Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

EMPLOYERS' ADVOCACY COUNCIL

CUPE LOCAL 1750

KITCHENER-WATERLOO INJURED WORKER'S GROUP

CONTENTS

Wednesday 3 June 1991

Workers' Compensation Board

Employers Advocacy Council

CUPE Local 1750

Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Workers' Group

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)

Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)

Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)

Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)

Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)

Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)

Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)

Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis

Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1602 in committee room 1.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Resuming consideration of the designated matter, pursuant to standing order 123, relating to the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Chair: We have three groups here today: first, the Employers' Advocacy Council; second, at 4:30, CUPE Local 1750, and third, at 5 pm, the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Worker's Group. I would ask that people make their presentations in 10 to 15 minutes maximum so that there is some reasonable period of time for discussion between yourselves and members of the committee afterwards. I would remind people that the question or the issue to be addressed here is a review of the procedures of the Workers' Compensation Board which impede the provision of efficient services to workers and employers. I would ask people to direct their remarks and their questions and responses to that very issue.

EMPLOYERS' ADVOCACY COUNCIL

The Chair: Could we please have people from the Employers' Advocacy Council come on up, have a seat and tell us who you are and speak to us.

Mr Cryne: Unfortunately, it is only one person whom you have before you from the Employers' Advocacy Council. My name is Steve Cryne. I am the provincial chair for the Employers' Advocacy Council.

The EAC is a non-profit organization of Ontario employers committed to reshaping the provincial workers' compensation system into a more manageable, cost-effective system which recognizes both the needs of the employers and the workers of the province. Over the past five years the EAC has grown to over 1,300 members, with representatives in each of the major centres in Ontario, including Sudbury, Peterborough, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor. Our objectives are simple and straightforward: to effect constructive change to the workers' compensation system through the involvement of the employer community, to lobby on behalf of employers before the Ontario Legislature and the Workers' Compensation Board on major policy issues and to educate employers on all aspects of workers' compensation.

We thank you for the opportunity of coming before this committee today to provide information from the employer community regarding the mode and quality of service delivery. We submit the following issues for your consideration.

That the system has faltered in servicing the worker and employer communities is really not surprising considering the extent of the changes it has undergone in the last five years.

In our view, the system has failed as a consequence of two main reasons, first with the introduction of two major revisions to the Workers' Compensation Act through Bill 101 in 1985 and Bill 162 in 1988. Both pieces of legislation not only introduced massive change but also created great uncertainty and confusion. A clear example of this confusion is seen with the continuing debate between the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal and the board as to which body has the final say and who holds the responsibility for establishing policy.

Many people argue that the board no longer establishes policy but simply responds to the decisions of WCAT. Because of this situation, the board has lost a great deal of credibility with the stakeholder groups. The reality of the situation today is that we have two adjudicative bodies in Ontario dealing with the same piece of legislation but having far differing viewpoints. This situation, in our opinion, was clearly not contemplated by the legislators of the day and is an unacceptable situation in today's society.

Similar confusion is arising from Bill 162, where legislative intent is being questioned and the comments of the previous minister are being relied upon to develop policy and regulations. These are poor conditions that the board is required to contend with.

Second, the major restructuring within the board, with the introduction of integrated service units, the technological initiatives such as imaging and the communications developments, and new strategy after new strategy have made it extremely difficult for line staff of the board to cope.

The board itself cannot be held accountable for this failure. Clearly, the Ministry of Labour along with the board of directors appointed to oversee the activities of the board must assume some responsibility for the present state of affairs. It is our view that the board of directors has been used as nothing more than a rubber stamp to simply implement change within the board without the benefit of a full evaluation and knowledge of the consequences.

Having identified the problems and probable causes, what then are some of the possible solutions that we have?

With the appointment of a new president and chairman of the board, retention of certain key positions in line management is critical to the stability of the organization. What would be most dangerous at this juncture is a major overhaul of board management.

Second, the minister should immediately request the board to suspend any further policy development, restructuring or revenue initiatives.

The minister should request an operational and a value-for-money audit, to be conducted by the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

The minister should request a review of the accident fund by the provincial superintendent of insurance.

Fifth, the minister should establish a problem-solving committee comprised of board and ministry staff and representatives from the stakeholder groups to deal with the problems identified through the value-for-money audit by the Provincial Auditor and problems known to presently exist within the system, which include the following:

Review of the adjudication process: a review of present case loads and backlog; a review of entitlement, payment and medical management issues; a review of training and development of the adjudication staff; a review of current communications systems and methods; and establishment of comprehensive performance standards for all integrated service units.

Second, with regard to vocational rehabilitation, we suggest a review of present rehabilitation practices of the board and identify problems related to lack of employment as a consequence of the poor economic climate in Ontario and a review of case loads of board rehabilitation staff.

Third, with regard to revenue, establish a permanent employer advisory committee to provide guidance to the revenue branch on improvement of the branch's services.

Fourth, under the appeal process, review the effectiveness of the present appeal process and its multilevel approach.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal should be directed through the act to decide the narrow issue of whether or not the board has applied its policy correctly, and should not be permitted to influence or establish board policy. This role ought to be the sole responsibility of the board and its appointed board of directors.

Finally, we wish to see stakeholders permitted to appoint their own representatives to the board of directors, to the WCAT, the office of the employer adviser and the office of the worker adviser.

Although these suggestions are not all-inclusive of the problems that are facing the Ontario system, we believe they address the major areas of concerns. We also believe the initiatives we have suggested will return integrity, financial stability and accountability to the system.

The Employers' Advocacy Council is willing to participate in the initiatives we have put forth to build a better workers' compensation system for both the workers and employers of this province.

We thank you for providing our council the opportunity to appear before this committee.

Mr Arnott: Thank you, Mr Cryne, for your presentation. I have a question with respect to one of your preliminary comments and I will quote you back. "A clear example of this confusion is seen with the continuing debate between WCAT and the board as to which body has the final say and who holds responsibility for establishing policy." I am just trying to clarify that. Are you saying that what is happening is that the precedents being set by WCAT are in contradiction to some of the policies the board is putting forth?

1610

Mr Cryne: Many of the decisions that have been rendered by WCAT have effectively set the future direction for the Workers' Compensation Board itself. There have been a number of decisions that have clearly redefined the scope and expanded the benefit net, as we call it, in the workers' compensation system. I think clearly probably one of the most shining examples of that was the definition of "accident," which was debated at great length by WCAT and ultimately had some influence over board policy in that area. Other decisions that come to mind are the introduction of stress that we are seeing into the system, the introduction of interest on payments, and revenue shortages. So there has been clear influence from that body, yes.

The Chair: If matters arise that you want to comment on, just let us know and you will have opportunity later.

Mr Huget: In your first point on page 2, you say, "What would be most dangerous at this juncture is a major overhaul of board management." Why do you feel that way?

Mr Cryne: I think it is important that you maintain stability within the organization. I think the people who hold key management positions within the board clearly have a lot of experience and knowledge of the system and it is our viewpoint that they ought to be maintained at this point in time. We were quite worried that the organization would go through a major overhaul and we do not see that as being a particularly good move at this point.

Mr Huget: So you do not see that as being any method of improvement?

Mr Cryne: No.

Mr Huget: Could you argue that if we maintain current management stability, it also means a continuation of the current problems and no improvement?

Mr Cryne: I think the direction of the organization has to be set by the new chairman and the new president, and clearly their direction will have a lot of influence over those line management people. My point, and the point of the organization that we are trying to make, is that the accountability does not lie with the line management; it clearly lies at the level of the board of directors and the past chairman and president.

Mr Huget: On the same page, in point 2 you say that the board should "suspend any further policy development, restructuring or revenue initiatives." Can you elaborate on that?

Mr Cryne: The board presently has a revenue strategy that is out. They have spent an awful lot of work on that issue. They have spent a lot of work on some policy papers that are presently out for consultation. Really, all we are suggesting is that anything that is in the pipe right now would continue, but we stop until the dust settles, we go through this process, and then we can look at introducing additional changes if it is felt to be necessary. But it just seems like we have this continuation of strategy after strategy and introduction of new policy after new policy. There are a lot of loose strings with regard to Bill 162 that have not been addressed at the moment, there is a committee that is reviewing that, and it is our viewpoint that the brakes ought to be put on the system until the verdict is in on some of those things before we go ahead and introduce additional change into the system.

The board staff themselves are having a great deal of difficulty dealing with a lot of the change that has been introduced into the system. I am not saying who is right and who is wrong on that; all I am saying is that at this point you cannot begin to add more confusion to the situation. That is our point.

Mr Huget: If the improvements in terms of the service issue and the like require some restructuring, are you saying we should not proceed along that path either? If it were identified very early on that there was some restructuring that would alleviate some of the problems in terms of any number of issues on the service factor, would that be confusing?

Mr Cryne: No, I do not think that would be confusing. If there were something there that was startling, where you said that for the benefit of the system, for whatever purpose, this change ought to be made with haste, and the reasoning behind it was sound, then of course you would proceed in that manner.

Mr Huget: You also mention revenue initiatives. Could you define, in your view, a revenue initiative?

Mr Cryne: One of the things that presently is before the board is reports on experience rating; there is a study that has been undertaken on experience rating. Experience rating works very well for many industries in the province and it is in that area that we have some concerns.

Mr Huget: You mention that we should suspend any revenue initiatives. Why would we do that?

Mr Cryne: As I mentioned, the board at the moment is trying to get through a major revenue strategy which basically changes the system the Workers' Compensation Board has had for the past 75 years in terms of its rating system; that initiative is set to be implemented in 1993. All we are suggesting at this juncture is let's do that, let's get that right and leave revenue as it is. There is an awful lot of change that will come about as a result of that revenue strategy and our concern is that we just do not heap more confusion and change into that.

Ms S. Murdock: Just on that point, my understanding was that that was going to come through in 1992 and at the employers' request it has been delayed until 1993.

Mr Cryne: We have supported a delay in the implementation of the revenue strategy. One of the reasons behind us supporting that is that we were very concerned that the project was such a large undertaking on the board's part that we wanted to ensure it got it right rather than just rushing through the project, implementing it in 1992 and then having so much confusion. As I said, the system we have in place has been there since 1915 and we wanted to make sure that when they did put it in, they did it right.

Ms S. Murdock: I just have a couple of questions with regard to your point 5, the problem-solving committee. The agenda you put before them is so all-encompassing, I am wondering what would happen while they are reviewing all of these things?

Mr Cryne: What?

Ms S. Murdock: For instance, if a problem-solving committee were set up that would look at adjudication, vocational rehabilitation, revenue and appeal process, in the interim everything would be operating as is? Is that what you are recommending?

Mr Cryne: Yes.

Ms S. Murdock: And that this problem-solving committee would be a committee that would be operating all the time, would be set up permanently? Is that also part of the plan?

Mr Cryne: We did not really think it would be a permanent committee, but I think that may have some merit, that a permanent committee be established and maybe, as I suggested, that it takes people from each of the communities, including the ministry staff, kind of a task force made up of representatives from all the community.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock. We may have some more time afterwards.

1620

Mr Cleary: Steve, I take it you have been around in this position for a considerable time. If you were to give us a bit of guidance with all the problems you listed, where would you start?

Mr Cryne: How long do I have?

Mr Cleary: It is up to the Chairman.

Mr Cryne: That is a very difficult question, Mr Cleary. I think probably the most critical area would be adjudication. That is the first line within the board; that is the first person within the board who sees a document that records an accident or an injury; and it seems to be from that point forward. If I were to take a bite of this elephant one piece at a time, that is where where I would start, in the adjudication area.

Mr Cleary: That would be the start.

Mr Cryne: Yes. In terms of those things things that I have proposed there, yes.

One of the critical things that I think ought to be done with some haste is the operational value-for-money audit that we have suggested in item 3.

Mr Arnott: I am interested in the suggestion on the last page, appointments to the board. I am not that knowledgeable about the board as it presently is. How many members does it have?

Mr Cryne: There are representatives from each of the communities. What has happened in the last six months is that --

Mr Arnott: I am sorry to interrupt, but they are all appointed by the provincial government, are they not?

Mr Cryne: That is correct.

Mr Arnott: And they are picked based on the stakeholders -- their minimum per cent.

Mr Cryne: Yes. They have been open to suggestions and nominations from the different communities to the board of directors.

Mr Arnott: What would your feeling be on the ideal balance, to have nominations that are represented by the stakeholders and an equal number of the government, or what?

Mr Cryne: Yes, and what we are trying to do is have greater influence over the people who are selected through that process.

Mr Arnott: And this goes not just for the board but for WCAT.

Mr Cryne: That is correct, and the office of the employer adviser.

Mr Arnott: Do you have any specific concerns about those two offices, the office of the worker adviser and the office of the employer adviser.

Mr Cryne: Yes. I can only really speak to the office of the employer adviser. Although I have a fair amount of contact with representatives from the OWA, it is mostly with the office of the employer adviser. We would like to ensure that their mandate is defined, that they are meeting that mandate, that the people who are responsible for ensuring that that mandate is met have a commitment to the employer community and to the process at large from the employer's perspective. I think that is key, that they maintain integrity in that regard.

The Chair: Ms Murdock, once again.

Ms S. Murdock: Actually, on the same point that Mr Arnott raised, that was my question before and I just want you to elaborate on that a little bit. As you know, the board of directors right now consists of nine members: four management, four labour, one public/professional. My understanding is that, for instance, the management side, all major management groups, for instance the manufacturing group, would be asked for suggestions as to who would sit on that board. I do not know whether the Employers' Advisory Council would be one of those groups, but I am sure that, just for your information, if you wished to be consulted in regard to who those appointments would be, there would be no problem to get on the list kind of thing. Has your group been consulted in terms of that?

Mr Cryne: Our group has not been consulted in that regard. There was a recent appointment and we could not find out who made the nomination.

Ms S. Murdock: And in regard to WCAT, do you not also --

Mr Cryne: We have not.

Ms S. Murdock: None at all?

Mr Cryne: We have not had the opportunity to, with regard to the chair on that, no.

Ms S. Murdock: But you are not disputing that the employers in fact are the ones --

Mr Cryne: I am not disputing that we have representation. All I am suggesting is that we have greater involvement in appointing those people.

Ms S. Murdock: In regard to the office of the employer adviser, in your instance, and the office of the worker adviser, am I correct that in your response to Mr Arnott you are asking that you would have a say in who the employer advisers would be?

Mr Cryne: Not in who the employer advisers would be, no. There is a director of the office of the employer adviser.

Ms S. Murdock: Who the director would be?

Mr Cryne: Yes. We realize that the office has to have certain staffing requirements and so on, and that would be left totally to the organization.

Mr Waters: Maybe I just missed the preamble. You said, what was it, 1,600 clients you have?

Ms S. Murdock: Thirteen hundred.

Mr Waters: You have 1,300 clients?

Mr Cryne: We do not have clients, Mr Waters, we have members. Our council is a volunteer body of employers, and employers across the province join our organization and we do training programs for them. We are a volunteer organization made up of employers from across the province. I do not work for the Employers' Advocacy Council, I work for Budd Canada in Kitchener.

Mr Waters: What size employer would you actually represent for the most part?

Mr Cryne: We represent very small employers with 10, 15, 20 employees, up to employers with many thousands of employees. We cover a very broad spectrum of the employer-based community.

Mr Waters: The next question deals with the day-to-day dealings these people would have. Is it improving at all? We have heard from some different groups that it is and other groups are saying that it has not.

Mr Cryne: Telephone calls, getting letters and so on?

Mr Waters: Yes.

Mr Cryne: It is no better now than it was two years ago. It is still the same frustrations for the board staff, the employers and, I am sure, the representatives from the legal clinics and the office of the worker adviser. Those things do not seem to have changed substantially. There still seem to be the same frustrations.

Mr Waters: This is just an overall opinion. Some of them have put in modern equipment, I believe. I do not remember the name of it.

Ms S. Murdock: Imaging.

Mr Waters: Even in those areas it has not changed? Even in the offices where WCB has put imaging equipment in, you have not found any changes yet?

Mr Cryne: All imaging has done is cut down on the amount of paper that is there. I do not think I am qualified to say how the board's staff have handled imaging per se, but certainly from our viewpoint it has not really done a lot to expedite the system.

Mr Klopp: Page 3 at the top says, "Establish a permanent employer advisory committee" in the revenue branch. That sounds like it is really inside the internal workings, and yet at paragraph 7 you would be happy to get a board of directors which maybe represents more of an open view. Paragraph 5(c) seems to be be very much hands on in the operation. What does this branch do and how come you want to be so involved with it?

Mr Cryne: The revenue branch is going to be very responsible in terms of directing this revenue strategy once it is implemented in 1993. There is an employer advisory committee that has been formed that is helping the board in implementing this project. We would like to see the revenue branch use a committee to determine how effective the strategy has been once it has been implemented.

Mr Klopp: Just the employers?

Mr Cryne: Yes, in terms of the revenue strategy, it really does not affect the worker community.

Mr Klopp: It does affect them, though, if there is not enough money in the kitty.

1630

Mr Cryne: Not in terms of where your question is coming from.

Mr Klopp: I do not know where it is coming from. I am just a farm boy who is asking questions.

Mr Cryne: I think the important thing is that the employer community wants to see the integrity of the accident fund maintained. People who do not pay revenues are as much a burden on the employer community as they are upon the worker community. So it is important that we maintain that involvement.

Ms S. Murdock: Very quickly. Does Budd use a software program? For instance, would you notify the WCB of an injury through the use of something that was on your computer?

Mr Cryne: Yes.

Ms S. Murdock: Rather than the WCB form itself?

Mr Cryne: No, we then put it into a WCB format.

Ms S. Murdock: Is there any particular reason you do that?

Mr Cryne: The board has its imaging system and they have a number of different things that have to be done so we comply with the request that we provide the information on a form 7.

Ms S. Murdock: So what you are saying is you duplicate it.

Mr Cryne: Essentially, yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Cryne, we appreciate your coming before the committee, your written material and your comments today. When a report is prepared, you will undoubtedly be among the very first in the province to get a copy of it. Thank you for coming.

Mr Cryne: Thank you.

CUPE LOCAL 1750

The Chair: We remind people that there is coffee here. Please make yourselves a cup of coffee if you are inclined. If CUPE Local 1750 is here, would they please come up. Tell us who you are please and take 10 to 15 minutes with your initial comments so we can talk for the balance of the half-hour.

Mr Mucci: Mr Chairman, fellow brothers and sisters, I am Frank Mucci, president of Local 1750. The union represents some 2,400 members at the Workers' Compensation Board and I thank you for inviting us here before the standing committee. I understand indeed that you have our brief before you. We sent it way back I believe when the filibuster was going on. You might recall that.

The Chair: There are filibusters and then there are filibusters.

Mr Mucci: That was a filibuster -- yes, yes. Having said that, Mr Kormos, I would like to extend a hello to you from your friends and all that in Vineland, in Niagara Peninsula.

The Chair: God bless them. Good folks.

Mr Mucci: Yes, you can explain to all your fellow friends here about that.

I hope that you have had an opportunity to read this report of ours. Phil Allan is an executive board member as well from CUPE Local 1750, and he will be helping out with this presentation. I want to give you a short preview of it. I do not want to speak too much in terms of the preamble itself because I would like to think you might have some questions for us. One might assume indeed that we have some information to provide in terms of the staff, at least our staff. But as you have probably seen through our report, we extend ourselves over and beyond that to get into other areas of the Workers' Compensation Board.

As you do know -- in light of the fact I was here last week as well and heard your presentations -- indeed the Workers' Compensation Board was created by an act of the Ontario Legislature in 1915. It provides for medical treatment, financial compensation and vocational rehabilitation for individuals who are injured or who develop diseases in the course of their work. This system is financed entirely by the employers of Ontario, currently at more than $3 billion a year, and deals with almost one-half million claims annually.

Over the past few years the WCB has experienced a metamorphosis. Practically every aspect of the organization and its services has been affected, resulting from legislative amendments and internal transformations of its structure, organization, staffing and service delivery models. As a direct result of the magnitude, speed, lack of research into and co-ordination of these changes, the Workers' Compensation Board is now unable to provide the level of service to the injured workers and employers of Ontario that it could, should, or is legislated to provide.

The cost of the board's impotence is not only the more than $3 billion paid by Ontario employers, or the losses suffered by individual workers who fail to receive the benefits and services to which they are entitled, but also the cost to Ontario's economy and government services that have to pick up the slack because the WCB has failed to fulfil its legal obligations.

By outlining some of the changes and the resulting problems at the WCB, we are in this brief pointing out the tip of the iceberg, of which you are at least partly aware. The catastrophic condition of such an essential function as workers' compensation is justification for our call for a royal commission into the state of the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, to evaluate its mandate and its effectiveness.

In spite of pressure to reduce protection and services to the citizens of Ontario by levelling the playing field to levels found in other countries, CUPE 1750 implores the government to protect the essential and well-established concept of workers' compensation. We do not feel that such a commission should examine the WCB with the idea of replacing it with a universal disability insurance program as its central term of reference. Such an idea, if considered, must be examined with a probing, critical eye.

Ontario cannot afford to have people's lives toyed with, as the WCB has done with injured workers and its staff. A royal commission should examine and recommend how the WCB can discharge its responsibilities compassionately, effectively and efficiently.

If I may, I will ad lib a little bit here. I have been an employee of the Workers' Compensation Board for approximately 20 years. I have noted particularly the essence of this standing committee. The source of concern would appear to be oriented around the aspect of the adjudicators, the adjudication process, rehabilitation, case workers now, but all in the vein of case loads, whether it be the adjudicators or indeed the case workers.

Having been a rehabilitation counsellor at one time, many years ago, certainly I endeavoured to meet my mandate with great empathy towards injured workers, great compassion, a path which I followed with professionalism. Indeed, I was encouraged to follow that path, to be involved with at least the professional associations. It was one that was encouraged and one that was a mandate of all my associates and colleagues.

For the last 10 or 12 years I have been an investigator with the Workers' Compensation Board, so I have seen another aspect. This has been changed somewhat. This view as an investigator is one whereby an investigator goes out, meets not only with injured workers to investigate a claim but meets with the employers, the doctors, witnesses, everybody. It is also a position whereby we are in a position to give advice.

Having said that, things have changed. During the last five years or so, we have seen a transformation, a metamorphosis like never before. As with any organizational change as such, basically people do not like it. They do not like the change. At the compensation board, the staff enjoy the camaraderie of friendship that involved not just work activities but outside of work as well. We had a caring attitude, not just among ourselves but for those we served.

That has changed drastically, because of organizational changes, but when we have a former vice-chair, in the person of Dr Alan Wolfson, orchestrate change after change after change, when you are coerced into changes as such, resentment runs high. It is not just a change of your lifestyle; it is a matter of resentment. Resentment is that which lasts much longer than a change of any lifestyle.

We think there is a good change now, that being with the government, by all means. We are encouraged by that. We are encouraged by Odoardo Di Santo being in place, and vice-chair Brian King, but we cannot help but think that not unlike horses and, I suppose, jockeys, we have changed the horses but the jockeys are still there. Persons who made decisions in the past are still there. I am speaking specifically of the senior vice-presidents.

We are talking about some people who were brought in by Al Wolfson. Certainly their career paths are not oriented necessarily with the Workers' Compensation Board. We have definite concerns here. I will pass it on to Phil to go through this routine with our presentation and we will answer any questions you may have.

1640

Mr Allan: You have our brief. I want to keep it very short. I am sure you have had a chance to go through it and you have a lot of questions, and we want to have most of our time on that.

I just want to highlight one quick change which was made and has generally received unanimous support, and that was the move of regionalization: getting claims and control for claims out of Toronto into offices from Windsor to Ottawa and up to Sudbury. Unfortunately, because the board has tried to have everything unanimous and uniform across the province, they also spread the integrated service units to areas. Unfortunately, we went from regional offices, where we were providing a service that was highly regarded, having good contact with the workers and employers, to a point where we have had those services divided by an integrated service unit which was not working in Toronto or Windsor, and it is definitely not working in any other places where it has recently been reinstated.

At this point we will pass it over to you for your questions. If you do not have any questions, I am sure we can highlight a number of other areas.

Mr Waters: I am curious about something right off the bat. What is the rate of accident for compensation with the employees at the board? The stress level has to be unbelievable, from what we have been hearing.

Mr Allan: At this point stress claims are not accepted. Three of them have been accepted by WCAT. However, I think if they were to be accepted across the province, you would probably find about half the board's staff on compensation within a week.

Mr Waters: Stress creates other problems and you must have a fairly high incidence, I would imagine, of stress-related accidents. Stress might be the cause, but you would not be able to claim under that.

Mr Mucci: What invariably happens, of course, is they do not go off on a stress-related claim because it is not accepted. They go off on long-term disability -- sick leave first, then LTD. This is a regular feature. We see this through the central health and safety committee meetings that we have jointly with the employer. While everyone was affected last year, there was some protection within a bargaining unit. Having said that, the number of people, particularly in the adjudication field, who contacted us and wanted us to rush through CECBA changes as fast as we could, were greatly concerned, and certainly the amount of people we lost would justify that concern.

Mr Waters: Are the workers ever consulted about the workings of WCB? Are you ever consulted about the policies or the means of carrying out policy?

Mr Mucci: Do we have enough time to talk about this, really? No, we are not. I could cite a lot of examples during the last couple of years -- in particular, last year -- where, when we were consulted it was on the basis of something already taking place, already being minuted, already being determined and, "This is the way it is and there's no need for a meeting." It was basically down to that. Dr Wolfson was greatly influential and had very little use for its staff as far as I am concerned and his only concern was that of devolvement.

Mr Waters: On page 17 under staffing, temporary employees, unless I read this wrong, you basically imply that WCB is trying to do away with full-time staff. The way I read it, it looks like a concerted effort to keep everybody on contract, short term, so that they do not know where they are from one day to another. Has that changed at all or is there any sign of that changing?

Mr Allan: Of our members, approximately one third are temporary staff. Most are vocational rehabilitation case workers, and although some of the figures put out by the compensation board indicate that the average case load size per case worker is about 60 or 70, I have statistics off the board's computer for 2 May and it indicates that it is more likely 100 or 110. In Ottawa, where I am from, we have 14 case workers with over 100 clients. Two of them have over 150.

Mr Waters: Okay. One last question, because I know there are a lot of people here. You and others keep saying that WCB has been looked at, time and time again, but has anybody ever asked you, the worker, to come forward and put your views or if you know how to fix it?

Mr Allan: A lot of people have been doing that on their own. One prime example would be back in 1989, 1 September, when employees of the board got a document called Vocational Rehabilitation Strategy Implementation. That document outlined essentially the board's rationale for the vocational rehabilitation strategy, and in part of that, it had its staffing requirements. According to this, as of November of this year, vocational rehabilitation case workers should not have any pre-1990, pre-Bill 162 cases. Unfortunately, the reality of the fact is that case loads are a lot higher. We still have over 50% of our case loads being comprised of these people who are not getting a fair shake, especially when you compare them with Bill 162 cases.

Information has been put forward. If there were an effective internal consultation process, with input from rehabilitation, from claims and from revenue, a lot of the problems we are facing today would not have happened.

Mr Dadamo: As we have a new chairman and also a vice-president, and the speaker before you alluded to the fact that this quite possibly is not the juncture to make any changes at the top, how do you feel about making changes?

Mr Mucci: One would think indeed that now might not be the right time for change, that maybe we need a period of stability.

Mr Dadamo: When is the right time?

Mr Mucci: But I think it is the time right now, absolutely. To understand the present, we have to look at the past. Henry Ford was a brilliant man but he said history was bunk. I do not buy that. I think we have to know where we are now before we are in the future. I think Mr King and Mr Di Santo ought to take a stand as to just where they want to go, how they want to go about that. I get the feeling that the same decision-makers are there and I am concerned, that maybe not all the information that should be there will be filtered to Mr King and Mr Di Santo.

Mr Di Santo has taken on quite a chore, there is no question about that, and Mr King likewise. To know the functioning of the vice-president and senior vice-presidents is to question their motives. I do not want to be too radical about that, but we have seen this in the past. We saw no justification for any trust in the past, and we do not see it in the future either.

Mr Huget: I want to stick with the vocational rehab strategy. In your brief on page 8, you refer to something called Workers' Compensation in Ontario, a System in Transition, 1985-90. You go on to say that the board had said in that document, "The strategy was put into effect in three pilot sites in January 1989, covering about one sixth of all claims, and with its affirmation by Bill 162, it is now being implemented board-wide."

You then go on to say that statement is more than misleading, and it is false. Could you elaborate on that?

Mr Allan: All you have to do is take a look at the Bill 162 provisions relating to vocational rehabilitation assistance, and take a look at one of the many brochures, public relations documents, which are very well written, put out by the Workers' Compensation Board, and compare the findings and the key components in the two of them, and that will give you a very clear indication.

Mr Huget: So I guess the policy as stated is not the policy as it actually exists?

Mr Allen: One of the things that happens is that Bill 162 has certain legal requirements for the board to follow, and the Workers' Compensation Board has introduced the vocational rehabilitation strategy as one possible means to meet those goals and to make a lot of other changes as well. It is our contention from having looked at it that the vocational rehabilitation strategy is essentially flawed. One of the reasons we say that partly relates to the fact that although there have been various reviews of the pilot projects, we have yet to see the reports and we do not know of anyone who has seen the reports looking at the effectiveness of the strategies.

One of the figures which came up was that with early intervention alone, the rehabilitated employed rate would increase a certain percentage because of those workers who were having full recovery of those injuries and were getting back their pre-injury jobs on their own, previously. But now, because of the early intervention criteria it would now be associated with rehab and we would have a somewhat inflated aspect of our statistics. But if you actually look at the actual statistics from pre- and post-VR strategy, you will find that those numbers have plummeted by almost 50%.

1650

Mr Huget: I just have one other question. Could you tell me what a year-end closure blitz is?

Mr Allan: Essentially, it is a period during which time rehabilitation counsellors, as we used to be called, now case workers, are told to go through their case loads and find out which files can be closed, not really giving too much consideration as to whether or not they will be reopened, because it gets the numbers somewhat inflated for the end of the year, particularly with rehabilitated employed.

For example, normally our policies indicate that before having a rehabilitated employed file closed, the person should have been in his job for four to six weeks to make sure everything is working out. We have had cases where people have been in their job less than a week and the closure is being approved.

Mr Mucci: What we are getting into to a certain degree is the fact that what was there before was not perfect, and we have said that. We go as far back as the DRC as well, and I need not talk too much about Downsview Rehabilitation Centre. If I may, though, Dr Wolfson's son was receiving treatment there last year. It was not good enough to keep open for the injured workers of Ontario, but it was good enough for his son to be there with a non-compensable injury.

Having said that, we know things needed changing and we would easily go along with that, whether it be rehabilitation services, whether it be the claims, medical strategies; there is no problem. It is the fashion in which it was procured and how it went about, without the consultation. It was just too quick. It was a terrible strain on the staff, by all means, as many people have alluded to, to the employers as well, to the injured workers and to your constituencies. There is no question about it. You suffered.

The Chair: Very quickly, Mr Huget.

Mr Huget: Just a little term I want some clarification on, and it relates to the same thing as the year-end closure blitz. What is a closure party?

Mr Allan: I have never been involved in one --

Interjection: That you will admit to.

Mr Allan: Some of my colleagues in Toronto had given me a copy of a pamphlet which had been posted, which is included in part of the brief, where they were having a gala festival and people were bringing their cases which could be closed, coffee and doughnuts provided by the board, and apparently had a great time. That is the only thing which I can think would be a closure party.

Mr Huget: What was the purpose of those operations, the blitz and the party?

Mr Allan: Closing files, inflating statistics.

Mr Huget: To manipulate your statistics?

Mr Allan: Largely.

Mr Cleary: Gentlemen, you say a system in chaos; you refer to a royal commission; you have been very critical in your brief, and rightly so. I would like to hear from you gentlemen what steps you would initially take to solve the problem.

Mr Mucci: We need some ad hoc steps, by all means. We do not suggest the end-all would be a royal commission, not at this point. I think we have to take some initiatives right away, as soon as possible. Are you leading towards a wish list sort of thing?

Mr Cleary: Yes, I am.

Mr Mucci: Case loads, adjudicators, case workers have to be down. Along with that, the adjudicators and the adjudicator assistants, who basically function as fact-gatherers, no more and no less, should be in the bargaining unit as well, if only for job security. They will function much better, be able to alleviate some of that stress they have indeed exhibited and experienced.

Certainly we should be attempting to recruit more case workers. We need more case workers, no question about that. We have had experienced counsellors, maybe 60 to 80 experienced case workers, leave in the last two or three years. We need these additional people to be properly trained, absolutely. When people calling in and making inquiries know more about the policies and strategies than the people answering the phone, we have a problem. How far do you want me to go on?

Mr Cleary: Just on the one thing, I do know a little about workers' compensation, I guess; I have been involved in it for many years, too. You say these people should be in the bargaining unit?

Mr Mucci: Absolutely. The adjudicators, the adjudicator assistants, no question about that. In fact, I do not think there is any opposition whatsoever, other than the legislation itself; the written word in CECBA stops and inhibits them. In fact, throughout Canada the adjudicators through the other workers' compensation boards are part of the bargaining unit. Even Dr Elgie, even Alan Wolfson -- maybe it was tongue in cheek, I do not know -- had no opposition to it. All they simply told us was, "Change the legislation."

Mr Cleary: Okay, that is good to know.

Mr Allan: To continue with the wish list just for a few quick points, we should have more consultation with people who are actually providing the services when they are going to be changed, number one. We have to have training for the people who are doing that. Our local conducted a survey, we passed out 2,500 surveys last year and we found, on one question, that 85% of the people who responded to the survey felt that service to the injured workers and employers of this province has significantly decreased.

One of the reasons when you look at that is that when we ask people about their understanding of Bill 162, 19% felt that they had a good understanding of Bill 162, 31% felt that they had a poor understanding and 49% felt that they had a moderate understanding of Bill 162. It is pretty scary when you consider that piece of legislation is having a primary effect on the service we are giving.

Telephones: People who work at the board cannot get through to our colleagues, let alone workers or employers or representatives who are trying to call through.

Just to touch base on what a gentleman mentioned earlier, imaging. It is a wonderful technology, and I think IBM is being very appreciative of the funds that the compensation board is putting into it, but I think we have got two choices with that: Either scrap it immediately and go back to a paper file or get the system to work and get it to work right, because right now we are dealing with a system which does not do what it could do or what it should do and it is not providing the assistance. It is very time-consuming.

We talk about having a paperless office society. Do you know how many new forms we have had devised from rehabilitation in the past year alone, let alone the forms that deal with the imaging system? It gets boggling, and those are just four quick areas that I think have to be touched base on very quickly, in addition to the ones that we mentioned earlier.

Mr Cleary: That is society, though. That spills far beyond compensation to all these extra files and everything. It is just a state that we live in, I guess, but I agree with you, and I do know there are lots of problems and they have been there for a while.

Mr Allan: They are going to get worse. Right now, when you are dealing with files which have been around since January 1990, most files, if your paper file would be about that thick, when you go through our records area and you start dealing with the claims that are being rather contentious, where a claim has been denied or it has been protracted, and you start finding a claim file that is this thick, you are talking hundreds, if not thousands, of documents. You are going to have an adjudicator going through that?

Just as a bit of a rhetorical question, I wonder why hearings and WCAT are not making use of this imaging technology. Whenever they have a file come to them, they get paper copy.

Mr Cleary: We have had some in here in the Ombudsman's committee that go well beyond that, back many, many years with no settlements made.

Mr Arnott: I have a couple of questions. The first is a simple one. When I call the Workers' Compensation Board and speak to a claims adjudicator and get a commitment that I am going to get a call back in 48 hours and I do not hear for a week or whatever, whose fault is that? Is it Alan Wolfson's fault?

Mr Mucci: I think when a claims adjudicator is inundated with a lot of work, when indeed the filter mechanism is not really down to the front-end people, when indeed possibly that same claims adjudicator, instead of receiving assistance from the claims adjudicator assistant, is probably training that assistant, it is on that basis probably why you do not get a call back right away. Probably, even if you did get a call, if you were not there, the whole system would start all over again, because they probably would not tell you how to get a hold. You would have to call right back again and start the cycle over.

Mr Arnott: So they are overworked, then?

Mr Mucci: This is really our avenue, and I do not want to dwell too much on it, because I appreciate the mandate here. But having said that, these people are stressed. You want to be barked at? Call in. These people generally are used to nothing pleasant being said. Nothing is pleasant about workers' compensation when you are not being paid, "I think you should be paid," or if an employer is calling in. Give them 200 to 400 in a case load and you are asking that question and they are being pressured, they are not going to call you back unless they absolutely have to.

Mr Arnott: If they made a commitment to call me back, that is when I get extremely frustrated. I wish the commitment was not made if they cannot keep it.

Mr Mucci: I think we are talking in terms of almost apples and oranges here. Go back several years ago; the commitment would have been there. That was pride, the integrity, the empathy for the injured workers for sure. It was there. Now that people are not doing that, it is a system in chaos right now.

Mr Arnott: You have been quite critical about some of the senior people, some of the vice-presidents, etc. You stopped a little bit short of it, but you almost called for some blood-letting, some changes at the top.

Mr Mucci: Did I?

Mr Arnott: Yes. I felt you did. Maybe you could correct me if I am wrong. Was I mistaken in that?

1700

Mr Mucci: You are right. I think that justification for what went on in the past, I think it is a shared view. I cannot help but think that Alan Wolfson did this all on his own. He has some disciples here. He brought some of his own people in, some of his own front-line people in. I think that indeed calls for a change.

I would look less critically towards those of the senior vice-presidents who indeed have had their lifelong career at the Workers' Compensation Board. I make no mistake about that. But for persons who were here for possibly a short time, only to move on, and do the damage, whether it be under his auspices or not, I have no sympathy at all for them.

Mr Arnott: I think you talked about the morale problem also partially coming from the fact that there was not enough consultation with some of the people who were administering the actual policy. I guess my concern might be that if there was a wholesale change at the top, I would think there would be a great deal of confusion on a short-term basis, and a great deal of change that people would have to come to grips with and it would not eliminate the morale problem, I do not think.

Mr Mucci: If I may suggest this: certainly this government has been in power for some time now and I do not know whether we should allude to it as a honeymoon, but let me suggest that indeed there should be some changes and soon. The people of Ontario, the workers of Ontario, the employers of Ontario, want some changes. My vernacular might be awkward. I do not suggest maybe staging, if you will, dismissal of certain persons, but today that consideration has to be made. Okay?

It has to be a situation where we are certain we have some new people up there -- Odoardo and Brian, I do not know that they can do it on their own. Some direct consultation with a number of people will have to take place here, and I suspect that when the essence of these senior vice-presidents is clearly known, it will be easily ascertained that changes will have to be made.

Mr Allan: If I could just add to that point, you are talking about people being adversely affected by change. We have been under constant change for the last three years. There is nothing that remains unchanged.

In the document Workers' Compensation in Ontario: System in Transition 1985-1990 that was referred to earlier, Mr Wolfson was almost bragging about the fact that 90% of his management had not even been in their job for two years. We have a lot of government politicians who talk about running it like a business. Do you think a business would survive very well like that?

If employees could see change and they could see a light at the end of the tunnel and realize that it is not a train, that would be a very positive change and it would help morale.

I will give you one example. Vocational rehabilitation strategy -- I cannot help coming back and harping on it because that is where I have worked for seven years -- they came out with policies and changes which were contradictory in terms of the service delivery.

The Workers' Compensation Board has obstacles in rehabilitating people and getting them back to work. Employers do not like to hear "workers' compensation." If you go in there and apply for a job and you mention WCB, that is the quickest way to get your application in the garbage pail.

We have programs which have worked, eight- and 12-week industrial-setting assessments, on-the-job training, during which time employers get full coverage under the second injury and enhancement fund if they are injured. By the way, that is under discussion right now to be abolished. But those programs came in, and after a year, management at the board had to realize that their programs, which they were told were not going to work, are not working. And they had to change them back, essentially, to where they were at beforehand.

You look at the situation with commutations of permanent disability awards, where in less than two months we had a complete flip and another complete flop, diametrically opposed to each other.

If people see change that is going to be progressive and will be beneficial for the workers and employers of this province and for the employees there, trust me, it will be very well accepted.

Mr Arnott: So you are suggesting that there be some sort of a moratorium on policy change so that people can catch their breath.

Mr Mucci: If I may, we are suggesting indeed that change still has to take place in an ad hoc fashion. I think the big picture policy and the strategy as such, yes, it should definitely be stopped. But I think maybe we should revisit some of the policies and strategies, maybe not just simply abolish them. We can even look at Bill 162 again and maybe do it right.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your time, for your written material and your response to the various questions. We appreciate your coming here today.

Mr Allan: We have documents to leave with you afterwards, which you might find interesting, on vocational rehabilitation case loads across the province, off the board's computer system.

The Chair: Take care.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO INJURED WORKER'S GROUP

The Chair: Next is the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Worker's Group. Good afternoon. Please let us know who you are.

Mr Sweeney: Good afternoon and thank you for giving the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Worker's Group an opportunity to appear before the committee. I am taking an English course this winter, so please excuse the accent.

The Chair: Hey, we might find ourselves in the same classroom.

Mr Sweeney: What I have prepared was -- I never really prepared it; the group prepared it and I was asked to present it. It is very brief and concise. The problems that we encounter as injured workers are many. We tried to pick out some of the ones that are foremost.

Answering machines should be abolished. Answering machines only slow down services to clients. The WCB claims that it will get back to injured workers within 48 hours. This is nonsense. WCB staff are unable to access a file, read it thoroughly and get back to the client within this time frame, plus the fact that it is virtually impossible for the Workers' Compensation Board staff to get an outside line. What does the injured worker do for that phantom 48 hours? Sit by the phone? WCB staff often claim that they have called the client. These statements only lead to further delays in client services.

I also have down here excerpts from a letter sent to the former Premier from the staff of the WCB at 2 Bloor Street. I am quoting from the staff themselves.

"We are committed to the WCB's mandate to provide service on a timely and humane basis, but are unable to do so under the present circumstances.

"It is essential to an organization such as the WCB to maintain its reputation of a credible and stable service centre. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

"Workers, employers, union groups, social service agencies, MPPs and the general public are increasingly disillusioned with the WCB as problems in service mount and satisfaction with services plummets.

"Delays in decision-making on claims entitlement are unnecessarily resulting in the expenditures of interest payments to the injured workers at an unprecedented rate. More importantly than the waste of WCB funds is the present situation of injured workers having medical treatments discontinued due to the non-payment of accounts.

"The staff at WCB are experiencing marked stress in handling the strategies, with personal impact on their positions because internal policies have not yet been developed to handle a bill (Bill 162) which has passed in legislation January 1990.

"The organization as a whole has no more credibility with the public as they witness a drop in service provision, inconsistencies in and the lack of policy."

1710

With regard to integrated service units, these are the injured worker's groups' comments:

This service has been in effect for two years now and still the service is ineffective and has not yet been proven or resolved the problem of better service. Windsor WCB is an example of this failure. Therefore, it should be removed or the staff replaced with qualified personnel.

Claims adjudicators must make decisions within the board's definition of a "reasonable time frame." This cannot be accomplished due to the assumption that they have high case loads and are overworked. If indeed this is the reason, then this problem is compounded by the implementation of WBS and imaging system, thus creating havoc with inaccessible downtime in the computer system, which in turn has a drastic effect on all areas of service delivery.

Claims adjudicators' numbers are being reduced and vacancies filled by assistants unable to make rulings, given the scope of their job descriptions. This is also part of the board's restructuring, which has only resulted again in further poor and inadequate service.

Access to injured workers' files: Requests for injured workers' files can take up to six weeks to process, which in itself is ludicrous. Once the worker or representative has the file, memos have been removed. It is not the claimant's complete file, thus creating more delays in preparing appeals or objections to the board's decisions. I personally have received two files from WCB, and they do not match. If this type of incompetence occurred once, okay; on numerous occasions, then one begins to question the ethics of the WCB staff.

Local WCB offices: All local offices of the WCB should be able to assess claims and make decisions. They are geographically closer to the situation -- doctors, hospitals, employers -- and can access these areas much quicker than Toronto. Thus, decision-making is completed and decisions given more promptly.

Toronto WCB office staff: It is common knowledge that the staff complain about their workload and backlog of claims. A major contribution to this so-called dilemma is the inability of the staff to consider the human element of the injured worker. The claim number has replaced the human being. They are inexperienced and have never received the proper training. I do not know the qualifications the WCB demands when hiring new staff. They certainly require professional training by agencies such as the Injured Workers' Consultants and the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, both in Toronto.

Claims adjudicators: These inexperienced individuals have too much power. No single staff member of the board should be allowed to make decisions that devastate the life of any injured worker. These decisions are made on what appears to be a theoretical basis. Input of upper management, who have more experience and practical knowledge, does not seem to be utilized or considered. Adjudicators can, without any fear of contradiction or remand, disregard the opinions of physicians, specialists, and even the WCB medical staff.

Medical assessments should be conducted in the injured worker's locale, thus eliminating the expense involved in travelling to Toronto, and an injured worker would receive impartial assessment.

In summary, it is ironic that an agency mandated to serve and promote the worker does not offer this courtesy. We are a most concerned group of injured workers. We had been promised fairer and just treatment from the NDP prior to the last provincial election, if elected. To date, we have seen changes made at the executive level of the Workers' Compensation Board, which is encouraging, although we continue to wait for some positive changes that will directly benefit the injured workers across the province.

Our own mandate includes to constantly remind the government of the day that we will continue to fight for a more fair and just system of compensation and respectfully demand that the government act now. We have waited long enough. We deserve compensation for life because our injuries are for life. Any questions?

Mr Ramsay: I have been a legislator now for six years and I represent a northern riding where we have had through our office about 400 different cases because of mining and forestry accidents. To me, doing any type of reform with the WCB is going to be a tremendous challenge. I was wondering if you see any other method of compensating people for the injuries they have. I am asking you maybe just to think beyond what we are talking about here today with the WCB. Do you think there might be a better way of helping people who find themselves disabled?

Mr Sweeney: Yes. First of all, you could abolish or scrap Bill 162, which would take legislation. That was one of the biggest fights we had. I spent seven years in New Zealand. They have a universal compensation scheme which is an excellent scheme, but this is Canada. Bill 162 can be repealed; it can be amended. It would take up, I think, a lot of time to amend it.

Mr Ramsay: You mention New Zealand and the universal accident and sickness program they have there. I am also very interested in that. I think that would be something that maybe our committee should be looking at. If the government is not, maybe it is something we could start to look at. Unfortunately, we do not have the time to do the thorough looking that is necessary.

It is too bad that legislative committees do not have more power, where all the parties could work together and work on something like that, because I bet you we would have a lot of agreement here between at least maybe two of the parties, maybe the third also, to really investigate that. I think people should be compensated regardless if they are injured on the soccer field on Saturday morning or at work. We waste a lot of money in trying to determine where the injury was or if it is congenital in any way. We waste a lot of time. We spend a lot of resources where we should be directing those resources to the people who are suffering. A universal system might be the answer.

Mr Sweeney: One of the problems we have had is that the employers foot the bill for workers' compensation. Injured workers have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. We do not contribute. If we contributed at the source, a percentage of our salary, then we would have a much better chance. Everybody is entitled to compensation, of course, but the employers dictate the terms. Bill 162 proved that. The employers said, "Get this bill through and get it through quick." There were public hearings and what not, and I think they accepted 300 out of 600 organizations that requested to be heard. The Minister of Labour of that day -- Sorbara, I believe his name was -- said, "Have all the hearings you want, but Bill 162 is going through." He told us personally that we were carrying the cross for other injured workers who were coming up, that accidents happened every day, every six seconds, I believe.

Mr Cleary: Gentlemen, I do share your concerns. I do work with a group of injured workers in our part of Ontario, and some of the things that you have mentioned I have heard many times before. But in your opinion, if you got your wish, is that where you would start, on Bill 162, or would you start at other parts of workers' compensation?

Mr Sweeney: I am sorry I missed it. I am deaf also. I should have explained that to start with.

Mr Cleary: Did you hear anything I said?

Mr Sweeney: Bill 162 and that you worked with injured workers.

Mr Cleary: I guess what I said was that I share some of your concerns and that I work with a group of injured workers back in our part of Ontario. I go to their monthly meetings occasionally when I am there. I have heard many of your concerns before and I guess that I had asked some of the other groups, "If you had a wish list, where would you start to try to improve the system?"

1720

Mr Sweeney: I think the start has already been made by the changes at the top with the board, the executive level, the president, the chairman and vice-president. There is a lot of driftwood at 2 Bloor Street that should be weeded out. Do you know what I mean? They have been there for a long time and they were put in by governments of the past. It is time they were gone.

Mr Cleary: So that would be your wish?

Mr Sweeney: I have a lot of wishes. I wish I could go back to work and become part of society again. That is one of my wishes. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Mr Cleary: How long is it since you have been injured? How long have you out of work?

Mr Sweeney: This is the 15th year. Very briefly, I fell 280 feet. It was a simple, straightforward accident, and I am fighting the board today for benefits. This is inhumane. Alex Landry here is a 100% burn victim and he is fighting the board today. The human element is gone. We are a number, and that is how you are treated, as a number.

Mr Landry: There are a lot of things at the board that they do not even show us. They try to fight, so they do not show us what is there. There are a lot of benefits there, so why do they not come and give it to the people who are 100% disabled and say: "There, that's what you are eligible for. Now you have to prove that you need it." It would be a lot more simple that way. They would save a lot of money too. But you have to fight every step of the way. By the time you are done, you are 200 years old and you are still surviving and those buggers there are getting well paid to stop everything for you. That is not right. I do not believe in that. But I am only a number.

The Chair: Not here, Mr Landry.

Mr Arnott: I wanted to continue this line of questioning that Mr Cleary initiated. I was wondering if you could both talk about when your injury occurred. I know, Mr Sweeney, yours was 15 years ago, but could you describe some of the obstacles that have been put in your way by the board?

Mr Sweeney: I do not have the time.

Mr Arnott: Do it as briefly as you feel you can, in terms of getting some of it on the record.

Mr Sweeney: It is really tough to break it down. I think as an injured worker, a genuine injured worker, we are guilty until proven innocent. We have got to prove to an employer or to the board that we have been injured. In the law of the land, if you rob a bank, there are five or six stages of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have two.

Mr Arnott: Did you have difficulty proving that you were hurt on the job in your own instance?

Mr Sweeney: I am still proving today. Every day we have got to prove. If we request the clothing allowance, for example, you have got to prove to them that you need a clothing allowance. These are the small things that are important to every injured worker, not only to serious incidents. The older injured workers have been totally neglected. If they were injured in the 1950s and the 1960s, they are totally neglected. There is no indexing of pensions or what not, and it happened 20 or 30 years ago.

Mr Arnott: Getting back to the service that is provided by the board, I have been saying to a number of the presenters some of the frustrations that I encounter when I as a member phone the Workers' Compensation Board. Some of the things are you do not get a call back when there is a commitment that you will be called back; when there is a file missing and they promise to locate it within X number of days and you never hear from them until you make the next step to make inquiry; when a file has to be walked downstairs and they say that is going to take 72 hours. You are experiencing this as well?

Mr Sweeney: On a daily basis. In Kitchener-Waterloo, we have the injured workers office. First of all, we are a support group and we counsel injured workers and do our best through our MPPs. I must say, with all due respect, the last six months has been much easier than it has been for the last 20 years, because you are able to deal with your local MPP. That may sound a bit political, but that is how we find it. We can sit and discuss it with our MPP. Prior to that, we could not.

Mr Huget: Aside from the injuries you are actually disputing now and those problems that obviously those injuries are causing you, can you give me an indication in terms of what effect this has had, the disputes and the delays on yourself, on your family, on other people you know, in terms of how all this stress and combination of stalling and putoffs and doublespeak, if you like, and arguing, what that has done to your personal life and your family life and those you know in the Injured Worker's Group?

Mr Sweeney: It is utter hell. It is sheer hell. That is how it affects injured workers. It is devastating if you have problems receiving benefits, if your cheque does not come up. Injured workers are human beings. They have commitments. They have bills to pay. It leads to all sorts of things. It leads to alcoholism and it leads to drug abuse. It leads to child beating, wife beating, suicide in two or three cases.

Mr Huget: Two or three cases that you know of?

Mr Sweeney: Yes, that I know of. The last one was in Ottawa, and the day after the man blew his brains out, the WCB gave his spouse a cheque. I do not know whether it was coincidence that they made their decision after he blew his brains out.

Mr Huget: A little late.

Mr Sweeney: It is devastating. It is not just a feeling; we are treated as third-class citizens. We are told to go to welfare. WCB will tell us to go to welfare.

Mr Huget: How do you feel about that?

Mr Sweeney: If there is a problem with his claim and the injured worker says, "I have got commitments, I have got bills to pay and the baby to feed and what not," they say, "Go to welfare." That is not the answer. The social system, the welfare system in particular, is getting pounded right at the moment, so why should we be thrown on that heap? We are on our own heap. The majority of injured workers are living below the poverty line. To go back to your question, it is devastating. It devastates the family and friends, and social life is virtually zero. The fact that some of us can get around and walk is an achievement.

Mr Huget: Injured workers have appeared before this committee, and I think have appeared before many committees, and you have expressed the same concerns over and over again. In your view, why does the board not listen? Why is no one listening, first of all, and second, if the board is not working for you, who is it working for?

Mr Sweeney: I think the board is working for the employer. It is a business. It is a business that lost $70 million quite recently investing in the British pound system. If they were going to invest $70 million in the British pound, they should have called me. I would have told them not to do it.

I have nothing against the employers. They foot the bill, and it is pretty high, but if the financial experts at the board throw away $70 million, they must be pretty smart. They made 3%. I make more than 3% in a regular bank. I think we all do. But we do not hear too much about that. We hear they paid out $2 million in overpayments. The media got it and it was headlines. We did not hear too much about the $70 million they lost.

1730

Mr Cooper: The main point of your submission seems to be the time lines. You have talked about 48 hours playing telephone tag, which usually amounts to a couple of weeks by the time you get in contact with each other, and in letter writing it could take even longer. You are looking at three days either way. Then they are promising to have a turnaround time of 12 weeks to report back with a decision. Now you say that maybe the idea might be to go to regional or local offices. Do you think that might help or do you think they might just be saying, "We will make a quick decision and put it off and then we will discuss it over the next six months"? That is basically what has been happening. Do you think that is a logical choice, to go to local or regional offices?

Mr Sweeney: I do not think so. It would be nice, but the local or regional offices do not have too much say in the matter. For some reason or other, all decisions come from Toronto.

Mr Cooper: So that is not an option. So one of the solutions to fix the system was to put in these time lines, and to get rid of the time lines you would go local, where they could review it right there in that area.

Mr Sweeney: Yes.

Mr Cooper: And that is really not a proper solution.

Mr Sweeney: No, but it decentralizes. You know, decentralization, the proper staff in there -- and qualified staff I guess would help. It would save a lot of travelling for injured workers plus it would save the board money.

Mr Cooper: Just for the record too, coming from a factory, I know I used to live from one paycheque to the next, which means I had nothing in reserve. So when you are injured, with this 12-week turnaround time, where is your comfort? There is none, right? So that is what you are being faced with. Welfare is not a solution, especially if you are trying to pay off a mortgage, because the first thing they do is tell you, "Let's get rid of the house." That is what I am getting in my office now.

Mr Sweeney: And not all injured workers qualify for welfare. If you own your own house, they tell you to sell your house. I own a racehorse. They say, "Sell your racehorse."

The Chair: Mr Cooper used to live from one paycheque to the next. I still do. I would like to find out what he is doing right. Mr Waters, please.

Mr Waters: You have been working with injured workers for some time and there is a perception out there, I guess, that everybody is out to beat the system. Is it your experience that there are a lot of phoney claims or is it your experience that most people who are injured are truly injured and deserve compensation?

Mr Sweeney: There is abuse that goes on. Percentage-wise, I do not really go much by percentages, but it is like every other system: people abuse it.

Being the president of this injured workers' group, if I find out about abuse, I call Toronto and give them the name and claim number of the person who is abusing the system.

Mr Waters: But do you see any way of taking that out of the system, of eliminating it, other than your personal efforts? Is there any way the WCB could look at that?

Mr Sweeney: I do not know. If you can spend six months in Florida and collect workers' compensation, I do not know how they do it. The board has got investigators.

Mr Waters: One of the other things I would like to talk about is what I call the great paper chase; that is, trying to find out where your file is in the system. It seems to travel around and around. Is a worker ever asked or informed as to the movement of his or her file from one adjudicator to another in advance or do they just go into the chase?

Mr Sweeney: Not really. I have experience of injured workers who call up their adjudicator one day, a Mr Smith, and they will tell you that Mr Smith is no longer an adjudicator; it is Mr Jones now.

Mr Waters: But you are never told in advance. You just get into the great paper chase and run around after it.

Mr Sweeney: I do not know why they keep changing adjudicators.

Mr Huget: One quick question. In your brief in the section entitled "Claims Adjudicators," you say, "Adjudicators can, without any fear of contradiction or remand, disregard the opinions of physicians, specialists and even WCB medical staff." Can you give me an example of that?

Mr Sweeney: No, but I could send it to you if it would be of any help. When I represent the injured workers and request the file from the board, it is written there that some doctor on the board had recommended an assessment for a permanent disability pension and the adjudicator would say no. That is on the file, memos, numbered.

Mr Huget: So he clearly has overridden the physician's recommendation.

Mr Sweeney: Yes. And it can work the other way, to the worker's advantage. They would recommend something and then the adjudicator will say no and pay the worker. The only time the adjudicator will go with the medical adviser is on the degree of disability after a medical assessment, and the physician will say it is a 15% disability and the adjudicator accepts that. But otherwise they have the so-called power, which is scary, that one man or one woman or one person can make a decision in Toronto that can drastically affect someone else's life in another part of Ontario. This is 1990. I thought those days were gone. That was one of the reasons I came to Canada. That is how it goes.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Landry and Mr Sweeney, for your written materials, for your comments, for your responses to questions. You will undoubtedly be among the first people to get a copy of the report when it is finally prepared after all the comments have been made and the committee mulls over the matter. Thanks for coming here. Have a safe trip home.

Mr Landry: Thank you for having us here, too.

The Chair: Take care, my friends.

Mr Sweeney: How do we get out now? We had trouble getting in; how do we get out?

The Chair: Well, you might as well wait until around 7:30. Either that or talk to the Minister of Transportation about the 401 and the congestion on it.

Thanks to the committee. We meet 3:30 Wednesday. If members of the subcommittee could please -- I am sorry? It is 4:30? Holy zonkers, that does not leave a whole lot of time. In any event, if people could come 10 minutes early to the subcommittee to just sort of talk about any new matters, if we can, let's do it.

The committee adjourned at 1739.