Debates of October 23, 2006 (day 13)

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 and has the WCB now got a policy that won't violate workers' rights anymore, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Honourable Minister responsible for the WCB, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think while Justice Schuler's decision did comment on the policy in effect as of 2004, the decision and the ruling was based on the policy in place as of 2001. So that was the reason that the WCB was considering having a constitutional look at the 2004 policy, to see if it would fit the test. In fact, I'm advised the WCB has decided that they are going to go out to stakeholders and take a look at redrafting the 2004 policy over the course of the next few months. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to see if I get this straight now. So the WCB has decided not to take the direct step of going to court and checking its work out, it's instead going to go to stakeholders and add yet more months, perhaps even longer, to getting a policy that is constitutionally correct, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The WCB is aware of what the ruling is in the Martin case; it is quite aware of the ruling from Justice Schuler; and they will be working to ensure that the policy that they bring in is one that fits within the Constitution of Canada. But they are also hoping to work with stakeholders, injured workers and employers to make sure that the policy reflects not only that constitutional requirement, but what northern workers and employers are expecting to see from the WCB.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

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 trying to figure out what our chronic pain policy is going to be? This is the centre of his case. What are we going to do to get Mr. Valic's day before our tribunal, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think that Justice Schuler's decision is quite clear. It says that the appeal shall be heard in a freshly constituted tribunal in advance of the Workers' Compensation Board having a new policy. She recognized that it would take some time to work out a new policy, and provided direction for the standards that should be in place for the rehearing. I understand, Mr. Speaker, there will be a preliminary hearing later this month for Mr. Valic's lawyer, and after some issues there are resolved we expect that the tribunal can be scheduled fairly shortly after that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

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?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 162-15(5): WCB Policy On Chronic Pain - Valic Decision

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I said no such thing. I don't know where the Member gets that information from. The WCB has not applied to take an adversarial point of view at all in the Appeals Tribunal hearing. It has been five years since it has been reheard and I expect there will be some new medical evidence that will be submitted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.