Thank you. I think my question might have been confusing, so I just wanted to get more. I think I would like to hear some more specifics from Mr. Doyle. I guess how the bill was written and presented to the House, it suggested a dominant cause to be a factor in determining cause of injury. We have changed that. We have done away with that dominant cause and we have made it, I think to my mind, a lesser burden to say if there's a material cause to workplace being the case of injury or diseases, then one would be compensable. Now, that's how I read it. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong in that. I am interested in hearing, from either Mr. Doyle or any of the panel members, as to how this will be different than how it has been done before without this law being there. Mr. Doyle mentioned that he didn't think there was a whole lot of difference, but I'd like to think that there is still a difference in terms of how the causation is determined. For the record and for the interest of those who are listening to how we are changing this legislation, I would like to hear what the change will be. Thank you.
Sandy Lee on Committee Motion 14-15(6): Amend Clause 12 Of Bill 6, Workers' Compensation Act, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on August 21st, 2007. See this statement in context.
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
August 21st, 2007
Page 483
See context to find out what was said next.