Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. What sort of input do the workers and his or her medical advisor or health care provider have in choosing who that third person, opinion, might be?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Doyle.

Thank you, Mr. Doyle. For a response, I'll go to Mr. Wright.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wright. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. Before I move to subsection (4), I have a question on subsection (3), which speaks to the capacity under this clause to go to a third opinion. It says in there in 27(3) that this resolution is binding, so whatever the third opinion is, it's binding to both parties, subject to new medical evidence. So I have a question about what that new medical evidence means exactly, because it could happen in either case. You could have binding resolution on a conflicting medical opinion where both the medical advisor, WCB and the worker agree to a...Let me

just ask first whether they have to agree on who the third party is. Then they get a decision and it could be in favour of the worker or not. Say the decision is in favour of the worker, found the claim to be valid or whatever, but he says it's subject to new medical evidence. What does that mean? Could a decision be overturned on the new medical evidence and what is the standard of that new medical evidence?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Wright. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I want to reserve my question about subsection (4) again, but just following up on what Mr. Wright said, what assurance do workers have in listening to this explanation of subsection (3) that the new medical evidence will only be about something that was unknown, something totally new that would change your resolution, but it would not be another third opinion that would just reverse your decision? Do you know what I mean? That's what the workers are concerned about...or maybe WCB side, too. That there is some standard on what that new medical evidence should be that would put the question into new light, that it would not be...Could I just get the industry standard on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Aitken.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I take that to mean that somebody...So if there is no condition change on the person...Oh dear, this is so hard. If somebody had a back injury and one doctor says no, it's not caused by work and another doctor said yes, it's caused by work, the WCB medical advisor says we don't think it's caused from work. Another doctor says you have an injury and it's caused by work and it should be compensable. You go to a third party and the third party agrees with the worker's side. No change in condition, no medical opinion or anything. There is no change in the worker's condition, but you cannot use a third opinion that agrees with the workers' compensation side to change that decision. I think that's what the people are concerned about. What assurances can be provided that that is not going to happen?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Wright. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I do understand that and I approve that interpretation. I think that's what we meant to do. I think it's the difference between medical opinion and medical evidence. I just wanted to make sure that we put it on record, so that people out there could feel comfort in how this legislation will be interpreted. In the remaining seconds, I just want to ask the panel on subsection (4). It states there that much of how this will be implemented will be written out in the policies and procedures. First of all, would the Minister and Governance Council be willing to set up some sort of stakeholders' consultation group to see how this policy will be written? It's really hard to ask what is going to be in that policy because I don't think anybody in that panel will have a say on that in the level of detail that I like to look at. I would like to know, for example, would the injured worker have a say on who the third medical opinion person will be? How can we be assured that it's somebody who is neutral or somebody who is going to be seen to be objective, somebody who could have that level of distance and objectivity? That's a big concern, whether justified or not. The workers want to make sure that when they go to a third party binding resolution process that they will get a full, fair hearing. So any information the Minister could give me to assure me, just any information on this section would be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The present practice of the board with regard to any revised policy or introducing the new policy, they do err on the side of the workers and other partners in this where they do run it by them before they make a final draft. So they do run it through the different organizations, the workers, employers and vice versa. I think it's important that we stress that we put on consultation and ensure that we are transparent. That aspect with regard to establishing that policy will be done through that process which is being used today. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Krutko. Clause 27, committee? Ms. Lee.