Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Anything further? Thank you, Ms. Lee. I have Mr. Villeneuve next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the open-door policy, the emphasis really wasn't on the door, the physical door, when they mean an open-door policy. They more or less referred to something like an open-arms policy or to be more receptive and supportive. I just recently helped somebody fill out their workers' compensation claim form. There were questions, and even though it's a two-sided form, eight and a half by 14, there were some questions in there that I couldn't even understand. I didn't even know how to answer the question. I wasn't even really sure what they were asking in that form. I could really see why they didn't, I mean, these people were really, they were just looking at it pretty much dumbfounded and I thought I could help them. I did and I answered them to the best of my ability, but really there were things in there that I couldn't even understand. I said, well, maybe you should go to the Workers' Compensation Board and ask them what they mean and ask them to help you fill it out. They said oh, no, it's something they said you have to do, go see a lawyer or something and help them fill it out or a doctor or something like that. So that's the kind of open door I'm talking about.

I don't see why people who maybe have been refused by workers' compensation for a claim, shouldn't be allowed to go into that office with their letter of refusal and say, well, what can I do next? How can I carry this forward? How can you help me appeal? They should be able to do that. They should be able to help people appeal. Even in their own office and say, well, maybe you do have some grounds for appeal and you should carry it forward and we'll help you do that. Right now that just doesn't happen. People really, when they, I think they don't get any, that 267 appeals that they had out of the 36,000 claims that went through, I think a lot of the people after they get the refused, claim they just say, well, I'm not even going to try to appeal because I know there's nothing going to happen anyways. So I think if they did have an open door where if you say you think you have grounds for appeal, come and see us and we will help you appeal, I think you would get a lot more appeals going through and I think you'd get a lot more people saying, gee, you know, they really provided me with some good advice and really helped me understand why they didn't approve my claim and they explained how I can appeal, and they even offered to help me appeal, but I refused it because they explained it in the office. I think that's the kind of open door thing that I think the committee was talking about. I don't think it has

anything to do with the locks and whatnot, but even that, you know. So I'd just like to make that point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Next on the list I have Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. I just want to weigh in on this whole thing about open-door policy. Everybody's trying to communicate and convey what it is we're looking for in terms of that receptiveness and that caring. I'm hearing that, but I guess one of the things I'm curious about is when a worker comes in, what is the first point of contact they have with a person? What kind of credentials does that person have, and how often is there turnover in that position? I don't want to drag this out because I know time is going by here, but I think you need to approach injured workers from the mindset of the Royal Bank slogan, "can do," as opposed to "no can do." I mean you can't negotiate everything in terms of your due diligence with the injured worker from a no position. You can't start from there and then work your way back to maybe, or yes, you qualify and you're approved. The benefit of the doubt to me should always be that people are operating in good faith and, yes, there will be exceptions and that's why we have to have processes in place to identify people who are not operating from a position of good faith. But I think the standard reaction and receiving of people should be from we are here to help you, and they should feel that and they should sense it in the communication and the tone, in the atmosphere, in the surroundings, in everything. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Not sure if I heard a question there, but I'll go to Mr. Doyle to comment on it.

Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Does that answer your question adequately, Mrs. Groenewegen?

Yes, I guess it does. I mean on the sensitivity training, we all experience going to public places, going to places of business and we know how we get treated. Think about how refreshing it is to come across somebody at a bank or at the dental clinic or anywhere that you have to go that is warm and thoughtful and accommodating. You don't always get that, but when you do find it, it is very refreshing and it obviously is very well received. I think WCB just needs to take that kind of approach. You need to treat it like you are running a business. You're acting as an agent on behalf of employers and employees, and these people that are coming through your doors are the customers. There's some very, very good models of customer service in this town. I noticed the other day that Hassan Adam got a patient appreciation award. There is a place where you go into where bar none every time you go into that clinic you get received professionally, warmly, with friendliness. We need to take a page out of some of these examples and that one in particular. But anyway. There's no question there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Next on the list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I endorse, I think, the tone and the sentiment that my colleagues have expressed about the sort of front end of the operation. I do respect that the WCB, like any office, has to observe conditions of security and safety for its staff, for the confidential nature of the papers and the information and things that are stored there; and there, I can certainly accommodate and indeed expect some care and attention at the front end. But I think that can be built into something that is welcoming and not as, I guess, cold and sterile as it may be perceived today.

I was interested, Mr. Chairman, the WCB has recently sort of petitioned or gone through an exercise to have its own office building. I'm assuming or considering that that is

still a potential that's out there and, in fact, I think it has some merit as an investment and something that the WCB could undertake. That's a different issue. But considering that this may come about at some point, I'm just wondering what kind of cost is the WCB considering in this reconfiguration or this redesign of the front end and is it something that in light of the fact that there may be a new building undertaken at some point, just how much is a prudent expenditure on a remodelling, a physical remodelling as opposed to more the cultural remodelling that we might be talking about, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Rodgers.

Thank you, Mr. Rodgers. Anything further, Mr. Braden?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to undertake to assess whether $460,000 is a prudent expenditure. That's why there is a council of governors to help make those kinds of decisions, and, of course, there is also accountability from the ratepayers and people who are the employers who are ultimately paying for that expense. Thank you for the information. I think the messages that I've heard clear things off for now, Mr. Chair, on item number 33.

Thirty-four, Mr. Braden. We're on 34, committee, and next on the list I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Just a comment there, Mr. Chair, in terms of the open-door policy. I hope that policy again extends to outside of the Yellowknife area to the regions where we have this type of service also available to us. Again, I come from a population where about 50 to 60 percent speak the aboriginal language and this is also open to the sensitivity of the people that use, are comfortable using the Slavey language in terms of talking to these friendly people at the WCB in terms of explaining some of the things here. I just want to make a note to the Minister and his officials about this in terms of an open-door policy. I, myself, haven't been in the building so I really don't know what I'm saying here in terms of the physical structure and that. To Mr. Rodger's comment, I come into this House here and there's friendly people, the staff members are happy and that and you go into the community outside and you don't know why people are looking at it differently, looking at you funny, so, you know.

---Laughter

I'm in the same boat as you, Mr. Rodgers, and I think it's because sometimes we make some decisions that are sometimes very unpopular. So we're in a tough position, but that's another issue and I just want to leave it at that, Mr. Chair.

Mahsi, Mr. Yakeleya. Is there anything further, committee, on motion 34? Mrs. Groenewegen.

Very, very briefly, two things I forgot to say before. Number one is it is important to be receptive, friendly, informative and professional. It is particularly important when you're dealing with injured workers. I mean it's because people are vulnerable and probably going through a fairly stressful time. You know, any kind of injury is not a happy time and that's why it's particularly important. I was using examples of going to the bank or the dentist, I mean, this is particularly important. We need to put emphasis on that. To the point of you acting as agents, as an employer, we entrust you, we send our premiums to you and we entrust you to take care of our employees and we want them treated in the same way that we would, because I hardly know an employer that does not care for their employees and value them. So we want that by extension for you as our agents to treat them in the same way. Thank you.

Thanks for that, Mrs. Groenewegen. We are on page 4 of 6, committee motion number 35. Before we go on, we have talked about this extensively and asked a number of questions. Are there any more questions on motion 35? Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one question, I think. This recommendation, we've already touched a bit on the orientation and training. This recommendation asks that mandatory orientation and training be implemented for all new employees before they are allowed to engage clients. Further that the committee recommends that ongoing professional development be programmed for each employee, manager and executive member and this be documented. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the reply that the WCB provides does not touch on what committee felt was an important part of the recommendation, and that was mandatory orientation and training before employees are allowed to engage clients. We were of the understanding, Mr. Chairman...Every office in the North is facing workforce challenges, but that the WCB had, in some occasions found itself where brand new, or very new, very fresh employees were being put on sort of the front lines, if you will, of client relationships without the training or the

orientation to the organization, and this definitely was inappropriate and unacceptable. Does the WCB agree with the recommendation that there must be mandatory training before staff is allowed to engage clients? That's really the key point.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Doyle.