada, is coping with the challenge of a shortage of health care professionals, including nursing staff. That is why this government has invested in this area. That is why, both within the department and within the Hospital Corporation under the new CEO, work is being done on strategic planning and on assessing the manner in which staffing is done, recognizing this is becoming an increasingly challenging field, and that the same old ways of managing administratively may need changing.

They're doing that work, and we have great confidence in those officials for the good work they're doing. I'm not going to micromanage that. They're doing that work; they're doing that planning now; they're talking with staff on the process of doing that.

I appreciate the member's concern. I believe I'm about out of time in this response, so I look forward to what I hope will be a new and fresh question from the member opposite.

Mr. Edzerza:   I imagine the minister would love this question to go away, but the only thing that will make it go away is action by the minister.

There is a nursing shortage across Canada, and we know that. More than half the nurses in the Yukon are over 45 and will be retiring in the next decade; we know that too. There's another figure the minister should be concerned about and that has to do with the nursing staff who are on casual. In the Yukon the number is 25.9 percent, more than twice as high as the rest of Canada. How on earth does the minister expect to attract nurses to the territory if the best they can count on is casual employment and lower wages, without the benefits that full-time nurses get?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   As I've explained to the member and as I indicated to the Leader of the Official Opposition, their numbers are incorrect. However, this is one of the areas that is being looked at by the managers. In fact, within continuing care, changes have already been made to the staffing model to improve the recruitment and retention and create a number of full-time float positions rather than casual positions as had previously been the case. This was done as a pilot project and the staff is evaluating the success of this right now.

They have made these changes administratively at the government policy level. What we have done is invest in these areas, develop the health human resources strategy and roll out a number of programs that are assisting Yukon students in receiving medical education. The number of people who have been assisted with the bursaries to date is significant. As the member knows, I've mentioned this on previous occasions; we've read the list of those who have been given this assistance and we look forward to them coming back to the Yukon.

Mr. Edzerza:   It appears the minister would like the public to believe that everyone is incorrect except the minister. The minister can't keep passing the buck. The hospital needs help; Copper Ridge Place needs help; rural communities need help. The nursing crunch won't be solved by sending people a DVD of pretty Yukon pictures. You might as well send them a fridge magnet and a six-pack of Yukon Gold. The problem isn't just about attracting new nurses; it's also hanging on to the ones we have. Nurses are leaving the profession because they're overworked and stressed out.

What kind of crisis will it take for the minister to give this problem the attention it deserves and provide the financial and personnel resources that are needed so that registered nurses in the Yukon have the job security, the working conditions and the professional respect they deserve?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Mr. Speaker, the member knows the answer to that, and the member knows -- Mr. Speaker, the political rhetoric around this is unfortunate because this is a very serious issue nationally. We are coping, as is every government and health authority in the country, with the results of inaction by governments in the 1990s and, in fact, through a united approach, a reduction of the number of seats in universities to train doctors and nurses in a ridiculous attempt to try to control costs by restricting the number of people trained. We are coping with the outcome of that.

We have addressed that through some of the programs that I laid out previously: the family physician incentive program for new graduates, the medical education bursary, the nursing education bursary, the nurse mentoring program, the health profession education bursary -- these are but a few examples of how this government has acted. As I mentioned to the member, and the other member previously, the amount that we have assisted the hospital in increasing its own resources -- we have increased their annual funding by over $10 million, versus the much poorer level that it was at under the previous Liberal government. We have invested in this area and we will continue to do so.

We're coping with these national challenges. But in terms of whether somebody is full-time or a full-time float or casual, those matters are being worked on by the managers, as they should be, Mr. Speaker.

Question re:  FASD programs

Mr. Hardy:   I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services. A few days ago there was a very disturbing report on a local radio station about the plight of nine women and men with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder who have no place to live. This is not a new situation, but it is not something that should ever be allowed to happen in a privileged community like ours.

Why has the minister not addressed this appalling situation affecting people who need and deserve support in dealing with an incurable condition that they inherited at birth?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Again we have a situation where, unfortunately, this seems to be the season of the year when members feel obliged to ramp up the political rhetoric and pay less attention to the facts of the areas they know the government is working on.

The member knows it's this government that implemented our five-step FASD action plan, that it is this government that has invested in areas previous governments would not, by increasing the resources to groups such as the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon -- the resources to which we more than doubled on an annual basis, now standing at roughly $400,000. We funded the Options for Independence Society, which assists in support of independent living for people with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The member knows we have taken a significant role in investing in areas such as this.

Meconium testing is another area in which the Yukon government was one of the first in the country to act. We have recognized this problem and invested in it significantly.

Mr. Hardy:   I'm ashamed of that kind of answer. At least nine people -- and that's just here in Whitehorse -- are living in deplorable conditions because we are failing them. This is not political rhetoric. If political rhetoric is coming from anywhere, it's coming from that member's mouth. One man, for example, is sleeping on a foamie in an old mould-infested garage downtown, with no insulation and no running water. That's reality. He pays for electricity when he can afford it.

What is the minister doing for this man and others like him, who are shut out of the rental market that has no place for them?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   The approach the member is taking is unfortunate. If the member knows of individuals who are facing these types of challenges, I would urge him to have them contact staff of the Department of Health and Social Services in the social services branch, particularly if they are on or in need of social assistance, and if they have issues with housing, they can work either with the officials in my department or with Yukon Housing Corporation. There are avenues available to assist them. I want to stress this again to the member: there are avenues available to assist them. If the member is aware of people who are in this situation, I would encourage him to provide the assistance to them. If these individuals have a challenge being aware of government offices, please, walk them down there or call someone who can come to them and drive them there. The services are there; I urge the member to help these people access them, if indeed he knows of such individuals.

Mr. Hardy:   I tell this minister of this department to wake up and smell the coffee. This was on the news. Where has he been? I also thought he has bragged about his door being open. Obviously, it's not open to these people. Outreach workers at the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon have gone so far as to take people into their homes, because there is no place for them. They've tried hotels, motels, apartments and nothing is there. This is not a new problem. One client who does have a place to live is paying so much in rent she only has $30 left a month for food and everything else she needs to survive. How can we call ourselves a just community, a caring community or even a civilized community when we are allowing this to happen under our affluent noses?

Will the minister make a commitment right now to find decent, affordable accommodation for these people or even respond to the numerous proposals that FASSY has submitted to him time and time again?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   For the member to suggest that I have not responded to proposals from FASSY -- the member knows it was under me as minister that this government more than doubled the Yukon government's assistance to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon. So for the member to make that assertion is ludicrous.

I would also point out again, as I said to the member opposite, if he knows of such individual, put them in contact with the officials who can and will assist them. The member says he heard it on the media, so it's accurate. With all due respect to our friends in the media gallery, the media does not have the best record for getting the story right.

If he knows of these individuals, do the right thing and put them in contact with staff of  Health and Social Services or of Yukon Housing Corporation, who will help them. Yukon Housing Corporation has over 500 houses in the social housing inventory, and through social assistance we provide assistance to those who do not have Yukon Housing Corporation housing in accessing accommodation.

Do the right thing; put them in contact with officials who will help them.

Question re:  Land development

Mr. McRobb:   The Yukon Party's election platform promised a constant two-year supply of residential lots; however, Yukoners know all too well that the Yukon Party government does not live up to its promises and certainly this is no exception.

The shortage of fully serviced lots in the Whitehorse area has failed contractors, workers, Yukoners and people wanting to move to our territory. A number of workers are facing layoffs as a result of this government's inability to plan for the future. It's also more difficult for people to purchase an existing home, and it's driving up rental costs for those looking for a place to live.

This government has had more than five years but it has failed to deliver lots. Does the Energy, Mines and Resources minister accept responsibility for this problem? What is he doing to assure Yukoners this mistake won't happen again?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    As the Yukon government or as the government of the day, we accept the management responsibilities for the lands all through Yukon. We have been working with the municipalities and we have a new memorandum of understanding, a working relationship, with the City of Whitehorse, which puts the city in the lead. We are working in the surrounding areas, whether it is Grizzly Valley, the Burns Road subdivision, or Whitehorse Copper, where there are 52 phased-in lots coming forward. The city is working on the Arkell expansion. We work with the City of Whitehorse on a daily basis and we're going to do more on the land issue.

We have just done that by looking at the Grizzly Valley, McGowan options, Mount Lorne and all of the area surrounding Whitehorse. We're looking at expanding the lot inventory. We're looking at Dawson City and we're looking at the Haines Junction area and working with those municipalities to get land out and an inventory put together. Understand, Mr. Speaker, that when the member opposite talks about a two-year supply, we've had real pressure because of the expanding economy in the territory for lot consumption, and so we have to address that -- and we'll do just that.

Mr. McRobb:   Mr. Speaker, this government has cracked under pressure. It has provided no fully-serviced residential lots. Let's turn to that protocol that the minister just mentioned -- it was signed two years ago with the City of Whitehorse. He launched it with fanfare, saying that it was going to be the ultimate solution. Now we know that the minister likes to point his finger, and he'll likely try to blame the city, but he can't have it both ways. It wasn't the city that promised to ensure a constant two-year supply of fully-serviced residential lots in the Whitehorse area -- it was the Yukon Party.

We have now reached a point where there are no government fully-serviced residential lots available for purchase in the Whitehorse area until some time after this summer. In 2005, the Yukon Party received a consultant's report that found that there is a lack of overall clear direction with respect to a Yukon government land disposition. What remedial action has the minister taken with respect to that report?

Hon. Mr. Lang:    The Government of Yukon takes our protocol with the city very seriously. We are working with the city to get lots out; we work with them to capitalize their costs and get lots in the hands of the consumers.

The pressure on our lots in the City of Whitehorse is huge. I remind the members opposite that when the Liberals were in government they sold fewer than 10 lots in one year in the City of Whitehorse. Those are facts.

Right now alone, in the Whitehorse Copper subdivision, we are looking at 52 in the first phase, 58 in the second phase, and we need more. We are working with the city to do just that.

Mr. McRobb:   All that is too little, too late. Let me quote from the report: "no vision and no strategy to guide the process" and "no overall land management or land disposition policies." That report also found massive amounts of political interference in the process.

This is a serious problem, thanks to the Yukon Party government. Let's refer to the question posed at a recent public meeting by a very high profile Yukon Party supporter and realtor and someone whom the minister has known for a very long time. He did not congratulate this government for doing a wonderful job with respect to land dispositions. He reaffirmed that there is a problem. Without the availability of these lots, there will be fewer new homes. That stifles people who want to move here; it puts tradespeople out of work and it's a definite setback for the Yukon.

Does the minister have a contingency plan to bring some of these lots on the market in time for this coming season? I'm talking fully serviced residential lots.

Hon. Mr. Lang:    Again, the responsibility in our agreement, in the protocol we have with the city, is to work with the city, the city being the lead. We work with the city to get lots out into the hands of the consumer.

Certainly I understand the urgency of it. That's why we were elected government. That's why we will continue working with the Yukon people to maximize their access to land. We are doing that on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. Hopefully, working with the city and the other municipalities in the territory, we can address those issues.

Speaker:   The time for Question Period has now elapsed. We will now proceed to Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I move that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Speaker:   It has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve into Committee of the Whole.

Motion agreed to

Speaker leaves the Chair

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Chair:   I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 52, Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion re appearance of witnesses

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I move that Craig Tuton, chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Valerie Royle, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, appear as witnesses in Committee of the Whole on Thursday, April 3, 2008 to discuss matters relating to the Workers' Compensation Act.

Chair:   It has been moved by Mr. Cathers that Craig Tuton, chair of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and Valerie Royle, president and chief executive officer of the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, appear as witnesses in Committee of the Whole on Thursday, April 3, 2008 to discuss matters relating to the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to

Chair:   Is it the wish of the members to take a brief recess?

All Hon. Members:  Agreed.

Chair:   We will take a 15-minute break.

Recess

Chair:   Order please. Committee of the Whole will now come to order.

Bill No. 52 -- Workers' Compensation Act

Chair:   The matter before the Committee is Bill No. 52, Workers' Compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   I would like to begin by introducing and thanking the chair and president and CEO of Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board for attending. They are, respectively, Craig Tuton and Valerie Royle. I thank them for their assistance in being here to provide members with a detailed understanding and detailed answers to questions regarding the new Workers' Compensation Act that we have tabled here in the Assembly.

Mr. Chair, as you know, this act is a fairly detailed, lengthy and complex piece of legislation, although efforts have been made with the new act to simplify the wording and make it easier to read for the average citizen.

To highlight a few of the key points that have changed as a result of review -- as members are aware, this has been some time in progress and involved a number of components, including the panel sitting down with Yukoners and hearing public input. It involved work jointly among key stakeholders in discussing key policy matters around 88 identified issues. It has involved recommendations and numerous submissions from both organizations and individual members of the public -- both employers and employees -- in providing their perspective on changes to the legislation. I am pleased to be able to table this act. I believe that it represents a significant improvement to Yukon's legislation in this area.

Key points covered in the act include the following: the focus on recovery and return to work; providing costs savings to allow more efficient operations; providing for better and timelier appeal processes; providing for a better and more effective governance role by the board of directors; and, as I indicated, the clarity of the act, both in terms of simple readability and in restructuring some of the order to make it easier for both the average person and lawyers to look through and understand the logical flow in the legislation.

As you will be aware, Mr. Chair, two of the key concerns that are out there right now in the public around the workers' compensation system and around workplaces are the high number of injuries and the high assessment rates that are being faced by employers.

Both of these contain steps within the legislation to assist in addressing these matters with the intent of providing a structure that assists and enables a process that reduces injuries and provides the ability for the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board to assist in early return to work, providing rehabilitative supports in helping someone who is injured get back to work in as timely a manner as possible. That is one part and a key focus. A number of areas within the legislation include changes that are designed to reduce the cost to the system and ultimately should then reduce assessment rates as they have done in other jurisdictions through similar measures.

This includes the return-to-work portion of the act that focuses on the new priority -- which was not in the previous legislation -- of providing the obligation to re-employ but also the obligation of an injured worker to cooperate and to work to be able to perform their job. There is some onus on both parties and some of that, as members may be aware, is particularly the obligation on employers, which already exists within human rights legislation. This puts in place a balance and reflects successful legislation in areas of Canada, notably Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. The legislation is similar to both jurisdictions from where we heavily borrowed.

That change of focus means moving away from simply focusing on maximizing financial payment to injured workers, which was primarily what the previous legislation did.

It sets out the duty of injured workers to mitigate the effects of work-related injuries and, as I indicated for both workers and employers, it sets out the duty to cooperate in early and safe return to work, and this applies to claims within the system from the date of proclamation.

This has been shown in other jurisdictions to result in better recovery for injured workers, reduced duration of claims, decreased economic and productivity costs of workplace injuries and lower claims costs -- and ultimately lower assessment rates, which improve the ability of employers to run a sustainable business and improve their competitiveness and productivity.

The act provides for cost savings by allowing more efficient operations, including areas such as the CPP disability pension, which will now be calculated into long-term benefit payments and will be offset by 50 percent. Third party payments to injured workers, such as insurance payouts from vehicle collisions, will now be calculated differently, allowing the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board to recoup all costs and pay the remainder to the injured worker, and the calculation of permanent impairment awards has been simplified.

The act provides for better and timelier appeal processes, and this includes changes such as the fact that the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board will now be allowed standing at appeal hearings for the purpose of clarifying information, thus allowing for a speedier process. When new information has become available regarding a claim under appeal, the claim will be returned to the decision-maker within Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board to review and to reconsider, rather than the previous case -- and current, of course, until passage of this legislation -- under which, once that process was launched, there was no ability to recognize it. In fact, the new information has made it easier, quicker and cheaper to solve by simply returning it to that decision-maker.

The board of directors will now be able to revise appeal rules to improve the process, and appeals will be limited to within 24 months of decision to improve the clarity and reduce the question of how far back appeals can be made. This is similar to other jurisdictions. In fact, Yukon had by far the longest window for filing an appeal of any Canadian jurisdiction.

Also, as I indicated, the act provides for a better governance role by the board of directors through clarifying the governance role of the board of directors and clarifying the operational role of administration.

Mr. Chair, I think that has covered some of the most important key points of this legislation, and I would invite Members of the Legislative Assembly from all sides to ask questions. Depending on the nature of the question, either I will respond, or Mr. Tuton or Ms. Royle may respond. With that, I will turn the floor over to others.

Chair:   Before proceeding to Bill No. 52, I would like to remind all members during general debate, even with witnesses before the Committee, that we direct all questions and answers through the Chair, and wait to be recognized by the Chair, please.

Mr. Fairclough:   It's a pleasure to be able to ask a few questions in regard to Bill No. 52, the Workers' Compensation Act.

I welcome the witnesses here today and thank them for the briefing that they gave us a couple of days ago. I believe that that answered a lot of our questions and concerns about this proposed act.

The member opposite says to read through this act, but it is not easy unless you are familiar with how the old act was laid out.

It's not a housekeeping bill. It's quite lengthy; it's 89 pages. We got it a couple of days ago. In fairness, I believe the minister could have allowed this to go through the weekend and have more of the public, perhaps, look at this act and diagnose it, read it carefully and perhaps give their comments to the minister, or even to the members of the opposition, those who are interested in this.

I know that a lot of work has gone through with WCB. It has basically been five years in the making. I do have to congratulate those people who have put an effort into this legislation and brought the changes forward -- it's a long time. The way it was explained to me in the briefing was that the chambers took a lead on this for the first couple of years. WCB, basically, took on an observer status to the consultations and amendments. We do appreciate the intent of the amendments and the goals.

I'll just list a couple of them.

Before that, I am interested in hearing from the witnesses, those who gave the briefing, that consensus was reached on many of the issues. Well, I think it was on all of the 88 issues that were brought forward. Consensus was reached between business and labour and Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, and I think that it is a fairly major accomplishment. There may have been a couple areas where there were some big compromises made. Perhaps the witnesses or the minister could point out some of those.

The intent and goals of the amendments were to maximize the compensation benefits to injured workers. We understand that. In the past we have often heard a lot of stories from our own constituents about their dealings with WCB over the years -- if you go back even further, how they may have been injured on the job and basically received nothing, because there is no mechanism in place for them to receive any monies. I go right back to the steamboat days when we talk about how workers have been injured on the job.

The other goal was to minimize the delays in injury recovery and return to work, and to provide a balance of shared responsibility, with new responsibilities to employees, to mitigate loss resulting from injury, to cooperate in a recovery as quickly as possible and return to work as soon as possible.

The onus is on us as lawmakers to ensure the responsibility is fair and balanced, and cost efficient to the WCB system. Legislation needs to ensure that no stakeholder has an inordinate amount of responsibility, influence or authority.

The system is shared by stakeholders and should reflect shared responsibility for the system's outcome, as well as shared responsibility and influence in the decisions that affect the outcomes.

The most significant concern expressed by stakeholders is the cost of WCB. The cost is borne by employers and it is expected that the bulk of the amendments are focused on reducing the cost of the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board system, thereby reducing the assessment paid by employers.

So my first question to the minister -- or it may be answered by the witness, or the minister can attempt to answer this question: can he provide an overview of the amendments that will enable cost savings in the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board system?

Mr. Tuton:    I wonder if it's possible to just begin with a preamble, because I think we went through a significant amount of time to get to where we are today. I think it's important to get a clear understanding of how we collectively were able to reach the position we're at today.

First and foremost, it's important to recognize that the board has a tremendous responsibility. It is represented by two members of the employers group and two from the workers group. There is a neutral alternate chair and an alternate chair.

I have been lucky enough to have served as the chair of this board going on nine years now. What it does is gives you a better understanding of what the system is, what the intent of the system is and what it is that we as a board are mandated to accomplish. It is not easy. One of the things that we cannot deviate from is legislation. We must comply with all legislation. In order to make sure that all of the legislation is both fair to workers and to the employers who pay into the system, we must make sure that the legislation is written in such a manner that we can achieve those results.

It has been said that this process has taken some five years in the making, and yes, that would seem at the outset to be a long amount of time -- and it was. It was challenging and it set challenges not only to our system and to our administration but also to stakeholders. I think that it is important to note that I like to think of the positive aspect of those five years and, from our perspective, what that five-year period has done is enabled us to strengthen the relationships that we had with all of our stakeholders. That is a big issue with us at Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board because our mandate is to make sure that for the stakeholders -- whether they be employers or injured workers, or whether they are just workers -- the system that we provide is fair, honest and adequate.

To that end, in maintaining and strengthening those relationships, that period of time has given us that opportunity. The previous member indicated the working together and coming to consensus on the 88 issues, and that only happened after a period of years to which the process had been extended. Some of the stakeholders had indicated that we had to move ahead and that we had to find a resolution to this issue and, for these interests of all concerned, we had to get together.

So really, it was the stakeholders who came up with the initiative to try to collectively formulate a reasonable approach to getting this act to where we see it today.

I think it's important to recognize that it took a tremendous amount of work, as the member previously alluded to. It's not a very simple act; there are a lot of pages and information. In order to understand that, you must read every clause in that act to understand how one relates to the other. That's not an easy task, believe me.

I must say that the stakeholders deserve a tremendous amount of credit -- number one, to show the initiative and the interest to become involved, because let's remember that each one of those stakeholders has another job or another duty to do every day. The effort that was taken by the stakeholders to move ahead with these 88 issues in this act review was done on their own time -- many of them. I commend them and thank them for their involvement. Really, they became much more knowledgeable about the workers' compensation system as did the Yukon public.

If you recall the early stages of this act review, there was public consultation; there was involvement from the public. They were able to bring their issues forward to the panel. Each and every member from the stakeholder group had that opportunity to listen and to evaluate from that where they would like to see the system go.

The number one result of this act review was to make sure that when a worker got injured on the work site -- through no fault of anyone -- they would be adequately compensated, if it were a time loss injury -- but more than that, qualified and necessary medical and rehabilitative treatment would be given to get that worker back to his pre-injury job as quickly and safely as possible. That's what we're here for. We're here to make sure that all those workers, once they're injured, are treated quickly and effectively and returned to the workplace as soon as possible.

Each and every one of the stakeholders had an opportunity to make the panel, as well as the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board, aware of what their thoughts were in helping us move this process along. Yes, in some ways five years was a long time, but I like to think of it as five years that were spent well, because of the ability to work with our stakeholders very closely. I can assure you, if you can imagine, there was a point a number of years ago when it would be absolutely ludicrous to think that anyone could get labour and employers working together collectively.

They all thought about achieving the same result, but it was in how we approached getting there that was an issue. I can't speak highly enough of all those stakeholders and the time and commitment. In this process, I know from time to time one or the other or both had to grit their teeth and say there had to be a way that collectively we can move this forward.

Obviously, today is pure proof that that was not only possible, not only achievable, but they did it in the best interests of the workers, the injured workers, the employers and all stakeholders. "All stakeholders" means to reach out beyond to the medical people, the rehab people, much further than just the injured worker. It's a big team.

We have been able to strengthen that team and continue with that approach by using what we call a stakeholder advisory committee to help us move forward in day-to-day issues that the board must deal with in order to develop policy or to change policy. We must do that policy work with the thoughts and good wishes of all our stakeholders and, at the end of the day, hope we can all achieve that.

I wanted to take the opportunity to once again congratulate all those stakeholders and people who worked extremely hard in helping us prepare this document for presentation to the Assembly.

Now, that leads me to the question that the member asked. But I think it was important for you to understand. Now I'll try to explain what are some of the amendments that are going to give significant savings to the workers' compensation system.

I just gather my thoughts because there are a number of them. I want to make sure that I don't forget any. Let's start with this. One of the things we have to make sure is that, at the end of the day, the workers are compensated adequately.

The minister mentioned the CPP as related to the benefits that a worker has. The minister also alluded to the fact that one of the chief mandates in this act review is to return to work.

Presently, under the existing legislation, if it's a longer term disability, over six months -- the worker not only gets compensation due from workers' compensation, but also gets the Canada pension. The Canada pension automatically kicks in after six months.

We have to remember that, if that worker has any dependants, obviously, the dependants of that family automatically get CPP benefits as well.

If you look at that over the period and at the calculations -- without going into actual numbers -- what it means is that, potentially, an injured worker could be receiving up to 140 or so percent of what their pre-injury salary was.

There is really no incentive there. There is none. What would you rather do? Get 140 percent of your salary or go back to work?

That's not to say, by any means, that any workers think that way. But it's very difficult to get that out of one's mind when you think about, at the end of the day, what the benefits are.

The new act is going to offset those CPP benefits. That is a little bit of a technical issue, so what I'm going to do is just end it there and ask Valerie to update you as to what that means in dollars.

Ms. Royle:     The Canada Pension Plan disability benefit issue is a multi-million dollar issue for the board. $111 million is our long-term benefit liability, and many of those workers are in receipt of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, in addition to their workers' compensation benefits. As you know, workers and employers pay into Canada Pension Plan disability benefits on a cost-shared basis -- evenly 50 percent from workers and 50 percent from employers.

The proposed legislation, section 24 of the new act, looks at offsetting 50 percent of a worker's Canada Pension Plan disability benefits from their workers' compensation benefits. The people to whom this section would apply would be our longer term clients; therefore, that would impact that huge benefit liability amount that we have and would prevent it from getting hugely bigger as time goes on.

One of the other issues when we talk about Canada Pension Plan disability is, as Mr. Tuton noted, that Canada Pension Plan disability also comes with benefits for children of an injured worker, should there be dependants. This act provides no provision for touching any benefits for children of injured workers that they may receive under the Canada Pension Plan disability. Purely what we would look at would be -- if this new legislation is passed -- 50 percent of the worker's Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. That is an important distinction; we would not be looking at any children's benefits, but we would look at Canada Pension Plan disability.

Mr. Tuton:    Another one is presently under the old act. There is no time limit for appeals, so those workers, for example, who were injured in the 1970s could still, today, in the 2000s appeal an injury that happened 30 some years ago. Obviously, when you think of it, this wasn't an easy one to be dealt by the stakeholders -- both workers and employers. Once you look at the potential monetary effects of section 52 -- and we were one of two or three across the country that didn't have a time limit for appeals -- it had the potential of adding extreme extra costs to the system.

The board went into this review with open eyes, knowing that it would be best for the system if we had a time limit. But we knew that it may be a difficult issue to have consensus between labour and the employer groups. It soon became apparent to us that both stakeholder groups felt it was an issue that had to be addressed and it was an issue that could save the system over time a good deal of money. That was reduced from infinity -- there was no time limit -- down to 24 months. That in itself will reduce the cost to the system, but more importantly, it's going to reduce the time that the appeal board deals with appeals from year to year.

One of the things that became apparent to us, as I'm sure it is to everyone in the Yukon, is that in these days when the economy of the Yukon is booming -- and it's certainly better than we had before -- it is becoming more and more difficult to attract skilled labour, or even labour in a lot of cases. You're aware of the fact that we do have companies and employers who have to bring in foreign workers. That creates a couple of issues. Obviously one is from the safety and health aspect. The other one is, if you look at the way our legislation is today, prior to any amendments, if a worker got injured today on the job and that worker were a foreign worker, and the injury wasn't just a one- or two-day time-loss injury, but a longer term disability and the worker chose to rehabilitate back in their home country -- wherever that may be; whether it is the Philippines or Mexico, or wherever we get the foreign workers -- they would be over there at their maximum rate that they were paid here in Yukon, which is on a benefit basis.

In a lot of cases, that's a great deal of money in some of those Third World countries. We would have absolutely no control or way to manage with that worker how we, number one, put them on a rehabilitation program, or number two, get them back to work safely, effectively and quickly. Because of the distance, we simply couldn't be sending our team of workers across the water to make this happen.

So there are two things: section 14 deals with the duty to mitigate injuries, and section 40 deals with the duty to cooperate.

Before we get into that -- and it might be better that I turn the technical things over to Val as she has a much better background -- I just want to mention that one of the things the Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board did a number of years ago was develop one of the best rehabilitative policies in the country. We're pretty proud of that. It's so good, in fact, that it has taken us about two years to get that policy implemented because it was a total shift from the way we used to do business.

Let's think about that just for a moment. Getting that injured worker back to work in a safe and healthy manner is not only important to the worker, but it's also important to the system, to the employer and to all those concerned. What we did is develop a team approach so it wasn't simply the worker and WCB; it was more. Back in those days, if the worker didn't agree to go back and try either another job that wasn't equal to his pre-injury job, but something that would enable him to get back into the workforce, we didn't have any teeth.

So what this does is put the duty on all parties so they all work together to find a way to get this worker back to work. It may start at an hour a day; it may start at an hour a week; but as long as we approach this with the intent of getting that worker back feeling like he's part of the system, part of being a provider to his family once again, in whatever small manner it takes, that's how we're going to do it.

That's the focus of this. There are a lot of technical parts to that and I think you should hear that, so I will let Valerie just bring that up.

Ms. Royle:        With respect to cost savings, obviously our overriding intent is to help workers recover and return to work. That will involve cost savings because the faster a worker gets back to work, the faster they are off benefits, and less medical is required. The intent is not to save cost, but the result will be cost savings.

When we look at mitigation of injuries, the current legislation does not put the onus on the worker to get better or to assist on his or her recovery. It puts the onus on the board to prove that the worker was unreasonable in doing that.

The discussion with the stakeholders was that the worker has the most personal investment in his or her own recovery. The duty to mitigate then requires that worker to cooperate in medical treatment and in rehabilitation. The new section on duty to cooperate requires the same thing in return to work. In getting workers back to the workplace faster -- we know they recover quicker; we know they recover better in the long term, and that will reduce cost significantly. Our biggest single cost driver is claims duration.

We have been able through numerous avenues to keep our medical costs fairly under control -- given the fact that we do have more medical than many other jurisdictions because of the number of workers who receive services in the south -- services that just aren't available here on a daily basis in Yukon. However, we can keep that under control.

The length of time a worker is off is what drives the cost of the system. The longer the worker is off, the less chance they'll ever go back to work. It's quite dramatic, at a 90-day point and at a six-month point, how very few workers go back to work ever after those points.

The new legislation is intended to help everybody meet those obligations to reduce claim duration, improve recovery, and that will in fact reduce costs significantly to the system. That's in the millions of dollars a year. Our claims costs on average a year have been $22 million for the last couple of years, which is extremely high, and it is driven by claim duration.

Those two sections -- sections 14 and 40 -- are designed to focus on return to work and reduce recovery time and improve outcomes for workers.

Chair:    I would like to encourage the witnesses to keep their answers to about 20 minutes between the two, and then we'll return to another member of the Committee for further questions.

Mr. Fairclough:   I thank you, Mr. Chair, and the witnesses for that answer. I would like to encourage the minister, when he can, to answer the question, because ultimately, Mr. Chair, he is responsible for this act being presented in this House. Should he have problems with it, then we will go over to the witnesses for aid in their answers. I would expect that is how this would be laid out, and so I also encourage the witnesses to follow that.

Mr. Chair, I asked about the cost savings to the workers' compensation system; some of it was laid out. There was a lot of information provided by the witnesses and some of it I am following through with. I do have a question in regard to the CPP and I would like to get back to that. I would like to know whether or not there are any other amendments in this proposed act that look at reducing the WCB costs, other than what has been said here -- whether it is little or not.

The other question -- while the minister is on his feet maybe he could answer this one too -- will there be any additional costs put on the employer as a result of passing this legislation?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   In answer to the Member for Mayo-Tatchun, I just don't think he fully thought it out before he proposed that he'd like to see me on my feet responding to his questions and then see the witnesses respond. I think that it would certainly facilitate the expeditious answering of the member's questions if we didn't have me stand up and answer them and then have our expert witnesses provide even more detail and reiterate some of the same points. Could we simply allow the technical experts to provide that information, because they have that great level of daily familiarity with this area and can certainly provide the member with the fullest answer to many of his questions?

I think the member was not quite thinking that through. I will, therefore, turn this over to the witnesses for detailed answers to the members' questions, when it is appropriate to do so and, with that, I would invite them to provide further comment.

Mr. Tuton:    One of the other areas of cost saving is in -- I believe it was the minister in his preamble who spoke briefly about -- subrogated claims. As you know, the workers' compensation system is a no-fault system and the merited principles would indicate that a worker would be fully compensated as long as the injury occurred in and out of the workplace and that the employer would be protected from lawsuit under the same principle.

What this refers to when we talk about the subrogation of these claims is third party. It may be determined and I think I used an example to the member yesterday. What that means is that if it can be determined that the workplace injury was caused by neglect from a third party -- and I use the example of perhaps a helicopter incident -- that we would have an ability to go and put a lawsuit on the third party, to try to mitigate our liability. Presently, the worker gets 25 percent after subrogation and the legal costs are paid. Sorry. That would be under the current legislation. The cost of that -- medical costs, the rehab costs and all of those costs related would still be borne by the system. 

Because of the size of the jurisdiction, that additional cost and, in the case of a long-term disability -- for example, if that injury meant the worker was crippled for life -- those costs would be significant and in the millions of dollars. It wouldn't be fair to expect that employer or industry to cover those costs.

As we get a ruling that says that third party was responsible, or partly responsible, and a negotiated settlement occurred, then it would only seem natural that part of that settlement would go to recover the costs incurred to provide that medical and rehabilitative process.

The exact figures escape me, but I know they don't escape Val.

Ms. Royle:     Under the current legislation, the worker would get 25 percent of a subrogated settlement after legal costs are covered, but not after compensation and medical costs are considered. Therefore, the board, the employers, absorb that remainder. The worker continues to get their workers' compensation benefits and 25 percent of the settlement.

Under the new proposed legislation, the worker would get 100 percent of the settlement after all legal, compensation and medical costs are covered. In this way, in some of these cases, they are multi-million-dollar subrogated actions. They don't happen every year but, when they do happen, they are significant. The new change ensures all the system costs are covered and then the worker gets whatever is left, in addition to his or her workers' compensation benefits.

Mr. Fairclough:   Again, that was a lot of information put forward. I asked about the additional amendments and what, as a result of these amendments to the act, this new act, the cost would be for the employer. Some of that the witnesses have mentioned.

These amendments are pretty detailed, broad and sweeping. They will change the way in which WCB operates and how decisions are made with respect to claims and length of time for appeals to be filed. Most importantly, it will change the way that an injured worker is treated. It's not to suggest that these claims will have a negative effect on the WCB organization at all, or workers or employers as long as the changes maintain the balance between responsibility and authority. I think that has been brought up to us many times.

If these amendments are adopted, the board will be given the ability to terminate, to reduce or suspend benefits in the event that the worker is uncooperative or has not acted responsibly in his or her recovery. I have a few questions in regard to this. I would like to know who decided what is not responsible or uncooperative. Who decides that? How will the board and the WCB organization protect against abuse of this new authority? Maybe I'll just leave it at that before I ask the next question.

Mr. Tuton:    This brings us back to what our mandate, which is to ensure that injured workers -- if they're injured in and out of the course of the workplace -- are provided the medical treatment and the rehabilitative treatment that's required. You bring up a good point in termination and suspension. I want to make it very clear that our intention here is not to try to get a worker back to work early, at any cost. That is certainly not where we want to be headed or even be seen to be headed.

We, as I mentioned, have developed this rehabilitation policy -- which I emphasize was developed using our policy working group and is comprised of members of our stakeholder groups that actually develop the policy through consultation. That development of policy through that policy working group comes back to the board, and the board then determines whether that is the best policy to address that issue. The board of directors is responsible, in the end, for developing policy. It isn't legislated that the policy working group play a role in developing that policy.

It is important to remember that we develop all the policies with our stakeholders. That policy that I refer to -- the rehabilitation policy -- is the one that forms the team that tries to figure out the best approach to get the worker back, obviously, to his pre-injury job. In many cases, and in many injuries, that is not immediately achievable without some more work. What we need to do is get the worker, as I said before, back to work in a meaningful way in any position that they are capable of doing.

Obviously, termination and suspension is a part of the act, but that is something that would only come into effect if all other avenues failed. Remember that the mandate of our system is to ensure that the injured worker receives the best possible treatment and benefits that the system can provide. We try to encourage the return to work, but in some cases the extent of the injury that the worker received does not allow that; however, there are ways we can work with that injured worker in retraining attempts and methods to try to retrain that worker for work other than the pre-injury job.

We believe that taking a progressive approach to try to make the worker feel that, by assisting him or her to get back into the workplace in any capacity, but only in a capacity within the worker's ability, we achieve that. We absolutely will not push a worker into a position for which they're not capable. In fact, we have just changed our forms, which are filled out by the medical practitioners. They are now called functional ability forms.

We no longer ask the question: how long will the worker be off work? But we ask other questions: can the worker lift more than 10 pounds? Is the worker capable of walking for more than 20 minutes? Is the worker capable of standing? Those are the kinds of questions that are progressive questions and lead to the final result, which is to return to work and not to stay on the system.

Yes, we do have the ability under the proposed legislation to terminate or suspend, but it would only happen if all those steps were not able to be met. Our number one objective is to provide that worker with adequate professional help to return to work.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Fairclough:   Thanks for that explanation. This is an area that has been raised with us. I hope that is the case. That is the responsibility, after all, and it's more the authority side we're questioning here, that it doesn't simply take over.

We asked who decides who is not reasonable or cooperative, and how the board and the WCB organization will prevent the abuse of this new authority. Some things the witnesses have laid out, but I believe there's more.

Obviously, policy development is going to be a big issue here. I would like to know whether this has been worked on already. How long before the WCB organization expects to have these polices developed? When will they come into effect?

Mr. Tuton:        You ask some very good questions.

The board of directors at Yukon Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board are the ones responsible for developing policy.

As I said, a number of years ago, we recognized how important policies were to the system. I just would like to say again that it was then that we realized that we must provide an opportunity for stakeholders to become involved in that process, to make sure that whatever policies we developed as a board were policies that could reach the outcomes that we as a board of directors saw necessary.

As I said, yes, the board enacts the policy, but rely very heavily on our policy working group, which is made up of stakeholders. It's their recommendations. In fact, I cannot remember -- since coming back to the board -- one single instance when the board did not act on the majority of the recommendations from that policy group to develop policies -- not one.

They have -- through the involvement that they have with us, through the stakeholder group and the policy working group -- come to have a clear understanding of the importance of policy and how it affects, and may affect, the outcome of that injured worker's process.

The policy will be ready for July 1. We recognized a long time ago that if these amendments to the legislation were to be passed, and if they had an effective date, we had to be prepared to do that.

Currently we are working with that policy working group that I mentioned, to make sure that we are prepared with the policies. As a matter of fact, we have one meeting slated next week.

Again I would just like to say that the commitment that our stakeholders provide us in working on these various committees to help us is very important. At the end of the day, the decision-makers take those recommendations and make those decisions. Only the president and the CEO in very extreme or exceptional cases would be able to go outside of that policy. It would have to be a very exceptional circumstance, and practice would have it that they probably wouldn't make that decision without speaking to the board of directors. I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Fairclough:   I thank the witness for that answer, Mr. Chair. In the preamble of the act, the act states that these amendments will improve relations with the board and the stakeholders. Are there specific clauses within this act that address these statements?

Mr. Tuton:    So the question was are there particular sections of the act that will talk about relations with the board? I'm just a little confused here.

Mr. Fairclough:   In the preamble of the act, it states that the amendments will improve relations with the board and the stakeholders. I'm just asking as to whether in the act there are sections or provisions in there that specifically address these statements.

Mr. Tuton:    Prior to the act amendments, the board had a policy that simply dealt with -- prior to making announcements or setting policy, we simply brought in the media and made the media aware of those issues or changes that we were about to make.

Following this it would now ensure stakeholders would be first, so the stakeholders would be involved in understanding where we're headed. We also, on an annual basis, work with stakeholders to provide them a recap of our year during our annual information meeting. That happens once a year. We changed the limitations on when that annual stakeholder meeting was to be and you can search out the process in section 104. I'm just thinking that we did change the process in setting up that annual information meeting. Just bear with me as we search for that. It isn't even policy, but the board really came to understand and respect stakeholders over the last few years and I can't say that enough. We have what we refer to as a stakeholder advisory group. We bring them together on an as-needed basis, but it's at least once a quarter. We provide them with a plan of what our issues are for the year and how they can be involved.

Ms. Royle:     There are two significant section changes that establish what Mr. Tuton was talking about with respect to stakeholder involvement and enshrining that in the legislation. The first one is new section 100(1)(i). Previously board policies didn't require any stakeholder consultation, although it was the practice of the board of directors to consult with stakeholders. The only consultation required under the previous act was that the policy be put into a public newspaper for a period of a couple of weeks. The new section 100(1)(i) says that, "before the adoption of any policy affecting claims for compensation or assessment matters," and assessment matters is a new provision. Before, the board did not have to consult at all with the public or stakeholders on assessment matters, although they did.

The board must "…consult with employers, employer organizations, workers and worker organizations;…" That relationship, which has been the practice of the board, is now enshrined in legislation.

The second section to bring your attention to would be section 104. This looks at the annual information meeting of the board, which is the public accountability to stakeholders of the financial situation of policies of the board. Previously, that was set. The board would set that every year.

Now section 104 enshrines in legislation the role of stakeholders and that process. It says, "Once the annual report is filed under subsection 103(2), the board of directors shall establish a date, convenient to worker and employer organizations, for an annual meeting." So it ensures there is a process in place, that those groups are involved, that the time is convenient for them, and that we have the maximum attendance at those really critical meetings. Those are examples of how that level of relationship, what had been, and is, the policy of the board of directors is truly now enshrined in legislation. It protects that for stakeholders; should the board change, that's now enshrined in legislation.

Mr. Fairclough:   Those few sections are noted, and I thank the members for the answers to those questions.

Another concern expressed by stakeholders is a need for a more balanced approach to stakeholders' advocacy and decision-making for both claims and appeals. Specifically, the inclusion of an employer advocate was requested. It was expected that an employer advocate would be established with equal powers of representation, as found with the workers' advocate. How has this issue been addressed in these amendments and, if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Before turning it over to the witnesses for more detailed comments on this, I would point out that the Member for Mayo-Tatchun is suggesting that this was a widely-supported proposal. The member is failing to note that, although this was supported by some, there were others who opposed this type of inclusion. Previously, this type of model was not very effective. It was in place at one point in time on a limited-term project basis and it was not felt to be necessary.

With that, I will turn it over to the witnesses for further comments.

Mr. Fairclough:   I thank the minister for that clarification.

In bringing issues to the floor, it may not be 100-percent supported by the public, but if it is brought forward, at least it should be addressed. I would like to hear the witnesses' view on how this issue has been addressed in these amendments.

Mr. Tuton:    That is a good question. In order to properly answer that, I have to go back a bit. Back in the early 2000s, the board, on a trial basis, in partnership with the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, provided an employer consultant, whose mandate was very broad. The role was not really defined.

I would like to point out that the workers' advocate is there primary and specifically to deal with the worker's appeal to a decision made by either the Workers' Compensation Health and Safety Board or a decision that was made by the appeal tribunal. It's a very direct mandate.

The cost to the system of that pilot project was in the neighbourhood of $400,000. When the trial period had elapsed, the board of the day commissioned a study to determine the effect of that position and whether it provided value for the dollar. The results of that, quite frankly, were varied.

The question rather surprises me because, to my knowledge, this has not become an issue in the last few years; at least it hasn't been presented to the board. I don't believe that the issue was presented to the review panel by stakeholders, although I could be wrong. It may have been put on the list of issues by the review panel. I just don't have that information.

However, going back to the day when the decision that the board made was to not continue with this pilot project, for some very good reasons, it was indicated to the employers and the employer groups that we at the board, through our administrative process, would certainly have an ability to provide assistance to them as employers if they wished to help them move through the system. I should say that the numbers of appeals to the system by employers is very minimal.

It was felt that through the process that we have since set up with the Northern Safety Network Yukon -- which is a project in which we initially partnered with the Yukon Contractors Association that we're extremely proud of -- and the prevention and safety fund -- that we contributed up to $5 million to -- would help to alleviate these issues; and, in fact, it has. The Northern Safety Network Yukon -- which started out as the Yukon Contractors Association on a three-year trial period -- was soon elevated by the board, because of its success and because of the respect that it gained from the employer community, to have it include all employers and, in fact, workers. Today, the Northern Safety Network Yukon has a board of directors that consists of not only members from our employer groups and individual employers but also from the Federation of Labour, which is something that we and the Northern Safety Network and the Yukon contractors are extremely proud of. That particular expertise that Northern Safety Network Yukon offers Yukon employers is certainly a huge step in helping employers understand the system. As I said, we do have the ability at the administrative level, at the board, to provide assistance to employers who request it.

We have been having industry meetings since last fall. One of the things that has come out is having to deal with the issue that you bring up. The employer can go on-line and fill in a form; there is no place that the employer can actually tick, looking for help or advice in going through the issues that they wish to. So that is one of the things that our administration, after hearing that from an employer group, were going to rectify and have that on-line so that employers can tick that. It'll be flagged by us and somebody will contact that employer and be able to provide the assistance, whether that be an assessment appeal, whether that be a claims appeal, or any other questions that an employer may have to help them through the system. So I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Fairclough:   It's interesting. The question was asked because it was raised by a stakeholder. I don't think, from the answers I heard, a whole lot of emphasis has been put on this issue to include it in this new act. The witness has talked about the trial involving the employers' advocate and the amount of money that it costs. It's interesting with the Northern Safety Network Yukon. I'll just leave that for now and move on.

 With respect to a balanced approach to decision-making and responsibility for WCB cost, the section on super-assessments is a good example of how enabling legislation may not achieve a balanced approach to cost-sharing. On the basis of performance and ratings with regard to experience and merit, the board can charge extra assessment fees to poor performers, but there are no provisions to charge less for good performers.

Is this simply an oversight or will this deficiency be addressed sometime down the road or before we pass it through this House?

Mr. Tuton:    In fact, we always did have the ability to super-assess, so that's nothing new. I say clearly that the process the board has taken is not one of enforcement by any means. If I can just refer back to your previous comment and statement about the employers' consultant or advocate, the process we have used with employers is to help educate them to provide a safer and healthier workplace for workers. That's the progressive way to approach this.

Yes, we do have the ability today to enforce. We do have the ability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, because that's another act we must follow. We do have the ability to enforce under that act, but do we? Very rarely, because it isn't the progressive approach and it isn't the approach that we as a board have chosen to be the correct approach.

Our approach is quite simply to educate employers and workers through our partners in the safety and prevention program. You may have heard just recently that one of our partners, the Federation of Labour, is hosting a conference at the end of this month for young workers. Boy, I can't tell you how much we applaud their efforts to do that. We've taken that approach with both employers and workers to try to change the way we think about these issues.

We must have the ability to deal with our liability collectively. We don't have an opportunity to break that up -- in response to your question of why don't we have a program to honour those who achieve good experience. Let me just talk about that for a moment. We do not have an experience rating system in the Yukon, quite frankly, because we are a small jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions -- in fact, most have experience rating systems simply because of the size of their jurisdiction. What that means is that each individual employer, rather than an industry, will pay an assessment premium based on the experience that they have over a period of time -- whether that be five years or 10 years.

I can use that example here in Yukon. If we were to go to the system of experience rating, and I use an example -- and I only use this strictly as an example -- but let's use a small office that does secretarial support services. During the course of this person's employment, an employee needed to go down the stairs to put a box of files away in storage. In the process of doing that, the employee slipped on the stairs and broke her back. That is not a short-term disability; that's a long-term disability with tremendous cost attached to it. That employer probably was on an experience rating system and had paid -- because the last five years they didn't have any injuries -- $1 per $100. After that injury occurred, and those costs were attached to that employer, they would probably have to go out of business immediately because that cost would be in the millions of dollars -- not in the thousands but in the millions -- and that employer could not deal with that.

So the "we" in our system has to deal with collective liability. There's no other way around it. We must deal collectively. In other words, we must assist those who wouldn't be able to assist when they need it, and accidents are going to occur. We must provide an ability -- an affordable ability -- for those injured workers to be treated and accommodated the best way we can.

When we look at the other side of the coin, about super-assessing, obviously our intent and the direction the board provides is that we must work with every individual employer to ensure that we do and provide what we're capable of to help that employer provide a better and safer workplace for his workers. That's our number one: we wish to educate. We have a system set up in our occupational health and safety department that provides exactly that.

If you do not have the ability in your small business to develop a safety program or to provide training, or to develop those kinds of things, that's where we would come in. So we're going to be progressive again and proactive, and we want to do what we can to assist that employer to get away from being that -- for lack of a better word -- company that has a lot of incidents over a shorter or longer period of time.

Only -- and I repeat, only -- after numerous attempts at working with this individual would we ever see ourselves super-assess that individual. I can give you an example: let's look at Alberta. Everybody likes to look at Alberta because they're busy; they have a lot of people; they have a lot of workers.

Alberta has the ability to super-assess up to 200 percent. Let's think about that for a minute. If your rate is $14 per $100, a 200-percent super-assessment will be a significant extra charge to you. We also look at that when you look at comparing base assessment rates from province to province or jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You must remember that in a jurisdiction that has an experience rating system, as most do -- I think there's only one that doesn't, and that's us -- they have a base rate and that's what you compare to.

 What people forget is that, if your experience is not that good, you are not on the base rate -- you are up to 200 percent of that base rate. I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Fairclough:   It does answer the question, but it does not appear that there is a provision in there to charge less for good performance. There's nothing in there specifically that addressed that.

I would like to ask one more question and then I am going to turn it over to the third party to ask some questions, and possibly come back and ask more.

In Nova Scotia, the government had specifically excluded chronic pain from coverage in the Martin case and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this was a violation of the Charter.

This act appears to be doing the same thing with stress.

Did WCB get a legal opinion to determine whether or not this is constitutionally accepted?

Mr. Tuton:   I am not going to answer that question from the member. I am going to turn that over to Ms. Royle.

I just want to get back -- I did mentally have a block on your question about what we have available to either super-assess or to award those people who have good experience, and we do.

The legislation now provides for a program that we introduced in January called CHOICES. It is a reward program for those who get a safety program and a few other things. It can provide them either in a monetary way or in any other way. In other words, we can help pay for materials that allow that company to better achieve safety results.

Now I'll turn it over to Ms. Royle to answer the question.

Ms. Royle:     We looked at the Martin and Lasseur cases in Nova Scotia with respect to chronic pain. Nova Scotia's Workers' Compensation Act at that time treated chronic pain very differently. It was found by the Supreme Court that they treated chronic pain differently from other injuries and basically limited a period of compensation for a worker who was diagnosed with chronic pain. Our act has no such provisions.

With respect to post-traumatic stress, the previous act covers post-traumatic stress and the current act covers post-traumatic stress. What the act says is that mental stress is not a diagnosis, medically. There is no diagnosis for stress under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- DSM- IV-TR which is the current one used. What the board does have is a policy called adjudicating psychological disorders, which provides for coverage of psychological disorders that are diagnosed by a qualified person and are listed under that DSM IV and have a category and are obviously related to work and arose from the course of employment.

So we did do that review in developing that policy to ensure, because we certainly were aware of the Martin and Lasseur case and the potential Charter issues around that. Our policy is solid and we have no discrimination, but this piece of legislation does define that we cover post-traumatic stress and we do cover other psychological conditions. However, mental stress, not being a recognized diagnosis, is not covered.

Mr. Fairclough:   What the witnesses are saying is that there was no legal opinion sought to determine whether or not it was constitutionally acceptable to have stress excluded.

Ms. Royle:     I'm sorry, I thought I did answer that question: in developing the board policy, we did seek a legal opinion and had a legal opinion on this issue to ensure that we weren't entering into territory that would get the board financially into difficulty, or not cover workers who are entitled to be covered. So, we did that review. Workers' compensation doesn't cover things that aren't a medical diagnosis in general, so we didn't specifically ask that question, but we did review our policy and this wording with respect to whether it would defensible in a Charter challenge, should that happen.

Hon. Mr. Cathers:   Another thing that I would point out for the benefit of the of the Member for Mayo-Tatchun is that he should understand that this act was drafted by lawyers, and that includes a clear understanding of the legislation in other jurisdictions. Those who drafted it have that understanding of legislation in other areas and an understanding of case law around these matters.

Some Hon. Member:  </