Okay. For the record, I'd like to say that these changes were supported by not only the PSAC, UNW and NWT Federation of Labour, but also the NWT Construction Association, and that was, I think, mentioned in the report. Let me just say this again. From what I understand, if someone gets injured in a workplace, if they could prove that that happened in the workplace, doesn't have to prove but there's enough through medical opinion or whatever that the work had something to do with it. That doesn't have to be dominantly work, but if work had something to do with it, then you will be compensated. Am I correct in understanding that in a simple way? Thank you.
Debates of Aug. 21st, 2007
This is page numbers 451 - 494 of the Hansard for the 15th Assembly, 6th Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was work.
Topics
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 483
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 483
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 483
Doyle
The answer to that would be it would still have to contribute to the injury, or contribute to the disease, death or injury in a material way. It can't be something that is just trivial in its relationship to the injury.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 483
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 483
Sandy Lee Range Lake
Right. Trivial. I never use the word trivial. But let me try this again because I'd like to get more clarification. Say if somebody has carpel tunnel syndrome, as an example, and say if he could prove that...I mean I think from a layperson's point of view -- you don't have to be a doctor -- as I understand it, carpel tunnel syndrome could come from repeated use of a computer keyboard. But in modern days, a lot of us use computer keyboards at work and at home. Say if it was under proof of...I mean if the standard proof was something like dominant cause or something else, you would have to prove, not prove, but the fact that you might have been using keyboards at home might affect the fact that your injury happened at work because, you know, you're using computers in both places. How I understand it, from a layperson's view, is the fact that you're using computers at work should help you to determine that that injury, carpel tunnel syndrome, if you could prove that it's from repeated use of a keyboard, that it happened at work. I'm trying to simplify how I understand this. Is that a correct...that one should be able to say that carpel tunnel syndrome happened from work because of repeated use
of keyboards at work, and would this provision make it easier to prove that?
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Wright
I think the Member is correct, that if the work contributes to the injury, then that would be a casual link that might give rise to a claim. But I think what this section is intending to deal with is to deal with a situation where the work component of the injury is small and a worker might perhaps argue that working at a computer is not a very significant portion of his or her injury in your example, that the dominant cause had nothing to do with the work they're doing, then this section would say that that would not be contributing cause. In other words, the work part of the injury has to be significant, but it's also saying that it's not the only cause. There could be some non-work cause, some work cause. It has to be significant but it can't be trivial. If you have a worker that, say, has worked one day in his or her life on the computer and has a lot of time working at home, then that would be a trivial cause. After that, it's really a question of fact. I hope that helps.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Sandy Lee Range Lake
I realize that we may be...I guess the lawyers here might want to err on the side of caution and we don't want to be too definitive in interpreting this clause. But I think Mr. Wright has basically said what I was looking for, but I'm just going to confirm this again in my remaining seconds. Am I right in thinking that if, say, this clause requires the workplace to be a dominant clause, dominant factor of the injury or the disease, your burden of proof would have been lot higher than what we have here, which is a little lower but higher than trivial cause? I could look in that step-by-step way. This clause sort of goes to the middle or maybe a little lesser burden than the middle, which was agreed to by all stakeholders. Thank you.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Wright
I'm agreeing with Ms. Lee.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
The Chair David Ramsay
Thank you, Mr. Wright. Thank you, committee. We are on clause 13, page 25. Agreed?
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
The Chair David Ramsay
Thank you, committee. Page 26, clause 14, clause 15, clause 16, and clause 17.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Sandy Lee Range Lake
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just need some assistance here. I have a question on the section on conflicting medical opinion and we're going by lumps of clauses, so could I just get some advice as to when I could raise that question? Thank you.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
The Chair David Ramsay
Thank you, Ms. Lee. I'm calling each clause on each page. If you have a specific question to a clause, just mention the clause that I've just called and that would be sufficient. Have you got a question on a specific clause on page 29? Clause 24, 25 and 26.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Some Hon. Members
Agreed.
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
Item 20: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
Page 484
Sandy Lee Range Lake
Thank you. Very conveniently, section 27 deals with the question I had in mind and it's in regards to conflicting medical opinion situations. I'd like to ask either the Minister or whoever on the panel, Mr. Wright, just to explain to the people out there how does this section address situations of conflicting medical opinions.