Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to publicly clarify the issue of the concern about reprisals, and the Minister will know that I've approached him on this issue as well to be able to ensure that anybody that comes through the door of an MLA can come through the door and speak on issues without any fear that there's going to be a backlash because they've come to their Member of the Legislative Assembly. It's a fundamental requirement of our ability to do our jobs as Members of the Legislative Assembly. So I'd just like the Minister to clarify on that issue as well.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as the Member stated, our job in this Assembly is to deal with the constituents that come through our doors on any particular issue. So there's no fear there. As well, our employees have to realize that because we're within a union, there's a process of dealing with issues. As Members come to our door or come to my door on a human resources issue, my first response would be where it is at in the stage of dealing with our systems in place with the union and follow that process through. Mr. Speaker, just for stability of our workforce, we do have to follow a chain of command as we deal with our issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the final question is just a clarification in terms of timeline for the much beloved PeopleSoft system that came into effect many Assemblies ago and has been a burden on us over the years. The Minister has indicated a substantial investment in this and getting a vanilla version that is integral and integrated and intact, and hasn't been tampered with by our staff. Can the Minister indicate when in fact that system will be fully operational? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we just went through the first phase of that, recognizing what needs to be done to clean up our older version of 8.3. It was significantly customized, as we call it, where we changed the programming to fit our criteria, which lead to further problems. So we've had to go through that phase. We are now entering into the next phase of beginning the work to convert towards 8.9, the vanilla version, as I stated earlier. Hopefully, as we proceed this year, I'm looking towards, I believe it would be April 2007 that we would be able to be fully into the 8.9 process as 8.3 will no longer be supported. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral Questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

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 disability benefits and vocational rehabilitation, that other injured workers are entitled to, Mr. Speaker. Three years ago, this was when it came out and it was a ruling of the court of Canada. Why have we had to wait for so long for our WCB, as the Minister was telling us yesterday, to take its policy on chronic pain and go out to stakeholders? Why has it taken this long, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister responsible for Workers' Compensation Board, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Valic case, Mr. Speaker, the policy or combination of policies that were found to be wanting by Justice Schuler were those that were in effect in 2001. Whether or not the new policy that came into effect in 2004 fails the test, that was not considered by the decision. The Governance Council though, having looked at the decision, were not certain whether or not the new policy would stand the test. They were thinking of going to the courts. They've changed their minds and what they had decided to do at their September meeting, they agreed that rather than appealing the Valic decision or anything to do with that decision or going to the courts to test the policy, that they would come up with a new policy or examine their policy, make sure that their policy, the one that they will have in effect, that they'll adopt at their November meeting, will be the one that reflects current practice in jurisdictions across Canada. Subsequent to that they will go out for consultation and they're expecting that the consultation will be finished this year. The policy will be in effect as of the date of their next governance council meeting, which is scheduled for November. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister yesterday advised that in relation to Mr. Valic's long and valiant struggle to get to the court-ordered appeal, newly constituted Appeal Tribunal, that "the WCB has not applied to take an adversarial point of view at all in the Appeals Tribunal hearing." I'm quoting from unedited Hansard of yesterday. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the board has indeed applied for standing at Mr. Valic's tribunal. I wanted to ask the Minister, if indeed he said yesterday that the WCB has not applied to take an adversarial point of view, why has it applied for standing in Mr. Valic's Appeal Tribunal, which I understand, Mr. Speaker, is a very unusual move for the board to take at Appeal Tribunal level?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a significant amount of time since this issue was initially addressed by the WCB. It's also been some time since the policies were changed. The policies the Appeals Tribunal were looking at were different. The WCB wants to make sure that they explain the current policy, which does allow for the individualization of compensation for all claimants so that that's clearly understood. What they're intending to do is ensure that the policies are clearly explained the way they are now, because I think it's important to remember that they were the ones who initially told the Appeals Tribunal to re-hear the Valic case. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say again that the ruling found that the policies in effect in 2001 were unfair and unconstitutional. They did not say that the policies in 2004 were. The WCB, on application from Mr. Valic, had requested that the Appeals Tribunal reconsider the hearing. At this point, I'm advised that what the WCB intends to do is to present the new policy, make sure that there's a clear understanding or try and make sure there's a clear understanding that indicates that compensation is available in chronic pain cases. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Time for question period has expired; however I will allow the Member a final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

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?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe so. I believe they want to do the right thing for an injured worker.