Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, first of all, from a Governance Council point of view, we don't look at this as our money. We're all on the same team here. We're all here because we want to help injured workers. We want to ensure that the fund is being looked after, and we don't look at it as our wallet. The system works for the high majority of claimants. Some claimants sometimes either fall through the cracks or they're not happy with how the system works. I think, out of 39,000 claims, we have 36,000 claims would come through, I think about 260 claimants have filed an appeal, which is a really low number. What we're doing, I guess, I won't speak to the administration end of it but from a GC point of view, that's why we're here. We look forward to the Auditor General's report and we're here to get input and to say we're all on the same team. If people are falling through the cracks, let's make it work. We really feel, and I know we're going to get into it a little later, our new chronic pain policy and perhaps some of the longstanding claims, there are few in numbers but, you know, had to do with the chronic pain policy and we think that we've filled that void now as a lot of jurisdictions across the country have had to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The point that we were making here and possibly not making it very well is that, at this point, of the longstanding claims that were identified through the Auditor General's report and through that process, there were only two of them that, right now, are before any body at all, both before either of the Appeals Tribunal or the review committee. We are addressing those as expeditiously as we can.

In the Auditor General's report, the comment was made several times that the way that we were communicating our decisions was causing a lot of difficulties with the claimants that were coming to us. That we will touch on a little bit later, but that has been part and parcel of our response to this whole report through the action plan. It has been to try and improve how we are communicating our decisions to people, which is really what the Auditor General identified as being the major problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, the Appeals Tribunal is separate and independent from the WCB. They have a budget item for their legal counsel. They can access that. Also for medical opinions they require, there is a budget for that. The budget is sufficient. They have never had to go beyond what they have been allocated for that amount. It is free for them to do what they wish with

that when they feel it is necessary to access legal opinions and medical opinions. Again, it is entirely independent of WCB, but they control that.

Currently, the tribunal members are made up of representatives of workers, employers and general public. I am not aware of any of them having their own particular legal background. They do have access to the legal advice when making their decisions. I do not know how often they access that legal advice, whether it is done on every case or not at all. I am not privy to that, but they do have the option and the ability to access legal advice when they feel necessary.

It is my understanding that the Appeals Tribunal has a lawyer on retainer that they ask just questions of him for that. I believe it is John Donihee. He is a lawyer. When they require legal advice, they approach him with their questions. They may have other lawyers on retainer as well, but I am not aware of any.

The only time when there would be, that I am aware of any contact, is when a worker is taking a matter for judicial review to Supreme Court. Then the WCB is made responsible for having to defend the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. That is the way the system works. It is the Appeals Tribunal decision. We are responsible for defending it. Sometimes there is communication with the Appeals Tribunal's legal counsel for the purposes of getting documents together and so forth.