Bill Braden

Mr. Speaker, the Appeals Tribunal is an independent body from the WCB. It has its own council. Its members are, we like to think, well versed and well grounded in their work. Why is it that the WCB feels it has to go in front of this tribunal, an independent tribunal, to again state its case? Why, Mr. Speaker, does the WCB feel the need to intervene in a matter that it has already been found to treat the worker unfairly and unconstitutionally?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I would like to continue questioning Mr. Dent, the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, on the file that Mr. Ivan Valic, an injured worker who for some 19 years now has continued to pursue what he believes and what the Supreme Court of the NWT has shown to be discrimination on denying his benefits, Mr. Speaker.

The Supreme Court of Canada some three years ago decided -- and I think this is what is quite well known as the Martin case -- that workers who suffer from chronic pain are entitled to the same benefits, including long-term...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, I too will be voting in favour of this amendment. Madam Chair, I will not repeat my comments earlier, but to reiterate what I believe was a good recommendation made to this Assembly by the boundaries commission. It reflects that there are changes going on within our society and our communities and our demographics, and that it is incumbent on us to recognize those and strive to do the best we can to ensure that the idea of proportional representation is done to the best of our ability with the obvious considerations that we have, which we already gave to...

Mr. Speaker, is the WCB afraid that if something goes sideways for them again in this Appeals Tribunal that it’s going to cost them a lot of money? Is that what they’re doing, Mr. Speaker? Are they trying to protect the fund instead of doing what is right for injured workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you. My questions this afternoon are for Mr. Dent, the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board of the NWT and Nunavut. Mr. Speaker, the WCB set out a new policy for chronic pain in 2004. The Valic decision of the NWT Supreme Court of 2005 rejected this policy on the basis that it was discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in a letter to my colleague Ms. Lee in June of this year, said the WCB was going to reapply to the Supreme Court to see if its new policy was indeed going to comply with these constitutional issues. Mr. Speaker, has this been done...

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. That's fine. That's what I was hoping the answer would be. That's all.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee would like to consider Bill 12, Garnishment Remedies Statutes Amendment Act, Madam Chair.

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

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