Committee Transcript 1994-Aug-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Workers' Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, 1994, Bill 165, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1994 modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail, projet de loi 165, M. Mackenzie

Canadian Manufacturers' Association

Paul Nykanen, vice-president, Ontario division

Maria Marchese, workers' compensation policy analyst

Rosa Fiorentino, chair, workers' compensation committee

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 and 633

Herb MacDonald, benefits coordinator

Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade; Whitby Chamber of Commerce; Oshawa Chamber of Commerce

Andy Emmink, secretary, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 595

Barry Weisleder, executive board member

Council of Ontario Construction Associations

David Frame, executive vice-president

Doug Chalmers, chairman

Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222

Dave Thompson, manager, workers' compensation affairs

Ontario Automobile Dealers Association; Toronto Automobile Dealers Association

Shelly Schlueter, chair, government relations committee

Bill Davis, director, government affairs

Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association

Joe Fauteux, chairman, workers' compensation committee

Quinte and District Injured Workers Group

Anne Madill, president

Canadian Chemical Producers' Association

Jeff Murray

Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario

Pat Dillon, president

Julie Nielsen, workers' compensation specialist, Building Trades WCB Services

Alex Lolua, government relations representative

Extendicare Health Services Inc

Gary Chatfield, president, Canadian operations

Irene Krahn, director, occupational health and accident prevention

Beyond Ability

Gerald Parker, executive director

United Steelworkers of America, Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian service sector division

Dave McCormick, workers' compensation specialist

Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge Injured Workers Group

John Sweeney, president

Rosa Balumba

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Vacant

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay ND)

Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener NDP)

Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND) for Mr Huget

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Wood

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Conway

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1008 in room 151.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): We are continuing our public deliberations on Bill 165. Our first witnesses are from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Good morning and welcome to the committee. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave time for questions and comments from the caucuses. Please identify yourselves for the record and proceed.

Mr Paul Nykanen: Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association wishes to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our position regarding Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Our presentation to you today will be made by myself, Paul Nykanen, vice-president of the Ontario division of CMA; Rosa Fiorentino, who is with Imperial Oil and is the chair of the CMA workers' compensation committee; and Maria Marchese, workers' compensation specialist with CMA.

By way of introductory remarks, CMA is a voluntary organization representing manufacturers of all sizes from all sectors and from all regions of the country. This year, CMA celebrated its 123rd anniversary as an association representing manufacturers.

In Ontario alone, CMA member companies represent over 75% of the total manufacturing output of the province, or $121 billion annually. We wish to differ from the Minister of Labour's view, as expressed at these hearings on August 22, 1994, that the manufacturing sector is no longer one of the twin pillars of Ontario's economy, because in employment alone manufacturers account for 880,000 direct manufacturing jobs and provide an additional 600,000 jobs in service industries which are directly related to the manufacturing sector.

As a major generator of economic activity and a provider of high-paying job opportunities, I would suggest that manufacturing is at the forefront of economic change and wealth creation in Ontario. We've been actively involved with the workers' compensation system since its beginning 80 years ago. Within the system today, the manufacturing sector is responsible for approximately 42% of the assessment revenues which are collected by the WCB.

I'd like to talk a little about the reform process. The CMA has been an active participant in the debates concerning workers' compensation since prior to the inception of the system. CMA currently holds seats on numerous WCB committees, including the employers' advisory group on revenue issues, and is a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal advisory group and the office of the employer adviser. CMA also held one of two employer seats on the steering committee of the WCB chairman's task force on service delivery and vocational rehabilitation. Our participation of involvement in workers' compensation has been a long-standing one.

CMA has also supported, through its participation on the business steering committee, the business caucus of Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee in the development of the business proposals for reforming the workers' compensation system. These proposals were tabled in October 1993 and presented to the Premier in November 1993.

At the request of the Premier, the business community agreed to the participation of the business members of PLMAC to work with labour to develop recommendations for a balanced approach to solving the problems confronting the workers' compensation system, which would not only provide fair compensation to injured workers but would also meet the test of being financially sound. The stakes are very high: For workers, it is ensuring that the benefits will be available to meet all future needs of workers and their families, which can only be achieved with a financially sound system; and for the economy as a whole, it is the existence of future jobs and a strong business base in the province.

The Premier, in his April 14 announcement, stated that the WCB will be changed to "meet the twin challenges of real fairness and fiscal responsibility" and that "it is essential that the change be balanced. It must speak to injured workers and to the needs of the broader economy." CMA maintains that Bill 165 fails to pass the test of being a responsible solution to a very serious crisis and meets neither the challenge of real fairness or fiscal responsibility. The government's process of reform, as evidenced by Bill 165, is indicative of the government's lack of understanding as to the magnitude of the fiscal crisis facing the WCB and of the government's lack of commitment and willingness to implement solutions which would instil financial responsibility and accountability in the system.

The CMA, along with the broad business community, entered in good faith the reform process with the understanding that the government was truly committed to rectifying the problems of an agency with a debt which currently stands at over $11 billion. After hundreds and hundreds of hours of dedicated work over the past year, the business community presented a proposal which met all of the Premier's criteria. What the business community was handed instead was a reform package in the form of Bill 165, which does not resolve the present financial crisis, does not ensure the future viability of the system, does not instil financial responsibility and places future benefits to injured workers at risk.

As a member of the business steering committee, CMA supports the position outlined in the BSC brief to this committee on August 23, which is appendix A of this presentation. Bill 165 does not reflect the agreements that were arrived at by business and labour as articulated in the PLMAC accord of March 1994. We wish to state for the record our extreme disappointment with the activities of the government with respect to the process of reform of the workers' compensation system.

When one considers the direct contributions of manufacturing and those of other sectors which are dependent on manufacturing, including significant portions of the service and natural resources industries, manufacturing accounts for more than half of all the economic activity in Ontario. The manufacturing sector today is under unprecedented pressure. Competition from companies and countries all around the world is more intense than it has ever been before and continues to accelerate. Bill 165 not only fails to provide assistance to Ontario employers in improving their competitiveness, it presents further obstacles to that objective.

Bill 165 is legislatively and administratively flawed and falls markedly short of producing a system which will meet the test of being financially sound. Tinkering with the bill will not solve the administrative and legislative problems which will arise with its implementation. As outlined in the BSC position, Bill 165 will not address the fiscal crisis and does nothing to restore the lack of confidence that all stakeholders have with the system. Bill 165 produces a skewed package of reforms which debases a consensual agreement while altering and interpreting it for the government's own needs.

CMA calls on the government to withdraw Bill 165, and we ask this committee to consider the recommendations of the BSC as presented to the Premier as the basis for any further government initiatives in workers' compensation.

The following is a brief outline of some of the inadequacies in the bill which we believe supports our request for its withdrawal. By way of commentary on the bill, it is our intention to limit our comments to broader issues with some reference to particular aspects of the bill for illustrative purposes. There are numerous other issues and the CMA will be presenting the committee with a detailed written submission. I'll now call on Maria Marchese to comment on some of these issues.

Ms Maria Marchese: In the business proposals tabled in October 1993 and presented to the Premier in November 1993, a financial responsibility framework and the new governance structure served as the cornerstones of reform. As outlined in these proposals, the financial responsibility framework and the new model were intended to inject a balance into the workers' compensation system between securing benefits for injured workers and the need for financial responsibility and accountability at all levels within the system. It was felt that this balance could be accomplished only when roles and responsibilities of the various parties in the system were clearly defined, understood and enshrined in legislation, thereby binding on all parties.

A purpose clause and a financial responsibility framework would be the method by which the balancing of ensuring benefits for injured workers and financial responsibility and accountability could be achieved. This proposal was agreed to by both business and labour in March 1994 in the PLMAC accord. Bill 165, instead, introduces through section 1 a purpose clause which clearly omits the financial responsibility framework as one of the purposes of the act.

The purpose clause, as written, focuses on providing fair compensation and other benefits only, without the inclusion of legislative requirement to have the highest level of financial responsibility and accountability on the part of persons charged by this act with administering the workers' compensation system in Ontario, as was set out in the business proposals. Also absent from the bill is the requirement that any proposed changes to benefits, services, programs or policies under the act are thoroughly analysed in order that the financial consequences of the proposed change do not negatively impact the competitiveness of Ontario employers, again as proposed by the business community to the Premier.

The government claims that financial responsibility is enshrined in the act through section 12 of the bill, in its requirement that the board "act in a financially responsible and accountable manner," and subsection 15(3.2), in its legislative requirement that, "The board shall evaluate the consequences of any proposed change in benefits, services, programs and policies to ensure that the purposes of this act are achieved."

As drafted, however, the bill does not require the WCB administration or the government to consider the financial consequences of their decisions. In fact, by referring the board to the "purposes" section of the bill when evaluating proposed changes, as subsection 15(3.2) does, there exists no requirement to consider the proposed changes within a financial context.

The purpose clause is open-ended in its stated purpose of providing fair compensation without defining it. As written, it serves to broaden the base for entitlement by requiring that the purpose clause be the point of reference for all proposed changes in benefits, services, programs and policies without financial considerations.

The Ministry of Labour, in its August 22, 1994, presentation to this committee, stated that "Bill 165 is the most financially responsible piece of workers' compensation legislation" ever introduced by the Legislature and is aimed at achieving a funding ratio of 55% and an unfunded liability of $13 billion in the year 2014. We submit that even if the government's estimates are correct, this level of debt is still totally unacceptable and does not satisfy any definition we are familiar with of "financially responsible."

1020

Ms Rosa Fiorentino: Bill 165 introduces new return-to-work and vocational rehabilitation obligations on employers, including new mediation powers for the board. We submit that these new provisions are unnecessary as the current legislation adequately provides for re-employment obligations.

We believe that new provisions in this area, such as those introduced in Bill 165, will only serve in exacerbating the service delivery and vocational rehabilitation problems currently existing at the WCB. The bill is noticeably silent on legislative requirements that the WCB provide all the resources necessary to assist employers in returning workers to work.

More importantly, the bill fails to impose balanced legislative requirements on workers to participate in more timely return-to-work efforts by the employer. The current act provides insufficient obligations on workers to comply with return-to-work arrangements. Legislatively, the bill does nothing in the way of rectifying these inadequacies by providing legal obligations on workers and the medical community to provide employers with the medical information necessary to modify the workplace or accommodate an injured worker. In fact, section 8 will serve as an impediment to expediting the return-to-work processes in its requirement that a worker must consent to the release of pertinent medical restrictions and details required by the employer from the treating physician rather than allowing all employer to receive the necessary return-to-work details directly and promptly.

The government claims that this package is balanced. We submit that there is no balance when an employer is legally obligated to return a worker to work and may be subject to receive penalties for non-compliance, but no similar obligations and accompanying consequences for non-compliance are imposed on the workers and medical professionals upon whom the employers are dependent for the essential information required to fulfil their obligations.

Experience rating. Bill 165, through section 28, proposes major amendments to the act pertaining to experience rating programs. The current experience rating programs have met their objectives of reducing the frequency and severity of workplace injuries and enhancing the level of individual employer accountability by rewarding or penalizing employers based on results. The Minister of Labour himself confirmed in his August 22, 1994, statement that "in the last few years the average duration of short-term claims has fallen." This period, it is important to note, coincides with the expansion of the experience rating programs. The current experience rating programs encourage positive practices aimed at accident prevention and the rehabilitation and re-employment of injured workers.

The proposed changes will alter experience rating programs from one of measuring employers' performance based on results to one of measuring processes. The proposed changes, including the new amendments proposed by the government to the standing committee on August 22, 1994, will continue to pose an unnecessary and costly administrative burden on the WCB and the employers. We maintain that experience rating must remain in its current form as a program which measures and rewards results.

Principle of an independent administration. One of the founding principles upon which the workers' compensation system was built is that of an independent administration to administer the provisions of the act. We submit that section 16 of the bill, however, compromises this very important foundation upon which the workers' compensation system was built by (a) empowering the minister to issue policy directions "relating the board's exercise of its powers and performance of its duties under the act," and (b) by requiring the board to respect any policy given to it and requiring the board to report back to the minister when such directed duties are carried out. More importantly, the government, through section 16 of the bill, is empowering itself to control the WCB and the board of directors without requiring itself to be accountable or responsible for its exercise of such direction.

The objective of the founding principle was evident. The workers' compensation system must be allowed to function independently of any government intervention. The message being conveyed by government, however, is that it wishes to control the board but is not willing to assume any responsibility for that control.

The PLMAC accord included a new governance model which was developed to ensure that the board of directors would operate at arm's length from the government. Under the accord, the government was to hold ultimate responsibility for the system. Section 16 undermines any notion of board independence and will serve to hold any new board members at the mercy and whim of the government while having to retain responsibility for any government direction given.

Mr Nykanen: I respect the time, Mr Chair, and I'll just make a few brief closing remarks. It's the position of the CMA that Bill 165, and in fact the entire reform process, from the transition team to the proposed appointment of a labour representative as the neutral chair of the royal commission, is nothing more than a reform package developed to assist the government in implementing its own agenda. Bill 165 represents the government's attempt to provide short-term quick fixes instead of a solution to a serious long-term problem.

Bill 165 fails to correct the spiralling costs of workers' compensation in Ontario. In fact, it provides a blank cheque for the WCB and government to expand benefits without regard to the financial impact of the changes and without accountability for those decisions.

The bill itself is legislatively flawed and will serve to be an administrative nightmare to implement.

The bill demonstrates a lack of political will or desire to implement the reforms necessary to bring the needed changes to the workers' compensation system to begin to control, with the objective of eliminating, the WCB's debt. Such a will could have been demonstrated through the adoption of the business proposals tabled pursuant to the Premier's request.

We call on the government to withdraw Bill 165 and ask that the government consider the recommendations presented by the business community to the Premier. This comprehensive package of reforms would not only meet the test of being financially sound but would do so in a fair and equitable way for both the injured workers and the employers of Ontario. The proposals should be the basis for any further initiatives in workers' compensation reform.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. If there's time, we'd be pleased to answer any questions from the committee.

The Vice-Chair: No time.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): No time?

Ms Fiorentino: You still have two minutes, according to my watch.

Mr Mahoney: You still have a couple of minutes. I've been timing it.

Ms Fiorentino: I timed it too.

The Vice-Chair: Two minutes.

Mr Mahoney: One question from each caucus.

The Vice-Chair: A very short comment.

Mr Mahoney: Since I have one question, let me dwell, if I might, on the purpose clause. Subsection 58(1) says, "The board of directors shall act in a financially responsible and accountable manner in exercising its powers and performing its duties." Why, in your opinion, is it unacceptable to have that in the body of this bill instead of in the purpose clause, and does that not ultimately achieve, by including 58(1), what you want to achieve?

Mr Nykanen: First of all, if the financial responsibility aspect is not completely enshrined in the act, we are defeating the purposes of the bill itself if it is to be financially responsible as well as providing fair benefits. If it is in the section that is in the bill itself, it imposes a financial responsibility on the board of directors itself, but it makes no reference whatsoever to any decisions that are made with regard to the bill with regard to the WCB administration or the government. If truly the intent of the purpose clause was to provide a system with financial responsibility for the entire system, then it should be enshrined right in the purpose clause itself.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you for your presentation.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): In the return-to-work section, you mention that there's no balance in the provisions, and you specifically mention that it is silent regarding "the resources necessary to assist employers in returning workers to work." What are the resources that would be necessary?

Ms Fiorentino: We have to concentrate on the employee. Employers want the worker to come back to work, but it's important that we have the details necessary to either accommodate the injured worker or modify the workplace. We need those restrictions. We need the medical information that's required for them in order to bring them back as quickly as possible. We do want them back as soon as possible.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I have one question. You've suggested on many occasions, in fact many business groups have suggested, that this fails to meet the test of being fiscally responsible. Yet when you compare this bill with the PLMAC accord that was agreed upon originally but later fell through when business decided to walk, when you compare the major components, such as the Friedland formula, the $200 increase to the pension, not a whole lot has changed. Could you tell me, in your view, what you would like to see that you think would essentially meet the test of being fiscally responsible?

Mr Nykanen: With respect, I would challenge the comment that there isn't a significant difference, because the immediate impact with the PLMAC accord on the unfunded liability would have been $3.3 billion on the basis of future benefits. With Bill 165 as it was tabled, it reduced that $3.3-billion saving, with one stroke of the pen, down to $700 million, and I would submit that that is a pretty substantial amount.

1030

Mr Ferguson: But did they use --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson: But he didn't answer the question.

Mr Mahoney: Well, excuse me. I'll have another go.

The Vice-Chair: We don't have time, Mr Ferguson.

Mr Mahoney: It didn't bother you yesterday when he didn't answer my question.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for bringing us their presentation this morning.

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCALS 175 AND 633

The Vice-Chair: I call our next presenters, from the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 and 633. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Herb MacDonald: My name is Herb MacDonald. I am the benefits coordinator for Locals 175 and 633.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Excuse me, Mr Chair. Are we now muzzling people who have expert opinion, and then we're getting back people who've been here before?

Mr MacDonald: I have not been here before, Mr Chairperson. I was here as an assistant with the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): What about Mr Cryne yesterday? I mean, excuse me.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please. Please proceed.

Mr MacDonald: If I may start again, I was here before, to clarify the record. I was here as a resource person with the Canadian director of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and the records will show that I didn't make a comment on his presentation. Any comments that were made were by another member of another one of our unions, Pearl MacKay. Having said that, I'll get on with my presentation.

The local I represent, Local 175 of the United Food and Commercial Workers, is the largest in the UFCW. We represent some 40,000 members. Our members work in retail stores, meat and poultry packing plants, hotels, restaurants and clubs, hospitals, home care, department stores and beverage as well as the brewing industry.

Repetitive strain injuries are the most common injuries our members suffer, as most of our jobs are extremely repetitive in nature. For example, one of our poultry plants processes over 200,000 chickens per day. Workers work shoulder to shoulder, performing the same job hour after hour, day after day.

Our members in the health care sector continue to suffer back, shoulder and neck injuries, as well as cuts and bruises, and many times violent attacks. Many of these injuries are preventable, simply by supplying appropriate lifting devices and/or the necessary help to lift a patient.

Cashiers: I would invite you to stand and watch the repetitive movements performed by cashiers the next time you shop for your groceries.

The diversity of our organization and the fact that we have members across the province has given us the opportunity to work with local and regional offices of the Workers' Compensation Board in Ontario.

We believe that cooperative rehabilitation programs and the injured worker's successful return to work must be a priority. Bill 165 is intended to provide earlier return to work for injured workers, protect the most financially vulnerable workers, at the same time ensuring the future financial viability of the system. For this, we compliment the NDP government for bringing this bill forward.

Our experience in rehabilitation programs, returning injured workers to work, clearly indicates they can only be successful when there is cooperation by all parties: the employer, the union, the injured worker and the attending doctor. Medical information should only be provided as it relates to the medical restrictions the worker has as a result of the compensable injury. Non-diagnostic medical information should not be provided to the accident employer. Rehabilitation of injured workers must be a priority if the system is to succeed.

We support and welcome the new bipartite governance structure of the board of directors, although we have some concerns about the chair of the appeals tribunal as a non-voting member of the board of directors and recommend that subsection 56(2) be deleted. The chair of the appeals tribunal should not be a non-voting member of the board, as the appeals tribunal is supposed to be a separate and impartial body. Even with non-voting status, the chair of the appeals tribunal could use the position to lobby and influence the actions of the board. This section provokes questions of the impartiality of the appeals tribunal.

Subsection 147(4), permanent partial disability supplements: Bill 165 provides the addition of subsection (14), which provides that the board shall pay an additional $200 per month to a worker receiving an amount awarded for a permanent partial disability.

The UFCW is deeply concerned that this amendment does not cover a small group of workers who were over 65 when Bill 162 was passed. In particular, subsection 147(4) excludes these workers, who are now over 70 years old, and consequently will be denied the Bill 165 pension increase because of their age. A pension increase for this small group of workers should therefore be included under Bill 165. This is a matter of justice and equity.

The UFCW welcomes this proposed pension increase, which will affect approximately 40,000 workers with disabilities who are unemployed and were injured prior to 1990. At the end of 1992, over 16,000 workers in manufacturing were receiving permanent partial disability supplements. This is of importance, given the significant number of workers the UFCW represents in manufacturing.

Replacing "industrial disease" with "occupational disease": In the past, we have often heard of industrial disease that developed gradually over time, such as lung disease that affected workers such as miners. Today, however, people employed in health care, retail food stores, meat packing, food processing and various other industries face repetitive strain injuries, or RSIs, which can be severely disabling. The UFCW hopes the term "occupational" will be adopted to more accurately reflect the changing workplaces across the province. In addition, with the update of terminology, people will begin to recognize occurrences such as repetitive strain injuries. The UFCW has fought to reduce the hazards of RSIs in thousands of workplaces across Canada. Industry and government must take immediate steps to improve workstation designs and review working conditions and procedures to prevent these disabling injuries.

Prevention, however, is not enough. We need fairer compensation policies so that our injured workers are not left uncompensated. We also need to enforce ergonomic standards which would guarantee our members a truly safe environment.

1040

Section 54, obligation to re-employ: Subsection (11.1) enables the board, on its own initiative, to determine whether the employer has fulfilled its obligation to the worker under this section. This section will enable the board to be proactive in assessing penalties on employers who do not fulfil their obligation to re-employ an injured worker. This subsection will be especially important for non-organized workers.

The UFCW believes, however, that a clarification is necessary in this section. It should be clearly stated that any board hearing is a worker's hearing, not the board's or the employer's. Failure to clarify the legislation in this way could potentially leave workers unaware that a determination is being made that could have an impact on them. Workers could be left without access to relevant information or representation. It should also be clarified who at the board makes the determination and whether it can be appealed.

A further clarification is necessary regarding use of the word "determination" in subsection (11.1). The UFCW recommends the following amendment: Replace the words "may determine" with "shall decide."

The act states in subsection 72(2) that decisions of the board shall be communicated in writing and they are appealable. The board also frequently makes decisions which are not appealable. For those reasons, the UFCW believes the correct words in subsection (11.1) are "shall decide" rather than "may determine." Similarly, in subsection 54(11) of the act, the word "determination" should be replaced by the word "decision."

Subsection 148(1), indexing factor: The UFCW neither endorses the Friedland formula -- I even hate to say it -- nor anything else that would reduce benefits on its own or unilaterally, especially to the poorest of poor workers in the system. None the less, the UFCW recognizes that this formula was the result of the negotiation process in developing the proposed amendments to this legislation.

The board's income is tied to inflation. Therefore, if inflation rises to 10%, then wages will eventually rise by the same amount, which will ultimately be reflected in the board's income. We therefore recommend that the 4% cap be removed.

In conclusion, we would like to congratulate the NDP government for proposing changes to the Workers' Compensation Act. Many of these proposed changes are long overdue and will address some of the serious problems and shortfalls in the current system.

We strongly feel the changes in Bill 165 will strengthen employers' obligations to rehire injured workers and increase the pensions of workers injured prior to 1990 so that injured workers and their families can live in dignity.

The Workers' Compensation Board's funding is the responsibility of employers, not injured workers and not the taxpayers of Ontario. We are confident a bipartite board of directors will change the adversarial system we have seen over the last number of years.

We also welcome the creation of the royal commission to examine the long-term financial implications of the workers' compensation system, including universal disability insurance and entitlement.

On behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.

The Acting Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): Thank you, sir. We have about two minutes per caucus.

Mr Mahoney: I'm delighted that I've finally found something I can agree with from what I perceive to be the NDP side of this debate. Thank you for your presentation. I think you're bang on about WCAT being on the board. In fact, it was a recommendation that I made in my report and I'll be making an amendment here.

But I would ask you: One of the things I've always thought was important was that we take away the political interference that exists at the board, both in the appointment to the board of people like the chair, Mr Di Santo, and others in the past, always appointed former MPPs, that type of thing, but also in relationship to WCAT. I go a little bit further, and I wonder if you'll go that distance with me, in recommending that WCAT be established as a quasi-judicial body wherein politicians and government officials and bureaucrats would literally not be allowed to interfere, just like we're not allowed to interfere in the court system. It would be truly independent, not able to determine or set policy for the WCB in its decisions, but simply required to enforce the act and make a decision based on a quasi-judicial submission and reporting system. So they wouldn't be on the board, they wouldn't have any influence over board policy, they wouldn't be able to lobby, as you have said, but in return, we, all of us -- the royal "we," I guess -- would also not be able to sort of stick our paws into the WCAT process. Would you agree with that?

Mr MacDonald: I'm afraid I'd have to do a bit of thinking about that, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: You're close.

Mr MacDonald: I'm not sure I would go that far. I am afraid I'm not prepared to answer that question.

Mr Mahoney: Are you saying, then, that you think it's right that we as politicians should be going upstream, up the river, to WCAT and using political influence to attempt to enforce decisions? You've said that WCAT should not be on the board, that they should be independent, that they should not have influence over the WCB board of directors' policies. Therefore, in return, how could it be that we -- again, the royal "we." It's not just MPPs; it's anybody who's involved in the system.

So the people who would go to WCAT would be the injured worker and/or their representative. That could be a lawyer, that could be a union representative, that could be anyone who is an advocate, shall we say, on their behalf, but it would not be the local MPP's office. Frankly, it would save our offices a tremendous amount of work, but aside from that, it would truly set WCAT up as independent, as quasi-judicial, and I think you've gone like 90% of the way. I'm not trying to trap you into something. It's just that it seems --

Mr MacDonald: I can appreciate what you're saying. I would hope the royal commission would address that particular issue.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be moving an amendment to this.

Mrs Witmer: Just one brief question. You mention the obligation to re-employ and you seem to be quite happy that the board on its own initiative now can determine whether or not the employer has fulfilled his or her obligations. As you know, that's of concern to the employer community, because certainly it is an intrusion into the activities.

What's happened in the past that would make you believe this is absolutely necessary?

Mr MacDonald: The problem with the system as it stands is that there's no determination made -- and I pointed out, by the way, that this would be extremely useful for the non-organized sector, where the employer simply does not take a worker back; the worker doesn't have representation and doesn't know their rights and therefore doesn't know the proper procedure to go through so that a determination will be made on their behalf. They also don't have representation if they do file a section 54.

In my experience with the mediation officers of the Workers' Compensation Board, and that's on a daily basis, when we deal with mediation officers, an agreement can be reached very, very often without going to a hearing, and of course when you stop something going to a hearing, you save a lot of money for the system.

1050

As I said in my opening remarks, I represent a local that has 40,000 members. We have a great number of appeals, and in the past three years we've done two section 54 hearings out of an estimate of maybe 150 applications. That's a big saving to the system. I believe this early intervention by the board in making a determination is very important.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I appreciate your coming forward today to bring up issues. My particular area is subsection 147(4), permanent partial disability supplements. Your comments need to be looked at. In fact, I thought you were going to talk about something else in this area. Wayne Lessard, a colleague from Windsor-Walkerville, phoned me this morning to ask a question. One of his constituents talked to Pat, who is really affected by this and is glad to see there is some recognition. However, he was concerned a little bit. Because of being on disability and of losing his job etc because of the accidents or whatever, he is in other areas like family benefits, and what he was concerned about was clawbacks. I've been told that we are recognizing that.

I guess my question to you is, does your organization realize that, recognize that we don't want to have clawbacks? People already have enough problems, and we recognize that, and things like family benefits won't be clawed back. Are you aware of that?

Mr MacDonald: Yes, that certainly was part of the brief that was done by Tom Kukovica, our Canadian director. We are very concerned, particularly in the areas of social services, when people are on social services, that there would be clawbacks, and we don't believe it should be tied in.

Mr Klopp: The government has recognized that.

Mr MacDonald: The government has to recognize it.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank Locals 175 and 633 of the United Food and Commercial Workers for their presentation this morning.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): While the next presenters come up -- and I don't know if the information is available or not through the Workers' Compensation Board -- I'm wondering, of the number of appeals in a year, how many would be through a claims adjudicator's decision or through an employer's rebutting the ability to pay. I'm wondering, if those numbers are kept at the WCB, how many of the appeals are caused by employers saying, "No, the accident didn't happen here," or how many of them are because of a claims adjudicator's decision. I'm hoping I'm clear enough for the researcher.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, he'll discuss it with you.

AJAX-PICKERING BOARD OF TRADE
WHITBY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
OSHAWA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr Andy Emmink: My name is Andy Emmink. I'm the secretary of the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade and, as the submissions before the committee members will indicate, I'm also here on behalf of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and the Whitby Chamber of Commerce. We had intended that our board of trade president, Doug McKay, be here with me as well this morning. We came down separately and I suspect he's stuck in a cavalcade of taxis on the parkway somewhere. In any event, he hasn't arrived. He may be arriving while I'm speaking.

First of all, let me thank the committee for this opportunity to hear our concerns. I'm fully appreciative of the fact that you'll be hearing from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and much of what I'm going to be saying to you this morning will be in support of what the Ontario chamber will be telling you and what the business steering committee has already told you. So I guess it's an exercise in adding weight to those learned views.

Between us, the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade and the Whitby and Oshawa chambers represent almost 1,000 business enterprises in the region of Durham. Our membership ranges from "homepreneurs" to multinational corporations with many hundreds of employees. We form a substantial portion of the manufacturing and industrial base in Ontario from which the Workers' Compensation Board of this province draws its revenues. Similarly, our employees draw substantial benefits from the protection that the Workers' Compensation Act offers.

I think it's fair to say that all of us -- that is, management and our employees and their families -- have a vested interest in the wellbeing of a system that provides income replacement and health care and vocational rehabilitation services to our injured workers. We also believe it's fair to say that a system that provides such a comprehensive benefit package to such a large workforce has to be managed with the utmost degree of financial responsibility. As with any corporation with assets in excess of $6 billion, we firmly believe that those who manage the corporation must be accountable for doing so in a fiscally responsible way.

To us, the alarming increase in the shortfall between the board's assets and its liabilities over the past decade indicates that the desired degree of fiscal responsibility has been lacking and that remedial action is now long overdue.

In 1985 a Conservative government attempted to reform the system with Bill 101, and what we saw there was the creation of a new board of directors and the creation of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

Then in 1989, another government, a Liberal government, tried to reform benefits by getting rid of the meat-chart approach to compensating for permanent disability and replacing this with a new dual-award system to recognize both economic and non-economic consequences. This approach, we were told at the time, was going to be revenue-neutral. With the new approach to aggressive rehabilitation, the WCB's rehabilitation strategy and decentralized claims administration, we were assured that benefit costs would decline and that service delivery was going to improve. Well, that didn't happen.

It's now 1994 and the New Democrats have an opportunity to bring about much-needed reforms in a system that by all accounts is technically bankrupt. Bill 165 purports to be this government's answer to charting a new course for the WCB and one that is destined, according to the Minister of Labour's introductory comments, to help restore its financial health.

As committee members may know, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and our board of trade were active participants in the process of bringing reform to the workers' compensation system in this province. Along with many other volunteers from the business community, we devoted many hundreds of hours over the summer and into the fall of 1993 and beyond that in pursuit of solutions that the Premier had asked his labour-management advisory committee to develop. The Premier had asked that we complete this process by the end of October 1993, and we did. On November 17, 1993, the Premier received a complete set of proposals which, had they been implemented, would have eliminated the unfunded liability by the year 2014, would have secured future benefits for injured workers, would have improved vocational rehabilitation, and, I guess most importantly, would have placed the system on a secure footing while improving the climate for investment in Ontario's economy.

For reasons that we don't fully understand and that were never made clear to us, the government apparently ignored the proposals and requested instead that business and labour provide a consensus package of reforms. Failing that, we were told, the government would act to develop its own solutions.

It became clear to both sides that an ultimatum of sorts had been issued by government. This led to a series of meetings between business and labour, and in March of this year those meetings culminated in the development of an accord. While both parties weren't, I guess, unanimously in support of all of the terms of the accord, it was nevertheless a document that both sides could live with. I think it's of some significance that the government was initially, or at least seemed to be, receptive to the accord, and that even the Minister of Labour indicated that it was a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, that became more or less the high water mark for that document, because within a matter of days it became apparent that the government had placed its own interpretation on the terms of the accord. That, plus the stated intent of the government to appoint the head of a union to chair the royal commission, led to substantial disintegration of support for the accord within the business community.

While the Ajax-Pickering board and the Oshawa and Whitby chambers continue to be of the view that the November 1993 proposals are sound and that they ought to form the basis for any legislative reform, we have to tell you that we too can live with that accord. This provided what we believe to be an important, indeed a vital, underpinning for a healthier, more fiscally sound and responsible workers' compensation system. For that reason, we feel it would be useful to review very briefly the highlights of the accord that business and labour reached.

1100

First of all, it provided more effective governance. There was going to be a bipartite board of directors, two representatives of the general public and an arm's-length relationship with government. The chair would have been appointed on a recommendation from business and labour and the president would serve as a non-voting member of the board and would be hired by the directors. The model that was proposed would hold the government ultimately accountable for the system.

The accord also guaranteed financial responsibility. The financial responsibility framework was really the cornerstone of the reform package that was put forward. The accord achieved agreement that a financially responsible framework for the decision-making and operation of the system was essential, and that the ultimate accountability for the system rested with government. Equally important, it provided a purpose clause which made it clear that in the act itself, any proposed change to benefits, services, programs or policies under the act would be thoroughly analysed in order to evaluate the overall consequences of the proposed changes on workers and employers. The results of that analysis would then be provided to government.

Next, the accord would have co-ordinated interactions between WCB-funded agencies. Through the establishment of a WCB advisory committee, there would have been a mechanism for liaison and coordination of activities among the various agencies that receive funding from the WCB. This would have served to better allocate scarce resources and avoid duplication of programs.

The accord also put forward an indexing formula with special consideration for certain groups. By adopting the Friedland formula, the accord guaranteed that workers would continue to receive a measure of protection from inflation. At the same time, there was an attempt to recognize particularly vulnerable workers, provided that any such recognition have regard for the purpose clause and the financial responsibility framework.

The accord would also have improved workers' return to gainful employment. It achieved agreement that the board should be enforcing the current statute as it relates to re-employment of injured workers. Labour, we understand, continues to feel that the existing provisions aren't sufficient, and in the accord there was essentially an agreement to disagree on that point. Nevertheless, there was agreement that there should be a program that would encourage greater re-employment of workers through financial incentives which would augment the existing experience rating programs. To ensure that approach would be successful, the accord also went the further step of requiring the WCB to offer training and other resources to employers to assist them in improving their respective return-to-work programs.

The accord also acknowledged the special needs of some pensioners in receipt of pre-1990 pensions. While agreeing that there might be some workers who would need special treatment in terms of increased monthly pensions, the determination of which of those pensioners would qualify was left to government, on the basis that whatever remedy they might develop would be mindful of the intent of the purpose clause and the financial responsibility framework.

The accord also conceded, finally, that some issues, such as possible alternative compensation models, should be left to a royal commission. Implicit in the agreement that a study be conducted to examine workers' compensation alternatives was that any royal commission so engaged would be comprised of a neutral chair and flanked by appointees from business and labour.

In our submission, that accord is a very significant achievement. I think it's rare for business and labour to come to terms on an issue, and that this was achieved in a major public policy issue is noteworthy indeed. It's an indication of the good faith and the hard work that the participants brought to the negotiation sessions.

Given this background, perhaps committee members can appreciate the consternation we felt when it became clear that the government had no intention of adopting the reform agenda to which both business and labour had agreed. Our board of trade and other stakeholders in both the business and labour communities were deeply disappointed in the package the government finally introduced.

A lot of very careful analysis has gone into the bill, and we're convinced it fails to accomplish the objective established by the Premier last year when he asked his labour-management advisory committee to come up with solutions to the workers' compensation problem.

For example, instead of reducing the unfunded liability, it will increase it to $13 billion to $15 billion by 2014. Instead of imposing fiscal responsibility by means of a purpose clause, it provides the authority to expand benefits and coverage without regard for impact on the system. Instead of assisting older workers who are in genuine need of additional assistance, it further stresses the financial health of the system by awarding additional benefits without any kind of a needs analysis.

Rather than providing employers with more meaningful incentives for reducing workers' compensation costs, the bill introduces more complexity, imposes additional punitive measures and seems to replace experience rating altogether with a system that recognizes a process rather than recognizing results.

By failing to come to grips with the question of how to fund those who would need special consideration under the revised indexing provisions, the bill once again rides roughshod over any semblance of fiscal responsibility.

While the accord found it sufficient for the WCB to enforce existing re-employment provisions in the act, Bill 165 imposes further penalties in administrative complexities. By its treatment of the return-to-work provisions, the bill is moving the WCB away from the role of being an adjudicative body to an agency that seems to be focusing on return to work and mediation as its primary function, and that wasn't a part of the accord.

Finally, instead of creating a more arm's-length relationship between the government and the WCB the bill, by authorizing the government to issue policy direction to the WCB's board of directors, undermines the very principle of independent administration that was the cornerstone of the system designed by Justice William Meredith about 80 years ago. To make matters worse, the power to direct policy is not balanced by any increase in accountability on the part of government, so that government would be free to dictate a policy which could have disastrous financial consequences on the system without having to answer for it.

In addition to those fundamental departures from the accord, the bill includes a number of other disturbing features which, we submit, are at best impractical and at worst, are administratively impossible to implement. For instance, the bill removes the president of the WCB from membership on the board of directors and yet the chair of the appeals tribunal continues to have a non-voting member status. The protection of the crown is removed for board employees and the board of directors, yet the crown has the right to impose policy directions on the board. In terms of the merit rating system, the board has already acknowledged that would be impossible to administer. So this committee has a real challenge.

While we don't have any desire to speculate as to the government's motives, it's clear that instead of adopting the accord as a package as was intended by those who developed it, there was instead some selective picking and choosing going on. To our way of thinking, that's like trying to build a 10-storey building and erecting only the third and the sixth and the eighth floors. Without all the levels in between, it's going to be impossible to erect that structure. The accord was only an accord as long as all of the component features were accepted.

We'd ask you to give some very serious thought to the damage that the government's approach has caused. To begin with, everyone loses. Employers are going to continue to face cost increases, workers are going to continue to face uncertainty about future benefits and perhaps worst of all, neither party has any faith left in the system itself. Unless members think this is simply alarmist thinking on the part of the business community, let me assure you the crisis is real.

The unfunded liability is real and it has to be paid one day. It's irresponsible and it's destructive to simply pass that debt on to the next generation of employers. There has been an increase of 57% in the portion of employer assessments allocated to retiring the unfunded liability. Assessment rates have increased by almost 200% since 1980, in spite of the fact that accident frequencies have declined by 30% since 1989.

The deplorable state of the board's funding has been a factor in reducing our credit rating. This acts as a disincentive for businesses who might consider relocating or establishing their operations in our province.

We now face a debt of about $11.5 billion. In 1980, it was less than $1 billion. Projections by qualified actuaries suggest that this could reach $31 billion by 2014. If the costs of future economic loss awards are not contained, it could go as high as $52 billion.

I think it's a fact that the system is technically bankrupt now, in that cash flow shortages required it to sell assets last year to meet operating expenses. Cash flow projections to the year 2014 indicate that at that time there wouldn't be any assets left, but that the board would still face benefit payments of some $7.5 billion.

1110

Last week, we learned about the collapse of Confederation Life. It was the fall of a giant, according to Maclean's an insurance organization with assets of over $19 billion. The WCB, as committee members know, has assets of only $6.5 billion, but liabilities of twice that amount. So ask yourselves, as you listen to those of us appearing in front of you, how different is the Confederation Life disaster from the situation now facing the WCB? Keep in mind that, in the case of Confederation Life, at least there was an emergency fund created in 1989. Where is the WCB's emergency fund? As you well know, the only fund available to bail out the WCB is the consolidated revenue fund, and those are our tax dollars. Consider then the catastrophic effect that a bailout of that nature would have on our credit rating and our ability to sustain a climate for economic development.

As you consider Bill 165, ask yourselves, please, what does this bill do to protect the long-term financial interests of those it is designed to protect, the injured workers and the employers of this province? Ask yourselves too, please, which is more likely to bring about a healthier and more fiscally responsible system, Bill 165 or the business caucus proposals and the accord agreed to by the business and labour stakeholders in this province?

We would ask that, in the case of this bill, you put aside partisan considerations and have the courage and the foresight and the wisdom to withdraw the bill in favour of legislation that truly reflects what your constituents have determined to be in their own best interests.

And if, given the political realities -- and believe me, we are sensitive to the political realities in which members find themselves -- you find you can't withdraw that bill, then at the very least re-establish the purpose clause as it was agreed upon in the accord. That one single element will have a more far-reaching benefit than anything else, short of complete withdrawal, and we put it to you that's a feasible, practical and politically acceptable compromise.

On behalf of our members, we appreciate this opportunity to offer you our views and our suggestions. We sincerely hope the members of the committee will have the wisdom to appreciate the very real danger of permitting Bill 165 to be enacted and we implore you to ensure that it is withdrawn. Instead, as requested by our umbrella organization, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, we urge that whatever legislation is introduced be structured upon the proposals offered to the Premier by the business steering committee of his labour-management advisory group last November and those agreed to by business and labour stakeholders last March.

Thank you very much. If we have time, I'll try and answer any questions you might have.

The Vice-Chair: We're just over time, so one quick comment from each caucus.

Mr Mahoney: Subsection 15(3.2) of the act reads: "The board shall evaluate the consequences of any proposed change in benefits, services, programs and policies to ensure that the purposes of this act are achieved." Do you have concerns about the interpretation of that without the amendment to the purpose clause, and what are those concerns?

Mr Emmink: Absolutely. The purpose clause by itself has no regard whatsoever for impacts, so that if they evaluate only in respect of the purpose clause as it's currently stated, it's going to have a complete and total disregard for financial consequences.

Mr Turnbull: Just with respect to your comment: "The deplorable state of the WCB's funding has been a factor in reducing Ontario's credit rating. This acts as a disincentive for businesses who might consider relocating or establishing operations in our province." We've heard several presentations from labour who have suggested that in fact there's nothing really to worry about with respect to the funding in WCB. Any comment on that?

Mr Emmink: In response to labour's comment, I can only say that labour's comment obviously didn't carry a whole lot of weight with the Dominion Bond Rating Service, who in fact did reduce our credit rating last spring, and they mentioned the board's unfunded liability as one of the factors in making that decision.

Ms Murdock: Thank you. It's very well done and I'm glad that you put the accord so succinctly, because I think it shows, contrary to what you're trying to say that in many cases it is similar, but I would like to say that on page 2 where you put, "Those who manage the corporation must be accountable for doing so in a fiscally responsible way," I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I guess where we disagree is that subsection 58(1) of the amendments, the section that's being quoted most frequently in relation to the purpose clause, just says, "The board of directors shall act in a financially responsible and accountable manner in exercising its powers and performing its duties." And I think it covers that.

Mr Emmink: I think it's certainly a step in the right direction. I wish they would have gone further and kept the purpose clause the way it was proposed by the business steering committee.

The Vice-Chair: I thank the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, Whitby Chamber of Commerce and the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce for giving us their presentation.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 595

Mr Barry Weisleder: Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Barry Weisleder and I'm an executive board member with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which represents over 100,000 workers in the Ontario public service, the broader public service and the community college system. I'm also president of OPSEU Local 595, which represents nearly 1,000 substitute teachers at the Toronto Board of Education.

My presentation will focus on the de-indexation feature of Bill 165. In this sense I am expanding on the brief already presented by OPSEU. I am not an expert or a technician in the area of workers' compensation, but in my capacity as a local union president, I frequently work with members who have suffered physical injury on the job and then experience frustration in dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. They complain about the slowness of processing claims, the impersonal attitude they face as individuals, and the uncaring and sometimes unscientific opinions of WCB doctors who say they are fit to return to work, when the client's personal doctor says, "This is premature, inappropriate and dangerous."

I just referred to physical injury, but there's another huge dimension to work disability and that is work-related stress. I suspect that more substitute teachers, whom I represent directly, suffer interruption of work due to work-related stress than to physical injury. Not only is our occupation inherently more stressful than many occupations, especially in the field of education, but also like many poorly paid on-call or part-time employees lacking supplementary health benefits, and forced to work at two or three jobs simultaneously in order to scratch out a living in our jobless recovery, we are vulnerable to work-related stress.

Work-related stress is a growing phenomenon across society and an escalating cause of loss of productivity and of human suffering, yet the WCB act does not recognize work-related stress, and Bill 165 does not even address this glaring omission. This fact alone would be sufficient reason to take most of Bill 165 back to the drawing board and proceed with the modest return-to-work improvements and the $200-a-month increase to the pre-1990 injured. But, alas, there is an even more compelling reason to redesign the bill, and that is it's de-indexation feature.

The bill giveth bipartite governance to the system and it giveth the paltry $200.00-a-month increase to a limited number of people injured before 1990, but the bill as a whole taketh away much more than it giveth. Bill 165 takes away full cost-of-living protection from the majority of injured workers receiving compensation for permanent disabilities. Instead, it uses the Friedland formula, less than three quarters of the cost-of-living increase but also no more than 4%, no matter how high inflation goes. Using full CPI indexing, a $200-a-month pension awarded in 1977 would be equal to $576.30 today. With the formula in Bill 165 it would be worth only $324.

1120

Here's another way of looking at it. Assuming a modest inflation rate of 2% a year, an injured worker's pension that is worth $100 a month now would, in 20 years, be worth only $73. A higher rate of inflation would, of course, lower the real worth of the pension even more.

If you look at the overall economics of this legislation, it is clear that the government is reforming the WCB mainly on the backs of injured workers.

The government's own figures make the same point. De-indexing pensions, it figures, will save the board $21.6 billion over 20 years. That's what injured workers, in effect, are contributing to this reform.

On the other hand, encouraging employers to rehire injured workers will save, over 20 years, one tenth of that amount, $2.1 billion. That's the employers' contribution.

We could speculate as to how much could be saved through increased inspection and more rigorous enforcement of workplace health and safety regulations. The incidence of worker injury is reduced by making the workplace safer. Unfortunately, staffing enforcement conflicts with the government's social contract and the government's expenditure control program, although apparently building a new multimillion-dollar palace for the WCB, a building now proving to be too small for the board's needs, somehow escaped the government's expenditure control program.

The de-indexation of injured workers' benefits is a grievous assault on the rights and living standards of all workers. It is yet another betrayal of working people by the so-called labour party in government in Ontario. But any member of any party presently in the Legislature who votes for a bill that contains de-indexation of pensions should hang their head in shame because such a vote would conflict dramatically with the position taken by all three parties as recently as December 1985 on this very issue.

I'd like to quote to you views expressed by spokespeople from all three parties in December 1985, because these remarks make the case more effectively than I can for the establishment and maintenance of full indexation of benefits.

The Liberal Party position was presented, of course, by the Labour minister, Bill Wrye, at the time, December 17, 1985. He says:

"On the occasion of the last increase in workers' compensation benefits, July 1985, I indicated that it was the intention of this government to undertake an examination of the implications of permanently indexing workers' compensation benefits and, as part of that examination, to consult with the various interested constituencies.

"Later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill that is the result of those endeavours. It reflects the commitment of this government to injured workers. The bill enshrines permanent indexation and implements an immediate increase in benefit levels as a transitional measure. In addition, it will grant a substantial increase in survivors' benefits for claims that originated prior to April 1, 1985.

"The measures being proposed by the present government will ensure that injured workers will no longer have to worry about whether and to what extent their benefits will be adjusted. In future, all claimants will be assured, as a matter of statutory right, of an annual adjustment which takes into account the effects of inflation.

"The pain, the loss, the disruption and the disorientation caused to a worker and his or her family by a disabling injury is suffering enough. We should never add to the suffering the indignity of having to come cap in hand to the steps of the Legislature angrily demanding merely the protection of compensation benefits from the annual rate of inflation. From this day, injured workers will never again be in that humiliating position."

On first reading of the bill, December 19, 1985, the Minister of Labour spoke again:

"I do not want to speak at length, but I do want to put this on the record, lest even today, as 1985 draws to a close, there be those who oppose the concept of indexation and do not recognize the propriety of this action. Let me first put on the record that Ontario is not unique. Today there are six jurisdictions -- British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the Yukon -- that have formal indexation of workers' compensation benefits in respect of permanent disability. All but New Brunswick use the consumer price index; New Brunswick uses the average industrial wage. Four of those six jurisdictions -- British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and the Yukon -- also index temporary disability benefits on a similar basis, as Ontario will.

"It is important that we are not unique, we are not the first. It is certainly an appropriate matter, we believe, that Ontario should join what is now a clear majority of the provinces that believe this matter is long overdue.

"In speaking on the theory of indexation and why we ought to go to protection for injured workers against the ravages of inflation, Professor Weiler said, and he was speaking about pension: `In the final analysis, the point of this pension,' the injured worker's pension, `was to establish the disabled worker's rights to share in the real goods and services generated by the Canadian economy. Inflation causes a general increase to occur in the money price of that same basket of goods and services.'

"This is crucial."

The Progressive Conservative position expressed by Phil Gillies on Bill 81 when it was introduced:

"As members of the assembly, we all have to share a very deep concern about the people in this province who labour day after day in dangerous occupations and who put their lives on the line, in some cases, when they go to their place of work every day.

"I believe Ontario has recognized for many years the need for income protection, for benefits and for pensions for people who are placed in such situations."

Again Mr Gillies is quoted:

"After due consideration, I am very pleased to be able to inform the House our party will be supporting Bill 81 and we believe the time has now arrived for annual increases, however determined, to be granted the clients of the Workers' Compensation Board, not as a matter of annual legislative review but as a matter of right and as a result of automatic increases. I believe this decision finds a great deal of support among members of the Legislature and indeed has the support of our caucus."

Now we come to the New Democratic Party position. Premier Bob Rae had this to say at that time:

"I wanted to participate in this debate because of my own personal feelings about the questions of workers' compensation and reforms to the act. I think I have mentioned in this House on other occasions that 11 years ago, in 1974, I was carted from the front of the Legislature by one of the members of the local police constabulary because I was involved in organizing and participating in a march and demonstration of the Union of Injured Workers.

"If my memory serves me correctly, it was in the winter, in November and December 1974, that we began systematic demonstrations at Queen's Park and across the province to get reform of the legislation.

"I take pride that the government has finally come around to our point of view. I take pride, as I have had occasion to do many times this week, that finally the government is moving in areas in which we have been urging it to move for many years.

"I am delighted the members of the other parties have finally seen the light, and that literally 10 or 15 years after the New Democratic Party began moving this amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act we finally have the change. We finally have other parties coming on side, indicating that they too support the principle that inflation should not eat away at the pensions of injured workers."

Mr Mahoney: Who said that?

Mr Weisleder: Bob Rae.

Mr Turnbull: Remember the immortal words, "That was then; this is now"?

Mr Weisleder: Ontario Treasurer Floyd Laughren -- I believe he's still a member of the government -- said the following on December 20, 1985:

"I am not sure I thought I would ever see the day when we would be indexing injured workers' benefits." I wonder what he thinks of this day. "I am certain of one thing, that we would never have seen the day if the government had not changed.

"The Conservatives had un unbelievably paternalistic attitude towards injured workers. If workers wanted an increase, they could come before the Legislature with a tin cup and plead for it once a year. There is no question about that; history speaks for itself. I am very pleased we are able to be here today debating this very bill.

"I do believe some credit should be given to the injured workers' groups, the Association of Injured Workers' Groups, the Union of Injured Workers and all the other organizations, the legal aid clinics etc that made a tremendous effort.

"There has never been a question in my mind, if I could paraphrase what the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr Shymko) said, that the way one judges the civility of a society is how it treats its people who are not so young and not so swift. Injured workers are a good example of that. We simply must provide for them the standard of living to which they are entitled.

"I have always felt it was hypocritical of society to say to workers: `You are engaging in something we consider to be good, namely, the work ethic. But if as a result of engaging in that work you are injured, society is going to penalize you for having believed in the work ethic so strongly.' That is why I am very pleased about this change.

"As a long-time member and present chairman of the standing committee on resources development, I have heard the argument about the unfunded liability; and while I do believe it is a problem, I think it will be addressed most appropriately when employers in Ontario collectively manage to reduce the accident rate to more civilized levels.

"I am pleased to be able to engage briefly in this debate and to commend the minister for having brought this bill through his caucus."

1130

Then Bob Mackenzie, currently the Labour minister, said on the same day:

"With regard to the bill itself: While I am pleased to see it, what we have really done here today is to answer a commitment I have heard members of all parties make to injured workers for far too long, a commitment based on just a little bit more fairness, a commitment that should have been fulfilled a long time ago. However, I am extremely glad to see it put in place here today and I do support Bill 81."

Then Mr Ross McClellan:

"For many of us, this is a red-letter day, to see an act in this Legislature that brings in an automatic cost-of-living increase after so many battles and struggles going back so many years. It is a very special moment for me and many of my colleagues.

"The question of an automatic cost-of-living increase became a symbolic focus for all the injustices the compensation system inflicted on workers in this province. Efforts to organize and fight for the rights of injured workers focused on the issue of an automatic cost-of-living increase. There are still many issues that need to be resolved and many reforms that have yet to be introduced, but it is a major victory for injured workers to have a bill passed in this Legislature which establishes that injured workers have a legal right to an automatic cost-of-living increase and do not have to go cap in hand to the government of the day to beg for what is rightfully theirs."

I would ask any member who contemplates voting for de-indexation of pensions -- especially members of the New Democratic Party, because workers have lower expectations, after all, of the parties of big business -- how can you justify changing your position on full indexation of workers' compensation benefits only nine years after making a sacred commitment to this principle? All three parties endorsed the recommendations of Paul Weiler, an international authority on workers' compensation, for full indexation. I understand Mr Weiler was paid, at the time, $600 a day for his study on workers' compensation, which the government of the day adopted.

No doubt there is a fiscal crisis of government and state. This budgetary crisis is largely the result of contradictions inherent in the economic system compounded by 30 years of regressive tax changes which have relieved business of most of its previous tax burden. The solution to underfunding, in part, is to tax wealth, not working people, least of all injured workers.

I conclude by saying, proceed with the $200-a-month increase to pre-1990 pensioners and the modest improvements in return-to-work provisions and the bipartite governance provision, but withdraw the rest of the bill. If you must, you may refer the other proposals to the royal commission that you propose establishing, but please don't reform the WCB on the backs of injured workers and don't diminish the rights of all workers by implementing de-indexation. Remove your hands from the pockets of the poor. Maintain full indexation. I thank you and members of the committee for this opportunity.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Mahoney. You have about a minute each.

Mr Mahoney: I certainly enjoyed your quotes, even though I'm sure they weren't done to entertain me or my party. But you made some very valid points with them.

I want to go back to the second point you raised, the issue of stress and your request that work-related stress be included as a compensable injury. Currently, of course, there have been awards where injury-related stress occurs as a result of witnessing an accident on the job or there's been some latitude at the board and at WCAT to improve some of those kinds of things. The concern that many people have about allowing work-related stress to be compensable is, how do you differentiate between work-related stress, society-related stress, home-related stress, whatever?

Mr Weisleder: I'm not a practitioner in the field, but I think there are medical authorities who could assist us with such a differentiation. I think it's possible to establish, when you experience a traumatic amount of pressure or a specific condition in the workplace, that it is identifiable and that the dysfunction that results from it can be linked to that experience or to the conditions in the workplace that brought it about. I think there are medical authorities to whom we can refer who can help us.

Mr Mahoney: Of course, there are also medical authorities who strongly disagree with those medical authorities who claim that they can differentiate that, and there is the nub of the problem. You have a debate going on, and we've heard it for some time, where you'll have one expert taking your side, saying that this is stress clearly related strictly to the workplace, and another expert saying that's nonsense, that you can't relate it here because there's other stress. I mean, stress is driving to work in the morning, believe me. I do it every day, coming down here. Is that something that should be compensated, stress because of traffic problems?

Mr Weisleder: Some forms of physical injury can be incurred on the way to work and in departure from work, but I think we can identify that certain forms of stress right in the workplace exist and should be compensated.

Mr Mahoney: Regardless of the cost?

Mr Weisleder: If some doctors are saying no, then we're obviously talking to the wrong doctors.

Mr Mahoney: You want to buy a different opinion?

Mr Weisleder: Don't you?

Mr Mahoney: No.

Mr Turnbull: Actually, your answer to Mr Mahoney alarms me a little bit. There's no doubt that you get different views from whichever side you happen to be speaking to, but people who represent that we should be compensating for more rather than less seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a serious fiscal problem at WCB. We've heard several presenters here, both injured workers and union representatives, who have suggested that there really isn't so much to worry about in the fiscal situation with respect to the unfunded liabilities, and yet Dominion Bond Rating Service has actually, as you've heard, reduced the rating of the Ontario government because of the serious perceived threat to the economy and the potential, in fact, to drive away job-creating investment. Can you comment on that?

Mr Weisleder: Yes, I'd be delighted. First of all, can we put a price on human suffering? Secondly, what about the cost to society of the loss of productivity which is a result of disability due to stress or disability due to injury because employers are not willing to enforce the regulations that already exist with respect to workplace health and safety? And of course you don't have enforcement unless you have staffing, and the government's policies -- for example, the ones I identified are on expenditure control and the social contract -- are reducing enforcement staffing.

But if you're concerned about addressing the fiscal crisis of the state, as I mentioned in my remarks, there's a solution: Reform the tax system, but in a progressive direction. The corporations that used to pay more than half of overall revenue garnered by all levels of government are now paying less than 10%, and the recommendations of the Fair Tax Commission, which have been gracefully put on the shelf, would help to redress that glaring imbalance and help to restore adequate funding in this area and other areas and obviate the need for cutbacks.

Mr Turnbull: And when the businesses leave the province as a result of increased tax load?

Mr Weisleder: I think the time is well past for the Premier to boast that Ontario has the lowest corporate taxes in the Great Lakes area. I don't think we have to compete by lowering our standards and by giving business a free lunch.

Mr Turnbull: Well, I'm sure it all depends which audience he's speaking to as to what his message is, as he's adequately demonstrated.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much. I think you've eloquently demonstrated through your presentation the kind of balance this government has attempted to reach. I don't think any one of us here wants to even partially de-index anyone's pension, but some hard decisions have been made in the proposed bill that sits before us today.

I want to ask you one question. We've heard from a number of communities that this government isn't going far enough. In fact, the Progressive Conservative Party has suggested that immediately we ought to take the benefit level from 90% of net earnings down to 80% of net earnings and immediately there ought to be a 72-hour moratorium before one is entitled to collect any type of benefit as a result of a work-related injury. I'm wondering if you would have any comments on those two proposals.

Mr Weisleder: Mr Ferguson, my only comment on those two proposals is that it is well known that there is no limit to the avarice of business. I think we have to refer to the phrase from the old labour song, "Which side are you on?" I think the government has to show that it is on the side of workers, not only with respect to governance and return-to-work provisions but with respect to the maintenance of full indexation.

Mr Mahoney: I thought we were "in the same boat now."

Mr Weisleder: The boat is suffering a leak.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank Local 595 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union for its presentation this morning.

1140

COUNCIL OF ONTARIO CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATIONS

Mr David Frame: Good morning. My name is David Frame. I'm the executive vice-president of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. With me today is my chairman, Doug Chalmers, of Doug Chalmers Construction.

We welcome the opportunity to appear in front of the members of the resources development committee today concerning proposals in Bill 165. As I said, we represent COCA and COCA represents the interests of 50 construction associations and their 8,000 members throughout Ontario. We represent them on common concerns such as legislation, regulation and policy of the provincial government.

Last June, representatives of the PLMAC steering committee asked us to participate in reviewing workers' compensation issues, analyse the issues and prepare a set of management recommendations. We were persuaded to participate because of guarantees from the Premier that he recognized the system's financial peril needed immediate attention and he was personally committed to addressing these issues. Based on this commitment, I became a member of the steering committee and enlisted the resources of COCA and our WCB committee. Unfortunately, I've had to report to our industry and now to you that Bill 165 does not address the problems in the workers' compensation system that we have identified and that changes will make the problems worse, not better.

There is an alternative to Bill 165. The position put forward by the employer community last October represents an extensive review and set of recommendations. We fully support these recommendations and believe that they appropriately identify the problems and required corrections. While we do not have time to review most of these today, we strongly urge you to consider these alternatives.

We would like to repeat what the employer steering committee and the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation established on Tuesday. We will not accept the authorship that the government has tried to place on the business community. We worked in good faith with PLMAC CEOs and industry leaders whom the Premier chose to try to shape reform. Their recommendations were flatly rejected late last year. Then, when the PLMAC labour and management leaders negotiated a reform package in March, the Ministry of Labour decided to pick and choose from the agreement to the point that it is now unrecognizable.

The government made it clear that employers will continue to have no input into WCB reform when we learned that Lyn Williams would chair the royal commission. The principle of a neutral chair is paramount for a royal commission, considering how polarized workers' compensation has become. We believe that the rest of the employer community will not participate in such a charade. The system does not serve either workers or employers and a fair, objective assessment is the only acceptable approach in developing reform.

The Ontario Workers' Compensation Board had an unfunded liability of $11.5 billion at the end of last year. With only 36.7% of its debts funded, it is in a financial crisis that makes the recently liquidated Confederation Life, which was 92.5% funded, look like a booming enterprise. If we look at these two corporations, there are really only two important differences that account for the WCB continuing and the private sector corporation being liquidated.

The first is that the superintendent of insurance does not have jurisdiction over the board and the second is the notion that the Ontario government owns the system and will bail out a failed program, at least to the extent of ensuring that injured workers continue to receive their benefits. The minister's comments on Monday seem to challenge this second difference, but we'll get back to that point in a minute.

The superintendent of insurance has now given some definition of what funding is needed for a non-government-owned system to be solvent, and that's something better than 92.5%. At 36.7% funding, Ontario's WCB system is far beyond being solvent.

We are equally alarmed that the unfunded liability continues to grow at a rate of about half a billion dollars per year while rates continue to increase in the Ontario system, which is already the most expensive in the country. These costs become a significant impediment to job creation, as all payroll taxes serve as a tax on job creation. Contractors now pay an average of $2,508 per employee per year to the WCB and some can pay as much as $7,400. Add to this the costs of other payroll taxes, such as unemployment insurance, CPP, the employer health tax, and the average cost per employee is now over $5,400 annually. These prohibitive costs force employers to consider greater mechanization and the use of overtime rather than new employees. These costs are a significant factor in Ontario's jobless recovery.

In the construction industry, the average cost of premiums paid per worker has jumped from $962 in 1983 to $2,508 in 1992. This 261% increase in cost perhaps could be justified if it had been used, as promised, to begin eliminating the unfunded liability; unfortunately, it hasn't.

The board has become increasingly pessimistic about reaching 100% funding by the Strategy 2014 target. Many employers last year challenged the board to roll back 1994 increases, many of which were in the range of 20% and 30%, at a time when many companies were scrambling to find the cash to keep their doors open. In 1995, many employers will again be asked to deal with premium increases of this magnitude. These increases, including 1995 rates, continue to be set based upon achieving full funding by 2014.

On the issue of governance, the construction industry has had a lot of experience working with the bipartite process and we know that given the right circumstances it can work. We also know that given circumstances under which the issues are politicized, such as happened in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, it's a recipe for disaster.

Bill 165 proposes a completely bipartite governance structure at the WCB, but then, as we understand from the principles announced Monday by the former deputy minister, will direct employers and worker representatives to ignore their constituencies and "act in the best interests of the WCB." Members of the board of directors will be put in an untenable position. Those who betray this responsibility will best represent their constituencies. Clearly, a bipartite board is in direct conflict with operating in the system's best interests.

COCA was also stunned on Monday to hear the minister announce that under the new governance model "both stakeholders will truly own the system with all that implies." The deputy minister further stated, "Responsibility of the unfunded liability rests with the WCB, not with the government." Let's be clear: Management never asked for joint ownership, we never agreed to joint ownership and we simply won't accept this. The public interest must be protected by the participation of neutral persons on the board while government must maintain ultimate responsibility.

A key factor in keeping the WCB afloat while other corporations would be declared bankrupt is the implied financial backing of the government. The deputy's comments, however, make it apparent that an unstated goal of the legislation is to eliminate the government's exposure to the increasing likelihood of the failure of the system. The government's withdrawal appears to have placed legal responsibility on the board of directors through the new clause requiring them to act in a financially responsible manner.

Let me talk for just a couple of minutes about the Ontario construction industry's performance in WCB. The construction industry in Ontario has made unprecedented improvements in health and safety over the past 10 years. The attached graphs shows that the industry has lowered its accident frequency rate 62% from 1987 to 1993. No one will deny that by its nature construction is risky work. However, the industry has succeeded in virtually matching the improved accident frequency rates for all employers in 1993. We believe this is an incredible achievement.

1150

There are a number of reasons for this turnaround, but we believe that experience rating has been the key. Our frequency drop parallels the introduction of CAD-7, the construction industry's experience rating system. The intention of experience rating is to encourage employers, through reduced costs, to reduce the number of accidents and reinstate workers as soon as possible. Doug Chalmers will talk about experience rating a little more in a couple of minutes.

Chart B on your page compares the number of lost-time injuries or LTIs with the total cost of benefits paid out in the construction sector over a 10-year period. In 1982 the benefits paid on 2,023 injuries totalled $130.2 million.

Mr Mahoney: It's 12,000.

Mr Frame: Sorry, 12,000 or, as shown on chart C, $10,813 per LTI. Ten years later, accidents were reduced to 8,012, but the cost of benefits had soared to $452.7 million. This amounts to an amazing average cost of $55,875 per each lost-time injury and represents a 517% increase in the cost of each claim.

Construction employers have heard the government's argument -- and our presenter before mentioned it as well -- that the key to reducing costs is to reduce the number of accidents. We have responded to this challenge, but our 62% frequency reduction is lost in the face of a 517% increase in cost per claim. Until the government finds the will to gain control of benefit levels and take the emphasis off expanding entitlement, I believe we will continue to see this type of growth.

Chart D shows that while most areas of cost related to short-term compensation have been reduced because of accident reduction in the temporary comp section, the cost of pensions, mainly future economic loss, or FEL, has soared, pushing up total costs and the unfunded liability. This is a 60% increase in the size of the pension costs, yet it does not account for the lifetime costs of FEL. If there's a key to controlling runaway costs, it is to modify the FEL program. COCA worked with the PLMAC employer steering committee, making recommendations on how FEL costs could be better contained while still ensuring that workers in need receive full and adequate compensation. Unfortunately, all of these recommendations have been ignored in this legislation.

The construction industry is hard hit by FEL costs, in part because of the method by which the legislation determines assessable wage. Construction workers, even in good economic times, tend to work less than the average worker and are compensated, in turn, by a higher average hourly wage. In the good economic times of the late 1980s the average construction worker worked approximately 1,700 to 1,800 hours annually. In the recent recession this has declined to an average of approximately 1,100 to 1,200 hours. The Workers' Compensation Act, however, requires that determination of the average wage be based on the current week's work. Usually a construction worker has worked a full 36- to 40-hour week prior to making a claim and the wage is projected assuming a work week of 1,800 to 2,000 hours annually. These projections are also used to calculate the future economic loss pension. As a result, workers are often paid substantially more than they could expect to earn while working over a full year.

COCA's calculations estimate that this loophole costs more than $32.5 million annually in temporary compensation and another $13.2 million of FEL payments in the first year of an award alone, and that award may be extended up to the age of 65. The elimination of this loophole would reduce benefit payments in the construction sector alone by more than $45.7 million, or 14% of the total annual benefits paid in our industry.

Equally as important would be the reduced barrier to reinstatement. The government has declared reinstatement to be the new focus for the WCB under this bill, but ignores the natural reluctance of most employees to return to work for less pay. A simple amendment would solve this.

The board's own statistics established that 20% of future economic loss recipients have no impairment that affects their earnings level. A loophole in the legislation assumed that an employee who has not returned to work within 12 months of an accident has a permanent impairment and should be evaluated for FEL.

The construction industry over the past three years has experienced unemployment in various trades, generally ranging from 40% to 60%. Because of this, many workers have suffered relatively minor lost-time injuries but are still not employed after 12 months. Hundreds of able-bodied construction workers are being awarded FEL pensions even though their unemployment is a result of economic conditions, not their injury.

An amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act should require that the NEL evaluation be applied first to establish if an impairment exists. This test would reduce the number of FEL awards by 20% and assure that the awards that are being made go to those with real needs.

These are only two of the nine steering committee recommendations contained in the FEL report. They don't involve reducing compensation to workers with a demonstrated need, but they do involve cutting wasteful, counterproductive spending. We encourage you to consider the importance of containing these costs before the situation gets worse.

I'll ask Doug Chalmers to talk to you about return to work and the impact of experience rating.

Mr Doug Chalmers: We have focused on our many problems with the workers' compensation system, but we must recognize that CAD-7, the construction industry's experience rating program, has been a resounding success.

A few minutes ago, David presented the impressive reductions in accident frequency rates made by the construction industry. CAD-7 was first introduced to the construction industry in 1984 and was fully implemented by 1987, the year the turnaround began. It is no coincidence that the implementation of CAD-7 has paralleled a 62% reduction in the construction industry's accident frequency rate. Experience rating has given employers some control over the huge costs of workers' compensation and gives employers the message that if they reduce accidents and bring workers back to work, they will reduce not only the board's costs but their own. These rebates justify the numerous dollars spent on safety programs, training and other initiatives to achieve these objectives.

On Monday the government gave notice of its intention to amend section 103.1 to clarify employers' concerns that experience rating is to be replaced by an audit of employer programs. The amendment does provide the statutory recognition of cost-based experience rating that we believe is necessary, but our concerns remain that the bureaucratic, interventionist program described in subsection (3) will destroy the effectiveness of experience rating and be directly responsible for a rise in accident rates. These changes remove the employers' ability to control their own performance and create more red tape and unnecessary inspections.

One must examine the uniqueness of the construction industry to understand the impact of the above statement. One must also remember the ever-changing workplace. A craftsman does not come onsite and do the same repetitive task for the entire length of the project. For example, a carpenter will initially come onsite and form the footings and walls. He/she will then leave the site. When the envelope is constructed, another carpenter who specializes in framing will come onsite and do the high roof framing. A different crew of carpenters will do the drywall. Another crew of carpenters will hang the doors. Finally, a completely different crew of carpenters or craftsmen will install the millwork. At this same time other trades are onsite and their crews will change to suit the work. The job site changes physically every day and the craftsmen change as the special requirements of each trade change.

The most important thing to remember on a job site is that you are only as safe as the person working beside you. Therefore, all construction workers must be trained to work safely. All 38,000 construction companies would have to be inspected because one's safety could be imperiled by a very small company that is key to the project; for example, a crane, elevator or painting company. A number of employer exemptions would therefore endanger site safety.

Our primary concern with the template is that it completely redefines and refocuses the very nature of experience rating. Experience rating as it now exists is a results-based program. Employers reduce their WCB costs by having fewer accidents and by returning injured employees to work. If they fail to do this they receive a surcharge at a rate that reflects the increased burden placed on the system. The template moves the program away from being results-based to a mix of results- and process-based. We believe it is only reasonable to ensure that an employer initiating his/her own programs to reduce costs should be rewarded under the existing experience rating system.

1200

Unfortunately, this section will be a filter requiring employers to prove themselves twice: once from an audit and then through their performance. If the board requires an employer to be audited before receiving a rebate, safety on job sites will deteriorate. An employer who has 100 employees may spend, on average, $50,000 to $75,000 per year to receive a rebate of between $100,000 and $140,000. In these recessionary times, the rebate for some companies is higher than the company's pre-tax profit. With no rebate and increased costs for safety, is this larger company going to continue to train smaller subcontractors and their employees?

We were particularly concerned with the impact of these criteria on the construction industry. Let me give you an example: Mr Ian Bergeron of Sayers and Associates, a COCA member, recently wrote Mr Steven Offer, MPP, and a member of this committee --

The Acting Chair: Excuse me. If I might break in for a moment, you have about two minutes left, if you want to leave any time for questions. I'm just warning you.

Mr Chalmers: His problem relates to returning an injured worker to full employment and is a perfect example of our problem. The letter reads:

"Currently, we have a worker with a finger injury in the Bruce Peninsula area. The project he is on is complete and we do not have an work within his union local. However, I do have work for him in the Hamilton area, but because of the high unemployment in construction the union will not allow travel cards. Hence, we cannot move him to another area. This results in the WCB paying the worker $614 per week (tax-free) as we cannot employ him in any capacity. Soon the worker will be able to collect his locked-in...FEL award. In order to make this legislation work, employers need the freedom (upon acceptance by the injured worker) to move locations outside of the injured worker's union local."

Reinstatement is a common problem in the construction industry. The worker is fully recovered and prepared to come back to work and the employer is eager to provide him or her with work, but there is a lack of work in this area. None of the section 103 requirements concerning employers' programs for health and safety, vocational rehabilitation or return to work programs can overcome this obstacle. All the written practices in the world will not solve this problem.

The construction industry's unique requirements are rooted in the mobility of our workforce. Most tradesmen do not work for long periods with any one employer. As a project winds down, they are placed, usually through their union, on another project. Of course, when the economy is slow workers may spend long periods between jobs. If the employer does not have work available, there may be significant problems in re-employing the worker.

The proposed template measures individual employers' programs. It ignores the problems of availability and mobility of work. As long as these problems remain, the template is a useless, costly and ineffective exercise for construction. Experience rating is applied to all contractors, including the small ones. The board could not possibly audit all 38,000 construction employers. If they decided to audit, let's say, the largest 5,000 contractors, the cost would be prohibitive and would create significant compliance costs that most competitors will not have. The Construction Safety Association of Ontario, the CSAO, has determined that the most effective program to reduce accidents should target small construction employers who have higher accident rates. This template could not possibly serve this need.

The unique nature of the employer relationships in the construction industry requires solutions completely separate from the proposal to audit employers' health and safety, vocational rehabilitation and return-to-work programs. The best programs in the world are useless in solving the re-employment problem of Sayers and thousands of other construction employees.

COCA has met with the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, our counterpart organization, representing most unionized construction workers in Ontario. We have agreed that reinstatement is a problem for construction under the current legislation and that the proposed legislation in Bill 165 will make the problem worse. Construction, labour and management have a long history of working cooperatively through the Construction Safety Association on many health and safety WCB issues. I have written the Deputy Minister of Labour with Joe Duffy of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, (appendix B), pointing out the unique, significant problems that the construction industry faces with this proposal and asking for an urgent meeting to discuss a more appropriate application.

Ladies and gentlemen, the proposed template under section 103.1 of Bill 165 will only further damage the current efforts to reinstate injured construction workers. The only effective program now in place is CAD-7, and it is going to be significantly reduced by an audit which is not relevant to the return-to-work issues in the construction industry. Labour and management agree that this is a step in the wrong direction. We urge you to allow sectors like the construction industry to work with the WCB to overcome current barriers and develop more effective programs to aid in return to work.

COCA stands with the PLMAC steering committee, the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation and other employee associations in advising this committee that Bill 165 will make a bad situation worse. It must be rewritten. We call on the government to return to the business recommendations of last fall and do the right thing and preserve the system for the future. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm afraid I can't allow questions; we're approximately five minutes over. I know that there are a number of questions by the committee that we would like to have put forward.

Mr Mahoney: But we're going to be muzzled, then.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS, LOCAL 222

Mr Dave Thompson: My name is Dave Thompson. I represent Canada's largest local union, Local 222, CAW, on workers' compensation issues. Currently, we represent approximately 19,000 active employees and approximately 7,000 retirees. On a daily basis, we have an average of 520 people per day on workers' compensation benefits. Our biggest client of injured workers comes out of the Oshawa General Motors complex.

This week, as of Monday, August 22, 1994, we had a total of 240 on total temporary benefits and 140 on job search as being retrained. These numbers actually frighten me every day when I turn on my computer and get ready to deal with the compensation board.

I have served my local union for 11 years and have had to deal with three bills: Bill 101, Bill 162, and now we're here today for Bill 165, changes to the act.

I have enclosed our union's position. You'll probably see most of these recommendations again from other CAW locals. Today, our local union would like to comment on rehabilitation, section 53 and section 54 of the act.

Rehabilitation, section 53: This section has been rewritten to provide board assistance to employers with vocational rehabilitation. At the risk of being facetious, employers are not the ones who are injured and who need vocational rehabilitation; injured workers are. Employers have obligations to provide vocational rehabilitation assistance under section 54 to assist injured workers. The board's role is to insist that they fulfil their obligations. Injured workers need rights to vocational rehabilitation, not employers.

We oppose the addition of the word "employer" to subsections (1), (3) and (9), and we recommend that the proposals be deleted.

We also oppose the new proposal, subsection (2.1), and the change to subsection (10) for the same reasons. Subsection (2.1) talks about the employer's vocational rehabilitation needs and subsection (10) would require the board to consult with the employer, whereas up to now the consultation has been "if possible." We recommend that these proposals be deleted.

It might be in the best interests of injured workers to be retrained and find employment elsewhere. If a worker, in consultation with the board, determines this to be the case, what business is it of the employer?

We recommend that subsection (10) be rewritten as follows:

"If the worker determines that a vocational rehabilitation program is required, the worker, in consultation with the union, if there is one, and the board, shall design the program and the board shall provide it."

Is the reasons for the proposed change to section 53(11), deleting "assistance in seeking employment," because it is felt to be redundant with section 53(12)? We recommend that this phrase be retained in subsection (11) since it gives the board the flexibility to offer assistance in seeking employment beyond the limitations of subsections (12) and (13).

We are opposed to the change to subsection (12). The present subsection (12) says that the board "shall" assist the worker to search for employment for a period up to six months after the worker is available for employment. The new proposal says "may" provide such assistance. We recommend that the present wording be retained.

1210

It's harder than ever for injured workers to find employment. The North American free trade agreement, structural unemployment and permanent plant closures have all contributed to the loss for many Ontarians and especially in the higher hazard industries, where many injured workers are no longer able to work. What is an injured worker to do if, while off due to an injury, his or her plant closes? I'll just give you the example of the Scarborough van plant: 223 people out there right now. In the past, the board had an obligation to help him or her for six months. The proposal would make future assistance optional.

Proposed subsection (13) includes the board's discretion to provide an additional six months of assistance in seeking employment, contained in the current subsection (12), but contains a new provision allowing the employer to make such a request of the board. Why would the accident employer request the board to assist an injured worker to seek employment elsewhere? Because the employer just fired the worker or would like to get rid of him or her? Surely the board should not be placed in the position of such a conflict of interest.

Section 54: The proposed subsection (11.1) is a sound one which we support.

Strengthening vocational rehabilitation: The PLMAC agreement and the Premier's announcement promised that vocational rehabilitation assistance for injured workers would be strengthened. We said at the time that we were sceptical of such claims since they were vague. While employer demands such as the Friedland formula were written down with meticulous detail in the PLMAC agreement, there was not much substance to the comments about vocational rehabilitation.

We see now that our scepticism was not unfounded. Where are the improvements to vocational rehabilitation? We see less benefits for our injured workers, not more, especially in attempting to secure employment elsewhere. Existing board obligations to help injured workers seek employment elsewhere have been eliminated.

The significant changes to vocational rehabilitation are giving more rights to employers, who, as we noted earlier, are not the ones who need help; the injured workers do.

We do, however, acknowledge the significant improvements to the enforcement mechanisms proposed to sections 103 and 137, and I say "mentioned below," but it's attached after page 6. There are a number of pages there of our proposals and we ask you to read the brief. I'm not going to get into it.

In the new world of technology in the workplace, team concept, productivity and efficiency, more workers than ever are being injured with repetitive strain, carpal tunnel and tendinitis claims. More workers report back to work only to find that employers don't want to bring workers back or cooperate with the unions or the representatives to reinstate, rehire or rehabilitate the worker. The proposed changes in Bill 165 would tell employers to get on with it and provide safe workplaces and suitable jobs for workers once they're injured.

In summary, my brief is provided.

There are a few other comments I would like to make, and one is on universal disability. It's another fact in Ontario today -- and these figures come from the Ontario Federation of Labour -- that as of June 1994, 103 workers have been killed on the job and 181,092 workers have been injured in the workplace.

Recently, maybe you've seen in the Toronto Sun -- what do we see? We see two MPPs, Elizabeth Witmer and Conservative Steve Mahoney, grandstanding.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me. I'm a Liberal.

Mr Thompson: These two MPPs should be taken -- oh, you're a Liberal -- out behind Queen's Park and spanked -- better yet, flogged -- for their statements in the Toronto Sun.

Mr Mahoney: That's a sexist remark.

Mr Thompson: They had their chances to make the WCB act changes when their political parties were in power. They had their chances. They've done nothing constructive, but just destructive, and have no compassion for injured workers. All they want is media attention for the next election. This is another reason why politics should stay at --

Mr Mahoney: What's your point?

Mr Thompson: -- arm's length and let employers and the unions do the work to change the act.

Finally, I believe the act should be done away with and a universal disability plan should be implemented. We have written a paper on that -- I'm not going to get into it, but it's attached for your information -- on what we believe would be another option, I guess, once the royal commission gets under way regarding the workers' compensation.

After page 6, there are our purposes, and it goes on. There are a number of changes that we've talked about here, and this is in coordination with the national union, our local union in Oshawa. Other than that, today, sir, I'd like to thank you very much. I'll answer any questions you have.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Mahoney, I'm sure.

Mr Mahoney: An interesting attitude, that there should be violence imparted upon elected representatives in the province in the provincial Legislature because you disagree with them. A very interesting attitude. Instead of analysing the problems, you come in here with the temerity to suggest that we should be spanked and flogged because you don't happen to like our opinions. That's rather childish and unfortunate, and I think you should withdraw those remarks. But of course I have no jurisdiction under which to force you to do that.

Mr Thompson: Well, I'm not going to --

Mr Mahoney: I'm more concerned about Bill 165, however, than I am about your silly remarks with regard to Ms Witmer and I, and I want to know how you feel about de-indexation of pensions to injured workers, taking money away from injured workers under the Friedland formula as proposed by this government to, in turn, pay a supplement to other injured workers who will not be de-indexed. So, I don't know, 145,000 or 150,000 workers wind up paying the cost of this political payback by the NDP. Are you in support of that, sir?

Mr Thompson: I'm in support of part of it.

Mr Mahoney: Which part?

Mr Thompson: Of giving $200 to those injured workers for the rest of their lives after their older worker supplement runs out at age 65. You know very well, Mr Mahoney, that the Canadian Auto Workers union was opposed and we walked away from the PLMAC. We were opposed to that. We were opposed to the Friedland formula.

Mr Mahoney: So how can you be in support of this bill? I just find this to be such a contradiction in terms, that you support this bill. You laud the government. You make outrageous comments about two people doing their jobs, and yet you've got the nerve to sit there and say that you support this piece of legislation which is reforming workers' compensation on the backs of injured workers. Aren't you ashamed?

Mr Thompson: No, I'm not, sir. I'm ashamed to see you, quoted by Jeff Harder, "A $180-million mistake," and talking about injured workers travelling in style in taxis when they're injured. Those are quotes in the Toronto Sun.

Mr Mahoney: You don't need to be ashamed of my quotes. I'm the one --

Mr Thompson: Your party, sir, had the chance --

Mr Mahoney: -- who's responsible for my quotes. I want to know how you have the temerity and the nerve to say that you support a bill like this when it's taking money off the backs of injured workers. You should be ashamed.

Mr Thompson: I'm not ashamed at all, sir. We're here to discuss that.

Mr Mahoney: By the way, if you would like take the opportunity to administer the spanking or the flogging, I'll be happy to meet you there.

Mr Thompson: If you can't take the heat, sir, you shouldn't run for political office.

Mr Mahoney: Absolute garbage.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: I've got no questions.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Hope.

Mr Hope: Thank you very much, Dave. First of all, dealing with the issue of the universal disability plan, I take it you're going to be making that presentation to the royal commission.

Mr Thompson: It's just another option that government should look at. It was talked about years ago. Professor Weiler discussed it in 1983, and it's an option that we're considering. Certainly, there are just so many acts today, so many insurance schemes. We think that one scheme would work for everybody in Ontario. Instead of having 10 different agencies, we could have one agency and we could administer benefits to injured workers. I think it's something that we have to consider. We will be speaking on that.

Mr Hope: I guess I've been just as angry as you. I probably wouldn't use the same words because I'm afflicted by some rules, but I'm getting a little disturbed too when I hear the business community come before this committee and say: "Don't increase our payments. Cut workers' benefits even more, and continue to pay us for upholding the law of making healthier and safer workplaces."

You're right. The opposition has been saying -- Mr Mahoney got extremely mad at you, but I don't understand why, because they haven't indicated -- they're agreeing with the business community, they're agreeing with the injured workers, but they have no solutions.

I guess we've seen what Greg Sorbara did with Bill 162 and his terminology, and you're absolutely right about the Conservatives. They've been pleading with the injured workers, saying it's shameful, but they're agreeing to a benefit reduction because they think there's a generous contribution that's being paid for the injured worker, and yet agreeing with the employer.

But I just wanted to say that I agree with you on some of the terminology that you've put forward. I don't agree with everything. I would love to see Utopia being created with workers' compensation, but I believe medium steps have to be taken, and then also long-term ones, which is the royal commission. I would agree with you on a universal program for disabled persons because we have a number of programs out there that should be under one roof to deal with people with disabilities.

Mr Thompson: Well, employers should consider this because they would be paying one bill to one agency instead of OHIP and whatever carrier they're dealing with, unemployment insurance, Canada pension plan, the act, etc. It's absolutely amazing when you have to deal with all these different acts and when you have 15 companies.

We represent -- this is a slow day -- 500. We've had as high as 1,000 a day off on benefits. It's absolutely amazing. You talk about how safe it is and all these great acts, but because of the new efficiency and the new lean and mean, we're finding more injured workers. It creates higher costs.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. No further questions. On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank Local 222 of the Canadian Auto Workers for giving us their presentation this morning.

This committee stands recessed until 2 pm.

The committee recessed from 1221 to 1405.

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION
TORONTO AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: I call this committee back to order and call our first presenters for this afternoon, from the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association and the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Just a reminder, you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd leave a little time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses.

Ms Shelly Schlueter: I'll try and speak quickly.

Good afternoon. My name is Shelly Schlueter, and I'm an automobile dealer. I'm also chairperson of the government relations committee of the Ontario and Toronto automobile dealers associations. With me today is Bill Davis. He is our director of government affairs. We certainly welcome the opportunity to comment on Bill 165 from the perspective of small business.

Our joint associations represent 1,000 new-car franchises located in cities, towns and villages throughout Ontario. In aggregate, we employ approximately 55,000 people. The average dealership in Ontario employs between 55 and 65 people. I have 80 people working for me. Our members are representatives of one small entrepreneurial business which plays a large role in maintaining the economic engine of Ontario, figuratively and literally, so to speak.

Our industry is under two rate groups. In 1993, in rate group 657, which covers automobile and truck dealers, our members contributed $16 million to the WCB. In rate group 630, vehicle services and repairs, our industry, along with other employers in that group, contributed $48 million to the WCB. The auto industry, retail, sales and service, contributed over $60 million to WCB in 1993.

Our comments this afternoon will convey the serious concerns that we have with the government's proposed amendments to reform the WCB contained in Bill 165.

Much has been said and documented about the PLMAC accord. In fact, the then president of General Motors, which is my manufacturer, was a member, and I had the opportunity to discuss first hand with George Peapples some of the concerns auto dealers have with the WCB. Time and time again, the auto dealers expressed that any meaningful reform could only be built around a financially responsible framework. Lo and behold, George informed me that such a framework was at the heart of the accord and that the labour members also agreed, early on in the process. However, it was very short-lived and in fact there was no agreement in principle that the WCB should be financially responsible.

I only bring this up again because the purpose clause of Bill 165 that in effect replaced the financial responsibility framework in the accord has no reference to costs at all. It was intended to define the duties and relationships of the many varying components of the WCB and enforce financial responsibility and accountability in the system. In reality, the purpose clause does not respect the consensus reached by PLMAC. Rather, it focuses the administration of the act exclusively on workers' interests without regard for the ultimate impact on business or the economy. We believe the original PLMAC purpose clause should be reinstated into the legislation.

The present governance structure of the board ensures that both business and labour have a significant role to play while guarding against the ability for any one group to dominate the agenda. The government's amendment will create a bipartite board, and one needs only to look at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to recognize bipartism rarely works outside the workplace. But that's another presentation for another committee.

Not only does our association, as part of the business community, oppose Bill 165's bipartite recommendation, but it appears that government itself has serious reservations as to the ability of the bipartite board to work together. In Bill 165, the minister is provided with exclusive power to set WCB policy for one year following the proclamation.

1410

We are extremely sceptical of this direction, because it could be interpreted that if on a particular issue consensus is not attainable, would the minister exercise his or her prerogative to set policy that reflected the union's position on that issue, as has been the case time and time again over at the WHSA? Through this amendment, government has seized control of the WCB. We acknowledge workers' compensation is a public program for which government is ultimately responsible.

Now, the minister and his staff might argue that this obligation to act in a financially responsible and accountable manner is addressed in sections 58 and 65, but the provisions in those subsections are limited to the board of directors itself, not the administrators of the system nor the members of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

One of the founding principles of the Ontario workers' compensation system was to deliberately separate the government from the administration of the Workers' Compensation Act to ensure a politics-free, arm's-length administration. The government designs the legislative boundaries of the system, while the board is charged with the responsibility to administer the legislation. This ensures the board is truly independent, free from political interference and protects the integrity of the WCB policy. For the first time in the history of the board, a government is ignoring this safeguard and is politicizing the WCB. This is an unprecedented step and effectively renders powerless the new bipartite board of directors.

Our association opposes these amendments.

Our association also calls, along with other people, for the elimination of the unfunded liability by the year 2014. The present workers' compensation system is technically bankrupt, owing workers $11 billion more than it has money to pay out. The unfunded liability is growing at a staggering rate of $2 million a day and over the next 20 years will triple, to some $31 billion perhaps. In the worst-case scenario, the unfunded liability could reach $52 billion. This isn't rhetoric or fiction; it is sound actuarial calculations.

A long-term funding strategy was developed by business and the WCB 10 years ago to retire the unfunded liability by the year 2014. To accomplish that goal, business agreed to an assessment rate increase of 15% for three years, to be followed by a 10% increase in assessment rates for the subsequent three years. In 1989, the annual report of the board stated that "...if the 1989 accident performance is maintained over the long term, it could result in the elimination of the unfunded liability seven years earlier...."

Well, the Ontario business community kept the accident rates down, and in fact they continued to decline, along with the rate of injury. The business community fulfilled its part of the agreement. Yet costs continued to increase and the unfunded liability soared. Today, Ontario has the highest unfunded liability in the country. Since 1989, the portion of employer assessment dedicated for retiring that unfunded liability has increased by over 57%.

I heard the minister Monday afternoon in this very room say, "There is a growing feeling that the board is becoming a drain on Ontario's economy," on our ability to attract investment and jobs and spark business confidence.

Our association supports the ECWC's Agenda for Workers' Compensation Reform that would reduce the unfunded liability to zero by the year 2014. This objective can be attained without significantly reducing benefits to individual injured workers.

Without a foundation of fiscal responsibility as the cornerstone of reform, any modification or change to the WCB system can at best be viewed as a short-term quick fix only. The government's refusal to address the financial problems of the Ontario WCB in its amendments brought this reaction from David Kerr, president and CEO of Noranda and a member of the PLMAC group, "This is fiscally irresponsible and puts the future of benefits for injured workers at grave risk." We agree with Mr Kerr, and without the implementation of some very tough recommendations, WCB risks running completely out of assets in the next 25 years and there will be no money to pay workers' pensions. The government of the day won't need to worry about ensuring the integrity of the system; there will be no system.

Listening to me, you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the automobile dealers of this province have nothing positive to contribute. That isn't so.

The experience rating program in Ontario represents one of the best examples of joint policy development between business and government. NEER established a balance between employer accountability and the basic insurance principles of workers' compensation, and we applaud it. The minister himself stated Monday that many workplaces are committed to professional disability management. I would like to add that we are also committed to professional workplace health and safety. NEER is a perfect example of that commitment.

The effectiveness of NEER has been examined by the Workers' Compensation Board in the new experimental experience rating program evaluation study. The study revealed that the NEER program has been very successful in achieving its goals:

"The results of the evaluation study indicate NEER has been effective in generating a substantial incremental impact on increased health and safety initiatives by employers in the area of prevention, of protection. The study also found that NEER has also been effective in generating an organizational response to the program in terms of focusing more clearly on the responsibility for health and safety issues and performance within the organization. Analysis of the board data shows a relative decrease in frequency rates for NEER rated groups...."

The amendments proposed by the government in Bill 165 will effectively destroy an experience rating system that is performance-based. The program-based review system proposed in the government amendments would require the WCB to become involved in extensive auditing programs of the workplace to determine compliance with the new regulations. Given the past experience with the subjective nature of the Workwell audits, we can anticipate numerous appeals involving penalties or lower rebates.

It will be difficult for small employers, like many of our members, to meet the demand of a program-based experience rating system since they generally lack the resources necessary to put written processes and procedures effectively into place. In many cases, true and professional safety practices are just that, practised daily and routinely and instinctively, and there are numerous legislated programs that are already implemented across the province.

The proposed amendments of the government provide the board with unnecessary interventional powers. This type of government interference into the marketplace will further damage Ontario's competitiveness and strangle business's freedom with more red tape, more unneeded rules and more unproductive inspections.

Our bottom line on experience rating is, leave it alone. Do not introduce amendments to experience rating that will undermine the integrity of a proven, acceptable and workable program. If you must tinker with it, augment it further in a positive way with incentives to increase rebates and decrease fines and red tape.

Bill 165 does not have the support of the auto dealers, it does not reflect the PLMAC consensus position and strategy for reform that was agreed to last March and it does not have the support of the business community. It does not address the Premier's concerns with the WCB's unfunded liability, its governance problem and long-standing policy issues that resulted in his decision to seek the assistance of PLMAC to determine a resolution in the first place. It ignores the Premier's mandate to his advisory committee that any solution for reform must be financially responsible and meet the needs of both workers and employers and be competitive with other jurisdictions.

There is a very clear yet propelling conclusion. I challenge this committee and the government of the day to go one step higher and one step beyond. Withdraw Bill 165 in its present form and go back to the stakeholders, because you can't do it alone. We do very little of significance by ourselves. If this is a good bill in its finished form, it's because many, many people have attempted to help it along.

The sequel to Bill 165 must have a final touch with a careful and balanced edit. There must be a constant, almost obsessive demand for clarity in order to achieve the quality necessary to serve the people of this province. Go back with a renewed commitment to purpose, a determination and perseverance to an internal locus of control. These committee hearings have afforded the public our right to comment, and they have offered you a practical and powerful tool. But as any one of my skilled mechanics will tell you, a tool is only as good as the person using it. You can merely cut or you can finely hone and create something with it. The choice is yours. I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns.

1420

Mr Mahoney: Thank you for the presentation. On the issue around government interference, on page 5 of the bill, immediately following subsection 65.1(1), where it states, "The minister may issue policy directions" etc -- you've referred to that in your presentation -- it's followed up under a subsection (4) which says, "This section is repealed one year after it comes into force."

My question would be, given the fact that the government is telling us this is for some sort of transition, notwithstanding the fact that they've appointed what appears to be a pretty professional group of people to handle the transition currently, Mr Blundell and others, given the fact that there's a transition team already in place at the WCB and given the fact that they are automatically in this bill repealing their ability for ministerial interference one year after the date it's coming in, why are you concerned about this?

Ms Schlueter: I'm concerned that the minister or the ministry will hold direct control over it even in that one-year period. It's happened over and over again at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. We have seen the minister and the minister's office overrule its own caucus because of a decision they would rather see. It politicizes the WCB, and I have a concern because those are my dollars as an employer.

Mr Mahoney: So we're going to have a system with a bipartite board, very much like the health and safety agency, taking marching orders perhaps politically. Do you think they could do a lot of damage to this system in 12 months?

Ms Schlueter: Oh, clearly. Once policy is put in, and you're the professionals here, it's pretty hard to untangle. It's there.

Mr Mahoney: That's the truth.

Mr Turnbull: I wonder if you could just comment on the fact that the labour side has been suggesting that the experience rating that is currently in place simply rewards people for complying with the law. Perhaps you could just respond to that.

Ms Schlueter: Clearly, it does, but if you're doing a good job, why not reward the people that are doing the good job? We are business. This is reality. We're not in a scouting program where you do things out of the goodness of your heart. We are maintaining, and I meet a bottom line and a payroll and have for 10 years. I've got 80 people who depend on me. I can only keep that job if I can be economically viable. Watching my bottom line does that, and all the government programs come completely, directly out of my bottom line. I can't raise prices; the car prices are set. I can't go and raise door rates; the door rates are set. I have no way of recouping that. If I can achieve some financial benefit that can be turned back into my business to make my business stronger to employ more people, why not? And in the long run, we're still doing the good thing. There is an increase in health and safety programs at the workplace level.

I'm not asking for any breaks here. I'm just saying that if you're doing a good job, why not reward that, either in rebates, as has been the problem, or, I don't know, lower the fines.

Mr Turnbull: The other question I have for you is with respect to the unfunded liability. It has been suggested by many of the presentations made by labour that: "Oh, we don't need to worry about this unfunded liability. So long as you can just sort of maintain it, it isn't a problem." As you know, it's likely that the unfunded liability will go up to $13 billion or $14 billion over a period of years instead of declining to zero. What is the implication for you as an employer?

Ms Schlueter: Well, clearly the money is going to have to come from somewhere, and it's going to come from my assessment rates. I can only respond and relate to what I am familiar with, which is running a business. All I know is, if I don't balance at the end of the year, the end of the month, month to month, I no longer have a business. So clearly if the WCB can continue on with this deficit and carry it over and carry it over, at some point it's going to end and there will be no system.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for appearing today. We've enjoyed your presentation.

Today you called for the elimination of the unfunded liability by the year 2014. Obviously all of us would like to see the elimination of the unfunded liability by the year 2014, yet nobody has come up with a suggestion how to do that.

You should be aware, Ms Schlueter, that the party that you're going to be running for in the next provincial election has suggested that the unfunded liability should at least be at 50% by the year 2014, which is in fact 5% lower than what Bill 165 is -- hopefully where that will end up in the year 2014. So even in your party it hasn't been suggested that we should eliminate the unfunded liability by the year 2014, nor is it possible to eliminate the unfunded liability by that year. Can you answer me how you're going to reconcile that?

Ms Schlueter: Last time I looked there wasn't an election called, and I'm not here as a candidate. I'm here representing the automobile dealers' association. I think my colleague would like to address that one.

Mr Bill Davis: On the unfunded liability, you can't continue to operate the WCB, Mr Ferguson, and you know it, not having moneys in reserves. The way to eliminate it -- business in 1989 entered an agreement with the WCB to end it. In fact, you heard today in this presentation and all the presentations to today that it was successful, so successful that I guess it was 1989 when the WCB said, "If we continue that, we'll have it reduced by the year 2007," seven years earlier than we both agreed to.

But when you look at it, what you find is the accidents are declining, the injury rates are declining, but the costs of operation of the WCB and payments are continuing to increase. That's why it's imperative that this committee puts into the bill some type of fiscal responsibility around the agency. Once you put fiscal responsibility in, once you begin to implement the new indexing which even your own government is suggesting, although it should apply to everybody, then what will happen is you'll begin to bring it down.

If there's a true partnership and cooperation, I suspect that by the year 2014 we can eliminate the unfunded liability. If you as a government allow it to continue, then that's unconscionable in this world we live in. Business can't operate that way. I can't operate my own chequebook that way. I have bills to pay and I have to meet them. Government has to come to that recognition.

Mr Ferguson: With respect, sir, a purpose clause isn't going to save the board one dime at this point. How are you going to do it? What are the nuts and bolts of doing it, save and except a purpose clause?

Mr Davis: Mr Ferguson, I assume you've done the reading put in by the business community in their agenda for reform, which indicates five steps that could be taken. One of them is the whole issue of indexing, reducing the index to 75% plus one of the CPI, no higher than four, and apply it to everybody, and no elimination and no --

Mr Ferguson: Well, that is in there.

Mr Mahoney: No, it isn't. It doesn't apply to everybody.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association and the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association for their presentation.

ONTARIO PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr Joe Fauteux: My name is Joe Fauteux. I am a firefighter from the city of Windsor and have been a firefighter for approximately 23 years. I am also the chairman of the workers' compensation committee for the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association. With me is the president of that association, Mr Jim Lee, who is a firefighter and has been a firefighter for almost 23 years in the city of North York.

The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association represents approximately 4,300 full-time firefighters from 53 municipalities of all sizes and locations in Ontario. We appear before you today to discuss some of the concerns we have relating to Bill 165.

Let me begin by saying that in my eight-year tenure of dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board on behalf of firefighters, their spouses and families, I have learned a great deal about how the system works and, more importantly, how the system fails to work. I know too well the difficulties that are experienced by widows of firefighters. I have seen widows having to wait up to three years before receiving the compensation benefits entitled to them.

1430

This is partly because of the system, where we have had to prove that a firefighter's dropping dead of a heart attack in the living room of a house that was involved in a fire resulted from an accident "in the course of his employment." The same system's inadequacies forced the widow of another firefighter to seek welfare and take boarders into her home in order to meet the financial obligations of being a single parent and raising a family, a situation that she did not want but rather was forced into by having to prove that her husband's death was as a result of a job-related accident as well. Currently, I am awaiting a WCAT decision concerning a firefighter's claim for a very simple knee recurrence. This case was heard by WCAT in November 1993. As of today there is still no decision.

Yes, there are problems with the present system. Anyone working within that system knows that all too well. Yes, there are some much-needed changes that are required to deal with injured workers in all the areas of the workplace. We also know and we understand the concerns that both employers and employees have regarding the cost of workers' compensation in this province. But the issue before us today is the matter of Bill 165. We have some concerns about what are being proposed as some solutions to the mess of workers' compensation. There are two areas that seem to be the focus of the proposed changes. The first is the unfunded liability, and the second is the means of getting injured workers back into the workplace.

At the back of this brief we have included an appendix of some of the areas of concern that we see with Bill 165. We have also taken the opportunity in a few instances to suggest some language changes that may assist this committee in addressing the concerns we put before you.

In looking at the Friedland formula, one would ask, how does Bill 165 propose to diminish the unfunded liability of the board? One of the answers is very simple to us: Reduce the amount that we pay to injured workers and transpose that money to the unfunded liability account. What we are talking about here is the Friedland formula of indexing the pensions of those individuals who presently and in the future will receive pension payments from the board.

What is wrong with this, in our view, is that injured workers who will receive pensions now and in the future will not be able to keep up with the cost of living. The Friedland formula is used in many pension plans; that's true. But these plans are for retirees. Generally, retirees are those workers who have put in their 30 or 35 or more years of service and are now drawing their pension. Pensions from the Workers' Compensation Board are for people of all ages. A 30-year-old individual will not keep in step with the cost of living if they are not at least getting that amount of an increase.

That is why today under Bill 165 it is being proclaimed that you give a $200 increase to the older workers, as suggested. Older workers will not have had their pensions keep up with this increased cost of living, even with the full indexing of the COLA. So now we have to allow them to catch up, or at least partly so. If we enact this formula now, then I would suggest that before the year 2014 we will be forced to give the new individuals an increase, as we have to now in 1994. We are only putting off our responsibilities until a later date. The mess will just continue.

We urge you to recommend that the Friedland formula of indexing pensions of the Workers' Compensation Board be eliminated from the proposed Bill 165. In our view, this is simply a method of saving money on the backs of injured workers.

The issue of saving money or reducing the unfunded liability is of major concern to everyone connected with this bill. In order to understand this important aspect, we have to understand exactly what an unfunded liability is. It is the amount of money owed to a group of people for which the revenues are not secured or in deposit of a bank or a similar system. That sounds scary. But in order for the unfunded liability of $11 billion or $13 billion to bankrupt the system, everyone who is owed the money would have to demand it today, and that is not realistic.

In the arena of negotiating firefighter collective agreements, we are constantly subjected to dealing with municipalities and their unfunded liabilities surrounding the sick leave gratuities. They claim that they have this tremendous debt of X number of millions of dollars. What they do not say is that in order for that debt to have the full impact, every firefighter entitled to any amount of the sick leave gratuity would have to quit and demand all of his money owed to him today. Again, this too is unrealistic.

The unfunded liability of the board is there, but let's keep in mind what it really means. Does the board have to pay all of its debts off in one lump sum in one short day? Of course not. The board will continue to pay the money that it owes its injured workers, surviving spouses and dependants. It will also continue to collect revenues from premiums owed to it and from its investments. The debt can continue and do so without the fear of complete bankruptcy because not every worker is going to demand every dollar tomorrow.

In the area of re-employment or modified work, Bill 165 is looking at making the re-employment of the injured worker more of a reality in more workplaces. Presently, many employers are still refusing to become actively involved in providing modified work for their employees.

I know from personal experience that prior to 1990, or Bill 162, fire chiefs and city officials would often state to us that there is no modified work in the fire service. Our seriously injured firefighters were often hit with the statement, "Either you fight fires or you don't work here any more." Now many of these same fire chiefs are running around trying to develop modified work plans. Amazing how we find these jobs after the legislation was changed to demand that it be done.

One would think that we as firefighters would be supportive of this issue, but what faces us now from our employers includes such things as the employers' secretaries contacting our doctors directly for a prognosis of our condition, the threat of having our wages reduced if modified work continues for more than eight weeks, and, further, the threat of being moved from the fire department into some other position within the municipality. Modified work or re-employment can work, but only if it is done without an antagonistic approach and the alienation attitude of many employers and supervisors that injured workers are only looking for a free ride or an easy way out.

We are also having to deal with employers offering modified work to employees and then the worker being told by his doctor not to do that job function because it will aggravate his condition. Often the employer thinks the worker is being uncooperative, so they notify the board that the worker has refused alternative employment. The board suspends benefits. Then the appeal process begins. Unfortunately, during the appeal process the injured worker is left without any income. What position does that put the worker and his family into? Even if he wins his appeal later, he has still gone without the wages or benefits for too long a period of time. If you really want to make sure the employers participate in a positive re-employment program, then allow the worker to continue to receive benefits until an appeal as described above has been finalized. Under the present system, the worker is penalized and punished for following the advice and direction of his treating physician or a specialist rather than following the direction of a fire chief or another municipal employee.

With respect to the royal commission, according to Bill 165, a royal commission is going to be put into place in order to study the full delivery of services and directions of the Workers' Compensation Board. Further, this commission will look at the way injured workers or disabled individuals should be compensated, whether their disability arises from a work-related accident or not.

We believe that a commission to investigate the entire Workers' Compensation Board, from within and from without, is a welcome event. We hope the commission will address the many issues that the board has neglected to develop or implement, issues such as vocational rehabilitation for the spouse of an injured worker who has not died but is incapable of ever working again, or the fullest investigation of allowing heart attack claims for firefighters even if the heart attack cannot be specifically attributed to one instance. This is the presumptive clause that exists in many regions of the United States and some provinces of Canada but is missing from the Ontario Workers' Compensation Act.

Undoubtedly, the commission will look at pensions, indexing and the financing of the board.

Why is it that now so many workers, approximately 700,000, in this province are not covered by the act? Why are bank employees not granted the full benefits enjoyed by other workers in this province?

Because of the emergence of a royal commission to investigate these and other aspects of full service to injured workers, we would suggest that all of the changes proposed by Bill 165 be stayed. Let the commission do its job. Let the commission submit a full report with its suggestions for a better system and delivery mechanism than we presently have. Then, if it is appropriate, take the recommendations of the commission and implement them. To make changes today that may not be the recommended changes of the royal commission is to really put the cart before the horse. As an example, what do we do if a year or so from now the commission recommends that full indexing of pensions is appropriate, and we have only a few short months before implemented a formula of reducing the indexing of pensions as we know it today? We strongly urge you to wait for the commission to report its findings to you and then deal with its recommendations in an intelligent manner.

1440

Before closing, we want to take a moment to discuss another area of concern that we have noticed while reading and studying some of the arguments that have appeared in the Hansard reports; specifically, the position of some individuals from the employer groups and those MPPs who support them regarding the fact that the employer pays the full cost of workers' compensation and that workers' should be paying for part of these premiums.

We disagree and oppose that mentality on two fronts. First, we as workers do in fact pay for a part of the costs of workers' compensation. If any of you have ever had the opportunity to sit at a negotiating table with an employer, you know full well that every time salary increases are mentioned, the employer screams about the high cost of benefits: "You cannot have this much of a raise because it costs too much to cover the costs of your benefits." These benefits include the costs that the employer pays in workers' compensation fees or premiums. Arguably, if there were no cost to the employer for workers' compensation, then we could enjoy higher salary increases. If that's true, then we the workers are indirectly paying for a part of the cost of the workers' compensation benefits.

Secondly, let us not forget why the Workers' Compensation Act was founded in 1914. It provided the worker with a form of financial compensation should he or she become injured on the job. It also removed the employee's right to sue the employer because of the accident.

We wonder how many of the workers who are supposed to be getting this $200 increase in their pension because of their financial situation would like the opportunity to sue the employer because of the unsafe workplace or the equipment that the worker had to use at the time of his accident. We wonder how many employers or those who support this mentality would also want to give the injured worker the right to sue. Somehow we don't believe that too many employers would jump on this bandwagon.

Now is the time to stop blaming each other, whether that be the employer or the employee, or whether that be the Liberal, the Conservative or the current NDP government of this province. Now is the time to get together and solve, in a joint manner, the problems with the board. Problems of funding and problems of servicing the injured worker need to be dealt with as we approach the 21st century. If we could achieve this in spite of all of our political differences, we would be doing the greatest service possible to injured workers.

We must never forget that the only individuals who need our attention are the injured workers, their spouses and their dependants. These are the victims of the unfortunate happening that took place. They need to be dealt with fairly and treated with the dignity that they deserve. We have to stop looking at these individuals as a liability and focus our attention to their very pressing needs.

On behalf of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and we look forward to answering any questions that you would have of us.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you for your presentation. It was really quite excellent.

I'd like to ask you a lot of things and I want to say also, by the way, that I totally concur with your closing remarks about it getting together to solve it. In fact, I put out a report entitled Back to the Future, reform on WCB, and that was one of the strongest positions I took, that it's not partisan, there's enough blame for everybody in this whole mess and let's try to figure it out.

The unfunded liability on page 6, I think you're right on with regard to the fact that not everybody's going to cash in their chips today. The problem and the fear is that we currently sit at about 37% funding: $6 billion in assets, $17.2 billion in debt. The debt seems to be growing more substantially than the assets. So if you look over 20 years and you see the debt increasing -- and I will admit it's a lower increase than it was perhaps a year ago, but it's still an increase -- at $1 million to $2 million a day and you see a very poor return on the investment fund, the $6 billion, the growth, you're going to have lower growth on your assets and higher growth on your debt. Instead of being funded at 37% we could go to 25% or 20% or lower.

That's the problem, in my view, with the unfunded liability. We have to turn it around and send that funding ratio from 37% to 50% to 60% to 70%. I think that's the real issue with the unfunded liability and you've attempted to sort of clarify that. But do you agree with me that the problem with the growth in the unfunded liability cannot continue? There has to be some form of financial plan. It may not only be to 2014; it may take longer than 20 years to get this thing under control. You amortize mortgages over 25 and 30 years. Maybe that's the length of time we should be looking at.

Mr Fauteux: I'm certainly no economist by any stretch of the imagination.

Mr Mahoney: Nor am I.

Mr Fauteux: I have a hard enough time balancing my chequebook at the end of every week.

There are a couple of things that I think can address that unfunded liability. The reason it was in the brief was to make sure we understood what that really was. There are a couple of things that I think may help to reduce the unfunded liability. One is looking at the 700,000 people in this province whose employers are not contributing anything to the workers' compensation system as we know it today; another deals with the re-employment, and yes, make modified work, make re-employment a reality, but do it without scaring and without doing it in a threatening manner to the injured workers who are being offered these jobs.

When an employer comes to me and says: "We're going to bring you back to work on a modified work job. Now we're going to take you off workers' compensation, but if your injury isn't better in eight weeks we're going to reduce your wages," it's no wonder there's an alienation there between workers and employers, and that's exactly what's going on now.

The other situation that was described in the brief was an employer calling a doctor directly and saying, "Can he do this?" and the doctor saying, "No, he can't do this modified work or this re-employment status job." That individual firefighter put himself into a position of either obeying a chief and disobeying his doctor or being cut off benefits. Now he's being forced to retire seven years before he wanted to because he can't work and his claim has not been approved.

Mr Mahoney: Remember, in 10 seconds, that the 700,000 workers who are not paying in right now also will bring a cost to the system.

Mr Fauteux: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: It's not all gravy, and studies show it will not be positive for the system.

Mr Turnbull: Turning to page 9 of your brief, with respect to the royal commission, you're talking about taking a look at how individuals could be compensated, whether or not their disability was related to an accident at work. Is it your contention, in essence, that an employer should provide some kind of insurance irrespective of whether it has anything to do with the employment?

Mr Fauteux: I don't know if I would go that far. When I was preparing for this and when I was reading up in material that I had at hand, I understood that the royal commission was going to look at the Workers' Compensation Board, number one, but also look at disabled individuals in the province of Ontario, regardless of where the injury had originated from, and see if there is a way of combining services or doing whatever would be needed in order to deal properly with all injured individuals in the province, workers' compensation being one area, but injured workers who have been involved in a car accident that was not job-related as well. So that commission was going to look at dealing with injured individuals in the province of Ontario, workers' compensation being the main focus.

Mr Turnbull: How do you square that with the statement you made that in fact workers really pay now because of the negotiations that go on at salary time for a portion of WCB, if you're talking about taking in people who are not necessarily employed?

Mr Fauteux: I'm not saying it necessarily has to be the employer that is paying for the cost of an individual who was injured not in a compensable accident. At the present time we have a welfare system, we have CPP disability; we have all of these other things that deal with everybody else. My understanding was the commission was going to look at the entire picture, and workers' compensation is one segment of that picture.

1450

Mr Hope: You've raised a number of good areas, one area dealing with the appeal process, what happens to the family during that. Employers do utilize that as a mechanism to put financial strain on individuals, and I think what we have to do is look at an area to try to put money into people's hands while the appeal process is going on. We have it in other jurisdictions. In other areas when an appeal is going on the individuals continue to be paid. I just want to identify that.

We're currently paying money back to employers. We've heard employers' presentations say they want to freeze the rates, they want cutbacks on the benefits to individuals and yet they're asking us to keep the experience rating program going on, which is money kicked back to them. They indicate in their briefs what they pay to WCB but they never tell us how much they receive back.

I'm wondering, in your opinion, if we were to use the experience rating money that we give back to corporations -- we're just upholding the law, making healthier and safer workplaces -- because you indicate about a year to do the commission, keep that money for about a year, a year and a half, allow the commission to work back. Let's not implement the Friedland formula. Let's see if we can expedite people to really deal with this. You raised some good things, saying that people have to set partisan issues aside. We're all talking about the injured worker and protecting him. What if we were to do that and make sure that we hold on to the experience rating money that we pay back to employers and make sure that we don't have to introduce the Friedland formula or reduce anybody's pension, and expedite a process to deal with the unfunded liability which everybody's concerned about -- just your opinion on that.

Mr Fauteux: My opinion is, I'd probably have to leave that to somebody else to decide. In my business, in dealing with firefighters, as far as actual premiums are concerned to the Workers' Compensation Board, we don't deal with that -- in very, very few instances -- because the vast majority of our employers are schedule 2 employers who basically pay as they go plus the assessment for processing the claim. So my expertise in answering a question that is dealing with the assessment rates of the board would be most inappropriate, I would think.

The Vice-Chair: I thank the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association for its presentation this afternoon.

QUINTE AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS GROUP

Ms Anne Madill: Thank you for allowing me this time to come up here. I'm Anne Madill of the Quinte and District Injured Workers Group.

The Vice-Chair: You can be seated. Get yourself comfortable.

Mr Turnbull: Would you like to borrow my backrest?

Ms Madill: Oh, I'd love to.

I'm with the Quinte and District Injured Workers Group. I am the president and also the person who does their cases for them. I have my level 3 with the OFL. I go right to court and do hearings etc. I'm also an injured worker.

As you'll see on this first page, that's when we got our first new home, and before that I was working out of my home.

I'd like to, first of all, tell you what the life of an injured worker is like. I was injured in 1987, lifting a patient with another nurse. She slipped or let go and I got 268 pounds. Two back operations later, bone from my hip screwed into my back with six screws, which I still have, I walk with a cane sometimes, which I've got folded up in there.

I was supposed to go back in and have the screws taken out and a rod put in, but when they got me there for my pre-med they found out I had a heart condition due to the surgery prior to that. So now I'm on seven heart pills a day, I'm on five Tylenol 3s, I'm on Zantac, Prozac, about 17 pills a day, and that's the way I'm going to be for the rest of my life. I wear a back brace. I've had to give up many things in my life: golfing, carrying a flag for my country, being an ambulance driver, a volunteer; I can't do that any more. I can't take long trips. I can't walk any distance. I sleep with eight pillows at night. Thank God I'm a widow or I'd probably be divorced by now.

My life has just gone. I don't have any life; that is why I bury myself helping other injured workers, because I know what they're going through and I care. I have clients who are losing their homes. Their wife or their husband is leaving because they can't cope with it. I'm starting a support group in Belleville for the spouses and the children of injured workers because I feel they need support and guidance as well as we injured workers do. They're the ones who suffer as well. I have two I'm working with right now -- suicidal. I'm counselling them and I'm proud to say they're coming along very well.

So it affects not just the injured workers; it affects the whole family. Your social life is gone. I can't go out and dance any more. Can you see me up there with six screws, dancing around the floor? I'd fall down. It's sad. I think Bill 165 should be scrapped. Start over. There's not a thing in there that's really going to help us except for the $200 a month, which I'll go into.

I have the opportunity of working with a lot of the older injured workers prior to 1990. They do not qualify for this because they turned 65 before July 26. Section 147 was not in effect at that time, so they don't get it. But why shouldn't they get it? They're living in poverty, and I say "poverty." When I go home at night and take food out of my freezer to an injured worker's house so that he or she can have something to eat, it's getting pretty bad.

Our organization has had to go and pay their gas bills or their gas is going to be shut off. We've all chipped in and what we didn't have in the bank -- everybody put some money in, and the same for the electricity. These people are living in poverty and there's no need for that whatsoever. They have worked all their lives and they're injured as to no fault of their own. Why should they have to suffer like they are suffering? Why should I have to suffer like I am?

My pills for my heart and the other pills I take cost me $141 a month out of my own pocket, out of my WCB cheque that I get, because WCB says it's not work-related, yet it happened on the table I was being operated on. It's right in writing at the hospital that they had trouble with my heart on the table. Why wouldn't I have trouble? They had an anaesthetic, Valium, morphine and Demerol all in me. I went berserk. I don't even remember about a week of it. I thought they were taking my heart out and putting it in the guy next to me. This is what they do to us. They dope us up and then, "Oh, well, put her back to work." Anyway, I could not go back to work so they pensioned me off. I qualify for this $200 but that's not the point.

I would like everybody who was injured before 1990 to qualify because they need it. That would mean $50 a week extra for food for every older person. You should see what some of those people are eating. Unless you have a father or grandparent who is injured and living in those conditions you really don't know what it's like, and you really don't know what it's like to be injured until you're injured. You don't walk the floor at night in pain, pop pain pills till you're, "Oh God, I can't stay awake to watch TV," you know. It's terrible.

They don't take your doctor's word for it. All these papers put in front of them at the WCB, that's what they take. A person who can't even walk can get 15%. A person who can walk and go out and play golf and everything else gets 30%. It's not done right and I think it should be done by our own doctors, not WCB doctors. I've dealt with them. They came down to our group and spoke one time and the one doctor couldn't answer any of the questions that my injured workers were putting to him. No wonder he's working for WCB, because he probably couldn't make it on the street. That's what I told him. Okay, that's the injured workers.

1500

Another thing that my injured workers are really upset over is, before you reach 65 and you're pensioned off -- it's not in this thing; it's an afterthought that I didn't put in -- you do not have a drug card. I'd like that put in somewhere in the bill, maybe, that we could get our drugs, because only the ones that relate to our back injury get paid for by WCB. All the other ones we have to pay for ourselves. But once you reach 65 you can get them, right? Do you agree that we should have a drug plan for the -- if you're on social services --

The Acting Chair: If I might interrupt for a moment. Could you try not to hit the microphone with your papers, because it's being taped and it drives the whole system crazy.

Ms Madill: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm a little bit nervous. I saw a terrible accident on the way up.

Also, I forgot to mention in this the Hastings and Prince Edward Legal Services. Mr Dave Little, the staff lawyer, works very closely with our organization and you will see his name on the thing as well. He helps the injured workers fight for what their rights are.

I do not feel that the employer should have any say in the retraining of an employee. What else did I want to say here? Am I running out of time? We should not underestimate the insult to an injured worker whose accident employer, who has likely done nothing to return the worker to work, has the right to attend the vocational rehabilitation interviews, argue for whatever VR plan it may choose and be regularly updated on all aspects of the VR plan.

Right now I'm working with a client who was fired because he got injured. He cannot be rehabilitated because he is from the reserve and he had only a grade 5 education. How do you account for that? How do you rehabilitate something like that? So we're hoping that we'll win, but this is what is happening. The employers are not taking them back.

There's another one who's just had both wrists operated on. He was fired because he can't return to work, and the WCB, as soon as you reach a certain age, won't retrain you. I know; I was one of them. They would not retrain me for another job. I'm just out to pasture. I live on workers' comp.

That's all I have to say. I didn't go word for word here because I wanted to get out how I feel as an injured worker and how I spend my time helping other injured workers so that they don't have to suffer. By the way, it's all volunteer work and I love it every time I win a case. If you have any questions, I'd love to answer them.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you very much for your presentation. As we have found in this committee, we are receiving presentations from a whole range of individuals, groups and associations who have some concern with the WCB and have some concerns, in fairness, with aspects of this legislation.

I want to deal with that part of your presentation that speaks to the role of vocational rehab, and if I'm not misreading your presentation -- please correct me -- you are quite critical of that part of the legislation that deals with vocational rehab. Could you share with the committee why you have concerns over the aspects of the bill that deal with vocational rehab?

Ms Madill: If an injured worker gets injured doing one job, and he loves that, the employer should not have the say as to what other occupation he should do for the rest of his life. He shouldn't have the say on what he should be trained on.

Mr Offer: I guess I'm wondering, recognizing your concerns, whether there's a responsibility on the part of a whole group of people that if a worker, through no fault of his or her own, gets injured on the job, that they get the medical treatment that is needed, they get the rehabilitation that is needed and that there is a genuine search for some other form of vocation in order to make a living.

Ms Madill: Well, a lot of the employers, dealing with my clients, take them back on what is supposed to be modified work, and it's not. I go with the injured workers to the place of employment, with one of the WCB reps as well, and nine times out of 10, it's the same job she was doing. I don't feel that's right.

Mr Karl Crevar: Could I respond?

Mr Offer: Please.

Mr Crevar: By the way, I didn't get an opportunity to introduce myself again today. Karl Crevar, president of the Ontario Network of Injured Worker Groups.

I want to respond to your question in terms of the position that we took. We are very strongly opposed to the employer interfering in the vocational rehabilitation. That's enshrined in the legislation, and we are opposed to that part of the legislation.

We feel very strongly that the employer has no right to interfere with any voc rehab programs. How can you justify, in the event, to your question, that an individual cannot go back with the accident employer, yet the accident employer has some say in the voc rehab program? We are very opposed, in that respect, to that part of the legislation.

Mrs Witmer: I think it's been said very well. I think there are some very legitimate concerns that we've heard from you, and I thank you very much for your presentation.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. Oh -- my mind's gone. Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson: Will.

The Acting Chair: Yes.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you. It's Dan, isn't it?

The Acting Chair: Yes.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon. We certainly enjoyed it, and it was obviously straight from the heart.

First of all, I understand your injured worker centre, with a $5,000 Ontario grant, recently opened an office. The office is still open and operating?

Ms Madill: Yes. We maintain it. We used that $5,000 to pay our rent for a year so we have a roof. It's a drop-in centre for injured workers to come in for a cup of coffee or a game of cards. If they have a problem, they sit and talk to us.

Mr Ferguson: How many injured workers would be affiliated with your help centre?

Ms Madill: Right now, I have 40-odd cases in the thing, and then we have a lot that we have solved and they still come back to see us. I would say we're about 160 to 180 right now.

Mr Ferguson: Finally, you illustrated in your presentation a number of cases. Number 2 is John's case. You talk about John and you outline his particular condition, and you're suggesting that under the proposed legislation, as it is now before the committee, he wouldn't qualify for the $200 increase that is contained within Bill 165.

Are you aware that the government, this very day, is looking at the $200 increase and there might be a change to include everybody who would be in this category?

Ms Madill: No, I wasn't aware of that.

Mr Ferguson: I just wanted to bring that to your attention.

Ms Madill: I'm very pleased with that, because that was my main concern.

Mr Ferguson: Occasionally, some good things do come out of committee hearings, despite what some people say. Some people have the view that they're just a complete waste of time, but occasionally the opposition and the government can get together and propose some changes that are of benefit to a whole lot of people.

1510

Ms Madill: That's great. You made my day.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you for attending.

Mr Crevar: Could I ask just quickly -- I'm not going to take up too much of your time, and it wasn't designed for me to get the rest of the submission from the network put forward. I just want to respond to Mr Ferguson's initial question about the funding from the Ontario government for the Ontario Network of Injured Worker Groups. That was very well appreciated. It took a long time to get, to recognize that we have a use out in the community. I think, as Anne had indicated, the type of work that injured workers' groups do in this province is needed and the resources were needed, even though there was a lot of opposition to injured workers getting some resources, the limited resources. So we're very appreciative of that.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Madill and Mr Crevar. I know that you've been following these proceedings with, shall we say, more than an interest, as most injured workers are. Hopefully, coming out of here, we will get at least a start on some reforms.

Ms Madill: I thank you very much for allowing Karl and me the time. I will take all this back to my injured workers and let them know there is hope for them.

CANADIAN CHEMICAL PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr Jeff Murray: Ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee on resources development, my name is Jeff Murray and I'm a regulatory affairs analyst with Polysar Rubber Corp in Sarnia. I'm here today, along with Mr Norm Huebel, Ontario manager for the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, to present the CCPA's position regarding Bill 165. I brought along 30 copies of the submission, as well as a number of brochures describing our association.

The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, founded in 1962, has a membership of more than 60 companies producing a broad range of petrochemicals, inorganic chemicals and other organic and speciality chemicals. The association represents a large portion of the chemical and chemical products industries, which is a key industry in Ontario.

In terms of size, the chemical industry is the third-largest manufacturing sector in the province, with shipments in excess of $12 billion. The chemical industry is also the sixth-largest employer in Ontario in the manufacturing sector, employing 55,000 individuals. For every person directly employed in the chemical industry, many more are indirectly dependent on this industry for their livelihood, including construction and maintenance workers, individuals employed in the upstream and downstream industries and those employed in service sectors.

The chemical industry is a key player in the provincial economy. It is a large, high-tech, high value-added, export-oriented industry with highly skilled employees earning relatively high compensation compared to other industries. In fact, it is exactly the type of industry supporting exactly the type of jobs the government has said we need to encourage in Ontario.

The chemical industry is one of the world leaders in workplace health and safety. This sector has traditionally had an extremely low rate of lost-time injuries and continues to show a downward trend. I have attached a chart at the back of this submission that shows the lost-time rate for our industry.

The reason for this success is the emphasis that has been placed on effective training and safety programs in our industry which are incorporated into our responsible care codes of practice.

The purpose of this submission is to draw the government's attention to the sections of the legislative amendments proposed under Bill 165 which are of significant concern to our industry. It should be mentioned that the CCPA was an active and vital part of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee through its representation on the business steering committee. It is because of this involvement that we are greatly concerned with the present legislative process. The business community has yet to receive a response from this government to the proposals made through the PLMAC submission. Further, the appointment of the board's transition team draws into question the entire process for legislative reform, given the secrecy surrounding their current activities. Finally, the appointment of a royal commission to study alternatives to the present workers' compensation system and the rumoured appointment of a chair who may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias call into question the validity of the reform process.

However, in keeping with the CCPA's commitment to the consultation process, we would express the following concerns with regard to the proposed legislation. Although specific, the viewpoints expressed in this document may not address all the concerns of our member companies. For this reason, separate company presentations and submissions are being made to the task force.

The issues of most importance to the CCPA include experience rating and the purpose clause and financial sustainability.

Experience rating programs: The changes to experience rating being proposed through Bill 165 mean those companies with good safety records and proven performance will have to subsidize those companies with poor performance. As was mentioned earlier in this paper, the chemical industry has over the years developed health and safety programs which make it a world leader in this important area. This did not occur by chance, but was based upon sound business practices and responsible care initiatives and was strongly influenced by the chemical industry's entry into the new experimental experience rating program in 1987.

Experience rating, as it currently exists under NEER, has proven to be an unqualified success in promoting workplace health and safety. The present system effectively evaluates workplace health and safety through the objective measure of performance. Performance-based measures compare a company's individual accident history to the experience of its peers. Companies with good safety performance and better-than-average claims experience benefit through rebates, while companies with poor accident histories are penalized through surcharges. The present system is pure and simple, and employers in the province can anticipate the benefits of good claims experience and can work towards achieving them.

The changes to experience rating being proposed through Bill 165 add a large degree of subjectivity to the system. No longer would refunds and surcharges be based strictly on performance. Instead, an evaluation of the company's internal programs would be used to determine the availability of cooperative return-to-work programs and the effectiveness of the joint health and safety programs. It is our position that these measures will prove of little relevance in determining the effectiveness of workplace health and safety programs since process cannot predict effect.

The employers of Ontario, injured workers and the Workers' Compensation Board do not need more bureaucracy to complicate what has to this point been a highly effective program. In general, we are concerned with the latitude this legislation gives to the board in determining whether or not workplace safety programs are effective in reducing work-related injuries or illnesses and promoting return to work. It is our belief that any efforts to legislate this vital program should be based upon the only true and objective measure of success: performance.

In conjunction with the concerns raised with regard to experience rating we would also like to raise the issue of sector-specific rate assessments. The current rate group structure is based upon sector-specific experience. Our greatest concern is that the legislation leaves the door open for other rate group structures, for example, one average industrial rate, which could provide much less of an incentive in promoting workplace health and safety. No longer would employers have a financial incentive for maintaining good health and safety practices. In our opinion, experience rating, like any other insurance scheme, must continue to be based upon risk and performance in order to remain effective.

The purpose clause: The proposed amendments contained within Bill 165 seek to add a purpose clause to the Workers' Compensation Act. The introduction of a purpose clause into the Workers' Compensation Act was in fact proposed through the accord which was reached between business and labour. This was to have been a balanced clause whereby fair and just compensation would be administered in a financially responsible manner. The purpose clause contained within Bill 165 does not reflect this balanced approach.

The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association strongly supports the worker's right to fair compensation for work-related injuries. We support wholeheartedly the idea of including such statements in the purpose clause of the act. However, we feel equally strong that the purpose clause must also contain provisions such that the board will conduct its business in a financially responsible manner in order to ensure the viability of the workers' compensation system in Ontario. Otherwise, based upon current projections for the growth of the unfunded liability, there may not be a workers' compensation system to administer fair compensation to the injured workers in Ontario.

It is recognized that provisions do exist within the amendments, specifically to amend section 58, to require the board of directors to act in a financially responsible manner. However, without such provision entrenched in the purpose clause, this requirement will lack the strength necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the board. Consequently, we implore the government to amend the current proposals to promote financial sustainability of this system by including provisions in the purpose clause to this effect. This responsibility must be extended to all aspects of the workers' compensation system.

1520

In conclusion, we feel that a balanced purpose clause must be included in the legislation in order to ensure that adequate attention is given to the present crisis within the workers' compensation system in Ontario.

Finally, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association continues to be an ardent supporter of the consultation process and would be quite willing to discuss this submission further at your request. We strongly request that the government address the concerns raised by this submission before proceeding further with the legislation. We most emphatically implore the government not to proceed with the changes to experience rating and the assessment processes currently in place at the board. This program has proven successful in promoting good health and safety practices in the province.

Currently, the assessment rates for the chemical and chemical products sector are well below the provincial average. Any movement towards a regressive system of assessment would certainly have a significant effect on our fixed costs. As was discussed earlier, the chemical and chemical products industry is a key industry in Ontario. We have done the right things with regard to safety and health for our employees and we have the results to prove it. We must, however, continue to compete in a global marketplace and we are very concerned that the proposals contained within Bill 165 will penalize an industry that is a world leader in health and safety and would add millions of dollars in annual fixed costs to our operations.

Thank you. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I must say I agree with you in your discussion, specifically around the purpose clause. I think it is absolutely clear that this legislation does not put all of the WCB and all of the appeals process in any way, shape or form under any sphere of financial accountability and that the purpose clause is fatal in the fact that it does not take in everyone around who might have any dealings with workers' compensation.

I guess my question around the purpose clause is the fact that the appeals tribunal is not covered by the financial responsibility. I'm wondering if you might be able to expand a bit on that.

Mr Murray: Sure. Presently, the way the appeals tribunal operates, they are setting policy for the Workers' Compensation Board merely by the decisions that they're making on claims. There's nothing that dictates that the appeals tribunal must make these decisions with any respect to the financial burden that's going to be placed upon the employer community resulting from their decisions.

I think that the appeals tribunal must be brought in under the Workers' Compensation Board such that the decisions they make are within the bounds of the present Workers' Compensation Act and that they not give rise to new policy simply by their decisions, without some type of financial assessment being done to, I guess, evaluate what burden they are placing on not only the employers of Ontario today but the employers of the future.

Mr Offer: Just to carry on with that, we have asked this question of the ministry and ministry staff as to whether the appeals tribunal is in fact taken in by these amendments and has any obligation of financial responsibility. To date, we have not yet received a response, and I am wondering if there is yet a response from the ministry or ministry staff as to whether WCAT, the appeals tribunal, can in fact prescribe something and force the board to implement a decision that it has made.

Ms Murdock: As Mr Offer well knows, there is a review process under the existing act that if WCAT makes a decision that the board would like to have reviewed, they can so ask, but if WCAT decides that for whatever reason their decision stands, there is nothing under the present legislation or under Bill 165 that would allow the board to tell them they couldn't do it.

Mr Offer: In other words, if somebody wished to have stress compensable and went to the board and the board said, "We understand everything that's being said, but we have this obligation to act financially responsible and as such refuse that coverage," and then the person appealed that to WCAT and WCAT is not acting, or does not have the same impediment, then in fact WCAT can say to the board, "You make stress compensable," and the board must comply.

Ms Murdock: On that case, yes. On the individual case, yes.

Mr Offer: Isn't there a possibility that as that --

Ms Murdock: It has not become a policy of the board, Mr Offer, you know that.

Mr Offer: Isn't it a possibility that because that is in fact very real and very possible, the numbers as to the unfunded liability -- what the financial situation of the WCB will be in 20 years, might be totally out of whack?

Ms Murdock: The whole point of WCAT, as you know is it's an independent agency and has to remain outside the board's parameters and you know that.

The Acting Chair: If I might interrupt, it is the question that was being put to the board and therefore obviously us discussing it --

Interjections.

The Acting Chair: Ms Witmer.

Mrs Witmer: In your introduction you make reference to the fact that there are some questions concerning the transition team and some concern around the secrecy surrounding their current activities. I don't know if you were watching or if you saw what happened on Monday, but we had the former deputy minister in here, Mr Thomas, and I did ask him some questions about the activities of the transition team because, as you know, they have now brought forward some recommendations. He had a bit of a lapse of memory around some of the questions I asked him. However, the one thing I know for sure I can tell you is that the business community has never signed off on any of those discussion papers, so what's on the table right now is a very one-sided proposal. I just share that with you.

You have expressed your concerns here primarily about two issues: number one, of course, the purpose clause. We had a group this morning, one of the chambers, mention to us, even if nothing else was changed other than to reintroduce the purpose clause that had been agreed to by the PLMAC business group -- do that and we could live with it. Do you have any opinion on that at all, or is experience rating a strong issue for you as well?

Mr Murray: Maintaining the present system of experience rating is certainly a strong issue for the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. Imploring workers' compensation to act within a fiscally responsible manner certainly is of the utmost importance to our association. Because we're such a good performer within health and safety, and because our premiums are still significantly high, we feel that experience rating, as it currently exists, should be maintained. The present proposals for amending experience rating tend to add procedural things and processed the equation, and these don't predict success in health and safety, so we're strongly of the opinion that we need to maintain NEER, or experience rating as it currently exists. Certainly, the financial responsibility that would be maintained within the purpose clause is of the utmost importance to our association.

Ms Murdock: It was never our intent to change the NEER but I understand the concern on the interpretation or the possible interpretation, that's why we put the amendment through using the exact language of the PLMAC final agreement that was never agreed to. It's strange, you know, the way the whole history of this PLMAC agreement came. If we were to do what business suggested in November, it would have been to put in Friedland, it would have been to reduce benefits to the worker from 90% to 85%, and it would have been severe restrictions on entitlement. With discussions, by March it had come to Friedland, but leave it to the government to decide whether any kind of consideration should be given in terms of who the workers should be, and we did that by picking up the $200.00 and giving that to it, but maintaining Friedland.

1530

Admittedly, there are the areas that the business community -- sorry, the PLMAC agreement left to the government of the day. We have made the decisions and those seemingly seem to be the areas that you don't like.

I find it frustrating, I guess, for me to sit there and know that the present transition team is headed up by Ken Copeland, who was on the PLMAC business steering committee and was very much a part of the entire discussions through the whole process. He's in the paper being quoted as how the pace of the increase was $51 million -- I'm looking at a Globe and Mail article here -- lower than in the first six months of 1993. That's just now, the six-months report on the Workers' Compensation Board, and that the changes are already occurring, that they are working and that the unfunded liability concerns are absolutely there but the purpose of the act is for a system that protects workers.

I don't see where -- explain it to me, if you can -- how the act was put in place with, "Well, we'll cover that disease or that injury only if it doesn't cost us too much money."

Mr Murray: You've raised two points. First of all, what this legislation does is cherry-picks from the PLMAC accord and fix the pieces that provide the fair compensation to the workers without providing financial sustainability and responsibility that the labour representatives had also agreed to.

Secondly, Mr Copeland, although he's a fine person, wasn't necessarily the first choice of business in being the head of the transition team for WCB. If you had approached business and asked who they might want to represent them, you might have had a different answer than Mr Copeland.

Ms Murdock: But business had walked away.

The Acting Chair: I'm afraid I have to cut it off at this point as we are over time. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming before us and, as I said to the last presenters, everyone has a keen interest in WCB. I know you'll be watching as time goes on and our deliberations continue.

Mr Mahoney: Can I ask for a point of clarification? I understand there was a comment -- and I would ask for clarification by Mr Ferguson -- something about the government thinking of extending the $200 supplement to all injured workers. Is that something that's under consideration or an amendment that we should be privy to? I'm sorry, I wasn't here, I was given it second hand.

Mr Ferguson: I simply said that is an issue that has been brought before the committee, like many other issues, and that will be one of the issues that I'm sure this committee will want to discuss and I know the government will want to take a look at.

Mr Mahoney: It's not an amendment coming from the ministry at this time?

Mr Ferguson: Not at this point, no.

Mr Mahoney: Is the ministry considering such an amendment, to your knowledge?

Mr Ferguson: That's what the hearings are about.

Mr Mahoney: It's one thing for us to consider it or for you to say it, but I was told that you said the government is considering this at this moment.

Mr Ferguson: No, I can't --

Mr Mahoney: If that's not what you said, I'm happy to accept that.

Mr Ferguson: I can't remember what my exact choice of words was, but I'm trying to explain to you that the government members here are listening to all the concerns being expressed. One of the concerns I picked up on was the question of the $200 and I'm telling you the government is prepared to look at that as we are prepared to look at all the issues that come before this committee.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks.

PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

Mr Pat Dillon: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Dillon, president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council. With me are a couple of resource people, Julie Nielsen and Alex Lolua. As I think all of you probably know, usually Joe Duffy would be with us today, but Joe's off sick right now. We just want to say hello to him and tell him we're batting on his behalf.

Mr Hope: It's not a workers' comp issue, is it?

Mr Dillon: I'm not going to say no to that.

Mr Mahoney: That would be the mother of all claims.

Mr Dillon: Well, we had a little discussion earlier on here I listened to about stress. I'll begin.

The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario is an umbrella organization which represents over 100,000 unionized construction workers in this province. We represent 13 different international unions comprising 116 affiliates which perform work in all facets of the construction industry. You have heard from some of our affiliates we represent, and will hear from many more during your deliberations on Bill 165.

As you can well imagine, a construction site can be a dangerous workplace. The 1990 amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act expanded the rights and responsibilities of workers within the construction sector. Even though the focus of the Ontario health and safety legislation is on prevention and construction is becoming safer, workers are still being injured at an alarming rate. Injured workers are faced with not only the trauma but also the financial burden that accompanies an injury.

We first of all want to commend the government for initiating reform of the compensation system in Ontario. Many of our affiliates across the province have voiced concerns as to whether the present system is adequately working for our injured workers.

The construction industry is the second largest employer in Ontario. Construction employs more people than the auto and steel industries together -- or either, I guess. Despite this, construction was not invited to participate in the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee discussions on the reform of workers' compensation. This is totally unacceptable. Our concerns have been borne out by the contents of the present reform package. Issues that affect construction were not addressed by Bill 165.

Construction differs from a claims perspective within the compensation system. The Workers' Compensation Board established a construction unit separate from the other integrated service units to address the needs of the injured construction workers. This suggests that the board acknowledges the uniqueness of this sector but, in practice, this is not necessarily the case.

A good example of a lack of understanding of the construction industry is found in section 54 of the act, dealing with the re-employment of injured workers. The amendment dealing with section 54 -- section 10 of Bill 165 -- does not address the construction issue at all. Bill 162 saw the introduction of section 54, which deals with the injured workers' right to reinstatement. Initially, construction was excluded but was subsequently included through regulation 259/92 that came into effect in June 1992. It quickly became apparent that there were still shortcomings in the return-to-work provisions of the act as it relates to construction. A letter to Jim Thomas, then Deputy Minister of Labour, from Joseph Duffy, the council's business manager/secretary-treasurer, dated April 13, 1994, made the government aware of our concern.

For those of you not familiar with the construction industry, you should be aware that it is (1) characterized by short-term employment where construction workers seldom work continuously for one employer beyond one year; and (2) most contractors or subcontractors employ small crews with less than 20 employees.

Thus, the majority of construction workers are denied the right to re-employment by virtue of subsections 54(1) and 54(16) of the present act. As a minimum, the government needs to address the issue of section 54 and how it affects the construction workers' re-employment rights because of the general nature of the industry.

The amendment dealing with section 8 of the act raises some concerns for the construction industry. The amended section deals with jurisdictional limitations for payment of compensation benefits. An accord has recently been implemented between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with the intent to allow construction workers to work in either province. Also, the premiers of this country have signed accords to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.

This section has the potential to affect workers who work in different provinces and suffer occupational disease and/or repetitive strain injuries. Construction workers have a history of mobility across provincial boundaries and therefore could be adversely affected by this new amendment. We also question if this section will apply only to compensation benefits or will it also affect auto insurance, long-term disability and possibly unemployment insurance, both sick and regular benefits.

1540

Full indexing on injured workers' benefits was attained in 1985 and the thought of removing this provision is unjust at the very least. The de-indexing of benefits to injured workers shifts the burden of cost from the employers on to the workers. It reduces the benefits that should come from the compensation system and shifts it on to our social assistance system. The construction industry has many workers who have suffered permanent disabling injuries that restrict them from ever returning to the jobs they performed prior to their injuries. The Friedland formula and the de-indexing of injured workers' pensions put their financial security at risk.

We have heard so much about the billions of dollars that could be saved by this measure. It has to be made clear that these savings will come directly from those who can least afford it: our injured workers. It is hoped that the present full indexing formula will be retained.

The unfunded liability is expected to reach $31 billion by the year 2014 if the system remains the same. Simply, this liability is a difference between the board's assets and the costs associated with workplace injuries. Employers across this province must be made responsible for these costs and not attempt to negate their responsibility by dissolving numbered companies or changing the name of their company so they won't have to pay their compensation assessments. We have heard about the worker fraud, but what about the employer fraud? Let's find these employers who are delinquent in payment of their assessments and possibly then the unfunded liability would be reduced.

Any discussion on workers' compensation would be remiss if it did not include discussion on the birth of the concept. Workers' compensation was initiated in large part to protect employers from being sued by injured workers. There is a recent court judgment in which a patron of a famous restaurant in the United States was burned by coffee and was awarded almost $3 million. There are injured construction workers who have lost arms and legs who will never receive anything close to this amount of compensation. If employers want the protection that workers' compensation offers, then there must be some cost associated with that protection. Nobody wants to see a company go out of business because of a lawsuit. On the same hand, nobody should have to suffer financially because of injury.

Construction workers, as a result of a workplace injury, suffer personal financial losses when they cannot return to their pre-accident jobs. The proposed $200 increase is limited to workers injured before 1990 who are still unemployed. Considering the number of years that construction workers have been providing service within our province, one can well imagine the numbers of injured construction workers who might qualify for this pension increase. But the amendment further restricts those who qualify and this is not justified. Any worker who was receiving a monthly pension and is aged 65 on or before July 26, 1989, should be included. Bill 165 has not addressed this group.

Bill 165 addresses rehabilitation services but the changes that have been recommended are not ones that the construction industry believes would benefit our workers. Certain amendments within vocational rehabilitation could possibly limit the workers' ability to obtain such services and, ultimately, compensation benefits. Within the proposed amendments, the board would be able to determine if it would be appropriate for both the worker and the employer to receive such vocational rehabilitation services.

What if it was determined that the injured construction worker would participate in the job search phase of his vocational rehabilitation plan in the month of January? These services could be denied to him because of the lack of work within our industry in the winter months. In essence, the board could determine that it would not be appropriate for a construction job search in the winter months when the chance of getting a job is much less than in the spring, summer or fall. Is that fair?

The sections within the amendments that deal with the new bipartite governance structure are a welcome change from the present administration. The construction industry is a strong advocate for equal representation, particularly on something like the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board. It is recommended that when the proportionment of directors is allocated construction be considered as a major player in the Ontario economy. This direction would allow a workers' perspective in decisions that affect the recipients of compensation benefits. We support the change in governance.

We must come back to the key issue that I believe is fundamental to any reform process. Construction did not have any representation during the deliberations of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. As a result, the concerns of construction workers were overlooked and the issues that I have brought to your attention this afternoon were not included in Bill 165. The royal commission on the workers' compensation system must hear from all sectors of the economy in this province, including construction, and it must address the entire compensation system.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks very much, Patrick, for that. On a couple of the points that you raised, I think it was the Labourers' International Union -- I forget which local -- that came before us and suggested an amendment to establish a bipartite committee of management and labour to deal specifically with construction issues and advise the WCB, a formal structure -- not an appointment in council and not 200 bucks a day, so don't start getting excited, people -- a committee to recognize the significant differences and uniqueness of construction. While we didn't get a chance, because of the time, to publicly ask the people from COCA if they would support this, I did ask some of them in the hall and they were quite enthused. How would you feel about something like that?

Mr Dillon: I would support a bipartite approach that deals strictly with construction, although I noticed in COCA's brief, and I just had a minute or two to read it before I came up here, that it seemed to me that their approach leaned away from that, that the compensation system should be handed off to people who are unbiased. I don't know just what terminology they used in their --

Mr Mahoney: No, I don't want to get into a discussion on their brief.

Mr Dillon: That it should be given to independents.

Mr Mahoney: They were talking about the board. I'm talking about a separate committee, bipartite, to give advice. However, I want to ask you about the governance of the board separately. But I'd just like to know, the Labourers proposed it. Unofficially COCA, I think, would support it at this stage of the game. I just wonder if that's something that makes some sense to you.

Mr Dillon: Yes, it would.

Mr Mahoney: On the governance issue, you've got to help me with this. You know I've been through this WCB stuff a lot and for a long time have talked to a lot of people. You and others, particularly from the trade labour movement, come forward and say that sections within the amendments that deal with the new bipartite governance structure are a welcome change. I look at the sections and I see the change being the addition of two citizens recommended by labour and management. There are four labour representatives on the board. There are four management representatives on the board. I don't see a substantive change in what currently operates, by and large, as a bipartite system. What's so new and important under Bill 165?

Mr Dillon: I'll let Julie respond.

Ms Julie Nielsen: The makeup of the board right now, from our position, is not bipartite. We don't have the equal say that we would have under the new system. You're correct in that there would only be two new people added to it. But I also believe that within bipartism you're looking at removing the head of the way the administration is within the board right now. That is the way we view it. Certainly moving to a bipartite system would bring more information in from the workers' aspect of it.

Mr Mahoney: You see, in the administration I can see a change, hiring a president and CEO. That's something that I recommended in my report and think is important. Other provinces have done it and it's been effective. But the actual makeup of the board, except for the addition of two people recommended by the two interest groups here, doesn't seem to me to be a major change.

Your section 8 amendment: I think this is important. Obviously the intent of this would be that you don't want an injured worker travelling from province to province getting injured from province to province and collecting 10 pensions across Canada from workers' compensation systems. I don't think anybody wants to see that happening. Would an amendment that would put some sort of a cap on it, or something of that nature, satisfy you? Because construction is so unique -- and we saw the war between Ontario and Quebec over this, and we particularly see it in the border communities, whether it's Kenora or whether it's Ottawa-Hull -- there's a lot of mobility in the construction worker. I understand that and have come to understand a little more about your business since my time as the Labour critic. But there's got to be a balance there. I don't know how we put a wide-open amendment that just allows anybody and everybody to collect pensions all over the country.

1550

Ms Nielsen: That wasn't the intention when we looked at it. Having dealt with the compensation board, what we find is that at different times within the structure of the act right now there are different directives that come from the board which change the way benefits are paid. The concern we had with this section was that with construction workers who, say, work in Manitoba and develop hand/arm vibration, the way the section is read right now would limit them from using their work experience in Manitoba when they're being look at for assessment here in Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, Patrick. I'd like to say hello to Joe if he's watching. I'm sorry he's not here. It's always a pleasure to talk to him. I quite do enjoy him, so I'm sorry he's not well.

Anyway, you indicated here, and I would certainly agree with you, that "the majority of construction workers" -- it's on page 3 -- "are denied the right to re-employment by virtue of" section 54. As an absolute minimum, you indicate there's a need for the government to address the issue of 54 and how it does apply to the re-employment rights of the construction worker. What exactly would be necessary for the government to do to address that specific issue?

Mr Dillon: I think that because it's such a complex issue. On the question that Steve asked earlier about a bipartite committee, that's the type of issue that a bipartite committee could deal with, and it needs to be bipartite because all the concerns have to be on the table. A bipartite committee could handle even the interprovincial question that was raised earlier.

In fact, I sat on a committee a few years ago back in Hamilton to try to deal with this, and it was a very complex, difficult issue to deal with. I think the only people who can deal with it are people from the industry who know how the industry works. I couldn't give you an answer today, although -- I'll put it this way -- construction workers, whether they're working for a company that has five people or 100 people or 500 people, shouldn't be treated any differently than people in other industries. Somehow we have to come up and -- I'll say this to Mr Surplis of COCA -- it may be that construction needs to put a fund from the industry to look after that, but the workers who get injured in the industry shouldn't be the ones who are responsible for that.

Mrs Witmer: Right. So then this is one issue that certainly could be addressed if a committee was set up specifically devoted to construction.

Mr Dillon: Yes.

Mrs Witmer: I notice that you did write a letter asking to be included in the deliberations of the PLMAC. Did you ever get a response to the letter?

Mr Alex Lolua: Yes. We received a response from the Premier basically acknowledging that it was left over and that we'd try to be included in anything in the future. Yes, we did get a response from him.

Mr Hope: First of all, the question's been asked, how does the board change? Well, the board itself will appoint the chair. Recommendations -- the government will support it. The CEO is chosen by the board of directors. That's a change in itself, the CEO. It's now by the hands and the whims of the government who chooses to be that.

One of the comments that was raised in a presentation earlier, on page 8 of the brief that was given by COCA, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, clearly pointed the finger at the union for not allowing an injured worker to have a travel card to get back to work off of disability. When allegations are being made, there's always another side of a story or an opportunity to refute that comment. I think it's important because I've heard you say that re-employment is a priority, and getting your members back to work, but it's been indicated in somebody else's brief that the union itself has stopped the issue of a person to be re-employed.

Mr Dillon: I don't know of any case where the union has done that. I know there had been discussion among the unions and the employers on that issue some time back. But it's the kind of issue that we would have to resolve. Talking about the mobility of construction, just to give people an idea of what could happen, if a person was working in Sudbury on a three-week job and was injured -- or he could have been here for a year, I suppose. He could have been here for a year and was injured and went back to Edmonton or wherever he is from. Two months after he's left the job is completely finished and the only job that employer has when the person is ready to come back to work is in Newfoundland or in Ottawa. There are some difficulties around that issue, but no one should take from the fact that there are problems with it, that the unions aren't interested in having re-employment for their workers, because we are.

Mr Hope: I address that question to you because there was a letter read in the presentation; it was addressed to Mr Offer. I think it's always important to get across that there are two sides to every story.

In your presentation you stated that there's still a high accident rate. According to this presentation, they're saying there isn't, it's a major reduction. The one thing they did say in the presentation was, "The workplace is only as safe as the worker beside you." I'm wondering if you might have an opinion about that, because that clearly indicates to me that the unsafe condition is created by the coworker versus the work site.

Mr Dillon: We could get into quite a long discussion on that. The accidents, in general, that happen on a construction site normally aren't caused by your partner; they're caused by the work site itself, as you've pointed out, some lack of training or whatever, but certainly not by your partner. I've sort of been taken to task on making a comment something similar to that but it was taken out of context, actually, where I had said that if you're on a construction site and there are 50 people there and 49 of them have been trained in safety and one hasn't, the one person can put others at risk. There is that component to construction and I think probably any other work site as well. But the comment that's in COCA, I'd have to take that to task. That's shifting what is really causing the accidents. Training in our industry and the certification program that we're experiencing right now, although we haven't seen the long-range results of that, I think will help our industry.

One of the charts COCA has in there about the reduction in the number of accidents, I don't know if that's done per man-hour worked or not, but we are in probably the worst recession that this country has been in, so we're working a heck of a lot less hours -- 50% less hours.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I would like to thank the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario for their presentation.

Mr Mahoney: The Premier says the recession's over.

Mr Dillon: We'll put a call in.

Mr Mahoney: Give him a call. Maybe he's got some jobs for you.

Mr Dillon: Phone the hiring hall and we'll fill the calls.

Ms Murdock: I just have a correction. I stand to be corrected by my honourable critic. I think I said that Ken Copeland was the head of the transition team, and he isn't.

Mr Mahoney: I didn't hear you.

Ms Murdock: Anyway, he's the CEO and Bill Blundell is the head of the transition team.

1600

EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES INC

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from Extendicare Health Services Inc. Just for the committee's information, we have had a cancellation with Westin Harbour Castle hotel. This group is scheduled. They have a function this evening, so we've moved them up.

Mr Gary Chatfield: I'm Gary Chatfield, president of Canadian operations. With me is Irene Krahn, director of our occupational health and accident prevention.

Extendicare is a Canadian company based in Markham, Ontario. We are in the nursing home, retirement home, chronic care and home care fields. We have approximately 10,000 employees throughout this province and we currently have a WCB assessment of about $4 million.

As a significant employer in Ontario, we're very concerned about workers' compensation and Bill 165. Again, we appreciate the opportunity of expressing our views. We hope they are helpful. I'm going to ask Irene to make the body of our presentation and then throw it open for questions and answers.

Ms Irene Krahn: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, you have a copy of our submission. I am going to just highlight some aspects of the submission in the interest of time, and then of course we would be open to questions following that.

I will begin with our comments on the purpose clause. Bill 165 is proposing that a purpose clause be added to the act. The purpose, as stated, is incomplete and can be supported only if it's balanced by the commitment that this be carried out in a financially responsible manner.

The Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Council has advocated that in addition to what is proposed the clause should require that the board of directors exercise the highest level of financial responsibility and accountability in administering the workers' compensation system in Ontario; ensure that any proposed change benefits services, programs or policies be thoroughly analysed to evaluate overall consequences; and never expand entitlement to the competitive disadvantage of Ontario businesses.

As Bill 165 now reads, the deliberate omission of the "competitive" clause will compel the compensation board to expand entitlement and then require the board to pay for the expanded entitlement. Since the prime source of revenue is through employer assessment, the required money would be raised through the increased assessments, without any consideration of the competitive disadvantages to Ontario business.

Throughout the submission I would like to highlight our recommendations. Our first recommendation is that we recommend that the purpose clause be expanded to include a requirement for the provision of compensation to be carried out in a financially accountable manner respecting the competitiveness of Ontario business.

Further, we would like to comment on the governance issue. The board structure particularly is of concern to us. Bill 165 proposes a new bipartite structure for the WCB board of directors. I know that there has been considerable discussion around this. This bipartite structure parallels that of the board of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. The agency bipartite model has created a board that is polarized and adversarial. It discourages meaningful discussion and allows control of the agenda by one side or the other.

We believe that neither management nor labour should be able to control the agenda. The structure of any responsible board must allow for both labour and management to work cooperatively towards common goals. We believe that the board structure should reflect a wider representation than proposed in Bill 165 and include representation from major stakeholders such as the insurance field, occupational health and safety professionals and medicine. Each of these disciplines represents an important aspect of compensation.

Organized labour represents only 26.9% of the workforce in Ontario. Surely the remaining 73% of the workforce also deserve to be heard. Unorganized workers need to be represented on this board by way of increased public membership.

Neither management nor organized labour necessarily has the required expertise or training to provide effective governance to an organization as complex as the WCB.

Therefore, we recommend that the structure of the board be broadened to reflect a wider representation of stakeholders, including, as I already mentioned, increased representation from unorganized workers, physicians, occupational health and safety professionals and the insurance industry in addition to the management and labour component as proposed.

The option for the board to appoint the president or CEO is a sound one, if there is assurance that the candidate will be chosen in open competition for administrative ability, knowledge and a proven track record in the management of large, complex organizations. Expanded board structure, as already described, we believe would allow for the achievement of the board mandate and ensure non-partisan appointment of the president or CEO of WCB.

We therefore recommend that the president be selected through open competition and for recognized expertise and ability in the management and administration of large corporations.

One of the fundamental principles espoused by Justice Meredith when setting up the Ontario compensation system in 1915 was that it should operate independently from government and apart from the political process. Bill 165 departs from that principle with the proposal in section 17 that government will have the authority to issue policy directives and approve all board action for one year from the date of Bill 165 becoming law. The politicization effectively renders powerless any board of directors and makes a mockery of their fiduciary responsibilities. If a board is to be appointed, it should be allowed to operate as a board.

We recommend that the independence of the board be preserved and that section 17 be rescinded.

We believe that the responsibility for health and safety in the workforce is a shared responsibility between management and employees. Injured workers should not be discriminated against, but neither should they be advantaged.

The costs of benefits rose from $1.6 billion in 1988 in Ontario to $2.4 billion in 1992. This is an increase of 50%. During the same time, lost-time accidents decreased by 30%.

In spite of this disparity, Bill 165 proposes increases in benefits which will add in excess of $1 billion to the unfunded liability immediately and $6 billion over the next 20 years through continued full indexation benefits for approximately 45,000 employees who were injured prior to 1990 and who continue to receive benefits and the enhancement of pensions of an additional 40,000 workers by $200 per month.

No one wishes to see injured persons suffer unfairly, but in a system which is threatened by virtual collapse because of insufficient funds, such a proposal should not be made until a complete and accurate cost analysis has been made of both the short- and long-term impact of such enhancements. The financial integrity of the system is critical to the continuation of all benefits.

We recommend that section 32 of the bill be revoked, pending a complete and accurate cost analysis to determine the full financial burden of proposed enhancements and the impact on the system overall.

The adoption of the Friedland formula will benefit future costs rather than bring about any immediate cash savings. However, this is a modest initiative to address the financial crisis and, as such, we support the principle.

We recommend that the application of the Friedland formula as outlined in Bill 165 be accepted.

Any proposed WCB reform in Ontario should include measures for the elimination of the unfunded liability, which currently stands at $11.5 billion. Employers in 1984 willingly accepted three years of 15% increases in assessments followed by three years of 10% increases in assessments in an attempt to address the growing financial crisis. The unfunded liability continues to escalate, currently by $2 million per day. It is essential, we would like to repeat again, that financial soundness be restored and immediate measures taken to reduce the unfunded liability in ways other than increased assessments.

1610

The business caucus of the PLMAC recommended a number of actions necessary to restore financial integrity. These were not radical suggestions but would move Ontario in line with practices and benefits in other jurisdictions in Canada. We support this position that strong measures are needed on a number of levels and recommend that measures be taken to work towards reducing the unfunded liability, which would include a redefinition of accident, a reduction of benefits to 85% of take-home pay, a reduction on future economic loss awards and a reduction in benefits for strains and sprains after 26 weeks. Other steps need to be taken or continued with renewed vigour in conjunction with the preceding to bring spending in line with revenue. Accountability needs to be re-established.

We therefore recommend that there be a focused initiative launched by the board to reduce costs through streamlined administrative practices, aggressive investigation of fraud and increased recoveries through improved investment initiatives.

We would like to comment on the experience rating. Both business and the board agree that experience rating has met its objectives. Accidents have decreased, as already stated, which was one of the prime objectives; the severity of the injuries has been reduced; and rehabilitation has been promoted and provided to injured workers.

With Bill 165, the government is proposing to abolish the current successful experience rating programs and substitute a complex set of criteria that eliminates performance-based experience rating. It is likely that refunds will be reduced, if not eliminated, and surcharges increased through subjective investigation by the WCB.

Through this, the board is provided with unsurpassed interventionist powers, which will further damage Ontario's competitiveness in the marketplace and the ability to attract new industry.

The board proposes to audit each employer's premises to determine compliance with some as yet undeveloped standards regarding health and safety practices, vocational rehabilitation practices, return-to-work programs and "such other matters as the board considers appropriate." We feel that this is a duplication, as these areas are currently all covered elsewhere in legislation in either the Workers' Compensation Act or in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We believe the experience rating system is a proven workable program and its integrity should not be undermined.

We therefore recommend that section 28 of the amendment be removed and strongly urge that the NEER system remain in place.

At the same time that the government is increasing its demands on employers for health and safety programs and programming, it has moved unilaterally and in a hostile manner to destroy the organizations that have provided health and safety education support to a number of industry sectors, including our own, as well as tourism and education, through the destruction of some of the delivery organizations and the actions of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. We find this deplorable and cannot understand why with one hand we are being asked to provide greater programming and yet our support services, for which we have contributed to the board, are being withdrawn or have been withdrawn.

Bill 165 gives sweeping powers to the board for future inclusion of a wide range of conditions "so that generally accepted advances in health services and related disciplines are reflected in benefits, services, programs and policies."

There is no mechanism of accountability in this statement. In the past, the system has embraced ever-widening entitlement policies to adjudicate disablements -- repetitive strain injuries etc -- without any pretence at cost impact analysis or thorough study of the issue. Some balance must be provided which will establish a process to allow expanded benefits as warranted while ensuring accountability.

Bill 165 gives the WCB the power to review, on its own initiative, whether an employer has fulfilled their re-employment obligations. There needs to be no evidence of non-compliance or even a problem occurring before an investigation is started. These powers we believe are intrusive and unjustified.

Since 1990, the reinstatement branch of WCB and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal have taken radically different approaches to interpreting the legislation. This has resulted in confusion and discrepancy in decisions. Until such time as the fundamental obligations of this legislation are clarified, there should be no new legislation. We therefore recommend that the discrepancy in the current legislative obligations regarding reinstatement be clarified before broader initiatives are proposed and accepted.

Bill 165 also provides some initiatives regarding vocational rehabilitation. These appear to go against the board's recently developed strategic planning incentives for vocational rehabilitation. Surely the overall objective should be to reduce claim length, not to extend it. We believe the insertion of yet another level of negotiations or mediations is unwarranted and counterproductive.

We therefore recommend that sections 20 and 21 be revoked and efforts be made to reduce claim lengths through administrative processes whenever possible.

We are concerned with the vagueness and lack of objective criteria to define "failure to cooperate in vocational rehabilitation services." The board, through Bill 165, is granted power to penalize the employer, including the levying of increased assessment rate, if necessary.

We recommend that a review of the board's powers to penalize employers be carried out, that these powers be coordinated in one section of the act and that objective criteria be established so that punitive action, if necessary, be applied in a consistent manner after the employer has had an opportunity to be made aware of obligations to which he must comply.

We are pleased to be able to present this submission and we hope the comments and recommendations contained in it will contribute to the ultimate reform of WCB so that it can better serve all its constituents and so that it can continue to serve them.

Mr Mahoney: I'm pleased to see your recommendations around involving other stakeholders. As you may know, I certainly support that and made the same recommendation in my document. I think that's critical.

The health and safety agency I know has been the love of your life and mine from time to time. I think it should be shut down and made a department of the board, reporting directly to the board of directors, who happen to be the people who pay the tab for the health and safety agency, and allow for the sector-specific training to be done by the people in the industry who have the experience, because I highly doubt that your folks need to know too much about mining or other such things, or indeed about how to pass legislation, which is one of the criteria in the health and safety training program.

I guess that's a comment, and I wonder if I can open a door for you to either agree or disagree with me and add to those comments.

Ms Krahn: I think we do not disagree with you, Mr Mahoney. In fact, we do agree with you. We certainly support the statement, as we said that we feel that all stakeholders must be represented in the complete compensation process, and we feel that health and safety training is an important part of the overall health and safety program within the province. We deplore the actions the agency has taken and the way in which the agency has perceived its mandate and gone about carrying out that mandate to in fact, we believe, a regressive path for health and safety education. So we would certainly agree with you. We do have concerns regarding the certification process and the developing sector-specific certification process, which we understand is in fact increasing the commonalities of the training as opposed to looking at those aspects that are unique. And, yes, we do not believe we need to be trained in mining or construction.

1620

Mrs Witmer: Since there isn't any time left, I simply want to say I'm pleased that you have a recommendation here suggesting that the CEO be selected through open competition based on their expertise and have ability in management. The Ontario PC Party has been supporting that now for four years. We think it's absolutely necessary that someone have the expertise necessary to run this as a business.

Ms Murdock: I know we're running short of time, but it was very extensive. I don't disagree either with what Mrs Witmer said. The only thing is, I know some people wanted it specifically and explicitly stated in the agreement, for instance, and then in the legislation, and we felt that the board of directors, as a board of directors, as in any company, should have the right to set its own criteria as to what it's looking for. But, again, if you're truly operating as a board of directors and you have management responsibilities of that organization, then you should be running the show and it shouldn't be a government-appointed chair or otherwise.

Mr Chatfield: Certainly on the principle we could not but agree with you. That's why we found it awkward in the one section where the government had the prerogative of issuing policy directives for one year.

Mr Mahoney: Hear, hear.

Ms Murdock: That's only for the period of transition.

Mr Chatfield: So if you've got a board, yes.

Mr Mahoney: Right on.

Ms Murdock: It's only for the period of transition. That's the only reason it's there.

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank Extendicare Health Services Inc for giving us its presentation this afternoon.

There is a letter from the Ministry of Labour that's been passed out to all the committee members that will try and help address some of the questions that were raised on Monday.

BEYOND ABILITY

The Vice-Chair: Our next presenters are from Beyond Ability consultants. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Just a reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you would leave a few moments for comments and questions from each of the caucuses.

Mr Gerald Parker: I would ask that you give me a five-minute warning so that I can wrap up and allow time for the members to ask pertinent questions.

The Vice-Chair: Sure. Please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Parker: Certainly. My name is Gerald Parker. I can be known as the executive director of Beyond Ability, which is a volunteer organization that I put together to effectively advocate disability issues. I'm also an academic in political science and, most importantly, an injured student worker presently undertaking the completion of my degree under the auspices of the Workers' Compensation Board's vocational rehabilitation services. I speak as a professional; I speak as an academic who has conducted research into the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario; but most strongly I speak as an injured worker who has had my dignity systematically stripped from me by the WCB and its unaccountable and unrealistic practices.

When a person is injured while employed in Ontario, the Workers' Compensation Board becomes involved to supposedly assist the worker and the employer in evaluating the injury, providing financial and rehabilitative assistance and to facilitate administrative and statutory duties, thus theoretically assisting the worker and the employer for a hasty recovery and reintegration into the workforce.

The Ontario Workers' Compensation Board is a provincial statutory corporation that is financed through employer contribution by means of a percentage of the company's payroll on an accident-rated regime.

The policies and procedures of the Workers' Compensation Board are predicated on the Workers' Compensation Act. The provisions of the act generally pay a percentage of the pre-injury wage to the worker until they are medically able to return to work or a pension is arrived at. The act also gives the Workers' Compensation Board sweeping statutory powers and the utmost autonomy from government. The consequent unrepresentative and unaccountable behaviour completely compromises the application of perhaps a well-meaning and economically sound social assistance program.

The reality is that the WCB has become a humiliating, degrading, inconsistent and badly administered institution that deliberately creates unreasonable obstacles and desperation for injured workers, the very people the board is mandated to assist and to whom they relinquished their legal right to be protected by. This is not the quid pro quo assigned to the relinquishment of legal rights for statutory rights under the Workers' Compensation Act.

On September 13, 1987, I was involved in an industrial accident while performing extended seasonal employment. Due to economic realities, I had to obtain full-time employment both in the summer and during the academic year since the age of 14 years. The accident immediately physically incapacitated me and served to temporarily end my academic endeavours. As the accident was work-related, I naïvely allowed the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario to become involved, to primarily offset financial loss and to assist in the medical evaluation of the injury and to additionally aid in the recovery period. As the past statement appears quite positive, in actuality, the process of the Workers' Compensation Board sought to undermine any progress made, medically or otherwise, in my case. What took place in reality was a system that served to the demise of my medical and financial predicament and which further aggravated a painful and humiliating situation. This is the common experience of most, if not all, injured workers.

We cannot lose sight of that. Never lose sight of that. These are the people that have been mandated to be assisted. They are not a fiscal tool for the government for success and economic competitiveness. They are people. They are not numbers.

I have chosen to fight when I have been adversely affected by negative decisions rendered by the board, and I can quite proudly say that despite the periods of utter desperation that were deliberately thrust upon me, I have had every negative decision reversed, as completely absurd, frivolous and manufactured as they were. Although I have never been able to hold a single employee or contracted person of the Workers' Compensation Board accountable yet for the injustices perpetrated upon me because of the specific legislated absolution enumerated in the act, I continued in a principled manner. However, I am a very well motivated, resourceful and educated person, some might say an anomaly within the WCB system, and justice will be sought in time.

Unfortunately, most clients of the WCB cannot or are unable to contest adverse decisions rendered against them by the board for numerous reasons, much of which can be primarily attributed to what I term systematic methods of attrition that the board utilizes. Furthermore, I am sure that each and every injured worker that has presented before this committee has been mindful of the retributive practices of the board, a submissive expectation that I have never apparently cowarded to. It is because of the appalling facts of inhumane, indignant injustices that are perpetuated, that are perpetrated by the WCB and its employees on decent people, not laggards, that I have become so actively involved.

The committee has been privy to many passionate and desperate deputations of injured workers and their representatives. You have heard it in their crackling voices. You have seen it in their tearful eyes and the utter desperation that these people are purposely and consistently subjected to by the WCB and unethical employers who want the act and the WCB to be a fiscal tool for their success.

At this point, without great elaboration, I will personalize this deputation and share with you some of the incredible injustices that have been thrust upon me by the WCB. This selection of examples that I have chosen will outline the major areas of concern and then conclude with some interim recommendations for the committee to consider. I will not remark directly upon the bill. Suffice to say that any enactment that does not deal realistically with the critical state of the WCB and does not entail a humane and dignified approach to injured workers will never be an honourable representation of the human and legal rights of people whose lives are systematically destroyed because of an accident at work.

As I stated, I was injured in September 1987. In 1990 I had my first major back surgery. To date I have had three major surgeries and now live with permanent plates in my back. Despite my appearance, without the aid of an assistive tool I am disabled, and that is part of the discrimination that I suffered before the WCB. It was not until I personally went to the Canadian Back Institute, a private clinic, in November 1989, noting that I had been injured in September 1987, that any constructive action was taken by the board. Prior to that point, I had been diagnosed correctly in October 1987 by a medical specialist, but the board chose rather to send me to psychologists, who tried to convince me that my fractured vertebrae was in my head: My fractured vertebrae was in my head. I was dismissed with a bad attitude, in excruciating pain, to have my benefits reduced once again.

1630

This example outlines some major concerns. First, why does the board, and how can it be allowed to, dismiss credible and substantiated medical evidence for the sake of attrition by mental cruelty or other systematic methods of attrition? This practice prolongs case files and costs, never mind the incredible assault on the person's dignity and sanity. As a recurring theme that I have noted during these proceedings, sanity is a very important issue.

Furthermore, why did I have to seek professional medical help independently, which immediately made the same diagnosis arrived at two years earlier? The end result: two years of excruciating pain, two years without knowing where the next loaf of bread will come from, two years not knowing if my wife will come home to me because I am such a cantankerous, miserable individual in such excruciating and consistent pain, two years the board liked this because they wanted to hide and force systematic methods of attrition. This practice extends case files and costs, not diminishing the toll it takes on the individual, a cost that can never be measured in money. While this occurs, WCB serves the interests of the employers' unethical expectations by displacing and forcing legitimate injured workers on to welfare dockets by the systemic methods of attrition utilized and sanctioned by the board.

The second appropriate example refers to the reduction of benefits and the return to studies by students injured on the job. As it became very obvious I would be unable to attend to any type of manual labour, noting this reality, my orthopaedic surgeon, a very, very renowned orthopaedic surgeon, the foremost back expert in this country, and I determined that returning to studies would be constructive and necessary. Please note, however, that I had no intention of performing manual labour in my future years but I had been groomed for many years through private school and studies and scholastic awards to take part in the law. I still have this intention. I had every intention of continuing on in post-secondary education while my economic circumstances dictated that I be employed full-time.

Understanding that I was a working student and that full-time employment was a necessary means to an end, I, in consultation with my medical specialist, decided that a return to part-time studies would exercise my forethought and help to divert the pain focus. I had at no time expected anyone else to absorb the cost of my education and I paid for it and undertook my studies under my own very limited resources and physical abilities. Despite that, I had taken a step that was clearly a win-win situation for both the board and I, but the board cut me off and repeatedly forced me through the WCB circus of systematic methods of attrition every time I returned to school.

Every summer except this, I have been in hospital between terms and have continued my studies in a modified and assisted manner, to be cut off time and time again. However, the WCB needs no reason to negatively impact one's life. In the absence of fact, fabrications and distortions of the truth are routinely utilized to rationalize the driving operating principle of the WCB, and that is the systematic methods of attrition.

Why is the board allowed to operate with disdain for ethics and human rights, never mind plain common sense of well-motivated, honourable clients and the expertise of specialists? This leads to the next example. I can best do this by way of correspondence that was directed to the board upon one particular assault on my dignity and rights.

This is a letter dated 1993, the ninth month, the 28th day:

"Dear Mr Gowans:

"As in the past Mr Gowans my only contact with you has been under unfortunate circumstances. You are, by now, well aware that I will not accept, for a moment, the improper treatment of myself or my file. I am sorry to inform you that this is the reason for our communication, yet again. I am extremely angry and my dignity, once again, has been very seriously offended. It is in this context in which I am forced to unnecessarily battle your department and employees once again for my needs and dignity.

"There is a direct causal relationship, if you have not realized this yet, between the unethical, unprofessional, and immoral treatment of myself and my file and the necessity for holding your employees responsible and accountable for their behaviour. Although employees of the Workers' Compensation Board, Mr Gowans, are seemingly unaccountable as a `schedule 4' entity, and...be accountable and ethical in its dealings I would have no reason to take issue. But, considering the Workers' Compensation Board in my extensive experience insists on being so inhumane and indecent, no matter how it is shrouded, I will always be a thorn in the board's side until I, as a reasonable person, considers that my interest as an injured worker is being served by the heartless bureaucracy established and mandated to assist not hinder my progress. Whenever I interact with the board I will always take the position of protecting the genuine interest of my disability, and in my assessment, imploring upon board employees ethical and professional treatment of all clients. Granting that I am much more informed of the boards mandate, the particular legislation, and regulations that govern your affairs -- I am compelled as a humane individual to permeate the boards entrenched mentality in the treatment of clients. Idealistic -- perhaps, decent and moral indeed.

"With that being stated for the record the primary purpose of this correspondence is to appeal the decision of the pension assessment rendered by a Dr K. Baichwal," assigned to the Toronto south integrated services, dated August 16, 1993.

"I was made aware by Mrs Hoskins (client services adjudicator), during what appeared to be a meaningful meeting on the same day of August 16, 1993, that I had been assessed by Dr K. Baichwal at a pension level of 20%. This assessment was accepted by Mrs Hoskins after she implored upon me that she had no malice. Despite Mrs Hoskins statement she yet again has added insult to injury."

The Vice-Chair: Mr Parker, you have five minutes left.

Mr Parker: Okay, thank you very much.

To get to the crux of this letter, members of the committee and of the public, I was brought into an examination room, dragged around like a rag doll before my wife, humiliated before my wife to have the one statement stated to me: "You have been receiving benefits for six years and that is totally unacceptable." This is from a board doctor, one who signs a Hippocratic oath, one who is supposed to be humane.

I then stated to him: "It is unfortunate that I have had to have three subsequent major back operations and that I still have hardware in my back and that I suffer a certain amount of discomfort from it. Yes, that is unfortunate." His answer to that was, "We have been paying you benefits for six years and that is unacceptable."

The diagnosis that was rendered by that individual was one of 20%. Upon appeal, despite me showing him X-rays before his very eyes that clearly showed a medical history -- I had documentation from my doctor etc etc -- that man registered me at 20% pension, while 30% is the minimum under the Ontario rating schedule -- minimum. These people deal even with resourceful, informed people such as myself with such malice. These people do not have the right to be called doctors, and Mr Baichwal since that date has always been referred to as Mr Baichwal. He is not worthy of his job.

Now I will finish by concluding with a list of recommendations, and then I can answer the questions that the committee may have of me.

Make the WCB accountable to the public, injured workers and the judicial process. Remove the statutory autonomy. They are not serving anybody's interest, but only their own. Disband the WCB medical practitioners. Treat each and every individual injured worker case with professionalism and respect. Allow us injured workers to feed our families and recognize the human resource that is being squandered to the interests of the Workers' Compensation Act policies as a fiscal tool for economic competitiveness. And sixth, that a royal commission be struck and mandated to thoroughly investigate the practices and affairs of the WCB to produce an effective and much-needed meaningful change.

1640

This is my submission before the standing committee. Thank you very much for your time and your indulgence. I now would certainly like to entertain your questions as best as I possibly can.

Mr Mahoney: We're here to deal with Bill 165. I appreciate the fact that you've given us yet another example of the ineffectiveness of the service delivery under the Workers' Compensation Board.

I was sitting here thinking to myself, though, that it's like this in every province in the country. It's quite interesting that you have a system designed in 1914 with merit, with some good, commonsense ideas, protection against lawsuits. We see the lawsuits. Someone referred earlier to the spilled coffee cup generating $3 million in the States. That obviously is not a sensible solution. So there's a lot of good in the original recommendations of Justice Meredith following his royal commission in 1914. But it simply doesn't work for anybody anywhere probably on the continent, but let me at least say with my experience, having travelled the country on WCB issues, it doesn't work anywhere in this country as far as service delivery is concerned.

You recommend, "Remove the statutory autonomy." Are you suggesting that government take over the role and that government be directly responsible and liable for things like the unfunded liability, for things like increases to pensions, and that the entire act be repealed and it be put in the hands of the politicians?

Mr Parker: Yes, it should be repealed, and I would make one challenge, because although Justice Meredith's intentions and original intent were worthy, the actual practice and application of the Workers' Compensation Act, and more importantly the operating principles of the board -- because although the act gives forth a structure for them to then subjectively interpret their own practices, there is no government control over them. If it is, it's negligible at best. If the government -- if they cannot be held accountable under the present structure, a different structure, a more worthy structure, has to be constructed. Without that, then we'll continue to be in a disarray.

I make one challenge. It is the private sector or the "employers" that are going on and complaining and complaining about the state of disarray, the fiscal disarray. I will not negate that point, okay? The point being is that if they are so concerned, remove the act. I would be the first one to take my employer to court, because the money that I get would be certainly more than $600 a month that I receive now, which is 90% of minimum wage. I have a family. I have a son. I was never meant to haul cases of beer around. I was there for a summer job. And if the employers would then so choose to repeal the act and then take a pure litigation approach, I would encourage that, because those very same people would be back at this table crying with Kleenex boxes that you could not supply them enough with.

Mr Mahoney: No, they wouldn't; they'd be out of business.

Mr Parker: Well, that's your interpretation, sir.

Mr Mahoney: They'd be out of business, because you'd win.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you for your presentation. I have no questions.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I wanted to touch quite briefly on the return to work, because it's been talked about quite a bit. You've read the proposed bill. I just wondered if you had anything that you wanted to add to return to work, because you're a person who's attempted to in different lights.

Mr Parker: I will speak particularly of myself as it pertains to the return-to-work provisions under the act. I, as a student -- and I said to you at the beginning of this presentation, I can be known as the executive director. I have to undergo this as a volunteer organization because the WCB cannot or does not have the forethought or the progressive and constructive mentality to recognize that they are students out there, they are people out there that want to address their injury, that want to move on with life. I have done this. I returned to school; I was cut off. I took partial studies; I was cut off. I was primarily a full-time student before. I was cut off every step of the way, despite medical evidence, despite compelling evidence to the contrary against their negative decisions that had no basis in fact.

But the point is that I as an individual, as a motivated individual, have only wanted, as most, to minimize the impact of this injury through fault of my own. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I should not be victimized for that. It is not my fault that an accident occurred. There could be arguments to the contrary, that perhaps employers are more to the fault of the accident. However, let's not discuss that point now. The point is that there are incredibly motivated people who are increasingly put into very, very desperate situations. Their energies, their abilities are diminished, they are dictated to and they have to deal with the board in a very subservient manner. If they take a tone as I have, an assertive one, they are victimized because of it.

They have to realize that there are other people in this workplace, in the system, most of whom only want to have gainful employment. They're not laggards. As I have seen, and as the name of my organization clearly states to you, it is beyond ability. A person who has an injury, a person who has a disability has to get up every morning. It takes much more motivation, much more energy to have to deal with life and the challenges before them with marginal functionability. They have more to contend with with less energies, with less ability, and it's unfair that the WCB would try and victimize them through their systematic methods of attrition for being forthright, for having forethought, for being progressive and noting their situation for what it is.

There was no question that I would be unable to do manual labour, but I noted the fact that I had no intention of doing that. I am going through school, as I will continue to be, to become involved in law. Now, why should I be put in the front store of a Shopsy's mart? I have much more ability than that.

They in no way attempt to even come close to recognizing the resource, the potential, the abilities of the people they have sitting right before them. They're nothing to them. They are a number, and as I clearly state each and every time that I contact the WCB, when they say, "Claim number," I say: "My name is Gerald Parker. The number that is assigned to my file is -- "

I am a person. They cannot recognize people. Distancing themselves from people allows them to rationalize the injustices that they bring upon people, whether it be an injured student worker etc.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for your presentation today.

UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, RETAIL WHOLESALE CANADA, CANADIAN SERVICE SECTOR DIVISION

Mr David McCormick: I'm Dave McCormick and I'm here on behalf of the Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian service sector division of the United Steelworkers of America. We represent approximately 20,000 workers in the province of Ontario, some 15,000 of whom are currently eligible for compensation benefits under the act.

As a service organization, we tend to look at the human element of the legislation. As an organization, we are here to say that what we require for our members is financial security, the right to return to work and vocational rehabilitation services. Our organization supports the amendments as proposed by the Ontario Federation of Labour to Bill 165, and subsequently Bill 165 and the royal commission itself.

I've been asked to speak to this committee because of my personal background with compensation. For the past two years I've been representing workers within our organization in front of the board. But, as a preface to my comments, I think it's only fair to say that those workers I actually speak and deal with are those workers who have run into problems with this system, which is a small percentage of the actual workers who are injured on the job. Those workers I represent are the ones with problems and concerns. I'd like to share some of those experiences with you.

1650

When it comes to reinstatement or the right to return to work, workers who do not return to their accident employer are, for all intents and purposes, competitively unemployable. To a worker who does not return to the accident employer, his life and his family's life is destroyed.

In my dealings with employers, I have to tell you that I've had two reactions since Bill 162 was put in. I have had a positive reaction from employers who will bend over backwards to do everything within their power to return an injured worker to work. I have dealt with employers who will modify and accommodate the job and who will modify the hours, who will speak to the employee and treat him like a human being. They will do whatever they possibly can to get that worker back to work.

But I have also dealt with employers who would turn their back on the injured worker, who could care less if they were fined under the current system, who will put up every obstacle in their path to make certain that worker does not return to work. With those employers, our organization is prepared to file grievances. We have filed grievances and we are prepared to use the Human Rights Code to make sure that they return to work. But that is a negative employer, from our perspective.

When I look at Bill 165 and the amendments that are coming through for it, for those positive employers that I deal with, those employers who are willing to return the employee to work, I don't see the reinstatement changes as being negative. I don't see the fact that their NEER system is going to be affected, that their Workwell system will be affected; what I see for those workers is not going to make a difference, whether that legislation is there or not, because they're already going out of their way to get these workers back to work.

But those other employers I have to deal with damn well deserve the legislation. They deserve to have their ratings affected. They deserve to be penalized. They do not deserve the same rights as those employers I deal with who are going out of their way to help the injured workers.

When I look at vocational rehabilitation and medical rehabilitation, I have concerns from dealing with injured workers. Specifically within medical rehabilitation, one of the concerns I've had to look at is the time from which something is diagnosed to the time the board takes action. I've dealt with workers who've been recognized to have chronic pain disability but they did not meet the strict criteria of marked-life disruption under the board's operational policies. There's a time period that goes by that you have to show that the chronic pain disability is compensable. That time period may be a year, it may be a year and a half or it may be two or three years. The medical profession has recognized that if you're going to deal with chronic pain, then you deal with it within six months or it becomes mindset and it's almost impossible to cure.

I deal with workers requiring extended physiotherapy. Under the operational policy, they're allowed first of all six weeks and then six weeks; you have a 12-week period which basically you don't have problems getting. It's when you require extended physiotherapy that the problems begin. The problem is, from the time it's requested to the time the board approves it, you end up with a period where that worker has not had the physiotherapy he requires, and when that worker doesn't have the physiotherapy he requires he relapses. So instead of being in 12 weeks of physiotherapy and then going to 13, 14 and continuing the progress of healing, he ends up going back and starting at six weeks' worth of treatment and having to spend an extra six weeks in the system because of a time delay.

When I look at compensation, a lot of what I'm looking at is the operational policy, and the guidelines are sometimes too narrow. I've dealt with employers on this, and when employers have a problem -- these are again what I refer to as the good employers -- I've seen them turn around and say: "Look, we realize you're having a problem with physiotherapy. We're going to send you to the Canadian Back Institute. We're going to get you the treatment so that you can continue to get back to work."

From those employers' perspectives and from mine, the guidelines are too narrow to deal with, which is part of the reason why I believe that a bipartite committee, a committee dealing with employers and labour representatives who are used to dealing with the problems of compensation, who are used to dealing with the problems of injured workers, can help, possibly, to change some of the guidelines that are causing a cost to the system.

But I think from my perspective, when I look at a cost on the system, when I look at a financial impact on the system, I've heard a lot about unfunded liability. What I haven't heard is the financial impact of the system upon workers. It's been my experience to deal with workers whose lives have been turned upside down because of fighting for compensation claims, fighting for their money, fighting for what is rightfully theirs. I have dealt with drug abuse. I have dealt with alcohol abuse, wife-battering, children being basically left out in the cold, family breakdown, workers who have lost their homes; workers who were prepared to retire have lost their life savings and now must continue to work. I look upon the system as the financial impact that it's had upon these workers.

When I talk of unfunded liabilities in billions of dollars, I don't know how I can put a price tag on a human life or a family. I believe that when we look at the system as a whole, we have to look at ways of preventing this tragedy both to the employers and to the workers, and I believe there is only one way to do that: through the prevention of accidents, and the other way, quite frankly, to address this system is to return injured workers to work. Unless those two criteria are met, you can pass any legislation you want; you're going to be dealing with dollars and cents rather than human beings. I particularly believe that this legislation was originally drafted and should continue to be drafted to protect injured workers as well.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks very much for your presentation, David. I want to ask you a little bit about what Bill 165 does for the prevention of accidents, because I don't really see anything in there. In fact, perhaps I'll do that first and then I want to go on a little bit about the return to work.

Everybody who's ever been involved in or studied compensation, and obviously you're quite knowledgeable in the area of compensation, recognizes that preventing accidents, improving safety in the workplace, health and safety training, committees, all that kind of thing -- both management and labour are buying into it -- prevention is the ultimate key, particularly when you look at the fact that the average cost of a claim in Ontario is double the national average. In Ontario it's $24,000; across the country the average is $12,000. Do you see anything in Bill 165 that gives any employer, and I would include unions as employers, any incentive to try to prevent accidents?

Mr McCormick: From my experience out there, those employers who are concerned about their costs are already putting these programs into place. What I look at within Bill 165 -- and I'm not certain; I'd have to look up the number -- when you're looking at your experience rating, take a look at the preventive measures that are in place: Is the return-to-work program jointly organized from a union perspective so that you have union and management workers both trying to get people back? And by tying your rebates or your financial picture into that, you're making an incentive there. But more particularly in that, what you're doing is to deny the incentive to those employers out there who right now are simply hiding claims. I had a call from a young lady out in Ottawa two nights ago asking me about compensation. What she told me was that 14 people had been injured in her place of employment. One had been knocked unconscious for a matter of about three minutes, and the employer said, "Let's not report this to the WCB." That's how they're managing their costs. They're not managing them through health and safety and they're not managing them through returning workers.

1700

Mr Mahoney: That would then suggest to me that the problem lies more in the ability to investigate and seek out these violators, to enforce the laws as they exist today. So the government's answer in Bill 165 is to put in place punitive measures so that it can go out and do audits. I somewhat facetiously say that most businesses that came before my committee, when we travelled, indicated they'd rather have Revenue Canada and the Gestapo come in and take a look around than to have the Workers' Comp Board come in.

So there is some concern that all of a sudden you've got the WCB police coming in. This is what they fear, and the interference and then the punitive as opposed to a real incentive program, and you very fairly point out that there are a lot of compliant and good employers out there who are doing the good things. Why should they be penalized by this?

Mr McCormick: I don't think they would be penalized. I think these good employers are already complying with more than what this legislation is saying, from my perspective. It's the ones who aren't complying that have got something to fear and they should have something to fear. They're the ones who are causing an overall cost to the whole system.

Mr Turnbull: Sitting through these hearings you hear the two sides being presented. The gulf that exists between the two parties at this moment is quite alarming.

As you know, there was an agreement almost made between the union representatives and the employers which was undertaken at the request of the Premier. A lot of that bipartisan agreement has been cherry-picked from this. From the employers' point of view, they believe that with the agreement they made they gave up significant things in order to get other issues.

Would it not seem reasonable to you, given the fact that most of the labour representatives who have appeared before us are also unhappy with elements of this bill, first to have the royal commission report and then do the proper job on fixing the WCB, because you've pointed out some areas where you have concerns?

Mr McCormick: I think the bill already addresses a number of the areas, from our perspective, that there are concerns with. I think with the royal commission and that, part of what they have to be looking at is a much broader perspective, such as universal disability, how your different plans are affecting how private coverage, unemployment insurance and everything are doing and maybe in those terms looking at it from a royal commission.

But currently, right now, I don't think labour and working people can afford to wait for two or three years to have the system adjusted. There have to be some interim measures now. I look at this as more of a fine-tuning than a cherry-picking of the actual legislation. I look at Bill 165, and the intent of the PLMAC was to fine-tune the legislation rather than to cherry-pick from it.

Mr Turnbull: That's certainly not what the employers' groups have indicated to us in this committee. They are adamantly opposed to the fact that they gave up certain things in respect of a quid pro quo and they believe the quid pro quo has gone.

Let me ask you then: Given the fact that it's almost a given that there will be a different government in power next year, do you not think it entirely reasonable for the government of the day at that time to go back and redo this bill -- this bill's going to be passed because this government has a habit of not listening to committees; it pushes its legislation through -- for the new government simply to go back and say, "Okay, we're going to enforce the quid pro quo agreement that was reached between business and labour with respect to certain elements"?

Mr McCormick: I guess when you're saying that the business isn't completely happy with it -- I look at the Friedland formula too. Our organization does not endorse the Friedland formula. That was something we gave up, that we turned around and said is part of the compromise to put through the changes to Bill 165, that we are prepared to give up something. This isn't something that's just come down and is like a labour wish list.

As far as the government goes, obviously I'm hoping that the same government is in power a year from now and I'll definitely be going out of my way come election time to try and do what I can to get them back into power, but I don't think we should leave our mess for someone else to do any more than I'd hope that the governments left everything in the past for the next government. Maybe they'll do it or maybe they won't. I think it's time someone took the bull by the horns and I think this government's done a good job.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ferguson.

Interjection.

Mr Ferguson: Maybe I should quit and let Mr Turnbull continue.

Mr Turnbull: Every time you speak you do us a favour, Will. Just keep going.

Ms Murdock: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mr Ferguson: My question to the delegation simply is this: On balance, do you think Bill 165 is fair?

Mr McCormick: On balance, I think Bill 165 is fair. I think there are a few things that may need more of a fine-tuning that the Ontario Federation of Labour has basically proposed in its amendments, and I certainly don't want to reiterate them. I'm sure you'll hear them enough. I believe it's a fair bill.

Mr Klopp: I think you've brought out both sides of this story. Many groups have their view and, as happens in committees, that's what they're here -- people put their side very clearly out and I think you've been probably more fair than many, realizing that you've seen the hardships. I appreciate the comments you've made.

I think you've brought forth, as have a number of others, about the royal commission, that it should be a commission that gets on with the work and I trust the royal commission will be started soon. Of course, it will take a number of months to get through, and I hope whatever happens down the road -- and I hope we are the government that's here because I think we've shown that we want to take this seriously, and we've done that. But I really do want to say that this royal commission should take seriously all your concerns, and really look at the whole issue and really make a better program. It was started back in 1914 and it's had its ups and downs, but it definitely needs to be working for the injured workers.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock, 30 seconds.

Ms Murdock: No, it's okay. I just want to thank you very much, very appealing.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, thank you for the presentation.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO-CAMBRIDGE INJURED WORKERS GROUP

Mr John Sweeney: My name is John Sweeney, president of the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge Injured Workers Group and vice-president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups. I should say that I thought I'd be able to find a better thing to do today than sit here, this being my birthday, but here I am.

Interjections: Happy birthday.

Mr Sweeney: Thank you. I also never thought I'd be back here before another committee on another workers' compensation bill, and here we are also.

Vocational rehabilitation and re-employment: Problems of abuse of vocational rehabilitation programs being dropped -- employers say they have modified work available. The injured worker goes back to work and gets laid off or fired. This is a common problem with Bill 162. Legislation must be enacted to ensure that injured workers, even if laid off or fired, continue vocational rehabilitation until suitable work is found.

Workers' compensation tends to send injured workers to business colleges that are not recognized in the workforce and do not cover the skills needed to obtain the job specified. Injured workers who have completed their retraining programs are sometimes sent to only a job search that in many cases is a total waste of time and money.

1710

Potential employers tend not to hire injured workers because they believe that this will affect their worker's compensation premiums, which is mythical. Somehow, they must be informed that a reoccurrence of an injury reverts back to the injury employer and will not affect them.

Vocational rehabilitation and re-employment continued: Bill 165 is weak and futile, with some small improvements. Employers, it appears, will have direct access to physicians' and injured workers' medical records. They already have that. Under Bill 162, they have the right to ask for an injured worker's file. If the injured worker refuses, the employer gets the file anyway, so I don't know why it's even in this Bill 165.

The responsibility to get injured workers back to work: the employer will direct the physician to. In other words, the physician's role will disappear. The employer will dictate the terms when the injured worker goes back to work, not the family physician or specialist reports, which are ignored at the board anyway. Junior adjudicators at the board override eminent psychiatrists, eminent surgeons; a junior adjudicator at the board overrides the decision. So again, we have a major problem -- I heard it mentioned earlier -- with the medical staff at the board.

Employers will push the physicians into returning injured workers back to work before they are physically ready. Injured workers will finish up dealing with the employer, not physicians.

Deeming, which incidentally is not mentioned in Bill 165 -- to my knowledge, it has never been mentioned. Injured workers have fought against deeming for -- I don't know, I've been fighting it for 12 years. The last government in power said it would address deeming. They introduced Bill 162. We all know what happened with Bill 162; it was the worst piece of legislation that was enacted this century. What we are seeing today in injured workers' offices is the fallout of Bill 162.

I'm straying away from this because I think you can read it for yourself. I know my English is terrible at times, you will agree.

Injured workers and deeming: We have fought deeming for many years. It was to be addressed by the last government and, as I said, it was never addressed; it's not addressed in Bill 165. Deeming is a barrier to good vocational rehabilitation. Good rehabilitation in the long run saves money.

Injured workers are for ever hearing about the unfunded liability, which happened -- it only cropped up since the new government was elected, approximately two years ago. I had very seldom heard of the unfunded liability until the NDP was elected approximately two years ago, three years ago. Injured workers are not responsible for the unfunded liability. To my knowledge, the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario is sitting on $6 billion. I don't think there's another corporation or industry that's sitting on $6 billion. Its access is $6 billion.

The injured workers get it in the neck every time. The last two governments have done it and hopefully this government will have some compassion. We have never asked for much: to be treated with dignity and respect and fair benefits, fair compensation. We gave up the right to sue. If we don't get fair benefits, then put in a clause in the act that we have the right to sue again. When the workers gave up the right to sue, they saved employers billions of dollars.

Health and safety is important, vital. Some employers are complying. Some employers, incidentally, get rewarded for accidents, saved time etc. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid out for this that could go to -- I'm not saying that you don't earn it, but a lot of employers cover up. When an accident happens in the workplace, the employers say: "Don't report it to compensation. We'll look after you." It's never reported to the board. Then two years down the line, injuries deteriorate and then the injured worker's in trouble. The board has no record of an accident. The employers will tell them to go on to the company insurance plan, long-term disability. If it's a long-term injury, there are problems down the line.

Injured workers are up to here with what's happened. Lives are ruined, destroyed: alcoholism, child abuse, dog abuse, animal abuse, wife abuse, husband abuse, which is odd, but it happens. I have people who come into my office who are awarded $3 per month -- nil award -- $9 a month. If you've become 18 years of age, the board will not retrain 18 years of age. They don't say it, but at one time you were too old at 40. I think they've upped it to 50 now. I'm not quite sure.

I had a question for Mr Mahoney. I see he's not with us, which is sad, but I'll ask the question anyway. What are the Liberal government's plans? Are they going to increase benefits? Are you going to decrease benefits, or are they going to decrease employers' contributions or increase? I ask the question.

Bill 162 devastated injured workers. There is a slight improvement in Bill 165, but I think it needs a lot of work. We were never consulted on Bill 165, or very little consultation. We meet with Mr Mackenzie on March 10 and, on March 11 the historical agreement was reached; we knew nothing about it. We have consulted with the government and with the Workers' Compensation Board through the network for five or six years, so it was a surprise when I got a call saying that a historic agreement had been made.

I think I'll let it go at that because I'm inclined to get a wee bit -- what do you call it?

The $200 increase -- I knew there was something vital. As far as injured workers are concerned, the $200 is a carrot. Forty thousand workers they estimate will get $200. If they're in receipt of Canada pension, part of it'll be taken away, so they'll lose. They'll get $200, and they get $380 Canada pension disability, so they'll lose $180. That's a savings to the board and to employers.

Every older injured worker in the province -- they're not old in age, but who were injured pre-Bill 162 -- should get the increase. No de-indexing of pensions. How the hell would you as MPPs feel if your pensions, those who will get pensions, were de-indexed, no raises? I ask you, how would you feel?

Eighty-five per cent of injured workers are living below the poverty line. We never asked to be injured. We went to work one day and it happened. That's the only crime we've committed, we were injured at work. Thank you. I'll entertain any questions. If I can answer them, fine.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've touched on those aspects of the bill that have been most discussed. I have a question dealing with the vocational rehab aspects of the bill. The government has put a great deal of emphasis on how wonderful and needed they are, as in the bill. I'd like to get your thoughts as an injured worker as to vocational rehab as it's found in Bill 165.

1720

Mr Sweeney: As I said earlier, vocational rehabilitation in this bill is a sop. You know, it's not the answer, it won't give you the answer, but it's a farce. Up until Bill 165 was introduced, there was really no vocational rehabilitation at the board. Vocational rehabilitation counselling -- no rehabilitation as such. To send an injured worker down Yonge Street knocking on doors looking for a job pumping gas -- now that's not vocational rehabilitation.

Mr Offer: Let me ask you: In your presentation you indicated that right now, if a worker does not participate with the board, they get cut off and there's no need for particular sections in this bill because it's already the practice of the board. I recall you saying that. Could you expand on that?

Mr Sweeney: I think you're making reference to the access to injured workers' files?

Mr Offer: Right.

Mr Sweeney: As it sits right now, the employer has access to injured workers' files.

Mr Offer: Well, then, why don't we use this and use the opportunity to ask the government why there is the need in Bill 165 to restate some of the aspects that have been brought forward by the presenter? Maybe we can use this time to clarify the issue.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Sorry, I wasn't listening.

Mr Offer: I think ministry staff were listening and the issue was all about access. We have a presenter who says there's no need for that section in Bill 165 because it is the policy of the board at this point to basically cut off workers if they don't participate in something of this nature.

Mr Sweeney: You're not cut off. If the employer requires access to an injured worker's file --

Mr Offer: They can get it now.

Mr Sweeney: -- if you say no, they get it anyway.

Mr Offer: Right.

Mr Sweeney: I don't know if it's board policy or if it's law, but I know they have access to the --

Mr Offer: Well, all I'm trying to --

Mr Sweeney: Sorry, I think the reason why it's been put in Bill 165 is because in Bill 162 -- the problem arose in Bill 162, the Majesky dual system or what. It was definitely a foulup that screwed -- sorry -- screwed the injured workers. I've said it, so I'm going to say it. I think that's why that provision was maybe put in --

Mr Offer: Thank you. I hope we can get some clarification on this as the proceedings continue.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, John, for your presentation. You've been straightforward as always. You talk about the structural changes to the board of directors. Am I to understand that you're not happy because injured workers are not on the board? Also, are you questioning the government being a third party? You're saying here it's "not a bipartite board, the government being the third party." Do you want to just expand? What is it that -- ?

Mr Sweeney: We fought for a long time to have an injured worker on the board of directors. We did get one injured worker on the board who was on for approximately four years, and he did a magnificent job. It's one of the toughest jobs in the world.

Mrs Witmer: What time period was that individual on for?

Mr Sweeney: During the last three years or four years of the last government.

Mrs Witmer: Okay.

Mr Sweeney: He had a tough job, he had the hardest one. Now, all of a sudden we have nominated an injured worker to replace him, and as I read it, I don't think an injured worker will be on the board of directors. As it stands, I don't know what the ratio is. It seems to be employer-labour. We, injured workers, are the major stakeholders of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mrs Witmer: Well, why would labour not include you as one of their members since you were part of that labour force?

Mr Sweeney: I don't really know, but maybe it will come up in the near future that they would consider having an injured worker back on the board. As it's set up at the moment -- I'm not too sure if it's finalized. But we were quite concerned. We want an injured worker on the board of directors. We fought a long time to get it, and hopefully we'll get it. I don't really know. Hopefully, we will get it.

Mr Ferguson: John, we appreciate your straight-from-the-heart presentation today, as well as the written comments that you provided the committee. I want to inform you that the Liberal Party supports the government on the Friedland formula. You asked the question, where do they stand on the particular issue, and according to their Back to the Future report, what they say is: "The Friedland formula, as proposed by the management caucus of the PLMAC, be applied in the calculation of all future and past benefits. It is estimated that this will reduce the unfunded liability by $3 billion a year."

I know that question was important to you, so I wanted to advise you of that.

Are you aware, John -- you spoke briefly about the $200 pension. One of the many issues that this committee will deal with will be the whole question of the $200 pension and who that should be extended to. There's been a number of suggestions by individuals who have made presentations, much the same as yourself, before this committee and they have suggested that we ought to be expanding that to include everybody and not just a select few.

Mr Waters: I had a couple of things I wanted to ask you about. Employers keep talking about cost. I came out of the labour movement and I can recall having employers saying, "We're going to fight every compensation claim that comes before us." A person can lose an arm; they're still going to fight it. Wouldn't you consider that and the fact that every time an employer phones the compensation system -- from my days anyway, unless it's changed -- it used to result in a series of phone calls because the cheques were held up from four to six weeks. Wouldn't you consider that as part of the cost, that it's actually adding to the cost of the compensation board?

Mr Sweeney: Certainly, it adds to the cost. I won't mention companies, but there are two companies locally where I come from that every time an accident occurs and they fill out the accident report, stapled on to the accident report is "We object to this claim." Two major companies in Kitchener-Waterloo, that region.

Mr Waters: So it adds to the cost.

Mr Sweeney: That's cost. Monthly statements that the board sends are worth some money to employers.

Not only government, but I think MPPs are elected by the people. On injured workers issues, you should sometimes listen to the injured worker. Believe me, we can save you money.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Sweeney: But listen -- sorry. You cut me off right there.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge Injured Workers Group for the presentation this afternoon.

Ms Murdock, do you have a response for Mr Offer?

Ms Murdock: I wanted to apologize to Mr Offer for not listening to his words when he was asking questions, but I would direct him to section 71 of the present act in terms of access to records. That's all.

The Vice-Chair: Okay, thank you.

1730

ROSA BALUMBA

Ms Maria Moschella: My name is Maria Moschella. I would like to present Rosa Balumba and Crystal George. At this point, Rosa is going to present her case.

Ms Rosa Balumba: English is my second language, so please be patient with me. I had help getting this presentation together, but it is my story and my pain.

My name is Rosa Balumba, and I am an injured worker from Oshawa. On February 6, 1973, I started working for Sklar-Peppler as an industrial power sewing machine operator. I did piecework, and I worked mostly with leather.

This is a very difficult job because the leather has to be forced through the machine. At the same time that I push the leather I have to turn the material in the making of cushions. This puts a lot of stress on the legs to hold the pedal down and even more stress on the hands, arms, shoulders and whole body because I have to push and turn the material at the same time.

In 1987, I started having trouble with my wrist and arm. I went to see my doctor, and he told me it was because of my job. I did not file a WCB claim because I did not know what WCB was and I did not want to lose my job. From 1987 to 1990 the rest of my body started falling apart. I had a variety of physical problems such as inflammation and severe pain in most of my body, but the worst has been my right knee, ankle and foot.

From 1987 until 1990 I continued to work without complaining, because I was afraid I would lose my job. I need money to live, to put food on my table and a roof over my head. In 1990, just before my holidays, my pain and suffering got really bad. I thought that after resting for my four weeks' holidays things would be better. The day I was supposed to return to work I could not get out of bed. My body could take no more.

I was on sick leave for a couple of months. When I saw my specialist, he told me to file a claim with the Workers' Compensation Board. My claim was denied. I asked my adjudicator why. He told me my employer denied the claim and if I didn't like it to appeal.

Appeal? What is an appeal? I did not know where to start. I was afraid to talk to my employer because I didn't want to cause trouble for fear I would lose my job. My union was no help. So I started going from WCB appeal representatives to lawyers. The appeal takes a long time. I got no money, so in May 1992, I tried to go back to my old job. For four weeks I tried, but the pain was too much.

I sit before you today waiting for my appeal before WCAT. The only money I get is $600 a month Canada pension. I was making $1,500 a month working. How am I supposed to live? I've spent over $10,000 of borrowed money on lawyers, and still I'm not finished. For 20 years I worked hard, destroying my body, for what? The WCB is to look after me, but the employer doesn't agree with the claim and I have to appeal. I pay my taxes, and I help my company get rich, but what do I get? Nothing, just stress. My injuries may not kill me, but the stress will. Where are my rights as a Canadian citizen?

In Bill 165, the purpose of this act is to provide fair compensation. This is fair? My claim was denied. I have to appeal. I have no job security. I have no right to modified work. I have no rights at all. Maybe if we had a few injured workers on the board of directors some changes would be made and enforced so that you can get fair compensation. I cannot wait any longer; something has to be done now.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I don't necessarily have a question, but rather a comment based on what you have said. I think that the presentation you made, speaking about your personal experience, is important for us in this committee as we deal with this particular piece of legislation. One of the things that underscores the importance is that the bill is silent in terms of how the WCB itself administers and looks after claims, how it deals with the people who, through no fault of their own, have been injured on the job.

1740

I think a presentation such as you yourself have made today is one which puts an added emphasis and impetus on the need to change the board so that we are absolutely certain that the best, most experienced individuals are dealing with claims such as you have brought forward. It sometimes takes presentations such as yours and the courage that you have in coming before a committee to show us in a real way how important that is, and I just wanted to thank you for taking the time.

Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for what I know was a very difficult presentation on your behalf. It's unfortunate that all of the individuals such as yourself who come before us feel that you need to apologize for your English because it's your second language. I would encourage you not to. Many of us in this room are immigrants like yourself and some of our parents experience the same language difficulties that you do. Certainly you don't need to feel any different than any of the rest of us. We appreciate the effort that you've made.

Ms Balumba: Thank you.

Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm really quite surprised because it's unfortunate that your employer denied your appeal, but you also indicated that you've had no help from your union. What union represented you?

Ms Balumba: Steelworkers of America.

Mrs Witmer: And you got absolutely no support?

Ms Balumba: Nothing. I got fired when I came back to work because they say I can't make my time, and I was very close, with my pain, to making my time. When I worked over there, I was only part-time and good worker. They give the job because I made special work for the showroom. And after that, what I got?

My sons have to support me. I raised my sons, those poor children. Even when they were 18 years old, they go to school, they got jobs, and now they have to support me, after I worked 20 years. That's fair?

Mrs Witmer: No, it's not fair.

Ms Balumba: Is the law fair? I don't expect so much, but just something.

Mrs Witmer: I guess I'm disappointed to hear because we've had numerous unions sit before us the last couple of days saying that they work on behalf of the injured workers, and I can't understand why the union that you paid dues to for all those years wasn't there to help you.

Ms Balumba: The last time I talk with them, they say: "How can I help you? You've don't have a case." "What do you mean I don't have a case? I worked there and I've got all -- " When I was there, we made those big couches.

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

Ms Balumba: Really hard, and now I can't do any more. I was so good and now, you know, my arm is -- I put the scissors and I can't cut any more. Over there, you know, you have to make piecework production.

Like I say, I don't understand why I don't have a case. "What do you mean?" I say. They make me more upset and now my nerves are really bad. After you raise a family nice, they fall apart. After 30 years, now we can't pay the taxes any more. My sons are helping me now. You know, they have to make their own family now.

Mrs Witmer: I hope that somehow -- and this bill unfortunately will not address it -- we can make the system, I guess, more user-friendly for people such as yourselves who don't know how to deal with the WCB system. I wish you well in your appeal and I regret what's happened to you.

Ms Balumba: Thank you.

Mr Hope: I was also going to touch on the issue because earlier today presentations that were made to us were about employers who appeal cases, and yours is one where your employer appealed and said, "This is not a work-related accident, so we're not liable," so you're not eligible for workers' compensation.

Today a presentation was made to us saying that what should be in place is a system that provides assistance to an individual while the appeal is in process. I would ask you the question because I noticed in your presentation, because of whatever circumstances, you needed to get a lawyer to represent your interests against government or bureaucracy or legislation, whatever it may be, and you had to borrow $10,000. I just wanted to ask you a question. If you were able to get benefits while the appeal process is on, what would your financial situation be per se with the $10,000 owing for a lawyer's fee?

Ms Balumba: I don't understand the question.

Mr Hope: Okay. Basically what I was asking is, if you were still able to receive benefits even though your employer appealed your claim, would it change the financial situation you're personally in today by still having the money coming in from WCB even though the employer has appealed that decision? I'm wondering if maybe the others who are sitting with you might be able to assist.

Ms Balumba: A little bit, yes.

Mr Hope: It's my understanding she's saying it would change her financial situation.

Ms Moschella: She has a problem understanding.

Ms Balumba: I've got a problem understanding the question.

Mr Hope: That's all.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for appearing today. I think your deputation and your presentation has been very powerful before the committee and I think it indicates in many examples how the board obviously doesn't operate in order to serve the injured workers. I think all my colleagues on both sides of this committee room would share my concern that nobody should have to be put in the position where they're out of pocket $10,000 in order just to secure what no doubt they're rightfully entitled to.

I know you touched on this very briefly, but today on the Workers' Compensation Board what we lack is an injured worker representative. Do you think that would be helpful in expressing the views and putting forth some of the real difficulties injured workers experience in dealing with the board?

Ms Balumba: Again, I don't understand very good. I think so.

Mr Ferguson: You think so. Just one last short question. I'm also kind of interested to know, did you approach your local MPP or the office of the worker adviser or any other --

Ms Balumba: Oh, if I have to tell my story, I'd have to be here one month for the story. I went to Mr Pilkey just two years ago, so --

Interjection: Who?

Ms Balumba: The name was Chris. He told me can't help because he can't go to the hearing. That time when I went to ask him, there was supposed to be a hearing. I believed him, so I left him. I left like that.

Before I started an appeal with WCAT, I asked again a couple of months ago -- no, I asked before if I can have an appointment to meet with Mr Pilkey, and this girl, who was maybe the secretary, by phone she said to me, "What does it concern?" So I told her the story, because I've got a problem with the compensation board, and she said to me, "I have to talk with Chris." So I told her the story and Chris said they can't help me. So, after, this girl talk on the telephone to Chris, and he was so mad to me. That made me so upset on the telephone I started shaking. I have a problem with my high blood pressure real bad, and he said to me we can go to somebody, the name, but it was the group. We know this group. They don't make nothing. They just wanted the money for the group. They don't do nothing, this group. I know this group. They don't do nothing, I told him.

1750

Mr Ferguson: Are you referring to the injured workers' group locally?

Ms Balumba: Yes, some group they started in a rush.

Mr Ferguson: Many of them operate on a very shoestring, low budget.

Ms Balumba: Yes. They were really --

Mr Ferguson: What about the office of the worker adviser? This will be my last question, Chair.

Ms Balumba: Just a minute. I asked the worker adviser, and they said to me I have to wait two years to look after me. For two years, and what I understand from the people I hear on the radio talk show, the people were upset like me. Those worker advisers, they're no help, they say. I don't know if that's true or not. So after that, I decided to find somebody else.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Moschella, Ms Balumba, and Mrs George. Good to see you once again. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, is that the end of presentations for this one?

The Vice-Chair: That's the end.

Mr Ferguson: One very quick request, Mr Chair, from research. We've heard a number of delegations appearing before this committee indicate that there are up to 20,000 businesses in the province of Ontario that don't pay any premiums whatsoever into the general Workers' Compensation Board fund. I think it would be very insightful if the committee had some idea what groups of employers this would cover, why are they exempt and what numbers of employees would they represent out there.

The Vice-Chair: I believe we already have the answer to that.

Mr Ferguson: Oh, we have the answer to that?

The Vice-Chair: That's been brought -- Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: I just wanted the committee clerk to know they have copies of the statistical supplement of the Workers' Compensation Board. I've been perusing it for the past two days, and I think it would be very helpful to all members of the committee, so I've asked them to provide you with copies.

Mr Ferguson: Is my request contained within that, or was this another request that came forward earlier?

The Vice-Chair: Was there a request earlier for that information?

Mr Ferguson: Yes.

The Vice-Chair: No, but it's been brought up about the banking industry and some of the service sector before.

Mr Ferguson: Well, I think it would be important, Mr Cooper, to have that in writing.

Ms Murdock: What in writing?

The Vice-Chair: The people who are exempt from workers' compensation.

Mr Ferguson: The employers that are exempt from workers' compensation. I think it would be important to have that in writing.

The Vice-Chair: We have a response here.

Mr Jerry Richmond: Very briefly, Mr Chairman, from my general knowledge, and I'll certainly pursue this with the ministry and board officials, under the statute there are various schedules of employers. My general understanding is that under the statute there are certain classes of employers who are exempt. I will certainly get that material from the board and ministry officials and table it for your use and the committee's use.

Ms Murdock: If I might clarify for him?

Mr Ferguson: Sure.

Ms Murdock: Schedule 1 of the act lists all the employers who are covered. Schedule 2 lists mainly government, municipalities and that kind of thing. So you would have to sort of guess from those that are in schedule 1 who isn't in schedule 1, if you get my drift. It would be rather difficult, I think.

Mr Richmond: I would suspect the experts in this, when I consult with the board and ministry officials, who are here and attending the hearings, should be able to provide a memo or a list of who is not covered by Ontario's WCB.

Ms Murdock: I think actually it's in some of the presentations we've already had over this week.

Mr Ferguson: I recognize that some of the presentations have in fact touched on the matter of employers not having to contribute, so I would like research to provide that so we know a correct response rather than someone's guess or someone's --

The Vice-Chair: Research has indicated that he will try his best to get that information for you.

Mr Ferguson: Finally, in addition to that, could we just have a very brief historical perspective as to why that situation exists today? Why were these employers exempt? I think that would be important to know.

Mr Offer: Just as a point of clarification, with the employers who don't contribute to WCB in any form of assessment, obviously the reason is that the employees who are employed with that employer are not covered through WCB, and that is because of statute. The current government is not dealing with that particular issue, and in fact my understanding from the parliamentary assistant is that they decided not to deal with that issue and throw it over to the royal commission. And I see the parliamentary assistant saying yes, so it's your government that's made that decision.

Mr Ferguson: I just think it's important for the committee to have that.

Mr Hope: During the presentations over the last couple of days, I've heard the business communities say it's $1 million a day, and now today it automatically grows into $2 million a day. I was wondering, what is the actual cost factor that's there? It would be nice to know. I'm hearing the business community inflate numbers day by day, and before the end of this committee hearing process I could be up to $15 million a day. I would just like to know for my own curiosity so the facts are before us correctly what the cost is per day.

The Vice-Chair: We will try and get that for you. I think the consensus is it's around a million dollars, and there are some variations in presentations.

Seeing no further business before this committee, I would remind all committee members we will not be meeting here next week, so remove all your articles. We will resume once again at 9:30 am on Monday the 29th in London, Ontario. This committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1757.