Committee Transcript 1994-Aug-31 | 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

United Transportation Union-Canada, Local 885

Sam Piraino, legislative representative

Employers' Advocacy Council, northwestern Ontario chapter

Bev Valvasori, chair

Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group

Steve Mantis, vice-president

Kenora Injured Workers Group

Lily Bergman, president

John Murphy

Injured Workers' Advocates of Sault Ste Marie

Pat Jolin, president

José Cormo, member

Service Employees International Union, Local 268

Glen Chochla, staff representative

Richard Armstrong, vice-president and director of operations

Ontario Mining Association

John Blogg, manager, industrial relations and secretary

Sault Ste Marie Construction Association

Rick Thomas, manager

Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Douglas Paolini, president, worker adviser division

Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council

Dan Lewis, vice-president

Gerald Zuk

Canadian Union of Public Employees

Cora-Lee Skanes, president, Local 1880

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793

Michael Quinn, recording-corresponding secretary and IUOE area supervisor, northeastern Ontario

Brad Shewfelt, injured worker

Laurie Masters

Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union

Gary Hrytsak, vice-president, compensation, health and welfare officer

College Committee on Special Needs

Susan Alcorn MacKay, member and coordinator, special needs, Cambrian College

Laurie Barbeau, chair-elect and coordinator, special needs, Sault College

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:

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull

Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Huget

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC) for Mr Jordan

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

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Wood

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

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

The committee met at 0836 in the Algoma's Water Tower Inn, Sault Ste Marie.

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.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on resources development to order. Today we'll be continuing with our public hearings on Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION-CANADA, LOCAL 885

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our first presenters, from the United Transportation Union-Canada. Good morning 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Sam Piraino: My name is Sam Piraino. I'm a member of the United Transportation Union. I'm a legislative representative and I work at Sault Ste Marie Transit Commission. With me is Joseph Bertrand, general chairman for the United Transportation Union and he works at Sault Ste Marie Transit Commission. Ray Roffey works at the Algoma Central Railway and he's a member of the United Transportation Union.

The United Transportation Union is an international union which represents rail and bus workers in Canada and the United States. Local 885 has both rail members, Algoma Central Railway, and bus members, Sault Ste Marie Transit Commission.

While I represent on a local basis both rail and bus members, I will confine my remarks on the bill to say that in general terms Local 885 appreciates that Bill 165 was the result of a set of negotiations and, while it is not perfect, we do support it.

Our union has seen fit to establish an office in Ontario which deals almost exclusively with workers' compensation, and I have worked closely with that office on behalf of members of this local. Appeals are handled by our Hamilton office. Our involvement with the WCB is not as broad as some other union locals because our union has chosen to specialize in doing appeals and policy concerns from that office. As a local, however, we do see the same concerns coming up again and again. Those areas are medical attention and the aftermath and returning injured workers to work in a timely manner.

A worker, a member of my local, will get injured, go to the doctor and be legitimately in pain, be prescribed medication most often as not, told to rest for a few days and come back and see the doctor and then be told either to return to work or to stay off longer.

The doctor becomes the advocate of the worker and in a city the size of Sault Ste Marie, which has a limited number of doctors, it doesn't take long to figure out which doctors are sympathetic to workers or employers, and they then are used to an advantage by both workers and employers. We have had members who changed doctors because the doctor would not support the patient to the extent that the worker has wanted the doctor to do so. We recognize that the doctor is being put in an untenable position.

Some workers will shop for a doctor and some employers will steer workers to doctors who show favour to the employers' position or who work for the employers directly, such as the company doctor.

The end result is that no one is satisfied. The worker feels cheated, the employer believes that the worker and the doctor are conspiring against the employer and the doctor feels used by all concerned.

Bill 165 addresses part of that concern in that there will be a prescribed form that the doctor will complete according to sections 51 and 63 of the bill. We are confident that the doctor will be able to complete the prescribed form with some confidence if the form does not contain diagnostic medical information and does not contain information as to whether the worker can or cannot work.

That decision should be made by the workplace parties. We have a committee in place at transit to make those decisions. What we need to fit people into an early return-to-work program are the restrictions and the functional limitations that the doctor places on his or her patient, not an opinion as to whether the worker can or cannot do a particular job. We feel that we have the expertise to find jobs for our injured workers and in the end that will be the measure of success of any early return-to-work program.

Therefore, we recommend that subsection 51(2) be worded in such a way that the only information provided on the form be the restrictions placed on the worker and the functional limitations, if any.

If the employer does not have a return-to-work program developed and approved in conjunction with the board, they should not be entitled to any information that is contemplated by section 51 of Bill 165.

As a legislative representative for Local 885 of the United Transportation Union, I have, as noted earlier in this submission, rail and bus members. I deal with the WCB for both groups. Mr Bertrand negotiates collective agreements for our bus members with the transit commission.

The rail members of Algoma Central do not have a return-to-work program. As a result, we have to deal with the railway on an individual case-by-case basis to return injured workers to modified work. With some, there is work. For others, there is no work and we must deal through the vocational rehabilitation department at the WCB. The return to work is often prolonged for rail members.

Attached as an appendix is the employee rehabilitation program for the city of Sault Ste Marie. Our union participates in this program and you will note that it is a joint union and management committee with participation by the WCB as needed. The WCB in Sault Ste Marie participated in the development of the program and the participants are the United Transportation Union, CUPE, the United Steelworkers of America, firefighters and police associations.

The intent of the program is outlined at page 3 of the document. It is designed for early intervention, accommodation and modification of work and workplace for retraining and short-term placement. In some instances, full wages are paid; in others, top-up is paid. The work is meaningful and it is work that is performed in a familiar setting. The committee meets monthly and reviews the status of employees who are participating in the program. It deals with situations that are the result of both work and non-work-related situations. We believe that the program developed jointly with the assistance of the WCB is worthy of continuing and worthy of promoting as an example of the kind of workplace cooperation that is needed to return injured workers to meaningful work earlier.

Thank you for allowing us to appear before the committee.

The Vice-Chair: We have about four minutes for each caucus.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Can you in some detail explain the statement, "In some instances," the program that you described on page 3 of your presentation -- thank you, by the way, for the presentation -- you say, "full wages are paid and in other situations top-up is paid." What do you mean?

Mr Piraino: Normally, the full wages are paid, but sometimes we've had some disputes about night shift premiums, Sunday premiums and we've gone to the board and asked for top-ups on that.

Mr Mahoney: You've gone to the board, so it's not the employer that's topping up.

Mr Piraino: No.

Mr Mahoney: I know Mr Offer has a question, but the issue of medical attention -- we had a presentation yesterday in London from a medical doctor from the University of Western Ontario that was quite extensive about dealing with the process around medical practitioners. The problem you have identified as well is very real, where very often the physician is a family physician, doesn't want to get into a dispute with the worker and doesn't want to deny what the worker is saying and certainly doesn't want to be the referee who's going to decide when the worker is ready to return to work. It's just a conflict right off the bat.

The suggestion the doctor made in London went much further than what you're suggesting. He recommended two things: one was to demedicalize the information; take the information around a worker and deal strictly with the injury -- non-diagnostic, stay away from a medical report as such and deal with an injury report or a wellness report, if you will. He also suggested setting up a referee roster of doctors who are specifically trained in the area of health and safety and return to work, modified work, all of those kinds of things, and having these individuals in essence become the adjudicators of when that person is ready to go back to work. It goes much further than this bill goes. In my respectful submission this bill doesn't do anything with regard to the medical situation, save and except make information available with the consent of the worker.

Would you agree with that kind of a system, with a referee of doctors to make those decisions?

Mr Piraino: No, I wouldn't agree with that type of a system because, in our situation, the city has physiotherapists on contract. In our agreement, we've left the situation that the worker always has the choice of which therapist he'd like to see. He doesn't have to see the contracted therapist; it's always his choice of any physician he wants to see. We won't take that right away from him.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you very much for your presentation. I too want to deal with the issues around subsection 51(2) and section 63. Mr Mahoney has indicated we have heard previous submissions which deal with the demedicalization of information; in other words, a report by a doctor at the worker's consent which basically is not a medical type of report, but some other form of a report. I am wondering if you have any thoughts on that aspect.

Secondly, recognizing that time is running out, how is it that doctors would be able to in fact prepare a report which is anything other than a medical report as prescribed and protected through the Ontario Medical Association? Are we really talking about something which is possible or something we're going to eventually hit the wall on?

Mr Piraino: I know it's possible, because we have a form at Sault Ste Marie Transit which -- all the doctor puts on it is the limitations and the restrictions of that particular work and then we, as a joint committee, sit down and try to modify the job or find light-duty work for that particular worker with those restrictions. That's all the doctor gives us.

0850

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Thank you very much for your presentation. I was also interested in your program that you talk about on page 3. In flipping through, when you get into some of the details of the mission statement and so on, on page 1 of the actual introduction, I guess it is, you talk about some of the side-effects and you talk about some things I agree with -- employee is the most important asset of the corporation and so on. Some of the side-effects you talk about -- it saves money, then you talk about budgets, taxpayers and the workers' compensation cost. Do you have any hard data on your program here, how much you've been able to save as a result of the program?

Mr Piraino: Definitely. Last year, our WCB costs were roughly in the area of $1.2 million for the city of Sault Ste Marie. With this program and a good health and safety committee, we've reduced our costs by a quarter.

Mr Carr: As you know, having dealt with the WCB -- you mentioned in great detail that you've had good experience with it. I think, as you know, employees, employers, MPPs who deal with it -- sometimes we can deal with WCB cases up to 60% of the time when an MPP's office is dealing with it -- everybody on all sides of the issue has been frustrated with it and it hasn't been any one particular problem. It's one of the toughest bureaucracies to deal with. You can't point any fingers at whose fault it is, it just has evolved that way. I think everybody agrees on that; there's a problem that needs to be fixed.

If this bill is passed as is, do you think we can sit here a few years from now or a year from now and say that things are going to actually get better in terms of dealing with WCB? Do you really, honestly, truly think that if we pass this we're going to see some major improvements? Because quite frankly, every time we've done something, it just seems to be getting worse. Do you think we're going to see an improvement and in what way? Just as a broad overview, will you see it improve?

Mr Piraino: I can only speak from personal experience and we are doing what Bill 165 sets out to do in our own workplace and we have already seen improvements. We have fewer injured workers. We have an injured worker who collects a 15% disability pension on her back and she came to me one day -- she's driving a bus; she's back at her regular employment. She said to me: "Listen, I'm having problems with my back. Can you do something?" I talked to the coordinator, the program manager, and we discussed it and we put her on a light-duty job for three weeks and then brought her back into her regular employment again. So it does work, or else that worker, without that light-duty position, would have been off.

The Vice-Chair: Half a minute.

Mr Carr: The program was set up; who was involved in doing it? You mentioned WCB was a little bit involved. Who took the initiative to get the program going? What I'm asking is, how can it be done in other areas? Who took the lead on it?

Mr Piraino: I'd have to say it was a joint venture between ourselves, the United Transportation Union and WCB; all three of us initiated the program and we wanted to get involved in it. Bill 162 was pretty well the leadoff to get involved in this program.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to first of all thank the committee for taking time to come to Sault Ste Marie and to hear the voice of our community re this very important subject and to welcome you here. I hope that last night was hospitable and good for you and that today will be equally rewarding in terms of what you learn about this bill.

Mr Mahoney: Did you have to bring up last night?

Mr Martin: You weren't across the river, were you, Steve?

Mr Mahoney: No.

Mr Martin: Okay, that's good news. Anyway, to the presenters, it's good that you came forward. I appreciate your support for the bill. Certainly, a central tenet of the bill is this effort to try and get more people back to work, because the WCB is about helping people who are hurt and in most instances trying to get them back to work as quickly as possible. This legislation goes a distance in that direction.

You've outlined a process in your case which is working, that is of that tenor. Could you maybe explain to us a bit further -- you've shown us the good points. What have been some of the obstacles, some of the challenges, and how has your employer been in this whole process? Has it been a totally cooperative venture or have there been some difficulties that they've experienced?

Mr Piraino: Our employer has been cooperative. But that doesn't mean that disputes don't arise; we do have disputes over particular cases. Then we ask WCB to help us out in those disputes. But we usually come to a resolution. There are going to be disputes, but for the most part the program works great.

Mr Martin: Are there any particular disputes that come up consistently?

Mr Piraino: No.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): One thing I read that was very interesting to me was, "Local 885 appreciates that Bill 165 was the result of a set of negotiations." I think that's something that a lot of people are forgetting, that it was a set of negotiations by business, labour and all the stakeholders who were involved in the drafting of this bill and the principles of this bill.

One thing I was wondering is, as far as Gord Wilson saying yesterday that it mirrors what this committee negotiated is concerned -- in London he was saying that -- do you feel that because it was a negotiated set of principles this is something you can live with?

Mr Piraino: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: A simple "yes." Oh good.

As far as doctors are concerned, do you think perhaps the family doctor, the family physician should be involved as far as whether or not a worker should be able to return to work is concerned, what is suitable work?

Mr Piraino: The family physician doesn't usually know what the work is and what the work entails. What we have in our workplace is a physical demands analysis, exactly what the job entails -- everything from sitting to standing, to how long you do it and how long you use your fingers, every aspect of the work site itself. The doctor doesn't have that ability.

Mr Fletcher: You're looking for a workplace committee that would --

Mr Piraino: Our committee does that. He gives us the limitations and then we set the job for those limitations.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the United Transportation Union-Canada for its presentation this morning.

EMPLOYERS' ADVOCACY COUNCIL, NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO CHAPTER

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the northwestern Ontario Employers' Advocacy Council. Good morning and welcome to the committee. Just a reminder that you will be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks somewhat brief, which will allow time for questions and comments. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Ms Bev Valvasori: I'm Bev Valvasori. I am the chairperson for the northwestern Ontario Employers' Advocacy Council, based in Thunder Bay.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the standing committee. I would like to thank you for providing the northwestern Ontario chapter of the Employers' Advocacy Council with the opportunity to express our concerns with Bill 165.

My name is Bev Valvasori. I'm a registered nurse and I'm also an occupational health nurse, claims and case manager for Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in Thunder Bay. I work with compensation claims every day, evening and weekends. I do everything from the form 0007 right up to WCAT appeals and I've been doing it for the past 17 years. I've worked in hospitals and the forest industry in the same capacity as well and I'm also a trained safety officer. In short, I have hands-on experience.

In the past 17 years I've seen a lot of changes to compensation and health and safety. Some of it has been good, some of it has been bad, but Bill 165 has got to be the worst I've ever seen yet.

The Employers' Advocacy Council, or EAC for short, is a non-profit volunteer organization of employers across Ontario. With over 1,700 members throughout Ontario, EAC represents a broad cross-section of Ontario's diverse economy. Our members include small business owners as well as large multinational organizations. We are also supported by many public sector employers and employers from schedule 2.

0900

All of these employers have come together under the membership of EAC because of a common problem that we share: frustration and lack of confidence in Ontario's workers' compensation system. The employers generally hold the view that the system must be continued, but they are not happy dealing with the current form, nor are they encouraged by proposals in the proposed Bill 165.

Since 1985 the EAC has been representing the views and concerns of the employer community, calling for constructive reform of the workers' compensation system. During this time we have strived to develop solutions and/or alternatives that are both constructive and achievable. Active participation on all the advisory groups and committees established by the WCB and the government on workers' compensation issues has been a norm. We are deeply concerned that although the business community has expended thousands of hours to develop constructive solutions to the major problems that exist in the system, the government has failed to respond to those recommendations and has failed to honour the accord between business and labour in March 1994.

The EAC was an active member of the business caucus that reached the accord with labour representatives. The proposal for workers' compensation reform developed through the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, or PLMAC for short, and presented to the government in November 1993 has been all but ignored.

The EAC does not support Bill 165, which we view to be a breach of faith by the government in not honouring the accord. We fully endorse the submission made to this committee by the business steering committee opposing the bill. Bill 165 is not a product of the bipartite group that the government asked for and received advice from.

This bill does not address the fiscal crisis of the system, nor the lack of financial responsibility or accountability. Bill 165 does not even come close to restoring the lack of confidence that all stakeholders have with the system. If anything, it will only increase the confrontational situation we find ourselves dealing with on a daily basis.

Our EAC chapter in Thunder Bay represents northwestern Ontario. It was established in March of this year as the result of employers' increasing discontent when dealing with the WCB on various concerns. We started with 13 employers. This number has now escalated to 53 in five months and includes both small employers and multinational employers. This should indicate to you the amount of frustration employers are starting to show and that they are willing to try and deal with this frustration on a united front.

When we first heard about this standing committee, we were most encouraged. When we found out that the committee would not be coming to Thunder Bay, we were astounded. The Liberal round table discussion initially had the same agenda as this committee but was finally convinced that a meeting in Thunder Bay would be to its advantage, not only politically but also informatively.

Those of us in northwestern Ontario would like to inform our eastern counterparts that Ontario's western border does not stop at Barrie or Sault Ste Marie. In fact, this committee has actually prevented many employers and injured workers from northwestern Ontario from having a chance to express their views on this bill by not including Thunder Bay on your agenda.

Thunder Bay is hosting the 1995 Nordic world ski championships from March 9 to 19, 1995, with 800 athletes, coaches and trainers attending from 40 countries, and 500 international media. I'm sure that if we can accommodate this type of event, the standing committee would have been made to feel most welcome if we had been included on your agenda.

The average assessment rate for 1994 in Ontario is $3.01 per $100 of payroll. However, the increases experienced at individual firm levels usually have been fairly substantive. I'm going to talk about the grain industry and I'm going to compare it between Ontario and BC. Our assessment rate in Ontario is $6.85 per $100 of payroll; in British Columbia it is $3.02. A payment to an injured worker in Ontario is 90% of the net; in BC it is 75% of the net.

I work in the grain industry in Thunder Bay and I'm sure that you're all aware of the decline in volumes of grain that have been shipped through this port and the devastating effect it has had on our employees and the community. There are two factors that have contributed to the decline. First of all, the sales have been increasing off the west coast. Second is the cost of shipping grain through the seaway.

One of the costs that's leading to the uncompetitiveness of the eastern route is Ontario's workers' compensation. The cost paid for workers' compensation is built into our costs, municipal taxes and throughout the seaway system in Ontario. We have a facility on the west coast, and their workers' compensation assessment rate, as said before, is $3.02 for 1994. Our rate in Thunder Bay is $6.85. Our accident rate has gone way down, but our assessment rates continue to grow.

This rate is far higher than our competition's on the west coast. You may think that we have more accidents, but our frequency rate for the grain industry in Thunder Bay has been consistently one third of the frequency on the west coast. Every industry in Ontario is faced with higher workers' compensation costs, and in many cases significantly higher costs than other provinces.

The purpose clause contained in the accord would not require WCB adjudicators to consider if the decisions being made were financially responsible, as Bill 165 is suggesting. The intent of the financial responsibility was to impose accountability across all levels of the system, and this was in the accord. Government should be ultimately accountable for all aspects of the system.

The board of directors should be accountable in developing policy direction which would be consistent with the act. WCAT and WCB management should be accountable for administering the system and implementing the decisions and policies of the board of directors. The purpose clause in Bill 165 does not reflect that intent, as some people are suggesting.

The provincial body of EAC has already submitted a full presentation on this, but I would like to add that as this bill stands, it does not appear that costs will be taken into account when new provisions and/or policies are considered by the government or the Workers' Compensation Board. I would like to ask, who will be ultimately responsible for these costs? The employers?

The additional benefit for older workers in receipt of a subsection 147(4) supplement was to be paid as an addition to the supplement and therefore only until age 65. The original intent of Bill 162, introduced in 1990, was to provide older workers who were no longer able to participate in the workforce with financial assistance until statutory federal benefits such as old age security became available. Bill 165, by proposing to pay the additional benefits as an arbitrary lifetime amount, is inconsistent with the original intent and inequitable to many workers who have serious injuries but were motivated enough to return to work. Pensions under pre-Bill 162 claims were intended to recognize both non-economic and economic loss. Bill 165 will distort the fairness of those awards.

The current experience rating system has been one of the most positive influences on the reduction of accident frequency in Ontario. We are deeply concerned that the assessment of this program will be delegated to the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to develop accreditation and enforcement. At the present time, this agency does not have influence under federal jurisdiction. Experience rating programs must be maintained as programs that measure and reward real results.

Under the proposals of Bill 165, vocational rehabilitation case workers, whose intended objective is to rehabilitate workers, will be expected to enforce the act. The case worker will be required to determine whether or not the employer has fulfilled their re-employment obligation. This will lead to conflict and adversity between employers and the case worker. Instead of assisting employers and workers in the return-to-work process, the case worker will become an adversarial figure, which can only lead to further frustration and conflict.

0910

The penalties proposed for employers who do not participate in WCB vocational rehabilitation programs cannot be considered to be a positive incentive. When one speaks of penalties, one naturally assumes that a wrong has been committed. This is real life. Some businesses are too small to even consider bringing an injured worker back to work, even if they wanted to. Some workers cannot return to work because of the severity of their injury. The current section 54 has already led to many confrontational situations both for workers and employers.

The proposal also suggests that return-to-work information is considered to be confidential medical information. The information pertains to the level of impairment, job readiness and physical capabilities. How can a statement such as "No lifting over 10 pounds" be considered confidential? How can an injured worker be returned to a potential job without this information? Without access to such information, an employer will be unable to safely and expeditiously return an injured worker to work.

Many employers have been unjustly charged for such things as back injuries. If they do not have access to medical information for such things as appeal hearings, which has been suggested, how will they be able to know that the back problem the injured worker is suffering from is not the result of a work-related injury but actually the result of a pre-existing condition that has suddenly flared up and is in no way related to a work injury? They won't.

If this dealing with facts is taken away from the employer, there will not be a just decision made. WCB will no longer be a fair system and will lose its credibility entirely. Requiring workers' consent can only lead to yet another confrontational situation, and we have enough of them already.

The major problem with the system, to me, has been the lack of leadership and accountability for both the management within the organization and the board of directors of the organization over the years. These individuals can blame the legislation for the current state of the board, but clearly they should have been coming forward with suggested changes to legislation years ago. It did not get to be such a mess overnight; it took many, many years.

Even now, with the board being basically bankrupt, we are faced with another bill which can only lead to further chaos and an increase to our rates. Unless a more realistic approach can be taken by the individuals in government, workers' compensation and other organizations, then the system will continue to decline and eventually fail or have to be bailed out by the citizens of this province.

My recommendation to this discussion is that the board must be taken out of the political arena. It must be run like a business, with individuals being held accountable and responsible for the success of the organization, to ensure that when an employee is injured he or she receives benefits. This bill should be withdrawn.

We are going to have to face a royal commission in the near future and we're going to have to pay for that. If such is the case, this bill and any future ones can wait until after the royal commission report is in. At the same time, I strongly urge you to consider that a neutral chair be appointed to this role.

We've had nothing but roadblocks from the board over the years. I call it the highway of good intentions and bad decisions. Quite frankly, Bill 165 is another bad decision. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. We have time for about one minute each.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'd certainly like to thank you for your deputation and injecting a note of reality into the proceedings today. You talk about fiscal reality, and I think that's very appropriate. You didn't talk about the unfunded liability, I guess, in totality until the very end, but I think that's most appropriate.

I just wondered if you could tell us the possible impact of what we're seeing here on your industry. I note that on page 3 you talk about the assessment rate being greater in the province of Ontario than it is in British Columbia. I think at some point this is going to translate into jobs lost in the province of Ontario. I wonder if you could tell us how you see that unfolding.

Ms Valvasori: Personally, if I were an employer moving into Ontario right now, one of the things I would be looking at is the assessment rate cost. How much is it going to cost me per $100 of payroll? If I was moving a business in, I think that would be a very strong point.

As to businesses moving out, I know businesses have closed down because of compensation issues and cost of compensation. One claim could put a small businessman right out of business, yet on the other hand, whether or not it's going to get any worse, it's hard to say. I'd really like to see the cost come down. I think it could make a real big difference. If we pay out more on one end, something at the other end loses.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Thank you for appearing. You're right that it didn't get to be such a mess overnight, and it took many years, but I must admit the Elie Martels of this world certainly made many suggestions to the Conservative government for those years that they were in. The changes that were made were not made, and likewise with the Liberals.

I want to go to the return-to-work section. When I read your second paragraph, "How can a statement such as `no lifting over 10 pounds' be considered confidential information?" and I wrote "limit it to restrictions," I thought you were agreeing to that until I read the next paragraph. And so there's a contradiction, I think, that if the employer requires the information you're saying in the third paragraph there about the condition and whether or not it's a pre-existing condition and all of that information, that goes beyond limitations. I'm wondering if you could comment.

Ms Valvasori: It depends on a particular case, quite honestly. It's very hard to give a broad-based answer to that because each case is quite individual. Some cases you do need more in-depth information in order to place an injured worker into a job where he's not going to cause further problems for himself, or for another worker, quite frankly.

Yes, sometimes we do need that additional information, and quite honestly, the way our business goes about it, we get the access from the individual worker himself. We sit down. We talk to the injured worker. We tell him why. He usually has the union representative with him, 99.9% of the time. We try to work together so that we can get him back to a job which is going to be to his advantage as well as to ours.

Mr Mahoney: Government members continue to try to perpetrate the fraud that there was some kind of agreement that was entered into and led to the drafting of this legislation, the agreement with the PLMAC. We heard the reference by Mr Wilson yesterday, who used the term that this legislation "mirrors" the agreement entered into at the PLMAC.

Are you aware of a letter dated April 21 by the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, to Jim Yarrow, chairman of the ECWC, in which the Premier says, "A `purpose clause' will be added to the Workers' Compensation Act which will ensure that the WCB provides its services in a context of financial responsibility"? The Premier not only personally signed this, but just to prove that he really did look at the letter before he signed it, he wrote a little note on the back, a personalized, handwritten scrawl to Mr Yarrow about the fact that he underestimated the significance of the changes to the pension. So he made a commitment on April 21 to include financial responsibility, and that's only one aspect of this legislation and this problem, only one aspect of the PLMAC agreement.

The Premier put it in writing, made the commitment. He has broken that promise, and yet we have government members and the guy who really advises the government, Mr Gord Wilson, stating publicly that this legislation "mirrors" that agreement. Are you aware of that letter and do you have any comments?

Ms Valvasori: No, I'm not aware of that letter.

Mr Mahoney: Would you like a copy?

Ms Valvasori: Financial responsibility, definitely, but where's the accountability? I would really like to see accountability in there as well.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Northwestern Ontario Employers' Advocacy Council for giving us their presentation this morning.

0920

THUNDER BAY AND DISTRICT INJURED WORKERS SUPPORT GROUP

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. 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 a little time for questions and comments. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Steve Mantis: My name is Steve Mantis. I'm the vice-president of the Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group. With me is Francis Bell, one of our members and presently the coordinator of our injured workers' resource centre in Thunder Bay. Mr Bell also wears another hat, which is a private business, and he had signed up for standing in front of the committee, was on the waiting list, and was unable to obtain a slot. We were hoping he would have some time today as well.

That leads me into our disappointment that the committee decided not to travel to Thunder Bay. Thunder Bay has always been the centre of northwestern Ontario and has had a keen interest in the issues of workers' compensation. We've had many members of our organization phoning the resource centre asking for more information: Can they be at the hearings? We're sorry that they had to be denied that opportunity. I would like to thank you, though, for the opportunity of allowing us to travel here to Sault Ste Marie and present before you today.

The Thunder Bay and District Injured Workers Support Group was founded in 1984 in response to then pending legislation, Bill 101. We have pretty close to 500 members right now in the organization. We're democratically controlled, and our purpose is, as laid out in our brief, to support and educate injured workers.

I'd like to start with, as well, a little bit of background on how we came up with our position. We got copies of Bill 165. Our board of directors met with other interested members in the community on I believe it was five occasions. We put in five evenings that were usually from 7 o'clock until 10:30 or 11 o'clock at night, and we went through the bill clause by clause, debating, arguing, sending people back for more information. So our official positions are in Appendix A, and they come with considerable debate and interest from 14 or 15 people. This is not one person; this is considerable debate with people: lawyers, injured workers and union representatives.

I'd like to start with a few comments on the unfunded liability. This is what this bill is in response to. We've been hearing about this for a couple of years in some great amount of hoopla, and most people go: "Unfunded liability, $11 billion. They're in debt $11 billion, just like the government. Isn't this incredible?" But most people don't understand it's not a debt. The WCB does not borrow money from anybody. They do not pay interest, as would take place in a normal situation. As a matter of fact, the WCB has some $7 billion sitting in the bank that it collects, averaging $400 million to $450 million in interest. That's not a debt to me. I don't know how you would feel, but I wouldn't consider myself in debt if I had that kind of money coming in on a regular basis.

We talk about financial accountability. All in favour. Financial accountability, from a business point of view, is that you have a balanced budget. That means that the income coming in and the income going out balance, and the legislation gives you your parameters and that directs your activity. You've got to be financially responsible; you make sure in and out balance.

Well, the act says you compensate people who are hurt or have a disease at work. Now, do it in a financially responsible manner. If you drive the organization in such a way that you say, "We can't afford to pay it," I'm not sure that's financially responsible. The legislation sets out your responsibility. It says the employer will pay assessments to pay it now; let's be financially accountable and responsible. That does not mean that if someone says they can't pay you, you believe them. I'm sorry.

The official position of the Thunder Bay Injured Workers is opposition to this bill. It came through great debate, as I said. We're talking about people who would be eligible, if this bill is passed, to receive that $200 a month. They said, "If it's a tradeoff between me getting the $200 and other people losing benefits and going into poverty, the answer is no." When you've got a person who's on welfare and says, "I will decide not to take that $200 so that my brothers and sisters are not hurt down the road," that person is making a significant sacrifice. I don't know if anyone's experienced that kind of lifestyle.

The situation that we have for workers' compensation is that those people who end up with a permanent disability is where the system fails. This is a small percentage of the total people who register those claims. Those 400,000 or 500,000 claims a year boil down to maybe 10,000 permanent injuries or disabilities, and these are the people who are our members. These are the people who don't get better and all of a sudden can just go back to work again.

If you have a permanent disability, you have to find ways to adapt and to hopefully get back to work or begin a new life. These are the people who traditionally have been ending up with very small pensions, and legislation for the last 10 years has tried to address the problem. Bill 101 tried to do something. Bill 81 tried to help out with the indexing. Bill 162 said, "Yes, we recognize and we're going give you the older workers' supplement." Bill 165 says, "Yes, we recognize this and we're going to give you another $200." This is the group of men and women who have suffered and continue to suffer. Our opposition to this bill is based on, in very large part, the section 148 amendments to the de-indexing that are creating that same condition.

I lost my arm 15 years ago at work, working in construction. In that last 15 years, I have seen inflation go up one and a half times. If the Friedland formula had been in place, my pension would be worth 30% less today than when I got hurt. See my arm grow back yet? Well, 30% has grown back: It's okay; it's all right.

0930

Now, I'm just a young man. I've got another 21 years until I become a senior citizen, 65. So if we go with the same rate, my pension's going to drop another third. Because I get older, my disability increases, but under Friedland, what happens? My payments get smaller and smaller and smaller. Why is that? Can you explain that to me? Can you explain why, when my disability gets worse, I get less money? If you can explain that to me, maybe we can begin to have some discussion on cutting back benefits to that group of people that is most vulnerable, that group of people who are not going to get better, who get worse.

It's a very emotional issue for me because it's something that I live day in and day out. What gets to be really disappointing is that we see solutions. There are solutions. You look at different systems. You look around the world and there are systems that work much better than ours. Those systems all have the same basic principles.

The very first principle is prevent the accident, right up at the top. That's number one. If anything gets in the way of that, you change it, because that's the most important. That's the solution that works for everybody.

What's number two? Number two is rehabilitation, and rehabilitation in a way that addresses people as human beings.

This system is so complex and so mind-boggling. An injured worker gets hurt. First of all, there's the immediate pain and the suffering and there's the doubt: "What's going to happen to me? Am I going to be able to do what I used to be able to do? Can I work? Am I going to be able to make the mortgage payment?" They're now relying on WCB, and what happens? They don't know what the heck is going on. They don't know whether they're going to get a cheque next week. They don't know if they're going to be looked after later on. They don't know if they're going to have help with getting back to work. They don't know if they can trust these people. You think that's going to help a person who's already vulnerable?

I'll give you one example: the Weyerhaeuser company in the States, biggest forest products producer in the country. One of their employees gets hurt, ends up in the hospital. The next day, the mill manager is at the hospital, saying: "We're sorry you got hurt. We're here for you. We'll do anything we can to help you." The next day his foreman is there: "We want you back. We value your contribution to our company. We're sorry you got hurt."

Do you know how many injured workers have their employers say they're sorry, those people who are legally responsible to protect them and their safety? Not too many. But you know what Weyerhaeuser has found? Weyerhaeuser has found that its costs have gone down. They've saved $480 million in the first five years of the program.

Appeals? Appeals blight the system. What happened with Weyerhaeuser? Their appeal rate fell; productivity picked up. What's the problem here? We've got examples that work. Why don't we do it?

Presently, rehabilitation with the Workers' Compensation Board, the primary purpose is to set benefit levels. Once that's out of the way, maybe rehab can kick in.

This is your responsibility, ladies and gentlemen. You make the laws. They're following the law. That's the way you set it up. You want a solution? Read the 1987 Minna-Majesky task force report. People from all parts of the community gave recommendations. They have, and it's quoted in our brief, recommendations on where to put rehabilitation. You put it right up front.

When the system is clearly there to help that person get better, chances are it will work. But when you have all these different competing interests and complexity, well, you all know very well the system is not working. The message has to be to everyone very clearly: The main purpose is to help this person recover. It's amazing; when you do that, it works. I work in rehabilitation myself and I see it day after day. If you're there, supportive, and you tell the truth and you give people the choices, their recovery is much faster.

The Acting Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I just want to break in for a second. You have about five minutes.

Mr Mantis: Okay. I think we've really covered a number of the important points. There's so much to talk about and we're sorry that you only have found time for 20 minutes per presentation. We encourage you the next time around to try to spend a bit more time on these issues that are so important to workers in this province, 160,000 workers with permanent disabilities.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr Martin, about a minute and a half.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for your presentation and thanks for travelling this distance. There's always a battle over where these committees will go, and we had one here locally a while back about another committee that isn't coming here. However, we've won out in this round. We have three out of four appearing in the Sault. Anyway, I appreciate your coming.

I know, Steve, that you make the effort always to get around the province and link with your brothers and sisters in the injured worker movement, and you've come with a very credible presentation based on your own experience and the experience of your workers.

I just wanted to say that given a world where there was unlimited ability to pay for services and all of that, there are probably things that all of us would like to do and would do. I don't think there's anybody around this table who doesn't feel a high degree of compassion re the question of injured workers. I don't think there's anybody who doesn't agree, as you have stated, that the basic focus is to try to look after people, rehabilitate them if we can and get them back into the workplace so that they can become contributing members again, which is what they, in my experience of injured workers, want as well.

We feel in this bill that we've found a balance, which actually has been criticized from both sides. Sometimes, in my short experience in the Legislature over four years, that speaks to me as a position that maybe is close to being where we can afford to be at the moment.

However, I just wanted to check. I know that you know that in fact what you presented as your own case scenario, that as time goes on, you will get less benefits. I just wanted to clarify. You will get less of an increase in benefits. You will not get less than you're getting today, but the "less" you're talking about is less increase. That's correct.

Do you personally qualify for the $200 older worker supplement, and is that enough, I guess is the question I would have. I know as well that there's a piece in here that sees, as I read it, the most vulnerable groups of injured workers and dependents continuing to receive fully indexed benefits.

The Acting Chair: Quickly, Mr Martin, please.

Mr Martin: Does that affect you in any way personally?

Mr Mantis: No, I wouldn't be entitled to the $200. As an amputee, I am treated as well as the system treats injured workers, so personally I don't have a lot of complaints. It's those people who aren't amputees, which is 99%, who have the problems. The $200 is a random figure, and when you have 160,000 people on permanent disability, it's tough to say $200 is fair in all cases.

0940

Our position would be, let's take a look at the situation and if the person is unable to work and was unsuccessful at returning to work, he or she should be compensated with full wage loss. That's what this system's supposed to be. It's supposed to be a wage loss system. We're supposed to compensate people who lost income. Let's do it. Let's do it fairly. Let's do it accurately. We've got computers; it's not too hard.

Mr Mahoney: I think you just said it all right there, and I appreciate that. I know that you're committed to this system and that you've done a lot of work and continue to do a lot of work on the board and other areas.

You opened up with a comment about the unfunded liability, and I've tried to understand why it is the lightning rod. Workers' compensation is so complex that when you try to explain it perhaps in a media press release or suggestions that you're trying to make, with all due respect, the media's eyes just glaze over as you stand there talking to them. It's so complicated that it's difficult to put in a 30-second television byte.

I think one of the reasons the unfunded liability has become a lighting rod is that people can understand an $11-billion debt. But I also believe that it is perhaps overstated in the sense that what we really need with the unfunded liability is what they attempted to do in 1984, and that is put in place a financial plan over a long term. I mean, you don't eliminate your mortgage in a day or two or a year. You amortize it over 25 or 30 years.

I believe if we establish a system, and in fact my report recommends that we establish a system that would increase the asset side, the $6 billion to $7 billion that you referred to, at the same time decreasing the debt side so that ultimately you could get to -- I suggest 75% is actually full funding, but if you want to go to 100% over time, that's fine. But it's got to be long range and focus more on service delivery, quickly getting people back to work. That is going to reduce the costs at the Workers' Compensation Board.

I guess I'm pontificating, but I agree with your reaction to the unfunded --

Mr Martin: Three minutes --

Mr Mahoney: Well, you're used to me doing that. In deference to the local member, I listened for five minutes.

The Acting Chair: And the hook is the same.

Mr Mahoney: And the hook is the same. I just wonder if you have any comments on that.

Mr Mantis: This is one of the really sad parts of the system. We live in a capitalist society. Some of us are happy about that, some of us aren't, but the bottom line is the dollar. The bottom line is evaluated in terms of who pays who what.

Businesses have found across North America that if they can get governments to reduce costs in workers' compensation, they get a big return on their investment. That's the bottom line. There is a campaign across North America by employers to cut benefits and they're using the unfunded liability, because it's hard to understand and because it's an $11-billion debt, to cut benefits. That's what happening, and my real disappointment is that when any government buys into that, you know what the message is? The message is, it's cheaper now to hurt and kill workers. That's the message, and I find that shameful. It's figured out on the bottom line.

I think, bill them totally. When people realize that it costs a lot to hurt people, they're going to find ways to stop it. That's the way business works. If costs in this area get real high, you find ways to fix them. If you can find ways to keep costs down without fixing the problem, through the back door, then why not? It's capitalism, it's okay. But I find it shameful.

I think, pay the cost and people will find ways. You won't have to have experience rating. People will know: "Hey, I'm paying way too much. I'm going to make sure that my workers are protected. I'm going to make sure that I look after them. And when they get hurt, I'm going to do the best I can to get them safe, healthy and back to work." That's an incentive.

The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, the hook is out. Mr Carr, please.

Mr Carr: I appreciate your comments. I wish we had an opportunity to go to Thunder Bay as well. I was there last week. The weather was beautiful and we had a great time. I was up on one of the forestry bills and we had actually a lovely time. We were there for a couple of days, so I wish we had an opportunity to go back.

I want to deal with the question of the unfunded liability as well. As you know, basically the unfunded liability is the difference between what is owed and what is coming in. You mentioned what's coming in, but what is owed is owed to your people, the injured workers.

I think what people don't realize is that if this system collapses, it isn't the employers who are going to be hurt. The people who are owed the money are the injured workers. They're on the hook for it. People say, "Well, the system will never collapse," but as we found out in the social contract, we never thought we'd see an NDP government open up contracts and roll back wages, but when the money runs out, there is no alternative.

Do the injured workers realize that if nothing is done and the system collapses, the people who will be hurt most, because there will be absolutely no money to pay them, isn't the government or the employers? Do your members realize that it's they who potentially could get nothing if the system collapses? Do they realize who's on the hook for this unfunded liability?

Mr Mantis: I think, yes, they do realize. I think when we talk about a system collapsing, there are two ways that a system could collapse: one, if the government says, "We agree that employers don't have to pay any more," and then no money comes in. That's one way.

The other way is if there was no more employment. If there was no employment, there would be no assessments, there would be no money coming in and the system would collapse. In that situation, everybody would be out of work. If we had a fully funded system and our economy totally collapsed, if we had $18 billion in the bank and injured workers were the only ones getting paid, how long do you think that would be taking place?

We've already seen in New York state that the government has gone and said: "You've got a big pot of money. We're just going to borrow some. Trust me, I'll pay you back." Trust me, $18 billion sitting there in cash when there are tough times is not going to be overlooked. We don't have confidence that we're going to be protected when the rest of society is falling apart, so I think the idea of the collapse of the system really is a lot of rhetoric.

The Acting Chair: I thank you, gentlemen, for appearing before the committee. I know that we'll take your concerns about the bill into consideration. It was a very eloquent presentation, and thank you once again.

Mr Mantis: I have to apologize to my colleague and ask that if there's any chance -- I mean, I've got to go back with this guy. I never let him say a word. If there's any chance you've got a little slot in here, he's ready.

The Acting Chair: Okay. Thank you.

KENORA INJURED WORKERS GROUP

The Acting Chair: I would at this point call on the Kenora Injured Workers Group. If you could take a seat at the table, and when you're ready, introduce yourself for the sake of Hansard and the members of the committee and start your presentation.

Ms Lily Bergman: Good morning. My name is Lily Bergman and I'm president of the Kenora Injured Workers Group. I wish to thank you for allowing me to come to Sault Ste Marie as a member of the provincial team seeking justice and dignity for all injured workers. Twenty minutes is not long enough to tell you personally the heck I've been through.

Incidentally, I wish to assure all of you from the south, Kenora is still part of northern Ontario. We have not become a Manitoba community. We are 35 miles from the Manitoba border so we vote, we pay provincial sales tax. We are far from Toronto, but we are still members of Ontario.

0950

I wish you could have come -- I had to travel 800 miles yesterday, changing planes once, to get here, with a sore back.

I worked as a nurse at the Kenora hospital for over 15 years. Because of an industrial accident, I was left with a back injury. My worst fear: I had to deal with WCB. Its reputation is well known by the medical profession in the north. In an instant, my way of life changed dramatically.

I used to be a respected, proud, working single parent making car payments, shovelling snow -- and we get lots of it -- investing in RRSPs for my retirement years. I did all sports, including ice-skating, cross-country skiing, curling and swimming in the beautiful Lake of the Woods, and I had children to look after. Now I am labelled one of "them," an injured worker.

I had a work ethic -- I become a little emotional sometimes because it's upsetting -- taught to me from childhood: You get a job and you pay your way in life, no matter what. My father, now deceased, was from Sweden, the oldest of 10 children. My mother was also Swedish, one of the oldest of 15 children. They raised seven children, instilling in all of us: "Get a job. Work, work. Pay your way in life, no matter what. Be a proud, responsible worker and citizen." That's Swedish pride. Of course, the three girls became nurses and two boys became teachers and two boys became tradesmen. One of my brothers has his own construction company. We discuss WCB at great length. He's a millionaire.

I am the first family member to have been on WCB benefits. Now, if I had been in a car accident, I would have had my family doctor for my medical care and the community would probably have put on a dance to raise money to help me. But our society, and some fellow workers, look at injured workers as lazy bums who are abusing the system, especially injured workers with non-visible injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board has been known to tell an injured worker with a sore back, "It's all in your head; you are overreacting." But of course an MRI would reveal why such pain is present. My own doctor knew I had a sore back and I felt he was quite capable of dealing with my medical problem.

While I was hospitalized for medical care for my back in our local hospital, tests revealed that I was a diabetic, to be controlled by medication. This is not a compensable drug. I have no drug plan. I wrote Blue Cross twice. I'm too expensive; I got two negative letters. Of course, with WCB it's not compensable.

After a time of medical rehab on WCB benefits, I lost my job as a nurse because I was unable to perform my nursing duties. I loved nursing. I enjoyed nursing. I wanted to retire at 65 from nursing. It was my chosen vocation as a young child. My two sisters were nurses and my two sisters-in-law were nurses.

It was a very traumatic time for me: a single parent by choice, a child in school, no medical coverage. Believe me, it was no joke. It was hell for me and my children because I didn't have enough money.

The case worker suggested retraining as a social worker. The week I was to enter school I was hospitalized for respiratory distress. My body had shut down 80%. I hadn't slept all night and I thought it would go away in the morning. By morning, from my waist down I'd already turned yellow. I couldn't walk. An ambulance came and took me to the hospital.

I was then diagnosed a severe asthmatic with a number allergies, the worst being cigarette smoke. No, I'm not a smoker. Nobody smokes at my house. This meant more non-compensable drugs -- I had no drug plan -- medication for almost $300 a month plus all the equipment I had to buy. Good grief, was a I stressed.

Yes, I graduated from college. I made the dean's list. There were no jobs at the time for social workers in Kenora specifically in smoke-free environments. When I finished school, the government at that time designated all government offices as smoke-free. However, the clients, the consumers you serve, have a right to smoke, so whatever environment I applied for in Kenora where there was a job available the consumers would smoke. They have a right to smoke.

The case worker said she had a job for me in Thunder Bay, 300 miles away. My house, my children, my family, my friends, my church etc are all in Kenora. I have a child with special needs, cerebral palsy and severe brain damage who, after 15 years in the Northwestern Regional Centre -- that's an institution which has since closed -- had finally been deinstitutionalized and sent back to Kenora under the care of the Kenora Association for Community Living, of which I'm a founding member, in its residential program. I just could not move away and leave her alone again. I am her only advocate. Because I was not cooperating -- I would not move -- my benefits were cut off.

How degrading. "What do I do now?" Bills have to be paid. I need Ventolin and Azmacort and all my drugs. Everything has to be paid. The bills have to be paid whether you're making money or not. We all know that.

I had been the first of seven children to go on WCB and now, at the age of 58, I had to go to beg for welfare. How humiliating. Let me tell you the shame I felt. It was unbearable. My parents will surely turn in their graves: one of their children on welfare. What shame for proud parents if they'd been alive. We were very poor. My family was very poor. I was quite depressed.

An injured worker down the street, an old Swede, had been working in a logging camp and suffered an industrial accident and moved back into town in a trailer. I don't think he could sign his name. He had four children. He could not become a couch potato. He couldn't stand the pain. He'd worked hard all his life. His youngest daughter came home from school one day and he'd shot himself -- a proud, stubborn Swede.

I wasn't going to do that. Other injured workers have. In Ottawa, a man went before the legislative -- he couldn't read. He didn't understand why he was cut off. I was there in 1990. He'd shot himself previous to that, right in the legislative building.

1000

I cried and cried. "What do I do? This is a nightmare." Finally, I approached the welfare office to beg for money. How degrading at my age. I was too ashamed to admit to anyone that I was on welfare, an injured worker on welfare, another bum. I'm glad this isn't being televised in Kenora because I kind of cringe that somebody at home will find out that I was on welfare. I play bridge with the mayor's wife, Mrs Winkler, and a few other people. They didn't know I was on welfare because I have always been a proud working single parent.

During my time of looking for a job I soon learned that employers prefer not to hire workers with back problems because they are a hazard to the workplace, and especially somebody 58 years old. When you fill out the application form they ask if you've ever been on WCB. You fill it out and say yes. Why? Back problems.

I have gone to hell and back; 20 minutes can't tell you what I went through in four years. I wish just one of you would walk in my boots for a couple of months, live on my pension with no coverage for my medication. I'd be dead without it. It's no joke. It's serious.

Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night with such back pain that I lie there crying. I don't know how to lie; I don't know where to put my right leg. I'm fed up with pain. I'm sick of pain pills. WCB says, "Learn to live with it," and I'm trying. I could have surgery, but no doctor in his right mind would do surgery on a diabetic asthmatic, which I wasn't prior to my industrial accident. I was diagnosed later in life.

But life goes on. Making ends meet is a struggle. It never ends. But let me tell you one thing. I praise and thank God every day that I am alive and can, with His help, keep going. Jesus answers prayer. Life is so short when you hit 60. It is a good feeling for me when I can help another injured worker who does not know or understand where to turn after an industrial accident.

I'll leave a message with you. Please remember that when you are ready to make decisions affecting the injured workers of the future, it could be one of you or one of your dear friends or another single parent or a member of your family who has an industrial accident. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. One minute each. Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. As you will probably be aware, as we've travelled throughout the province we've heard some very strong and moving presentations such as yours dealing with what happens in real life to injured workers. I just wanted to thank you for that.

There are two things I do want to ask. You've gone through your particular case and you've sort of left me off. I just wanted to know -- you said, "Therefore my WCB benefits were cut off," because you didn't take up employment at a place that was 300 miles from where you reside. I think there isn't anyone who would think that your actions were anything other than reasonable.

What has happened since then? Have your benefits been restored? And secondly, very short, have you any comment on the Bill 165 before this committee?

Ms Bergman: I suppose my one big comment is that the $200 a month is like a million, $10,000 to some of you, and certainly could benefit the older injured worker like myself. From the stories I hear from injured workers at our meetings I certainly would welcome $200 for some of them. They're living in poverty.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Johnson.

Mr David Johnson: Ms Bergman, I would like to thank you as well. It has obviously been a very difficult circumstance for you to come before us and explain a most difficult series of events that you've gone through in your life, but I think hearing that kind of experience does give us the opportunity to learn at first hand. I certainly appreciate that.

You represent, as I understand it, the Kenora injured and disabled workers' support group. Is that correct? Could you tell us, in the minute that I've got to ask you a question, does that particular group support the bill that's before us or has it taken a position on the bill that's before us?

Ms Bergman: We support the Ontario network. We do not support Bill 165 but we would enjoy the $200.

Mr David Johnson: You'd enjoy the $200, but essentially your group is opposed to the bill as it stands before us.

Ms Bergman: Yes.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Thank you very much, Ms Bergman, for appearing before the committee. You tell a very compelling story, and I think all of us empathize with your plight. What I do want to say to you is simply this. You mention the $200 pension and how much that will mean. I think that's important for members of this committee and especially the Liberals to hear over and over again, because this government has been criticized on a number of occasions over the past week around the $200 and around whether or not the whole compensation system can afford it.

I think you demonstrated today, in a much better way than I could ever demonstrate, how this government can't afford not to come up with at least another $200 a month. So on behalf of the government I simply want to say thank you.

Ms Bergman: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair: If I may, because of your story I would surely encourage you to participate in the royal commission that's going to be done on workers' compensation.

Ms Bergman: I'm a very, very private person. I don't share my problems with anybody except my lawyer and you. People in Kenora didn't know I was on welfare.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for bringing us your presentation this morning.

JOHN MURPHY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, an injured worker, John Murphy. 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr John Murphy: My name is John Murphy and I'm an injured worker. I'm totally opposed to Bill 165, but I'll state why after the fact.

Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address you regarding Bill 165. Proposed changes will affect not only those like myself who have been injured on the job but have the potential to affect every worker in compensable employment in the province. As such, these changes should not be hastily adopted.

1010

I have followed this committee closely and we have heard a lot from employer groups about the cost to the employer. I can understand their concerns. However, I ask the committee to consider the cost to the worker. I will use my case as an illustration of these costs although, as a volunteer workers' rep, I have seen it repeated in nearly every claim in which a worker cannot return to employment.

I worked for 42 years of my life, and to date would have worked 46 years if not for my compensable injury. In my last year of employment I earned $29,000 in six months. Before the recurrence that forced me out of the workplace my estimated earnings would have been $56,000, or $4,600 a month. Today, my actual income is $2,751, consisting of WCB pension, Canada pension disability, 147(4) benefits and an employer's pension. This leaves me with a net loss of $1,915.05 a month. It is fortunate that my injury did not force me out of the workforce sooner. My pension would have been lower.

As I mentioned, this situation is repeated in thousands of claims across the province, with the real cost of the workers' compensation, including financial distress to the worker, marital discord, bankruptcy and related social costs. I consider myself fortunate through my years of employment. I was fortunate enough to put a little aside and now I'm not faced with the same distress that I see on a regular basis. When I do see the distress I attempt to assist where possible.

The act, if administered as it is currently written, might indeed assist the worker. However, employer pressure has caused decision-makers to cut costs wherever possible, and I do intend for that to be interpreted as on the back of the injured worker. I and members of the medical profession to whom I have spoken are actually aware of the low-ball pensioning assessments of workers whose treating physicians advise them not to return to any modified work, of benefits being cut with no documented medical changes, of 147(4) benefits being repealed or denied solely on the basis of a worker's age -- maybe this is what is referred to by the board as the older worker's supplement -- the workers being denied benefits from documented syndromes directly linked to their injuries.

If an employer group succeeds in forcing this bill through, we are all going to see benefits that already do not keep pace with the cost of living being reduced to 80% indexed. In this manner, that will cause workers to fall even further behind their customary earnings with each succeeding year.

We see nothing in this bill to improve the already deplorable management of vocational rehabilitation. Instead, we see means whereby forcing the injured worker into rehabilitation before he is ready, in the treating physician's opinions, will be administered by people with no medical expertise, and this will be supported by legislation. Should not the role of the treating physician, the very issue on which most vocational rehabilitation-related appeals are being based, receive at least as much legislative mandate as the bureaucrats who examine the workers?

Future economic loss ratings, which were introduced as a result of Bill 162, are based on those vocational rehabilitation decisions and are routinely seeing situations where decision-makers are being told in writing by the treating physician and specialist that the worker cannot perform the employment selected, yet benefits are cut to reflect the difference between pre-accident earnings and those arbitrarily selected positions. I am even aware of claims where the employer's physician said the worker could not perform the occupation, yet the FEL has proceeded through R-1 ratings, confirming the decision of the voc rehab worker, which directly contradicts the employer.

Employers are now required to offer modified work for a minimum of six months, where possible, to the workers. I routinely see cases where these employers are offering them this modified work, then terminating the employment as soon as possible. Or the employers will drag the process out until two years have passed. Then they are no longer obligated to re-employ.

Every worker in Ontario should be treated equally and should receive every benefit to which he is entitled without having to proceed to lengthy appeals. Currently, in Ontario we have three classes of citizens among the injured workers: pre-1984, who are the most deprived, 1984-89 workers and those injured in 1990. A steelworker with a 10% disability in 1985 might receive $150 a month, while a steelworker in 1989 with a 10% disability would receive $240 a month. A worker in 1992 receiving a 10% FEL award would receive $400 and a NEL award of $4,000. Should not the same degree of disability be equally compensated? This new bill will create even more inconsistency, modifying the indexing of some pensions, providing top-ups to others and continuing to deny some supplements to which their treating physicians contend they are entitled.

I mentioned my own case at the opening of my presentation. A remarkable miracle will occur in about three years. I will miraculously no longer be disabled from work, since 147(4) benefits will no longer be available to me, supplements under the CPP will not be available to me and my employer's pension will be reduced. My overall loss will approach $1,000 monthly. Thus, instead of losing $1,915 monthly, I will be losing $2,915 monthly. I dare say I am losing on a scale greater than my employer, yet my employer is being heard.

I would appreciate a bit of time to make a small submission here on a case that I have permission to use.

I hear people talking about the Workers' Compensation Board, and I would like to say you've made an awful mistake by firing Mr Odoardo Di Santo. He put a project into perspective. It's an action plan which would have helped along the injured worker. However, they decided for some reason that Mr Di Santo was helping the injured workers, so they kicked him out and they put Ken Copeland in, who is not legally appointed yet but in a position of running the board.

What I want to get to is I have two letters from an employer, and these letters refer to this girl as a permanent worker. She has honesty, reliability, integrity and so on. Here's another letter of recommendation.

The employer did not know anything about the Workers' Compensation Act and I can understand that. She made her accident report out and applied immediately on the accident report for SIEF. But then she wrote a letter to an MPP in southern Simcoe county, accusing this employee of having committed fraud, laziness, dissension, theft and, "How much longer must I go on paying for this idiot?"

When I deal with the Workers' Compensation Board, I have to deal with adjudicators. I personally know Mr Odoardo Di Santo and found him to be a very reliable and dependable man. But as I say, I have to deal with adjudicators, and unless I see something wrong, I do not bother going up the line. However, this MPP saw fit to send the chairman of the board a letter saying how there were concerns with the employee, and the board reacted on it and said, "Well no, you signed an accident report and said this accident did happen," but then they had to use a director to send that letter.

I've seen it numerous times, an employee being discriminated against by corporations. I was in a labour dispute in 1990. I was on modified work, could no longer work, but being as I was in a labour dispute, they had no record whatsoever of my compensable injury or an ongoing problem. Well, they had five letters from orthopaedic specialist Dr Patrick Fyfe stating my condition had deteriorated beyond. If it had not been for the amount of money that I had in reserves and what not, I would have wound up like a lot of injured workers: on welfare, social assistance of some kind, because it would have brought me down to that.

I feel sorry and I detest any person that speaks against a legitimately injured person. I find it atrocious for somebody to say: "This guy is faking. He's a bum." I watch it in the Legislature every day. I watch all you people. I see it all, and sometimes I think it is a comedy show.

1020

But what I want to impress on you is you cannot realize the indignation and the results of an injury to an honest, legitimate worker. Everybody is not a crook. They do not commit fraud. If medical evidence is there, it should be honoured by the board and there shouldn't be a 20-mile string to go through before you can get your compensation. I know of several cases, but I'm not going to elaborate on them now because I don't have permission to talk on them.

I'm open to any questions now.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Mr Carr, about two minutes each.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I think as MPPs we can spend up to 60% of our days dealing with the WCB. I probably have written to the chairman of WCB more than anybody else in this job. When something comes in, whether it's from an injured worker or employer or whatever, what I simply do, I don't even make a judgement on it; I write a letter. I basically am a middleman to try to make sure that the chairman then gets involved. So the system is extremely difficult in the way we work.

The problem we've got -- and I'll try to put it in a nutshell -- is very simply that the revenue coming in and the revenue going out don't match up. Some will disagree why that is. Businesses can't afford to pay any more. In terms of WCB cost, they're already hit with high taxes. That isn't anybody's fault; it's probably been governments at all levels and all political stripes that have put roadblocks up to businesses because of WCB costs, the overregulation.

So the problem is that the government's challenge is, how do you deal with it? You seem to be saying that in your particular case, you need more money to live; you're a legitimate concern. The problem the government is dealing with is the amount of money right now that it's paying out doesn't equal what is coming in. The problem, as I mentioned to the other injured workers, is that the people on the hook for this at the end of the day aren't the government or the employers. The other chap said that the system isn't about to collapse and didn't believe the circumstances, but the fact of the matter is, the people who are owed the money are the injured workers.

As we go through this, do you have any comments on what I believe should be some of the solutions -- and I think even the chap before mentioned that -- with regard to prevention? I think the one thing that you would get agreement on from all political parties and injured workers and employers is the prevention. Do you have any suggestions to this committee as to what can be done in terms of prevention? Because I agree with the other gentleman who said the best way to deal with it is to try to deal with the prevention issue, rather than dealing with it after the fact, when people get injured such as yourself. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr Murphy: I do have a lot of comments; I could go on for a week. But I've seen where people are trained in a job. They're work-safe. Remember, I've worked in construction in 50 degrees below zero and I've worked in heats of 150 degrees above zero. I'm not familiar with the other scale so I'm going to use that. I've seen people killed, I've seen people injured, maimed, arms ripped out, legs ripped out.

These are accidents. These people are not lunatics. They do not go out -- and I can't emphasize this on you enough. I didn't go out to injure myself. What happened was the employer decided they were going to retrain us into other jobs. I never had really an injury before that. What happened was unfamiliarity. Remember how long I've worked: longer than some of you people have been alive.

I realize what goes on in industry and I see the lies and the deceits of the employer who said, "We are trying to accommodate." You are all familiar with the new rating. My ex-employer just got $1.4 million back from the Workers' Compensation Board for all the implementation of their program. There are still people getting hurt there, but every letter that goes out has an SIEF on it. I don't know if the guy went to the washroom and hurt himself, but there's an SIEF on it right away.

To eliminate injuries in the workplace, you have to make it safe. I would like to take some of you people -- Mr Mahoney's uncle would be familiar with the mill that I worked in. You could walk no place without walking on grease. When temperatures get high, it's like walking on a skating-rink. You'd better be able to skate. The injuries happen. "My God, the guy was clumsy. He was a bum. What's the matter with this SOB? He's crazy." You get down under a mill and you start working in heat and everything and you get hurt and the employer right away disputes that fact: "It didn't happen that way; you have committees set up."

Algoma Steel is doing a remarkable job right now with its improvements. However, at the same time, the injuries are still happening. I know they're unfortunate. When these injuries happen, you're talking about respectable, honest people who are suffering.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Fletcher.

Mr Fletcher: I thought Mr Martin was --

The Vice-Chair: We only have two minutes. There's only time for one.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation and I'll leave enough time for Mr Martin. I was just going to say, I remember about 15 years ago when I first started work, I was just a young guy starting out in industry, and I lifted up some stuff the wrong way and threw my back out. It still hurts today and there are lot of things -- sometimes I wake up in the morning and it's hard to roll off the bed and things like that.

The company contested it, saying it was my fault because I didn't lift right, but they'd never trained me for that. Is this a common occurrence in industry? From my experience, that's what I see. It's nice to talk about prevention in one breath, but let's really get into the prevention of it and get to where the crux of the problem is and that's in the training of employees and the partnerships that have to be built within the workplace. Is that the way we should be going as far as prevention?

Mr Murphy: For prevention you have education is the greatest prevention there ever is. At Algoma Steel, I hear some of the guys talking. I remember there was a lot of distress because of the company pretty near going bankrupt -- well, they were bankrupt at one time and the way they're talking about the board going bankrupt. But I think a company should pay the full cost to an employee. Everybody seems to forget what the Meredith report was: It was to protect the company, not the employee.

What I'm basically saying is, when you get injured -- I've noticed in hundreds of cases, if you get injured and the company interferes with the process of the WCB, immediately you're discriminated against by the WCB because the company said, "Hey, I don't want to pay these costs," and that's what happens.

People are suffering. I heard the lady just before me talking about the case of people shooting themselves. There are some people in the Brockville psychiatric institution who had minor injuries, so to speak -- but what I'm saying is in the workplace itself, a man can be respected, and if the job is put into its perspective of where the employee can handle it, he goes back. I went back four times. My orthopaedic surgeon told me I should go and see a psychiatrist because anybody with three damaged discs in their back shouldn't be working in heavy industry.

Unfortunately, I had to retire. I couldn't stay any more. But as I say, I'm a lot more fortunate than the injured workers who had the $400-a-month pension and the $147 supplement and they're on welfare with their families. They lost their homes and everything. I'm appalled at some of the things that I see in the cases that I handle.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much, John, and I appreciate your presentation. By the way, not only my uncle Jack would understand, but my dad worked there, my brother worked there and several other uncles and a long history of the Mahoney family at Algoma Steel, as you know.

Speaking of that, I toured Algoma within the last year, went through the plant, met with the health and safety officials. It's my understanding that much of the design of the health and safety training program has come out of experience at Algoma Steel; that Algoma, working cooperatively with the United Steelworkers, have developed some of the best return-to-work modified work plans, ergonomics, all of the latest stuff in WCB treatment.

You made comments with regard to employers, John, that were not very flattering -- and that's fine; I appreciate where you're coming from on that -- but my experience is that Algoma is part of the solution working with the Steelworkers and that they've really got a lot of the answers that could well reform workers' compensation if only we would listen to some of them, both the management and the workers, who, of course, in this situation, are one and same, in a sense. Do you find the problem, in your particular case, is with the employer or is it with the bureaucratic mess that's been created at the Workers' Compensation Board?

Mr Murphy: That's a two-sided sword, Steve, and what I'd like to say is that I had a case a year ago at Algoma Steel. All safety and health aspects were in effect. They were taking the injured worker back to work, but the job they gave him was beyond his medical capability to perform. The man reinjured himself. He lived without benefits for five months. I tried to talk to the company, but because I was retired, they would not see me. So it was arranged at the Workers' Compensation Board. All I was trying to explain to them was, "If you've got a program in effect, why are you asking a man with no bending, twisting and turning to paint walls, climbing ladders? Why are you asking a man to carry more than he's capable of carrying now?"

1030

It's okay to invoke a safety program, but if you don't live by it -- it sounds good when I take you through there. I can take you through there and you couldn't hurt yourself if you wanted to, or I can take you in there and leave you blind and you can get hurt. The size of Algoma Steel and the scope, they don't have an ergonomic. A case worker here in Sault Ste Marie with the Workers' Compensation Board says: "Yes, this man can perform. This company is obliging you. They're taking you back." But when a guy gets reinjured and he waits five months for benefits because the employer said this didn't happen -- but there's that word, SIEF, again. I hear people saying, "Well, the employer's got to pay this and got to pay that." I have a little sheet here where I had to pay $2,100 out of my own pocket to help an injured worker. But I don't charge people and I don't mind helping them out, but when I see employers saying, "Hey, buddy, I'm looking after you," and the next day the guy is reinjured again, I wonder how much he really is looking after him.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Murphy, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for taking the time out this morning and giving us your presentation.

INJURED WORKERS' ADVOCATES OF SAULT STE MARIE

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Injured Workers' Advocates of Sault Ste Marie. Good morning and welcome to the committee. A reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mr Pat Jolin: My name is Pat Jolin. I'm president of an organization of Sault Ste Marie, the Injured Workers' Advocates. With me I have José Cormo, who is an injured worker and who has been a long-standing member of my organization. I'm also vice-president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, representing northeastern Ontario as a whole.

I'm here today to speak to this committee on Bill 165. Because of workplace injuries, workers with disabilities are facing serious problems which are putting them into poverty situations, as we know. Also, don't forget, because of Bill 162 as put in by the previous government, it has added dilemma to the now standing position that we're fighting with Bill 165.

As a result, over 40,000 workers on small WCB disability pensions whom the board has deemed unlikely to benefit from rehabilitation remain disqualified and/or unemployed. Thousands of workers across Ontario have had to acquire social assistance benefits in order to survive or to live. As you're aware, and I believe the committee as a whole, on all sides of government, should be aware, it has affected every injured worker or the future injured workers.

Unemployed workers with disabilities face major income reductions in WCB's deeming process, and alternate employment prospects are dim and almost impossible to get, as disabled people suffer an unemployment rate of over 40% in Canada as a whole.

Another key problem in the system is the area of health and safety. As you're aware, the current system of financial incentives and penalties, experience rating, encourages employers to challenge entitlement decisions. This is something that should be clearly looked at by all walks of government present and future. We should have this deeming process -- as you know, we've been fighting for quite a while to get it eliminated and we should stand by that.

Experience rating, because they do not penalize employers for claims due to occupational diseases, discourages industrial hygiene practices. That is something else that the employers are getting away with. The past government has let them do it; the present government, much to our dissatisfaction, has let them do it. We're hoping that this committee will do something in the future so that whatever future government is in there will prevent this from happening again.

The experience rating process and programs do little to reward health and safety practices because they measure the wrong thing. What I feel is they're not penalizing employers; they're helping them by giving them rebates, major rebates to major companies, and the injured worker is being told in no uncertain terms by the employer, small or large, that if they go on WCB, disability pensions or otherwise, they will not have a job in the future.

This is something that totally should be against the better judgement and better behaviour of any government politician. They should be looking towards the injured worker, his rights and his benefits.

Administratively, the WCB is in shambles. We know that, we hear about it every day, but it's not our fault. It's the bureaucracy of the government that has been handling and controlling the WCB. It's about time something is done. Our friends in power right now -- and I say our friends; I say that very openly today -- the NDP, are the only ones that have in any effect supported anything for the injured workers as a whole. The past and maybe the future governments we're hoping will listen to us. We're sick and tired of being pushed around. We're being discriminated against and it's totally unfair. So I'm hoping that this committee will do something in the future process about that.

As you know, WCB is really an insurance scheme. It's an insurance project. It's a system by which employers pay premiums into this as an exchange for being exempt from lawsuits by injured workers. The government knows this, because it was the government that put it all together in years past. It's the government that stands for it today and in the future. So therefore, if that's the way they feel, they shouldn't be on the side of the employer, they should be on the impartial side, but the injured worker should have the benefit of the doubt.

I therefore say that funding the system is not just a diversion of moneys but a direct employer obligation to the injured worker to have a retraining program, a back-to-work system that will work if at all possible, or else recommendations should be made in different directions.

Our friend Mr Bob Rae is very aware of this, as you know. He has fought for us, with us, in the past. So did other members of Parliament who are in this room today. The thing is, we are still not getting any further ahead, and this Bill 165 is just propaganda in my eyes of government issues just being placed out in the public. I don't believe it's really being adhered to.

Bill 165, in the context of the way it's written, is an employers's bill in my eyes. This is personal. I speak for my organization. I speak because I've been across the province as well. I've been attending many hearings and meetings such as this. We're just scared that the bill as it is intended today is not in the favour of the injured worker as a whole. There are too many blank spots, ands, ifs or buts. In the old act at least it stated there "will" be, there "shall" be, rules and regulations set out that the employer must comply with and that the government, being part of the relationship between workers' compensation, shall contend with. In this Bill 165, it says "may" or "might" or "if."

There is nothing presidential that is a directive in the favour of being compatible towards right and wrong of the employer, and the injured workers are going to be the ones to suffer. I feel with all my heart that if this bill is passed as is, without a few modifications -- we do agree with some of the situations in the bill, but as is, I believe it's just a slap in the face and it's not going to really help the injured worker.

The older pensioners who are expecting this $200, we're getting flooded, just like all the other offices across Ontario: "Do I get it? Am I going to get it? I've been cut off 147(4). We're fighting it. It's in appeal. The technical adviser in the region has cut me off because he said I'm not complying with the board's rules." This is crap. It should be for all older injured workers, whether they are in receipt of 147(4) or not, or if they have been or if they're going to be. We are getting flooded with those calls, as I believe are most of your offices. That should be one of the major rectifying positions of this bill.

1040

The other thing with the network as a whole -- as you know, we've made statements of compromising with the Ontario Federation of Labour, with the CLC and with our MPPs, as well as with the government itself -- is the Friedland formula. If that goes into effect, it's going to help the employer, it's going to help the unfunded liability, but there again it's going to deprive the lower-income injured worker who is on even maybe social assistance from surviving, and this is totally unfair.

The network's position, which I also represent and stand for, is we have taken a census right across the province of Ontario, and we ask that this committee listen to the injured workers, the different groups, the different participants, because it's very important. We are the ones who are being hurt; you are the ones who are supposed to be looking after us. We can talk all day, we can talk all month, all year. It's not doing any good talking. We need something done now. It's hurting everybody, including myself. I am an injured worker.

I'd like to introduce right now one of the injured workers of my group who is frustrated, and I would like him just to briefly touch on the bases, how he feels, how he's been hurt and how he feels he's going to be hurt in the future with this bill. His name is José Cormo, and we've fought very extensively on his case, which was in black and white. We should not have had to take the steps that we did, but we did gain as we went up the ladder. Unfortunately, this Bill 165 is going to stop that ladder from being climbed. It's going to go backwards. José?

Mr José Cormo: Just I can say a lot of promise, nothing done for the poor injured workers.

Mr Jolin: How do you feel about this bill?

Mr Cormo: I feel that for me, I'm an old man, and I think they ought to help me, help other ones too, if they go like that.

Mr Jolin: Just to touch bases on that, what José is trying to say, he's like many of the people of not only the Sault but the province of Ontario: He is not illiterate, but he is a person who is not understood because of his capability with the English language. That is a barrier, and it's a barrier that's been happening in different languages. It's also, I might add, a barrier of the injured worker towards the government representation that he's supposed to be receiving, and by government representation, I say the WCB involved in that system as we try and fight for our rights, for your claim or for your doctor's rights to be heard instead of the WCB deeming and them saying: "Okay, that was the meat chart. This is what you are."

I'm totally fed up with the whole situation. I have been since I've been fighting pre-Bill 162. It's an ongoing system, and I'm hoping this committee will make changes and stand for the rights of the injured worker as a whole, not just as a bunch of bureaucrats sitting in the back room having coffee and saying: "Well, do you think we should do this? Do you think we should do that?"

I believe, with all dignity and assurance for the injured worker in the future, in the past and today, on this Bill 165 there should be more meetings, more hearings, and they should be listened to a heck of a lot more to get some rights out on the table and get some information from the injured workers themselves so that they can be heard and so something can be done about it. I thank you very much.

Mr Martin: Thanks, Pat, for coming forward again. Your presentation this morning has not surprised me at all. It's consistent with the message you've been bringing to my office and to tables that I've sat around over the last four years, and certainly in this community for a lot longer. Again, we're hearing you. You're telling the story, and it's a story that needs to be told.

We have a system at this point in time that's not working. It's not working for injured workers, and it's obviously not working for employers either, because none of them have come forward to say the way it is is ideal. Indeed, our small effort here to try to change the system to respond to some of the anxiety that's out there is not meeting with a great deal of support either, to be honest with you. We haven't had one employer come forward who is supporting this, and yet we have groups like yourselves, Pat, saying that what we're doing here isn't enough.

As a government, we're trying to find some balance. We know that it has to be fixed. The commission will give us some information that hopefully you will participate in, and this legislation at this point will take us a distance to managing a problem we have that we may or may not agree is big or small, but nevertheless is out there, and that's the unfunded liability.

I wanted to ask you a couple of things, Pat, because I know that you can speak to it more eloquently than I can.

One, the issue that you've brought to my office most consistently over the last while is this question of deeming. It's something that previous governments I think foisted on you that wasn't very much appreciated. In this bill there is some movement trying to get people back to work, which would relieve somewhat a bit of the anxiety around the question of deeming, because then they couldn't deem any more because you would have a job and there wouldn't be this sort of airy-fairy notion out there that somehow you could be doing another job. Have you thought about that at all? Does this go a distance for you? Is it helpful?

The other question I would ask you: Is it appropriate, as we've heard here this morning, that employers and this system should continue to push a system that in the end has injured workers resorting to welfare for their wellbeing?

Mr Jolin: Thank you, Tony. As you have said and as you are aware, your office is flooded the same as ours is. Fortunately for us, we have an office right across the street from you. In some instances, it's convenient; in others, it's not.

Mr Mahoney: How do you like it, Tony?

Mr Martin: Some days it's okay.

Mr Jolin: The way it works is that we know that the hands of the MPPs are tied in all areas, not just in the Sault. There are only certain things you can do, certain things you can't do. We find that's not enough. That's why we're there. We will take it one step, 10 steps or 100 steps further. We want not the issue just talked about and then gone into a long recess of hearings and committees and delays and everything else.

On the deeming, Bill 165 does break it down a bit. In your own words, it is not enough, and the reason why it is not enough is because it took all the directive words out of the act itself that say the employer "shall," the employer "will," the employer "must," and it changes that and it says they "may," they "might," if they wish. That's total discrimination, because we're already in that process and this is taking us one step backwards. Instead of going forward, we're going backwards.

The act itself, if done the way it is without it being amended, I'm sorry, I just cannot go along with it. The simple reason is, myself being an injured worker, I was deemed by our technical advisor in Sault Ste Marie, which is doing it to hundreds of people here in the Sault and Algoma area. It's happening in other areas too which I'm made aware of, but I'm speaking specifically right now of the Sault and Algoma. We can get the case worker, the rehab counsellor, to put a person into two levels of schooling and he qualifies for the third level, he needs it to go out there and get the job that he wants, because he's only in his mid or late 20s or maybe 30s; maybe he's in his 50s. But the damn system the way the WCB is working is the regional technical adviser turns back the case worker's decision of saying that he supports that goal for the injured worker to get him re-established in the workplace, and he says, "No, I hereby deem that person that he's reached his minimum wage level. He's already got two credits in school. He doesn't need the other five credits," even though there's documentation thicker than this that says that he does. They've supported it. They back it. You in your own office and probably other MPPs here do too. You support and you back it like we do, but it's just discrimination, total discrimination, as is.

Mr Mahoney: The most interesting story about deeming that I've heard was in Timmins, where a school caretaker who was injured was deemed to be able to do the job of an air traffic controller. The good news was we weren't flying into Timmins that day.

I'm interested to hear the local member say that the former government foisted deeming on you. You, I think, Pat, presented to the outreach tour that I conducted some time ago in this report, and we said at the time that everything was on the table. We're prepared to look at and listen to ways of reforming Bill 162, any of the mistakes that were made in there, and we're not afraid to admit that there were mistakes and to look at recommendations.

This government has an opportunity. They're passing a bill. It's curious to me why they haven't addressed deeming in here. It's one thing to kick somebody, but they've got the limousines right now, for a short time. They've got an opportunity to make a change.

1050

I just want to share with you recommendation 23 of the outreach tour entitled Back to the Future, wherein we say, "The concept of `deeming' be replaced with a comprehensive STEP program (outlined in greater detail in the preceding financial sustainability section), with the ultimate goal being re-employment of the injured worker." That's what we believe in. We're not afraid to look at a system that isn't working and change it. It's unfortunate that this government wouldn't do it. I assume if they're really unhappy with this -- Tony, you could vote against this bill in support of these people if you really want to do something to help injured workers.

Mr Jolin: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. Some of the points you brought up are very good, it's very truthful and it is on the table. That is, I believe, why you're here today. But committee hearing after committee hearing, after proposals made to the government, proposals made to the Workers' Compensation Board, still we're in the dilemma of waiting. Myself, I had a three-hour WCAT yesterday. I've had to propose to the WCB to prove that dating back 14 years -- 38 pieces of documentation by a representative and myself, all highlined, dictated by different professionals in the medical field, and the WCB still does not listen.

We were after your government. I remember being after the Conservatives, Liberals, now the NDP. What we want to know is, when is something going to be done in our favour? There again, in this Bill 165, the word "deeming" is not mentioned. It's sort of highlined underneath and between lines, but it is not actually -- take re-employment, for an example. The deeming part is overriding that, but it's not mentioned in this part of the act changing Bill 162, 165, and where one might come next.

What we want is, yes, we want our friends in the NDP government, or if the Liberals are in there, or Conservatives -- when a government is in power, they're our friends because they are the only ones who can change things. We want changes now. We want them now. We're tired of waiting.

Mr David Johnson: I'd like to thank you for your deputation as well. I get the strong sense that you don't consider the present situation to be satisfactory and you don't support Bill 165. You've used words like "discriminated against." You've used words like we should be "standing up for the rights of the injured workers," that something needs to be done, something needs to be done right now. I can assume -- this is my first day on this day on this particular bill -- that you're talking about the red tape that you have to go through. You're talking about the financial support. Maybe the first part of my question: Am I right so far?

Mr Jolin: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: So you would like to see -- well, for example, you're opposed to the Friedland formula. You would like to see somehow more money being funnelled to the injured workers.

I think you put your finger on it when you talked about the unfunded liability. I think the government has to some extent brought forward this bill in recognition of that factor, although employer groups feel that the government hasn't gone far enough and you feel the same way for opposite reasons.

If more money is to be made available, and looking at the fact that there is an unfunded liability and looking at the fact that there's a negative cash flow this year, I guess for the first time in the WCB, where do you think the money should come from? Should it come from higher assessment rates to the employers? Should it come from the taxpayers in general? Or is it a problem? Because as you indicated, the administration is in shambles and we should be looking at the savings in the administration.

Mr Jolin: Yes. As a matter of fact, after everything you said, which I agree with in part and in total both -- okay? -- your last sentence right there clarifies the whole situation. The WCB is in shambles. Not financially. That's a bunch of crap. This unfunded liability is money that's supposed to be proposed for the injured worker's wellbeing till age 65 or death do us part in the future. That's just deemed again, deeming money from the future, and they're saying it's an unfunded liability on the fault of the injured worker today. That's crap, in plain language.

The thing is, if they would cut back a lot of the -- which this government has done -- staff situations and positions that were totally unnecessary -- they have done that, which is great. That has stopped the unfunded liability from getting further so-called in the hole, as the people and the government situation predict, but it is still not hitting the nail on the head.

The situation of the injured worker compared with the number of people handling that one individual's case is totally ridiculous and should be stopped now. You go to a case worker, you go to a rehab counsellor, you go to a technical adviser, you go to an adjudicator, that adjudicator sends you to another one, and then it's a decision review officer, then it's a hearings officer, then it's -- like, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Everything and every hearing I've done, and just about every WCAT that I've done, when you're in there you're only in there for, sometimes, 15 or 20 minutes. They say: "What the hell are you doing here? This should have been settled two levels below." You know why? It's that good old stamp, "Denied," "Denied," "Denied."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Jolin. On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Injured Workers Advocates of Sault Ste Marie for their presentation this morning.

Mr Jolin: Thank you very much, and I hope something's done.

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 268

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters, from the Service Employees Union, Local 268.

The Acting Chair: Good morning. When you get yourself set there, if you could introduce yourselves for the sake of Hansard and the committee members, then, at your leisure, start your presentation. As with everyone, we would request that you leave some time near the end of your 20-minute time limit for some interaction with the committee.

Mr Glen Chochla: My name's Glen Chochla. I'm a staff representative with Service Employees Union, Local 268. To my right are two other members of the Service Employees Union. Vincent Pistor is our staff representative here in Sault Ste Marie. Richard Armstrong is the director of the local and also the vice-president of the local.

We'd like to begin by just saying a few words about the local to give you an idea of where our membership comes from and what their concerns are. We are primarily a health and social services public sector union local. We have 4,100 members working in about 40 different workplaces across northwestern Ontario from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste Marie. About 100 of those work in the private sector, the rest in the public sector, primarily in health and social services, and they work in a wide range of health care occupations. They work as RPNs, registered practical nurses; ambulance attendants; they work in dietary. The great majority of those work in hospitals and nursing homes. They also work in community health care and community social service agencies.

It's a fact of life for a great many of our members that they suffer from chronic back fatigue, chronic back injuries, repetitive strain injuries. These injuries are just far too common. We expect that ugly reality, if I can use the term, is going to get worse for our members as staffing levels decline in health and social services and as the cutbacks in health and social services continue. We're actually seeing more and more employers becoming tougher, becoming -- if I can use the word -- almost brutal in discarding injured workers. We're constantly fighting for their rights before arbitration panels and so on and so forth.

I don't think our members are too unlike many of the workers, the vast majority of workers in Ontario today. In Ontario every year approximately 300 workers are killed in the workplace from workplace-related injuries. In addition to that, another 400,000 suffer injuries in the workplace.

1100

I think it's important to set a realistic base for this discussion. Workers don't control the workplaces in this province; the employers control the workplaces. That's changed to some extent through joint health and safety committees and improvements to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. But employers are responsible for this situation. Workers are not the architects of this. We didn't set it up. We're the victims of this situation.

The first question we want to ask you to think about as a committee is, how is the workers' compensation system working for workers and what are workers telling you through injured workers' groups and through the Ontario Federation of Labour and trade unions? That's your first concern, number one concern. Because we didn't set up the problems we have right here. We're the victims of it.

We want to just go through, at this point, some of the things about the act. Let me just say this: In our local we're having a really hard time understanding where employers are coming from in criticizing this act, because it's a very moderate act. Especially with the de-indexing of many of the benefits in the Friedland formula, we just don't understand how employers can possibly take a position against this act. There are many things in the act that we're critical of as being too much in the way of giveaways to employers.

There are some very positive things about the act and we think the government deserves credit for those, and we want to talk a little bit about those. First of all, we think the amendments to sections 53 and 54 are positive. The amendments strengthen the requirements, give the board the authority, the power to determine whether an employer has fulfilled its re-employment obligations. Also, the board can require the employer to now participate in vocational rehabilitation planning. We're very happy to see that.

We're also happy to see the addition in section 103.1 of establishing experience and merit rating programs for employers that are based on health and safety practices in the workplaces and vocational rehabilitation practices. We think that's positive.

But we do agree with the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups that the setting of assessment rates needs to be linked with actual re-employment success in the workplace. We also agree with the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups that the experience and rating programs that are established under section 103.1 must be designed to measure actual reductions in accidents and diseases rather than the dollars that are allocated to the employer's WCB account.

The re-employment and vocational rehabilitation reforms are essential from two points of view. First of all, if you really want to benefit injured workers, get them back to work. Secondly, if you're concerned, and genuinely concerned -- putting aside the political rhetoric on unfunded liability -- with the long-run financial viability of the WCB system, the way you save money is getting workers off the system and back into the workplaces. That's got to be the centrepiece of any reform, and in a lot of respects the government has achieved that and deserves a lot of credit for that. That's absolutely essential and that's good.

We don't buy the argument that the WCB system is in financial difficulty at this point in time. However, we think if you are concerned about that in the future, and that's always a possible problem in the future, then go after the voc rehab and re-employment aspects of reform. The government has done that and that's good.

We also think, second positive, that the amendments in section 56 that ensure that the board of directors of the WCB has representatives from workers, employers and the general public are good, very good. We agree, though, with the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups that there needs to be an assurance that injured workers' groups themselves have a representative on the board of directors, and we'd like to ask the committee to make some recommendations with respect to ensuring that they are part of the worker representatives on the board.

We're also happy to see the $200-per-month increase in the supplement in section 147 for those workers who are receiving permanent disability pensions. We think that's positive. We agree both with the Ontario Federation of Labour and injured workers' groups that the cutoff in that section of workers who were 65 years of age or older on July 26, 1989, should be removed. We also agree with the injured workers' groups that the $200-per-month increase in that supplement should apply to all injured workers who are receiving permanent disability pensions who are unemployed or underemployed. It should apply to more injured workers.

The fourth thing we're happy with is the royal commission to study alternatives to the present system. We think that's very positive and that the committee should be supporting that, but we again agree with injured workers' groups that injured workers' groups should be directly represented on that commission.

There are some problems with the bill, and we just want to point those out to you. We mentioned the Friedland formula, which caps the indexing of most benefits to 75% of the consumer price index minus 1%, to a maximum of 4%. We agree with the Ontario Federation of Labour and injured workers' groups that this should be removed. We fought a long time in the labour movement and among injured workers' groups themselves to achieve indexing, and it shouldn't be removed.

We're also concerned about the amendment to section 58, requiring the board of directors of the board to "act in a financially responsible and accountable manner." We don't know what that means. Why it's in the act we're not sure. We think that should be removed and we'd like to see it removed unless it's clarified as to exactly what the implications of that are, because if it's going to be used as an excuse to gut the WCB system in the future, it shouldn't be there.

A third concern we have is that Bill 165 has not eliminated the board's power under section 93 of the act to overrule WCAT decisions. We think that's got to be addressed and we share the concern the OFL has about that. If you want to make sure that the interpretation of the act is fair and is independent and is justified and is just, there shouldn't be the power to overrule that. We'd like to see the committee remove that section.

Fourthly, we're also concerned, and we share the injured workers' groups' concern, that nothing has been done to require all Ontario employers to be covered by the WCB system. Again, if you're concerned about the financial viability of the system, we should be bringing all employers in under the system.

On the whole, though, a question: Is the bill itself acceptable without any changes? We would have to say yes, primarily because of the bipartism that you now have in the WCB system with Bill 165 and also because of the rehabilitation and re-employment obligations that are now there. On the whole, it's a good effort and hopefully it'll be improved in the future. However, there definitely are some improvements that need to be made.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. We will start with Mr Mahoney. Two minutes per caucus.

1110

Mr Mahoney: Flabbergasted might be a good description. I heard your concerns about the bill. We heard from Local 444 of the CAW in London yesterday, which identified 17 sections of the bill they had major concerns with. There are only 36 sections in the bill; 11 of them are fundamentally housekeeping. That leaves 25, and out of 25 substantive sections in the bill they disagreed with 17 and said so quite forcefully, and then adopted the same posture, with respect, that you've adopted here this morning of identifying all the problems you have with the bill and yet saying you support the bill.

I just have some real trouble understanding how organized labour can support the first social democratic government in the province deindexing the pensions to redistribute to other workers. I mean, it's sort of like, "We've got principles, and if you don't like them, we've got others." It's really fundamentally a position that I would have thought that you and other people in organized labour, Mr Wilson and others, would have been inextricably opposed to. The question then would be that if you really are opposed to it in a serious way, how can you support this bill? It goes against everything that you purport to stand for in organized labour.

Mr Chochla: In any collective agreement that you can take that our local has negotiated -- and this bill was a product of a negotiating process that employers were part of and, I understand, agreed to at a certain point and then walked away from the agreement -- in any collective agreement that we have negotiated I could point out far more than 17 problems with it, but let me tell you that those collective agreements are supported by the local and voted on by the members. They're not perfect; nothing is ever perfect. The question is, on the whole is this an improvement? If it's an improvement, you support it. That doesn't mean that you don't criticize and try to improve it through this committee process and in the future. But the central reason for supporting this is because now we have some bipartism, we have workers and employers who are on the board and we now have re-employment and rehabilitation as a centrepiece of the legislation.

Mr Mahoney: We've got bipartism now at the board.

Mr Chochla: Those two things are very important and those are two things that injured workers and the organized labour movement have been fighting for for a long time.

Mr Mahoney: The injured workers must feel betrayed by this position.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: I think Mr Mahoney's right: If a Liberal or Conservative government had brought this in, we would have been peeling people off the roof and they would have been swinging from the chandeliers. But things have changed, just like with the social contract; we never thought we'd see an NDP government open up contracts, roll back wages. I think everybody has moved positions over the last little while.

I look at the financial statement, which says that the revenue is about $2.8 billion coming in; going out it's $3.3 billion. The previous chap who was in said if we dealt with the administration, we could make the cutbacks there. It's less than 2%, if you look at the audited statement. If you got rid of all the administration, shut it down, didn't buy a paperclip, had nobody employed, we would still be in a deficit position. The deficit position is going down, the difference between revenue and expenses.

I think everybody realizes you have three options: You either continue to run up the deficit -- and there are some who say you could do that; you can increase revenues, which would be to go to businesses and ask them to pay more, at a time when we're at a record number of shutdowns, and they say, "We can't do it, it's WCB costs, high taxes, a number of things"; or you can cut back expenses.

I was interested in what you said, because the bulk of it, the $2.8 billion that we're spending out each year to injured workers, goes to benefits. There are two things you can do: You can cut back what they get or you can do it through rehabilitation. The thing I liked about what you said is that you feel we can reduce the benefits through rehabilitation. So those who have come before us, legitimately injured, wouldn't get their benefits cut, but we would be actually getting more people back in the workplace. I think that's one thing that labour, business, NDP, Conservative, Liberal -- I can't see how anybody wouldn't agree with that.

My question is to you -- and it's a broad question and it's a difficult one; if you can answer this, we will make you Premier -- how do we do that? Governments of all political persuasions have tried to get people back through rehabilitation and get the benefits levels down. What haven't we been doing that you see we could be doing in order to reduce the benefits by getting people back to work?

Mr Chochla: I think you need to sit down and ask injured workers that question and discuss that with them. I think you need to do what injured workers have been proposing for a long time, that you look at some of the European systems, which have been very successful at getting injured workers back into the workplace. You need to sit down with organized labour as well. Now, with workers being represented on the board of directors along with employers under Bill 165, the very strong hope is, and I think there's a good chance that we're going to see that studied and we're going to see more success in that area -- that, coupled with the strength and language in the act on rehabilitation and re-employment.

Ms Murdock: Thank you for your presentation. I guess I just have to correct the idea again that unfunded liability and deficit are not the same things. I think it needs to be said time and time again. One of the presenters in London used the example: A $100,000 mortgage on your house -- obviously, we all know what mortgages are -- with $37,000 in the bank doesn't make the whole idea as desperate as what has been presented to us, I think, in terms of unfunded liability. That's just a comment.

In terms of your presentation, I wanted to talk to you about return to work, I guess, and the whole issue of re-employment, which I agree with you is very important. In some of the conversations out in the hallway yesterday, in between presenters, talking with one particular group, they told me that the section in regard to employers being ruled uncooperative in terms of rehabilitation was going to result in more appeals, where every decision adjudicators made would result in going through the appeal process and in the end cost more money. I would like your opinion on that, or your experience, if you have any return-to-work programs in place now.

Mr Richard Armstrong: We have several workplaces where we have different types of return-to-work programs. Some work really well when they work with the employee, the worker, and work from their premise, rather than it being a forced thing to save money from workers' comp. When it's a positive program that will bring people in and do work hard and that, it works well.

One of the things we always miss, though, when we're talking about the issues of workers' comp is when we work with employers trying to develop collective agreements. With Mr Carr's question to Glen a minute ago, I think too much emphasis is on the after-the-accident thing. When we bargain collective agreements -- and this is where employers can prevent their costs, if that's what they're concerned of, and prevent costs to the systems, if they begin to take a proactive stand towards prevention of accidents.

Right now, we talk at these hearings about coming back to work. My major concern as a trade unionist is to prevent any worker from getting injured. If employer groups and governments and political parties are really concerned about the whole aspect of workers' comp costs, then the easiest way to reduce that is to set up systems that prevent injuries in the workplace and to make management accountable. If you're a senior manager, you should make sure your junior people are accountable and the whole system should be based on health and safety, rather than getting into issues of return to work.

When people are then injured, it should be a positive approach to get them back. As Glen had indicated, then you can save costs, if you retrain people and get them back to work. Nobody wants to be home and not working.

The Acting Chair: I thank you very much for your presentation. I know we could go on for ever on this topic, but unfortunately the time has run out.

ONTARIO MINING ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: Our next presenters are the Ontario Mining Association, if they could come forward and introduce themselves for Hansard. As we ask with everyone, if you could leave some time at the end of your presentation -- I'll try to give you a five-minute warning, if you go that far, so we have a couple of minutes for some interaction with the committee. At your leisure.

1120

Mr John Blogg: With me today are Randy Forget, who is with Rio Algom and is their compensation coordinator, and Mr Gary Hughes, who is Inco's general foreman of compensation. I am John Blogg, manager of industrial relations and secretary of the Ontario Mining Association.

The Ontario Mining Association is pleased to have this opportunity on behalf of its members to provide its comments on Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The OMA, as bit of a background, was formed in 1920. We now have 36 member companies representing all business sectors of the mining industry. Our mandate is to improve the competitiveness of Ontario's mining industry, so consultations with government and its agencies are an important part of our mandate and we believe our participation in public policy dialogues like this one may contribute to the improvement of our industry as well as the social and economic life of this province.

The jobs created in the mining industry contribute to the balance of trade and are investment opportunities. Our public funding through tax dollars and our steady stream of products into our daily lives and the more than $5 billion which we provide to the provincial economy make the mining industry a key financial factor. However, the government must appreciate that our members are subjected to internationally set prices which, along with the additional government-mandated costs, increase the pressure on them to maintain a competitive position and viability in this province.

This global competition has also accelerated the introduction of new technologies and a continuing effort to achieve greater efficiencies in safety and to be environmentally responsible.

Today we wish to discuss how Bill 165, if not amended, will add to the problems our members face in this global competition and cause them to continue to look elsewhere for the placement of their investment dollars. We see Bill 165 as an opportunity for meaningful reform of the workers' compensation system, much as we saw Bill 101 and Bill 162. However, unlike the governments of previous bills, this government had the advantage of the most comprehensive research into the problems affecting this system ever undertaken and was provided with recommendations which were workable, actuarially supportable and fair to all its stakeholders. Most importantly, the effect of these recommendations is that they would lead to the retirement of the unfunded liability by 2014.

To our members, the most significant, real problem is simple: the WCB is broke. They have allowed their costs to exceed their expenditures. We warned the government in 1984 that the very sustainability of the system was at risk, and that's when the unfunded liability was only $2.7 billion. That was a PC government, by the way. Today, the unfunded liability is placing not only the viability of future benefits to workers at risk, but that of the mining industry in this province.

Since 1976 our industry has reduced its lost-time injury rate by 80%. This reduction, which has placed mining as the third safest industry in the province, has been matched by an increase of 781% in our workers' compensation costs per claim and 1551% increase in our unfunded liability. In the package we provided you, appendix 1, are some graphs that relate to those numbers. In appendix 2 are further graphs that show how our industry has improved over the last 10 years. Appendix 3 is most of the written comments I have today and appendix 4 is the PLMAC overview proposals, which we support.

In appendix 2 we have a series of graphs which further illustrate how our members are performing in their efforts to provide safe, healthy workplaces for their workers and how this drive to be both a good employer and attractive investment is progressing. Unfortunately, Bill 165 does not provide amendments to assist us in doing what we already do better. It does not help us to provide for safer workplaces, better rehabilitation or re-employment opportunities for our workers, and does nothing to give us confidence that the unfunded liability will do anything but escalate. The absence of such amendments adversely affects our members' ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Bill 165, we believe, creates inequities not there today and fails to appropriately address the major financial dilemma of the unfunded liability. You have heard in submissions throughout the last couple of weeks statistics, quotes and comments of independent actuarial bodies, labour, members of the PLMAC, such as Mr David Kerr, president and CEO of Noranda Inc and one of our members, so I'll not bore you with those again. They are in our written submission and suffice it to say that the OMA supports many of these comments and the proposals of PLMAC.

In the time remaining I will attempt to address those sections of the bill which cause us impediments to how our members currently function within the WCB arena, and explain how they fail to address the important financial concerns we have about the manner WCB handles our money.

The list of purposes contained in subsection 1(1) of the bill focuses solely on benefits to workers. Consequently, its use will solely be, in our view, to expand benefit entitlement. Since, as in other legislation, the purposes guide all interpretations of the act, it is imperative that a financial responsibility clause be added during your upcoming clause-by-clause discussions. Without it Bill 165 is simply the next step in the promotion of a universal disability system under the guise of workers' compensation reform, since it binds the board of directors to increase assessments to fund disabilities which can be shown to have any relationship to work, regardless of the off-work contributions to that disability. The purpose clause presented by the PLMAC business caucus, and originally agreed to by labour, must be the purposes of these amendments if the system is to survive and serve the stakeholders it purports to protect.

On the specifics of the bill again, medical reporting: Bill 165 amends subsections 51(2) and 51(3) and clause 63(2)(h.1). It will not assist our members in better communicating with their employers, the board or the health care provider, and they will certainly not ensure that the worker receives the appropriate assistance required -- in our industry I'm talking about. What these amendments do is effectively put at risk the ability of our members to provide the kinds of rehabilitation and re-employment opportunities they currently provide in some instances as a result of agreements between themselves and their unions.

Sections 8 and 14 of the bill, by restricting the kinds of information employers may receive from a treating physician, are introducing an impediment to meaningful voc rehab and re-employment. Our members need the complete diagnosis of a worker's disability to ensure it is compatible with the reported accident, and they require the work restrictions the disability causes to ensure the worker is provided with the program that best suits his or her disabilities or abilities. Bill 165 amendments 8 and 14, we believe, are regressive as to how our members now function in cooperation with their unions, health care providers and the WCB.

In the area of voc rehab, it's been our view for years that voc rehab is a core element of the Ontario workers' compensation system. The provisions of rehabilitation services by the WCB have been subjected to two extensive reviews through task forces. First was the Ontario Task Force on the Vocational Rehabilitation Services of the Workers' Compensation Board in 1987 and, more recently, the Chairman's Task Force on Service Delivery and Vocational Rehabilitation in 1992.

Over the last decade great strides have been made within the system to improve the quality and impact of voc rehab. The data contained in our written submission, which is at the front of the submission we gave you today, details in number form the dramatic improvements in this area of WCB management. However, as we have already stated, our members have been actively and cooperatively engaged in voc rehab and re-employment with their workers and unions for years. By most accounts, this cooperative approach has been successful, primarily because it has involved all of the parties with an interest in returning the worker to a work level of fitness.

1130

Bill 165 amendments to section 53 of the act introduce a mandatory power to the WCB we don't need and don't want. It is our experience that when given unilateral powers to intervene, government agencies seem to be unable to resist the temptation to intervene, even when they're not wanted and not needed. Unfortunately, the result is often the fracturing of cooperative workplace relationships. The rehabilitation of an injured worker is too costly a venture to be exposed to the potential disruption of an unwanted third party with a limited understanding of the history of the workplace partnership.

When our members and the workers and/or unions decide that the services of a WCB voc-rehab counsellor are required they ask for them. In this manner, the WCB becomes an accepted member of the team. It is our belief that section 9 of the bill will create conflict and complicate the delicate balance needed to effectively rehabilitate an injured worker and as such, we simply cannot support it.

For similar reasons, we cannot support amendment 10 of the bill, nor is section 27 of the bill, which provides the WCB with the power to impose undefined fines for undefined crimes for what they determine as inappropriate vocational rehabilitation, supported by our members. The reason here is very simple: Even with the best efforts of the union, health care provider and the company some people, few as they may be, do not want to be rehabilitated back to work with their work employer. We don't trust the board to responsibly rule on such occasions.

On the governance issue, section 11 of the bill proposes to repeal section 56 of the act and install a bipartite board of directors. Bipartism at the policy level has been a failed experiment, in our view. It has failed at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, the joint steering committee on hazardous substances and it failed at PLMAC.

Bipartism was an attempt to emulate the success of the tripartite mining legislative review committee by the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, what everyone seemed to forget is that unlike tripartism, which is what the MLRC is, bipartism removes government and it's government that is ultimately responsible for public policy, not labour and not the employers.

What also appears to have been ignored is that while unions and employers have a very important part to play in the development of public policy, so do all the WCB stakeholders, and the government, which represents the public in this case, is one of them.

By presenting an amendment which ignores everyone except unions and employers, we believe the government has demonstrated a poor grasp of the obvious. We believe more effort needs to be given to finding a multistakeholder mix which would fairly represent those directly affected by the workers' compensation system, and we don't disregard the last speaker's comment that the injured workers certainly be on there as injured workers.

What has tended to amuse as well as confuse our members is section 16 of this bill. We wonder why on one hand the government trumpets the virtues of bipartism, yet on the other believes there's a need for them to assume the responsibilities of a new bipartite board for a year. We believe that such unprecedented intervention into the management and administration of the WCB will cause potential investors to avoid putting their money into Ontario businesses, most importantly the mining industry which has already seen billions of dollars go south during this administration.

Section 21 of the bill amends section 72 of the act and introduces what we believe to be mandatory mediation services. Mediation can be useful, provided the basic principles referred to on page 7 of our written brief are respected. The proposed amendment suggests a wide range of circumstances, but does not indicate what happens when mediation is successful, nor does it prohibit or limit objections to settlements.

Section 18 of the act prohibits agreements between workers and employers on benefit levels and on benefit issues. The question we have here is, what is the value of a non-binding and perhaps illegal amendment to the act? Even if it is legal, by not making it voluntary, are you not creating a contradiction and thereby dooming the mediation process to failure? We see no value in the amendment, as it puts in jeopardy the cooperative environment many of our members have long since established with their workers in unions and therefore is another impediment to how we do our work on rehab.

As far as proceedings against the board are concerned, Bill 165 contemplates broader protection for members of the board of directors, officers and employees of the board. It recommends that protection should be afforded board representatives in any proceeding brought against them in the exercise of their judicial responsibilities. We reject this amendment as it fails to cause board people to always be mindful of the requirements of the statute and the unfolding jurisprudence whenever rendering a decision. An example we use is the claims adjudicator determining claims for entitlement. A lot of the problems we have between the board and WCAT are that failure.

On experience rating, Bill 165 introduces changes to how experience rating is administered. The development of experience rating in Ontario represents, in our view, one of the best examples of joint policy development between business and government. Since its inception, the NEER experience rating program has been supported by the mining industry. NEER helps promote a fairer distribution of the assessment dollars and encourages employer accountability for accident prevention and WCB claims management.

There have been two studies into NEER which you've heard about in previous presentations, both attempting to substantiate claims of mismanagement that were brought on by labour. The results of each study endorsed the experience rating program as successful in generating a "substantial incremental impact on increased health and safety initiatives by employers." The studies showed a decrease in injury frequencies and could give little or no proof to substantiate the charges of labour that NEER was a broad-based employer ripoff of the system.

The PLMAC business caucus, after careful review, offered its full support of the experience rating program as having achieved its primary goals of making workplaces of Ontario safer and employers more directly accountable for their actions.

The OMA fully supports the NEER program as it's currently administered. We believe the additional criteria proposed in amendment 28 of the bill, 103.1, does nothing to improve the program or our members' health, safety and WCB claims management programs. It will further serve to confuse and frustrate employers who will be subjected then to no less than three separate audits from different government agencies of their health, safety and WCB programs. It's like your having to have three driver's tests, one by the MTO, one by your local police and one by the OPP, to prove you're a competent driver, and we just think that's inefficient. The OMA rejects amendment 28 of Bill 165 as it does not improve the current experience rating program or our members' ability to be competitive.

The Vice-Chair: If I may interrupt, you have about three minutes left on your presentation.

Mr Blogg: You got it. Our main concern with the indexing formula, the Friedland formula, is that the government has given exemptions to that formula. We don't object necessarily to the $200, but what the PLMAC said was: "Let's have a better look at what is needed by the workers on supplements. It may be more, but the system has to find that money from inside, from reductions. You don't fund it by adding to the cost of the system."

I'll just get to the conclusions here. The members of the OMA recognized the need for reforming the WCB a decade ago when the unfunded liability was only $2.7 billion. We also recognized that proactive cooperative programs in health and safety and WCB claims management were good business and we did it.

Our industry provided a good deal of the work behind the PLMAC process because we believed that reasonable people would make reasonable recommendations and that a responsible government would implement them. Our disappointment in Bill 165 cannot be fully conveyed in words, but we feel betrayed by a government whose Premier vowed to serve all the people of Ontario.

The PLMAC proposals, in our view, are reasonable. They require everyone to hurt a little. They reflect and respect the views of the last two chairs of WCB royal commissions, justices Roach and McGillivray. They seized the opportunity for meaningful reform and went at it head-on, in an actuarially supportable manner and in a manner which, for the first time in years, provided a level of fairness for all stakeholders, thus assuring benefits necessary for the injured workers long into the future.

Bill 165 fails on all accounts to meet these objectives and those given PLMAC by the Premier. More importantly to our members, they fail to provide us with tools to improve what we already do very well. They introduce arbitrary third-party intervention where it is not wanted or needed, which will likely result in a breakdown of long-standing cooperative relationships. They fail to address the major driving force behind our costs, which is a misinterpretation by the board of the future economic loss provisions. Finally, Bill 165 discourages investing in the mining sector and, together with other mandated costs, negatively impacts on our members' ability to compete in the world market.

1140

If left unchanged, Bill 165 will further bankrupt the system and cause workers to eventually lose the benefits they justly deserve. We urge the government to withdraw the legislation and reconsider the recommendations of the PLMAC which we believe have been based on sound research of the problems in this system.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. A very brief comment. Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: This is a tough question and you might not be able to answer it, either yourself or the association or some of the front-line people. You said in there, and we've heard from a lot of people, legitimate people who are very concerned, there isn't enough money. They've come forward; they're suffering. But in your comments you said there are some people who don't want to go back to work. Either front-line workers or as a group, what percentage of the workers, in your estimation, don't want to go back to work?

Mr Blogg: I wouldn't want to put a per cent on it. I would think it's somewhat less than 2%.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Thank you very much. Really, I could ask you 50 million questions because I disagree with you so inherently in some areas, but the one that I really disagree with you on is the comments you made in regard to PLMAC in regard to the people who are exempted from Friedland. Yes, there was agreement in PLMAC for survivor and dependent benefits, 100% pension, 100% FEL, unemployed workers with disabilities injured prior to 1990 as defined by section 147(4), all of those groups identified by both labour and management as being people who have to be looked after somehow. But the PLMAC agreement was the --

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock --

Ms Murdock: -- nature of how this special consideration was not agreed to and left to the government, and we have made the decision. So what you said was not correct. On the record.

Mr Blogg: You're entitled to your opinion.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: The government members try to perpetrate the fraud that there was some kind of an agreement that's reflected in this bill. I would like to read a letter, or a clause in a letter, from none other than Premier Bob Rae, dated April 21, wherein he says -- this is Bob Rae speaking, not me:

"A `purpose clause' will be added to the Workers' Compensation Act which will ensure that the WCB provides its services in a context of financial responsibility. This clause will also" -- not "only," but "also" -- "address the principles of fair compensation and benefits for workers, as well as enhanced rehabilitation and return to work."

He committed on April 21, in a letter to Jim Yarrow, chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, to include financial accountability in the purpose clause. Did he lie? Is Bob Rae a liar?

The Vice-Chair: I think that's a little inappropriate, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Is this letter lying, in your opinion, Mr Blogg, or didn't he understand?

Mr Blogg: I believe that Mr Rae writes what he means. We at the ECWC have taken -- I'm an executive member of that group -- Mr Rae at his word as it appears in that letter. That's all.

The Vice-Chair: Oh behalf of this committee I'd like to thank the Ontario Mining Association for its presentation this morning.

I'd like to call forward our next presenters from the Sault Ste Marie Construction Association.

Mr Mahoney: Point of interest or question to --

The Vice-Chair: As our presenter is coming forward.

Mr Mahoney: -- what are you, parliamentary assistant? She's claiming that somehow this letter we've all been given a copy of does not claim financial responsibility will be included in the purpose clause.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Would she like to clarify that?

Ms Murdock: I will at the proper time.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Order. I think we have a difference of opinion here that won't be soon settled.

Mr Mahoney: It's right here in black and white.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney.

SAULT STE MARIE CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair: 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments. Could you please identify yourself and then proceed.

Mr Rick Thomas: My name is Rick Thomas. I'm the manager of the Sault Ste Marie Construction Association. I welcome the opportunity to appear before the resources development committee today concerning proposals in Bill 165, amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act.

I represent the Sault Ste Marie Construction Association, a mixed trade-industry association with over 150 members whose businesses earn their living in all areas of the regional construction industry.

I feel that this opportunity for dialogue is vital. Over the years, our greatest task as an industry, with government, has been to attempt to show how our workplaces differ dramatically from the norm and therefore are affected differently than most by various legislation. It's important for our industry to be able to show you how legislative proposals may harm our ability to grow and be successful and thereby contribute to the regeneration of our area's economy.

The Ontario Workers' Compensation Board had an unfunded liability of $11.5 billion at the end of last year; 36.7% of those debts are covered by assets. By contrast, the Confederation Life insurance company was funded at almost 93% when the superintendent of insurance liquidated it. It is even more alarming that this liability is continuing to grow by 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. In the construction industry, the average cost of premiums paid per worker has jumped from $962 in 1983 to $2,508 in 1992. The 261% increase in cost could perhaps be justified if it had been used, as promised, to begin to eliminate the unfunded liability.

There can be no question that the grave financial condition of the WCB system in this province should concern every legitimate claimant and every contributing employer in the province. It is clear that the existence of the system is in jeopardy and it will continue to be until the government finds the will to gain control of benefit levels and to take the emphasis off expanded entitlement.

In commenting on the governance model, it is shocking to hear the deputy minister state that, "The responsibility for the unfunded liability rests with the WCB, not the government," after advising that, "Bipartite stakeholders will truly own the system." Let me be clear: Management has never asked for joint ownership, we have never agreed to joint ownership and we will not accept it. The public interest must be protected by the participation of neutral persons on the board of directors, while government must maintain ultimate responsibility fiscally.

Ontario's construction industry has made unprecedented improvements in health and safety over the past 10 years. The industry has lowered its accident frequency rate 62% from 1987 to 1993. In an industry which is by its nature risky, we have succeeded in virtually matching the reduced rates of injury for all other employers combined. In 1982, we had over 12,000 injuries at an average cost of $10,813 to the board. Ten years later, our injuries are reduced to 8,012, but the cost has soared to an astounding $55,875 for each of them. An important part of this reason is as follows.

We project that next year, 53% of WCB payments will be in the form of future economic loss awards calculated on a system that bears no resemblance to the way our industry works. These awards are made based on an assumed full-time, year-round employment, when in recent years few of our employees have enjoyed such a luxury. Once again, costs are rising because the system is insensitive to the realities of our workplaces. Hundreds of able-bodied construction workers are being awarded FEL pensions, even though their unemployment is a result of economic conditions, not their injuries.

Earlier, I mentioned our industry's dramatic reduction in lost-time injuries per hundred workers. There are a number of reasons for this turnaround, but we believe that the experience rating system has been the key. Our frequency drop parallels the introduction of CAD-7, the construction industry's own experience rating system. The intention of experience rating is to encourage employers to reduce costs, to reduce the number of accidents and to reinstate workers as soon as possible.

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 cost of workers' compensation and it 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.

Last Monday the government gave notice of its intention to amend section 103.1 to clarify the 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 and interventionist program described in subsection (3) will destroy the effectiveness of CAD-7.

1150

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 people 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. The proposed template measures individual employers' programs through audit. It ignores the problems posed by the availability of work and the mobility of workforces that demonstrated themselves in our industry. This template cannot serve the needs of this industry. Thank you again for this opportunity.

Mr Martin: I want to thank you for coming forward this morning, Rick, and to recognize for everybody the effort that you have made in partnership, in my experience particularly, with the organized labour side of your industry to reduce the level of accidents in the workplace and reduce the number of people who are off hurt and not well. I certainly empathize with you re the continued increase in cost in spite of that, and my question is going to be related to that.

But I wanted to, though, also say to you that it's my understanding that this bill doesn't in a significant way impact on the construction industry side of the industrial sector. Maybe you can talk to me a bit about that, that in fact there is some movement to bring the construction people together with government and the worker side to come up with some regulations and rules and some new approaches that would be more helpful to your industry. Maybe you can comment on that in your response.

The question, though, I have is this one, and it's related to the fact that your costs continue to escalate even though your record is better. It's something that's brought to us today and, I hear previous to this, by the workers themselves, the injured workers who claim that what they're making while they're off not well -- and the frustration that they experience even in trying to get that -- is not that substantial. So they're simply keeping up with the cost of living re inflation, and through this bill that will be reduced for them. They claim in one way that they are actually the people who are going to be paying the greater cost in this change of the system over the long term as we try to get to a more manageable liability situation. In a more dramatic way, this morning the group from Thunder Bay said that what this bill does is shift the system around so that it is now seen to be more palatable to actually hurt and kill people than to actually take care of them in a way that is cognizant of the real cost of doing that. Can you respond to that, Rick?

Mr Thomas: Our problems with the bill as an industry, I think, probably relate to its industrial aspects, genre. We don't have any continuity of workplace; we don't have any continuity of workforce. We have a problem now with reinstatement, and reinstatement as it's in the bill poses a procedural problem for us. Our costs are probably rising because people who are able to go to work for us have to go to work for an employer or out of a hiring hall where there is no work by that employer any longer or where that hiring hall doesn't operate. We have a problem in terms of the government understanding the way our industry employs people and applying laws to us that aren't sensitive to that.

I want to say how strongly we feel about CAD-7. It's a wonderful program. I've told you this many times. You can't legislate morality. It teaches employers very quickly that it's extremely expensive to have accidents and extremely expensive not to bring people back to work. That's not to ignore the moral side of injured workers; we're extremely sensitive to that, but you can't legislate it.

The fact is our industry's accident rates have gone down dramatically because our employers know that they simply cannot afford to have accidents and they try very hard to educate the people who work for them and they work hard and long with their unions to have programs that bring accidents down. They say that no one is any safer in the construction industry than the person working next to them.

CAD-7 has worked really well for us, and when you begin to introduce the audit system, particularly with relation to reinstatement, and begin to judge our employers on the basis of how they reinstate people under a system that doesn't recognize the peculiarities of our employment practices, then we've got a problem. You're taking apart something that works really well for us and saddling us with something.

Mr Offer: Mr Martin's question was the one that I was going to pose. I want to talk to you about the experience rating system and I want to tell you that from our hearings, people having difficulties with the act and its administration and all of those things, employers, injured workers alike, basically we hear that if there's anything that does work, it's the NEER and the CAD-7.

Mr Thomas: Yes. We're a little different than NEER because --

Mr Offer: Yes, the CAD-7 aspect. If there's anything that works, that's the one that works. Unanimously they come here and they say, "Don't change something that's working and reducing accidents wherever the place of employment happens to be."

My question is, because you spoke to the amendment that the government brought forward -- and I think it was on the first or second day -- I don't think that it in any way, shape or form responds to the concerns that we have heard, of your industry and of any employer, and I am wondering if you might share with us -- and hopefully the government will listen, that we're talking about an aspect of the act that works, that has empirically a reduction of accidents -- what the impact of this change might be to your industry.

Mr Thomas: A personal observation would be the audit process. When you begin to make decisions based on employers' response to a system, you seek to penalize and I think probably it's a grab at some money somehow. Obviously we've got money problems and you have to find it somehow. Why not let's just put CAD-7 down on everybody? I don't understand the need to audit when employers are being properly motivated without the audit in CAD-7. You haven't tried that with NEER.

Mr Offer: So you see this as the impact will be a reduction of rebate? They'll grab some money?

Mr Thomas: Oh sure. Yeah. The money that's being spent -- lots and lots of programs in this industry get instituted with that money, and it flows back to the contractor and so on. It becomes a competitive advantage, even, with their competitors, to be safe. There are incredible motivations to be a safe employer in this industry, and that's just one of them.

Mr Offer: Okay. Thank you.

Mr David Johnson: I appreciate your deputation and I think that perhaps we ignore the message that you've brought here today, and the mining association before you, at our own peril.

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: I'd like to ignore the banter that's going on here. Mr Chairman, can we have some order?

The Vice-Chair: Can we please have order? Mr Offer, Mr Fletcher, Mr Johnson has the floor.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You've made a number of points that really, as my first day on the committee, I find very appalling. The fact, for example --

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Chairman.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, are you done?

Mr David Johnson: Shall we give them another five minutes to go back and forth or whatever? Okay.

The cost of the premiums has increased by 361% from 1983 to the present, even though you've had your experience and your members have been very responsible that I read through your presentation and coming to grips with injuries which have diminished by some 4,000 -- I guess what's that, about a third? -- over a period of 10 years or so, and yet the cost has gone up by five times. The mining association in their brief indicated that because of the intervention and the management and the administration of WCB has caused potential investors to avoid putting money in Ontario businesses, which I believe to be true, and that billions of dollars have gone south during this administration.

I wondered what the impact on your business would be. I don't know if it's quite the same, but I know that your people have to put a product in place at a cost that people can afford, and when the costs that go into it go up by 361% or five times, that it's more difficult for you and jobs are lost, I would guess.

Mr Thomas: I'm a little at a loss to comment, mostly because I think what you're alluding to, and I agree with it, is that this is a provincial thing, on a province-wide basis. There's no question that construction industry, economic investment has departed south of the border in the face of higher costs to do business in Ontario, and the reason that I hesitate is that because we happen locally to be doing really well right now with investment from northern Alberta, with investment from the United States, in the resource sector. So it hasn't deterred those people, but I think that's a whole other set of circumstances. It's resource-based with a high US dollar attracting those companies to do business in this country. So if there has been a disadvantage, it's been overcome by certain really narrow economic factors.

But there's no question in my mind that on a provincial or even a national basis, the costs to employ people disencourage employers to have more employees, and if you want to walk right into the whole underground economy problem in contracting, from there you can. Yes, it's simply extremely expensive to have employees, and people are trying not to have them.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. On behalf of this committee I'd like to thank the Sault Ste Marie Construction Association for their presentation to the committee this morning.

Mr Thomas: My pleasure.

The Vice-Chair: A reminder to the committee members: Because of the shortness of the lunch break, lunch will be in the room just out the door to the right. Check-out time is 1:00. This committee stands recessed till 1 pm.

The committee recessed from 1202 to 1311.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call this committee back to order. Our first presenters for the afternoon aren't here so we'll be going with the second presenters first, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 607. 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Douglas Paolini: I'm Douglas Paolini from Local 528 of OPSEU. I'm the divisional president of the office of the worker adviser. To my right is Mr Glenn Sirois from Local 607 here in the Sault, a colleague of mine.

This brief will outline to the members of the standing committee our concerns on a number of specific sections of Bill 165.

OPSEU represents approximately 95,000 workers in Ontario and our members also represent the largest number of unorganized injured workers in the workers' compensation appeals system.

Today, we will address the following areas: jurisdiction, sections 8 and 65; mediation, section 72; the proposed $200 for pensioners and the exemptions for general welfare assistance and family benefits assistance recipients, subsection 147(14).

Sections 8 and 65: jurisdiction and duplication of benefits. The new subsection is intended to prevent a worker from receiving workers' compensation benefits from more than one workers' compensation program for the same condition. However, this subsection is vague and, as a result, it ends up causing more problems than it solves. It does not make clear how to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a claim although the Association of Workers' Compensation Boards of Canada recently negotiated an interjurisdictional agreement which should provide direction. The clause could be misinterpreted to include benefits a worker may be eligible to receive from the Canada Pension Plan or through a private disability plan such as is often purchased when arranging a car loan or a mortgage.

Another problem we see is the apportionment of benefits, particularly in the case of occupational diseases. For instance, in a hearing loss claim, a worker could receive a small hearing-loss claim in Alberta and then move to Ontario, be re-exposed to further damaging work noise causing further hearing loss and, under the current wording in the proposed bill, be found not entitled.

As in section 8, the amendment to clause 65(3)(h) addresses the duplication of benefits. Section 65 is incorrectly worded. The board does not have the right to change benefit levels. As well, the current wording could put a workers' Canada Pension Plan or privately purchased disability insurance benefits in jeopardy.

Our recommendation: The subsection in section 8 should be amended to read, "No compensation is payable under this part to a worker or his or her dependant if he or she is receiving duplicate workers' compensation benefits under the law of another jurisdiction in respect of the accident."

The amendment to clause 65(3)(h) should read, "And addressing any duplication of workers' compensation benefits provided under this act."

Section 65 should read, "The board shall evaluate the consequences of any proposed change and entitlement, services, programs and policies to ensure that the purposes of this act are achieved."

Section 72 of the proposed act, mediation: The inclusion of this mediation section is surprising as it was not part of any PLMAC discussions nor had anyone practising in the workers' compensation system ever requested it. We believe that the inclusion of mediation, as outlined in section 72, is not helpful or realistic at this time for a number of reasons.

The board introduced some mediation services for reinstatement and fast-track rehabilitation appeals after Bill 162 came into effect. The experience of our members with mediation has been that it is only helpful in some limited cases of re-employment negotiations with pre-accident employers. It is not helpful in vocational rehabilitation cases.

We believe that many individuals may have a misunderstanding as to how mediation is done in the workers' compensation system versus labour relations forums. It should be noted that the board is limited by section 16 of the act which states that workers' rights cannot be waived. The act sets out only a limited obligation to re-employ the injured, subject to a relatively small financial penalty versus the right to re-employment and accommodation standards in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Many of the issues listed in section 72 require the board to mediate unto itself when workers question vocational rehabilitation decisions. Fast-track rehabilitation disputes with board personnel where mediators have been involved have not be successful. Board mediators will contact vocational rehabilitation case workers and request if they would reconsider their decisions. Almost inevitably, the case workers say no and oral hearings are scheduled in front of hearings officers. Our experiences to date are that the most successful of all hearings for workers are vocational rehabilitation issues: an approximately 75% or better success rate depending on the specific issue.

If we wish vocational rehabilitation case workers to reconsider their decisions, we contact them directly. If we cannot have the decisions overturned, we simply request the hearings. Frankly, what we need is better front-line vocational rehabilitation decision-making, not more appeal layering.

1320

The time limits for representatives would drastically tax already overtaxed representation systems. Many negotiations in these areas involve seeking further information, including vocational rehabilitation assessments, medical evidence and work site analysis and investigations. Many appeals can involve workers who have been unable to return to their pre-accident employer within one year of the accident date. In order to be represented within the 30-day time limit under this bill, immediate access to a representative is required. Such representatives are not always available and yet the worker requires representation due to the serious and often long-term impact on the workers of such decisions, such as formal retraining under board auspices and future-economic-loss awards.

We believe that the whole process of mediation and its impact on the appeal system has not been adequately studied and considered. We would submit that it is premature to entrench section 72 in the act without further discussion. We would urge that this whole area be reviewed by the upcoming royal commission. Our recommendation quite simply is to delete section 72 of the proposed bill.

Section 147, $200 increases to pensioners: Monthly pensioners who are over 70 years of age are not eligible for subsection 147(4) supplements and were not considered when Bill 165 was drafted. These are workers on very small WCB pensions who turned 65 years of age prior to July 26, 1989, and they were never able to return to their work capacity after the injury. Their CPP contributions were minimal. They were made ineligible for subsection 147(4) supplements due to their age, yet they suffered very similar circumstances as those younger than they and had low pensions with very little indexing. Increasing the pensions by $200 monthly for the this vulnerable group would not cost a large amount, would be equitable and just and would be in keeping with the spirit of the introduction of this provision in the bill.

Our recommendation is as follows: Clause 147(14)(b) should be amended to read:

"If the worker would be entitled to a supplement under subsection (4) but for subsection (7);"

Or a new clause 147(14)(c) should be added:

"If the worker is in receipt of a permanent partial disability award under subsections 43(1) of the pre-1985 act or 45(1) of the pre-1989 act, and had reached the age of 65 before July 26, 1989."

Protection for general welfare assistance and family benefits assistance recipients eligible for the proposed $200 increase: The Premier, Bob Rae, announced in the Legislature on April 14, 1994, that individuals who are eligible for the proposed $200 increase and were also in receipt of general welfare assistance or family benefits assistance benefits would be given special consideration. These individual workers would not have the additional $200 payment deducted from their GWA or FBA monthly benefits. However, we do not see any such language in the proposed bill to enshrine this commitment. We would ask that these exemptions be included in the bill as an additional subsection to the proposed subsection 147(14) and that any amendments required be made to the Family Benefits Act and General Welfare Assistance Act to ensure the protection of this group.

Our recommendations are twofold: Firstly, a new subsection should be added to 147(1), and secondly, the necessary amendments to the Family Benefits Act and general welfare assistance legislation should be made.

In conclusion, we wish to thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today. We have focused on certain areas of this bill which we believe need urgent attention, and they are:

-- The clarification of the jurisdiction and duplication clause.

-- Extended coverage of the $200 increase to more older injured workers.

-- Inclusion of language of exemptions for general welfare assistance and family benefits assistance recipients eligible for the proposed $200 pension increase.

-- And finally, the removal of the mediation section.

This is respectfully submitted on behalf of OPSEU by myself, Doug Paolini, and my colleague Glenn Sirois.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. About two minutes each.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've brought forward some very interesting points. I don't know that my question is necessarily directed to yourself but I think that, certainly on two matters, we are going to need, through your presentation, a clarification by the government as to whether injured workers who are receiving 147(4) supplements could have them reduced by virtue of being under GWA or FBA.

Ms Murdock: No, there will be no clawback and it will be done through Comsoc.

Mr Offer: How does that happen without legislative change?

Mr Ferguson: It's already in the --

Ms Murdock: When they make the calculation -- it's part of the regulations; it's not part of the legislation.

Mr Ferguson: It can't be clawed back.

Ms Murdock: In terms of what the deductions are going to be on entitlements under Comsoc?

Mr Offer: No. Let me be clear. I might end up just restating the point that you've made: that individual workers may be entitled to the 147(4) $200. They may also have made application through either GWA or FBA. I believe it was the suggestion by the presenters that, by virtue of getting an extra $200, it would affect their --

Ms Murdock: If I understood your question, Mr Offer, the entitlements section under Comsoc is not handled legislatively for the deductions and therefore it doesn't have to be handled legislatively to prevent a clawback. So those workers who would be receiving the $200, there will be no clawback under Comsoc. Period.

Mr Offer: Okay, that has met your concern then?

Mr Paolini: It has.

Mr Offer: Thank you.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. Have you done any cost of what the changes would be, in terms of the overall cost to the system, if the recommendations that you put forward are implemented?

Mr Paolini: You're referring to the expansion of the $200 --

Mr Carr: The total cost. In there, you say that's not that great. The total cost of what you've called for in your presentation: any idea of what the cost would be?

Mr Paolini: My understanding is that there have been figures available on that and as I'm sure you're aware, Mr Carr, OPSEU is focusing on various areas of the new bill at each of our sessions. I don't want to spoil anyone's surprises, especially when I haven't got the brief in front of me, but that will be addressed in Ottawa, I believe, tomorrow.

Mr Carr: Just in regard to the overall unfunded liability: We heard here today from Sharon that it is in the depths and so on. I'm looking at the annual report. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is we're paying out more than we're taking in.

You may not want to comment on this; it may come at a later date too. There are some people who have come forward and said we shouldn't be concerned at all with the unfunded liability; they don't believe it. I'm looking at the audited financial statement put out by this government which anybody who's had 101 accounting can look at and see. Would you like to comment on the unfunded liability? What should the government do about that, if anything?

Mr Paolini: I would only be interested in commenting to the extent that that will specifically be dealt with by my colleagues in Ottawa tomorrow.

Mr Ferguson: I want to thank you for appearing today. I just want to make a very brief comment about section 147, the $200 increase to pensioners. You as well as many other previous deputants who have appeared before this committee have brought to this committee's attention, as well as the government's, a serious situation. I want to tell you today that that suggestion of yours is under active consideration and we certainly appreciate your bringing that to our attention.

Mr Paolini: Thank you. It's been our pleasure.

1330

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of his committee, I'd like to thank the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 607 for their presentation to the committee this afternoon.

Mr Offer: I'd like some clarification. What was Mr Ferguson saying?

Mr Ferguson: On section 147? Page 5?

Mr Offer: Their point 4, on page 5. It's under active consideration by the government?

Mr Ferguson: It certainly is.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: No. I just wanted a clarification.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

Mr Mahoney: Does that fit into the Premier's statement about financial responsibility?

Mr Ferguson: Everything's under consideration.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Is there somebody here from the Society of Injured Workers? Not yet.

SAULT STE MARIE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL

The Vice-Chair: Could I call forward the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council. 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Dan Lewis: My name's Dan Lewis. I'm the vice-president of the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council.

We have seen past amendments to Ontario's workers' compensation system which have made additional problems for injured workers. Bill 162 is a perfect example of this, with its deeming process leaving injured workers unemployed.

Getting into some of the sections that we had some concern with: Under section 1, the purpose clause in the bill will hopefully give injured workers the benefit that's needed if it's the intent of the board of directors to use it as their guide in making fair policies.

Section 35: This change in the system is very important for spouses of deceased coworkers. Many of them have been denied benefits because of grieving the loss of their loved ones and going beyond the prior time limits. But I believe that this section should be amended to an extension of one year. Usually when somebody is grieving it would take a year, go through a birthday or Christmas or what have you.

Section 53: Bill 165 attempts to improve employment opportunities for injured workers, either with the accident employer or through a WCB-sponsored vocational rehabilitation program under section 53. Injured workers need a job, not just an extension of services which leaves them unemployed and without benefits and living in poverty.

Under section 54: Employers need to stop hurting their employees, and when they do they must accommodate the injured worker in any way possible. The bill must force re-employment of the injured worker and not allow employers to have unsafe workplaces.

Under section 147: This section will help some, but I believe it should be amended to include all injured workers receiving a pension from the board pre-1990, regardless whether they are in receipt of subsection 147(4). Many injured workers fell under the old acts and should be compensated under any new act. They are the most in need.

Section 148: In regard to the Friedland formula, we cannot accept any reduction in benefits. The workers' compensation system was designed for injured employees without income as a result of being injured on the job. The permanent disability they suffer is a loss of part of their lives. The amount of their pensions is usually low and needs to be fully indexed.

My pension, as an example, was rated at 12%, which gave me $154.31 per month in 1988. Six years later in 1994, that indexing increased my pension to $191.43. This increase amounts to $37.12 per month, and I'm not getting rich off of it. Bill 165 must be amended to remove the 4% cap so that injured workers can have pensions that keep up with inflation.

Many other parts of this bill need to have clarification, but I feel these are some of our main concerns that I have spoken on today. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me the time to present the views of the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council, and I will entertain any questions.

Mr David Johnson: My first question, after thanking you for your deputation, would be: Does the labour council support the bill the way it is today if the bill comes back to the House? The way it is today, if you were to cast a vote, would it be yea or nay?

Mr Lewis: I can't speak for all the whole labour council affiliates but I can say that we are interested in Bill 165 with some amendments. We need a change to the compensation act. We've seen what's happened over the years as well as the introduction of Bill 162, where injured workers were still being left out, without incomes or without jobs. So I would say, with amendments, we would like to see Bill 165 go ahead.

Mr David Johnson: I appreciate "with amendments," because probably everybody has made deputations with the proper number of amendments; some of them would be about 100 amendments, I guess. But quite often bills do not get amended and they come back exactly the way you see them today, at least in substantive nature. In that case, if it came back the way it is with the Friedland formula, for example, still there, would you and your organization support that or oppose that?

Mr Lewis: I would say that we would have to support Bill 165 even though we do have some concerns about the bill. There are some sections of the bill that are forging ahead as far as trying to correct some of the problems with the system and hopefully we can negotiate down the road to improve the compensation act again.

Mr David Johnson: One of the concerns that we've heard and one of the concerns I must say that I share is with regard to the unfunded liability, and that is an obligation to pay. Now, you can call it a deficit or you can call it whatever you want but there's an obligation to pay out money to injured workers beyond the capacity that the system has today. I guess some would say, "Well, by charging down the road, that money will appear," but the unfunded liability is growing and there's grave concern. Obviously, you've heard it from some of the deputants this morning that this is going to be a problem for the injured workers in the future, that the system may simply may not be able to generate the money that's required; to put the assessment up for employers will strangle them and will likely cause some businesses to go under or to reduce jobs, and I don't think any of us want to see that.

You've called upon the elimination of the Friedland formula, you've called upon the extension of the $200 increase. I'm just wondering, where are we going to get this money from? Do you see the assessment going up to employers or do you see the unfunded liability continuing to grow? Where is the money going to come from?

Mr Lewis: What I see if this bill goes ahead and improves the rehabilitation services for employees to return to the pre-accident workplace, I see a lot of money being saved there. I can refer to what's going on at Algoma Steel Inc. I've been involved as far as trying to return injured workers to the steel plant. In November of 1993 we had 236 people on WCB. Today we have under 90 and we're still plugging away. Algoma Steel received a rebate of $1.76 million.

Those are the kinds of things that we've got to do if we're going to reduce the unfunded liability. Employers have to re-employ, and I think that's the bottom line, and that's where the dollars could be saved.

1340

Mr David Johnson: We certainly hope that people will have jobs. It's an unfortunate fact that in Ontario today there are fewer people employed than there were in 1990. But notwithstanding that, we've seen from the construction association this morning that the number of cases, injuries, have declined by about 30% in the last 10 years; from the mining association, their number of injuries have gone down, and yet the cost of the system -- for example, the construction association has indicated that the cost of the average case has gone up from, let's see, $10,000 in 1982 to $55,000 just recently. So the cost continues to climb even though the number of injuries has gone down fairly considerably. Apparently, both of those industries have been very responsible in terms of reducing the number of injuries.

Perhaps we all hope that the injuries will continue to go down, but obviously there's a cost in here that's still buoying this system up. I don't think that just a reduction in injuries is going to result in the balancing of the system financially. Where, beyond that, are we going to get the money to pay the injured workers who need the support?

Mr Lewis: I would hope not out of the pocket of the injured worker, because that's what the compensation system was all about, to support the injured worker when he had a workplace injury.

Again, as my example with Algoma Steel, we've done things radically different there and injured workers are returning to work; they're not suffering; they're returning to meaningful, suitable jobs. If that's where the dollars can be saved through the board as far as getting employers to re-employ injured workers, then maybe that's the route to go. I don't have all the answers as far as how, but the injured worker shouldn't have to suffer because of it.

Ms Murdock: Just to continue on that point too, the fact is that in returning the injured worker to work the company sees a dramatic decrease in accidents and, as a consequence, then sees a decrease in their Workers' Compensation Board premiums so that there are savings to the company and savings to the Workers' Compensation Board at the same time.

My question goes to your section on page 2 in regard to section 148, and it's really to you as an injured worker rather than you as the president of the labour council. Since you raised it I wanted to ask you: We've had some presenters suggest that if you've injured yourself and you've gotten a pension and you end up getting a job where you're being paid equal to or better than you were when you were injured, should you then be receiving a pension? I would like your comments and views on that.

Mr Lewis: Again, I receive the 12% pension. I also have basically an artificial knee, artificial ligaments. I can't play with my children like I could before I had my accident. There are a lot of things I can't do. I can't participate in sports any more. If nothing else, the pension compensates me for loss of enjoyment of life. It certainly isn't an amount of money that is going to make me rich. I don't even consider it enough compensation for the disability I have, but so be it; that's the amount that I get.

I think an injured worker deserves to be compensated for lost time, and he deserves to be compensated for the loss of enjoyment of life too.

Ms Murdock: You mentioned mandatory re-employment on page 2 as well, basically; you didn't call it that way. They "must force re-employment of the injured worker," but it's basically mandatory re-employment. How do you see that working, particularly in small business?

Mr Lewis: We've seen over the years where employers have skirted the issue of the reinstatement of injured employees, and we need to put something in place that says, "This is the law," not, "The injured worker has a time limit to apply to the reinstatement branch." We need employers to know that we're serious and the act says that you're going to have to try and re-employ to the best of your ability. Give it an honest effort.

Ms Murdock: I know that Mr Martin wanted to ask a question.

Mr Martin: I want to, first of all, say, Dan, thanks for coming forward and to let the people around the table know of your long and intimate involvement in this whole issue, not only your own personal situation but the work that you do on behalf of people dealing with compensation through the Steelworkers and that you certainly bring a very intimate knowledge of this to this table. Your contribution is very valuable.

You touch on two things that are key, in my mind, one of them being the section that's going to hopefully improve the opportunity for workers who are injured to get back into the workplace and you used the very, I think, valuable example of Algoma Steel who has in fact done that. The piece that concerns me as it does you, and certainly others who have come before us today, is the question of the Friedland formula, and it's problematic. I don't think anybody here, particularly on this side of the table, would tell you that we don't do this with some chagrin.

Certainly the red flag that's causing it is this unfunded liability question, and you know some have likened that whole thing to having a mortgage with money in the bank kind of thing, and perhaps it's not as critical as we all see it, but it is driving this -- perceived or real, it's driving a lot of why we're here today as well as the fact that you and I know the thing needed to be fixed in the first place. It was broken. Any comment on the unfunded liability, Dan?

Mr Lewis: I can only reiterate the fact that if employers can re-employ, then the board isn't forced to be putting out all that extra money for voc rehab services, or the employee goes back to the company, and the company doesn't have to look at the surcharges. They get their annual assessment, and all they have to deal with is an annual assessment, then everybody's going to be happy. Their money's going to be saved by both the employer and the WCB. I believe in our industry, for every dollar that's put out on a compensation claim to an injured worker, it costs Algoma Steel or steel $5.23.

Mr Mahoney: Your section 1 on the purpose clause, I assume what you're saying here is you like it fine the way it is and you would not like to see an addition that would include financial responsibility. Is that fair?

Mr Lewis: What I see in section 1 is, as I've worded it, if the intent of the board of directors is to use this purpose clause to have fair policies introduced, then great; no problem.

Mr Mahoney: So you would not like to see financial responsibility added to the purpose clause?

Mr Lewis: Financial responsibility in which way?

Mr Mahoney: Well, the PLMAC agreement said that there would be financial responsibility, that the board shall act in a financially responsible way. Word it any way you want; that sort of the message was supposed to be in the purpose clause. Business has come before this committee and expressed serious concern, because when you interpret other sections later on in the act, or when WCAT makes a decision or whatever, there is no requirement -- for example, subsection 15(3.2), on page 5 of this bill: "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." If you then go back to the purpose clause, there is no requirement in evaluating the consequences of those changes in benefits, services, programs and policies to take into account financial responsibility.

1350

That's the nub of what business is concerned about. What the board's powers are to interpret certain things, such as expanding coverage, such as perhaps expanding compensable items, adding stress, there is no responsibility under the purpose clause to show any kind of financial responsibility, and my question is, since you like the purpose clause the way it is, which deals strictly with benefits and services, then I'm assuming you would be opposed to financial responsibility being added to the purpose clause. If not, fine.

Mr Lewis: As long as the bipartite board is going to be set up, it should be their responsibility to make sure that the policies are in place that cover that exact issue, as far as where the money is being put out and why and how. Possibly the royal commission once it gets going will identify some other problems that have to be addressed. I don't see the need of having that in the --

Mr Mahoney: Okay. So you would not want it in there. There is a statement about financial responsibility later in the bill, subsection 58(1) I think it is, that says the board shall act in a responsible manner financially, but it's how you interpret these other sections that relate back to the purpose clause that has people concerned. I am assuming, if you don't see the need for financial responsibility to be in the purpose clause, you would hope that the Premier's letter of April 21, wherein he assured the chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation that a purpose clause "will be added to the Workers' Compensation Act which will ensure that the WCB provides its services in a context of financial responsibility" -- that's the Premier's letter, his words four months ago -- I am assuming that you would hope that the Premier will not live up to that commitment.

Mr Lewis: I think the compensation board has to be accountable for the moneys that go out. I don't really know if there is a definite need to have that in the purpose clause like you say.

Mr Mahoney: You hope the Premier wouldn't live up to his statement, that he's going to put it in the purpose clause.

Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, I think he's answered the question.

Mr Fletcher: You're putting words in his mouth.

Mr Mahoney: Well, come on, the Premier says -- I mean, this is really pretty fundamental, as far as I'm concerned. The Premier says a purpose clause will be added that will include financial responsibility. The district labour council does not want that in the purpose clause. My question is, I assume you would then hope that the Premier would not live up to the commitment he made on April 21 of this year. Anyway, I think I made my point.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Is that it, five minutes?

The Vice-Chair: That's five minutes.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please. On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the Sault Ste Marie and District Labour Council for bringing their presentation to this committee this afternoon.

GERALD ZUK

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenter, Gerald Zuk. 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'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer than that to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. As soon as you're comfortable, could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Gerald Zuk: You can call me either Gerald Zuk or claim 9241082, one of the workers who will be shafted if this bill becomes law. I am an injured worker who would be affected if Bill 165 becomes law. I receive a 58% pension for the loss of my leg as a result of a work injury that occurred in 1972. Now I am being threatened with the loss of my inflation protection. Also, I won't qualify for the proposed $200 increase. The reason I won't is that I chose to get on with my life and return to work after a serious work injury.

I feel so strongly about how Bill 165 discriminates against injured workers who've taken the initiative to return to work after a serious work injury that I'm making submissions to this committee about this bill.

Normally, I don't care about politicians or politics, but in this case, I'm making an exception. If I had one recommendation to make to this committee it would be that Bill 165 be scrapped, that Bill 162 be repealed and that the Bill 101 act be resurrected.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that I am more fortunate than injured workers with serious disabilities who fall under the Bill 162 act, because they haven't even been fairly compensated for their serious disabilities, but adding to the inequities that already exist in the system isn't serving justice at all.

There are four areas I'd like to cover. First of all, I'd like to comment a bit on the process; secondly, I'd like to make a few general observations about the bill and workers' compensation generally; thirdly, I'd like to address a couple of specific sections of the bill, and fourthly, I'd like to comment briefly on the unfunded liability. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I can't deal with this as thoroughly as I'd like.

As for the Bill 165 process, basically a couple of things I'd say about this is, number one, it was wrong for injured workers to be excluded from this process. In any other area of government, when negotiations take place under the auspices of government, the affected parties are given an opportunity to participate in the negotiations, but in this case injured workers were excluded. That's wrong. Not only is it wrong, it's an insult to injured workers. It's an insult to assume that we're incapable of speaking for ourselves.

As for the labour representatives on the PLMAC or RAESCREWIW, whatever you want to call it, to me, with all due respect, they're hypocritical. If the same kind of process was imposed on a union as is being imposed on the injured workers, organized labour would scream from every hill, valley and mountaintop about the injustice of it all. But here they are cooperating in the same kind of process that they themselves would condemn if it was imposed on one of their own. So that's all I'll say about the process.

As for the bill itself, some general observations: First, again, if the process was wrong, the bill is fundamentally flawed.

Secondly, it's legally and morally wrong for the government to deal with problems in the system at the expense of the injured workers who have the initiative to return to work. I'm going to be elaborating on this if I have time.

Thirdly, it's important not to lose sight of what workers' compensation is and why it was established, because when that's lost sight of, the system becomes unfair and problems in the system become exacerbated. Workers' compensation is to compensate injured workers for their occupational injuries and diseases; nothing else. It's not to compensate you for lack of transferable skills or lack of education or lack of other barriers to employment; it's to compensate you for the damage to your body.

The other thing about workers' compensation is that it was established as an alternative to workers suing employers for their occupational injuries and diseases. In return for giving up the right to sue, they are guaranteed compensation. But Bill 165, like Bill 162, loses sight of that. It proposes to give additional compensation to people for personal attributes which serve as barriers to re-employment and it does this at the expense of other people who've had the initiative to return to work.

A final fault I find with Bill 165 generally -- I find lots of specific faults with it, but in a general sort of way, just like Bill 162, it appears not to recognize that there are other income support systems in place to assist with the problem of someone who's unemployable because of an occupational injury or disease that wouldn't make someone else unemployable.

Those are the general observations I would make about it. Now to deal with the specific sections of it.

A purpose clause is there. I support that, but I would have a couple of addendums to it, or addenda, whatever the term is.

1400

If compensation is paid, it should be based on the nature and degree of the injury or occupational disease.

A second addendum I would make about it is that a lot of employer representatives would probably say that there should be a financial responsibility clause or section. Well, that's fine, but let's have a qualification to that: that if financial responsibility is to be exercised, it's not at the expense of anybody who's had the initiative to return to work.

The other specific section I'll mention is governance of it. Yes, I support a bipartite board of directors, but I say keep the politicians off it. Keep the compensation board politically independent so it's not at the whim of whatever is expedient and opportunistic for the politicians. Also, let's have injured worker representation on the board of directors. They're the ones most affected by it.

Re-employment: I'll skip that.

Let me deal with the $200 increase, and I said in my opening remarks that it's morally wrong and legally wrong to give some workers an increase but not others. I'll deal with the legal aspects of that first.

The pre-Bill 162 act always provided that in any case of permanent disability, the impairment of earning capacity, ie, the pension, was to be estimated from the nature and degree of the injury, but what Bill 165 does is estimate the impairment of earning capacity on the basis of the worker's employment status. Based on a plain reading of it, that's wrong.

Also, if you give some injured workers an increase and not others, that's contrary to the fairness clause, because how is it fair that if two workers have identical disabilities resulting from work injuries, one should get more money than the other for that disability? The reason the one would get more than the other is that the one who gets less has made the effort to get re-established in the workforce.

That's bad enough, but if this fiasco goes through, some people with lesser disabilities are going to get more money for those disabilities than some people with more serious disabilities. How is that fair?

I don't understand how it's fair, probably because it isn't fair, and that's how it looks legalistically, but I wouldn't sink or swim on any legal challenge to this because whenever the law is twisted around or there's some legal nitpicking, it's never to the advantage of the ordinary law-abiding working person.

You can go out and rape and kill a few people and all the forces of the law will be on your side and the freedom of the press will go out the window, but if you're an ordinary injured worker, the law probably isn't going to be on your side.

That's what I say about it legally. Morally, fairness enters into it. I'll just elaborate a bit on the fairness. I'm running out of time here.

What this bill means in practical terms is that the injured workers with serious disabilities who return to work are expected to make a sacrifice to pay for not only the failure of the government and the board to maintain its financial viability, but also make a sacrifice for other workers who didn't return to work. How is that fair? We're not responsible for the financial problems of the compensation board. We're not responsible for the failures of the government. So don't put it on us to solve these problems.

I look at this from another moral standpoint. Any pre-Bill 162 pension was given to the worker for the damage to his or her body from a work injury or disease. All kinds of inferences are drawn about that, but ultimately the money you get is for the damage to your body. But what Bill 165 is saying is that if you return to work, the damage to your body is worth less than the damage to the body of somebody who didn't return to work. That's discrimination of the worst sort.

It's really amazing. This government goes looking under chairs and would look under the curtains of this table to find discrimination against some other group, but somehow it's okay to discriminate against injured workers with serious disabilities who return to work. Look at where the real discrimination is, or is going to be.

I would recommend to comply with the legal requirements of the act. You know, you comply with the legal requirements of whatever arcane law that ever is for somebody who's done some terrible crime; you make sure that the legal requirements are followed to a T. Well, follow the legal requirements for the injured workers. So to comply with the legal and moral -- some moral standards; morals seem to go out the window with politics a lot of the time. Either let every pensioner or no pensioner be given an increase, and if an increase is given, let that increase be commensurate with the worker's clinical disability rating.

Now I'd like to deal with this so-called Friedland formula. It's funny how some guy named Friedland -- we don't know who he is, where he comes from, whatever, but he's going to impact on our lives and we don't have a right to challenge him on it. So be it. What I said about the $200 increase for some workers and not for others applies with modifications to this so-called Friedland formula.

There have been studies piled upon studies of injured workers of the workers' compensation system. Never ask an injured worker to participate in the study; ask some professor, ask some politician, ask some union official, ask everybody else except the people most affected. But even Weiler in his report -- he's a professor and he wouldn't know what it's like to get his hands dirty, more than likely -- said that it should be enshrined in the act; it's a right of injured workers to have their pensions inflation-protected. So what he said should apply.

But again, we get this triple whammy with this Bill 165. We get the loss of the inflation protection, we get an exacerbation of the discrimination against workers who've returned to work and we get a decrease in pensions in terms of purchasing power.

The last area I'd like to cover very briefly is the unfunded liability. Of course, it seems that what this bill is trying to do is deal with this problem at the expense of the workers with serious disabilities who return to work.

Let's take a look at other ways to deal with it. First, we need to have an examination of how this liability came to be, and we can avoid the kinds of actions or lack thereof that contributed to it.

Secondly, we can look at the area of employer assessments.

Thirdly, a lot of the unfunded liability is due to these fly-by-night employers who didn't stay in business long enough to even remotely cover a part of the cost of their claims, and yet the other employers are being asked to bear the burden of it. Maybe the government ought to take a look at how fair that is to other employers. This probably would go over like a lead balloon with the government because it can't meet its existing obligations, but when you read these horror stories of how the government spends its money, there could be a lot worse expenditures.

Fourthly, with regard to assessments, certainly there's a case to be made for employers who haven't been in business very long to pay a higher rate of assessment than well-established employers -- something like car insurance; if you haven't been driving very long, then you have to pay a higher premium.

The other recommendation I'd make with respect to the unfunded liability is, remove the exemption in the act that enables the banks and financial institutions and certain other employers not to be covered for compensation. It's really amazing: The banks are the country's richest employers and here we have a quasi-socialist government which purports to be the champion of the ordinary working people, but when there's a financial problem affecting an organization which exists to serve workers, who does this socialist government attack? Not the banks, not the ones who can afford to pay. It attacks the ordinary working person whose cause it purports to champion. I say keep partisan politics out of this, but it is so hypocritical of this government. That's the only way to put it in a diplomatic way. Privately, I'd put it another way.

1410

The Vice-Chair: If I may interrupt, you have about two minutes left.

Mr Zuk: Then I'll just forgo my two minutes.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Actually, it's probably good that we ended up there. I know that's going to be addressed by the royal commission.

But on that very point, there are 7,000 employees not covered under those areas: banks, trust companies and so on. Those companies indeed would be paying workers' compensation premiums, there's no doubt, but they would also then be unbalanced, I would say, in terms of the number of accidents, particularly in a day and age when you've got computers and you've got repetitive strain injuries in those kinds of workplaces to a higher degree than in a lot of others. So to make a blanket statement that you're going to get all this money into the system that's going to suddenly help out in the unfunded liability, I don't think I agree with you.

Mr Zuk: I totally disagree with you, because if the assessments were fair, there would be some kind of retroactivity involved. The banks benefitted by the fact that workers in other industries were covered. The fortunes of the banks relate to the fortunes of other companies, so to the extent that other companies benefitted by workers' compensation coverage, why shouldn't the banks have to pay a portion of that?

Mr Mahoney: The hypocrisy that you refer to that this government has shown, I wonder what your reaction is to the Ontario Federation of Labour, to many of the large unions that have come before us.

We had one of the auto worker locals in London say they strenuously objected to 17 of the clauses in the bill, wanted them either deleted, amended or whatever. My question to them was, "If you don't get your amendments, 17 of them, bearing in mind that there are 36 clauses in the bill and 11 of them are housekeeping, so that leaves 25 substantive clauses" -- they're opposed to 17 of them; ergo, they support 8 of them -- "If you don't get these changes, do you still want the bill passed?" And they said, "Yes." Astounding. I wonder if you think maybe hypocrisy has run amok not only in the government but in some sections of organized labour in the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Mr Zuk: I say to anybody who purports to support the cause of injured workers, if the interests of injured workers clash with the interests of organized labour or clash with the interests of the government or politicians or whatever, if your first loyalties are to the politicians or to organized labour or to whatever, don't pass yourself off as an advocate for injured workers, because not only it is dishonest, it's a disservice to injured workers.

Mr Carr: This is my second trip up here in a couple of weeks and I appreciate the opportunity of coming through here. On my last trip, it's funny, we talked about Bill 162, and some of the Liberals were telling us how when they were in government the NDP went around, they had balloons for injured workers, they had coffins brought in. I think it was Shelley Martel who went around and stirred people up. If you'd told anybody that this bill would be introduced by an NDP government and told them what would be in it, they would be literally climbing the ceilings. They'd be swinging off the chandeliers in disgust like they were on Bill 162.

You said that the injured workers weren't even consulted. I can't believe that in spite of what the government may do in the end with this bill, after all the rhetoric and the games that were played on 162, it didn't have the decency to consult with injured workers. Could you expand on that? There were no injured workers consulted at all on this bill?

Mr Zuk: Injured workers weren't involved in the process that led up to the creation of this bill. Obviously we're going through this charade now. Maybe it's not a charade; maybe it will be taken seriously, but I doubt it. It's a done deal, it appears.

Mr Ferguson: No, it's not.

Mr Zuk: But why weren't they part of the process? To me, the whole bunch of politicians is hypocritical about this. The Liberals are hypocritical because Bill 162 was supposed to solve all the problems, that's what the minister at the time said, but of course the problems weren't all solved. The NDP was against Bill 162 and they did as you say. They had four years to repeal it, but instead of repealing it, after we were down they gave us a little kick in the you-know-where. The Conservatives? Well, probably if they're elected they'll shaft us even worse. But to give them their due, they make no bones about it.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Zuk, on behalf of this committee I'd like to thank you for bringing us your presentation this afternoon.

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, as the next presenters are coming up, I'm wondering, since we've now heard that extension of section 147 is under active consideration --

Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair --

Mr Offer: No, no. I have the right to ask a question.

Mr Ferguson: All parts of the bill are under active consideration. That's why we're going through this.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): You're going to change everything?

Mr Ferguson: I explained that last week, I'll explain it again this week and I'll repeat it next week.

Mr Offer: Mr Chair --

The Vice-Chair: Order, order.

Mrs Fawcett: If you're going to change everything, then you might just as well withdraw it and start over again.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Before Mr Ferguson climbs the walls to the ceiling, maybe he could listen to the last part of my request, and that is that I would like the ministry to provide, if this active consideration in fact came to fruition, what effect or impact that might have on the current financial status of the workers' compensation system. I hope that meets with Mr Ferguson's approval.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sure the ministry will be able to provide that for you, Mr Offer.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1880

The Acting Chair: Good afternoon. I understand you're from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the area office. If you could introduce yourself for the sake of Hansard and for the members of the panel, and also try to leave some time at the end of your presentation for some questions and comments from the panel.

Ms Cora-Lee Skanes: Certainly. My name is Cora-Lee Skanes and I'm here representing the Canadian Union of Public Employees. As well as being president for Local 1880, I am also a worker representative, in which capacity I handle appeals for injured workers.

The number one problem facing injured workers in the province of Ontario is that of living in poverty. Too many of these workers require social assistance benefits in order to survive. Forty per cent of injured workers in Canada are currently unemployed.

More focus needs to be placed on health and safety issues. Although the experience rating program addresses this issue, we need to be very clear with our message that the employer must provide a safe and healthy workplace. This must include violence in the workplace. In a recent CUPE survey, 61.2% of the respondents had been subjected to an aggressive act during the previous two years, and 55% of those had been subjected to three or more aggressive acts during the same period of time; 28.2% of the workers surveyed had witnessed more than seven acts of aggression against workers.

This is totally unacceptable. Employers have policies dealing with aggression by workers towards clients but do not appear to be very concerned about aggression by clients towards workers. This issue must clearly be addressed if our goal is to have fewer injured workers.

The best way to cut benefit costs is by not only preventing injuries but also getting injured workers back to work as soon as possible. Injured workers themselves will tell you that the longer workers with disabilities are away from the workplace, the less likely they are to return.

Although the strengthened and streamlined return-to-work programs will address this issue, they don't go far enough. Uncooperative employers across the province appear to be more willing to pay the fines and penalties than they are to get the injured workers back to work. This must be dealt with very strongly.

We are also concerned that subsection 51(2) gives the employer access to medical information. This access should be contingent on the employer providing a cooperative, approved return-to-work program. Subsections 53(10) and (13) clearly do not address an uncooperative employer's role. In our opinion, if an employer is not cooperating in the process, then he should not be involved in the program.

The definition of "compensation" in subsection 8(7.1) needs to be clearly defined. Does this include private disability insurance or Canada pension? It is unclear.

1420

There is also a small group of workers currently over the age of 70 who are not included in clause 147(14)(b), and this should be addressed as well.

We are encouraged to see the implementation of a bipartite board of directors. Workers need more input into the system, for after all, they are the people who will be using it. The present system needs to be far more user friendly.

The Weiler report has estimated that 6,000 workers die every year in our province from occupational disease. We need changes and we need them quickly. Too many disabled workers are living in poverty. Too many Ontario workers, an estimated 700,000, are not even covered by the Workers' Compensation Act.

Hopefully, the royal commission will address the serious issues of coverage, entitlement, occupational disease, benefit levels and indexing, and we look forward to assisting it in any way possible.

I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present our views to the committee, and I have submitted a technical description of the actual amendments to the bill that we are supporting. I'm prepared at this time to answer any questions you may have.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much. Your last point about the 700,000 workers who are not covered: The insurance companies and the banks will say to you that they already provide coverage through private insurance that is far superior coverage to that of WCB for their employees. They say, "Leave us alone, thank you very much." I can kind of understand why they don't want to get caught in the mess that the compensation system has become in Ontario.

There is also a study that's been done actuarially that shows that the rate grouping for these workers would be in around the 25-cents-per-$100 range and that the claims would be substantially higher. Therefore, ultimately, they would be a burden on the system.

Now, I suppose you can get a study to show you anything you want, depending on your perspective, and I accept that, but my question to you would be: If it was shown that these workers are indeed going to turn out to be a cost burden to the Ontario workers' compensation system, would you still want them included?

Ms Skanes: I think probably we can look at the fact that you're saying that their insurance is far superior to what they get under workers' comp --

Mr Mahoney: No, they're saying it. That's what they told me, that the banks and the insurance companies provide private compensation for injuries. Bear in mind that many of the injuries would be the carpal tunnel, the repetitive strain, the soft tissue and that type of thing. You wouldn't have as many back problems from lifting or those types of injuries. You wouldn't have, necessarily, broken arms. It would be a lower -- I wouldn't call it a lower level, because they're quite serious, but it would be an injury that would occur from working in that type of workplace.

They claim that they provide far superior coverage. I haven't seen that disputed anywhere either. We haven't had any of those employees coming forward saying, "We want workers' compensation coverage," which is interesting. We have unions saying they should be brought in, organized labour saying they should be brought in. I did an outreach tour for three months that went across Canada, as well as to eight different cities in Ontario. Not once did we have a worker from a bank or an insurance company come before us to say, "Please include us in the compensation system."

Ms Skanes: I would imagine my point would be that if they're getting far superior coverage, at what cost to the other employees, the other workers in the province? If everybody was covered under the Workers' Compensation Act, then the burden or the cost could be shared equally by everybody and we could get everybody a fair system.

Mr Mahoney: In fact, I thought that as well at the beginning of the tour that I went on, and on the surface that certainly seems valid. The studies, however, in the industry would show that there's a very real possibility, with a 25-cent rate grouping -- and you can't just automatically bump them into $3; they'd challenge that and you'd be in trouble -- these companies will wind up being a cost burden due to the nature of the types of injuries we're seeing in business today and the increase in those injuries.

My question to you was, if in fact it is a cost burden to the compensation system -- because there are two issues; there's the economic issue and there's the justice issue, I suppose -- do you still want them included?

Ms Skanes: Well, it shouldn't be a cost burden and their assessment should reflect the injury rate. If their injuries are higher, and in my brief I talk about the health and safety issues, the ergonomics of the jobs should be changed then so that those injuries don't happen.

Mr Mahoney: I guess in a perfect world there's a lot of things that should be. The indication to me was, and in fact in my report one of the things I recommended was that they not be brought in at this time, until we answer those very serious questions about where you would put them in a rate grouping, the premiums they would pay and the potential impact on the system. Because I would submit to you that the last thing in the world we need is something that's going to cost the compensation system more money and therefore create an even greater burden for injured workers.

You talk about subsection 51(2) and the medical information and making it "contingent on the employer providing a cooperative, approved return-to-work program." What about designing a system that more clearly deals with uncooperative employers, employers who are not only uncooperative after the injury but uncooperative in implementing proper health and safety programs before the injury occurs in an attempt to avoid the injury? Instead of treating everybody with a broad brush -- we've heard stories of how good a job Algoma has done here in the Sault and we've heard other stories where examples can be given -- would it not make more sense to set up a system that was punitive to employers who are proven bad -- obviously you'd have to give them an appeal mechanism of some kind -- and reward employers who are showing good results, and base it on results rather than subjective viewpoints of somebody coming in?

Ms Skanes: I wouldn't have a problem with that except that the bad employers would then pay the penalties and there would be no changes to the workplace. So your injured workers would still be injured. There would have to be a mechanism to force them to make the changes that should be made.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you for your presentation today. This is my first day on this particular committee and I've been puzzled by the fact that the injured workers who have come in -- and the deputant before you, I'm sure you heard -- have been expressing extreme displeasure with the bill. It's a little puzzling to me and I wonder if you would comment on it.

It seems that when the injured workers are here they're not the least bit supportive of the bill, and yet the unions that come before us, reluctantly I think -- and you've expressed your support, but right at the end of your brief. Other union representatives who have come before us have not even expressed support until asked the question. Doesn't this give you pause to think that perhaps there's something wrong here when we hear from the workers who are not in support of this and the union representatives seem to be very reluctantly supporting the bill?

Ms Skanes: Mr Mahoney spoke about a perfect world. In a perfect world, we'd like all the changes that I have attached to my brief, but this is at least a start. What is the alternative if this bill doesn't go through? There are some improvements here and we need to start somewhere. That's why we're supporting it. Although we would like to see changes made to it, there are some improvements here that will benefit the injured workers.

Mr David Johnson: You mention you're supportive of a bipartite board of directors. The bill mentions that four directors should be representative of workers. Some of the injured workers who have come forward today say that injured workers should be accommodated on the board. Would you support a situation where some of the four directors would not necessarily be union representatives but would be individuals representing injured workers?

1430

Ms Skanes: I think you need injured workers represented, yes. That was my interpretation: The workers' representatives would also include some injured workers in that.

Mr David Johnson: I'm not so sure, because there seems to be more union support for this than there does injured worker support.

You've mentioned the fact right off the top that the main problem is people living in poverty, and I'm sure that's a concern we all share. The question is, I guess, where is the money coming from to assist those who need the help? It seems to me, in going through your presentation, that basically you rely on enlarging the system to bring more workers in and perhaps more revenue in. Is that how you feel, that there's going to be more money to assist those who need it? Where is the money going to come from to assist the injured workers?

Ms Skanes: I would say that the employers bear the burden through the assessments. If the employers are assessed too low, then the assessments need to be higher, and that might well address some of the issues of cleaning up the workplaces so that injuries don't happen.

Mr David Johnson: The information I have is that in Ontario we have the highest assessment of all the provinces. Newfoundland is about the same, a little bit under Ontario. But bar that --

Mr Carr: Double BC.

Mr David Johnson: -- I'm hearing "double BC," and all the other provinces are noticeably lower. Certainly when you talk to the business community, there's no question that it's a disincentive to set up a business in the province of Ontario, not only the workers' compensation premiums but other payroll costs and other taxes and that sort of thing.

Does it not concern you that if we keep jacking up the workers' compensation premiums and business does not set up in Ontario -- and there's no question it's a disincentive -- that jobs are going to be lost, and not only jobs that exist today? As a representative of a union, you must be very concerned about the number of jobs in the province of Ontario and the fact that we have fewer people employed today than in 1990. Are you not concerned that by continuing to put up the assessments we'll have fewer jobs?

Ms Skanes: Definitely that is a concern. My question would be, if the assessments are higher, I'd be interested in seeing the ratio of injuries. The injuries are probably much greater too. Again, the employers need to clean up their workplaces so the injuries don't happen.

When I talked earlier about the penalties to employers who don't return workers to work or who don't clean up their workplaces, maybe those penalties need to be increased. So my main concern is to have fewer injuries and to get those workers who are injured back to work in a speedy manner. That would then affect the assessments.

Mr Ferguson: Thank you very much for appearing today. I think we have to put this bill in some sort of context. First of all, I think all of us recognize, especially on the government side, that it's not going to solve all of the problems but it's going to solve some of the problems. It's not going to be the entire solution, but it's going to be part of the solution.

Mr Mahoney: Name one.

Mr Ferguson: The larger part of the solution, of course, is the royal commission.

To put this in some sort of context, I would like to ask you this question. We have put forth this bill and we recognize that there probably ought to be some changes, and that will be discussed when we go through clause-by-clause. But in response to the bill, this is what we have heard from the opposition parties, and I'm wondering if you could tell the government members what you think we ought to adopt. The opposition parties have suggested that we're not going far enough. They have suggested that we ought to take the 90% benefit rate down to 80%.

Mr Mahoney: Who said that?

Mr Ferguson: The opposition parties have suggested --

Mr Mahoney: We didn't say that. Make him tell the truth.

Mr Ferguson: -- that we ought to put a moratorium on the time from when a claim is rendered valid and date that back 72 hours. So in effect, if you had an accident on Monday, you wouldn't be able to file a claim until Thursday. In fact, the Liberals have suggested that we ought to take the Friedland formula and apply that to everybody: all past claims, all future claims.

So when we put this bill in some sort of context, out of those three suggestions -- the Friedland formula applying to everybody, putting a moratorium from the time of the accident to the actual time an injured worker would get paid, in addition to the other issue that the Tories have suggested, taking the benefit rate from 90% of net earnings down to 80% -- I'm just wondering, which one of those three issues could you endorse and which one of those three issues do you think the people you represent would be happy with?

Ms Skanes: That's quite a question. The people I represent, the injured workers I've dealt with, when I talk in my brief about them living in poverty, I'm serious about that. I wouldn't endorse, and the people I represent wouldn't endorse, anything that would take anything away from the workers. We need to make this better for the workers. I would endorse anything that forces employers to clean up the workplace and bring the injured workers back to work.

That's the biggest obstacle that I face, is trying to get people back to work. They're more than prepared to go back, but the employer, time and time again, says: "We're not prepared to accommodate the job. If you can't do the whole job, you can't come back and do any of it." That's about the only thing that I could support: preventing injuries and getting people back to work, and by whatever means we have to do that.

Mr Ferguson: Your answer then is that of the three measures I've suggested, you wouldn't be able to support any of those?

Ms Skanes: No.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Martin, a very brief question.

Mr Martin: I'm glad you came before us today, Cora-Lee, so that you could get a firsthand earful of the kind of gobbledegook that the Liberals have been delivering across the province re this legislation and so many other things. I can't believe that Steve could come in here today, the home of his father, a representative in the --

Mr Mahoney: Oh, here it comes.

Mr Martin: -- in the Steelworkers --

Mr Mahoney: You'd better be careful here, pal.

Mr Martin: -- and stand up and defend some of the richest, most profitable corporations in our province and cry their plea not to be included in the overwhelming or overriding workmen's compensation program that we have and to use the argument that it would be more costly as opposed to the real argument here, which is that they just don't want to contribute and participate. They know that it would help their workers.

The Vice-Chair: Do you have a question, Mr Martin?

Mr Martin: If in fact their workers were allowed to be organized in the first place, we'd probably get there a lot quicker. I suppose it's the same arguments they used when they travelled the province with Bill 162 and sold deeming to everybody. Are you buying that from them?

Mr Mahoney: Why didn't you change deeming? Why didn't you change it in this bill?

Ms Skanes: My opinion doesn't change from everything I've said here today. I think that the solution is to bring everybody in under the act and to assess them the way they should be assessed. Instead of putting it on the backs of the injured workers, put the responsibility where it belongs.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of this committee I'd like to thank the Canadian Union of Public Employees area office for their presentation to the committee this afternoon. Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

The Vice-Chair: In one moment, as I call forward the next people. The next presenter's from the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793. Could you please come forward.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, it's important that things be said that are accurate, since we're recording this in Hansard. I'm sure that things that are said by anyone here could be taken out of context for their own purposes or twisted in some misleading way. I would like to clarify two things.

First, Mr Ferguson said opposition parties have advocated a reduction in benefit levels from 90% to 80%. Our party has done nothing of the sort.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: That's what he said. You can read it in Hansard.

The Vice-Chair: Agreed.

Mr Mahoney: Our party has done nothing of the sort. We are opposed to reducing benefits. On the second point that the local member made, with regard to the extension of coverage, I must for the record read recommendation 31 of the WCB Outreach Tour --

Mr Ferguson: Point of order.

Mr Mahoney: -- which says: "The extension of coverage to non-covered industries, such as the financial services sector, is not supported at this time due to a lack of statistical and financial evidence that would result in a positive impact on the board's financial situation. Furthermore, the outreach tour recommends that further examination is required in the form of actuarial studies and statistical projections." That is hardly a defence of banks and insurance companies. I will correct you, and since you invoke his name --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: -- my father would correct you too, pal.

Mr Martin: Your father would be twirling in his gave right now, if he could hear.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you for that correction. Mr Ferguson.

Mr Martin: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ferguson.

Mr Martin: I just wanted to --

The Vice-Chair: Mr Ferguson first, please.

Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, I want to thank Mr Mahoney for bringing that to my attention. He's quite correct: We ought to be true and correct and factual in everything we say, particularly to the public. Maybe Mr Mahoney might finally explain when he suggested to John Alexander Adams yesterday that the Liberals supported a $200 increase --

1440

The Vice-Chair: Order, please. In fairness to our presenters --

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please. In fairness to our presenters, perhaps we can carry on with this discussion after all our presenters for the afternoon.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, to hell with that.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 793

The Vice-Chair: 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 keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Mr Michael Quinn: Yes. My name is Michael Quinn. I'm out of Sudbury. We also have here Mr Ed Kaplanis, who is the area representative working out of our Sault Ste Marie office, Mrs Pat Bonell, who is also working out of our Sault Ste Marie office, and an injured worker by the name of Brad Shewfelt. We also have our office manager in the back, Mrs Shelley Andrews.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Michael Quinn. I'm the recording-corresponding secretary and the area supervisor for northeastern Ontario. We represent the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, a construction trade union originally chartered in 1919. Local 793's territorial jurisdiction now encompasses the entire province of Ontario, where it represents in excess of 10,000 members.

The majority of the union's members are engaged in the operation, repair and maintenance of cranes, shovels, bulldozers and similar heavy construction equipment. Local 793 also represents employees across the entire employment spectrum, including the employees of municipalities, scrapyards, industrial cleaning contractors and waste disposal companies. Mr Lew from our legal department was to be present for technical support, but could not attend because of a prior commitment.

In order for this committee to fully appreciate the impact of the proposed changes on our members and other construction workers in the province, it is necessary to sketch briefly the unique characteristics of our industry and how it differs from the industrial sector.

In 1962, the Royal Commission on Labour-Management Relations in the Construction Industry identified several ways in which the construction industry differed fundamentally from manufacturing. First, the construction industry was subject to seasonal and cyclical fluctuations in the economy. Second, the workforce was characterized by mobility, flexibility and the specialized ability to perform construction industry tasks, and the products generated by the construction industry were not easily transported from place to place, so that typically the workers moved from job site to job site. These characteristics remain as true as they were 32 years ago.

With this framework in mind I would like to begin my presentation by applauding the provincial government recognizing that the workers' compensation system is one in need of a major overhaul. Bill 165 I feel captures the main areas of consensus reached by the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. More importantly, it makes a good attempt at balancing the Workers' Compensation Board's twin challenges of maintaining costs and making the system fairer for injured workers.

In terms of achieving real fairness in the system, I particularly favour the purpose clause, section 0.1, as it will be of benefit to our members in their dealings at all levels of the board. This clause finally addresses what many of our injured members have been denied for years; that is, reasonable compensation and equal access to rehabilitation services. Having this purpose enshrined in the legislation itself will give injured construction workers some leverage in their claims and the confidence that fair treatment lies at the heart of the board's mandate.

The bipartite board -- sections 56, 59, 60 and 66 -- is an amendment which also pleases Local 793 in its attempt to placate both labour and management by giving each an equal voice in determining the Workers' Compensation Board's policies. The bipartite structure is commonly used in our industry with great success. Health and safety committees, grievance arbitration boards and many government tribunals such as the Ontario Labour Relations Board all have adopted this format. In fact, the trustees of Local 793's pension and benefit plans and the training trust funds are jointly represented by labour and management. With the bipartite board, both labour and management will be on an equal footing to make the system more effective and responsive.

Since we live in a dollars-and-cents world, I would like to discuss what is the most important issue or amendment for us. Subsection 147(14) allows an additional $200 a month to injured workers on pensions who are in receipt of the equivalent to old age security. We feel that this is an issue of primary concern for the members of Local 793.

To understand why this particular change is so important, the committee must appreciate the incredible injustice that the system put upon our permanently disabled members who were injured prior to 1990. Through no fault of their own, these members have been financially devastated simply because they worked in construction.

Why? This goes back to the unique characteristics of our industry as I noted earlier. When those characteristics are combined with the fact that our members are paid relatively high wages to perform specialized and strenuous work, but yet have few transferable skills, the end result has the effect of automatically denying them access to rehabilitation services because they, according to the Workers' Compensation Board, cannot approximate their pre-injury earnings if the Workers' Compensation Board were to offer training.

In other words, when the Workers' Compensation Board deemed that our injured members could only earn $8.50 per hour in alternative employment, and that didn't come close to their previous wages, they were consistently cut off the system with no other help. Instead, they were simply given a subsection 147(4) supplement, presently $387.74 a month, a small pension and nothing else.

Clearly, the system failed them terribly. These members can no longer work at their trade because of their permanent injures, many have families to support and, like all of us, bills to pay, yet the Workers' Compensation Board closed the door shut on them. I ask you, where is the fairness in this? The $200-a-month pension increase is in Bill 165 to right this past wrong.

The next point I'd like to address is the Friedland formula. This is another aspect of Bill 165 that will dramatically affect the income of our members. Subsection 148(1) deals with the de-indexing of pensions to 75% of the CPI minus 1%, with a cap of 4%. What about the worker who is 40, like my friend next to me, 30 or 20 years old when they are awarded a pension? To de-index permanently these disabled workers to a lifetime of increasing poverty is anything but fair compensation.

However, we are well aware that the Workers' Compensation Board is struggling financially and changes must be made to get the Workers' Compensation Board back on its feet. Cutting benefits by implementing the Friedland formula is not the answer. Pure and simple, this approach would be reforming the system on the backs of those who need the help the most, the injured worker. In our view, the answer lies in strengthening those sections of the act that address prevention and re-employment. Preventing accidents must be the number one priority. I will thus discuss this later in detail. When accidents decline and those who are injured get re-employed by their employer quickly, you will achieve a true balance between fair compensation and fiscal responsibility.

In short, we agree with certain aspects of the legislation, and I have outlined those for you. However, there are amendments of a more technical nature which cause us concern. These are the experience rating, the concept of jurisdictional compensation, the absence of union representation in the vocational rehabilitation process and the fact that the re-employment obligations of employers have not been strengthened for the construction industry. How can we attempt to lower the unemployment rate of injured workers, which currently exceeds 40%?

We have attached an appendix which details our positions concerning these and other changes in Bill 165.

I've made some rough notes and I related that I would discuss how I believe we can lower the costs of workmen's compensation. I would like to do that. I believe I've taken about seven minutes. Is that correct? Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, you've probably heard it before, but there is hope. I would think that everybody, since you're concerned about lowering the costs, would have got the latest, 1993, annual report from the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. I won't go through it in detail but all the graphs are down, and it was referred to in here earlier today. If you haven't picked this up, please get a copy of it. But I'd like to give you just one statistic out of it. If I get the right page, I'll give you the right statistic.

1450

In 1992 in the construction industry there were 417,534,653 hours worked by construction workers. That's according to the workmen's compensation records. It's only by an accident, I suppose, that there was an approximate amount of hours worked in 1982. There were 7,475 less accidents that were either medical aid or lost-time injuries. I don't want to control the meeting and say, "Who hasn't got a copy?" because I'd make sure you get one.

Mr Offer: So there were 7,000 less accidents from 1992 over 1982?

Mr Quinn: No, comparing 1992 and 1982, there were more hours worked in 1992 but yet, if you look at the lost-time injuries, the difference comes to, I believe, 7,475 less people. If you look at all the graphs, all the graphs are down dramatically. It's astounding. We have to train people, workers and contractors in our industry, to work better.

The other thing which I think is most important is that the gentlemen and the ladies sitting around this table have to instruct the government where their priorities lie. In the province of Ontario, and we probably need every one of them, there are 260 game wardens, conservation officers, to look after the fish and the animals. There are 77 construction inspectors, seven in northern Ontario. That's disgraceful. The only way you're going to lower accidents is to have inspectors out there.

The next thing I would like to probably move on to is a few different ways of how I believe we can do it with government control. Some form of the provincial government will award a contract. I don't know how many contractors there are in here, but my understanding is that when you put a contract out for tender, you put it out for X amount of material that has got to be moved.

I think what we should be doing is putting it out for the proper amount of material. That is the amount of material, if you're putting a sewer and water job that you've got to, by the law, slope. We continually run into problems where you go to dig on the side of a highway and the Ministry of Transportation or some regulatory organization that's got an operation to run tells you you can't cut the pavement. The bottom of Thibeault Hill would have been a very good example where, three weeks ago this Friday coming, they went 24 feet straight down, no sloping, no nothing, an MTC inspector standing over the hole.

These are the types of things where, if the government is sincere about cutting accidents, make sure that when you're putting out tender documents, besides saying it's got to be done safely, that you put in the amounts of material to be moved that reflect doing the job safely. Other than that, there are people out there who are going to cheat. The people I represent are going to cheat and the employers are going to cheat. They're going to get down to the bottom of that hole as fast as they can and hopefully no one will get hurt. The vast majority of people try to operate safely.

Will you please tell me when there's five minutes left?

Just for your information, one of the other big things, and you're going to see more of it, at least from my membership, is ergonomics. If you go out today and you buy, let's say, a D8 bulldozer, a Caterpillar, the contractors will go out and buy after-market cabs for them. The cab has to be lowered down to go underneath the roll bar. It's mandatory by the law that you have a roll bar. They lower the cab down. Then they've got to lower the seat down. So now you're sitting with your knees up in your chest. If you're over five foot five, you've got a real problem.

The next big issue -- ergonomics once again -- if you're a dozer man -- that's why I couldn't give the young lady who was coming here today. I do have a member whose hand is twice as big as what it should be. It will go down in three or four weeks when he leaves work, but you've got all this in a ball turning back and forth. Imagine if you're pushing a spill pile from here to the gentleman across from me and you're going forward and backwards and you've got all these controls in one hand continually going. It just wipes you out.

The other thing that we see, when you're driving on a highway -- Thibeault Hill is a good example and maybe I should pick another one -- the Ministry of Transportation will give you 20 minutes to stop traffic, blast and take the product out to open up the highway. That's fine, but it's my members who are going into those spots. First off, you don't know if there's silica dust in there. We know that there's dust. We also know that there are carcinogens, and the dynamite gets let off. But our priority is to keep the traffic flowing. Most of your jobs, you stop and ask the loader operator. You're the flagperson.

The other thing -- there seem to be a lot of ladies in here -- the men have put up with for years is that the Occupational Health and Safety Act says that there should be toilets on all construction sites. I've got to tell you something: If the MTC was to stop all jobs tomorrow morning that didn't have a toilet, there'd be very few constructions jobs going on with the MTC. It's disgusting what goes on there, just disgusting. You're told it's not a compensation issue, but I think it should be noted. I guess it could be a compensation issue too, if you got eaten by a bear.

The Vice-Chair: You have five minutes left now.

Mr Quinn: Thank you. We have just in a little excess of 280 members who are on compensation. A lot of them have been on for quite some time and will be directly affected by the $200. I hope that in your presentation you can feel for these people.

I'd like to tell you that while we've been talking there have been 15 accidents in the province of Ontario. Statistics will tell you that while you're on this committee here today one person will have got killed in Ontario. I'd also like to tell you that 16 people will die today of occupation-related diseases, and we have to do something about that.

We've got a problem here with the Workers' Compensation Board. I personally don't have problems with the employees of the board. I feel that in most cases -- and I'm kind of quite quick-tempered -- these people are professionals and have dealt as best as they can with the regulations they've got. They're like most public servants: Pretty near all of them now, including I guess management people and everybody in our society, are working under a tremendous amount of strain and pressure, but I believe they do a very honourable job.

One of the things I'd like to point out, just for the record, is that I tried for several days to find out how much money is owed to the Workers' Compensation Board. It's not in their financial report. It may be in there, but it's hidden. As of July 1, 1994, there was $431,188,010 owed to the Workers' Compensation Board. That's a substantial amount of money, but I think it should be in their reports. It should spell it out, how much money is owed to this organization.

It seems that somewhere along the line in this committee something went wrong with this. I would like to just suggest something, and this is a real good city to suggest it in, because I think in this city we've seen where we had good government, good management and good unions that salvaged Algoma Steel. No matter how you want to look at it, I think it also salvaged Sault Ste Marie.

I would think that if in future when things start to come apart, when you're having groups like this, and maybe before you come around with what I call your dog-and-pony shows, because that's what the members call my shows -- anyhow, when you come around and you're running into a problem like that, get somebody with the expertise of Vic Pathe to maybe look at the issues and maybe you could have made a little shifting, a little whatever. There are other people besides Vic Pathe, but he comes to mind in Sault Ste Marie because I think he, along with the parties I noted, did a wonderful job in trying to salvage Algoma Steel.

On behalf of my committee, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before this board and we also are looking forward to making any other submissions. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. A quick comment, Mr Carr.

1500

Mr Carr: Thank you for your presentation. On page 5, you talk about the Friedland formula and you say you're opposed to cutting benefits. I take it that if the bill remains the same and the changes that you request aren't made, you would like members of this committee then to vote against the bill on third reading?

Mr Quinn: No, you're taking me wrong, sir. We believe that this bill has to be passed for the injured workers, and I think it also has to be passed for the workers who haven't got injured, as I remarked in my report. When we look at the injured worker, he's a very small statistic, and all you're looking at are very defined costs. What I think we're missing here in a lot of cases is a situation where what does it cost to replace this member or this worker. You may have to retrain somebody. I think it's a burden, but I believe what you have to do is you definitely have to get -- this may have to be refined somewhat -- this bill passed.

Mr Martin: Mike and Pat, and Ed and Brad, thank you for coming forward. Certainly your being here I think is recognition of the fact that we have in front of us a big challenge. Workmens' compensation, from anybody's perspective at this point in time, is not working properly. There needs to be adjustment, there needs to be some movement. After consultation with all of the major players we brought forward a package that we, trying to give some leadership in this area, feel will take us a distance. It won't take us the whole hundred yards, but it'll get us a distance. You've come forward today with a package that compliments us on some of it and challenges us on other parts of it, and I think that's fair.

I don't think anybody could ask much more of any group grappling with a challenge of this magnitude. Your idea re the issue of ergonomics -- I think the example of Algoma Steel in Sault Ste Marie is a good one where people got together and worked and dropped some of the old traditional barriers and moved forward and got some things going.

I don't know if you were here --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you.

Mr Martin: Can I ask a question?

The Vice-Chair: No, no time for a question. Thank you for the comment. Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: You stated pretty clearly to me, I think, that the government is violating its own health and safety practices that it recommends with regard to highway construction. You used the example of the toilets, but of perhaps even more significance was the example of the limited time of road closure to get the job done and the pressure that puts on. What would you recommend the government do to obviously obey its own laws?

Mr Quinn: I'm not trying to say that the government is violating its own laws; there's probably no law regarding it. The only way you would be able to determine this, Mr Mahoney, I suppose, would be to get somebody from the occupational health and safety agency to come out and take samplings of, first, the dust and, second, the carcinogens that would come out from the powder.

This has gone on for a long time. The people who are working in that industry accept it. It's unfortunate, but there are just so many out there. I wish I had the time. I'm going to mail in some other additional information that directly relates to the operating engineers and how our people get hurt.

One of the things, referring to the government, and it should just be a standard, is that most of your offshore equipment that comes in, let's say its a backhoe, does not come in with catwalks. You have to be standing on the slippery track and reaching up quite often to get into these products. The North American products have catwalks because they realize people fall and get hurt, and it costs money in Canada and the United States to fall and get hurt. Don't quote me, but I believe that represents 18% of our accidents in my trade. Products should have to set some standard. How do you expect a person to get up on a machine and walk around it if there's nothing to walk on? I don't know how people expect people to do it, but most -- sorry.

The Vice-Chair: Your time is up. I'd like to thank the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, for bringing its presentation to this committee this afternoon. We look forward to your future presentation that you will be sending in to the committee.

Mr Quinn: Thanks very much.

LAURIE MASTERS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters from the Employers' Advocacy Council. 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'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Would you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed.

Ms Laurie Masters: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to express my views on Bill 165.

My name is Laurie Masters. I'm the general manager of Seamless Cylinder International Inc of Sault Ste Marie, which manufactures small-capacity steel vessels of low to medium pressure. I am also an owner and director of the company. As such, I personally have legal, financial and moral responsibilities for the workplace safety of the roughly 45 people we employ. Let me make that more clear: I sign the cheques for our workers' comp premiums, I submit the form 7s, I personally write all correspondence with the WCB regarding claims and, as a company director, am subject to the legal implications of health and safety violations.

In this short, straightforward presentation you will learn the views of a small business person who, in addition to having production line work experience from the early 1980s -- this is all with Seamless Cylinder -- I have 10 subsequent years of front-line, hands-on experience with Workers' Compensation Board claims management and senior responsibilities for workplace health and safety. I also have a real understanding of the importance of workplace safety because my brother was violently killed in an industrial accident by a forest products wood-chipping machine.

I was provided with the opportunity to speak at this August 31, 1994, Sault Ste Marie committee session via the Employers' Advocacy Council. I have reviewed the submission of its provincial council as well as the regional presentations made in London and here in Sault Ste Marie earlier this morning. I am very much in agreement with their submissions and I do not intend to repeat their message, as I believe they have clearly stated their position and that their comments and concerns are on target and must be taken seriously and acted upon.

You have heard from a range of employer representatives, worker representatives, injured workers, organized labour and large employers. I would question whether you have or will receive adequate representation from small business. This will not be the result of a lack of concern on their part. I really believe that small business, particularly in manufacturing, is under incredible pressure to survive on a day-to-day basis, and must allocate their scarce time resources to the areas of greatest payback and impact or, worse yet, fight only today's largest fire. The poor reputation the WCB has earned for itself leaves small business frustrated, overwhelmed and somewhat intimidated. That is all the more reason why the Employers' Advocacy Council presentation needs your consideration and support. They truly speak on behalf of many employers who are too beleaguered to appear.

As a beleaguered, frustrated small business person, why am I making this presentation today? Because I am concerned enough that I must try to make a difference and, as such, have invested several valuable hours in this presentation.

I wish to focus on the following areas of Bill 165 which, based on my experience, will prove to be ineffective, unmanageable and, more to the point, destructive and clearly a step backwards.

My first concern is with the new reliance of the NEER system on the process instead of the results.

In my 10 years of dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board for my company, the most positive change was the introduction of the NEER system. NEER helps us look beyond the premiums we pay for the unfunded liabilities we may have had no role in creating. It clearly tells us that there is a consequence to our actions. Injuries this year will cost us in the coming years. Success from infrequent, non-severe, non-disabling injuries will be a benefit. When I read Bill 165 and the various summaries and commentaries on it, I was distraught by the changes it proposes to NEER.

In manufacturing, the payback to the investment in preventive maintenance is fewer major breakdowns in the future. The payback to excellence in quality control is no rejects from the customer. One of the paybacks to an effective health and safety program is a NEER refund. A reward for the joint health and safety committee is to see that the company achieved a NEER refund. It means they are doing their job. It means there are fewer, less-costly workplace injuries. If it is a NEER penalty that results, it reinforces to the company the need to make changes and tells the joint health and safety committee that it needs to help the company work harder and smarter to manage health and safety.

1510

I believe the Workers' Compensation Board is overstepping its bounds and duplicating services with respect to evaluating processes and policies of the workplace, and I believe Bill 162, version two, needs to resolve problems, not tinker with the programs like NEER which are simple, results oriented and clearly effective. Workplace certification and other elements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act address issues relating to workplace processes and policies.

I also have a concern with worker consent being required for the release of return to work information. I believe the worker should authorize the release of personal medical information regarding the injury, but not the return to work information. The return to work information must, without question, be available immediately to the employer and the worker. If not, a large number of injuries will become lost times solely because of the restricted access to this information. Even with the existing system, this process does not work well. We're very fortunate at Seamless to have a joint health and safety committee and workforce very supportive and committed to the facilitation of return to work without unnecessary lost-time incidents.

We do not need legislated confrontation working to tear down the constructive, effective program we're building. Bill 165 is going in the wrong direction with regard to return to work information. I believe Bill 165, version two, needs to protect the release of non-relevant, medically sensitive information and must demand that the physician release basic back to work information such as, "no work with right hand for two weeks," or "no lifting, bending or twisting for two weeks and then to be re-examined." Those are two basic examples that I've seen from forms that come back to us, and this is so important. I suggest that the memorandum of treatment form provided by the workers' comp should actually have a multiple copy, return to work tear-off section for the care giver, the worker and the employer. My second concern with this issue is how it will impact the ability of the board to identify and deal with pre-existing or non-work-related injuries.

Some concerns I have with the vocational rehab section: I see several difficulties here.

First, as long as the employers of Ontario continue to solely fund the WCB, they have a role to play in vocational rehab.

Second, I fail to understand how this program works in isolated communities who have struggled to maintain the presence of industry and commerce, but do not benefit from adequate medical services. How can the WCB evaluate and enforce vocational rehab related penalties for firms in such regions?

The third concern is how advanced of a program can be achieved by small employers of less than 70 to 100 people? It's very clear that Bill 165 does not differentiate between 10-person firms and 1,000-person firms, but financial realities and a limit on resources do.

The fourth concern is that increased conflicts, penalties and more bureaucracy are not a solution but an exasperation of the problem.

Another issue is viewing the Workers' Compensation Board as a financially sound organization. You've no doubt heard many versions of this concern already, but I must say that I cannot fathom how the Workers' Compensation Board can become financially sound, as mandated by the Premier of Ontario in 1993 via the instructions to the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Council, without financial responsibility clearly being part of its statement of purposes. As the harsh realities of the 1990s have shown, and quite clearly in Sault Ste Marie, being financially sound relates to every operational aspect and is a responsibility of everyone within an organization.

One issue of concern that is not directly addressed by Bill 165 deals with recovering overpayments, and this came to mind primarily because of a combination of recent experience we've had and concerns over the release of return to work information. Under the existing system we recently experienced how easy it is for several weeks of lost-time benefits to be paid before a dispute over eligibility was dealt with -- and the example I'm referring to was a broken finger, not a severely disabling injury. This was despite initial intervention by us advising the Workers' Compensation Board that there was a problem with the lost time nature of the claim, and a subsequent statement that there had been a return to work. The claim payment continued despite that, and it's my understanding that in this situation, if an overpayment is made, the Workers' Compensation Board takes only limited measures to recover the overpayment. I strongly believe that the board needs to introduce a system whereby overpayments, particularly those resulting from misrepresentation, are collected by a payroll deduction after the return to work, or from future workers' comp benefits, or from a subsequent employer, once identified.

I envision this as being similar to the system for recouping unemployment insurance overpayments. To be honest, I have not researched the costs of unrecovered overpayments or the return on investment in such a recovery system, but I do believe that unreclaimed overpayments are an insult to the employer who has funded the overpayment as well as to the vast majority of workers who do not abuse the system and who do return overpayments.

Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity of sharing my views. I can assure you that they are shared by many small business people in Ontario who have not had the opportunities to prepare and make presentations to you. I would guess I have approximately 10 minutes available for questions.

The Vice-Chair: That's right. About three minutes, Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Thank you for coming. You're right; for small business people to take the time to do this I think is important.

I want to talk to you about page 2 and the NEER system and the process. Historically, when that was set up in 1984, there were only six major groups involved and it would never exceed -- whatever the surcharge was, you would only get your money from NEER to the amount that was in the surcharge fund, kind of thing, and it was successful. I don't think anyone has disagreed with any of the groups that have come forward and said it does work; companies do get health and safety practices above and beyond.

But in 1987, they changed the formula so that there wasn't a requirement to balance, or keep the surcharge and surpluses equal, so we come up to 1992, where $25 million is paid out in NEER; we come up to 1993, where over $150 million is paid out in NEER surplus, over the surcharge. It's almost like it's growing exponentially on an annual basis. Where do we get the money to pay for that, to continue that?

Ms Masters: I'll answer that question in a second. The concern I have is if the issue is that a change was made to the NEER system whereby more money is going out of it than is going into it, I don't see how that relates to tinkering with the system so that you're evaluating a company on its processes and practices. They're just two totally unrelated issues --

Ms Murdock: Yes, they are, but --

Ms Masters: -- and that's the concern I have. That's the direction I'm coming at it from and that's the problem I have. They're now saying -- let me go back to your original question.

Ms Murdock: I'm not discussing the system as a process, I'm talking about it from a financial aspect, given that the whole focus of business groups has been financial accountability. So on the other side, where do we get the money to maintain the other process?

Ms Masters: Where the money comes from -- the reason people are getting the NEER refunds is because of the savings they're introducing to the system by having lower accident claims. So if there are lower accident claims happening, then where is the financial disaster coming from on the other side? Whether it's administration based or where it comes from, I don't clearly understand. The thing I don't understand about it is --

Mr Mahoney: You do. You understand.

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

Ms Masters: The reason NEER is producing these excess payments, in your view, is proof of how successful it is, because those costs are coming down. So if the costs are coming down --

Ms Murdock: But what I'm saying is --

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock.

Mr Mahoney: I've just got to follow up because, clearly, the deputant understands; the parliamentary assistant does not understand. The answer I think you were giving is that it's a system that will generate savings as a result of results oriented --

Ms Masters: My understanding of that system is you're using penalties from one group to fund savings for another and you're running out of penalties to fund savings with. But those savings are being achieved, so the financial problems are somewhere else in the system. That's my view. That's my opinion on it.

Mr Mahoney: It's a good opinion and it's interesting, actually, that we've now heard recognition by the parliamentary assistant that the NEER system has been working well because it generates savings.

This may not be a question to the deputant, but it's a result of this deputation -- the recovering overpayments. The deputation immediately preceding you said there was some $400 million -- I forget the exact amount of money -- that was owing to the WCB. I wonder if we could ask the ministry to provide us with a breakdown of that $400 million and specifically how much of that would be in uncollected overpayments.

1520

The impact on small business of this bill --

Ms Murdock: Can I get a clarification on that?

Mr Mahoney: Not if it's taking into my time, no.

The Vice-Chair: I think the ministry staff did get that.

Mr Mahoney: The impact on small business -- the concern I have is that small business will have a lot of difficulty, and if you recognize that anyone with fewer than 20 employees is exempt from the health and safety requirements in the act but they're not exempt from workers' comp -- so there's sort of a conundrum there, where the government is saying on the one hand, "We're going to give an exemption to the smaller business because of the costs involved," yet if they don't have that opportunity, how can they then turn around and save the money and use the NEER program and do all of -- they're kind of on their own out there. Algoma can hire full-time health and safety people on the shop floor, Chrysler, Ford, etc etc.

The small business person, even ones over 20, say under 50 employees -- I think this is going to be a huge burden to them and they are going to be subjected to the fines perhaps more rigorously than the large businesses who will be able to afford to find ways to avoid them.

Ms Masters: Yes, they can afford to find ways to defend themselves and, like you say, avoid them. Our company is a perfect example of the burden of trying to deal with those issues. Several years ago, when the changes to the WHMIS system came in and we had some of the other moves towards the requirements of induction training and tried to get our act together on it, we invested tens of thousands of dollars. We made the investment and we did it and we would love to be at the point where we had a full-time safety officer to keep track of all that stuff, but we don't. That's outside of my day job, unfortunately, but it falls to the owners and the senior people in the company. The responsibility legally is with the senior managers and the activities have to be there too, and if there's one senior in the company, 24 hours is a very short day.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much for your presentation. I had an opportunity to go across the province on one of our small business task forces and we heard many complaints about all levels of government and things that are happening to small businesses. As you know, it's the number one creator of jobs in this province.

One of the big concerns that was voiced was on WCB. At every stop there were concerns and what we're facing is a twofold problem: Our assessments are higher than other jurisdictions, and we heard today comparisons with BC and so on; and our unfunded liability also is higher.

One of the things I thought would be a good idea, for the government's involvement, would be to look at other jurisdictions, decide what that competitive rate is and say to the WCB: "Your rates have to be competitive and you can't run an unfunded liability. You sit down with union, injured workers and business and come up with a plan that meets those two criteria. You have to be competitive so we will have the jobs," because I think what people don't realize is when we lose the jobs, we lose all of the revenue coming in and it's like taxes; you reach a certain point where it gets so high you lose it and there are diminishing returns. We've reached that point with WCB costs. If we are in a position to go to the WCB and say, "Your mandate is that your assessments have to be competitive with other jurisdictions and you can't run an unfunded liability," is that, as a small business person, something you think would be the way to handle it?

Ms Masters: Yes, I do. One concern I have is that what you were just describing sounds an awful lot like what the Premier's council was supposed to achieve. One of the objectives was to make it financially sound. From what I've read, it wasn't unanimous agreement between labour and management, but an accord was reached that both sides were prepared to accept and it appears to have been -- I didn't see any resemblance to it in Bill 165. Maybe I had difficulties reading Bill 165, but the impression I had was that they lost the accord when they wrote the bill. I don't know; I think they've already tried that and it really concerns me that this process ended the way it did.

Mr Carr: All you needed with that was the political will to come through with it, and I know there was some give and take; business gave a little bit on some of their concerns, some of the labour groups gave a little bit and there was a plan in place that was going to do it. I think for political reasons, because of some of the other things they've done with labour, not the least of which is the social contract and so on, this was something where they didn't give. I think that's the way to do it.

A quick question on assessment. One of the problems we've got is that our assessments are too high; the system is complicated. Do you have any comment on other jurisdictions and our assessment costs, as a business person? Have you looked at other jurisdictions? Would you like to comment on that aspect of the WCB?

Ms Masters: From our business' perspective, it becomes a bit more complicated, because we're very much an international business. Not only do we have to worry about how competitive we are relative to BC or Quebec or Newfoundland or Manitoba or wherever, we also have to be concerned about how we compete against China, some of those countries, where I'm not sure that they know how to spell health and safety over there yet, let alone implement it. I don't mean that in any attempt at a racist slur, I'm just saying how far behind they are in health and safety. It's very sad, they've got a long way to come, and unfortunately, they're killing our industry in the meantime by not bearing those costs. We have a hard enough time being competitive within Canada, but competitive rates are definitely a big part of it.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank you for your presentation on behalf of the Employers' Advocacy Council.

Ms Masters: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters from the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Local 598.

Ms Murdock: Can I just have clarification from Mr Mahoney, Mr Chair, while Gary's coming up?

The Vice-Chair: Sure.

Ms Murdock: On the question that you asked the ministry, for non-collection of overpayments, right?

Mr Mahoney: I want to know what it all is. The reference that the deputant made was, there was $458,000,010 or something that was owed to the WCB. Presumably, that would be made up of unpaid premiums, perhaps companies that have gone out of business, but I think a portion of it, and I'm not sure how big, would also be due to overpayments not collected back. So I just want to know it all.

Ms Murdock: I too understand the issue that was made up there because the thing is, if the money isn't coming out of a surcharge, it's contributing to the unfunded liability. I do understand that issue.

Mr Mahoney: Do you want to shut her off?

Ms Murdock: Well, as the parliamentary assistant --

The Vice-Chair: Order, please.

SUDBURY MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS UNION

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. Once again, a reminder that you'll be allowed up to 20 minutes for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you'd keep your remarks somewhat briefer to allow time for questions and comments from each of the caucuses. Could you please identify yourself for the record and then proceed?

Mr Gary Hrytsak: My name is Gary Hrytsak. I am the vice-president, compensation, health and welfare officer for Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Canadian Auto Workers, Local 598. We're here in front of you today because of the bill that's being proposed.

To go out of our brief that's been presented to you, we support the proposed purposes of the act. They clarify the purpose of the act is to help workers who are injured or suffer from occupational diseases which arise out of and in the course of their employment.

Subsection 1(1): We support the change of the term "industrial disease" to "occupational disease" both here and in later sections. We also support the brief presented by the Industrial Disease Standards Panel. I want to make that known to you.

In the brief that you have in front you is an excerpt of some of the values that the CAW, the Canadian Auto Workers national, is putting forward to this committee across the province. We're remaining unified in this.

Subsection 7.1: We are concerned that if there is a cost-sharing agreement among two or more boards for claims for some occupational diseases such as silicosis or hearing loss, this proposed section would prohibit such agreements. Board agreements among the various boards cannot override a statutory prohibition. We therefore recommend that this proposal be deleted.

Under section 43, we are disappointed to see no proposal from the government to restrict the board's practice of deeming, the infamy of that. The statutory authority for deeming comes from clause 43(3)(b) and subsection 43(7). Great injustice is perpetrated by this miserly and unfair practice. If a worker turns down a real job, that's one thing, but it's quite another if there's no real job to turn down.

We strongly recommend that section 43 be amended to prohibit the practice of deeming and only if a worker turns down a real job should this be able to be considered in the calculation of future earnings loss.

Under section 51, we are completely opposed to this proposal and recommend it be deleted. As a result of experience rating and the increased interest on the part of employers in claims matters, more and more employers want to know intimate details of workers' health. I can give you some examples of those later, if you wish.

Why do employers need such information? To browbeat workers into returning to work before they are ready? To attempt to terminate workers because of non-culpable absenteeism? A defence against this management right is if the prognosis -- the condition in the future -- shows a likely improvement in the illness or condition which has caused the absenteeism. If management knows the condition will continue without improvement, it could use this knowledge to terminate the employee. Intimate medical knowledge is already available to employers through the non-economic loss process, and this must stop.

1530

Subsection 51(3) requires the board to pay for such medical reports. This is a good deal for employers. They can demand such reports at will and they have no obligation to pay for them. There's no downside for the employer. The proposed amendment to section 51 is not part of the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee agreement. We strongly recommend that the proposed amendment to section 51 be deleted.

With regard to rehabilitation under section 53, this section has been rewritten to provide board assistance to employers with vocational rehabilitation. The board's role is to insist 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).

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."

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

What is an injured worker to do if, while off work due to injury, his or her plant closes? In the past, the board had no obligation to help him or her for six months. This proposal would make future assistance optional. Why would the accident employer request the board to assist an injured worker to seek employment elsewhere? Because the employer had just fired the worker or would like to get rid of him or her? Surely, the board should not be placed in a position of such conflict of interest.

Section 56: It is claimed the Ontario board is bipartite but in practice the two public interest board members erode that concept.

Section 58: We are completely opposed to the proposal in subsection (1) requiring the board of directors to "act in a financially responsible and accountable manner in exercising its powers and performing its duties." This subsection will be used by the employers at every opportunity to frustrate entitlement by narrowing claims policies and procedures and rejecting new entitlement to which disabled workers should have been entitled in the first place.

In his 1983 report, professor Weiler had this to say about undercompensation of cancer claims, using the most conservative Doll and Peto estimates that 4% of cancers are caused by work, and we quote:

"From this simple analysis one would conclude that toxic exposure in Ontario workplaces produced approximately 700 cancer fatalities a year in this province. But the Ontario board is now compensating only 65 cancer cases a year (66 in 1979 and 64 in 1980), of which about 40 a year are for fatalities (33 in 1979 and 44 in 1980). This is less than 1 out of 17 occupational cancer fatalities predicted by the conservative end of the scientific debate, let alone the one out of every 75 deserving cases predicted by those of more radical persuasion." I happen to be one of the more radical. "Looking at lung cancer in particular, the Doll and Peto analysis would estimate 425 occupationally produced lung cancer deaths annually, but the Ontario board compensates only a tiny fraction of them.

"The financial dimensions of this gap are startling. The average total cost of a compensated cancer claim -- medical aid, disability benefits, and survivor benefits -- could easily be $250,000 in current dollars (especially once the benefits for surviving dependents are reformed as proposed in the white paper). Simply to do a more adequate job in compensating a conservative estimate of occupational cancers, which is only one aspect of the overall industrial disease problem -- would add nearly $150 million to the annual cost of compensation benefits in Ontario (or about 25% of the total current cost of workers' compensation). Another way of putting it is that 650 workers (or their surviving dependants) who fall victim to occupational cancer each year are being deprived of $150 million in benefits which the law had promised them."

How will the new board of directors, constrained by the provisions of subsection 58(1), possibly rectify this wrong? We recommend in the strongest possible terms that the proposed subsection 58(1) be deleted. The proposed subsection (2) is quite sufficient to ensure that the board of directors fulfils its responsibility in a diligent manner.

Subsection 63(2): The form providing the medical information ought to be as skimpy as possible. It should simply say "fit" or "fit with limitations." The limitations should relate solely to the work requirements. Example: unable to lift more than 10 kilograms five times a shift. They must say nothing whatsoever about the nature of the diagnosis, whether the reason for the lifting restriction is a hernia or a bad back.

Clause 65(3)(h): By adding the phrase "and addressing any duplication of benefits provided under this act" to the board's powers to enter into intergovernmental agreements, the employers score again.

We recommended that the proposed addition, clause 65(3)(h), be deleted. There are far more workers who are undercompensated as a result of falling through the cracks of the various systems than there are overcompensated individuals. In fairness, we recommend that clause 65(3)(h) be amended to add the phrase "and addressing any undercompensation of benefits provided under this act."

Subsection 65(3.1): We do support this proposal.

Section 65.1: We are opposed to this proposal for imposing policy on the board from the minister and cabinet. The workers' compensation system is supposed to be at arm's length from government. The new board of directors structure re-emphasizes this point.

We have no idea what the government contemplates under this proposed section. Subsection (4) proposes to repeal this section after one year. We can only speculate that once government has a taste of hands-on policy direction in the area of workers' compensation, more may be contemplated. It would be an easy matter to delete subsection (4). We therefore recommend that this section be deleted.

Subsection 69(2): We support the board's exclusive jurisdiction to make such a determination subject to the appeal provisions of the statute.

Subsection 72(1.1) and 72.1: We are not opposed to the idea of mediation but we are wary of it. Justice delayed is clearly justice denied, but is the proposed alternative just? We are concerned about what effect mediation may have on the appeal system.

Subsection (2) allows the board to provide mediation for non-vocational rehabilitation issues. If the appeal system were squeezed due to inadequate funding, would mediation by the board be offered as a substitute? Would workers' advocates take the easy way out rather than fight to maintain the adequacy of the appeal system?

Subsections 76(3) and (4): Since we do not support tort liability, we have no difficulty in supporting this proposal.

Section 88: We would have no problem deleting subsection (3), which provides for the liability of the crown, but perhaps the proceedings against the Crown Act take precedence.

Subsection 95(6): We do not support the change from the present requirement of the Ministry of Labour determining the Industrial Disease Standards Panel budget to the board determining the Ontario disease panel budget. We are now using the new term proposed by them. The reason for this is simple: Just as the board should be at arm's length from the ministry, so should the industrial disease panel be at arm's length from the board.

This proposed amendment is also deficient in that it does not guarantee adequate funding for the panel. The panel has a need for guaranteed long-term financing so that it may conduct long-term studies. One of the reasons why the panel requires long-term financing is because research on disease issues often spans many years. As well, the initiation of new research projects may vary from year to year. In the past, both labour and management groups have been frustrated by the panel's inability, because of inadequate funding, to proceed with needed research.

It would thus be extremely tempting for the board to put the financial squeeze on the occupational disease panel so that its work is restricted. Tightening the purse-strings on the Ontario Occupational Disease Standards Panel would either make its work suffer because there would be less of it or, worse, make the occupational disease panel so compliant that it discovers nothing new, instead of the board.

1540

We recommend that the proposed changes to subsection 95(6) be deleted. The panel itself suggested the following wording for its amendment, and we concur:

"The board shall

"(a) provide an annual budget for the panel at the beginning of each fiscal year of the board, in an amount equal to a maximum of 2%, and in any case not less than 1% of the board's administrative expenses for the preceding fiscal year;

"(b) pay the costs and expenses associated with the exercise of the panel's mandate and with its administration, including research costs and the remuneration and expenses of its members, officers, employees and agents, from the panel's annual budget; and

"(c) regulate its fiscal relationship with the panel through a memorandum of understanding."

Subsection 95(8): We recommend a new subsection be added which would read:

"(e) to make decisions about descriptions of disease and process in schedules 3 and 4 which shall become regulations by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council within two months of that decision."

Duplication and waste should be eliminated. The occupational disease panel should make decisions about the occupational disease schedules and the board should implement them.

Subsections 95(5) and 97(4): We support the proposed changes for the reasons noted above.

Subsection 103: We wholeheartedly support this proposed change. Penalty assessments on employers enable the board to modify employer behaviour to ensure sound efforts are made in the area of vocational rehabilitation.

Experience and merit rating programs. Section 103.1, flat rate assessments: We recommend that the board abolish experience rating and use a flat rate assessment system. A flat rate system would do several things. First, it would dramatically decrease board administrative costs which are high as a result of experience rating and the constant tinkering with the assessment rate groups.

Employer appeals to shift costs from their own account and rate group to the second injury enhancement fund would be eliminated. The appeal system, presently clogged with employers seeking to have workers' claims disallowed, would work more efficiently.

Finally, it would require firms in presently low-cost rate groups to pay their fair share. These firms exist in Ontario because of the economic engines of the province: manufacturing, mining and forestry. These economic driving forces must pay high assessment rates, yet they are critical to the survival of the firms in the low assessment rate groups. We submit that the load should be shared among all Ontario industry by the establishment of a flat-rate assessment system.

The flat-rate assessment system is in effect for unemployment insurance and Canada pension where, regardless of the likelihood of unemployment or the date of the workforce, all employers pay the same rate. The same system should be established for workers' compensation.

Subsection 103(4), penalty assessments: Subsection 103(4) of the statute provides for the establishment of a penalty assessment system which would be a preventive system and a sound alternative to the experience rating system. The present prosecution method of enforcing the provisions of the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations is time-consuming, ineffective and is an after-the-fact system, since it so often requires a fatality or a serious injury before judges will convict employers or impose high fines. An additional enforcement mechanism is needed.

On that note, we just lost one of our members last week through an underground mining accident. It points the way to some of the problems in the system.

Subsection 117(3): We presume this subsection is considered redundant and we support its deletion.

Subsection 137(4): We support this proposal wholeheartedly and are appreciative that the same rules will apply to schedule 2 employers as to schedule 1 employers although, as we've stated, a better solution would be to collapse schedule 2 into schedule 1.

Subsection 147(14): We wholeheartedly support the $200 increase for pre-Bill 162 pensioners. You've heard others talk here at the table about the hardship on workers and we won't go into that. But by tying the very welcome $200 increase to the supplement we expect even more adversity on the issue of the entitlement of deserving injured workers to the supplement. Once more it will be nearer in practice:

"(c) if the worker makes application to the board and is determined to be receiving an inadequate permanent partial disability award."

Clause (b) would need to be amended to add the word "or".

The Vice-Chair: If I may interrupt right now, you have about three minutes left.

Mr Hrytsak: Thank you. That's in total, Mr Chairman?

The Vice-Chair: In total.

Mr Hrytsak: Okay. The rest of the brief, I'll simply say to you, is in the same tone, with suggestions. I know they're going to be recorded into Hansard in total anyway. It doesn't necessarily have to be read, so I'll leave that with you.

The Vice-Chair: That's not correct. It's just what's spoken here in committee.

Mr Hrytsak: Then I'll read the whole bloody thing.

The board views medical payments, physical rehabilitation etc as part of the unfunded liability when there is not legal obligation under the section to do so. The unfunded liability is thus artificially inflated due to the board's improper accounting practices. If the board's fund has sufficient moneys in it to pay for all future pension obligations, it is said to be fully funded.

Mr Martin: Mr Chair, on a point of order: To the presenter, what you've got here may not be in Hansard but it becomes part of the record. The government has it and we're able to look at it and read it and consider it when we --

Mr Mahoney: I have an idea. We can deem it having been read.

Mr Hrytsak: You know, that's actually a very good statement from you, Mr Mahoney. In some of the things that I've seen, your Back to the Future and other things, you've deemed a lot of things and they're really not real at all.

The Vice-Chair: In fairness, let the presenter continue.

Interjection.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Martin, in fairness --

Mr Hrytsak: I'd rather answer some questions. I'm quite ready for any donnybrook that's necessary here.

The Vice-Chair: In fairness, let the presenter finish.

Mr Hrytsak: If you wish to deem it into the record, I have no problem with that either.

Interjection: I don't know if you can do that.

Mr Hrytsak: It's just that there is so much to talk to and there are so many things to speak to that the presentation itself, in all fairness --

The Vice-Chair: I don't know whether that's possible. I would advise you to continue reading the presentation until you're finished.

Mr Hrytsak: Okay, Mr Chair, and I believe we're somewhere at the board's funds.

The Vice-Chair: I'll give you the extra minute.

Mr Hrytsak: I appreciate it.

The unfunded liability is thus artificially inflated due to the board's improper accounting practices. If the board's fund has sufficient moneys in it to pay for all future pension obligations it is said to be fully funded. If it has more than enough to pay for these obligation it is said to have a surplus. If it has less money than it needs to pay these obligation it is said to have an unfunded liability.

Is the magnitude of the unfunded liability a problem? An unfunded liability of some $11 billion seems like a lot of money, and of course it is, but the board has capitalized reserves of $6 billion and that's a lot of money in the bank. Let's make a comparison. If you had a mortgage on your house of $110,000, with $60,000 in the bank and a steady income, you would not be overly concerned about your future ability to make your mortgage payments, now, would you?

We believe the employers are using the unfunded liability in the same way they use the federal deficit: as a way to frighten people into thinking that social programs must be forfeited. The cause of the federal deficit is the same as the cause of the unfunded liability. In the past, corporations have not paid their fair share of taxation, so the federal deficit has mushroomed. The same is true for the unfunded liability. Corporations have not paid sufficient assessments in the past to cover future obligations.

Section 139: The issue of coverage is important. We recommend that the provisions of section 139 be deleted and replaced with a requirement that all employers in the province of Ontario be covered by workers' compensation.

Subsection 148(1): After decades of lobbying, we finally won full indexing in 1985. The Friedland formula proposes to erode pension indexing dramatically. At 4% inflation, the Friedland formula will only protect half of the erosion of an injured worker's pension caused by inflation. If inflation goes beyond 8%, the indexing will protect less than half of that figure.

What is the cost-saving to the board of the Friedland formula? We've heard varying figures -- $13 billion, $18 billion, $23 billion and $27 billion -- from a variety of sources, from the board to the employers to the government itself, which proposed the change. Whatever the future, it's a large amount of money, and whatever the figure, it will come directly from the pockets of injured workers. We recommend that the Friedland formula be scrapped and that the present full indexing formula of subsection 148(1) be retained.

Universal disability. This is an issue dear to the hearts of us in the Canadian Auto Workers and my Local 598. We cannot let an opportunity go by to state in the strongest possible terms the support of our union for a universal disability system. This is the most important issue for the royal commission to consider. We want to ensure that the government fully supports the royal commission's consideration of this issue, since the terms of reference for the royal commission were not explicit.

Too many disability plans. The magnitude of agencies, private and public, provincial and federal, all attempt to do versions of the same thing, yet each has its own rules. These rules are based on what causes the disability and as a result of this too many people have now fallen through the cracks of the system.

1550

Financial costs. Our society wastes enormous resources by having so many agencies attempting to do similar things.

Social costs. Far too many people must anxiously await rehabilitative or monetary benefits while agencies make their eligibility decisions. Delay produces anxiety and often makes recovery more difficult. Some people will be denied benefits by all agencies. Immediate physical rehabilitative help is vitally important in many types of injuries, back cases being the best example.

Enormous losses to society, both in dollars and in human costs, could be saved by replacing the present competing systems by a single universal disability plan.

Our interest in what causes injuries and diseases is to ensure that work-related injuries and diseases are paid for by employers as a tax at the point of production. This is the workers' compensation assessment system. We want to ensure that these costs are not shifted on to the taxpayers. We feel that such an accounting system can be continued under a universal disability system.

Occupational diseases. The reality is that employers at present are not paying for much of the cost of the workers' compensation system because they pay for only a tiny fraction of the actual number of occupational diseases. Workers' Compensation Board claims are successful for occupational diseases.

We believe the only way employers will be compelled to pay the cost of occupational diseases will be if the costs are assessed to industry on a statistical basis. For example, if the universal disability plan agency decided to say that 5% of all cancers were work-related, then 5% of the costs of the cancer victims should be assessed on industry. Also, you must know that under the NEER system occupational disease is exempt from that particular situation.

Justifiable and affordable. Professor Paul Weiler's second report on workers' compensation to the Ontario government in 1983 concluded that, "...we are logically driven to embrace a general disability scheme which would displace tort liability and incorporate workers' compensation and other categorical forms of no-fault insurance." Although he called for priority to be given to long-term disabilities rather than short-term injuries, he showed by "...such a program of social disability insurance is both justifiable in principle and affordable in practice."

Vision and courage. We need the Ontario royal commission to thoughtfully consider how to introduce a universal disability plan.

That's the brief we are presenting to you today, Mr Chairman. I apologize for the length of it, but the intricacies of this particular Bill 165 demanded that each one of them be spoken to.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. I understand you were up till 5 this morning signing a contract with Falconbridge?

Mr Hrytsak: I've been up for the last almost 48 hours and we did sign a tentative agreement this morning at 5:30, yes, sir.

The Vice-Chair: On behalf of this committee I'd like to thank the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, Local 598, for their presentation to this committee.

Mr Hrytsak: Thank you, Mr Cooper.

Mr Offer: You're opposed to the bill?

Mr Hrytsak: We are opposed to the bill.

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL NEEDS

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call forward our next presenters from the special needs in employment and education equity committee. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Susan Alcorn MacKay: Thank you very much. I usually hate to go last, but I'm so pleased to be here in any capacity. I hope you can bear with us. We'll be brief.

My name is Susan Alcorn MacKay. I'm from Cambrian College and Laurie Barbeau is from Sault College. We want to address a few comments. We're only going to speak to the six items that we have on the first page. The rest of the material is for background.

We're speaking of the injured worker in post-secondary education attempting to become retrained in order to re-enter the workforce, in particular a group of lost guys who are students and who turned out to have a learning disability in addition to their work-related accidents.

In reviewing Bill 165, specifically references 9 and 10 where there's the vocational aspect, we just thought they were a tad sketchy and that some more fleshing out would really help.

First, we'd really like to see that there be specific guidelines available to the WCB counsellors, to the employers and to the injured workers themselves so that they know exactly all the specifics and all the different things that can be done in order to accommodate their disability and to complete their academic instruction.

Ms Laurie Barbeau: Our second point is in relation to a vocational rehabilitation plan, that designing that rehabilitation plan include continued education or upgrading and that consideration be given to the inclusion of upgrading before a rehabilitation plan is solidified.

Oftentimes injured workers will enter a training plan, an educational plan, and then discover that maybe that wasn't the most appropriate or they didn't have all the preparation they needed to have in order to be successful in that program; so an upgrading time and, if you will, I'll use the term "transitionary." Most of these people having not been in education for quite some time, it allows them the opportunity to overcome some of the barriers and it allows the college system to be able to identify the learning disability and what kinds of accommodations are appropriate for them.

Ms MacKay: Third, we'd like to suggest that a retraining plan for persons with disabilities or academic barriers should be flexible and that the training time allow time for the injured person to get the proper training.

On the second page, under "Background," we just have a couple of barriers that injured workers in general have when they come to college. If you consider all of these barriers and the effects of the disability or the injury, to put them in a full-time, post-secondary program and expect them to do the same job as grade 12 graduates, with mother making their meals for them and having their clothes ready for them, is just an unrealistic expectation.

In fact, in preparing for this, coming back to school, I have spoken to seven injured workers, and when I told them I was going to address the subcommittee, they all jumped and said: "Tell them about time, for heaven's sake. We're going nuts." There's so much stress on them, so much pain and anguish that it just makes the time to complete a really rigorous program very difficult.

Laurie and I have both worked in special needs for about the last seven or eight years and we've seen hundreds of injured workers, and that's one theme that comes across: They can't do it in the same time that everybody else can. If there's just some understanding that in reality the time to complete will actually be less if it's done properly, as opposed to taking six months off or a year off because of stress or extra pain that takes them out of the education system -- popping in and out actually takes more time than doing it right the first time.

Ms Barbeau: It also prevents them from re-entering work, whether it be a new job position or whether it be returning to their employer in a modified work situation or whatever. Our experience has been that the time factor and the flexibility and consideration of that is really more productive in the end.

Fourth, in relation to rehabilitation counsellors with WCB, we suggest they be given the opportunity for disability awareness and training as part of their ongoing professional development. As counsellors with students with disabilities, we ourselves have experienced that modern technology impacts on the kinds of delivery mechanisms and accommodations that are available to individuals with disabilities, so we need to continually be upgrading our knowledge about what is out there and what's available and also what is happening in research related to various disabilities. To be current with all that information is really important.

Ms MacKay: We thought we'd help you out today too. We've given you, on pages 2 and 3, a brief definition of learning disabilities, not expecting that everybody here is boned right up on what that means, and also the effects of learning disabilities on adults. Again, it's different. If you know of a child in high school or in elementary school, the effects of a learning disability on them are one thing; the effects on an adult, especially experiencing pain from other injuries, are really quite a different story.

Fifth, we'd also like to suggest that the assistive devices required by a person with a disability in education settings -- that's not just a learning disability but a physical disability -- be available early in the educational plan and that those devices should belong to the student, because they're the same devices that are going to get them back to work and get them retrained and into a valuable situation as a good employee.

Ms Barbeau: And that's a benefit to the employer when the employee returns or ends up in another environment. They come with the technology they need, the devices they need, and they already know how to use them.

Our sixth recommendation is that in the event a student is considered for retraining through a local community college, linkages be made with the special needs office of that college to assist in the formulation of an effective educational plan.

The 23 colleges of Ontario have moved to focus on centralization of service delivery and trying to have the college system respond to our students with disabilities in a typical manner so that you can expect some sort of standard with a retraining individual. So we have moved to develop common understandings of what we do, and we think that would be of benefit to the Workers' Compensation Board, the counsellor, the employer and the individual involved in retraining. Then we all understand what's going to happen.

1600

Ms MacKay: On page 3, we have some general suggestions that just take the six main points a little further or explain them a little more. Then on page 4, we didn't want to leave you without some potential benefits. There's an upside to all of this. You're going to get better-trained workers back into employment.

There are going to be some spinoff benefits to employers, we think. For instance, there's one piece of equipment called the Dragon Dictate, which is a voice input computer, so a person who has quadriplegia or severe impairment of the arms can speak into a microphone and the words are processed.

We know of one employer who hired a person who had this equipment. It's a pizza delivery place and they could make pizza deliveries far faster by talking on the phone, speaking into the mike and getting the information out to where they needed. So this injured employee brought to the workplace a more efficient manner of doing things, and that's really what we're after, a more efficient manner of doing things in the workplace, for that individual and for all people.

So I think there are going to be some advantages to employers and we'd really like to work in concert with any vocational plan or any counsellor or make any suggestions or contribute our expertise as members of special needs in the Ontario college system.

Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure. If you have any questions, we'd be delighted to answer them.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. Ms Fawcett.

Mrs Fawcett: Thank you very much for bringing this expertise to this panel. Having been in the educational system myself, I realize the importance of education, and doing it properly. Do you have any input into the WCB right now at all, in any capacity, or is your only input the clients who come before you?

Ms MacKay: As a provincial body, the College Committee on Special Needs does maintain some linkages with certain WCB bodies, but it's mainly by memo and there doesn't seem to be a good flow. There's no nice flow of information back and forth.

We see the student with the educational plan already in effect. We see the students after they've been identified and assessed by endless different areas and we generally only see them when they are in trouble. They are ready to give up, and somebody says, "Hey, why don't you go and see the special needs office?" We'd really like to see them before the trouble starts and before the plan is even made. Sometimes in a half-hour discussion we can figure out, "That guy's in the wrong program," or he needs a whole bunch more preparation of a different nature.

Mrs Fawcett: So you could save a lot of time and all of the stress and so on.

Ms MacKay: Definitely. We could save money.

Mrs Fawcett: And that's most important.

Ms Barbeau: And our knowledge about the academic programs themselves, how they're delivered, what accommodations can be put in place, all of that side of it that the individuals experience from the day they enter the college program would be of benefit prior to their getting there. A lot of that can be done ahead of time.

Mrs Fawcett: Thank you very much. I don't know whether my colleague has anything further.

Mr Offer: Your summary of recommendations, in your opinion, do they require -- and I'm sort of looking at the government also -- legislative amendment if one wanted to embrace them? Or is it done mainly by guideline or policy?

Ms Murdock: It would be policy; it wouldn't be legislative.

Mr Offer: That would be sufficient for your purposes also?

Ms MacKay: Whatever works. Whatever is going to streamline everything, whatever is going to make things easier is fine with us.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much for the presentation. I appreciate it.

Mr David Johnson: I thank you as well. Your presentation is somewhat intriguing because it's a little different from the others. I don't know how long you've been here today, but it's certainly a different kind.

Ms MacKay: Long enough.

Mr David Johnson: It's certainly interesting. I wonder if you could just tell us a little about your experience. We're talking about injured workers. How many people are we talking about, how many injured workers? You're with Cambrian College, but what numbers?

Ms MacKay: I see about 50 to 60 injured workers a year, so through the last seven or eight years, a few hundred. But those are the only ones I see. There are far more who drop out. They just give up. They get heart attacks. I had one student come to me and he didn't keep his appointment because he had a heart attack. It was stress-related. I had two students commit suicide -- and that's just in Cambrian College -- before we could get some strategies into place for those people. The stress had gone too far.

So I would say we're both dealing with a few hundred students a year at each of our colleges, times 23. Most of our WCB people we see in post-secondary are there because they have an injury and they are there because of retraining.

Mr David Johnson: You're only seeing the students who are undergoing some stress and need some counselling. Is that the situation?

Ms MacKay: We will see the students who come forward and disclose to us that they are involved in programming and that they're running into some difficulties or they anticipate that they might run into some difficulties. So it is really their onus to come forward to say they're in our programs.

Mr David Johnson: Just on the timing, because you stress that in your presentation and you said the students stress that as well, what typically is the period of time they would be at the college and what sort of courses are they in? Is that all over the map, or are there any particular kinds of courses they're taking?

Ms MacKay: They often end up in courses like civil engineering and electronics because that is the same pay rate as they have had as miners working overtime, not necessarily programs that they're suited for. And even though their assessment might show that they have the intellectual capacity for it, they've been out of school for 20 years, they don't know the fine print. So they come to our upgrading system and in our upgrading system, every so many weeks you have to progress. It has to show progress and you have to be ready before you start your post-secondary program. For many of these people it's simply not a realistic expectation, especially the students with learning disabilities.

On top of that, they'd get thrown out because they can't keep up with the time element, whereas if accommodations were put in place, we could speed them through much faster.

Mr David Johnson: Your hope would be that they could spend dedicated time there to complete the whole program. Is that the essence? I'm surprised that you can do a program in that short period of time.

Ms Barbeau: I think what Susan and the students have highlighted is that their rehab plan will commit two years, for example. You must complete this electronic engineering technician diploma in two years, so that's the time frame. When they run into difficulties, oftentimes we'll recommend reducing their course load because of all the factors they're dealing with: pain, stress, anxiety, a learning disability or whatever. A reduced course load might be very effective. Rather than do the program over two years, you could spread it over three years, but then they are successful.

To pressure them to do it in the two years, we're talking probably 25 to 30 hours of class time in a program like that. That's pretty extensive. Then you're going to add at least that many hours probably in homework time or computer time work or whatever. What we're suggesting is that the flexibility would be that they don't take the 25 or 30 hours, that you reduce the load they have, because it's more manageable, and you can build in the other accommodations. Then in three years they are successful and they're out to work, instead of after one semester they're leaving and they're nowhere.

Mr David Johnson: I'm probably running out of time, but one of the distressing statistics, I guess, that I've heard today at any rate -- it's my first day on this committee -- is that 40% of injured workers are unemployed, and my guess is that the kind of training you're giving is among the more sophisticated and it's more likely that people would attain some sort of employment after completing it. I wonder if you had any follow-up statistics of what your success rate would be. I would guess your success rate is much better than average.

Ms MacKay: I have no statistics for you, but yes, when things are properly laid out the student is a part of the whole plan. They're committed to the plan and they really feel that this is something they're going to achieve, not just on graduation but for the rest of their lives. Then they all succeed. It's the ones who end up in a program they're not suited for because their WCB counsellor said, "Look, you have to be making the same amount of money as you were and you were making $60,000 on overtime," when really the guy should be a mechanic or should be a carpenter or should be something else.

Really, when we work in concert with the student, to their academic ability and to their own interior motivation, they all can be successful. Maybe they're not going to be employed at $60,000, but they're going to be employed.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you. I'll be brief. Yesterday in London we heard from a person, I believe his name is Bill Such, who had injured himself and went back for retraining. I think his course was six months, eight hours a day, five days a week. He tried to make accommodation because he couldn't sit for that period of time. He used a podium but that didn't work, and eventually he just dropped out. He couldn't do it.

I'm wondering if that's under the auspices of the Workers' Compensation Board or if it's under the school itself. Are you saying that the school can make accommodation, should make accommodation? You don't need legislation to make accommodation for people. Are colleges moving in that direction?

Ms MacKay: Yes, there's no problem with accommodations in college. But if the WCB plan says, "You must enter the program on September 6 and you must graduate in two years," then there's sometimes not time for the accommodations to be in place. I have many students who use podiums, who must stand and walk around the room, who have to lie down every so many hours. But if they have four hours of straight class and they know they need to lie down, then they have to drop out of that class. If the plan could be extended so that there was time for them in respect of their pain, then they could complete eventually, instead of just dropping out and giving up.

Mr Fletcher: That's time from WCB and also the accommodation of the college.

Ms MacKay: That's right, yes.

Mr Fletcher: Okay. Thank you.

Ms Barbeau: I also think you can't ignore that summer school opportunities exist too. So when we're talking about extending a program over three years, in our minds it's like six semesters, but that doesn't mean it's a full three-year plan. They could still be enrolled in a reduced load during summertime as well. I just wanted to clarify.

Ms MacKay: If we had the flexibility to help plan, there's not much we couldn't do.

The Vice-Chair: Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Thank you very much, Mr Chair, particularly, you see, because Susan is from my riding; not that I'm not pleased to see Laurie here too. Susan and I have talked about this before. It's interesting and it's been a pleasure to hear something different from the past week and a half.

The Vice-Chair: Refreshing.

Ms Murdock: Very refreshing. Part of Bill 165 is the whole aspect of early intervention and getting people assessed early and determining what their needs are early, within 45 days ideally. I realize with all the things that happen at the board that's going to be a problem and they're going to need additional resources and so on, but nevertheless that's the goal.

When are you getting your people, number one, and, number two, are there limitations put on by the board that students have to drop out, say, even if they aren't having difficulties? They've been accommodated, they aren't having difficulties but their time is over and done and they have to leave the program? Do you have that experience?

Ms MacKay: Yes, and usually what happens is students are under so much pressure because they haven't finished and they're getting these daily calls. I have students tell me that while they're at school, their WCB counsellor will call their wife and say, "Your husband's finished as of Friday because his academic success hasn't shown," or "He's dropped out of one course; that means he's not going to finish the course." He can't pick up that one course. I've seen them literally just give up, just come in and drop the books and say, "I give up; I can't battle everybody."

We don't need to be that way. We don't need to be adversaries. We can work together. In that 45-day plan, the student can be in upgrading. They can be starting a very calm, relaxed, quiet upgrading. There's nothing like routine to really have a person demonstrate what he can do. Even within that plan they can start their upgrading.

We don't see them till the plan's all done. It's all figured out. They've been assessed physically, intellectually. We can start giving them schooling, get them in a routine, get them organized, calmed down, feeling good about themselves while the whole assessment procedure's going on, and then at the end of those 45 days you have a true picture of what the student can do. The student's relaxed, not so stressed, and I think there's a better chance for success.

Ms Barbeau: The availability of what there is to support that individual while he or she is learning could be incorporated into that. I don't know that 45 days is reasonable, but I think we welcome the opportunity to be a partner in that process.

One of the questions you asked about was, when do we see our students? Oftentimes it's not until they have registered and they are in a program that we are aware of them. So a lot of times they're already in and running.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you. On behalf of this committee, I'd like to thank the special needs in employment and education equity from Cambrian College for its presentation to the committee this afternoon.

Ms MacKay: Thank you for the opportunity.

The Vice-Chair: Seeing no further business before this committee, this committee stands adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning in Ottawa.

The committee adjourned at 1614.