Bill Braden

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 Speaker, are we still continuing to subject this worker to old, outdated, outmoded and, obviously, an unconstitutional process, Mr.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?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. The WCB then has full responsibility and accountability for its own debts and its own books. The GNWT does not get involved in it in any way except for this administrative situation here with managing or handling or deciding on their debt portfolio, Mr. Chair.

While we are on a technicality here, this is a shared Workers’ Compensation Board. Does Nunavut have to go through a similar clunkety-clunk, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight reviewed Bill 10, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2006-2007, at a meeting on September 5th, 2006. This concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 10. Mr. Chairman, individual Members may have comments or questions as we proceed. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, considering that there’s been, for those families and employees affected, considerable reduction in the level of service, considerable increase in inconvenience, and to our own government because we’ve got more paperwork to process now, is the premium that we’re paying, the cost that we’re paying for this health care coverage, is that at least being reduced, considering the impact on the level service to us, Mr. Speaker?