Debates of August 21, 2007 (day 14)

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister Krutko. Mr. Aitken, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. The way I interpret this when I look at 27(2), it states that the medical advisor to the worker, sorry, the medical advisor, is to seek the opinion of another medical professional. So I take this to mean where they can agree on a third medical practitioner who they concur is an expert. The two of them choose that medical professional. Presumably if there is a disagreement as to who would be a third medical professional, they would rely on the policy in 4(a) and seek some mechanism to determine who it would be. In the first instance, if they are able to agree in the instance, maybe -- maybe the person has a skin condition and they think it’s caused by chemicals at work and the two doctors agree on a third doctor who is a dermatologist -- that would be acceptable. That would be the first step to be taken to see if they can agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I read that subsection 2(2) and it says, “they shall seek the opinion of another medical professional who specializes in the area of the conflict.” It says they shall seek but it’s not clear to me whether the medical advisor or the worker will have the same say on who that third medical opinion should be. Is that the correct way to do that? Is that the sound medical opinion to say that both parties have equal power? It doesn’t say they have to agree.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Minister. I am not sure who you are pointing to, Mr. Aitken or Mr. Wright? Mr. Aitken. Thank you.

Sorry, Mr. Chairperson. I was speaking with Mr. Doyle and I missed the question, so I didn’t hear the follow-up question. I apologize.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Would you mind restating the question, Ms. Lee?

Thank you. Yes, the question to Mr. Aitken: Does he read subsection (2) to mean that both parties have equal say on who the third party will be?

Thank you for clarifying that, Ms. Lee. Mr. Aitken.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I read it to mean both of the doctors have an equal say in how the third medical expert would be selected.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Anything further, Ms. Lee? Thank you, Ms. Lee. Back to clause 27, committee.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 31, clause 28, 29, 30, 31 and clause 32.

Agreed.

Page 32, clause 33, clause 34,

Agreed.

Page 33, clause 35, clause 36, clause 37 and clause 38.

Agreed.

Page 34, clause 39, clause 40 and clause 41.

Agreed.

Page 35, clause 42 and clause 43.

Agreed.

Page 36, clause 44, clause 45, clause 46.

Agreed.

Page 37, clause 47, clause 48.

Agreed.

Page 38, clause 49, clause 50.

Agreed.

Page 39, clause 51, clause 52 and clause 53.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that clause 56 of Bill 6 be amended by renumbering subsections (1.1) to (3) as subsections (2) to (4) respectively.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion has been carried.

---Carried

To page 40, clause 56, as amended?

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 41, clause 57 and clause 58.

Agreed.

Page 42, clause 59, clause 60 and clause 61.

Agreed.

Page 43, clause 62 and clause 63.

Agreed.

Clause 64.

Agreed.

Page 44, clause 65. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that subclause 96(3) of Bill 6 be amended by striking out “may direct” and substituting “may, in writing, direct”.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. To clause 65, as amended.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 46, clause 66 and clause 67.