Sandy Lee

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today my questions are in following up to the Member’s statement I made about the proposal being put forward by the SideDoor in support of a program that would, I think, create another opportunity for the youth in the community to spend their time productively. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in my time as an MLA, I’ve had the good fortune of meeting and working with a lot of young people who are doing great things, a lot of positive things, taking full advantage of all the financial assistance and everything available to reach their potential, but we all...

Thank you. I do understand that and I approve that interpretation. I think that’s what we meant to do. I think it’s the difference between medical opinion and medical evidence. I just wanted to make sure that we put it on record, so that people out there could feel comfort in how this legislation will be interpreted. In the remaining seconds, I just want to ask the panel on subsection (4). It states there that much of how this will be implemented will be written out in the policies and procedures. First of all, would the Minister and Governance Council be willing to set up some sort of...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have supported two programs in particular; one is the SideDoor program and the other is the COPs program. Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly the real work and real difference can only be made by governments working and supporting the grassroots organizations and programs like these from the bottom up, rather than introducing a solution from top to bottom. In my opinion, the government has not done enough to support these initiatives and I urge the Minister of Justice and the Minister responsible for Youth to work with its partners and put some real money and support...

Thank you. I want to reserve my question about subsection (4) again, but just following up on what Mr. Wright said, what assurance do workers have in listening to this explanation of subsection (3) that the new medical evidence will only be about something that was unknown, something totally new that would change your resolution, but it would not be another third opinion that would just reverse your decision? Do you know what I mean? That’s what the workers are concerned about…or maybe WCB side, too. That there is some standard on what that new medical evidence should be that would put the...

Thank you. What sort of input do the workers and his or her medical advisor or health care provider have in choosing who that third person, opinion, might be?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just need some assistance here. I have a question on the section on conflicting medical opinion and we're going by lumps of clauses, so could I just get some advice as to when I could raise that question? Thank you.

Thank you. Just a short one. Could I get the Minister to ask the, refer the matter, or however you want to put it, could I get the Minister to commit to having the government’s counsel look at section 92(2)(b) in the context of section 1.1, as Mr. Wright just stated? Thank you.

Right. Trivial. I never use the word trivial. But let me try this again because I'd like to get more clarification. Say if somebody has carpel tunnel syndrome, as an example, and say if he could prove that…I mean I think from a layperson's point of view -- you don't have to be a doctor -- as I understand it, carpel tunnel syndrome could come from repeated use of a computer keyboard. But in modern days, a lot of us use computer keyboards at work and at home. Say if it was under proof of…I mean if the standard proof was something like dominant cause or something else, you would have to...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further to that then, section 92, subsection (2), subsection (b), reads that, and I quote, "draw all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the claimant when determining any matter related to compensation." Now, when you read that from a layperson’s point of view, workers have every right to feel that when you’re injured, you go through a claim process right away from the beginning that your case will be dealt with with presumption in favour of you as an injured worker. I’m not sure if that has always been the case and the workers that have come into...

Thank you. I think my question might have been confusing, so I just wanted to get more. I think I would like to hear some more specifics from Mr. Doyle. I guess how the bill was written and presented to the House, it suggested a dominant cause to be a factor in determining cause of injury. We have changed that. We have done away with that dominant cause and we have made it, I think to my mind, a lesser burden to say if there's a material cause to workplace being the case of injury or diseases, then one would be compensable. Now, that's how I read it. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm...