10.07.2015 Views

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

Act Now - The Report of the WCB Legislative Review Panel to the

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> also reviewed Subsection 22(1) that requires <strong>the</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> a permanentdisability <strong>to</strong> be made on behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>WCB</strong> by a physician and a non-medical person.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> feels this operational direction is outdated and limiting. It should be removed.Recommendations: 3.13.1 Health Care Definitions1. <strong>The</strong> legislation should be changed <strong>to</strong> include a definition <strong>of</strong> “health care provider”and remove <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> “physician.” <strong>The</strong> definition in Saskatchewan’slegislation is recommended for consideration.2. <strong>The</strong> legislation should be changed <strong>to</strong> include a definition <strong>of</strong> “traditional medicine”and “traditional healers.” Practitioners <strong>of</strong> traditional medicine should be included in<strong>the</strong> definition <strong>of</strong> “health care provider.”3. <strong>The</strong> legislation should be changed <strong>to</strong> incorporate <strong>the</strong> term “health care provider” asappropriate, specifically in Sections 17, 24 and 54.4. <strong>The</strong> legislation should be changed <strong>to</strong> recognize <strong>the</strong> reality <strong>of</strong> health care deliverysystems in <strong>the</strong> NWT/Nunavut and include reference <strong>to</strong> community health centres asappropriate and specifically in Subsection 54(9).5. <strong>The</strong> legislation should be changed <strong>to</strong> remove Section 19 and Subsection 22(1).3.13.2 <strong>Report</strong>ing <strong>of</strong> Municipal Construction Permits<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> was asked <strong>to</strong> consider <strong>the</strong> provisions <strong>of</strong> Subsections 66(3), (4) and (5) thatrequire municipalities <strong>to</strong> report in writing <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>WCB</strong> when a building permit wi<strong>the</strong>xpenditures over $1,000.00 is issued. It is unders<strong>to</strong>od that this section is a “check” <strong>to</strong>ensure that all employers register with and pay assessments <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>WCB</strong>.<strong>The</strong> 4 jurisdictions that require reporting <strong>of</strong> construction projects generally do so forsafety reasons. For example, <strong>to</strong> enable pre-construction meetings on health and safetyissues. In most cases, <strong>the</strong> onus is on <strong>the</strong> employer, not a municipality, <strong>to</strong> make a report.<strong>The</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> did not feel that municipalities should be legislatively obliged <strong>to</strong> participate in<strong>the</strong> administrative processes needed <strong>to</strong> check up on employers. <strong>The</strong> issuance <strong>of</strong><strong>WCB</strong> <strong>Legislative</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>Panel</strong> <strong>Report</strong> Page 81 <strong>of</strong> 128December, 2001

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!